1960-04-01

[Stage Direction]
Second report of sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping-Mr. Rowe.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make an announcement with regard to the oats and barley pools for the crop year 1958-59. These pools were closed out on March 4. The surplus for distribution on the oats pool is $3,153,318.57. The surplus for distribution on the barley pool is $5,335,502.66. The cheques for the final payments of the two pools will be issued commencing April 4.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, members of the house will have read with regret the announcement that His Majesty Tuanku Abdul Rahman, the paramount ruler of Malaya, died this morning in Kuala Lumpur. His Majesty had been Malaya's distinguished head of state since that country became independent in 1957. He had played a significant part in fostering Malaya's links with the commonwealth, and in his capacity as head of state in a parliamentary democracy he had been closely associated with Malaya's admirable record of economic and political progress.
I shall always remember the generous hospitality extended to me on the occasion of my visit there, at which time he spoke in most glowing terms of Canada and its relationship with his country. I am sure I speak for all members of the house and for Canadians generally when I express sincere condolences to the Malayan government on the death of His Majesty.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, the opposition is sorry to learn of the untimely death of the ruler of Malaya, and joins with the government in extending to the government of that country our deep and heartfelt condolences.
79951-0-178J


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, we in the C.C.F. have learned with regret of the death of the ruler of Malaya. We join with the other political parties in this house in making unanimous the fact that the Canadian parliament is sorry to hear of His Majesty's death. We extend our sympathy to the government and the people of Malaya.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport of which I have given him notice. Perhaps he will reply on Monday.
Has the minister received a telegram from the Quebec river pilots setting out their grievances and requesting a settlement thereof prior to the opening of navigation? Can the minister tell the house whether those grievances have been studied by the department and what decision has been reached?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I will bring this question to the attention of the Minister of Transport.
(Translation):



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean-Paul Racine (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I inquired about a petition reported to have been sent to the minister by more than 300 farmers, complaining that some business concerns are using the registration and numbers given to farmers to obtain deficiency payments on hogs. Would the minister indicate whether he has received that petition and whether he intends to do something about it? (Text):


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I found what was really a long letter signed by a considerable number of farmers in the province of Quebec, and together with certain requests for information and so on there was a statement to the effect that there were rumours current

Inquiries of the Ministry that there was some trafficking going on with respect to farmers' registration numbers for the delivery of hogs. I have replied to that letter and have requested them, if they know of any definite instances, to inform us so that we may take appropriate action to put an end to the practice.
(Translation):


Mr. Gabriel Roberge (Megantic):: I have a supplementary question. Would the minister indicate whether other similar cases were brought to his attention and, if so, what action he has taken?
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I indicated on Wednesday, I believe, this was the first intimation we had that any practices along this line were going on. We had anticipated, as I indicated on Wednesday, that there might be some attempts to beat the system, shall we say. We will prosecute any cases that we can discover and, as I indicated, the system is also set up in such a way that it is going to be pretty difficult for people to carry on practices of this kind to any extent without being detected. Of course punitive measures will then be taken against them.


Mr. J. P. Deschafelefs (Maisonneuve-Rose-monl):: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is this not a matter that should be referred to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for investigation?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think so, unless we receive some definite information in connection with particular infractions or suspected infractions of the rules and regulations. If the hon. member or any other hon. members opposite know of any definite cases I wish they would bring them to my attention so we can take appropriate measures.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware of a report to the effect that the food and drug administration of the United States has warned that ordinary products for household use cause 500 children's deaths each year and poison 600,000 more in the United States, and that a bill is now before congress calling for labelling as dangerous any detergents, waxes, furniture polish, bleaches, paints and other home cleaning aids that are poisonous, corrosive or in-flamable? If so, is the Canadian government considering the introduction of similar measures in Canada?


Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, my department is fully aware of the hazards accompanying the use of several household products. The situation with respect to these dangers has been under close study and scrutiny in Canada for the past number of years. Present legislation within my department covers the drug aspect. The more general question has been taken up with the industry, and discussions are still going on.



INQUIRY AS TO INCREASED INDEMNITIES FOR MEMBERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether his attention has been drawn to an article in this morning's Globe and Mail to the effect that indemnities of members of the Ontario legislature are to be increased, and whether similar action is planned with respect to this house.


John George Diefenbaker: To the first question, yes; to the second question, no.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the great interest in the country as a whole, and particularly in the province of Alberta, I wonder whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce can confirm speculation that the government has received the national energy board report. If so, when does the government intend to take action on the report?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the report has been received.


Mr. Mcllraifh:: It depends on who asks the question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I hope before the house rises today to inform the house as to that matter and when the decision of the government will be announced.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a
supplementary question. Can the minister say whether the government's policy in this regard has now been decided?


Gordon Minto Churchill: All of this will be indicated in due course.


Hazen Robert Argue: As a further supplementary question, does this answer mean the minister's statement that policy will be arrived at before the end of March has now been set aside?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There has been no setting aside of anything, and no change in the announcement I have made earlier.


Hazen Robert Argue: Has the policy been decided?



MANITOBA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gale):: I should like to ask the minister of northern affairs whether an agreement has yet been reached with the government of Manitoba with regard to the sharing of the cost of flood control on the Red river.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: No, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister say
whether negotiations are actively being carried on at the present time, particularly in the light of the statement he made last summer that the two governments had practically reached agreement?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: These matters take a little time, Mr. Speaker. There is give and take on both sides, and when some decision is arrived at the house will be made aware of it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister say
whether negotiations are going on at the present time?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 18, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr.	Fleming	(Eglinton)-Mr. Flynn in the chair:
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 or directly by a province, of the grants to institutions of higher learning presently paid under the authority of the Appropriation Act: and also to extend for a further period of two years the rate of 13 per cent for standard individual income tax for the
Dominion-Provincial Relations purpose of calculating the tax equalization payments to the provinces and the amounts payable to the provinces under the tax rental agreements.
(Translation):
Mr. Dorion:: Mr. Chairman, when the
debate was adjourned the other day, I was recalling certain remarks made last year by the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) in justification of his stand on federal grants to universities. In his view, the exclusive rights of the provinces in the field of education, under section 93 of the act of 1867, did not apply to institutions of higher learning, and his suggestion, one of great import, was summed up as follows:
Therefore, I repeat that, in my opinion, the fathers of confederation, acting in good faith, have given no consideration whatever to universities, when the provision on education was inserted in section 93.
Without going that far, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) said on July 18 last something that amounted to about the same thing, as reported on page 6374 of Hansard of that date. I quote:
Since they were established in 1951 we have always said that such grants-
The federal grants to universities.
-were constitutional.
And as if to convince himself further, the hon. member went on to say:
This system of grants was established as a direct compensation to Canadian universities for the national and international role that they are called upon to play and which greatly benefits the nation as a whole and the federal government itself.
Three days later, that statement of the hon. member for Laurier prompted Mr. Gerard Filion, manager of Le Devoir, to make the following comments:
Need we again point out that the Liberal theory put forward by Mr. Chevrier is basically unacceptable. According to the hon. member for Laurier, university grants are justified by the national and international character of those institutions of higher learning. It will be noted that the former minister fails to base his arguments on legal grounds-
This is still Mr. Filion speaking.
-because the texts are perfectly clear. Only the provinces have the right to legislate in educational matters, which implies that they have an exclusive right to collect funds for the maintenance of schools.
Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the hon. members for Laurier and Megantic would have had quite a bit of trouble finding some legal basis for their statements. To suggest, as did the hon. member for Megantic, that the fathers of confederation never had universities or higher education in mind, when they conferred upon the provinces exclusive powers in the educational field, is to have a very poor opinion of the knowledge and foresight of the Macdonalds, Cartiers and
2810	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations others. What is more, this is an historical error which should be refuted if to prevent the serious consequences to which it might again expose us.
In the first place, Mr. Chairman, contrary to what the hon. member for Megantic seems to think, Laval was not the only Quebec university in 1867. There were also Bishop and McGill colleges. Furthermore, there were already some classical colleges where, in half the courses, university training in the Anglo-Saxon sense of the word, was being provided.
In fact, if we refer to the French edition of the Journal of Public Education, for that date, we see that, as early as March 1857, there were in United Canada five universities, two of them in Upper Canada and thirty three colleges, twenty five of them in Lower Canada.
If, at the time of confederation, Laval University was not yet getting any help from the government, the situation was different with regard to McGill and Bishop colleges, and I would refer the hon. member to the Journal of Education, English version, of 1864, volume 80, pages 157 and 158. Moreover, he will find there a list of eleven colleges that were already receiving grants. I fail to see how the politicians of 1867 were unaware of those facts.
Besides, the grants were being drawn out of specific funds and distributed under existing laws. In fact, if we refer to the revised statutes of Lower Canada, 1860, chapter 15, Part 3, we find there an "act concerning a provincial allowance in favour of higher education-and normal and common schools". It establishes an investment fund made up mostly of assets confiscated from the Jesuits. The superintendent of education for Lower Canada, in conjunction with the governor in council, is entrusted with the distribution of the returns. I quote section 6:
-for and between such universities, colleges, seminaries, academies, lycees or high schools, model schools and educational institutions, other than ordinary elementary schools.
On the other hand, in chapter XVII of the same statutes, there is the act concerning the Royal Institute for the Advancement of Science. According to that act, which incidentally, is but the outcome of several laws enacted over nearly a quarter of a century, the trustees are incorporated and their corporation holds in trust all lands and property donated by the founder of McGill college and by other benefactors, to help that institution carry on its mission.
How can we imagine that our legislators, in 1867, were unaware of those laws? Quite the contrary, they knew them so well that, in


Appendix 4 of the act of 1867, they had considered as an "asset becoming the common property of Ontario and Quebec", among other things:
-the capital assets of universities-
And also:
-the Royal Institute.
Is that not clear and precise enough?
And there is more.	When the federal
statutes were revised in 1887, the commissioners who were setting out the matters over which the respective powers had jurisdiction pointed out very clearly that both the above-mentioned laws should be embodied in the revised statutes of Lower Canada.
In the light of those facts and laws, I am surely justified in coming to the conclusion that not only did our public men, in 1867, have both universities and classical colleges in mind when they sought and obtained from the imperial parliament that the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over education, but in transferring to them the public funds, which, at the time, served to provide in part for those schools of higher learning, they clearly indicated their wish to let the provinces subsidize those schools. And this will, far from being merely a whim, fulfilled the essential conditions laid down by Lower Canada for joining the confederation. I turn to the testimony of George Brown himself who stated:
(Text):
Education, the rights of property and the civil law, we were compelled to leave to the local governments, in order to afford that protection which the lower Canadians claim for their language and their laws and their peculiar institutions.
(Translation):
Reference: Edward Whelan, The Union of the British provinces, 1865, page 187.
If we assume that federal participation in the financing of universities had really been in accord with the constitution, how can we imagine that none of our government leaders for more than 80 years, had not an inkling of it being so. Have they been remiss in their obligations towards institutions of higher learning, or were they simply poor ignoramuses? Because, let us not forget it, it is only through the Massey commission report, published on June 1, 1951, that the great discovery was made on the basis of which it was recommended:
-that the federal government make annual contributions to support the work of the universities on the basis of the population of each of the provinces of Canada.
And it was in that same month, June of that year, that was passed as the first contribution of the kind since confederation.

Once the precedent had been set-and Heaven knows the power of precedent under British law-it seemed only natural to repeat it in 1952, especially as the Massey report recommendation explicitly mentioned the word "annual". However, in that particular instance, important amendments were made to the terms of item No. 699, which then remained unchanged until 1956.
First, under the 1952 legislation, institutions qualifying for grants had to be recognized both by the federal government and by the provincial government in the province where they were operating. Moreover- and this is even more serious-the federal Minister of Finance was given the responsibility of defining the expressions "university level" and "university degree". And to give practical application to this utterly fantastic power, the government, on January 9, 1952, passed order in council P.C. 123, which gave a federal definition of those terms, and also of the terms "student" and "university". Just as a sample, let me quote the definition given of the phrase "university level":
With regard to a province, a more advanced curriculum than is generally accepted in the provinces as a prerequisite to university enrolment.
That, you must admit, was a dangerous definition, the terms being so vague and indefinite.
Far from improving the situation, those conditions and terms only made it worse. In the province of Quebec, in particular, where universities and affiliated classical colleges control their own curricula and enjoy the greatest degree of freedom, a freedom that enables them to maintain the peculiar character of our educational system which is so well adapted to the cultural traditions of our people, how could such an intrusion be accepted in a field which the province regards with such pride and jealousy? That time, no further compromise was possible, and federal grants were spectacularly rejected. *
There was another and quite serious danger. In a country like ours, where two living cultures are found beside each other, where programs and methods of education are based on either of them according to the ethnical element for which they are meant, where the structures of our institutions of higher learning differ among themselves as much as Quebec differs from the other provinces, it was extremely dangerous to give to each of the four designations "student", "university", "university level" and "university degree" a single definition applying to the whole country. Thus, according to a remark made by the Rev. Father Vanier, who was rector of Jean-de-Brebeuf
Dominion-Provincial Relations college, "the heart and soul of the Anglo-Saxon type of universities is the "college", especially the faculty of arts and sciences where the student registers after the four or five years high school course, whereas, generally speaking, in Quebec, the B.A. degree which opens the door to the great faculties, is awarded only to students who have followed courses in letters, philosophy and applied sciences during four additional years at college.
Both those methods give excellent results; but I point out those facts only to show one of the basic differences between them, differences that the legislator had to take into consideration.
Is it surprising, after that-and it is the same educator who recalled it in December 1956-that newspapers from Halifax to Vancouver charged those who were responsible for this policy of federal grants to universities with the secret desire of achieving cultural unification and with endeavouring to put an end to the particularism of the province of Quebec.
The Minister of Finance will have had the merit of recognizing the full implications of the extremely serious objections we had made to the policy adopted by the federal government in 1951. Rejecting certain suggestions made by the hon. member for Laurier, he expressed his views on July 19 of last year, in these words:
The province of Quebec has a point of view in regard to education which I think all hon. members of this committee have a duty to recognize. It is patent that a different view altogether is taken of this subject in the province of Quebec from the view that is taken in the other provinces of Canada.
I am still quoting from the minister's statement:
Those who know the history of the province of Quebec understand the point of view of that province today and will know that Quebec regards this exclusive jurisdiction over education as something fundamental to the ethnic survival of that province and its people. This has been the view of the people of Quebec down through the years, that its jurisdiction over education is the sheet anchor of the survival of the culture, the language and the institutions of the province.
The minister added:
I also say to the members of this committee that at this time no modification can be introduced into this item since the item has been known to universities which are free to accept their share and they are counting on it.
And the Minister of Finance went on to say:
But, Mr. Chairman, having regard to the fact that nearly all of the universities of one province of this country are not receiving their share of these grants, before such an item or any item on this subject is presented to the house in another

Dominion-Provincial Relations year a most intensive effort must be made to grapple with this very great difficulty. For my part, X give the committee my personal assurance that anything I can do to help to resolve this difficulty will certainly be done if effort and understanding can do it.
Those comments and this solemn pledge fully answered the wish that some of us Conservative members of the province of Quebec, had felt bound to express clearly and frankly. For my part, dealing with this problem in the house on April 22, 1959, I pointed out among other things-I apologize for quoting from my own speech-the following:
Whatever may be the value and strength of the precedent, in a federated country such as ours, the rights and powers conferred by the constitution are not subject to prescription. They never lapse. And this tenet is all the more to the point since the province of Quebec has never failed to abide by section 93 in its entirety. Therefore its position is absolutely unassailable and every effort of this government, in co-operation with the government of Quebec, should aim at finding as soon as possible a way to settle this thorny problem and to make it easier for the province to exercise its powers most freely in this field.
Then, after putting forward a few suggestions, I concluded with the following words:
I repeat, Mr. Speaker-and X close my remarks with that statement-that, faced with the importance of that problem of federal grants to university teaching; faced with the conflicts of opinions which they arouse in the province of Quebec; faced with the resistance shown by the Quebec government, in order to fully retain the exercise of a right all its own; faced with the deep-seated reasons motivating its attachment to that right, its will to defend and maintain it, I do hope the problem will be on the agenda of the next federal-provincial conference; that it will be approached and discussed with frankness and in a spirit of co-operation and, above all, I do hope it will be solved through some agreement. That will take into account the very basis of federalism, which may be summed up in two words; unity in diversity.
Since then, there have been talks between the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada and the hon. Minister of Finance, and the three premiers who, over a very short period of time, have successively headed the province of Quebec. This resolution is, in a way, the outcome of the courageous efforts made on both sides. Although, in principle, it remains based on the precedent of 1951 which, since then, has recurred each year, it might open the way to provinces that will see fit to use the taxation rights to which they are entitled and which they need to subsidize higher learning. It indicates, in the minds of our leaders, a tendency that Mr. Andre Laurendeau in he Devoir of December 30, 1959-


The Chairman:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. Bourgei:: Carry on.

(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Let him continue.


Jacques Flynn: Is the committee agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Translation):


Noël Dorion: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you my dear colleagues.
It indicates, in the minds of our leaders, a tendency that Mr. Andre Laurendeau, in he Devoir of December 30, 1959, described as definite, sound and shrewd. It takes into account political realities, by giving the provinces, in a matter over which they have exclusive jurisdiction, a chance to assume, if they so wish, obligations which the constitution clearly ascribes to them. It will allow the province of Quebec, in particular, to carry out the comprehensive plans it has in mind to substantially increase its contribution to our higher learning institutions, whose lofty mission consists in training the leaders of our ethnic communities. Let us hope that many of them will follow suit and eventually recognize that the best and surest basis for the solution of our national problems still lies in absolute and integral respect for the Canadian constitution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Noël Dorion: Of course, you may.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall ask it in English and the hon. member may reply in French.
(Text):
I understood the hon. gentleman to quote with approval a citation to the effect that the provincial government of Quebec had been giving assistance to institutions of higher learning outside the province of Quebec. Am I correct in thinking that the hon. gentleman did quote such a citation with approval? I refer to the University of Ottawa, for example. Do I understand that the hon. gentleman approves of that conduct?


Noël Dorion: I should like to reply in English but I may not be able to do it too distinctly, and I shall therefore reply in French.
(Translation):
Well, Mr. Chairman, it is true that the province of Quebec has on occasion contributed funds to the University of Ottawa, and also, I think, to certain universities in Nova Scotia. I must say however that

they were donations voted by the provincial legislature, and whether it was on an annual basis, I cannot say. They are donations voted by the Quebec legislature to help other French groups, or rather universities attended by French-speaking students.
As far as I know it is on that basis that such donations are sometimes voted for the benefit of those educational institutions of French culture.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. gentleman permit a second question? Will the hon. gentleman explain to me what is the difference in principle between the government of Quebec voting money to institutions outside that province, which are under the jurisdiction of another province, and the parliament of Canada voting money to free institutions in this free country of Canada, say for example those of the English language in the province of Quebec, with no strings attached; voted annually, as they were in this parliament? Can the hon. gentleman explain to me any difference in principle there?


Noël Dorion: Yes. The difference is in the constitution: the difference is in section 93. By section 93 this power is given to the provinces; it is not given to the federal government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman think the government of Quebec has any right to be giving money to a university in Ontario, and thereby, according to him, to interfere with the educational autonomy of the province of Ontario?


Noël Dorion: It is quite different. First of all, the right is inscribed in section 93 without any reservation at all. Second, the province of Quebec has a role to play in Canada because there is a French ethnic group in the country, and the province of Quebec has cultural obligations not only in the province but in all Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Noël Dorion: In all Canada; and that is why the province of Quebec by his government voted certain grants to universities outside of Quebec, at the request of those universities and with the implied consent of the governments of those provinces. (Translation):


Mr. Leduc:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to take part in the debate on this resolution, I realize I am treading on very dangerous ground and I know that in this house, as well as in the province of Quebec people are divided on this issue.
Dominion-Provincial Relations
Before going into my remarks, let me first read the resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Federal-Provincial TaxSharing Arrangements Act to provide certain alternative arrangements for payment, either by Canada through the Canadian Universities Foundation or directly by a province, of the grants to institutions of higher learning presently paid under the authority of the Appropriation Act: and also to extend for a further period of two years the rate of 13 per cent for standard individual income tax for the purpose of calculating the tax equalization payments to the provinces and the amounts payable to the provinces under the tax rental agreements.
There are therefore two parts to this resolution. The first deals with arrangements between the federal government and the provinces with regard to grants to universities.
All hon. members know that in the province of Quebec the universities since 1951-52 have been forced by the government, and particularly by the former premier of Quebec, the Hon. Maurice Duplessis, to refuse the grants offered to them by the federal government.
As I say, universities had been forced by the former premier of the province of Quebec, because he told them openly: Leaders of universities and classical colleges must choose between grants from Ottawa and grants from Quebec.


Mr. Johnson:: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Rodolphe Leduc: Mr. Chairman, as soon as I am through with my remarks, I shall be pleased to answer the hon. member's questions.
As I was saying in 1952 the federal government offered grants to the universities on a 50 cent per capita basis in each province. In the meantime, the basis has been raised. It was raised to $1 per capita in 1956, and in 1957-58 the present government raised it to $1.50 per capita. As I was saying, at that time the universities had to choose between federal grants and provincial grants.
After receiving an amount of $2,225,800 for the year 1951-52, the universities accepted federal grants that year only and then were deprived of them because of the stand taken by the former Quebec premier, Hon. Mr. Duplessis.
The universities will now be getting federal grants, especially those that have been paid since 1956, because the former prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, was wise enough
2814	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations to amend the legislation in 1955, and to create a fund for the benefit of the universities that were not free at that time to accept federal grants. Those grants were then placed in a fund that would be at the disposal of the universities when they would be free to collect them. But from 1952 to 1956, our universities did not get anything from the federal government during those four years, Quebec universities and classical colleges have lost more than $8 million, an amount that they will never be able to collect.


Mr. Martel:: This is not true, they got more money in another way. It is absolutely untrue.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Rodolphe Leduc: Wait until I have finished my speech to put your questions.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: You should have Mr. Lamon-tagne correct your figures.


Rodolphe Leduc: Besides, you will have a chance to make your own speech and to try to prove I am not telling the truth.
Mr. Chairman, some members have claimed that it was the present government and the Hon. Paul Sauve, the former Quebec premier, who had made possible the settlement of the thorny question of grants to universities.


Mr. Ricard:: You have admitted it yourselves.


Rodolphe Leduc: I admit-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) admitted it.


Rodolphe Leduc: I give credit to the Hon. Paul Sauve for changing the Quebec government policy, and I also give credit to the present federal government for making a suggestion to the Quebec government in order to settle this problem.
It was easy for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) to make a suggestion to the Quebec government. All he had to do was to refer to page 771 of Hansard of January 29, 1957, where he could read part of the speech made by the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) who, in 1957, had found the formula and explained it in this house. Why has the problem not been settled since 1957? The reason is very simple-


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: The Liberals would not agree.
[Mr. Leduc.l


Rodolphe Leduc: That was because Mr. Duplessis did not want to settle the matter. He did not want to settle with Mr. St. Laurent and the Liberal party nor did he want to settle it with the Conservative party. Do you know what brought about that settlement? It is very simple-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Not you or your friends,
anyhow.


Rodolphe Leduc: Providence settled the issue-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I thought the Grits had done it.


Léon Balcer: Providence sides with the government.


Rodolphe Leduc: Mr. Chairman, Providence
settled the problem by calling back Mr. Duplessis. After Mr. Duplessis had gone, the solution was ready-made, as the hon. Solicitor General had given a formula in this respect to Mr. Duplessis and his government.
I have great respect and admiration for Mr. Paul Sauve because in the few months during which he was at the head of the province of Quebec, he did a tremendous job, and changed the whole policy. I would even say that he changed Mr. Duplessis' nefarious policy of provincial autonomy. His first move was to come to Ottawa for talks with the federal authorities to determine whether there would not be ways and means to find a common basis of understanding, so that universities and classical colleges in Quebec, which need financial assistance-as do all other institutions of higher learning of this kind in Canada- could collect and receive the $28,238,678 set aside for them.
They were not long talks. Matters were discussed in a few meetings, and Mr. Sauve and the federal government agreed upon a formula. In the Quebec legislature a bill was introduced and passed, and we are now asked to vote on an introductory resolution to a bill to amend the present federal act so that, in future, universities and classical colleges in Quebec may benefit from federal grants like any other institution in this country, with no strings attached.
When the bill is introduced, we shall see whether it goes against the constitution or the autonomy of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, I have always been baffled by the attitude of some Conservative members in this house, and by the attitude of the government of the province of Quebec, and

more particularly that of Mr. Duplessis who suggested that his position was logical, because the federal government wanted to interfere in the field of education in the province of Quebec.


Jean-Jacques Martel: It is true, and he was right in making that statement.


Rodolphe Leduc: It is certainly not true, and I shall prove to you that Mr. Duplessis' argument was faulty. He made provincial autonomy and provincial education his battle cry during election campaigns. They stood him in good stead for a time, but they were being ridden to death, and that is why the present provincial government is discarding Mr. Duplessis' favourite topic.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He stifled the Liberal party and routed the Grits.


Rodolphe Leduc: Mr. Duplessis-


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: He is now annihilating Mr. Lesage.


Rodolphe Leduc: Mr. Chairman, between 1945 and 1956, the provincial government of Quebec accepted federal government grants amounting to $6,014,475 for technical and professional training purposes. I have before me the list of grants awarded to technical schools, including those of Cap de la Madeleine, Chicoutimi, Hull, Joliette, St. Hyacinthe, etc.
Am I expected to believe that the province of Quebec has no jurisdiction over those schools in matters of education? Is there a single member in this house who could prove that the province of Quebec is not entirely responsible for education in all those vocational and technical schools?
The hon. Mr. Duplessis has accepted the federal grants in this field; he also has accepted, between 1945 and 1956, another amount of $11,458,716.58 for technical education in the province of Quebec.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it is easy to show that Mr. Duplessis was not being consistent, because while he was blaming or trying to blame the federal government for intervening in education in the province of Quebec, he and his government had granted $50,000 to the University of Ottawa in 1948 and in 1949. It was a grant made to an Ontario university.


Mr. Paul:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Are you going to hold that against him?
Dominion-Provincial Relations


Rodolphe Leduc: I have never held it against him.


Rémi Paul: Could the hon. member explain to me the difference between a grant and a gift?


Rodolphe Leduc: Grants paid by the federal government come under this bill. We are making a certain amount of money available to the provinces. The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion), an expert on constitutional law, told us a moment ago that the province of Quebec put through a bill voting $50 million to the University of Ottawa-


Rémi Paul: 


Rodolphe Leduc: 


Rémi Paul: Was it a grant or a gift?


Rodolphe Leduc: In my view there is no difference at all. Whether it is called a grant or a gift, it is an amount of money which is being donated; a sum which has been voted. You cannot get out of it.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: They have always been inconsistent.


Mr. Lessard:: It is hurting them.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It is hurting you even more.


Rodolphe Leduc: I was asked just now if I held it against Mr. Duplessis for giving money to the University of Ottawa. Far from it; on the contrary, I congratulate him.
The only thing I hold against Mr. Duplessis and the Union Nationale government is their failure to accept federal grants for those institutions in the province of Quebec, and not only for institutions of higher learning, but in various other fields, where the province of Quebec lost much. Mr. Duplessis' stubbornness has cost the province more than half a billion. Today the province cannot get from the government the amounts it had refused. Nobody among the Conservative members who support the Union Nationale can contend that Quebec can recover from the Ottawa government the $50 million or so a year which it would have received under the hospital insurance and diagnostic services plan like all the other provinces if the province of Quebec had not refused to share in this plan.
The federal government has made payments to all the other Canadian provinces so that Quebec has to pay part of the federal share for hospital schemes in other provinces, and Quebec itself is getting nothing. However, the province has to pay for its own

Dominion-Provincial Relations hospital care, and has to share in hospital costs for people in other provinces.
That is one of the reasons we are so heavily taxed in the province of Quebec.


Mr.   Mariel@: Prove it.


Rodolphe Leduc: You will get the proof.


An hon. Member:: Yes, go ahead and prove it.


Rodolphe Leduc: Do you know of any other province in Canada with a personal income tax-


Some hon. Members:: Order. Order.


Rodolphe Leduc: The Quebec tax is-


Jean-Jacques Martel: Deductible from the federal tax.


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Mr. Morissette:: The hon. member is getting mixed up.


Jacques Flynn: I would ask the hon. member for Gatineau to stick more closely to the subject matter of the debate, because otherwise we are going to cover too wide a field of discussion.


Mr.   Hicard@: Grasp all, lose all.


Rodolphe Leduc: I have tried to inform my hon. friends-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Rodolphe Leduc: But I am surprised that the province of Quebec-


Maurice Bourget: You are always there with your interjections; stand on your feet and stop interrupting as you are doing now.


Rodolphe Leduc: However, Mr. Chairman, allow me to say that I am fully in favour of grants to all universities and classical colleges of Canada.
It is very easy to understand the reasons why the federal government has instituted those grants. It has instituted them at the request of the majority of the provinces. As all hon. members know, in some provinces universities give technical and professional training to their citizens, and when the latter graduate instead of remaining in their own province to give it the benefit of their knowledge they have to go, in many cases, into another province to find work, so that it is the other provinces which benefit from the amounts paid by the citizens of one province to train part of the population. It is only fair that, in return, the federal government should redistribute certain grants to the universities and classical colleges of Canada.

As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, the province of Quebec lost considerable amounts for educational purposes, and I feel sure that in accepting the new formula, Quebec universities and classical colleges will be getting something to which they are entitled, because from the letter or letters, or the exchange of letters, between the former premier of the province of Quebec, the hon. Mr. Paul Sauve, and the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker), it is my understanding that only the tax collector is changed, and nothing else.
At the present time, Ottawa collects the taxes and redistributes them to universities on the basis of $1.50 per capita in each province. Under the new formula, no longer will Ottawa be collecting those funds and distributing them to the various universities. That will be done by the province or provinces. So far, however, only the province of Quebec has expressed the desire to collect this 1 per cent tax on corporations. An interesting point is that, according to the correspondence, the province of Quebec will not be allowed to keep this 1 per cent; it will only be allowed to keep the equivalent of $1.50 multiplied by its population. The balance will be handed over to Ottawa, which will keep it.
The position has changed. Now the province of Quebec will collect the tax instead of Ottawa.
I have nothing more to add to my remarks. I shall wait to study the bill, and I shall probably have further comments to make at that time.


Mr. English:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow me a question? When the hon. member mentioned that our universities refused the federal grants because of threats made by the former premier of Quebec, did he mean that our universities and teachers were motivated not by principle but by fear?


Rodolphe Leduc: From what I have read, our universities-


An hon. Member:: Where did you read it?


Rodolphe Leduc: -from statements made by certain newspapers, have been forced to refuse the grants.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, I am still waiting for an opportunity to direct a question to the hon. member for Gatineau. If I understood him correctly, the hon. member for Gatineau said-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: -that Mr. Duplessis had openly told the universities in the province of Quebec that they were to refuse the federal grants, or else they would get no grants from the province. Could the hon. member for Gatineau quote a citation, a sentence, a statement, from a university rector or from anyone authorized by any university, establishing that the hon. premier of Quebec at the time had made such a statement or such a threat to the universities in the province?


An hon. Member:: Cyril James.


Rodolphe Leduc: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Give us the quotation.


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: It appeared in the Montreal Gazette.


Rodolphe Leduc: Mr. Chairman, I am most surprised to find a member of the Union nationale-


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: I do not ask you to make a speech, but merely to answer the question.


Rodolphe Leduc: -a supporter of the Union Nationale knowing so little about happenings with regard to university grants in his province. Everybody in Quebec, except you, knows what Mr. Duplessis did. The whole people of Quebec know that Mr. Duplessis told the universities: You may choose between the Ottawa grant and the Quebec grant.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Rodolphe Leduc: It was a question of choosing between the Ottawa grant and a Quebec subsidy. Everybody knows that.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I am asking the hon. member a specific question, but instead of answering he resorts to cheap humourous remarks. I asked him to quote a text and not to make any gratuitous statements or repeat what his fellow members around him tell him to say. But I have another question to ask the hon. member. Can he maintain-


Jacques Flynn: I think that this exchange of questions and answers has lasted long enough. 1 give the floor to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon).


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, when I
wanted to ask the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc) that question, he refused to answer it at the time and told me that I would have the opportunity to ask it when he finished his speech.
I therefore ask him to be loyal and allow me to put another question.
1. 1960	2817
Dominion-Provincial Relations


Rodolphe Leduc: I shall answer it.


Jacques Flynn: This is not a matter of the hon. member for Gatineau refusing to answer questions, it is that the Chair believes that in order to ensure an orderly debate, this exchange of questions and answers should be interrupted. I therefore give the floor to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. May I add that the time of the hon. member for Gatineau had expired.


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, referring to the discussions in the House of Commons on Saturday, July 18, 1959-
(Text):


Jacques Flynn: Order. The hon. member for Port Arthur. I recognize the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


Mr. Fisher:: I do not hesitate to put forward the traditional argument, since we seem to be among traditionalists. Usually, in the discussion of a resolution, our party has the opportunity of having the third speaker. I have been here and have been ready to get into the debate. This practice has worked consistently. I do not want to make a big issue of it, but I think I was on my feet as soon as the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, and I would appreciate recognition.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: I wonder whether the hon. member has overlooked the fact that this is the second day of debate. There was an earlier day of debate on this resolution.


Jacques Flynn: When the debate started, following the speech of the minister the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and the hon. member for Kootenay West were recognized. After the three first speakers have been heard I think the rule has been to alternate between the two sides of the chamber. That is why I recognized the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, if we refer to Hansard of Saturday, July 18, 1959, when university grants were being discussed, we note that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) replied as follows to the hon. member for Laurier:
Every university that I know of in Canada is subject to provincial jurisdiction. There is no such thing as a university created by federal authority, and the same applies to municipalities.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it is made quite clear that these were referred to as provincial institutions, and I think hon. members will conclude that the hon. member for Laurier was drawing a very long bow when he suggested that this
2818	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations reference to universities as provincial institutions connoted some thought of making federal contributions to the cost of primary and secondary education. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing could be further from the intention of the government.
This quotation from the Minister of Finance may be found on page 6391 of Hansard for July 18, 1959.
The hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc) was rather critical a moment ago, and he made a comparison which, in my opinion, was not proper when he referred to gifts made by the Quebec government to certain educational institutions in other provinces. I would point out to him that education is under provincial jurisdiction and that even if the province of Quebec made a gift to the Ottawa university I do not believe that in so doing it interfered with the rights of the Ontario government in that field.
Besides, a grant always has certain conditions attached to it. A grant has always strings attached to it, whereas a gift is unconditional. A gift may be refused or accepted. A grant has always conditions attached to it.
I should like to congratulate the Minister of Finance who, in co-operation with the Quebec premier, has worked out an agreement on this problem.
We cannot forget the sincere attitude adopted by Quebec premiers who have taken part in those negotiations for many years. Mr. Duplessis has stoutly defended the rights of an autonomist province within a great confederation. Mr. Duplessis, in my opinion, was actually voicing the opinion of his province, the province of Quebec, in basing himself on the constitution. Everybody knows, besides, that the Tremblay report agrees with the attitude taken by the premier of Quebec at the time. The educational institutions, the elite, in a word the whole province of Quebec, have supported the late Hon. Maurice Duplessis who, for a while, was the only one in the country to defend the autonomy of the province of Quebec, and thus of all the other provinces. In fact, several premiers said later that Maurice Duplessis was right, that the federal government was going too far in too many fields which do not concern it.
Need I call to witness a Liberal from Newfoundland who thoroughly agrees with the stand the late Hon. Mr. Duplessis had taken. In fact Le Devoir of July 20, 1959 said:
Liberal senator Wishart Robertson, just before the adoption by the Senate Saturday of the act concerning the grants to Newfoundland, said that the


federal-provincial tax-sharing agreements were ridiculous and nonsensical. "We have given rise," he said, "to an absurd situation where a government collects money to give it to other governments-* This system has made suppliants of at least eight of the ten provincial governments-It results in unending controversies which, in my opinion, will only become worse in the immediate future. The attitude of Premier Duplessis towards this ridiculous problem is more logical than that of the other federal and provincial negotiators", the senator added. He simplifies the problem in these words: "Give up a field to us and we will collect our own taxes and we will pay our own expenditures."
Mr. Chairman, Hon. Maurice Duplessis not only expressed the point of view, as I said earlier, of the province of Quebec, but also that of all the provinces, because he wanted to safeguard the confederation pact. Besides, he had the support of the people of Quebec.
His successor endeavoured to find a middle term to bring about an agreement. Unfortunately, death came to him suddenly. Thus, it became the responsibility of the present premier of Quebec, whom I have the honour to have among my loyal constituents, to bring a true solution to this crucial problem.
Mr. Chairman, the agreement between the federal government and the province of Quebec will be an example. This gesture will not only consolidate national unity, but will contribute to the formation of a truly Canadian mentality.
The problem of the relations between the federal parliament and the provincial legislatures is as old as confederation itself. We can even say that the problem existed before, since as early as the Charlottetown meeting in 1864, it became quite clear that the apportionment of powers within the framework of a federal state would not be achieved without certain clashes and incidents.
It is not our purpose to attempt today to solve that problem or even to find a cure-all formula for all the evils resulting from the co-existence of a federal state and ten provincial governments.
The British North America Act is a document bearing the stamp of wisdom resulting from the long experience which initiators acquired through their contacts with the Canadian people in the administration of public affairs. The fathers of confederation devoted many years to draft a final text which was to combine with its nature of a pact between the contracting parties the legislative character resulting from its promulgation as an imperial statute. The fathers of confederation did



I960

[Stage Direction]
not delude themselves as to the difficulty of the problems which were arising and which would arise between the federal authority and the provincial entities.
Therefore it was clearly stated in section 93 of the British North America Act what would be the respective powers of the central government and of the provinces. However, nothing is final in this world, not even a British law, and that is why since 1867 many commissions have been established to study certain aspects of the relations between the federal authority and the provinces. Those of us who have had the opportunity and the patience to read the voluminous report of the Rowell-Sirois commission which report, incidentally, was centralistic, or the reports of the various federal-provincial conferences were amazed, not to say dumbfounded, at the complexity of the problems and especially of the differences of opinions put forward by the various parties concerned. It is no use deluding ourselves; there is something wrong between the federal government and the provinces. Speeches and briefs dealing with that problem clearly indicate two different stands, perhaps not irreconcilable, but certainly diametrically opposed. The federal government and the provinces do not speak the same language and that is the cause of the increasing difficulties.
Under the terms of the constitution itself, Ottawa has certain clearly defined powers while the provinces have others also well spelled out. But besides that the federal government has what we call the residual powers, which means that all that is not specifically provincial is automatically federal, and even as members of this house, we are not at all convinced that this solution is a very appropriate one. The federal government is jealous of its prerogatives and rightly so. We would be the first to rise as one to defend the rights of federal government against any threat from within or from without. We do not want foreign countries to tell us how to administer our country, just as we have no intention to be dictated to by the provinces.
On the other hand, if we have those rights, the provinces also have theirs, and it would be ungracious not to recognize it. No province is thinking of encroaching on the federal field, and we fail to see why the Ottawa government would be presumptuous to the point of wanting to substitute itself to the provincial authorities in the fields vested in them.
Dominion-Provincial Relations
I would point out, as an example, that under the constitution of Canada, indirect taxation and certain rights in the field of direct taxation come within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. The same constitution imposes specific and important obligations on the provinces, wherefrom it ensues that the same provinces have a right to collect a revenue from direct taxes. This is true to such a degree that for more that half a century there was no question about the collection of direct taxes. And even when federal income tax was established, the federal minister of finance stated that it was only a temporary measure to be considered as a wartime measure. It was in this same House of Commons that Sir Thomas White stated in 1917:
Income tax comes especially within provincial jurisdiction; this tax particularly meets the purposes of the province and of municipalities.
The same applies to estates, because until 1942 the federal government had stayed away from that taxation field, since it is closely related to civil rights and property. Those two infringements of the rights vested in the provinces are both equally unbearable. There is no need to be a learned economist to understand that what is provincial belongs to the provinces and what is federal comes under the central or centralizing government. We are always under the impression that only the province of Quebec asks for the restitution of the funds stolen from the provinces by the federal government. There is also an attempt to suggest that the formula of the return to the provinces of their own rights and funds was conceived by the former Quebec premier, the late Hon. Mr. Duplessis. Yet, who stated this in 1867:
Lower Canada is rightly proud of its ancestral customs and traditions; it is bound by its particular institutions and it will only enter into confederation with the assurance of retaining them.
It was Lord Carnarvon.
To quote another testimony, which is not precisely from a member of the present Quebec cabinet, may I repeat that:
The existence of the provinces preceded that of the Dominion of Canada, and it is from them that it got its powers. The provinces are sovereign within the limits of their attributes and any attack against that sovereignty is a violation of the federal pact.
And who, Mr. Chairman, made such a judicious comment? None other than a great premier of Canada's oldest province, the Hon. Honore Mercier, in 1884. I think no
[Stage Direction]
Dominion-Provincial Relations one could accuse him of being a bad Canadian or a poor Liberal.
That is the position. From a constitutional point of view, the rights are clearly-defined. The federal government has its own, and provincial legislatures also have theirs. There can be no question, for emergency or other reasons, to change this arrangement without first obtaining the consent of all parties to confederation. That is the law of the land. If it is bad, then it can always be changed, but in the meantime, it should be enforced, without any haggling or discrimination.
Once it is admitted that the claims of the provinces are justified-and I say provinces purposely, because it is not only Quebec- there remains the problem of finding a solution to this anomaly. From a practical point of view, such a situation cannot last indefinitely. It has lasted for too many years already. Let us face the facts as shown to us by history. It is a government which, for national emergency reasons, decided to invade the field of provincial revenues, at the time the great war was in its most sinister period. We do not want to criticize our predecessors for it, because they did what the circumstances forced them to do at the time. But it belongs to another great government, that of the Right Hon. Mr. Diefen-baker, to correct that anomaly. Thus, the names of Borden and Diefenbaker once again will be united in history, because the former saved Canada from the German threat, and the latter will have saved national unity. It is not a matter of a favour asked by the province of Quebec; it is a matter of justice for all provinces; we are not asking for charity, but for equity.
It must, in fact, be recognized that citizens, and this is the price which we must pay for belonging to a federal state, have a dual responsibility as citizens, not to say a dual citizenship, or a dual allegiance. Indeed they are, for certain things, under the federal government and for others under a provincial administration. But such dual citizenship also implies a dual responsibility. In order to satisfy it, it is essential that Canadians have access to the legal financial means put at their disposal by the constitution.
The fathers of confederation wanted to endow every Canadian with the means of discharging his responsibility as a good citizen and also with the facilities needed for this purpose. It is therefore not up to us to re-

vise that position today, and even if an injustice has been done in the past, we must strive to repair the wrong that has been done.
It is utterly futile, not to say immoral, to maintain that one authority will levy taxes and hand them over in some form or other to the other power which forms the confed-erative association. Those who hold the purse strings can spend and control. Indeed, from 1887 on, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was born at St. Lin, in the Laurentians, in the riding of l'Assomption which I have the honour to represent in this house, said:
The principle whereby a government levies revenues for another to spend is basically wrong.
Is there any need to repeat, in this respect, the views of a Canadian whom our opponents hardly would call anti-Liberal. Indeed, it was the Right. Hon. Mackenzie King, who said:
I believe that whoever has made any study of public finances will consider that a system providing that one organization levies taxes and another spend the money thus obtained is entirely wrong. In other words, paying subsidies to the provinces without their having to collect taxes on their own will not lead to the careful control over expenditures which would be exercised if the provinces had, in the first place, to find the money themselves. It is a bad system, one that is altogether wrong.
Those two testimonies should be enough to convince the most timid minds. They only add to the general complaints made by most provincial prime ministers, who, during federal-provincial conferences, ceased to demand, for their legislatures, the fiscal rights of which they were deprived in 1917 and 1942 by the federal government.
Mr. Chairman, it was easier for the former government to destroy the constitutional pact. It is also, at this time, much more difficult to reconstitute the confederative pact, but I have great hopes that the Minister of Finance will make some contribution to this end. As a matter of fact, following negotiations between the premier of Quebec and himself, he also proved and recognized that the situation had to be settled before proceeding with the redistribution of provincial or federal rights.
I should like to pay tribute to the Minister of Finance who, in co-operation with the present Quebec premier, has settled that problem.
Mr. Chairman, the provinces have long been demanding restitution of the rights from which they have been dispossessed.

And they will go on demanding restoration of those rights until justice has been done. No province would ever think of preventing the federal government from fulfilling its tasks but, on the other hand, all of them wish to fulfil theirs, without any external interference.
To deprive a man from his fortune and then to offer him charity is not honest, and we will not accept such a deal. According to us, it is time the federal authorities-and once again I should like to congratulate the Minister of Finance for having initiated such an approach-should become fully aware that the federal government does not have all powers, nor a monopoly on the exercise of those powers. The rights of all concerned have been clearly defined, so let each party conform, and have regard for their respective rights and powers.
Some governments may have been inclined to consider right what was wrong, and honest what was not, but we cannot, in good conscience, allow such a situation to go on. Once again, we must fully understand that we are not speaking only as citizens of the province of Quebec, and I know that the other provinces are of the same opinion, especially those that were deprived of their rights and whose wealth has been taken away from them.
Mr. Chairman, I therefore believe that it is up to our government to assume its responsibilities and to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto the provinces what rightfully belongs to them.
Much was said about the equalization system and the mitigated reimbursement formula, in the form of grants for educational purposes. Again I repeat to the hon. member for Gatineau that the word "grant" means strings attached; there is a big difference between "grant" and "gift".
We are quite prepared to admit that the federal government has a role to play in the intellectual and scientific education of the people, but as the responsibility for education belongs, first of all, to the family and not to the state, so are educational responsibilities primarily of a provincial rather than of a federal character. To make a gift is one way to silence whiners, but it is not the way to correct an injustice. Let us not forget the saying: "Let us beware of the Greeks even when they are bearing gifts."
Even if we set aside all economic considerations about tax sharing arrangements, we must remember that it is one aspect only of the relations between the federal govern-
Dominion-Provincial Relations ment and the provinces that we must consider, and once again, to repeat words which our opponents could not question since they are those of Hon. Ernest Lapointe:
The federal power is the offspring, not the father, of the provinces.
It must be fully realized that relations between the provinces and the federal government cannot indefinitely stand such wrangling. Federal-provincial conferences have accomplished little progress, and it is with some misgivings that we look to the day when one or several provinces, dissatisfied at being treated as poor relatives by their big brother in Ottawa, will decide to go their own way.
However, nothing is eternal in this world, and I would not like to contribute to a split within the confederative family. Yet, I must recognize that the provinces have some very definite rights for which the federal government has not always shown proper respect in the past. But I know the present government is deeply respectful of provincial rights and will always strive-as it has been doing since it took office-to settle the many problems which were created in large part by the former administration. It must not be forgotten, Mr. Chairman, that it would be much easier for Quebec and Ontario to do without confederation than for confederation to do without them.
We must at all costs avoid letting the matter of fiscal relations become a cause of serious misunderstanding, and to that end, we must re-establish proper balance and reinstate justice.
Mr. Chairman, allow me, in closing my remarks, to publicly commend, on behalf of the constituency of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, the present Minister of Finance who, more than anyone else in the past, has been striving to work out a solution to this problem. The present Minister of Finance has not assumed a take it or leave it attitude. He has had frank discussions with the authorities of the Quebec government. I want to commend him publicly for it, and say to him that in co-operation with the Prime Minister of Canada, his actions have served to strengthen national unity, rather than to weaken it, as was the case under the former administration.
I was very sorry to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Gatineau. He has attacked a fondly regretted man, the Hon.
[Stage Direction]
Dominion-Provincial Relations Maurice Duplessis. Duplessis was a man of great stature, a great leader, the leader of his province. As I said at the outset of my remarks, he was one of the first to denounce the centralizing attitude of the former government. Gradually, the governments of every province gave their support to the stand taken by the Hon. Maurice Duplessis. The Hon. Maurice Duplessis has now entered history, and on behalf of the constituents of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, I lay a wreath of gratitude on his grave.
The late lamented Hon. Paul Sauve wanted to take over where the Hon. Maurice Duplessis had left off, but unfortunately death came to him too early. Mr. Chairman, we have as leader of the province of Quebec an authentic worker who still holds his union membership card. It is fitting that an authentic labour man like Mr. Barrette should solve this problem in co-operation with the Minister of Finance. I can assure the minister that the province of Quebec is happy about the decision concerning this agreement, and the province of Quebec breathes freely again.
Under the former government, the province of Quebec was held in a yoke; it was a matter of "take it or leave it". It was not democratic; there was no discussion with the province of Quebec. It was true dictature. I believe the Minister of Finance, by discussing frankly this problem, has served the cause of democracy and restored the people of Quebec and the people of Canada's confidence in our democratic principles.
Mr. Habel:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Answer him in the same way as did the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc).


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Will the hon. member allow me a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: The hon. member says that the Hon. Mr. Duplessis was a great man, and I have no doubt about that, Mr. Chairman, as far as the Union Nationale is concerned and-


An hon. Member:: Read the Tremblay commission report.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Now here is my question: Is it not true that the present premier, the Hon. Mr. Barrette, is making an outright change of policy and even says that what happened in the past will not be repeated in the future?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I say to the whip
of the opposition that the Hon. Maurice Duplessis has established certain principles; he is dead now and it is the responsibility of his successors to do the best they can, but by different methods, to safeguard the principles established by their precedessor. In other words, the former premier of Quebec (Mr. Duplessis) has led the way and the present premier, in co-operation with the Minister of Finance, has followed the way which led to this settlement.
(Text):


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, the C.C.F., of course, is going to support this resolution with a great deal of pleasure, especially the first part having to do with a way of extending grants to educational institutions.
When I was at university, Mr. Chairman, taking history there was a very strong emphasis on Canadian history; and one of the O.K. phrases that was always being thrown at us and that we were supposed to pay a great deal of attention to was what you might call bonne ententeism; or, if you want the O.K. phrase in the political vernacular, which has been fashionable for so long in the country, national unity. When I listen ito a speech such as I have just heard-I must confess through the translation system-and hear someone talking about "our" constitution, I wonder whether bonne ententeism has not gone a little too far; because there are conceptions of the constitution other than what I think was the rather selfish and narrow interpretation which has just been put on it by the last speaker.
I would like to say there is always a possibility of misunderstanding. I would also like to say there are other views of Cana-dianism, there are other people who are proud of Canada, and there are other people who have interpretations of the constitution and beliefs in the constitution that may differ markedly.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to start with something that has been called by the newspapers the "Churchill thesis". The Churchill thesis does not refer to the great Winston Churchill but to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Churchill thesis in a nutshell, as I understand it from press reports of a few years ago, was that it was possible to form a federal government in this country without worrying too much about the Quebec vote. It seems to me that

this government, led by the Prime Minister, achieved that result in a sweeping victory in 1958. It had 200-plus seats. It really did not need its Quebec supporters, and those of us who noted the Churchill thesis have been watching ever since to see the moves that were made that would indicate the relationship and the attitude of this particular government toward Quebec. Many of us have lamented, and perhaps have pin-pointed, the fact that so far there has not seemed to emerge any striking attitude toward Quebec other than indifference. There is weak Quebec cabinet representation. There do not seem to be too many concessions.
It seems to me that this move by the Minister of Finance-and I think he deserves much congratulation-indicates that this government is pushing on with the Churchill thesis. I know he can probably argue-I believe he did-from a number of quotations that this new arrangement that is being entered into with Quebec is nothing startling; that it is consistent with the government's position that this government will not encroach upon any provincial autonomy or provincial jurisdiction in the field of education. Whether it is a legal marriage or a common law relationship, it seems to me that we now have a situation where in the field of university education the last of the 10 blocks has been moved. When you interweave the tax structure and the financial structure we have in Canada as between the provinces and the dominion government, all the complications of formula that the minister has produced cannot conceal that as far as my interpretation goes-the minister may not agree with this-this is a break-through.
We have had a number of break-throughs and a very inconsistent pattern, but for many years the Quebec government has tacitly accepted a variety of invasions of its so-called jurisdiction in education. We all know of examples in the vocational field and so far as technical training is concerned. This goes way back to the royal commission established before the first war. I remember that a writer for the Montreal Star, Tim Creery, had three articles on this matter a year ago this month, and he had a long list of examples where Quebec had accepted assistance. Even Mr. Duplessis, with all his pride in autonomy, never returned to the federal government the money he took in the first year the university grants were in operation, which is the kind of compromise of consistency that I think indicates a trend as to where we are going.
As I say, I feel that this is a great breakthrough, and I think the minister deserves congratulations because one of the things that
Dominion-Provincial Relations bother a great many people in Canada who do not live adjacent to or among or with French Canadians is a feeling that somehow they insist in taking a different view of Canadianism and of what Canadians want and need from that of people within the rest of the country. This is a most delicate and touchy subject for a politician to confront, but I think it needs some confronting. Like many other members who have come here in the last few years, while I had read a great deal in Canadian history about the French-Canadian problem, it was not until I began to follow the French-Canadian newspapers with more intensity that I realized the markedly different conception of Canadianism that the French Canadians have. This, it seems to me, is something that we very much need to resolve even in the name of that magical phrase, national unity.
One feeling I have taken from reading the French-Canadian press is that they have what is almost a conceit in their Canadianism. They push upon other Canadians an interpretation that I cannot accept and which I think many members of the house cannot accept. It seems that the contradistinction between their kind of Canadianism and ours is that theirs is French Canadian based upon language and Roman Catholic based upon religion and so on the other hand we have to be Protestant and English speaking. I do not think this necessarily holds true.
I know that in my constituency we have very few French Canadians. We have a good many Catholics who in the main are English speaking. Many of them in descent are Italians, Poles, and so on. I do not think their conception of Canadianism has to take a back seat at any time to what I might call the superiority complex of Canadianism that exists in French Canada-


Mr. Graffley:: That is not so.


Douglas Mason Fisher: -especially as you find it in the newspapers.


William Heward Grafftey: That is not so.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Some hon. member has said "That is not so". I am sure he will have the opportunity to get up and rebut what I say. I am giving my own interpretation.
The last speaker mentioned the compact theory of government or constitution that is set out in the Tremblay report. I do not know how many English speaking members of the house have read the Tremblay report, but it is a rather scary document in terms of the kind of Canadianism that I think I share with quite a number of Canadians. The main basis of the report is that the constitution is a solemn compact or treaty and, even

Dominion-Provincial Relations more, it is argued by some that the government at Ottawa is the creature of the provinces which brought about confederation. An element of this thinking creeps into the Tremblay report. I should like to refer to the main premises of the report as summarized in a book entitled "Evolving Canadian Federalism" by A. R. M. Lower and Frank Scott. They are as follows:
1.	The primary purpose of Canadian federalism is to allow the two great cultural communities which make up our population (a) to live and develop themselves according to their respective particularisms and, (b) to co-operate in the building and progress of a common fatherland.
2.	With regard to French-Canadian culture, the province of Quebec assumes alone the responsibilities which the other provinces jointly assume with regard to Anglo-Canadian culture.
For the benefit of the member who interrupted, the basis for my remarks is found in the words I have just read, to wit:
With regard to French-Canadian culture, the province of Quebec assumes alone the responsibilities which the other provinces jointly assume with regard to Anglo-Canadian culture.


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. member is long on theory but short on facts.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I continue.
3.	The Canadian reality, both economic and sociological, has undergone a profound transformation since 1867, but its cultural elements have not changed, so that the basic problem still remains the same.
The authors continue:
Thus posed, the postulates, formulated without any consultation with representatives from outside Quebec, lead on to a critical analysis of present trends toward centralization and call for a "readaptation of the public administration according to the spirit of federalism".
Obviously this is a type of federalism that most of us in -the rest of the country do not appreciate. It seems to me that one place where politicians fail lamentably is in being candid and honest in this particular field. Everybody wants to wrap cotton wool around this very difficult problem, and it seems to me that in this particular case where we have a concession, where we have a move forward, we should put it bluntly that we think this is an excellent move, a move away from the Tremblay report position which the previous speaker extolled as being the epitome of Duplessisism, toward the kind of Canadian-ism in which I think the rest of the country believes. If you push the Tremblay report position too far it seems to me you have a situation not unlike that of the security council of the United Nations, in that Quebec always has the right of veto just as Russia always seems to have the right of veto in the security council. The same thing seems to apply with respect to the constitutional interpretation of many people in Quebec.
[Mr. Fisher.1
They believe in a separatism, with Quebec always having the right of veto over proposals from other provinces or the federal government.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, before the
luncheon hour I was trying to deal with a delicate subject, and one in which I never claimed to be an authority. There are many other hon. members in this house who can speak with more authority than I can on French-Canadian relations with the rest of the country. I detest the use of the expression English-Canadians but I am going to refer to French-Canadian relations with Canadians. However, this compromise that has been worked out by the Minister of Finance is an important break-through in these relations and is one that I think we should assess in some detail.
One of the things that has intrigued me has been the tremendous amount of involvement and the federal build-up in recent years in the field of education. Last year the newspaperman to whom I referred, Tim Creery, worked through the estimates and in a series of articles that appeared on March 2, 3 and 4, 1959, in the Montreal Star, he traced the scope of federal aid in the matter of education. His estimate, and this was confirmed in his talks with statisticians in the dominion bureau of statistics, was that approximately $100 million would be spent on education by the federal government, making it a very large contributor and financially comparable directly with all but three of the provinces in this responsibility.
In his article of March 3 he listed the estimated departmental spending on education for the year April 1, 1959 to March 31, 1960. The first was the Department of Finance, through the university grants, totalling $26,221,000; second, the Canada Council scholarships and grants, roughly $1.5 million and then, for capital construction under the Canada Council, $6 million; citizenship and immigration, Indian affairs branch, for operation and maintenance, approximately $13,734,000 and for plant, well over $7 million. The same department spends approximately $400,000 for its 50 per cent share of citizenship and language instruction. The department of northern affairs spends a total of approximately $9 million on education in the territories, that is for both direct education and maintenance and also for employment.

The Department of Labour makes payments to the provinces under the apprenticeship training and vocational and technical schools assistance of approximately $9.5 million; national defence, through the three service colleges, the naval venture plan, and regular officers training plan, spends approximately $6 million. The Department of Trade and Commerce, through national research council scholarships and grants in aid of research spends about $8 million. The atomic energy control board spends about $650,000 in scholarships. The Department of Transport, through its schools of navigation and seamanship, steamship inspection service, radio operators training, aviation instruction, and so on, spends approximately $600,000. The Department of National Health and Welfare, through its national health grants, education proportion must spend approximately $1 million. The Department of Veterans Affairs is in the field of education through correspondence courses, $29,000; vocational and technical training, $55,000; university training $49,000; and children of the war dead, $481,000. The Department of Agriculture spends, on grants in aid of agricultural research, $187,000; mines and technical surveys, through its grants in aid of geological research in Canadian universities, spends $50,000; University of British Columbia, for research in foreign geography, $3,500. The last two departments contributing to education are fisheries, contributions to research, $25,000 and scholarships, $25,000, and external affairs, NATO fellowships and studies, $42,000.
All this totals roughly just under $100 million which was spent last year in what almost everyone will agree was a proper federal activity in the field of education. However, if Quebec thesis or the Tremblay report thesis or the Pigeon thesis is correct in so far as this situation is concerned, such expenditures were wrong and unconstitutional. If their interpretation is correct, then Quebec should be fighting this much more wholeheartedly than has been the case. I think, if I remember correctly, Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent engineered two of the largest contributions in this federal program, that is the university grants and the Canada Council scholarships and capital construction grants. This is an indication to me that the Tremblay report, and the understanding that it represents is anachronistic, it is out of time, that Quebec is past the Tremblay stage.
There is a much more definite move in Quebec toward a realization that education is a field in which the federal government is properly working. I do not feel we will ever get an improved educational system in Canada unless and until this whole matter
Dominion-Provincial Relations of provincial jurisdiction becomes less a matter of controversy and much more a matter of co-operation and co-ordination for the greater good of all. I have said before in this house, and I am sure many hon. members agree, that you are not a Quebecer, or an Ontarian, a Manitoban or a British Columbian, but you are a Canadian.


William Heward Grafftey: You are a Canadian first.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Nowhere does this apply more than in the field of education. I notice I am getting interruptions again from the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.


William Heward Grafftey: You are very long on theory but rather short on practice.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I know the hon. member is very practical. I understand he changed overnight from being a Liberal to a Conservative.


William Heward Grafftey: I am proud of it.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I suggest that the thoughts of one of the leading spokesmen for that kind of trend in Quebec and French Canada and of other Canadians who are interested in the problem were expressed by Maurice Lamontagne who, as I think all hon. members know, has an association, if indirectly, with this House of Commons. He argued in this way or at least this is the interpretation put upon it by Frank R. Scott interpreting Mr. Lamontagne's book "The Canadian Federalism" published in 1954. According to Frank Scott, Mr. Lamontagne states:
For him the only solution for Quebec is "a lucid integration into the new Canadian federalism."
Mr. Scott goes on to say this:
This solution, as has been shown, is repudiated expressly and at length in the Tremblay report. But the commissioners themselves admit that the far-reaching decentralization they advocate cannot be brought about immediately, because "de facto situations and habits of thought have been created which must be corrected," and they therefore offer a "temporary solution" which confines itself to a mere reallocation of taxes within the present constitutional scheme. That some such financial adjustments will be made in the future is probable; no part of the Canadian constitution has been more flexible, more responsive to changing political and economic pressures, than the subsidies provisions and tax arrangements. But the profound reshaping of the constitution itself, called for in the main recommendations of this report, is another matter. It cannot be as divorced, as it is here, from the hard facts of Canada's increasing industrial growth in an increasingly dangerous world. The preservation of human and cultural values in this day and age, which this report professes to seek, is an aim all Canadians would support; what would be questioned, in Quebec as outside, is the possibility of reverting to smaller governmental units, however distinct they may be in race or religion, for the almost exclusive protection of those values. The present distribution of powers in Canada has not satisfied everyone,
2826	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations but it has unquestionably permitted a wide freedom for the steady development of the two cultural groups along their own distinctives lines.
Complementary to those remarks or that interpretation, I go along with and interpret the move the minister has succeeded in making in this regard as another step along this particular path.
Before lunch we heard from the hon. member for Bellechasse and, as a result of a question put to him by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, he argued that Quebec has an obligation to French Canadians in the rest of Canada. This is an argument that seems to me to be most controversial. If Quebec has an obligation to French Canadians in the rest of Canada, as a government, surely it has an obligation to that diaspora of French Canadians in the New England states. I am sure these lost ones should arouse the same reaction among French Canadians in Quebec. If Quebec has an obligation for French Canadians in the rest of Canada, what about English Canadians in the rest of Canada and their obligations to English Canadians in Quebec? I have yet to encounter a provincial authority anywhere outside of Quebec that would follow along with this argument.
It seems to me that this assumption by the hon. member for Bellechasse expressed in governmental terms on the part of the province would look forward to a continuation of strife throughout the rest of Canadian history. Then a provincial government, according to this argument, has the obligation to go into the rest of Canada to further the particular ethnic and cultural problems of French Canadians or English Canadians in the rest of Canada. It certainly seems to me to be a most controversial argument.
In so far as the second part of the resolu-is concerned, it merely continues the 13 per cent rate the minister introduced several years ago. Some of the provinces have been asking for an increase. The minister has brought down a budget that envisages a sound, constructive balance and obviously this resolution is merely geared to it. Today in almost every municipality it is fashionable to look toward the provincial authority and cry for more; and we know it is fashionable for provincial authorities to look toward the federal government and to cry for more. The way out of the jack-pot undoubtedly will be found on a very empirical basis or through a shading of development rather than in a clear, new rewriting of tax agreements or tax proposals.
To refer to the problem that develops from the first part of this resolution, namely the field of education, one can certainly see


where there needs to be a wide new understanding of the entire problem. One of the disappointing things about the federal House of Commons to anyone who has been involved in education and who finds as he goes around the country that education is a live issue, is that here it is not a live issue. I think two hon. members from Toronto who are members of the government are the only ones of whom 1 know who have ever, in the two years I have been here in parliament, devoted major efforts to this particular field. One would almost assume that this particular parliament is not interested in education. Yet out in the municipalities and in the communities from which we come, this matter in financial terms is the most live topic of all.
I think most hon. members from Ontario will recognize the storm that has arisen just in the last few weeks over the new tax grant brought down by the province of Ontario. Of course it seems to me that the argument of the premier of Ontario is that no real changes or advances will be possible in the immediate future unless there is some support from the federal government first. What the way out of this difficulty is, I do not know. I think this is the toughest problem faced by the minister as Minister of Finance.
However, I am certainly convinced, as is our party, that this is one field in which federal support must be ready and be more available than it has been in the past in the way of more funds in order that the provincial governments can accept their educational load. Of course this raises the question whether there should be any consignment or direction of funds from the federal government to the provinces, that is as to how they are spent. I do not think any of us have reached the stage where we are prepared to argue favourably that question but I think we shall eventually be obliged to arrive at it if we want to get in Canada the standard of education or health we need.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I should like to reiterate our group's support of this resolution and to congratulate the Minister of Finance for moving or shaping Quebec a little bit along the path towards greater co-operation with the rest of Canada. I know he may disclaim credit for such a move or at least our interpretation of that move; but I think he deserves it. I must give credit not only to him but to those hon. members from Quebec who obviously have changed their position to quite an extent. If they are able to vote in support of this particular resolution, it seems to me that I and even those who have looked at the Tremblay report can forget all about that now that

they are moving along the path toward a different kind of Canadianism from that which seems to have been popular in Quebec in recent years.
(Translation):


Mr. Allard:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add a few remarks to the speeches made by previous speakers on this resolution.
On April 13, 1959, I had the opportunity of voicing in this house my personal opinions on the matter of education and university grants. In fact, as recorded on page 9, English version, of Hansard for April 13 last,
I closed my speech with the following words:
That is why, if the Quebec government cares to offer a suggestion, to make an official proposal, an appropriate and constructive one, I am positive that this government will consider it with great care and that, eventually, a proper solution will be found in this field.
Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased, as were many Canadians, when the late Quebec premier, Mr. Sauve, came here to Ottawa, in October, 1959, to discuss the financial problem. In coming here, he did exactly the right thing, that is, he set forth the particular views of the province of Quebec and, at long last, suggested an answer, a formula, likely to settle the problem. The present government had not created that problem but had inherited it and, with its typical conscientiousness, it was anxious to do justice to all Canadians and to all provinces. This is why we find today the present formula in this resolution.
This matter of the exclusive rights of the provinces in the field of education-I wish to come back very briefly on this today so that there be no misunderstanding in other provinces across Canada or in any quarter whatsoever-is not a mere whim on the part of the province of Quebec; that stand which was relentlessly upheld by the province of Quebec was and will always be a question of justice, a question of constitutional right, because we all know that under section 93 of the British North America Act, education is an exclusively provincial responsibility. However, the policy applied until June 10, 1957 seemed to indicate that it was not so, although education is an exclusive right which strictly belongs to us and cannot be taken away from us without mutual consent. An exclusive right is more than a priority right, it is an absolute right. That is why, when the former Liberal government had passed that legislation on educational
1. 1960
Dominion-Provincial Relations grants in an attempt to do indirectly what it was forbidden to do directly by the constitution in spite of various judgments rendered by the privy council, more particularly in the case of Edwards, of the Aeronautique and the Great West Saddlery, the people of Quebec refused to go along.
Those are the principles of the Canadian constitution which were submitted to the court of the time, i.e. the privy council in London. It had obviously been sanctioned in principle that the central government could not do indirectly what the constitution forbade to be done directly. But what the Liberal government tried to do by introducing financial aid to universities and establishing the Canada Council, was to accomplish indirectly what it was constitutionally barred from achieving directly.
Such was the position when this Conservative government came into power. We are quite pleased with this resolution, and I wish, in just a few words, to express my personal satisfaction and the satisfaction of the people of Sherbrooke and the eastern townships, and also of a good many people in the province of Quebec. This solution is a step in the right direction. This resolution will enable the government of a province to meet the needs of its universities, high schools, etc., by distributing them its own grants.
If the province of Quebec can look at this development with satisfaction, it is due in large part to Mr. Sauve, who proposed this formula, and to the co-operation and great understanding of the present government. We thank them heartily for it.
It can now be said that as a result of that formula which forms the basis of this resolution, the year 1960 is, in a sense, the year of education, because it is sufficient for instance, to examine legislation introduced by the Quebec government to realize-following the introduction of this resolution and the publicity given to that problem- that this Quebec legislation deals largely with education since, at last, the Quebec government, with the co-operation of the present federal government, will be able to give direct grants to its universities.
Let us examine briefly this legislation of the Quebec government which has increased the assistance to its universities by $8,750,000 million during the present fiscal year, thus providing a total and complete assistance of $20 million each year.

Dominion-Provincial Relations
This legislation of the province of Quebec has made possible the establishment of a special sinking fund for building projects of our Quebec universities. We are informed that at present a special $75 million fund covers those Quebec universities building projects.
Thanks to the wonderful spirit that has developed since June 10, 1957, the Quebec government is able to allow statutory grants to teachers and institutions, namely classical colleges and high schools.
Mr. Chairman, that is a good result of this legislation, that is a practical result, and that is why we, members from Quebec, we who are in the federal field, are happy to commend the government and urge it to continue in the right direction, that of respecting-as it has done and with what solicitude, since it came to power-the rights of all the ethnic groups in Canada and in all the provinces
It is said, and I repeat it without blushing, that the province of Quebec is not a province like the others. It is true. We are not different in that we want to break away from the rest of the country. We are, like all the others, Canadians who are mindful of the higher development of their country and who want to safeguard its basic interests. We are sincere, we love our country and we are anxious to see it go forward.
But where we differ, it is in matters of culture, in our traditions which we want to keep and it is this difference which allows us to bring to the Canadian nation the marvellous contribution that adds so much to it.
It is for this reason that we of Quebec are today happy to see that the government of this province will be able to supply the necessary funds to its universities and institutions of higher learning.
Having a right is not enough, we must have the financial means to exercise it.


Mr. Dupuis:: Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of taking part in this debate and I do not intend to dwell on the matter. But, having heard some of my Quebec friends, with a Union Nationale slant, I would have been angry at myself had I not risen here this afternoon to straighten certain things out and put them back where they should be in public opinion.
I have just heard my friend from Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) who is a living example

of "duplessism" in this house. He said that Quebec was not a province like other provinces.
Well, Mr. Chairman, this statement is not new. I have heard it mouthed every day by the Hon. Maurice Duplessis during the four years that I sat in the Quebec legislature.
Well, in that field of federal aid to universities, we realize today that the province of Quebec is beginning to be like the others, and we realize more and more that it has always been so; it is the government which preceded the Barrette and the Sauve government which was not like the others.
Mr. Chairman, I was a member of the Quebec legislature for four years, and we often discussed federal-provincial relations. We also discussed federal help to universities, but never did any jurist, any expert in constitutional law succeeed in proving that the federal government violated the Canadian constitution.


Lionel Chevrier: Hear. hear.


Yvon Dupuis: I have witnessed many discussions, and I do not intend to pose as an expert in law or as a professor of Canadian constitutional law. But there is one thing that strikes me. Our Conservative friends here are now unanimous in recognizing the benefits of federal aid to universities. Nobody sees any encroachments to provincial autonomy, except perhaps a few friends of the Union Nationale in Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, I have here a list which I compiled a moment ago, just before coming into the house, and it makes me wonder.
Who are the ones who used to say that the federal legislation on grants to universities, which had been enacted by the Liberals, was a violation of provincial autonomy. Here is the list:
The Hon. Maurice LeNoblet Duplessis, Montreal Matin, Leopold Richer-paid on a commission basis by the newspaper, Notre Temps. The Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer), member for Three Rivers, a close friend of premier Duplessis, the former secretary of state, who when he saw so many changes-


An hon. Member:: The Hon. Nicol.


Yvon Dupuis: You will have an opportunity to make a speech later.


An hon. Member:: Don't forget him.


Yvon Dupuis: The Quebec school board, headed by a "duplessist," Mr. Cossette, Mr. APRIL 1, 1960
Frangois Albert Angers, who goes even farther and thinks the province of Quebec should become a separate country, Mr. Esdras Main-ville, who no later than last week, again put his foot in his mouth and ascribed to Duplessis some of Mr. Godbout's accomplishments, Mr. Louis-Philippe Roy, of I'Action Catholique, who is embarrassingly friendly to the Union Nationale, the very Louis-Philippe Roy who at one point had this to say to Stalin:
Let Stalin mind what I have just said.
Mr. Charles Pelletier, paid on a commission basis by the newspaper Notre Temps, Mr. Marcel Adam, paid on a commission basis by the newspaper Notre Temps, and finally, those who owe their election to the Union Nationale. I need not mention names.
Mr. Chairman, who are the ones who saw no encroachment on provincial autonomy? Here is the list, and you will see there is quite a contrast. The names I shall now quote are all completely free from financial bonds of any kind, and free from the Union Nationale.
Here is a list I made up just as I was about to enter the house. A few names may be missing, but here it is:
Quebec Association of Professional Teachers: in favour of the federal act designed to aid our universities, as submitted by the then Liberal government; Monsignor Irenee Lussier, rector of Montreal University, Mr. Marcel Lambert, Ph. D., Mr. Jean Falardeau, Mr. Cyril James, of McGill University, The Quebec Federation of Teachers' Associations, The Canadian Federation of Catholic Workers, the then president of CCCL, Mr. Gerard Picard, who once was a victim of discrimination; the teachers' associations of the four universities of Quebec.
All these people who are free from all ties and sound of mind, we like to think, have stated that the legislation concerning federal grants to universities which the federal government had adopted was not an encroachment of autonomy.
There is another list, that of wage earners, that of "rebaters" and "rebates," of those who had direct or indirect dealings with the Union Nationale but who were too heartless to speak their minds.
Autonomy.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot help saying now: Autonomy. Autonomy. What crimes have been committed in thy name.
79951-0-179
Dominion-Provincial Relations
Autonomy. Autonomy. If thou had not existed, some people would have had to invent thee to serve their own purposes.
Mr. Chairman, looking today at my friends opposite, I remember the speeches they made during the election campaigns when they came over into our ridings to tell us that the federal government had no right to help universities. I remember also that last year in this very house, the hon. members opposite did vote for the same legislation the Liberal government had passed and against which they were protesting at the time with quavering voices.
Well, we are now giving serious thought to sound legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I listened to the speech made by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion). He is an expert in constitutional law. He is, in fact, such an expert that he cannot venture to make a single speech without reading from his text, lest he should forget a comma.
The hon. member for Bellechasse is no doubt an expert constitutional lawyer, but because of that and because he could make a mistake and prove we are right, he writes his texts in advance. He takes care not to get away from it, in order not to risk proving we are right.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard similar speeches in many quarters, but it is none the less true that all right thinking persons in the province of Quebec realize today that what was in former days an interference with provincial autonomy, a crime against the province, has now become a help, a blessing, something that is very good.
The procedure has changed. The form has changed perhaps, but the substance remains the same. Of course, with some of our friends, the great lack is substance, but in this legislation substance is what it lacks least, because it was introduced by the Liberal government, which had no intention of violating autonomy, but which, realizing like several other persons, that our Canadian universities were in need of financial help and that the leaders of those universities had not the required facilities to help our country produce as many prominent men as we would have liked, considered the problem of universities, not of its own initiative-because it did not improvise such action-but following recommendations from serious people and as a result of the Massey commission report which stated that, if universities were not

Dominion-Provincial Relations helped, they would bog down, because they were in need of several million dollars to meet their needs in the immediate future.
Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago, I heard the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) refer to section 93 of the British North America Act. I think I have often heard it referred to somewhere or other.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke was heard to say that the field of education was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, as stipulated in section 93. Nobody denies that. Mr. St. Laurent never denied it; but what did Mr. Duplessis say when discussions started with regard to university grants? He did not refer to section 93. He spoke of sections 91 and 92. When dealing with section 91, he went on quickly, sc as to get to section 92, and then said:
Section 92, is (perfectly clear to our minds. It is only the Liberals who cannot see clearly. But, as far as we are concerned, we do see clearly.
Section 92 confers an exclusive right to the provinces in the direct taxation field.
He kept repeating it for years, or rather from 1945 to 1956. At one time-


Mr. Parizeau:: Until 1959.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I think that if I were the member for Lake St. John (Mr. Parizeau) and knew no more than he does, I would keep quiet and not say a word.
Moreover, if I rise at this time, it is to inform those hon. members whose outlook is one-sided, because, like horses that wear blinkers, they only can see in one direction. I just want to give them information.
In 1956, Mr. Duplessis introduced in the Quebec legislature-and I was there at the time-


An hon. Member:: You did not stay long.


Yvon Dupuis: I stayed long enough to smell out a member of the Union Nationale from a distance, and I can do so in the House of Commons.
Mr. Chairman, I will bring out certain statements made by Mr. Duplessis and you will see that they are tremendous. Of course, they may be somewhat rambling, because I was not prepared, and I did not expect the "duplessists" to take part in this debate today.
Mr. Chairman, I beg you to have a little patience-


Joseph Aimé Roger Parizeau: Mr. Lamontagne wrote your speech and you are reading it.


Mr. Rouleau:: You should go back to your personality courses.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I believe it would do good to some Conservative members to follow Mr. Lamontagne's courses.
Mr. Chairman, when I look at my hon. friends of Quebec, opposite, I cannot hold a grudge against them-one cannot hold a grudge against children for the way they have been raised-but now that they are in Ottawa with us, we will try to impart some of our knowledge to them. They could use it to avoid perhaps making rash promises.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to quote a statement of the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer). Listen to this, Mr. Chairman: "The legislation on federal grants to universities is unsatisfactory and centralizing", he said. The same legislation they said was unsatisfactory and centralizing under a Liberal government has become an official blessing under the Conservative administration.
I now come to a statement of the former secretary of state (Mr. Courtemanche), the man who preferred the Senate to-


Mr. Denis:: He is ill; he is the ailing senator, that one-


Yvon Dupuis: The former secretary of state said that it was an invasion of the field of direct taxation and that the federal government should return to the provinces their exclusive right to direct taxation.
That was Mr. Duplessis' school. Once, Mr. Duplessis introduced in the legislature a bill whose preamble read as follows:
Whereas under section 92 of our Canadian constitution, the province of Quebec has an exclusive right in the field of direct taxation-
Immediately, the answer was: "No, we do not have an exclusive right. Such was the contention since 1945, since the beginning, that the province of Quebec did not have an exclusive right in the field of direct taxation. It had a right of direct taxation under the terms of section 92, but according to section 91, the federal government could resort to every method of taxation." It is clear. It is easy to see. Just read the constitution and you will see. Well, Mr. Chairman, in order to bring the federal government to agree to that income tax deduction, Mr. Duplessis within half an hour had to retract all that he had preached during 10, 15 and 20 years, and

he erased in front of us-it is not for nothing that pencils are fitted with erasers-the word "exclusive". It is clear.
So, Mr. Chairman, everything that was claimed as being exclusive for the last 20 years has now become common, as common as was at times the language of the one who held it to be exclusive. I shall not dwell any longer on the sections which confirm our rights since they are quite clear. The Liberal government was the first to think of helping the universities. At the time that hurt Union Nationale members who were against it. But today, the Conservative government is supposed to have changed everything, but it comes back with the same law, with the same situation, and last year we saw our friends opposite cast a reluctant vote in voting illogically for what they had been condemning previously.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Du-plessis was there, this aid to universities was impossible. In Ottawa, Mr. Duplessis never had anything constructive to suggest, no positive proposal. All he ever did was to utter the word autonomy and then take leave. "Autonomy" was the only word he could ever find. Then he would return to Quebec, and was welcomed with beating drums at the Palais station.
Well, Mr. Chairman, we realize that Mr. Duplessis could have made concrete suggestions, had he wanted to, and that if the hon. Mr. Sauve's suggestion were deemed acceptable, those of Mr. Duplessis would have been acceptable and accepted in fact. But, as his attitude was a negative, as he was imbued with partisanship and separatism, it was therefore impossible to discuss with a person like Maurice LeNoblet Du Pont Duplessis, of Three Rivers.
I say that today I will vote for this motion, but I feel I must rise after the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickers-gill) to point out that we have here the full result of a great and useful step taken by Mr. Louis St. Laurent to help the universities all over the country.
I cannot help thinking of all the money lost in small time politicking. I cannot help remembering all the years we lost, when our young people might have enjoyed a university education which was refused then, under the pretext of protecting a sham autonomy. I simply cannot think of all the Union Nationale lost for us Quebeckers in a period of 20 years.
79951-0-179J
Dominion-Provincial Relations
Mr. Chairman, if the Hon. Paul Sauve suddenly got up and found a way to accept federal grants, why could his chief not find a solution and make concrete suggestions to the federal authorities? Now, the premier of Quebec, the hon. Mr. Barrette, suddenly found the legislation beneficial; though he had sat long enough in the Quebec legislature to realize that Mr. Duplessis was holding the province back and depriving our universities of the answer to a great need. It is not up to me, as I say, to interpret sections 93, 92 and 91, and I leave that to our learned lawyers. However, I know that section 91 gives the federal government the right to levy all kinds of taxes, including direct taxation, whereas section 92 confers the right of direct taxation upon the provinces. I also know that under section 91, the province of Quebec never found the federal government in its way, neither at the time of Mr. Louis St. Laurent nor in the days of Mr. Mackenzie King. As a matter of fact, the federal government never encroached upon provincial autonomy in the educational field.
To my mind, I admit-


An hon. Member:: All that is written.


Yvon Dupuis: It is all in black and white. Obviously, for those who never say anything but interjections; nothing interesting is ever written. But I am saying that because I know it has been put in writing.
I recognize, and this my creed-for I have one-I recognize that the national Canadian government has a right to look after the advancement of arts, sciences and letters in this country. I cannot admit it should have the right to interfere in the type of education, programs and training that will be given our citizens because, under section 93, that is left to the provinces. But, as Canadians, we are not entitled to think for a moment that the government which is looking after the destinies of our country should not take a logical and commendable action in showing interest in the advancement of arts, science and letters in Canada.
Can we, for a moment, believe that General de Gaulle, president of France, should not take an interest in the progress of education, in the various French departments? And President Eisenhower, must he not take an interest also in the progress of arts, science and letters throughout the United States?
We live today in a world where competition is world wide, and not only local. If Canada does not have a great number of prominent
2832	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations people in the field of arts, science and letters, the whole country suffers from such a situation.
Mr. Chairman, there was a Canadian prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, who realized that, nowadays, the era of petty village quarrels is over. The time when people indulged in petty politics twenty four hours a day for 365 days a year is over. Yes, Mr. Chairman, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent realized that Canadian universities had to be known across the world. To achieve that purpose, he gave grants to universities without interfering at all in the type of programs, training or education within the universities themselves.
This is a Liberal piece of legislation; it is an advantageous and sound Liberal legislation. It is a tribute to Louis St. Laurent. It is a tribute that the present federal government is paying to Mr. St. Laurent in placing before us that piece of legislation concerning grants to Canadian universities.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I also would like to make a few brief remarks, not as unpleasant as those the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) would like to make them, but some remarks about this resolution.
This matter of tax sharing to provide alternative arrangement for the payment of grants to our institutions of higher learning has been much discussed and has raised much controversy. It is a matter which has been much discussed by the population of the province of Quebec and about which the province had given its full support to the premier of that time, the hon. Mr. Duplessis, who will be well remembered by the whole country as one of the greatest premiers of French Canada.
We are about to settle this matter which had no other fate than being put off from time to time by the former Liberal federal government. And it is significant that this question should be settled by the ministers and the members who form the present Conservative government.
Mr. Chairman, if you analyse the factors involved in the agreement about to be concluded between the government of Quebec on the one hand and the central government on the other, it is obvious that one of the main causes of this success is the totally different attitude of the present government as compared to that of the previous gov-


ernment. The arrogant, intractable take it or leave it attitude has been replaced by a friendly, understanding attitude and by a desire to settle a problem which concerns one of Canada's most beautiful provinces: the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, the man who occupied the chair a moment ago knows better than anyone, because of his background, that the city of St. Hyacinthe is famous for its contribution to education throughout the country. He knows that our educational institutions are a credit not only to St. Hyacinthe, but to the whole country. Each year, in St. Hyacinthe, students from everywhere in Canada, and even from the United States and other countries, come to acquire the knowledge that will make of them qualified men in their respective fields.
I seize this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to say a well deserved tribute to our educational institutions and, in particular, to their teaching staff. By their conduct and their knowledge, the teachers helped make prominent citizens of our people, and this even well beyond our frontiers.
I am sure of expressing the feeling of our people, Mr. Chairman, when paying tribute to two great Quebec figures, men who have done so much for the progress of education in our province. I am referring toi Hon. Maurice Duplessis and Hon. Paul Sauve, former premiers of Quebec. As you know,'/ both have greatly contributed to the agreement which we are about to adopt. It was the realistic and logical position of these two premiers, who had the entire and immediate support of the Quebec population which paved the way for the agreement now before us. To the first, we owe our gratitude for his tenacity and his steadfast stand against those who wanted him to accept proposals which went against the best interests of the province of Quebec. Deeply convinced that Quebec, on account of its faith, tongue and traditions, is not a province like the others, he has always insisted upon such an approach to the problems. That is what the present Minister of Finance understood, after the present Prime Minister, Right Hon. John Diefenbaker. The record has amply justified premier Duplessis' attitude, since he was, at the start, the only one to rise against the Liberal government of the time and now practically all the premiers of the other provinces have

accepted his opinions and taken the same attitude as he did. To my knowledge-


John Whitney Pickersgill: You have forgotten Drew.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: To my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, premier Duplessis is the man who launched the agreement that we are definitely reaching. The second one, Hon. Paul Sauve, whom the Liberals recognize today as a great Canadian from Quebec, most probably because he is now dead-for when he was in power, they had started a petty campaign of slander against him, as they had always done with regard to his predecessor. Hon. Paul Sauve is certainly to be considered the architect of the present agreement. His wish to serve his people, his way of looking at things objectively and realistically and his broadmindedness were at the basis of the present agreement. He too deserves our never-ending gratitude, as well as that of the other citizens of this country.
Another great promoter of the present understanding is the present premier of Quebec, Hon. Antonio Barrette. A gentleman of politics, as he is called-


Guy Rouleau: Not by us.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -because of his tact, his patriotism, his politeness-which is totally lacking in the hon. member for Dollard- and his realism, brought together all people of good will who wished a practical solution for all concerned. We owe him also our most sincere gratitude.
As a Conservative member, Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: You mean as a Union Nationale member.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Yes, as a supporter of the Union Nationale, and I am proud to proclaim it, because it is a government which has done much for the province of Quebec; it is a government which has had also the support of the people of the province of Quebec, in spite of all the slanderous and stifling influences of the Liberal party against everything it was doing.
I feel a very legitimate pride, as a Conservative member, in having taken part in this understanding, and of having done something to bring it to the point-


Guy Rouleau: Of being completed.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -of being completed since this will be a monument to the glory of the
Dominion-Provincial Relations Conservative party and will make desperation of the Grits, those wet blankets. I am certainly glad for having done something about it for it is an important and definite step that will certainly, as I just said, be a monument to the glory of the Conservative party. The Minister of Finance who never ceased working for ensuring justice to all concerned also deserves all our gratitude. The difficulties he faced at various times did not break the indomitable courage which is so characteristic of him. He has also continued to work towards a final agreement. The people of Quebec see in him, and they have seen it for quite a while, one of their closest friends.
We must also recognize that our Prime Minister, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker has done a lot to bring about that agreement. He is the worthy successor of the right hon. Sir John A. Macdonald, since he is following in his footsteps in order to assure everywhere an integral Canadianism from sea to sea.
Mr. Chairman, certain statements made in this house or elsewhere lead to believe that in the province of Quebec nothing, or almost nothing, was done for the furtherance of schooling and education. I should like at this point, Mr. Chairman, to give some figures which can certainly clear up, in the minds of right-minded people-but not of some of those to my left-


Azellus Denis: Name them.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -because they have never been able to understand anything, they are simply imbued with-


An hon. Member:: He does not know his left.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: They have a bitter taste in their mouth that comes from losing the power. It is only with spite, remorse and resentment that they speak and reveal what is on their minds.


Guy Rouleau: Rumilly will be shocked.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: This house is surely interested in knowing that early in 1959, the province of Quebec had the largest number of university students. Out of a total population of 4,884,000, there were in that province 29,320 students entitled to federal assistance. That is 5,324 more students than in Ontario for the same year.
Mr. Chairman, if we consider that from 1945 to 1959 inclusive, the Quebec government has appropriated the fabulous sum of $768,706,931.34 for public education, it is impossible not to rejoice at the results the

Dominion-Provincial Relations measure before us will bring about. With more money, the Quebec government will, under the able leadership of its present premier, the Hon. Antonio Barrette-who will also be premier after the next election -do a still better job in the province in the field of education and teaching.
In June 1959, during the annual convention of learned societies of this country which was held in Saskatoon, Miss Rosemary Bushell, of the research bureau of the conference of Canadian universities and colleges, stated that among Canadian governments, the Quebec government was giving the greatest help to universities and their students. In the academic year 1956-1957, the Quebec government contributed in a proportion of 54 per cent to student aid throughout Canada, in the form of fellowships and scholarships.
If, Mr. Chairman, we make the comparison between the years 1943-1944, under a Liberal government, and 1957-1958, it will be found that amounts earmarked for university teaching in the province of Quebec, rose from $2,356,000 to $14,570,460, that is, an increase of 600 per cent.
(Text):


Joseph Aimé Roger Parizeau: Shame on the Grits. (Translation):


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Such are, Mr. Chairman, the figures I challenge hon. members on the Liberal benches to question. I have quoted them in this house to make the Liberals still more sorry, as you cannot fail to realize, Mr. Chairman, that since the legislation is before us, deep gloom has gripped the ranks of the Liberal party.
Finally, there is a point which we have not been able to solve, Mr. Chairman. During the 20 years they were in power, the question remained pending, and it shall be settled by the Conservative party, to the benefit of those among our people who really want educational advancement.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the way the Conservative government wants to administer things. Indeed, we are always feeling the pulse of the working population and keeping close to it, because the workers are keeping close to us. They have put their trust in us and will never stop trusting us.


Guy Rouleau: The hon. member spoke differently when the Hon. Duplessis was still living.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to express a few thoughts that came to my mind about the two or three speeches I have heard today. First of all, I was hurt,-and I say so dispassionately,- to hear the hon. member for Port Arthur,

(Mr. Fisher) whom I hold in high esteem, speaking as he did of the province of Quebec and its people.
Sure enough, there are fanatics and bigots in the province of Quebec, as in the nine other provinces, but they are not very many.
The province of Quebec is conscious, at least all right-minded people are, that we form part of the Canadian confederation. We understand that Canadian citizens, whether they live in Prince Edward Island, in Newfoundland, in Manitoba or in Ontario, are Canadian just as much as we are, and that we are Canadian just as much as they are.
I really regret that the hon. member for Port Arthur should have spoken the way he did today in this house.


Mr. Bourbonnais:: He used to be a Liberal.


Augustin Brassard: He certainly did not do so with a view to promoting good understanding in this country. If he took the trouble of visiting our province, not only for two days, but for a whole week end in Quebec city or in Montreal, and of associating with us, exchanging ideas with us, he would no doubt change his mind about the citizens of the province of Quebec.
There is another argument I should like to adduce in support of what I have just said, and it is that all citizens of the province of Quebec should not be judged by the views of some people who, from time to time, may have expressed very personal ideas which do not represent the general thinking of the population of Quebec.
I should be interested to know what Mr. Claude Jodin will say and what Mr. Michel Chartrand will think of the ideas expressed this morning by the hon. member for Port Arthur.
In any event, I should like to assure him of the friendship of the citizens of Quebec, and I invite him to come to our province and to associate with us. He would soon realize that we are as good Canadians as he is and as are all other Canadians of the other provinces.


Marcel Bourbonnais: It must not be forgotten that he is an advanced Liberal.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Chairman, I also listened carefully to what was said by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard); in his speech, he made an admission of which I should like to remind him.
He told us that the former premier, the Hon. Paul Sauve-for whom I have never hidden my esteem,-was the originator of this agreement, because he had shown objectivity and realism.

Would that mean, by any chance, that his predecessor had shown no objectivity nor realism in the discussion of those matters?
We have been told that the Liberal administration had neither the courage nor the brains to settle the university question. However, the door was always left open in Ottawa for discussing this problem.


An hon. Member:: There was a screen.


Augustin Brassard: We always got the same answers, it was always the same negative attitude. I repeat to my hon. friends -and I say with no ill feelings whatsoever-* because if I recall these facts to the weak memory of our hon. friends from Quebec, it is because, as the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) pointed out, I think today's legislation is a clear testimony to the memory and glory of Mr. St. Laurent. I join in with all my colleagues to pay him tribute. However, I do not want it to be only in my own words, but I would like to quote in support an excerpt from the Globe and Mail, a newspaper which is not particularly close to the Liberal party. Part of an editorial from this newspaper was quoted in l'Action Catholique lor Friday, September 24, 1954, and I quote:
Such is also the opinion of the Toronto Globe and Mail-
The article had just quoted another newspaper:
Such is also the opinion of the Toronto Globe and Mail, which believes that Mr. St. Laurent's speech will go down in Canada's history. The article then goes on to take a pot shot at the premier of Quebec.
And here is the quotation from the Globe and Mail:
We are quite sure that Mr. Duplessis never intended to start something so constructive. He was merely indulging in politics. But he pushed it to the point where Mr. St. Laurent was forced to answer back, and in his reply, he reached one of the highest levels of statesmanship.
This morning, the hon. member for Cham-bly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson) challenged the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc) to prove that university rectors had spoken up when it was very slyly suggested to them that they were not to accept the grants to universities. I have here a clipping from La Presse for November 14, 1956, which bears the title:
Mr. St. Laurent's offer to the universities is unanimously carried.
Dominion-Provincial Relations
Let me quote the first paragraph of this article:
The national conference of Canadian universities has unanimously accepted the offer it has received from the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent, Prime Minister of Canada, to administer and distribute the funds placed at its disposal to help Canadian universities.
Mr. Chairman, I draw attention to the next sentence:
The representative of the province of Quebec was one of the members of both the finance committee and the executive committee of the conference who took a stand on this matter.
And further on, in an item entitled: "Mgr. Lussier takes a definite stand", I read:
I obey to what seems to me to be a conscience duty and I state strongly our respect for the federal and provincial authority. I think I can state, said the rector, that under the circumstances described, the money that is offered could be accepted for capital expenditures.
The rector of the University of Montreal, Mgr. Irenee Lussier, adopted a truly vigorous stand when he gave his opinion on the acceptance of federal assistance to higher education, without the approbation of his council of governors. As we all know, the council of governors of the University of Montreal includes persons who are in one way or another answerable to the government of the province of Quebec, which places the rector in a delicate situation when it comes to state a truly academic policy.
A little further on, and this is the last sentence I want to quote dealing with the financial situation of the university, Mgr. Lussier added:
That is why we suffer at this time from being in a situation which seems to force us to make an apparently political choice.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this is clear enough, and I am not making up anything. This was published in La Presse of November 14, 1956, and those are the very words of the rector of the University of Montreal, Mgr. Irenee Lussier.
Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that we will support wholeheartedly this resolution. As did some Conservative members from Quebec,
I want to pay a tribute to Mr. Sauve for having had the intelligence to make constructive and concrete proposals to the federal government.
The only reproach we can make to the former premier of Quebec is that in the field of grants to universities, he always said no, closed the door and walked away. I believe Mr. Sauve acted like a great Canadian in coming here to explain to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and to the Minister

Dominion-Provincial Relations of Finance (Mr. Fleming) the proposal of the province of Quebec, and in believing that we had no right to deprive of high school and university education, as the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville said, a whole generation of young people.
Mr. Chairman, I said I would not speak for a long time. I close my remarks in saying that we are going to vote with much enthusiasm in favour of the bill which will be introduced after this resolution. We only regret that, in Quebec, it took so long to understand that the duty of a public man is to see, first of all, to the general welfare of the community, before thinking about the re-election of his party and his followers. (Text):


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry? The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Marcel Bourbonnais: What does he know about Quebec?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I understood one of the hon. members to ask as I rose in my seat, what did I know about Quebec? I know quite a little bit about Quebec, and I have known quite a little bit about Quebec for a very long time.
I was rather astonished at some of the things said by the hon. member for Port Arthur this afternoon, who admitted that only since 1957 when he was elected to this house had he begun to make any serious study of French Canada and on the basis of the three years' elementary course that he had taken, of the affairs of one third of this country, he proceeded to pontificate this afternoon.
I do think that there are some of us who have had a longer time to observe our fellow citizens in Quebec and in other parts of Canada where they speak the French language than apparently has been the case with the hon. member for Port Arthur. I think if the hon. member for Port Arthur, who is a very intelligent member and I think a man of good will-I would not contest that for one minute-and who is also constantly talking about the history of this country, had just reflected on the history of this country in this twentieth century and had been asked, "If you had to pick three men out of all the Canadians who have taken a part in public affairs in this twentieth century, three men who had contributed as much as any other three men to a recognition that this is a country with two equal cultures and a country where citizens, whatever their origin, are equal, who would you pick?", those three men would have been Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Ernest Lapointe and Louis St. Laurent.

I do not say that you could not pick three other names equally worthy, and there is certainly one which I would say was in every respect equally worthy, Mr. Mackenzie King. But I would draw attention to the fact-


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: What about Premier Smallwood? Where would you put him?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Saint John-Albert, who is seizing one of those rather rare occasions when I speak to make a speech himself, asks me where I would put the premier of Newfoundland. I will tell him where I would put the premier of Newfoundland: the premier of Newfoundland thought so much of this country when Louis St. Laurent was prime minister that he brought Newfoundland into Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I would hope that the hon. member would get back to education and this resolution at some time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would draw your attention, sir, to the fact that I have not mentioned anything which has not been mentioned by previous speakers in this debate who have not been called to order, and I hope Your Honour will give me the same latitude as has been given to other hon. members because I have no intention to do anything in this intervention other than discuss speeches which have already been made in this debate.
I was discussing the speech made by the hon. member for Port Arthur, who spent a great deal of his time suggesting that because a few people in the province of Quebec took a rather narrow view of Canadianism, just as there are a few people in the city of Toronto and in some other parts of this country who think that they, too, have a monopoly on Canadianism, they are not very representative of French Canada, or indeed of any other part of Canada. I was pointing out that it was perhaps no accident that when one picks four names, as I did, all those four happened to be members of the Liberal party of Canada. Incidentally, the only name which was suggested from the other side was another member of the Liberal party of Canada, a man who helped to complete that dream of confederation which Sir John Macdonald joined with George Brown and a great many other Liberals in bringing about nearly a century ago.
I was also rather astonished to hear several hon. members sitting over on this side of the house but not in this party suggesting

that there was something rigid and intransigent about the attitude of the government which was in office when Mr. St. Laurent was prime minister. But I was very pleased to observe that that attitude was not taken by the hon. member for Bellechasse, who speaks after thinking instead of before thinking as seems to be the case with some hon. members supporting the government sitting to my immediate left. The hon. member for Bellechasse, in speaking in this debate the other day on the subject which is now before us, had this to say, as reported on page 2241 of Hansard for March 18 last:
(Translation):
Last year, I had the opportunity-as I also did during my election campaign-to say how much I had admired the gesture of the Hon. Louis St. Laurent who, after having found opposition in Quebec, and being aware that this opposition was due to a firm wish to observe the constitution, agreed, after a meeting with the Hon. Maurice Duplessis, to increase from 5 to 10 per cent the individual income tax deduction, so that provinces wishing to do so, and more particularly the province of Quebec, might exercise their own jurisdiction in the taxation field.
(Text):
That is the rigidity which was shown by the previous government. The fact of the matter is that ever since 1957 this country has been living in the kind of world which was described by Lewis Carroll in "Through the Looking Glass and what Alice found there". Everything is reversed. Not only is the former government-this is normal in parliamentary institutions to which I take no objection-now in opposition and the former opposition now in government, but history has to be changed too. All the past has to be changed by hon. gentlemen opposite. They are not satisfied with their own achievements; they must change everything that happened before. But I am glad to say that the hon. member for Bellechasse, who seems to have somewhat more regard for the facts than some hon. members on the other side of the house, has really rather exploded that whole silly notion.
The fact of the matter is that the problem we are now considering is this. I am not now talking particularly about university grants but rather about the main problems of the division of the direct tax field between the federal parliament and provincial legislatures. This is the problem which was elucidated so well a few moments ago by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville when he cited from memory- and incidentally his memory is a lot better than that of some hon. gentlemen-the provisions of the British North America Act both in sections 91 and 92 with respect to taxation. He pointed out that far from the 79951-0-180
Dominion-Provincial Relations federal parliament ever having tried to invade the provincial field, a former provincial premier put as a preamble in his legislation a statement that was not true and not in accord with the constitution, and that the premier of Quebec regularly claimed that he had a power which under the constitution the legislature of Quebec did not have at all and that is the exclusive right to impose direct taxes.
If the former premier of Quebec had believed that-no, probably I should not say that-but if the premier of Quebec had really felt he could sustain that position in the courts, why did he not challenge the income tax? Why did he not challenge all this legislation in the courts?
If the Solicitor General really believed the things he said in this chamber when he sat on this side why did he not refuse to join the government that continues to impose an income tax? One hon. gentleman said earlier today in this debate that when Sir Thomas White proposed an income tax in 1917 it was a temporary measure for wartime. That is what Sir Thomas White said, as one hon. gentleman reminded us earlier. That is true enough but like many other temporary measures including some of the so-called temporary buildings they last quite a long time. I do not believe the Minister of Finance is going to get up and tell us that his follower is now his leader and that he is going to scrap the income tax and change his budget. In fact, far from that, he gave us a whopping addition to it only last year.
The plain fact is that there has been a marked change since 1957 in the attitude of the government of Canada toward the governments of the provinces in this field but that change is quite the opposite of what hon. gentlemen opposite said it would be when they sat over here. In 1957 the old tax rental system was coming up for revision. The agreements would have expired and did in fact expire on March 31, 1957. More than two years before that Mr. St. Laurent as prime minister of this country called the first conference to discuss this matter. Again I remind hon. gentlemen this was done two years before the impending expiry. Counting all the various meetings that were held, five meetings were held with provincial representatives before the final proposition was brought into this house by Mr. Harris in 1956. In the course of those discussions many modifications were made at the suggestion of the provincial governments.
After that long process some finality, of course, had to be reached and the legislation was brought in which was described by the
2838	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations present Minister of Finance as incomprehensible. I think that is the word he used. I have Hansard here if I am challenged, but I do not think I will be. And while it is true that in the end the Tory opposition did vote for that bill, or at least did not vote against it-


Donald Methuen Fleming: In 1956?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh yes, we did.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did you vote against it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, we said it was quite inadequate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I asked the minister if the opposition of that day voted against it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Was there a division?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had forgotten that but I accept the minister's correction gladly because it strengthens my argument. My argument is that this so-called inadequate and incomprehensible legislation is still the law of Canada and no improvement has been made except that a small dividend has been added. I suggested the other day when I spoke before, and I will not elaborate that point because I have already made it, that a small dividend was added for one reason and for one reason only and that was that the government did not get a majority in 1957 and they were going to the country again in 1958 and that they felt that this addition of 3 per cent reduction allowed in the personal income tax would be of some electoral advantage to them. I suggest that if the Conservatives had got a clear majority in the election of 1957 there would have been no change whatever in the tax-sharing arrangements act until the time of its expiry in 1962. It is very obvious that from March 31, 1958 we have had no suggestion that there would be any improvement. But, we have had some very extraordinary things said.
The Minister of Justice has turned out to be one of the greatest financial experts in this country. He went down to Newfoundland a year ago to make peace in Newfoundland and to tell the Newfoundlanders how much better off they were than they used to be and he did so in a toplofty patronizing way that was not much appreciated in Newfoundland. The hon. gentleman also went to Quebec to tell the people of that province how much better off they are now under a Conservative


government than they were under the government of Louis St. Laurent. He went to speak to the women's Conservative club in Quebec and I notice that the Ottawa Journal quoted what the minister had to say. In order to verify this I got a copy from the minister's office of the translation of his speech but this quotation from the Journal seems to be very adequate for the purpose. Here is what the hon. gentleman said:
We (the Conservative government) constantly show ourselves ready to study each problem on its merits, and there can be no doubt that to date the relations between the provincial and federal authorities are less strained than ever before.
This speech was made on November 25, 1959 and the report appeared in the Ottawa Journal of December 1. I draw attention to the fact that it was the Minister of Justice who said this. Let us just consider the evidence. This statement was made in 1959. That was the year this government repudiated the constitution of Canada and the obligations of Canada under the terms of union with Newfoundland thereby vastly improving our relations with Newfoundland, and the only two members of the Newfoundland legislature who supported this government were both defeated at the polls in the provincial election.


An hon. Member:: What has this to do with education?


John Whitney Pickersgill: An hon. gentleman asks me what this has to do with education. What we are discussing are the federal-provincial financial arrangements and a minor improvement this government-which claims it has created greater harmony and reduced strains with the provinces-claims to have made in that way.
What is the evidence? I refer to Newfoundland as an example but some people will say that is an extreme illustration. I will bring evidence from some of the other provinces. I have here a news item from the Cape Breton Post of October 16, certainly a newspaper that has never been accused of supporting the Liberal party and one which I think most people would regard as a very strong Tory paper. This is a Canadian Press story and no doubt it appeared in many other newspapers. I just happened to pick up this one. This was the day after the Minister of Finance had that meeting last October with the provincial ministers of finance and provincial treasurers. Here are what some of them said about this new state of harmony:
British Columbia's premier Bennett said "it's just what we expected" but he criticized "inane policies" of the federal government which had produced a big deficit-

Then, the provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan said:
We are, of course, very unhappy about the decision. All the provinces are unhappy.
He called it a breach of faith. One could go on and quote a good many others, some of them not exactly opponents normally of the present government. I shall now quote Premier Stanfield. This is from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, of the same date. Premier Stanfield, speaking of the conference, said he was not surprised that Ottawa was unable, because of the deficit financial position, to grant further moneys. He went on to say:
It does not follow logically that nothing could he done on an interim basis before the tax sharing arrangements expire in 1962.
I do not suppose from one end of the country to the other there is the head of any government that supports the government at Ottawa more than Premier Stanfield does, unless it is possibly Premier Flemming of New Brunswick. Premier Stanfield said that what the minister is proposing now is not logical. He said he hoped next year Ottawa's financial position would be sufficiently improved to permit something more to be done for the provinces during the current agreement. We are now being told nothing more is going to be done.
I might add that as you go further west you find that the complaints get a little stronger. For instance, in the Toronto Telegram we have this item:
Ottawa deaf to provinces' plea.
The provincial treasurer of Ontario, Mr. Allan, said that a tax adjustment was not only desirable but absolutely necessary. Mr. Roblin said the position of the federal government-
-indicated that if there is a federal surplus next year Ottawa will have to change its stand toward the provinces.
In the Winnipeg Tribune of October 17 we find an editorial entitled "Closed Door". Indeed, that is all the Minister of Finance has ever done. He and the Prime Minister gave a solemn promise, a solemn undertaking, in November, 1957 that they would have another federal-provincial conference in January of 1958. They broke that promise. They made a unilateral decision by telegram, and that is all that has ever happened since, except this meeting where, as the Winnipeg Tribune, one of the normally strong supporters of this government, said they closed the door.
Of course, you can hardly pick up a newspaper without reading a heading like this one. This is from the Ottawa Journal of October 20:
79951-0-180J
Dominion-Provincial Relations
Frost Attacks Ottawa
It has to do with this matter. Then, on January 5, 1960, we find this in the Toronto Star:
Frost Won't Pay Tax "Due" Ottawa
Then, on February 5, 1960, the Ottawa Journal carried this headline:
Frost Seeks Extra $100,000,000 From Federal Treasury
I could read these but everybody has read them. I am just putting these things on the record to show this wonderful harmony that has been created by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, and that latter day John the Baptist, the Minister of Justice, who goes talking about this harmony all over the country with a singular regard for the facts and the figures.
Then we find in the Toronto Telegram- and, if ever there was a newspaper that ought to be grateful to the government, it is that one, as the Minister of National Revenue I am sure will readily admit-


Mr. Nowlan:: I do not know what the hon. member is talking about.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the Toronto Telegram of February 25, 1960, we find the following: Queen's Park Blasts Ottawa Proposes Tit-For-Tat Taxes
Then, the Ottawa Journal of February 26 carries this heading:
Frost Stresses Need for Expansion Money
Again, Mr. Frost wants his $100 million. In the Hamilton Spectator of March 29 we find the following:
Frost Hints Tax-Sharing Demands May Broaden
In other words, he may not even be satisfied with $100 million. He says:
Ottawa's position had been unrealistic and unjust.
This is the harmony; this is what they have achieved.
Then, of course, when you go a little further west into Manitoba you find the present premier of that province who said he was modelling himself on the present Prime Minister of Canada; he was a real follower of John; where John went he was going to go. This was before he became the premier. He is also the provincial treasurer who had to encounter the Minister of Finance of this country. Here is his budget speech. I hold in my hand the Manitoba Hansard. I think hon. members ought to see what this harmony is we now have; I think hon. members ought to see what this Tory premier, who has just won a very considerable victory in that province, has to say about the measure that is now before us and about the attitude of this government. I quote from page 20 of the

Dominion-Provincial Relations budget speech, which is to be found in the Manitoba Hansard for March 17, 1960:
The problems of intergovernmental relations in the past year have bulked large on the governmental scene. There has been some progress. Hon. members will recall that, following the plenary dominion-provincial fiscal conference of November, 1957, it was expected the conference would be reconvened early in 1958 to examine fully the requirements for improvement in the financial status of the provinces.
Hon. members will see what Mr. Roblin said:
It was expected the conference would be reconvened early in 1958 to examine fully the requirements for improvement in the financial status of the provinces. This meeting did not materialize.
I suppose that is as far as a Tory can go. He means they did not carry out their promise. I continue:
It was not until midsummer of 1959 that a committee of ministers of finance and provincial treasurers met in Ottawa.
This committee, by its very nature as it became clear, could not resolve the issues at stake.
I cannot take the time of the committee to read all of this but I will read the choicest extracts. I go to page 21, and here is what he said: Here is the provincial treasurer and premier of Manitoba talking about the Minister of Finance:
Our claim for increased revenues from this source received short shrift at the hands of the Minister of Finance.
That is the way those who were going to have a new regime of harmony, who were going to do away with attitudes of the past, acted. This is what one of their best friends, a great follower of John, had to say:
Our claim for increased revenues from this source received short shrift at the hands of the Minister of Finance. He maintained that his own budgetary situation would not permit any further "concessions" to the provinces. This was a position we could not in all logic accept.
Maybe they could not accept it in logic, but they could not pry anything out of the Minister of Finance either. I continue:
This stand suggests that a province's entitlement-
I hope some of those hon. members who are such great exponents of provincial autonomy are listening to this.
This stand suggests that a province's entitlement to a share of taxation revenue is based on whether or not Canada feels she can afford it.
That is what Mr. Roblin is saying about a Tory government. I continue:
But the provinces are not mere residual partners in the Canadian confederation.
This is a Tory premier talking about a Tory Minister of Finance in Ottawa. I continue:
We cannot accept the implication that we must wait for some unstated level of dominion revenue before we receive recognition of our just rights.
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
Two years, only two years, and this is what we get.
To do so would be contrary to the whole principle and spirit of confederation.
This is the Tory premier saying that what the Minister of Finance is doing is contrary to the whole spirit and principle of confederation.
I venture to suggest it would be contrary to the
interests of Canada itself.
Then he went on:
We were unable to persuade the Minister of Finance to recommend to his colleagues any further changes in the level of tax-sharing. We have not given up hope-
Mr. Roblin can go on hoping but I do not think his hopes are worth much.
-for an improvement in 1961-62, but it likely will be 1962-63 before we can expect to secure a more realistic share of the taxation pool.
That is as good a friend as the government has left today after two years.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We have still got you.


George Clyde Nowlan: We have got so many you cannot even recognize one from the other.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They do not do much talking any more. They are not quoted much in the newspapers any more, while their erstwhile friend talks-


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: When the hon. gentleman talks he is the best friend of the government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, that has come nearer to making me sit down than anything I have ever heard. If I did not recognize that the hon. member for Carle-ton would not have said that without an ulterior motive it might have brought my speech to an end.


George Clyde Nowlan: You are doing very well, keep it up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Here is another very interesting thing said by Mr. Roblin which shows that when you get a little distance away from Ottawa you sometimes recognize some of the facts of life. He said:
One of the advances made in the 1955 and 1956 negotiations was the recognition of the principles of equalization and stabilization.


Charles Edward Rea: I am sorry to interrupt but I have to advise the hon. member that his time has expired. Shall the resolution carry?


Lionel Chevrier: Before the resolution carries, will the Minister of Finance answer the questions I put to him at an earlier stage of the debate on March 18, I believe.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the minister
answers, I have a few other observations I should like to make. When the hon. member for Laurier was good enough to interrupt me and put me in order without having to ask the indulgence of the committee, which I would have been reluctant to do-


George Clyde Nowlan: Purely a coincidence.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -I was just about to refer to one or two other observations made by Mr. Roblin in his budget speech. In case this has not been drawn to the attention of the Minister of Finance, I feel that it should be drawn to his attention. Mr. Roblin said:
One of the advances made in the 1955 and 1956 negotiations-
That was when what we were doing was incomprehensible and inadequate, as the Minister of Finance said, but the premier of Manitoba does not seem to think so.
-was the recognition of the principles of equalization and stabilization.
This is very important, because for at least six of the provinces this is the differ-erence between life and death. The principles of equalization and stabilization are the difference between having autonomy and not having autonomy. Mr. Roblin went on to say:
It is true that there was a substantial element of fiscal need contained within the rental payments of the 1947 and 1952 tax agreements-
This is a great tribute from a Tory premier to the Liberal government and to what Mr. Harris and Mr. St. Laurent did in 1956.
-but it was not until the Federal-Provincial TaxSharing Arrangements Act of 1956 that these two principles received open statutory acceptance.
Here is the premier of Manitoba saying that the system we have now is the system that Manitoba needs. It is the system, of course, that every one of the six provinces that could not possibly finance within their own limits has to have if they are to have any real autonomy, and I can tell you that the $60 million Quebec is getting by way of an equalization payment is pretty necessary to Quebec too. The provincial treasurer then went on to commend the government, as I have commended it every time I have mentioned the subject, for establishing the Atlantic provinces grants. I say that that is the one and only useful thing the government has done since it has been in office. Here is what Mr. Roblin said about it:
Unfortunately, Canada was not prepared to accept the logic of its own conclusions.
By "Canada" he means the Tory government.
The payments were limited to the four eastern provinces and were not extended to any other that might, under like conditions, be able to qualify
Dominion-Provincial Relations under the formula. We may, however, reasonably hope that the principle, having once been accepted, will in the next fiscal arrangement be carried to its logical and equitable conclusion.
So say I, and so says the leader of the opposition in Nova Scotia, Mr. Hicks, who promptly made this suggestion at the very time these Atlantic grants were started, and in equity it is the only fair way to do it. Mr. Roblin goes on:
The continued acceptance and extension of the .ioint principles of equalization and stabilization are basic principles on which any Manitoba case must be founded.
I repeat, "The continued acceptance and extension of the joint principles of equalization and stabilization". I remind you, sir, that these principles of equalization and stabilization were fought by the Tory party when it was in opposition. They were going to substitute a new system of allocation of tax fields. Any system of allocation of tax fields would be absolutely ruinous to six provinces in this country, and Mr. Roblin has made it very clear that he recognizes that fact. He says:
The continued acceptance and extension of the joint principles of equalization and stabilization are basic principles on which any Manitoba case must be founded. These are not concessons to this province, either on the part of Canada or any other province. They are essential factors in maintaining the rightful status of the provinces in the Canadian economy. These principles remain paramount. It will be our objective to see that they are applied in a formula more effective than that existing at the present time.
If a more effective formula can be found no one on this side of the house will oppose it, but until it is found we certainly stand by the formula that Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Harris introduced, that the hon. member for Bellechasse gave a blessing to, and that the Tory premier of Manitoba has said is essential to the preservation of provincial autonomy and equality among the provinces.


Mr. Regnier:: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few brief remarks. First I wish to thank the Minister of Finance for settling a problem that has been existing for too long, that of giving all provinces a share in the aid to universities. I should also like to thank the hon. member for Bellechasse for the remarks he made about the help that the province of Quebec gives to French colleges outside of that province. It is probably doubtful whether such help is within the constitution. Hon. members all know that the provisions contained in section 93 and 133 of the British North America Act, which relate to separate schools and the French language, are equivalent to sections 22 and 23 of the Manitoba Act which was passed in 1870 and which granted the same privileges with respect to schools and language as have been granted to the minority in the province of Quebec.

Dominion-Provincial Relations
I am happy to say that the province of Quebec has treated the English Protestant minority very well and I hope that the province of Quebec will always do so. But although in Manitoba we have the same constitutional rights as the province of Quebec, as all hon. members know, we have lost all our rights. We have left no vestige of the rights that were granted by our own provincial constitution.
Recently a royal commission was formed to study educational problems in Manitoba. The five members brought in a unanimous report advising the provincial government to grant 80 per cent of the amount paid to public schools for the support of separate and private schools. However, since that time the Winnipeg Free Press, that great Liberal paper which supports freedom for the South Africans and freedom all over the world, is exhibiting intolerance at home by advocating that the people who support separate schools pay double taxes. I have faith in the tolerance of my fellow English and Protestant citizens in the province of Manitoba. There are always bigots like the Winnipeg Free Press fanning the flames of intolerance.
I should like also to challenge a few of the remarks made by the hon. member for Port Arthur when he attacked the hon. member for Bellechasse for advocating the right of the province of Quebec to help maintain French culture outside of the province of Quebec. The hon. member for Port Arthur said, are you in favour of a continuation of strife? I do not believe that merely because the French speaking Canadians outside Quebec fight for the maintenance of their culture they are continuing strife. It is just a struggle to keep their own culture.
If one reads the speeches of D'Arcy McGee, Brown, Macdonald, Cartier or even Mr. Rose, who represented Montreal Centre you will find that confederation was a partnership between the French and English races in Canada. Unless both cultures are treated equally, we will never have perfect unity in Canada. I do not believe we should try to argue on the basis of the British North America Act or even to stand on the Manitoba act of 1870, but we should lay more stress on the good will of Canadians generally. Unless we treat one another as equals, there will never be harmony, and it is only through harmony that Canadian unity can exist.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: 
Lionel Chevrier: May I get a reply from the minister?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member for Laurier put several questions when this resolution was under debate two weeks ago. I think I can tell him that the answers to his questions are plainly contained in the bill which I hope to have an opportunity of introducing in the house this afternoon. It is quite clear that in the case of the province of Quebec the 1 per cent corporation tax will exceed, and by a substantial sum, the equivalent of $1.50 per capita; and the adjustment at the end of the year will be made by way of a deduction from the equalization payment that accrues to the province under the provisions of the act.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill C-56, to amend the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY ACT AMENDMENTS TO EXTEND PERIOD OF PAYMENTS AND INCREASE MAXIMUM EXPENDITURES

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 31, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Walker-Mr. Rea in the chair:
That It Is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act to extend
[Stage Direction]
Trans-Canada Highway Act until March 31, 1964, the period during which contributions or payments may be made to the provinces under the act and to prolong until December 31, 1963, the period in respect to which construction costs may be incurred under this act; and to provide also that the aggregate of all expenditures under the act may be increased to a maximum of four hundred million dollars.
(Translation):
Mr.   Hafael@: Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I began some remarks, a few minutes before the house was called to the hon. Senate. I shall try to complete what I wanted to say before the time set aside for the discussion of private bills.
I mentioned yesterday that we have now a trans-Canada highway which allows all Canadian citizens and indeed many transportation companies to travel entirely on Canadian soil.
I realize, following the speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) that conditions west of Port Arthur, towards Winnipeg, do not seem too favourable. It nevertheless remains that there is now a trans-Canada highway. And, as I said yesterday, I was surprised to find that the hon. minister did not, even this year, choose to consider the inclusion in his resolution of a second trans-Canada highway, which could easily exist; not that I am opposed to the present route which goes through the south eastern and northern parts of Ontario, but I believe it would interest the minister to know conditions as they are now.
Indeed, we should admit that from a national defence point of view, we should have the necessary roads, in case of an attack.
Perhaps we do not realize that it might be easy to supply with an alternate route the people of northern Ontario and those of the northwest section of the province of Quebec. I said yesterday that there is now a practicable road, and paved for the most part between Longlac and North Bay, through Hearst, Kapuskasing and Cochrane. Now we would have to open a new road linking the northeastern part of the province of Ontario to the northwestern portion of the province of Quebec. That will leave only a 52-mile stretch of road to build, which after all does not mean an extraordinary expenditure, since the road from Cochrane to Hearst, which I mentioned a moment ago, is almost paved.
It seems to me that such a road would be advantageous because it would give us direct access to the west or allow us to reach cities


like Montreal and Quebec, so that we could travel on the road going through the Lau-rentian park. I say that that road would be necessary even for national defence purposes, especially if the government relies so much on the famous Bomarc installations- I do not intend to wander away from the resolution-because it just so happens that our region is, neither more nor less, under the umbrella where the famous Bomarc can cause the greatest damage. And there may be a time when the people of Kapuskasing, Hearst, Smooth Rock Falls, Cochrane and even of the Quebec part of the Abitibi may have to exacuate those twons as a result of what damage the famous Bomarc may cause there.
Therefore, I feel that the government should study that situation seriously. I remember that during the second world war, the Ontario provincial government, in order to contribute to the protection of the country as far as national defence was concerned, undertook to build a 163 mile stretch of road between Hearst and Longlac, which resulted in our having the existing trans-Canada highway.
It seems to me that the minister might have included in his resolution the building of a second direct road between the northern part of Ontario and the northwestern part of Abitibi.
In addition to being useful for national defence purposes, the building of such a road would supply jobs for the people of Abitibi and for the population of northeastern Ontario, because many lumber camps are operating in that area. At present, as we know, even the wood-workers return home by car every night so as not to remain overnight in the lumber camps.
This could also be a very interesting project for the tourist industry. I would therefore ask the minister to consider this matter because it is only a question of 52 miles. I must also point out, Mr. Chairman, that a survey was made in 1937-38 and that, but for the war of 1939, I am convinced this road would have been built by now.
(Text):
The Depuiy Chairman: Shall the resolution carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just before the resolution carries, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister of Public Works could answer the question which I put to him the last time we were in committee.


Mr. Walker:: In due course I hope to be able to answer many questions, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think probably the resolution would carry before five o'clock if the minister could give his answer.


David James Walker: That is very good news and under those circumstances I would be delighted.
I read with pleasure the statement of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate reported in Hansard of the next day, but really he raised a point which in reality does not require any answer, All he was bringing to the attention of the house was not something which had been said by the right hon. Prime Minister, and not something which had even been suggested by the right hon. Prime Minister. All he brought to the attention of the house was an advertisement in a provincial election, and all it recounted was the belief of a certain man from Newfoundland.
If I had to comment on what some other person believed, Mr. Chairman, I would be inundated with questions from now to eternity and never get through trying to answer them. I refuse to make any comment about what this man believes, any more than I would make any comment on the Maple Leafs believe they are going to win the championship. Because they believe that, it does not mean it is the fact that they will.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one observation. I was not asking the minister to comment on a belief. The leader of the minister's party in the province of Newfoundland, who championed their party when they could hardly find any other champion, made the statement that he had telephoned the Prime Minister about this, and I asked the minister whether he did telephone the Prime Minister and, if so, if he would find out from the Prime Minister what the Prime Minister actually said to Mr. Hollett. If he does not choose to answer that question then I will not hold up the business of the house.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Walker thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-57, to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.
Private Bills-Divorce PRIVATE BILLS



HELEN FRANCES ESTELLE KEARNEY FREEMAN

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-34, for the relief of Helen Frances Estelle Kearney Freeman-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, there are four children in this case, ages 15, 12, 9 and 6 respectively. As I have said before, we should consider the welfare of the children in these cases especially if the divorce is granted. The marriage took place in 1943 and there is a long history of marital discord resulting in desertion.
At page 12 of the evidence the divorce committee of the Senate thoroughly examined into the matter. 1 propose to refer to this evidence to illustrate the amount of weight given to the background of the marriage as compared to that given to the circumstances relating to adultery.
Mr. M. Joyal of Ottawa appeared as counsel for the petitioner. He examined into the background of the marriage and at page 12 the following evidence is recorded:
Q. You are not living with your husband at the moment?
A. No.
I point out that Mr. Joyal asked a leading question almost suggesting the answer. I continue:
Q. When did you separate from him? Or did you separate more than once from him?
A. Yes, about three or four times.
Obviously Mr. Joyal knew the answer before it was given. I continue:
Q. What were the grounds or reasons?
A. Promiscuity and alcoholism.
Q. Was this promiscuity and alcoholism the subject of some conversation between you and your husband?
A. Yes. it was.
Q. On one occasion, or on many occasions?
A. On many occasions.
Q. Did you ever resume cohabitation with him after he might have made certain promises?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Were those promises kept?
A. No.
Q. Did he resume, so to speak, his habits of alcoholism and promiscuity?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Forgetting about the alcoholism, which is a problem in itself, what about his promiscuous habits? Was it with one person?
A. Just about everybody.
Q. With any one person, was it over a short period of time or a more extended period of time?
A. Once, for a year and a half, and the last time about a year and a half.
By the Chairman (Senator Taylor, Westmorland):
Q. What do you mean by a year and a half?
A. Well-
Q. Was he keeping company with another woman for a year and a half?
A. Yes.

Private Bills-Divorce
Q. Do you know that to be a tact personally?
A. Yes. He took her out in public I know that, indeed. I know where she lived-the last one he lived with.
By Senator Barbour:
Q. Did they live together for a year and a half?
A. Oh yes.
By the Chairman (Senator Taylor, Westmorland) :
Q. He left you entirely and went to live with this woman?
A. Yes.
Q. And he came back again to you?
A. No. he did not come back after that.
The evidence indicates a series of desertions and reconciliations resulting in a final desertion. Mr. Joyal and the hon. senators were concerned about the question of desertion and what may be characterized as cruelty, involving alcoholism, extended promiscuity, the failure to keep promises and ultimate desertion. I shall return later to the subject of cruelty.
Some evidence was given concerning arrangements for the maintenance of the children. Mr. Joyal questioned the petitioner about this and the following exchange is recorded at page 13 of the evidence:
By Senator Barbour:
Q. Did he support you?
A. Sometimes.
By Mr. Joyal:
Q. You did something about this. You took action in the superior court?
A. Yes.
Q. In what year?
A. It was two years ago, and Mr. Hetu was the lawyer.
Q. About 1957 or 1958?
A. Yes.
Q. Since that action was instituted have you resumed cohabitation with him?
A. No.
Q. Was that action on your part successful?
A. Yes.
Q. What was that action? Was it an action for separation from bed and board?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. And was judgment granted in your favour?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you allege in the action-adultery and alcoholism on the part of your husband?
A. Yes, and beating.
Q. Was there cruelty also?
A. Yes.
Q. In any event, judgment was granted in your favour?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you given custody of the children?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you given an order for an allowance for maintenance of the children?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you been in receipt of that allowance, more or less?
A. Yes, I have been.
By the Chairman (Senator Taylor, Westmorland) :
Q. What was the amount?
A. $50 a week.
Q. For both yourself and the children?
A. Yes.
By Senator Barbour:
Q. That would be for the children, would it?
A. Well, yes.
By Mr. Joyal:

Q. Was that $50 a week for yourself and the children or for the children alone?
A. Well, when we had the separation it was for myself and the children.
I take it from the evidence, therefore, that $50 a week is provided for the wife and children. I think it is an excellent thing to conduct an examination into the question of maintenance in cases where there are children. It is apparent that the Senate pays not much attention. In fact, they feel they should not do this sort of thing, and ask questions about maintenance of children. I am quite sure, in their moral concept of these things they know full well we are liable to a degree if we are to be asked to pass a divorce bill. We are liable to the extent anyway of wondering about and concerning ourselves with the welfare, maintenance and upkeep of the children following the granting of the divorce
Even though some days ago the hon. member for Halifax raised, and quite properly so, the matter of jurisdiction because of the division of jurisdiction, and the question of this committee having the function of concerning itself with the maintenance of the children, and even though the chairman, at that time ruled that, because maintenance was not a matter upon which we could pass judgment, we should not concern ourselves with it, I do hope that the chairman of the committee at this time will be more lenient in this regard, certainly to the extent at least that the committee of the other place has been lenient in this regard in wanting to concern itself about the welfare of the children.
It is a commendable attitude for the members of the other place to take, and we would be well advised to follow their example. I do not say we should disregard the rules; I do not want to do that, but we should give expression to our moral thinking when it comes to the maintenance of the children.
When it comes to the actual grounds which are considered in granting a divorce we find that this case is similar to another one to which I had the opportunity to make reference the other day. One of the private eyes in this case again is Mr. Charles Char-ron, age 53, Montreal, Quebec who, I believe I indicated, has also been an investigator, whatever that is, in these cases. He has appeared as a witness in some 36 cases before the committee in the other place this year. If I am wrong in that figure I stand to be corrected. In his activities in those cases and in other years he is well aware of divorce proceedings; he is well aware of the points he is required to make to ensure that the proper-I put it that way generously -evidence is given to the committee of the



I, 1980

[Stage Direction]
other place and to this house and also to ensure that the relative questions and tests that by practice must be made- normally they are circumstantial-which would lead one to believe that adultery had taken place are made. I would submit it is done in a very sloppy fashion. To all intents and purposes from an outline of the times, the address, the names of the individuals and the fact that in another case the respondent was a woman and in this case it is a man, we might just as well, in so far as Mr. Charron is concerned, be reading the evidence from another case because it is almost identical. He is sworn and testifies.
Mr, Woolliams:: The evidence in divorce cases is always the same.


Frank Howard: I heard some comment from the side. I did not hear what it was, Mr. Chairman. I do not know whether someone wanted to pose a question. At any rate, I will quote from Mr. Charron's evidence at page 15.
By Mr. Joyal:
Q. This is exhibit 2, filed by the petitioner. Can you identify that photograph?
A. That is Mr.-That photograph I had at the time of the investigation.
Q. Do you remember seeing this Mr.-?
A. I saw him several times at-
Q. Is that his home?
A. That is where he was staying. I used to see him come in for dinner every day.
Q. Did you see him on the 5th day of April, 1959?
A. Yes. On the 4th of April he came at seven o'clock. About eight o'clock a couple came out of there and they came in at a quarter after eleven, the couple that had gone out. Then, at 11.30 I called Mr. Lacombe to come and meet me right away-
Mr. Lacombe is another witness; he is listed as an investigator. Incidentally, he is only 22 years old. He must be an apprentice at this sort of thing, taking his instructions from a person with much more experience. I continue:
-and he came on the 5th of April at 12.35 in the morning.
It was after midnight. They went to the door upstairs. I continue:
We went to the door upstairs-it is a duplex. We knocked on the door several times before Mr.- came and opened the door. When he opened the door all he had on was a pair of grey pants with the upper part of his b.v.d.'s.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps he had a tie on.


Frank Howard: It would be much more amusing if one could hear these interjections. I do not know whether he had a tie on or not; it is not given in evidence. From what we know of divorce evidence it could well be that he had a shirt and a tie underneath the top of his pyjamas to make it look well. The people who arrange divorce evidence
Private Bills-Divorce
are not beyond that sort of thing. Let me return to the evidence given by Mr. Charron:
I asked, "Are you Mr.-?" He said yes. I showed him this photograph and he admitted that it was one taken of him.
This is 12.35 in the morning. The couple came in at a quarter after eleven, and 15 minutes later the gentleman is wearing the upper part of his b.v.d.'s. He is a complete stranger, but this investigator goes to the door, asks him his name, shows him a photograph and he says, "Yes, that is I". Is it reasonable to assume that one would expect this to take place? However, let me carry on with the evidence:
I went to the bedroom and asked the woman, who was in bed, her name.
Two strangers knock on the door at 12.35 in the morning; the gentleman wearing the upper part of his b.v.d.'s-with or without tie, it is not clear-and a pair of trousers, opens the door to two complete strangers and says, "Yes, this is my name." These two complete strangers walk into the house, duplex or apartment go into the bedroom and ask the woman there who was in bed, what her name was. No permission was asked. There was no difficulty; it was just like walking into Eaton's store to buy some clothing. They had complete freedom of the house. It was almost as if each of the parties involved in this, the two strangers, the investigators, the respondent and the corespondent knew precisely what was about to happen. It looks as if they were developing a stage presentation and had rehearsed this on a number of occasions. Let me return to the questions and answers:
And she said, "This is Mrs.-
She gave her surname, the name of the respondent. I continue:
Then I said, "What is your maiden name?" And she said-
She gave her maiden name. I continue:
The man asked what it was for-.
After these two strangers had knocked on the door at 12.35, after they had asked him his name and after they had shown the photograph he identified it as one of himself. After that they casually strolled into the living room or wherever it was, nonchalantly appeared in the bedroom, asked the woman in bed what her name was and then the respondent who was in his b.v.d.'s finally got the opportunity to ask what it was all about. Then he is told that divorce proceedings are involved and, to quote the evidence, "he started to get mad at us, so I told him to see a lawyer and we went out".

Private Bills-Divorce
What Mr. Charron probably does is to mimeograph thousands of copies of his evidence. When he has to appear before a committee he just fills in the blanks on the mimeographed form with the names of the people involved and the times. As far as the evidence is concerned, it is almost identical, and it is stretching the imagination quite a bit to ask us to think that no arrangement existed between these people, that Mr. Charron did not know what he was going to find and that the couple in the apartment did not know that he was going to be there at a particular time.
We could assume that it might have happened if this were an isolated case and if the evidence in this case were unique but, as I say, it is not unique. It is stereotyped in form as if the investigator had memorized it and uses it each time he appears as a witness before the divorce committee. From that I think one must come to the conclusion that arrangements were made to obtain this evidence and that the evidence of Mr. Charron was given in such a way as only to satisfy the tests that might reasonably lead one to believe that adultery had taken place or might take place. That is the extent of the evidence here. The evidence with respect to adultery can be stretched, and if one looked at the evidence given here with both eyes closed and read it he could come to the conclusion-


Mr. McCleave:: That is a logical remark from a logical corner of the house.


Frank Howard: It is a good Irish type of remark that the hon. member for Halifax will appreciate very much because so far as the evidence in this case is concerned, and I emphasize this, you do not need to read it to know that it is falsified.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Do you never believe anyone who speaks under oath in a court or do you believe just what you want to believe?


Frank Howard: Perhaps the hon. member for Halifax would like to participate in the debate.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I will.


Frank Howard: If he wants to ask questions I suggest that he do so in the normal manner by rising in his place instead of sitting in his seat and yapping about C.C.F. hypocrisy, knowing full well that at the time he did it he was not going to be called to order for making such slanderous charges.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I rise on a point of order. Surely it is not in order in this debate to refer to remarks made in previous debates. I realize that the hon. member is straying far and wide, but surely that is out of order.


Charles Edward Rea: It is also a rule in this committee for one person to have the floor at a time. The hon. member for Skeena.


Frank Howard: I am pleased that the hon. member for Halifax did get around to participating in the correct manner and I hope he will continue to do so as we deal with other cases. As I have said, I think the evidence with respect to adultery in respect to this particular case was arranged beforehand and was designed to meet the minimum tests established with respect to adultery. Because of the extensive questioning by members of the other place and also by Mr. Joyal, counsel for the petitioner, with respect to desertion, alcoholism, cruelty and extended promiscuity, I believe that is the basis upon which this divorce was granted by the Senate and that the adultery was only an incidental factor. I submit this was the decent and correct thing to do. I am told by people who have had far more experience than I have with regard to the granting of divorces by parliament that it is only by practice that the test of adultery has been established and that parliament can grant a divorce upon any ground or no ground at all. Whether or not that is correct I do not know. As I say, my information comes from a source that I consider to be quite reliable and I take their word for it.


Mr. Peters:: One was granted the other day for desertion.


Frank Howard: The hon. member for Timis-kaming comments that the Senate granted a divorce the other day on the basis of desertion.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Untrue.


Frank Howard: I assume they have done the same thing in this case. I assume that the greatest amount of weight has been given to the questions of desertion and cruelty and that the reference to adultery is only there to leave the impression that the unofficial rules followed in these cases have been met. I certainly think that the divorce should be granted.
I could make some reference to the manner in which Mr. Joyal asked questions, which was more a case of insisting upon a certain type of answer than asking questions. It might be well to read some of them. As found on page 14, Mr. Joyal is examining the petitioner. There have been some questions by members of the Senate about other matters and Mr. Joyal comes to the question of arrangements between the petitioner and the respondent. He does not say, as one would normally expect, "Have you made any arrangements," He says:
Q. You made no arrangements with your husband whereby he could provide this evidence so that this action could be taken?

He practically puts the answer in the woman's mouth. She said, "Oh, no". Again, there is this direct statement:
Q. There has been no connivance? You have not got together and put through a little deal with Miss ... so that your husband would be caught with her?
A. I would not speak to her.
You will notice that she did not answer the question directly. However, we can assume from that that the answer is no because the lawyer said it was no. Again, we have this extensive question and a very short answer:
Q. I take it, because of these repeated separations and reconciliations, you feel that the marriage is on the rocks now, and you have not forgiven your husband in the sense of being prepared to resume cohabitation with him?
If anyone could answer "yes" to that type of question it would be a strange thing indeed. However, the answer was "Oh, no". Then there is this question:
Q. Whatever difficulties you have, do you think they will be increased should this divorce be granted to you?
The answer is obvious. You do not have to read it. The answer is "No". Then she goes further and says:
I could not have any increase in my difficulties.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, on the basis of cruelty, promiscuity on a number of occasions-
The Depuiy Chairman: I must advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, we have had a particularly mischievous type of intervention in the debate on this particular case and I intend to deal with several points made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. Ordinarily, I would content myself, but I am afraid I have reached a point where I cannot sit here in the House of Commons among certain other gentlemen and hear hon. members from one particular corner assassinate the characters of people who are not here and able to defend themselves. The first point,-


Frank Howard: Let them get their divorces somewhere else.


Robert Jardine McCleave: -and one that has gained some currency throughout this country because of remarks made on previous occasions and repeated this afternoon is that divorces are being granted on grounds other than adultery. This is just not so. If that impression got abroad it would lead people who went to provincial courts for justice into thinking that some special favours were being dispensed in parliament that were not given elsewhere. I think that is mischievous and I so brand it.
Private Bills-Divorce
The hon. member has also made it appear, by reading carefully selected portions of the evidence, as if the alleged adultery between the respondent husband and his lady friend were staged. If the hon. member had wanted to fairly present all the evidence on that matter he would have found in the evidence of the wife, at the top of page 14, that actually the husband and this woman had been living together for quite a period of time. It is this sort of remark, this loose allegation, that I am afraid I can no longer take. If my hon. friend is going through this stack of cases one by one and making such remarks, then somebody is going to defend the people who cannot defend themselves here and I am afraid it is going to be a long, hard session.


Frank Howard: I am afraid I cannot very well allow these comments to go by without straightening out the record and, at the same time, straightening out the hon. member for Halifax. If he had been listening carefully, as I assume he did, he would have heard what I said about the evidence I read and he would have had no occasion to make the rather unfair and unkind remarks he made a moment ago. If he was not listening when I made my initial remarks, then I forgive him and I shall attempt to repeat what I said with respect to this particular case.
The hon. member said that I carefully selected sections from the evidence, and carefully left out others, in order to leave the impression that this evidence was staged. He said that if I had read a certain piece of evidence it would have shown that this couple had been living together for some time. I have my notes here and I will read again what I read before. It is at the bottom of page 12. There is another place in the evidence in which these facts are more clearly stated, but Mr. Joyal is questioning the witness about the husband living with other people. I start reading in the middle of one question:
Was it with one person?
A. Just about everybody.
Q. With any one person, was it over a short period of time or a more extended period of time?
A. Once, for a year and a half, and the last time about a year and a half.
Q. What do you mean by a year and a half?
A. Well-
Q. Was he keeping company with another woman for a year and a half?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know that to be a fact personally?
A. Yes. He took her out in public. I know that, indeed. I knew where she lived-the last one he lived with.
Q. Did they live together for a year and a half?
A. Oh, yes.

Private Bills-Divorce
Q. He left you entirely and went to live with this woman?
A. Yes.
Q. And he came back again to you?
A. No, he did not come back after that.
It is true that later on, on page 14, this point is more clearly drawn to the attention of the committee. This is probably the quotation to which the hon. member for Halifax was referring. I read:
Q. Was this the same woman he lived with for a year and a half?
A. Yes, but he only lived with her after I had met her.
The evidence which I read initially did bring out the fact that there was a person with whom he lived for a year and a half. I believe that evidence of that nature itself, when it is not contested or denied, is just as valid evidence to show that adultery took place as the evidence is of going through all these formalities of people knocking on doors after 12.30, walking into the bedroom, asking for names, showing photographs, and so on; all for the purpose of meeting certain tests that have been established. I submit that this evidence given on page 13 to the effect that he was going with some woman for a year and a half, and that he lived with her, is a greater indication that adultery could have taken place than the circumstances related on page 15 by Mr. Charron in which he happens to walk casually into this place and find someone in his b.v.d.'s and a pair of grey pants in the bedroom. There is far more chance that adultery took place during the course of this friendship over a year and a half than there would be that it took place at the moment Mr. Charron entered this place.
The hon. member for Halifax made mention of the fact that these two people lived together for a year and a half. I think there is a greater likelihood that adultery might have taken place in that year and a half rather than in the few short minutes Mr. Charron was wandering around in that particular apartment. The hon. member for Halifax also made some comments to the effect that some of us, I presume in the C.C.F., were engaged in a game of character assassination with respect to people who were not here to defend themselves. I know the hon. member wants to be fair in this matter, and in all other matters, and I admit that in dealing with the earlier cases and reading from the evidence, if the name of the respondent was given I read the name of the respondent; if the name of the corespondent was given I read that name and I also read the address because those names and addresses appeared in the evidence. It was only when the hon. member

for Halifax rose to ask me a question during a previous case and, instead of reading the name of the individual left it blank, that I realized I had been in error in the other cases when I made reference to the names of the individuals. I spoke to the hon. member for Halifax about this afterwards and thanked him for drawing this to my attention in an indirect way. Since that time, I have made no references to the names of the petitioners, the respondents, the corespondents or their addresses. The only names I have mentioned have been those of the lawyers and investigators.


Mr. Taylor:: Would the hon. member permit a question. He has referred to a local lawyer in connection with this case. Is he suggesting the lawyer acted improperly in this particular case?


Frank Howard: I do not know how the hon. member could come to that strange conclusion.


John Russell Taylor: The hon. member referred to the evidence during the early part of the discussion and made some remarks about the lawyer's questioning of the witness. There was a suggestion that they had come to some agreement prior to giving testimony.


Frank Howard: My friend who is asking this question is a lawyer. I imagine that when he represents someone he goes over the evidence with him, goes over the story, and attempts to get it straight in his mind; that is one thing. The second thing is that it is my understanding a lawyer is in a profession, and one of his functions is to represent people. He is certainly not involved. He is not a respondent or a corespondent. If, for argument's sake, Joyal was mentioned as respondent or corespondent or petioner in any one of these cases, I would not mention his name as that. But I do not see that there is much wrong in making reference to the name of the particular lawyer who is involved in the case because this is his function as a public servant, as I understand it, or as a servant of his client and the same thing applies as well in the case of the private investigators. They have a particular duty to perform. The position is just the same as when reference is made to the name of Senator Taylor who is chairman of the committee. This implies nothing whatsoever with regard to Senator Taylor. He is a member of the Senate. He is chairman of the committee and he asks certain questions. I do not see that there is anything wrong in that procedure.


John Russell Taylor: I conclude that the hon. member is not suggesting that there was any improper conduct on the part of the lawyer.


Frank Howard: I do not know whether there was or not.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Frank Howard: I made no such suggestion.
I do not know how my friend the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard could have come to that conclusion.


Robert Jardine McCleave: It is very hard to follow the hon. member.


Frank Howard: I did say-and I will say it again-that Mr. Joyal is quite adept at asking questions in such a way that he gets a particular answer. I assume that this is one of the things a lawyer is trained to do.
I am not a lawyer, and I do not know what the situation is but I assume that one of the functions of a lawyer, if he is retained by a client, is to protect and to advance the interest of that client in court or in some other place if that is where he is acting on the client's behalf.
If by his line of questioning he desires to get certain information out, then this is his function, is it not? I suggest that he is quite good at that sort of thing. Perhaps he should have a "Q.C." after his name-as have so many other lawyers in Ontario-for his skill and ability in making sure that the interests of his client,-in this case the petitioner, are presented to the fullest extent, that her case is advanced and that the evidence given is in her favour. If evidence is given which is not in her favour, he will on cross-examination, if it is a contested case, do his best so to confound other persons giving evidence that it will be to the advantage of his particular client. I do not see anything wrong in that procedure. Maybe I have a misunderstanding of one of the functions of members of the legal profession. However,
I would assume that this is one of them, namely that of advancing the interests of their clients.
I say only that Mr. Joyal is very skilful and adept at this procedure and when he wants the answer no, he phrases the question in such a way that he gets the answer no. Whether he sat down with the petitioner in this case beforehand, went over the evidence and discussed the questions which might be asked of her by him or by the senators, I do not know. Quite frankly, I may say that I do not know whether or not this is a common practice followed by lawyers with clients. Perhaps my friend the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard could take the opportunity of advising us on the matter out of his wealth of legal knowledge and ability, and the cases with which he has dealt.
1, 1960	2851
Tabling of Energy Board Report


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I think we have strayed away long enough on the conduct of lawyers in general and that we had better come back to Bill No. SD-34.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder whether at this stage I might interrupt the hon. member? I suggested to the leaders of the parties opposite that we might have the committee rise and report progress at this time so that I could make an important announcement of interest to all members of the house prior to six o'clock. If that course is agreeable, could we now rise and report progress?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That procedure is agreeable as far as we are concerned.
Progress reported.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like the permission of the house to revert to motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have an important announcement relating to the applications for the export of gas and for the construction of gas pipe lines which have been considered by the national energy board.
Recognizing the economic importance of energy to the future growth and development of our country and realizing that a national energy policy is fundamental to our national development program, one of the first decisions of this government was to establish a national energy board.
The board has been set up to assure the people of Canada that the best possible use is made of the energy resources of this country. It is charged, among other things, with the responsibility, subject to the jurisdiction of parliament, of regulating the construction and operation of oil and gas pipe lines, the tolls charged for transmission by such pipe lines, and the export and import of gas in such a manner that the public interest is protected. The board is also charged with the responsibility of safeguarding Canada's interest in regard to the methods of financing and the participation of Canadians in the pipe lines that transmit energy under the jurisdiction of parliament.
I now wish to table two copies of the important report of the national energy board on application for licences to export natural

Tabling of Energy Board Report gas and build certain pipe lines for the purpose, and to announce the decisions of the government in regard to the approvals required under the law.
After a detailed review of the applications and the circumstances affecting each of them, based upon the lengthy public hearings it held, the board states that it is prepared to issue, subject to approval of the government as required by law, and upon certain defined conditions, the following export licences:
(a)	a licence to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited to export a maximum of 204 million cubic feet of gas per day near Emerson, Manitoba;
(b)	a further licence to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited to export a maximum of 204 million cubic feet of gas per day, on an interruptible basis, near Niagara Falls, Ontario;
(c)	a licence to Alberta and Southern Gas Company Limited to export a maximum of 458,750,000 cubic feet of gas per day near Kingsgate, British Columbia;
(d)	a licence to Canadian-Montana Pipe Line Company to export a maximum of 36 million cubic feet of gas per day at a point on the boundary near Cardston, Alberta; and
(e)	a licence to Westcoast Transmission Company Limited to export a maximum of 152 million cubic feet of gas per day near Kingsgate, British Columbia.
The board has also stated that is it prepared to issue, subject to approval of the government and upon certain defined conditions, certificates of public convenience and necessity authorizing the construction of pipe lines as follows:
(a)	To Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited for the construction of a 30-inch pipe line from lie des Chenes in Manitoba to the international boundary near Emerson, Manitoba, a distance of approximately 51 miles;
(b)	To Alberta Natural Gas Company for the construction of a 36-inch pipe line from a point in southwestern Alberta to the international boundary near Kingsgate, British Columbia, a total distance of approximately 108 miles;
(c)	To Canadian-Montana Pipe Line Company for the construction of a 16-inch pipe line, approximately three miles in length, in southern Alberta near the international boundary near Cardston, Alberta.
The board estimates that the annual revenue of the exports of gas covered by these licences would amount in all by 1963 to about $75 million. In addition, the development of the fields and the construction of the pipe lines, gathering lines and processing facilities would

involve investments over the next few years amounting to several hundred millions of dollars.
The board considered, but did not approve, an application from Niagara Gas Transmission Limited for a licence to export gas near Cornwall, Ontario, and authority to build a short pipe line for the purpose. The board was not satisfied that the price to be charged by the applicant for the gas proposed to be exported was just and reasonable in relation to the public interest.
In its report upon these applications for licences the board states its finding that, having regard to established reserves and to the trends in the discovery of gas, there is now sufficient gas to meet the reasonably foreseeable requirements for use in Canada and to permit exports on the scale proposed. The board also found that the terms on which the exports will be made under the licences proposed are fair and reasonable.
The government has fully considered this major report of the board and has concluded that the findings and decisions of the board assure the protection of the public interest of Canada and Canadians.
The government has given special attention to the export licence proposed for the Westcoast Transmission company, having in mind the observations made in the first report of the royal commission on energy in 1958, on the existing Westcoast contract for exports at Sumas.
The government has considered the views of the board concerning the increased utilization of the present pipe line operated by Westcoast and the desirability of developing more reserves of gas in northern British Columbia.
When applications are made for the issue of future licences for the export of gas to Pacific coast areas of the United States, a primary consideration the government will have in mind is whether the action proposed will have the effect of increasing the use of the existing Westcoast pipe line and further promoting the development and use of exportable gas reserves in British Columbia. In carrying out such a policy it is expected that as the demand for gas increases in the Pacific areas of the United States, the prices to be obtained from export sales of British Columbia gas will in due course increase substantially, thereby effectively offsetting the unduly low price in the existing export contract entered into in December 1954.
Accordingly the government has decided that it will authorize the issue of such licences and certificates as have been approved by the board and on the terms set



I, 1960

[Stage Direction]
forth in its report. Formal action by the board and the governor in council will be taken as soon as the necessary legal details have been worked out.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house and the country at large will welcome this announcement. There has been a long delay in dealing with these matters because of the time which elapsed before the energy board was set up and the policy in that regard announced. That factor, together with the delay after the energy board was authorized in appointing the board itself, and also the time consumed by the necessary hearings, does make up quite a lapse of time, and I am very sure that now the announcement has been made it will be most welcome to the country at large.
The rather interesting thing here is that the government fortunately has announced the granting of the necessary licences to the company which in earlier days it so vehemently opposed and attacked in this house, and I think it has very effectively vindicated the stand taken by the former government in this regard. I think this is a very good thing for the country at large, as well as for the industry.
The payments which will arise out of this export are also welcome at this time because of the effect they will have on our balance of payments with the United States. That is a very good and important feature, and the licences will provide as well a lift to the internal economy of Canada arising directly out of the necessary development work.
I take it from the minister's announcement that the government has in fact, either wholly or very substantially accepted the findings of the national energy board. It is a happy circumstance to see that that has happened because there was an interesting point which arose so far as the export licences themselves were concerned in that the energy board act gives to the national energy board under section 82 a right to issue the licences. In section 85 it gives the governor in council certain very limited rights to make regulations. Under those limited rights to make regulations the governor in council has seen fit to claim the right to approve the granting of export licences by the board. I doubt very much if the governor in council has that right to take something that parliament did not give it. But in this particular case, as I understand the announcement, the question does not arise because the government is in fact approving the granting of the licences by the board as the board has recommended.
Tabling of Energy Board Report If 1 am right on that point, the question does not arise and I think that is a fortunate circumstance. The point can perhaps be more appropriately and aptly developed on some other occasion.
I think the minister is quite correct in speaking about the lift, if I may use that term, that these licences will give to the economy of Canada at this time when it is needed. It will be a very good thing for the country and the announcement is timely for the reason that the economy, in my view at least, needs this added lift at this time. The minister also gave some indication as to the commodity value of the export in 1963, and that is particularly welcome because it will go a considerable way to help to replace the loss of the uranium export in that year.
It is very difficult to appreciate fully every implication of the remarks contained in the minister's statement, and perhaps there are other parts of his statement on which it would be better to reserve comment. But I think it is appropriate that I should indicate that, as far as we are concerned, we welcome the making of this announcement today.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, speaking for this group in general terms in view of the lack of time to consider the announcement carefully and fully I must say I am sure all hon. members are pleased the minister made the announcement because of the importance of this matter to the Canadian economy.
Without doubt this decision is the result of study of the first major problem that is being given consideration by the energy board. I think it is quite proper to say that all hon. members have confidence in the personnel of the board.
It is obvious from the statement as I heard it that in this instance the government takes final responsibility for the decision. I listened as carefully as possible to mention of the export gas from certain points in Canada with many of which I am not familiar although I am acquainted with Crowsnest and Kingsgate. In view of the representations made by citizens, municipalities and various organizations in places from which gas is to be exported I take it that the interests of potential Canadian consumers with respect to service and price are well protected by this decision and that there is protection with respect to reserves.
We are all human and I suppose it is fair to say that only time and experience will

Business of the House
prove the wisdom of this decision. In the meantime, on behalf of this group I want to say we trust the announcement will mean the decision will result in a major contribution to the economy and consequently to the benefit of the Canadian people.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I make this further announcement. Copies of the report were delivered to the post office at six o'clock and are now available for hon. members. Additional copies are available on order from the queen's printer at a cost of $2 per copy. The queen's printer store will be open on Saturday and is located on MacKenzie avenue across from the Chateau Laurier.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before you see the clock, perhaps just for the record the house leader would tell us what the government proposes that the house should do between now and the Easter adjournment?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Unless some unforeseen
emergency arises, Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to carry on for the next eight days with the debate on the budget which, I presume, will be rather spirited.


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