1960-05-10

STANDING ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
Miss Margaret Ailken (York-Humber)
presented the third and fourth reports of the standing committee on standing orders, and moved that the reports be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, during the past week civil aviation officials of Australia and Canada have been discussing in Ottawa arrangements for air transport services between the two countries. The existing arrangements were settled under a bilateral air agreement of 1946, but both countries felt these arrangements needed adjustment to meet the requirements of Canada-Australia air travellers in the jet age. Qantas already operates Boeing jets on the route to Vancouver, and Canadian Pacific Air Lines is to take delivery of its Douglas DC-8 jets later this year.
Both delegations agreed that there was a need for the closest possible co-operation between Canada and Australia, two leading members of the commonwealth, in the highly important field of international civil aviation. It was agreed that as a first step toward this objective the air carriers concerned, Canadian Pacific Air Lines and Qantas Empire Airways, should consult on mutual ways and means of providing, on a fully co-operative basis, efficient jet air services for Canadian and Australian air travellers. The air lines were instructed to report the result of their talks to their respective governments, which would then arrange for further official talks.
The official delegation discussions in Ottawa took place in an atmosphere of great cordiality, and both sides expressed full satisfaction with the progress made.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the
alarming report which was made by a respected reporter for the Ottawa Journal last evening entitled "Believe Red Spies Fly Over Canada", which in effect states that Russian flights over the Arctic are assumed to have kept an eye on northern development, including the D.E.W. line, can the minister say whether this is a fact and has he any comment to make thereon?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: A very similar question was
answered yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green). On the D.E.W. line there have been from time to time unknowns, but there has never been a case where it has been possible to confirm that any of those unknowns has been a Russian aircraft.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I wish to
address a question to the Minister of National Defence with respect to these unidentified planes which have been sighted over northern Canada. I wonder if the minister could tell us by what means we attempt to identify them?


George Randolph Pearkes: By means of the radar warning system.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that radar equipment cannot distinguish between friend and foe, will the minister tell us whether we have any planes or rockets capable of making an identification at altitudes of 50,000 feet or more?


George Randolph Pearkes: Canada has no planes or rockets capable of detecting aircraft flying over the Arctic ocean or the extreme north of Canada. Of course the radar operators check with the flight plans which have been filed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of the regrettable flight of -a United States plane over Soviet territory and the disturbing report in this morning's Globe and Mail that similar flights are going on even now, before the summit meeting. Can
3724	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the minister say whether representations have been made to Washington asking that such flights be stopped?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would not confirm statements of that kind which appeared in this morning's press. I would think this is rather wild speculation. As I pointed out to the house yesterday, our views with regard to this incident have been made known to the United States government.


Hazen Robert Argue: Has this been done through official channels; through our ambassador in Washington, for instance?


Howard Charles Green: All our views are made known through official channels.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he can outline Canada's proposals for economic assistance to African countries, as mentioned by the Prime Minister last week in London and repeated again today in radio news broadcasts?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the house will be pleased that at the commonwealth prime ministers' conference in London consideration is being given to the possibility of increasing the present level of economic assistance provided by commonwealth countries to Africa. Hon. members will appreciate that since consideration of the proposal made by our own Prime Minister in London has not yet been completed it would not be appropriate for me to give any detailed account at the present time.
I can say, however, that this government has been concerned for some time about the desirability of the commonwealth countries providing the new and emerging nations of Africa with additional economic assistance. What is contemplated is economic aid over and above what commonwealth countries now contribute in Africa. As we all know, Canada at the present time has a program of technical assistance to commonwealth countries in Africa amounting to about $500,000 each year. In addition, of course, the African members of the commonwealth share in the commonwealth scholarship and fellowship plan whereby young people from the various African universities come to universities in Canada and the other nations


of the commonwealth, and possibly Canadian students go to some of the universities in these African countries.
We believe that this initiative in taking further steps to help the nations of the African continent is a very important one, particularly because of the economic and political future of that continent. At the present time I think Africa is the most important continent in the world from the point of view of potential development and potential changes, and with the new nations emerging from time to time it is vitally important so far as the commonwealth is concerned. Nigeria, for example, will become independent on October 1, and I believe that the prime ministers' conference now meeting in London has agreed that Nigeria will be accepted as a full member of the commonwealth. This is certainly a continent to watch and a continent to which all possible assistance should be given.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
Secretary of State for External Affairs a supplementary question. Will this plan, a general outline of which has been given to the house, be related in any way, as is the case with the Colombo plan, to any other country outside the commonwealth as a donor?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, we would hope that other countries would participate in this program, and also possibly the United Nations.



INQUIRY AS TO DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING APARTHEID

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and ask if he is aware of the report from London on "News Roundup" this morning concerning the refusal of South Africa to discuss apartheid at the commonwealth prime ministers' conference, and of the intention of the Afro-Asians to publicly denounce South Africa and vote her out of the commonwealth? Is there any substance to this report, and has the minister anything to say about it?


Howard Charles Green: I believe this is another case of speculation. There has been a good deal of press comment in the United Kingdom and, of course, in Canada as well concerning the question of South Africa in so far as it has been dealt with by the prime ministers' conference. I was in communication with our own Prime Minister this morning and there were informal talks held yesterday on this question. These talks have

not yet been concluded. Any statements such as this are premature, and they probably do not help very much to settle this difficult question.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, based on a little news tidbit.
In view of the announcement in Victoria on May 7 by Premier Bennett that a conference of heads of government and technical officials from Alaska, the Yukon and British Columbia will be held there on July 19, and in view of the fact that there are three government jurisdictions involved including the government of the United States, would the minister inform the house whether the Canadian government is participating in the organization of this conference and, if so, why the announcement of the conference has been made only by Premier Bennett of British Columbia?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government is not involved in this conference in any way. I think this explains the last part of the question, as to why Premier Bennett made the announcement.
According to the information I have, the conference was first suggested by the governor of Alaska, to be held in Alaska. Premier Bennett was unable to attend at that time, and I understand he suggested that the meeting be held in Victoria. The commissioner of the Yukon Territory, who has jurisdiction in the third area, was also invited to attend. The purpose of this conference is stated to be to discuss matters of mutual development. The conference has no official status because neither the government of the United States nor the government of Canada is involved.
(Translation):



PUBLIC SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF queen's PRINTER
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer)?
Could the Solicitor General tell the house for what reasons the government is taking so much time in appointing a successor to Mr. Edmond Cloutier as queen's printer?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Leon Balcer (Solicilor General):: Mr. Speaker, as I have previously stated, this is a matter of general government policy. When a decision is taken, it will be made known to the house.


Azellus Denis: A supplementary question. May I ask the Solicitor General whether the civil service commission or the government itself is responsible for this appointment?


Léon Balcer: It is a responsibility of the government.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, may I put
a question to the Acting Prime Minister with regard to the appointment of a Queen's printer? Could the minister tell us whether there is a prescribed time limit governing this appointment and after which the appointment is automatically abolished?
(Text):


Howard Charles Green: An announcement will be made on this question in due course.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he is able to report on the progress that is being made in the efforts of his department to establish a so-called portable pension plan, especially for industrial workers.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: As I mentioned in a statement before the standing committee on estimates recently, one of the outstanding weaknesses of present industrial pension plans is that they do not provide transferability of pension rights from one employer to another. This is a subject which was commented upon in the Clark report, and which is being studied.
I might point out also that at least one provincial government, that of Ontario, has established a six-member committee to conduct a special study of portable pensions. The findings of this group should be of great value.	[DOT]


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question. Has the government study of the Clark report reached the stage where the government will be able to take some action consistent with its promise to the people at the last general election?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, the government of course is fulfilling its promises as declared at the last general election. As I 79951-0-235
3726	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry have said before, study is being given to the Clark report, and when a decision has been reached the proper course will be followed.



INQUIRY AS TO PURCHASES BY INDIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister any report to make to the house following his conversations reported to have taken place yesterday with the Indian minister of food and agriculture, and more particularly as to whether India has suggested that it wishes to reduce its commercial purchases of wheat from 400,000 tons to 250,000 tons unless a loan can be arranged?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The situation with regard to the sale of wheat by Canada to India is not thoroughly understood. India has not been a commercial market for Canada. That market commercially has been an Australian market. However, over the last three years we have made substantial gifts of wheat to India under the Colombo plan and by special gifts we made an arrangement with India for the purchase of wheat under a long term loan in the 1957-58 crop year and again in 1958-59. All told, in the crop year 1957-58 almost 24 million bushels were disposed of to India under this arrangement, and in 1958-59 just over 11 million bushels. So far as this year is concerned, there has been a gift to India of over 4 million bushels under the Colombo plan, and the purchase arrangement that was reported in the press holds good for this year.
We are looking forward to maintaining our position in the market in India, but it has not been one of our major markets for the sale of wheat. I discussed this matter with Mr. Patil, and he quite agreed that the position of Australia, their major supplier on a commercial basis and the position of Canada, a minor supplier on a commercial basis, should be maintained.
He also pointed out to me that India is a rice-eating country, and that if they had the funds available they would be purchasing rice instead of wheat. He further made the point that in the consumption of wheat in India, preference has been for the soft wheat which is the type produced in Australia and largely by the United States. The Indian family, instead of getting flour from a flour mill, purchases this wheat and grinds it


up at home. That is something that is not so easily done with the very hard Manitoba northern wheat which is the customary type we sell abroad. That is the situation with regard to Canada's assistance to India pertaining to wheat.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Since the United States have now developed a market in India for roughly 150 million bushels a year for a four-year period and Canada's market, as the minister has said, one year recently was almost 24 million bushels, are any steps being taken to develop the market in India for noncommercial wheat, particularly some of Canada's lower grades?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That matter is under serious consideration. We are anxious to assist India, one of our commonwealth partners, in these difficult years with regard to India's food supply. We are giving serious consideration to that aspect of it in the nature of gifts of wheat and flour not only to India but to Pakistan and Ceylon.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, and I apologize for not having sent him notice.
I wonder if the minister's attention has been drawn to a newspaper article in this morning's Globe and Mail which indicates that the Toronto city council alleges that the Canada Cement Company Limited, the St. Mary's Cement Company Limited, the St. Lawrence Cement Company Limited and the Lake Ontario Portland Cement Company Limited have been engaged in a price fixing arrangement both this year and last year with respect to the price of cement, and also to the effect that a similar arrangement exists in Vancouver with respect to other firms. I should like to ask the minister whether this will be brought to the attention of the director of investigation and research in order that inquiries may be undertaken.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: did not notice the article in the Globe and Mail today, but I am certain it will be brought to the attention of the director. If the Toronto city council feels the concern which is apparently indicated in the article, I am hopeful it will also get in touch with the director.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As
somewhat of a conservative-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -so far as works of art and beauty are concerned, I want to ask the Minister of Public Works a question prompted by the shock I received on taking an after lunch constitutional around this building with a gentleman of the fourth estate. I wish to ask the minister this question. Who ordered the scouring and consequent desecration of the monuments on parliament hill, and what is the reason for this unusual and unique treatment of bronze monuments?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: I cannot give the hon. gentleman the real answer to his question-it would not be polite-but may I thank him for his question and say that from one who calls himself a conservative it is delightful to have these examples of poetic licence in which he usually indulges and in which he has indulged again today. Perhaps, some time, he could frame his question in blank verse.
Knowing that we have many connoisseurs in this house, before attempting the much-needed cleaning of these monuments we sought the advice of the national research council, of which the hon. gentleman is a great admirer, and after considering many alternative methods we decided on this expert method of cleaning which, I am sure, will work out to the satisfaction of even the hon. member for Kootenay West.
(Translation):



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Arlha-baska):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General? Further to the promises made in 1957 and 1958 to the effect that a bridge would be built between Three Rivers and Ste. Angele as soon as a Conservative government was in power, could he tell us what stage discussions have reached in that connection?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the bridge between Ste. Angele and Three Rivers is one that local people are anxious to see built; and if my hon. friend will refer to local newspapers, he will see 79951-0-235i
Inquiries of the Ministry what great progress has been accomplished in the matter.


Samuel Boulanger: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is it not the minister's opinion that the bridge should be built at this time when there is such widespread unemployment in our area?


Léon Balcer: I think that construction of that bridge will be very useful, and the sooner it can be undertaken the better.
(Text):



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: May I direct a question to the Postmaster General. During his trip to France did the hon. gentleman have an opportunity of meeting the French postmaster general and, if so, did he take the opportunity to discuss measures to be taken in order to stop robberies of post offices?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Unfortunately my time in Paris and in France was devoted to other matters-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Lionel Chevrier: Give us the details.


William McLean Hamilton: -also of an official nature, which required to be attended to on a certain date. Immediately those were over I returned to Canada because I did not want to miss a moment of my association with the hon. gentleman opposite while this house was sitting. Perhaps on another occasion when this house is not sitting I shall be able to return to France and meet the postmaster general there.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Revenue. I had intended to ask it yesterday, and today the minister is not here. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary will take it as notice.
Could we have a comment confirming or denying the sensational story about Ottawa studying tax files in connection with the exemption from taxation of charitable donations?
3728	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: think everyone has seen that story. The figures used may be obtained from the annual report of the department. As to the observations made by the author of the article, I do not know the source, but at the moment I would not care to say anything beyond that which the minister is reported to have said. If there is further comment to be made he will undoubtedly make it.



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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, May 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) for the second reading of Bill No. C-56, to amend the Federal-Provincial TaxSharing Arrangements Act.
(Translation):
Mr. J. P. Deschaleleis (Malsonneuve-Rose-mont):: Mr. Speaker, when this debate was adjourned last Thursday evening, I was saying that in 1956 an important amendment was introduced by the St. Laurent government, whereby not only were grants to universities doubled but provision was made for the accumulation of funds in case a university decided to refuse them temporarily. Therefore, if $25 million are now available to our universities, it is because of the legislation introduced by the St. Laurent government. One can not speak highly enough of the wisdom, the foresight and the courage of the previous Liberal government which staved off financial disaster from our universities. I might point out to our Conservative friends from Quebec that if, in 1951 and in 1956, negative autonomists of the type of the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) had been in office, not only would our universities now be unable to take advantage of those $25 million, but we would have to speak in the past tense of French universities outside the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, a great many views have been expressed on the constitutional legality of those university grants, but no authorized court has ever rendered a decision on this matter. For this reason, I am not afraid and I am even proud to support the view, so often expressed by Mr. St. Laurent, that those grants do not encroach upon the autonomy


of the provinces. It is easy to understand that I much prefer the views expressed by an authority on constitutional law like Mr. St. Laurent to the changeable opinion of the former Quebec premier who said one thing in 1951 and then said the opposite later on.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that I have my doubts concerning the constitutional opinions expressed during this debate by our Conservative friends from Quebec, reminded as I am that, during many debates on constitutional matters in the past, they changed their minds as they did their shirts, and maybe for the same reasons.
Now, what about the constitutional position of Bill C-56? It must be remembered that this bill is the result of many caucuses held last fall between our Conservative friends from Quebec and the Minister of Finance. It was then they laid this twin-yolked egg.
Bill C-56 involves two, well defined jurisdictions. Provincial jurisdiction is subordinated to the federal one in the case of a provincial tax collected by a provincial legislature for provincial purposes.
In this bill, Mr. Speaker, a rather unusual and extraordinary term is set down, stipulating that the Minister of Finance is to be the sole judge of agreements entered into by a provincial government and universities. In other words no one but the federal Minister of Finance can decide whether or not the agreement between a provincial government and a university is satisfactory, from his point of view.
It is clear, when you read the bill, that, as the provincial elections drew near the Quebec provincial government got panicky and unfortunately managed to transmit its panic to this government, with the result that we now have before us a bill drafted in involved legal gobbledygook, a bill which, on the face of it, raises a very obvious constitutional problem.
That is why, before the bewilderment and panic which have gripped our Conservative friends, I quoted last Thursday a thought expressed by an ancient author and which, I believe, applies to this case, when I said:
Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.
Mr. Speaker, this bill therefore sanctions an interference and an encroachment, on the part of the federal government, about a direct tax levied by provincial authorities, and if we carefully scrutinize the speeches made by some Conservative members from Quebec, we may observe some reticence, some doubt and a deep concern about this bill.

May I be allowed, first of all, to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion) on April 26 last. The hon. member could not help expressing his deep concern when he said, as recorded on page 16 of the English appendix to Hansard of that date:
While the Minister of Finance has the right to
satisfy himself that the arrangements reached between the provinces and their universities are truly consistent with the requirements of the act-
Mr. Speaker, I say that the hon. member for Bellechasse himself recognized that, in order to ensure the proper operation of this act, the presence of the Minister of Finance was absolutely necessary, because he is the one who judges whether such agreement is satisfactory or not.
I now refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) on May 5 last. In my opinion, the hon. member is assailed by doubt, and is trying to appease his conscience when he says, as recorded on page 9 of the English appendix to Hansard for May 5:
Even if this bill is less than perfect, it remains that we have only two years to experience its constitutional effects and, in 1962, the authorities concerned will be free to accept it permanently or to reject it if its constitutionality is seriously questioned.
As regards the extravagant speech made by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay), which is recorded on page 16 of the English appendix to Hansard for May 5, it is indeed a feat, a great accomplishment; the hon. member managed to use up all his time in dealing with a given subject and yet completely avoided talking about the legality, the constitutionality of Bill C-56.
Mr. Speaker, I now come to the speech made by the	Solicitor	General (Mr. Balcer) on April 26, 1960. I am very glad to note that he is now in his seat, and I will try to sum up in three points the speech he made that day.
First of all, the Solicitor General said that this bill was, in his opinion, a compromise.
Second,	the	Solicitor	General	discussed the St. Laurent formula, which he rejected as he had in the past. Here is what he said on the subject, as reported on page 3284 of Hansard:
Such a piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, which
had the effect of isolating Quebec, was of course unsatisfactory and even harmful to national unity.
After the Solicitor General had completed his remarks, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) asked him the following question:
Dominion-Provincial Relations
Would the hon. minister allow me a question?
Why did he not vote against grants to universities in 1951 and 1957?
And here is the reply of the Solicitor General, as reported on page 3288:
Mr. Speaker, I do not remember about 1951, but I recall having been the only member to vote against them in 1957.
Mr. Speaker, I shall be dealing with those statements of the Solicitor General in a moment.
At this stage of my remarks, I should like to answer a ridiculous claim made by the Solicitor General when he said, as recorded on page 3288 of Hansard:
-any legislation which finds its place in only nine provinces out of ten and is not acceptable to the tenth province leaves a very grave doubt as to its constitutionality.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member is reading from another debate of this session, not this debate.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: If you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the point you have raised-


Mr. Speaker:: I find that this speech was delivered-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: If you will allow me, on the point you have just raised, I would point out that I am quoting extracts from the speech made by the Solicitor General a few days ago. I am reading from Hansard of April 26, 1960 at page 3436. These are the exact words used by the Solicitor General.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, if that is the case, the hon. member is entitled to proceed; but my record of this debate shows that the Solicitor General spoke and was recorded at page 3284 of this debate, and that was the reason I raised the point.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I have reference to the French version.


Mr. Speaker:: Oh, it is the French version; very good.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the Sollicitor General stated that:
-any legislation which finds its place in only nine provinces out of ten and is not acceptable to the tenth province leaves a very grave doubt as to its constitutionality.
Let us be logical, Mr. Speaker, and let us dispose of the legal opinion advanced by the Solicitor General in the statement I have just quoted. If it is true that a piece of legislation is of doubtful constitutionality if it is accepted by only nine provinces out of ten, why then did he two days ago,

Dominion-Provincial Relations support the estimates on the trans-Canada highway, when he knows quite well that only the province of Quebec is not getting any of the funds voted for that highway?
I could also direct the same question to every Conservative member from the province of Quebec.
Having said this, Mr. Speaker, I should now like to deal with an extremely serious point concerning the Solicitor General, indeed one of the most serious points raised since the beginning of this session. The Solicitor General has stated that the St. Laurent formula was unconstitutional, and that he had voted against it. Moreover, he has said that when a piece of legislation applies only to nine provinces out of ten, its constitutionality is questionable. Well, I have here a book entitled "Keith's British Cabinet System", by Arthur Berriedale Keith, D.C.L., LL.D., D. LITT., F.B.A. On page 92 of this book, there is a paragraph under the heading "The Doctrine of Collective Responsibility", which reads as follows:
(Text):
It is essential to the modem cabinet system that responsibility should be collective. Lord Salisbury expressed this clearly:
"For all that passes in cabinet each member of it who does not resign is absolutely and irretrievably responsible, and has no right afterwards to say that he agreed in one case to a compromise, while in another he was persuaded by his colleagues.
It is only on the principle that absolute responsibility is undertaken by every member of the cabinet who, after a decision is arrived at, remains a member of it, that the joint responsibility of ministers to parliament can be upheld, and one of the most essential principles of parliamentary responsibility established."
Matters are discussed in cabinet, and a decision taken. It then becomes binding on every member of the cabinet and, of course, on every minister outside the cabinet. He must vote for the government's view if a vote is taken in parliament, he must, if called upon, defend the decision, he must not excuse himself on the score that he was outvoted. If he does not consent to take responsibility, he must resign-
(Translation):
And now, Mr. Speaker, I wish-


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A cabinet minister has to assume his responsibilities-


An hon. Member:: Does the minister wish to resign?


Lionel Chevrier: There is an argument, for you.


Léon Balcer: A minister must assume
responsibility for the legislation and acts of the government, and that is what I am doing. I have been glad to do so and, for this reason, I support this resolution.
[Mr. Deschatelets.l
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order here.


Mr. Speaker:: I have been endeavouring to discover what was the minister's point of order. I had some difficulty in following him.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I go on to
page 94, where the author says this:
(Text):
... but a ministry made up of men without common principles, held together by little more than the desire for office, would speedily lack power and cohesion.
(Translation):
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). For the few moments I shall address him, I would like him to listen very carefully, because this concerns him as well as the Solicitor General.
Here is my question: I would ask the Minister of Finance, when he closes the debate, to tell us exactly what he thinks of the point that has just been raised.
The Solicitor General states that when legislation applies in nine provinces out of ten, its constitutionality becomes doubtful.
If it is true, as I have proved, that the Solicitor General maintains that Mr. St. Laurent's formula, based on equalization, is unconstitutional; if it is true that the Solicitor General, as I have also shown, voted against that bill, since the legislation is contained word for word in Bill No. C-56 now before us, I ask the Minister of Finance whether he approves or disapproves the attitude of the Solicitor General; and if the Minister of Finance disapproves that attitude, I shall ask the following question: Which of the two will now resign, and when?
I now ask the Minister of Finance, if he does share, in the matter of ministerial responsibility, the ridiculous views advanced by the Solicitor General, when will they both resign?
Now, from the angle of departmental responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, I would like to complete my argument, and, with your permission, I shall again refer to page 95 of this book, where the author says:
(Text):
If he does not consent to take responsibility, he must resign, as did Lord Russell in 1855, Mr. Forster in 1882-
(Translation):
There is also a list of the few statesmen who, to uphold the principle they held to, resigned because their views were not shared by the majority of the cabinet. Also, may I

recall that, under the former Liberal government, some years ago, Mr. Cardin, who was then minister of public works, and Mr. Powers who was minister of national defence (air), seeing that they could not agree with the opinion of the majority of the cabinet members, were logical and resigned.


Léon Balcer: I approve the present legislation.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: When we read the speech made by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) on May 4, 1960-but 1 must say, first of all, that on constitutional matters the hon. member for Sherbrooke is the leader of the Conservatives of the province of Quebec-we easily see how he feels about section 9A, because, according to page 3549 of Hansard, he said:
Could the minister consider right now the possibility of amending section 9A (b) (ii) by replacing the following expression:
-satisfactory arrangements exist in the opinion of the minister.
By the following expression
-satisfactory arrangement exist in the opinion the minister.
And the hon. member for Sherbrooke goes much further when he states:
It is true that the act on which this bill is based already gives the Minister of Finance exorbitant powers. Nevertheless it is distasteful-
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that he uses the strong word "distasteful".
-that the federal minister should act as arbitrator and be the only one to have a say on the value of the said agreements.
There we have the proof that our Conservative friends from Quebec are utterly confused, as a result of the constitutional myth which they themselves created with their provincial leaders in 1952, regarding the formula of the federal government, after they had accepted it in 1951.
Now that there is the Barrette-Diefenbaker axis, we realize the embarrassment of our Conservative friends from Quebec because already in their own speeches, we find confirmation of the fact that the attitude taken by the Liberal government of Mr. St. Laurent, not only did not encroach upon provincial autonomy, but was an indication of a courageous, farsighted and wise government.
(Text):


Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resiigouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say a few words by way of congratulation to the federal government and the government of the province of Quebec for having resolved this problem which has held up the progress of the universities of the province of Quebec for many years. What is happening in this
Dominion-Provincial Relations debate? It is evident that the Liberal party is trying to take this matter and make it into a campaign issue in the forthcoming provincial election in Quebec.


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: You are a Social Crediter.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Never. Mr. Lesage, the Liberal leader in the province of Quebec, who sat in the cabinet of the former government when Mr. Mackenzie King and Mr. St. Laurent rocked and rolled the Canadian confederation, is the very man who now wishes to try to convince the people of Quebec that he is all out for autonomy even at the expense of the universities.
The main reason I should like to say a few words this afternoon is that I have in my riding a French speaking university, St. Louis University at Edmundston. I know of the tremendous work done there, of the sacrifice and devotion of the professors who have given and dedicated their lives to education. I also know that the university now gets only a pittance by way of aid. Until this year they were receiving in grants approximately $12,500. That amount has been increased this year by 25 per cent, but what they receive is still a pittance. Such grants are not nearly enough, and they do not permit the universities to do the job they wish to do and have to do. Any action by the government in the direction of helping the universities is most welcome.
In passing may I say that the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), who have taken the initiative in this matter, as well as the late Hon. Maurice Duplessis and the late Hon. Paul Sauve, former premiers of Quebec, and the present premier, Mr. Barrette, deserve the highest commendation; and they are getting that commendation from 99 per cent of the Canadian population and from every serious citizen of the province of Quebec who believes in the progress of education throughout the country.
When I think of the late Mackenzie King and look across the floor of the house and realize whom he had as an adviser, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), then I certainly do not blame him for crossing the waters and getting his advice from the voices of the grave by holding hands around a seance table.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid the hon. member is departing from the subject matter of this discussion.


An hon. Member:: As usual.

Dominion-Provincial Relations


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, this has to do with the advice we are getting from the leaders of the Liberal party on the other side of the house.


Augustin Brassard: You are a Social Crediter.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am for Restigouche-Madawaska first.


Augustin Brassard: And Social Credit.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have nothing to do with Social Credit. I have nothing to do with any other party, but I can tell hon. members right now that when it comes to helping education and universities I have always maintained that governments have never done enough. That applies to the government of the province of New Brunswick just as much as it did to this government and as it does to the government of the province of Quebec. But of all the governments in the country, which government is now taking the initiative in giving consideration to education and the help that is merited, if not the government of the province of Quebec? That is one reason why in the forthcoming election you will see that the Union Nationale government will be returned to office with a bigger than ever majority.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understood the hon. member to begin his address by remarking that the Quebec election campaign was being introduced into this house and that he disapproved of that practice. I hope he will continue to disapprove of it by not referring to that matter himself.


Augustin Brassard: What about Place Ville Marie?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is a big success, for your information. The plight of the universities is essentially the subject matter of this debate. One purpose I have in saying a few words this afternoon is to let the government of the province of New Brunswick know that unless more effective, positive and helpful steps are taken to assist universities such as St. Louis University in Edmundston, Sacred Heart University in Bathurst, St. Thomas university in Chatham and Mount Allison University in Sackville, they will be faced with serious and insurmountable problems. They are unable to pay the salaries necessary to get the teachers they need. The people who teach in these universities do so at great sacrifice, in many cases receiving no salaries but merely getting a subsistence allowance for their life's work.
I wish to refer to what I said at the NATO conference in 1958:	"So long as lack of
money denies the opportunity to our young

people to develop the talents that God gave them and to pursue the vocations for which they are endowed, so long as money prevents our young people from doing that, we as parliamentarians are not doing our job and are not being faithful to those on whom the future of Canada depends". In this day of automation, in this day when national defence has become so paramount and we are so dependent upon scientists and others with technical training, are we to sit back and let this country go ahead without giving more help to our universities by placing at their disposal the necessary funds? Let us not forget that one of the main reasons for the unemployment problem today is that many people are not trained, and one solution that should be included in the consideration of factors that will relieve the temporary unemployment each year is education, not only vocational education but technical education. We need more trained men in this country in order to marshal the assets of Canada into more productive wealth and provide jobs for our people. Yet here we are, pussyfooting around, trying to make a political issue for Mr. Lesage in his forthcoming election, when we should be discussing methods of giving more effective help to our universities and to our young people.
I have long been an advocate of the establishment of a national scholarship fund, in co-operation with the provinces, so their constitutional rights will be protected. This has not come about. So long as we deny our young people the right to an education merely because they lack funds, and that is what it amounts to today; so long as we continue to ignore the growing needs of these universities; so long as we deny our students the opportunity to pursue their education as far as their talents will permit them; so long as we refuse to come to grips with this most urgent problem, then I maintain we are not doing our job.
Over the week end I had an opportunity of speaking to the rectors of two universities very near my riding. One of their problems is that next year they cannot get professors. They cannot get professors because they cannot afford to pay them the commensurate salaries. Of course the members of religious orders, the secular priests who look after St. Thomas university, are very willing to sacrifice their lives to education. The discouraging thing which they have to endure is the fact that students leave their schools because they do not have the money to finish their courses, and the fact that they see facilities being denied because of a lack of money. This condition is all the more difficult to bear in view of the fact that the last government wasted some $600 million in developing

an aircraft that did not fly. When we see the money that is made available for defence and think how defence is related to scientific education, how can we stop short of a solution to this problem of education?
One purpose in rising this afternoon is to urge this government, by every possible means, to undertake the establishment of a national scholarship fund and to take another look at the plight of the universities, especially those universities whose enrolment may be under 600 or 700 students, what are commonly called the smaller universities. I maintain that it is of the greatest importance that we give this problem the consideration it merits, and that we do so at this session. For that purpose I would suggest and urge that, as the late Paul Sauve did in the province of Quebec, we call together the heads of all the universities in Canada and let them present briefs to us outlining their problems and spelling out their needs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have allowed the hon. member a good deal of latitude beyond the scope of the present bill, but I do hope that he will not abuse the privilege but will confine his remarks to the question of university grants under this bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am about to conclude, Mr. Speaker. My main purpose in rising was to try to dispel a few misconceptions that are creeping into this debate in order to make a political issue in the province of Quebec. One of the reasons we have 50 Conservative members from the province of Quebec is that the people felt sure that by sending Conservative members to Ottawa a solution would be found to the problem of the universities in Quebec. It was for that reason that a great many of these people gave the Conservative candidates in Quebec such majorities. This agreement never would have been possible under a Liberal government. This agreement is now an accomplished fact. This agreement passed the test of legality. It had been referred to the most eminent legal minds in the country, and their findings have been taken into very serious consideration by this government.
Let us not forget the plight of the universities, and let us spend more time dealing not only with the plight of our universities but with the plight of our young people who cannot afford an education. Let us get on with this plan.


Augustin Brassard: Would the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska permit a question? Will he assure the house that he will be here for the rest of the session, after having delivered a provocative political speech?
79951-0-236
Dominion-Provincial Relations


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question does not seem to relate to the bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I think it does deserve an answer, Mr. Speaker. I did not hear it, so would the hon. member mind repeating his question? The only time I have not been in this house was when I was in the hospital.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question was out of order.


Augustin Brassard: It is on the
record; you can read it.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has concluded his speech, and I have recognized the hon. member for Port Arthur.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have some timidity in getting into this electoral campaign because of some remarks made previously in this debate by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey). I want to give the hon. member the opportunity to carry out his silent treatment by taking my time in commencing my remarks so he can leave if he wishes to do so. During the resolution stage of this measure I made some remarks in connection with this matter, and consequently there were certain reactions in various quarters. I do not intend to try to put any gloss on the remarks I made at that particular time. I still stand behind them.
I do feel that the argument has reached the stage now where the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), supported by other members of the Liberal party, is urging the unconstitutionality of this amendment, and that we should have an assurance from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and other ministers of the crown that they are positive it is constitutional.


Augustin Brassard: We said we have doubts.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. member has interjected that they have doubts. I think the hon. member for Laurier was more positive than that, as positive as a politician can be in talking about something as sacred as the constitution.
The main reply for the government up to this stage of the debate has been from the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer), and it seemed to me he was putting forward a theory which, in effect, meant two constitutions. In my opinion, and in the opinion of my associates, we are not too clear, as a result of the crossfire, as to the constitutionality of the bill. As the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) put it, we are in favour of any measure that

Dominion-Provincial Relations will lead to the financial support of the universities, whether they be in Quebec or any other province. We are strongly in support of the general principle of the bill. We will be very interested in the amendments which the Liberals have promised us they are going to introduce to see if they can tidy up the bill and make it more constitutional.
One of the most distinguished contributors to this debate, the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Dorion), spent a considerable time trying to show, in contradistinction to the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge), that the fathers of confederation had universities in mind, that they were aware of the universities' existence. The hon. member for Bellechasse also argued that we have a pact or treaty in confederation because the fathers of confederation, especially Sir John A. Macdonald, used the words "treaty" and "pact" a number of times. I should like the hon. member for Bellechasse and the other members who have read the confederation debates to search those debates and find one single case where the word "universities" is used. I do not think they can find it.
I believe the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) has made this point, which surely seems to me to add some validity and worth to the argument; that if you are going to preoccupy yourself with what was in the minds of the fathers of confederation, it is then valid and worthy to argue that they did not have in mind cutting out universities or assigning university education of the type of which he talked specifically or practically, in any kind of watertight compartment, to the provinces.
The contribution I wish to make at this stage is derivative. I want to read a few paragraphs from a commentary on law and policy by a distinguished Canadian academician, namely Professor J. A. Corry. I hope this intellectual analysis will be of assistance to people like the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) who dealt with federalism, and I think this will be in order in so far as this is a federal-provincial arrangement. Professor Corry in his book states as follows:
The definition of federalism which the Anglo-American world has found meaningful because for a long time it accorded with our experience is as follows:	general and regional governments of
co-ordinate and mutually exclusive authority ruling over the same persons and the same territory under the close surveillance of a court. We have seen enough of the tribulations of federalism in the last twenty five years to ask why the founding fathers ever believed that structures so defined could be made to work. If we keep their assumptions in mind, we can see that they would have given something like the following answer in 1789, and again in 1867:
The provinces, or states, as the case may be, will live largely self-contained lives, after the fashion


of provinces in the past. They will have to submit to only a few dictates of the national government in foreign trade, foreign policy and like matters. The electorates, both national and provincial, jealous of individual freedom and wanting little from governments of any kind, will be watchful to keep governments from extending their activities. Restricted in their functions in this way, governments will not run foul of one another. Economic and social life, left to itself, will find its own harmony in freedom. If governments from time to time forget themselves, and trespass one on the exclusive sphere of the other, the courts will declare such trespasses unconstitutional. Where confusion arises about the exact extent of exclusive spheres of legislative authority, the courts will define exactly and clearly the precise limits of federal and provincial legislative power. Both unity and diversity will flourish in harmony under the reign of the constitution and the law.
This is the ideal picture Professor Corry projects as being in the minds of the fathers of confederation. He then goes on to state as follows:
The greater part of these expectations have been proved false. The provinces have been pulled out of their self-satisfied isolation into dependence on national and international markets. Electorates, it has turned out, want more and more from governments. Both national and provincial governments have expanded their activities out of all recognition. In the course of doing so, they have often found themselves in conflict with one another, and partly because of this have been drawn into a great range of co-operative and interlocking ventures. They even co-operate now in draining the pockets of the taxpayer.
I think that comment is very relevant in terms of this agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member goes further may I say that I am afraid he is setting a bad precedent by reading at length such generalities, which he has not applied at all to the debate in question. If there is a sentence or two which he actually wants to have on the record I am sure the house would not object, but to read long extracts of generalities about the federal system is a precedent that I should not like to see established. That is why I have intervened.


Douglas Mason Fisher: My reason for doing so, Mr. Speaker, is that at least 15 times or 20 times in this particular debate, as it has proceeded up until now, I have been attacked from a number of sources on my view of constitutionalism within confederation. I was trying to lay the groundwork. I think I am coming to what you mean. Professor Corry says:
Classical federalism in the Anglo-American mode, as I shall call the federalism I defined at the outset, is not really workable in the age in which we live ... It has been transformed into what is called co-operative federalism, or the new federalism.
That argument that we no longer have classic federalism but co-operative federalism it seems to me finds recognition in the very kind of bill that we are about to pass

here, or at least that I expect we hope we are going to pass. It is to make a plea for the recognition of this co-operative federalism on the part of members of the house that I rose to speak today. I should like to suggest in closing that the famous quotation or remark of John Donne in his "Devotions XVII'' can be applied here with the substitution of the word "province" or the word "man": "no province is an island, entire of itself; every province is a piece of the continent, a part of the main."


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take only two or three minutes in discussing this matter. As hon. members know, Yukon is not yet a province but is approaching the day when it will have provincial status. At the last session of the Yukon legislative council motion No. 20 was passed by the council, in words to the following effect:
That two members of council be chosen to represent the people of the territory at the forthcoming dominion-provincial fiscal conference scheduled for July 25 to 27.
This resolution passed with the support of all members of the legislative council. Because it involved the expenditure of funds it required the approval of the commissioner of the Yukon Territory. In a letter to the Speaker of the Yukon legislative council the commissioner states as follows:
I have discussed the proposal with Ottawa and agree that it would be unwise for the Yukon to be represented at this conference. The two territories have a considerably better financial deal with the federal government than do provinces and their special position might well be endangered if they were represented at this conference.
I am diametrically opposed to the opinion of the commissioner which he states to the Speaker of the Yukon legislative council in this instance. It is only right and proper that there should be some representation at these fiscal conferences from the people of the Yukon. As I say, the council passed this resolution without any opposition whatsoever. They did it with the thought in mind, as explained to me, that members of the council should attend some of these conferences-and here I am quoting the Speaker of the Yukon legislative council:
-if only for the benefit of obtaining greater knowledge and learning the hard steps ahead before we gain provincial status-[DOT]
I rose simply to say that the attitude of the administration in the Yukon in this regard is a very poor one, is a negative one and one that should be corrected. I rose to lend my wholehearted support to the request of the representatives of the people of Yukon to be represented at this conference, even if it is only as observers.
79951-0-236J
Dominion-Provincial Relations (Translation):


Mr. Maurice Johnson (Chambly-Rouville):: Mr. Speaker, after hearing a digest of Conservative members' speeches presented in a "La Reforme" style by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets), I think I am justified in starting to express my views on this bill by a reference to the speech made on this matter by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) on April 26 last. I think I am not betraying his thinking if I sum up all his arguments in this way.
His remarks were an attempt to justify the arguments advanced by the former federal member for Montmagny-L'Islet, who has since become leader of the provincial Liberal party of Quebec. It had been claimed by Mr. Lesage that Bill C-56 made the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) the arbiter between the provinces and their own universities. The hon. member for Laurier went further by casting doubt on the constitutionality of that legislation. If the hon. member for Laurier was right in terming the act unconstitutional, if the provisions of the legislation implied a delegation of powers, and if that delegation of powers was contrary to the constitution, we would be forced to the conclusion that all fiscal arrangements between the federal government and the provinces since 1945 were likewise unconstitutional.
If that was the legal position of those tax rental arrangements, what else is there for us to do but pass a bill extending the tax sharing act until 1962, that is until the whole matter is reviewed at a federal-provincial conference that would finally settle the problem. That, to my mind, is the principle of Bill C-56, with the following variation:
1.	Amendments to the said legislation by this bill provide a machinery whereby the federal government will be allowed to continue until 1962 obligations announced by the former government with regard to Canadian universities. We should remember that regardless of the form in which federal grants have been made so far, the fact remains that, morally, the federal government has undertaken first with regard to individual universities and then with respect to the Canadian conference of universities and the Canadian universities foundation to pay each year a certain grant, the amount of which could be raised or lowered unilaterally by the federal government.
2.	Until 1962, universities will receive a set amount on which they can count. Moreover, in all provinces where there is a provincial
3736	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations system of university grants, the total sum which is equal to $1.50 per capita, that is, in each "prescribed province"-to use the very terms of the legislation-corporations taxable in that province under provincial law will benefit on their income from a federal tax exemption equal to that amount.
The principle of the bill is therefore as follows:
1.	The application of chapter 29 of the 1956 statutes, 4-5 Elizabeth II, will be extended until 1962.
2.	The province of Quebec and any other province that will levy on corporations a tax amounting up to 10 per cent of the federal tax will constitute, under the act a "prescribed" province if, on the other hand, there exists in that province an arrangement whereby it pays grants to its universities on the basis of at least $1.50 per capita.
Since it has been in office, the Conservative government has had to solve many problems left unsolved by the Liberal government. Nobody can, in good faith, blame it if it was compelled to put off until this session legislation designed to remedy a situation brought about by the Liberal government in relation to federal grants to universities.
Can the government be fairly blamed for introducing compromise legislation? Not a compromise with the government of the province of Quebec, but a compromise between the opinion of the people of Quebec, who consider as unconstitutional any form of federal grants to universities, and the opinion of Canadians in general of other provinces, who consider that the federal government has responsibilities and duties towards Canadian universities.
In other words, what is this government doing if not taking into account, in this bill, the objections put forth by Quebec?
Can the government be fairly blamed for taking into account also the opinion and requirements of the majority of the people of Canada?
That is the heart of the problem, Hr. Speaker. I humbly submit that too many Canadians are unaware of the basic elements of the Canadian fact, when they suggest solutions to a national problem. Too many Canadians are unaware of the fact that there are, in Canada, two cultures, two modes of thought very different one from the other. Our Liberal friends argue that Canadian universities in general made their needs known to the Massey commission. But that


was precisely the basic mistake of the Massey report: it attempted to codify the standards of a Canadian culture and to make an inventory of the means to finance it, without taking into account the constitutional problems that the suggested solutions were likely to involve.
Having ignored the fundamental requirements of our federative system, when they sought to implement the recommendations of the Massey commission about universities, the Liberals created a new problem which further complicated that of federal-provincial fiscal relations. The Liberals knew they would meet with opposition from the Quebec government. Why then did they not try to establish a system that would have made allowance for this opposition which, in those circumstances, was legitimate? Having committed itself in this way, the Liberal government held fast to its position, and never tried to introduce legislation that would establish a system which would take into account the objections of Quebec and the requirements of the population of the other provinces. It was the great merit of this government that it took into account those views which, let us admit it, are diametrically opposed.
What is the attitude the Liberals would want us to take? To please them we would have to denounce this bill and, consequently, reject the compromise. What would be the consequences if we were to reject this compromise? They would accuse us of trying to thrust our views upon the rest of the country.
Mr. Speaker, we will certainly not play into the hands of the Liberals. We stick to our views concerning the unconstitutionality of federal grants to universities, but we appreciate that the federal government could not cease to offer grants to Quebec universities without legislating in such a way that Quebec taxpayers, in this case the corporations subject to the provincial corporation income tax, would not be doubly taxed.
On the other hand, the central government, in view of its fiscal agreements with the nine other provinces of Canada, could not offer a solution that would have had the effect of throwing its whole system of tax agreements out of balance before it expires in 1962.
There was only one way out, namely to offer an alternative to every province. What Liberals regard as a limitation placed on the autonomy of the provinces is only, in fact, a provision designed to preserve the fiscal balance provided by the act on arrangements between the government and other provinces of the country. Moreover, and I emphasize this, this act is valid only until 1962.



I960

[Stage Direction]
It cannot be claimed that certain provisions of this act constitute a delegation of power from the provincial governments to the federal government.
First, with regard to the province of Quebec, the federal government legislates on the basis of known facts. There is already in the statutes of that province a special act providing for special aid to the universities, the amount of which is equivalent to $1.75 per capita of provincial population. On the other hand, the Quebec legislature, at its last session, passed an act amending the corporation tax legislation. The direct tax payable by corporations coming under this act now equals 10 per cent of their federal tax. As a result, those corporations are threatened with double taxation, because the deduction allowed by the central government has so far been equal to 9 per cent of the federal tax.
The central government has therefore decided to reduce the assessment of this group of taxpayers by an amount equivalent to the increase provided for by the amended provincial legislation. As far as the province of Quebec is concerned, it matters little whether the federal government legislates in one way or another, because, on the one hand, the provincial legislature had asserted its autonomy through the enactment of an item of legislation providing for more substantial grants to universities than are offered by the federal government under the St. Laurent formula, that is to say the equivalent of $1.75 per capita of population in the province. On the other hand, Quebec universities have received the amounts that had been earmarked for them and have immediately handed them over to the provincial government. There remained for the federal government to provide machinery to stop the payment of any federal funds to Quebec universities, without at the same time punishing Quebec taxpayers.
The present legislation meets this need. The Quebec government is not a party to a federal-provincial agreement. It does not even have to consider such agreements. On the other hand, on the federal side, it was necessary to amend the legislation on tax arrangements between Canada and the provinces in such a way as to provide for a parallel deduction equal to the amounts set aside under the old system by the federal government for the Quebec universities. The only way to do that was to set up compensation machinery working in a parallel direction with the deductibility formula provided under chapter 29 of the 1956 statutes.
Dominion-Provincial Relations How, then, could the parallelism be established without ratifying, under the act, a preexisting fact that it would be the Minister of Finance's responsibility to ascertain?
Second, as far as the other provinces are concerned, the act should leave any Canadian province free to use the system offered to Quebec. And to give satisfaction to any province wishing to let its universities collect the federal grants under the former system, a versatile formula had to be provided which did not cancel out the option offered to Quebec taxpayers. Finally since the method has to be such as to not interfere with the fiscal arrangements, since the federal government is bound by arrangements with nine of the ten Canadian provinces, this attitude had to be adopted. The Diefenbaker cabinet should therefore be congratulated for working out this realistic compromise.
Allow me to add in reply to the shabby comments made by the member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) against the Quebec ministers in the present government, that they are probably not as talkative and verbose as the hon. member, but that they are to be congratulated for their efficiency in settling the problems of Quebec honourably.
In my humble opinion, Mr. Speaker, there can be no question of a delegation of powers under this bill.
What are the basic requirements for a delegation of powers?
At least three conditions are necessary:
1.	The existence of two sovereign governments.
2.	The existence of a formal agreement between the two governments.
3.	An assignment by one government to the other of a field of jurisdiction over which the former holds exclusive rights.
Now what are the facts?
In the first place, there is no formal agreement between the Quebec government and the federal government. On the other hand, there is no transfer, from one government to the other, of an exclusive field of jurisdiction, unless the member for Laurier and his fellow members of the opposition wish to claim that the federal government or the provinces have the exclusive jurisdiction in the field of direct taxation.
To maintain that Bill C-56 is unconstitutional because it provides for or implies a delegation of powers between the federal government and one or several provincial governments, amounts to saying that the federal-provincial fiscal agreements ratified by chapter 29 of the statutes of 1956 are
[Stage Direction]
Dominion-Provincial Relations unconstitutional, and that the whole fiscal system established by the St. Laurent government, and inspired by the evangelist Lamon-tagne, is totally, completely and irremedially unconstitutional. I wonder what the Liberal opposition is driving at.
Mr. Speaker, our Liberal opponents make much of the fact that the federal government can, under this bill, withhold a certain amount from the equalization payments of the province of Quebec. But fond as they are of quoting Mr. Duplessis, have they forgotten that Mr. Duplessis never looked upon those equalization payments as anything but refunds on account of moneys illegitimately collected by the federal government which thereby infringed upon the fiscal rights of the province?
Mr. Speaker, what struck me in the argument used by the member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) was his suggestion that education had to suffer from the debates concerning government jurisdiction with regard to federal grants to universities. To infer from this that Quebec universities have suffered from the debate that has been going on since 1952 respecting federal assistance to universities, there is only one step.
This is a fable that must be destroyed at all costs. We owe it to the excellent reputation of our educational system in Quebec, a system built upon sacrifice and thanks to the unshakable faith and perseverance of our educators since the dark days of 1760. We owe it to the good name of our universities which, after the regrettable discussion of federal aid to universities, very undeservedly acquired the reputation of poor relatives in our provincial educational system. We also owe it to the good name of the talented and devoted men who dedicated all their energy to the defense of cultural values peculiar to the French speaking ethnical group in Canada. We owe it to the memory of two great Canadians-yes, great Canadians-who, as history will proclaim, gave the best years of their fives to that work- I was going to say all their lives-those two great men now deceased, the Hon. Maurice Duplessis and the Hon. Paul Sauve. We also owe it in all fairness to their successor, the hon. Antonio Barrette, who is following in their footsteps and who made of the last session of the provincial legislature the session of education. In a word, we owe it to mere justice, to truth itself.
It has been said on various occasions, even in this house, and, I think, if my memory serves me well, that I have heard it said by some of my Liberal colleagues, that Quebec universities lost about $8 million, because Mr. Duplessis was opposed to federal grants.

If I remember well, that was the statement of the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc), and I refer to Hansard for April 1, 1960.
Now, Mr. Speaker, nothing is more inaccurate than such a statement. Indeed, I have here some figures which prove that, even if the provincial government had been opposed to federal university grants since 1952, for reasons which I think were legitimate and easily justifiable in the eyes of people of good faith, our Quebec universities received from their own provincial government infinitely larger grants then those offered by the federal government.
Let us look at the figures for the years
1952-	53. The amount offered by the federal government to Quebec universities was $2,087,000; the amount paid by the province of Quebec was, that year, $7,330,980.13; for
1953-	54, the federal offer was $2,134,500; the sum paid by the provincial government to its universities reached $6,786,183.51; the amount offered in 1954-55 by the federal government was $2,177,000, whereas the total paid by the provincial government of Mr. Duplessis to universities in Quebec, was $13,342,542.45; for 1955-56, $2,260,000 were paid by the federal government; the amount given by the provincial government of Quebec to its universities, that is, by a government responding to the universities' request, reached $19,203,287.63. For 1956-57, on the basis of $1 per capita, the federal government offered those universities an amount of $4,628,376, while the provincial government paid a total of $11,608,385.88; in 1957-58, also on the basis of $1 per capita, the federal government offered $4,758,000, whereas the provincial government paid $21,701,762.29.
Grants were offered by the federal government in 1957-58, by trampling on the constitution and the rights of Quebec $4,758,000; amounts offered by the Quebec government in full accordance with confederation and the constitution, $21,701,000. In 1958-59, the federal government offered $7 million, whereas the Quebec government paid $9,291,000. The total amount of grants offered by the federal government was $25,470,000, while the Quebec government gave $57 million to its universities.
Some account should also be taken of the devotion to duty of the Diefenbaker government, of the tremendous work of the Minister of Finance within the Diefenbaker government, and also of the provincial government's co-operation, because the provincial government had confidence in the new federal administration, and knew that it would not try to strangle the province of Quebec but would

try to reach an agreement on the basis of justice and according to the constitution.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to those $57 million paid to its universities, the Quebec government will now be in a position to offer them an additional amount of $25 million, recovered as a result of its steadfastness. Yet the Liberals call that bad business for the province of Quebec!
Mr. Parizeau:: The Liberals are just talking through their hats.


An hon. Member:: How logical.


An hon. Member:: They are talking through Mr. Lesage.


Mr. Pigeon:: The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier does not know that because he has not been living in Quebec very long.


Samuel Boulanger: Why don't you season that with natural gas?


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Speaker, there has just been a reference to provincial matters. Someone has mentioned natural gas, but I rather feel it is the smell of ink from the printing bureau.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Speaker, my friends from the Liberal party feel themselves drawn into the provincial field in spite of themselves. They often refer, without actually mentioning him, to their man, Mr. Lesage who, in 1954, talking with his customary seriousness about provincial autonomy, referred to a cat which was being pulled by the tail. In fact, that reference may be found in the speech made by the Hon. Jean Lesage, on April 14, 1959, as it appears on page 4319 of Hansard. The one who said those words at the time has just brought forth a huge mouse. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the absentee leader of the Liberal party, the Liberal hero of the great electoral battles of Matane, Roberval, Labelle and Lac St-Jean, the great parliamentarian who has shown his great knowledge of parliamentary procedure at the Reform Club of Quebec City, well ensconced in his plush red seat, paid for out of the liberation fund, had an inspiration on reading Bill C-56. He suddenly discovered, as in some Jacob's dream, that Quebecers believe in the autonomy of their province. This led him to the conclusion that perhaps the citizens of the province of Quebec believe in their cultural value, and believe, in overwhelming majority, that the federal government, under the constitution of our country, has no jurisdiction in the field of teaching and education, that the universities
Dominion-Provincial Relations of the province of Quebec must remain entirely under the control of their provincial government.
Suddenly, he saw the light. And that new Saul in scout pants felt animated by autonomist faith. I understand he has even decided to convert the citizens of the whole country to the constitutional doctrine of the Quebec government.
Perhaps in justification of the views expressed by the Moses from Port Arthur, he has acquired, in addition to so many others, a new complex of superiority, that of wishing to impose Quebec views on the rest of Canada.
But, Mr. Speaker, when he was a member of parliament in Ottawa, when he was a federal minister in the St. Laurent cabinet, why did the Hon. Jean Lesage-what a pretentious name given to such a mountebank- why did the Hon. Jean Lesage not show as much enthusiasm in defending the position of the province of Quebec? If he is prepared to state today that Messrs. Duplessis and Sauve would not have accepted such a compromise-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: -why, when he was sitting in this house-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I ask the
hon. member for Chambly-Rouville not to stray too much from the principle of the bill now before us? I appreciate that we may discuss opinions of someone who is not here, in relation to this bill, but I do not believe that we can stray from the subject matter to the extent he has done for the last few minutes.


An hon. Member:: Let him go on, he is
doing well.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He is sinking Mr. Lesage, he is finishing him.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I hear the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) say that I am sinking Mr. Lesage. I think that remark was unnecessary, because I feel that Mr. Lesage is already sunk.
Mr. Speaker, you say, in your great fairness to the Liberal opposition, that I am getting away from the bill, so may I ask whether it is out of order to refer to the opinion of the Hon. Mr. Lesage, and whether it means I am getting away from the subject under discussion? I do not think this is getting away from the subject of federal aid to universities, because we are now on second reading and considering the principle of the bill.
3740	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations
Besides, Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Lesage is not very well known in Quebec, I thought I would describe him in order that people may better know who I was talking about.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I though I had
clearly indicated to the hon. member what would be relevant, that is to say discussion of opinions expressed on this bill. I do not think we should go any further than that, and discuss opinions on other matters or attitudes about other matters.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: He is all at sea, now.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Speaker I feel that in reporting the views expressed by Mr. Lesage on federal assistance to universities, I am respecting the principle of the bill.
I was saying that Mr. Lesage stated, in a press conference, that Messrs. Duplessis and Sauve would not have agreed to such a compromise.
Consequently, I would ask Mr. Lesage- and I ask also my Liberal friends opposite -why, when he was sitting in this house, he did not proclaim to the country as a whole that Mr. Duplessis was right in not giving in on that matter of university grants?
If he is prepared to admit today that federal assistance to universities is unconstitutional, I would ask him to deny his previous statements and to deny those of the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Meunier) who, in this house, on April 26 last, blamed Mr. Duplessis for his failure to discuss any compromise with the St. Laurent government.
Incidentally, would the hon. member for Papineau, who is a lawyer, advise a lady client, who had been a victim of attempted rape to discuss any compromise with her attacker?
Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Lesage is sincere, why does he not repudiate his statement in favour of federal assistance to universities? For instance, would he be willing to repudiate what he said to McGill students on January 12, 1959 and that I find in Le Devoir of January 13, 1959? I quote:
As you know, I was a member of the government which established grants to universities. You may thus infer my personal opinion.
If Mr. Lesage is sincere, when will he deny the statement of the Liberal member for Notre Dame de Grace, Mr. Paul Earl, who stated the following at the provincial legislature on February 24, 1959:
We should accept the federal grants.
If Mr. Lesage is sincere, when will he repudiate the speech he made in the House


of Commons in 1954, since he says he is willing to defend the autonomy of the province of Quebec?
If Mr. Lesage is sincere, he who in 1954 criticized Quebec for taxing Ottawa, why is he criticizing Ottawa today for "untaxing" Quebec?
How can this new convert to autonomy reconcile his former attitudes with the position he pretends to take now? Mr. Speaker, it is on purpose I use the word "pretends", because I do not believe in his conversion. I think he certainly does not deserve that the voters forgive him like Peter was forgiven.
The voters of Quebec feel that instead of this he deserves the fate of the apostle who hanged himself to an olive tree.
Mr. Speaker, I know that the population of Quebec has enough wisdom to settle the Lesage case at the next elections. Therefore, I would not have wasted my time, nor that of the house, in discussing his case, if the Liberal members had not first transposed the debate to the provincial level. Because Mr. Lesage, forgetting the advice of a political friend who told him one day to forget his rhetorical speech, plunged headlong into a denunciation of Bill C-56, probably without having read it properly, or at least understood it properly, the federal Liberal members from Quebec decided to oppose this bill in order, they believe, to help their branch manager who is in deep trouble.
Trying to use every means to attain their ends, they took this opportunity to try to clarify a principle which is obscure, to say the least.
In fact, what logical argument did the Liberals make in this house which could prove a single one of their statements? Oh, I realize it is easy now to judge, out of their context, the attitudes adopted by Mr. Duplessis in 1951, and to condemn him in absentia, when he is no longer here to reply. I personally witnessed the behaviour of some Liberals in the legislature. I remember that when Mr. Duplessis was there they never dared state in his presence the shocking and nonsensical things, not to say the smut, they were pouring out about him outside the house.
Like unmannerly street-boys, they did not dare provoke him to his face. They preferred to fling mud at him when his back was turned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I really believe the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville is again straying from the matter under discussion. What may happen in the Quebec legislature, especially as far as Bill C-56 is concerned, is absolutely out of order.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could I, on occasion, talk about Mr. Duplessis?


An hon. Member:: Do not split our ears-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member, I think, does not need very special instructions to know what is relevant or what is not. I trust he will obey the rules.


An hon. Member:: He could seek advice from the member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay).


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Speaker, what grieves me, is that I was about to pay some compliments to my hon. friends opposite. If I am allowed to go on, I may have a chance to pay them some compliments, because, now that Mr. Duplessis is no longer with us, certain members who I thought were serious and for whom I have great regard-that is the compliment I wanted to pay to them- are venting their overflowing spleen on this great man. I wonder why they persist in insulting the memory of Mr. Duplessis. What is their interest in doing so, if not an antiquated backward and outmoded conception of the ways to influence public opinion?
Do the Liberal members really believe they are helping the provincial Liberal party?
Finally, do they really believe they are serving Canada, our country? Do they feel that in this way they are serving the national unity which they claim as their handiwork?
(Text):


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I want to take only a few minutes to offer my congratulations to the government and also to the government of the province of Quebec on having resolved what has been for a long time one of the knottiest problems that the nation has had. I understand that the agreement arrived at was basically designed by the government of the province of Quebec and I believe that the acceptance of this agreement by the federal government and the provincial government of Quebec is going to be a most noteworthy and welcome milestone in both national development and the development of national unity in Canada. It can be the beginning of much greater areas of agreement in the years to come.
I completely fail to understand the attitude of the Liberal opposition in the House of Commons. The acting leader of the Liberals, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), made some rather radical statements in expressing his attitude toward this legislation. As found on page 3282 of Hansard of April 26, he said:
Dominion-Provincial Relations This is, to say the least, a fantastic piece of legislation. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that no other federal government or minister of finance since confederation has dared to intervene so emphatically, so evidently and so thoroughly in an exclusively provincial matter.
On the next page he went on to say:
-I believe that several provisions of this bill constitute the worst intrusion ever attempted by a federal government in the affairs of a province.
As we understand the situation, the solution now being offered is by mutual agreement and when a solution is arrived at by mutual agreement I cannot appreciate how at one and the same time it can be called the worst intrusion ever attempted by a federal government in the affairs of a province. According to the Liberals, apparently it is perfectly all right to tax the people of Quebec in order to pay grants to universities elsewhere in Canada; apparently that is the Liberal version of national unity. We do not believe it is right to tax the people of Quebec in order to help finance universities in other areas of Canada when universities in the province of Quebec cannot obtain the same assistance.


Leon David Crestohl: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Erhart Regier: Yes.


Leon David Crestohl: Does the hon. member mean to imply that because there is an agreement between the two parties that necessarily makes it constitutional?


Erhart Regier: I did not say that that makes it constitutional. What I did say was that to tax people of Quebec against their will for aid to universities elsewhere while such aid is being denied to their own universities is a worse intrusion in the affairs and the autonomy of a province than is the method now being offered for the consideration of the house.


Mr. Leduc:: What about the trans-Canada highway and hospital insurance?


Erhart Regier: If this indeed is fantastic legislation, if this indeed is not a step in the right direction, if in the opinion of the Liberal party it constitutes the worst intrusion, then all I can say is that the method under which they operated for so many years at the expense of national unity and to the detriment of the interests of the people of Quebec was a much greater offence against national unity than is this legislation. If the Liberals want to vote against this bill, if they want to put themselves on record as being unalterably opposed to what in the course of Canadian history will turn out to be one of the greatest steps in the development of national unity; if the Liberal party
3742	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations wants to be on the record officially as being forever opposed to such a move, that is up to them.
We believe this is a happy solution indeed. However, I do want to put one reservation on the record. We hope the government realizes that the needs of the provinces are going to grow and that particularly in the field of education they are going to grow at an alarming rate in the years immediately ahead. I have here an article in the May 21 issue of Maclean's magazine. The article is headed as follows:
Our high schools are headed for a crack-up unless we hire another 2,400 teachers right away, build another 2,500 classrooms, raise more than $100 million to pay for them.
The article is written by Robert Walker, and he points out that we are now arriving at the stage where the post-war babies are entering our high schools. It will only be a limited number of years until those post-war babies are going to be knocking on the doors of our Canadian universities. The problem with which we are now faced of financing the universities is going to be multiplied many times over in the years ahead and our provincial governments will be unable, under the existing arrangements, to provide the degree of university education that they ought for our young Canadians.
We feel, especially in view of the fact our needs are going to grow so rapidly, that this legislation now before us is rather inadequate. It is really a poor substitute for meeting the needs of the provinces in so far as a new deal in the matter of revenues is concerned which would enable the provinces to meet their constitutional responsibilities. We heard a lot during the election campaign concerning a proposed new deal for our provincial governments. We sincerely hope that the acceptance of the bill now before us will not be misinterpreted and that the government will not believe that we are expressing our satisfaction with the fact that the government has met its obligations and is enabling our provincial governments to obtain the revenues that they need and of which they were assured at the time of the election campaign.
We also note with alarm the insertion in the bill of the date March 31, 1962, which would indicate that the government may not be contemplating any upward revision of aid to universities before the end of March, 1962. We hope that our 10 provincial governments, and especially our educational institutions, will not have to wait until that date before a new deal is granted them because they have already waited for some time.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I should like to ask the hon. member a question before he resumes 

his seat. Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the C.C.F. was now opposing what Mr. St. Laurent did under the university grants, and which was so warmly supported by Mr. Coldwell and his whole party?


Erhart Regier: We have always been happy with any assistance being offered by the federal government in connection with the cost of university education anywhere in Canada. However, we said at that time we did not believe the attitude of Premier Duplessis was acceptable, and at that time the Liberals agreed with us. Now the Liberals seem to say that Mr. Duplessis has been right all along.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, before we go into committee on this bill, may I put a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming)?
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, sir, the hon. gentleman, I believe, has already spoken in this debate.


An hon. Member:: No, he spoke at the resolution stage.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If the hon. member proposes to explain the sections of this bill, could he not also give some explanation with regard to section 9B, paragraph 2, which says this:
As determined by the minister.
I would like to have the minister give some explanation later on.
In closing, I may say, that, in view of the adverse remarks of the opposition members on the bill, if they vote in favour of it, they will cover themselves with ridicule in the eyes of the people of Quebec.


Mr. Loiselle:: Who is talking of ridicule?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, as a representative of Frenchspeaking people living outside the province of Quebec, I would be remiss if I did not say a few words on this legislation.
It is true that in the province of Alberta we have received grants for our universities; anyhow, there was only one university concerned, the provincial university. But, as you know, Mr. Speaker, we must, as Canadians, concern ourselves more with the higher education of our people, in order to keep our young Canadians in this country.
On several occasions, I pointed out my anxiety at seeing too many of our young people leave Canada for other countries.

I found that we had less and less young people in the province of Quebec. I look upon Quebec universities as Canadian universities and not only as institutions of one province. We are all Canadians, and we should look upon universities in each province as contributing to our national development.
Therefore I feel we should constantly increase our support to our universities.
There are those who claim that the federal government should not interfere directly in an attempt to control education-and I stress the word "control". However, now that we are working towards smooth relations between the federal government and the province of Quebec on the matter of grants for education,
I think perhaps we should stop quarrelling and discussing procedure, and look at the purpose of this bill.
The purpose now being sought, and which in fact has been reached, is to enable Quebec universities to get grants from the federal government, or the equivalent of such grants. That is what really matters.
I was surprised at this so-called debate, because as a stranger to the province of Quebec and to the politics of the province of Quebec, all I have heard was about petty Quebec politics, something which should never have happened. Moreover, I think opposition members were wrong in taking such an attitude. Most speeches we have heard did not belong here.


Some hon. Members:: What about the speech we just heard?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You have been asking for it, because after all, gentlemen-


Gérard Loiselle: It is no surprise to see you fall into the trap.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -after all, gentlemen, is it your privilege to-


Mr. Habel:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the hon. member should know enough about standing orders to address himself to the Speaker, and not to hon. members as he is doing now.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: All right, Mr. Speaker, I
shall address myself to you, and through you, to the members of the opposition to whom I was speaking directly. I was going to say that they invite such speeches, because they have no exclusive privilege to launch into all kinds of criticism without inviting rebuttal.
We thank you-


An hon. Member:: Thank you.
Dominion-Provincial Relations


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -for that kind of speech. I thought that was a rather narrow attitude, considering what we are trying to do. I therefore hope that after hours of election campaigning which should have been done elsewhere, we shall get the support of the hon. members opposite.
(Text):
I must say that this bill concerns directly the relationship between the federal government and the provincial government of the province of Quebec in so far as assistance to the universities is concerned. That is the main aim of this bill. One would have thought- certainly this statement applies to those of us who come from regions outside of the province of Quebec-that the members from the province of Quebec, and I refer to members of the opposition, while realizing that this plan had not been entirely successful in the past, instead of twisting, turning and trying to introduce some petty politics, something that was completely unnecessary in my opinion, would have said, "All right, this aim is being achieved and we must thank the good sense of other people".
After all, if you arrogate to yourself the exclusive capacity to negotiate or to arrange things, you are certainly going to find yourself in difficulty. But if other people are able to achieve the end that you would have desired to achieve, why adopt a dog in the manger attitude? That is perhaps the best qualification I can give it, if I may be permitted that expression of "dog in the manger attitude". I therefore felt that on this occasion I would not be accused perhaps of lecturing the house but would be regarded as making what I hope to be objective observations on a subject matter with regard to which we are pleased to see that a method has been found. We have this bill which will go to the assistance of the universities in the province of Quebec which will then receive the same measure of assistance as is being received by universities in other parts of the country. Goodness knows, Mr. Speaker, our universities throughout the country require a good deal of assistance if we are to maintain our young people at the topmost level of education to which I feel they are entitled, thereby developing and preserving the best of the intellectual capacities of our Canadian nation.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth day of the debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. It has been an unusually

Private Bills-Divorce
spirited debate and I believe it has been one of more than passing interest. We have seen some extraordinary things in the course of this debate. I suppose the most extraordinary one has been that of seeing the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and his principal lieutenant in the house, namely the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) at variance in their approaches to this bill. I shall have something further to say on that subject.
It has been even more extraordinary to find the opposition in this house launched into a debate without knowing how they were going to vote. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, serious members of this house going along into the third day before one of them could indicate how he and his party proposed to vote at the conclusion of the debate? Hon. members will recall that, when the hon. member for Laurier spoke in leading off for the opposition in this debate a fortnight or so ago, at the conclusion of his remarks or, I should say, at the conclusion of his denunciation of the bill, I asked him how he was going to vote upon it and he could not or would not tell me.
On the second day of the debate another frontbencher on the other side of the house, namely the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget), delivered his denunciation of the bill. At the conclusion of his remarks I rose and asked him how he was going to vote upon it and he either could not or would not tell me how he was going to vote upon the bill. It went to the third day of the debate, before the Liberals found out how they were going to vote at the conclusion of the debate.
What an extraordinary performance that was, Mr. Speaker. Near the end of the third day the official opposition decided that after all the denunciations their members had uttered of the bill they were going along lamely to vote for the bill at the conclusion of this debate.


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


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-43, for the relief of Jean Brasgold Martz-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: Shall these 52 private bills be taken under one item?


Frank Howard: I would ask that they be taken separately.


Charles Edward Rea: The committee will consider Bill No. SD-43.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.


Frank Howard: I have a couple of comments to make on the item before us, Mr. Chairman. I would say also briefly to the Minister of Finance, through you, that it is unfortunate to have been obliged to interrupt the start of his discourse on some domestic matters in order to deal with others.
In this particular bill which is now before us we find that in the petition, which is dated September 10, 1958, it is shown that the marriage took place in January of 1938 between the petitioner and the respondent, and that there were two children born of that marriage. Also indicated in the petition are the birthdays of the children and the allegation that adultery had been committed during the past eight years and, in particular, on September 1, 1958. The address and name of the corespondent is also given.
At the outset, before I proceed to discuss whether or not the statements made in the petition have in fact been proved by the evidence, I should like to mention that the hon. member for Halifax in whose name this bill stands is unavoidably absent today, presumably taking part in a somewhat strenuous event in his own province. I imagine that the hon. member for Marquette or the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) will be taking the place normally occupied by the hon. member for Halifax in piloting these bills through second reading. I might add that in my opinion no finer gentleman could be found to perform this function or, indeed, many other functions relating to the business of parliament.
I am sure that if during the time I am making some comments on the item before us I get off base as it were, or fail to make myself clear, one or other, both of these hon. gentlemen will be quick to point out the error of my ways and draw to the attention of the committee those aspects which they think I may not have interpreted correctly from the evidence before us.
With respect to proving that the marriage did in fact take place, the petitioner appeared before the committee, was sworn, and was asked certain questions by the clerk-the usual questions relating to age, occupation, and so on. Further questions were then asked with regard to the marriage ceremony. The petitioner replied that she was married, giving the name of the person to whom she was married, the date of the marriage, her religious faith and the name of the person who solemnized the marriage which took place in Montreal. She was then shown a document

and asked if she recognized it. She replied in the affirmative and identified the document as her marriage certificate. That certificate was then filed as exhibit No. 1. Thus we can take it, without question, that the marriage did take place, and this very important part of the petition is proved.
It is also indicated in the petition that there are two children born of the marriage, and questions were asked of the petitioner by a Mr. Blank. Perhaps I might indicate, for the benefit of the Hansard reporter that that is the actual name of the lawyer, Mr. Blank, and is not a substitute word such as we often use in place of the real name of an individual involved in some of these cases. Mr. Harry Blank is the counsel who appeared in this case and he asked questions about the children, as appears on page 10 of the report, as follows:
Q. Are there any children born of this marriage?
A. Yes, two.
Q. What are their names and ages?
A. My son-is 20. He was bom in 1939 My daughter's name is-. She was bom in 1945.
Q. When is the last time you lived together with your husband?



A. 1949.

[Stage Direction]
Q. You have been separated for approximately 10 years?
A. Yes.
The next group of questions, with the exception of the last one which I read, do not relate directly to the children themselves but to the situation existing in the household leading up to the reason for separation. I should like to expand a little further on the subject of the children and consider the situation in which they find themselves at the present time. As to the son who, as stated in the evidence is now in Israel, I would assume he is probably not directly in need of care and maintenance by either of the parents; he is probably in employment or in the armed forces in that part of the country. The daughter, however, being with the mother and being now of the age of 15, is probably in need of care and maintenance such as children of that age require. The question is asked on page 11 by the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Barbour:
Q. Do you have the children?
A. Yes, sir.
I suppose that even though the question is framed in the plural, the answer in fact relates to the one child who is in the care of the mother. The next question is:
Q. Does your husband contribute anything towards their keep?
A. He did, not too much.
One can draw the conclusion from that that the children have not been cared for too well as far as financial support is concerned. Subsequent questions asked by Mr. Private Bills-Divorce
Blank the lawyer, while they do not specifically mention the children themselves do indirectly have some bearing on this question:
Q. Did you ever have your husband arrested for non-support?
A. Yes, sir. I had a hard time to get any money from him.
Then there is one other question about some legal proceedings which were taken for non-support, and which is answered in the affirmative.
That is the sum and substance of the questions and answers in the evidence with respect to the care and maintenance of the children. As you know, Mr. Chairman, from having listened to the recitation of evidence in other cases, the questions and answers in this instance are somewhat scanty. I am not casting any reflection on the activities of members of the other house in this regard, I simply mention it as a point of fact. There are some circumstances which might be of interest to the committee which existed, according to the evidence given, prior to the actual petition which was submitted for relief in this instance. I should like to return to page 10 where I ceased when I was talking about the children, and go to questions by Mr. Blank, about a third of the way down the page:
Q. When is the last time you lived together with your husband?

[Stage Direction]
Q. You have been separated for approximately 10 years?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you separate?
A. He was running around with other women.
Q. How do you know that?
A. He did it openly.
Q. Do you know what he has been doing for the past number of years?
A. He has been living with someone else.
Q. The same woman?
A. Yes.
I assume the question "the same woman" meant he has been living with the same woman for the past number of years, and that she answered in that sense, probably differentiating this particular woman from her plural use of the word earlier when she said "other women". Then Senator Barbour, chairman of subcommittee No. 3, asked the petitioner questions relating to the circumstances:
Q. Do you know that of your knowledge?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you been to the place where they are living?
A. I have not been but I know they are living together as man and wife openly.
I relate these circumstances here, Mr. Chairman, to the conclusion I wish to draw with respect to the material part of the evidence relating to adultery to show that again prime consideration was given, and I think
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce
quite properly so, to the fact that there was a common law arrangement, an open, knowledgeable common law arrangement, existing between the respondent and the corespondent. That in itself, upon their own admission and as given in evidence later on by one of the investigators, is the basis upon which this particular divorce was recommended to be granted by the other place and the basis upon which we should also consider it. That is why I relate this preceding evidence by the petitioner.
Following that there was another question by Mr. Blank:
Q After you discovered that your husband was living with this woman-*
Then Senator Barbour interrupts because apparently he had not finished the trend of his questions. He asks:
Q. I think it would be well if you told us how you know.
A. Well, she calls herself Mrs.-
Then the married name of the petitioner herself is given and the married surname she would have if she were in fact married to the respondent.
Q. Have you been talking with her?
A. No, but when her mother passed away she had it announced in the death certificate that she was the wife of-
Q. You mean, the death notice in the paper?
A. Yes.
Then follows a question by Senator Bradley with respect to this relationship:
Q. It is common knowledge in the neighbourhood?
A. Yes.
Mr. Chairman, I think we can draw from that that Senator Bradley was referring to it being common knowledge in the neighbourhood that the respondent and the corespondent were living together openly as man and wife and that the corespondent was in fact using the name she would have used if she were legally married to the respondent; that is, using the married name of the petitioner.
There follow then some questions about collusion and whether any of these things had in fact been engaged in between the petitioner and the respondent. Then Mr. Blank asks at the bottom of page 10:
Q. Have you ever forgiven him for this?
That relates, I assume to his activities.
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you in any manner, shape or form help arrange this relationship between your husband and this woman?
A. No.
Then Senator Bradley asks further similarly related questions:
Q. You have not arranged this divorce between you?
A. No, sir.

Q. There is no chance of reconciliation?
A. No, sir.
Q. You will not forgive him?
A. No, sir.
In this particular instance, also, Mr. Chairman, there are two investigators, as they classify themselves, Mr. Peter Rosen and a Mr. Abe Golden, both of Montreal. They undertook here to give evidence as to their activities with respect of the respondent, what they discovered and saw.
I find it difficult at this hour when the young page boys are not here to get a glass of water. Quite frankly, I do not know why the page boys are absent at this particular hour because I do not see anything in the evidence I have read so far which could be considered indelicate. Nevertheless, that is what takes place.
Mr. Rosen appeared as a witness. He gave his name, age and occupation on page 11. Then he is asked some questions by Mr. Blank, counsel for the petitioner. He identifies a photograph and says it is a photograph of the respondent. Incidentally, in this instance also it is a photograph taken a long time ago, according to the evidence of the petitioner in answer to questions from the clerk of the committee. You will recall that we had some discussion about photographs taken some years ago and whether in fact they would still bear a resemblance to the individual whose picture it was. In this instance I do not know what "a long time ago" means. In any event, Mr. Rosen identifies the photograph and gives the name of the person he says it is a photograph of. Then he is asked:
Q. Will you tell the court-
Those words are used, Mr. Chairman. I would suggest that what he meant was, "Will you tell the honourable subcommittee of the other place". But the use of the word "court" might allow for a thought to be expressed at this time. Perhaps if we do establish a separate federal court we might very well appoint members from the other place as judges of that particular court to deal with divorce proceedings, because they have certainly had a great deal of experience over the years in dealing with them.
The evidence of Mr. Rosen is rather lengthy but I think I can point out the common law arrangements necessary to establish that relationship. If you recall, on one other occasion I was accused of selecting parts of the evidence out of context to paint a particular picture, but I am sure my hon. friend from Marquette and the hon. member for Victoria, (B.C.) would not do that in any event. On one occasion it did occur, and I

do not want to fall into the position of having someone say that I selected particular evidence to show particular points. Permit me to make rather extensive reference to the evidence.
A. I Investigated Mr.-movements about a week prior to December 1, 1958, we found he was living at-and I found he was living there with a woman. On further investigation I found they had been living there for the last three years together. On December 1, 1958, my man-[DOT].
Incidentally, his man is A. Golden, another investigator. I continue:
On December 1, 1958, my man Mr. Golden and myself drove up to-at approximately 6.30 in the evening and we parked ourselves close by and we waited. About 7.30 that evening Mr.-drove up with his truck and he drove his truck into the back yard of the house and then he came out of the yard and into the house. We stayed there until about approximately 11.30 in the evening. Mr.-nor the lady in the house came out. At about 11.30 we noticed the lights went out downstairs and there were still some lights upstairs. It was a two-floor house. Shortly after that, about a quarter to twelve, all the lights were out upstairs. Mr. Golden and myself, we went up to the door and we rang the bell. It took a few minutes and a man-the light came on in the vestibule and the man came to the door and he opened the door.
You will recall, Mr. Chairman, and others will recall, I am sure, that on a previous occasion the hon. member for Vancouver East was wondering how within the period of half an hour adultery could take place. If the hon. member for Vancouver East were here now I am sure he would be quite concerned about how within a period of two or three minutes adultery could take place because this is what he said. He said that at 11.30 they noticed that the lights went out upstairs and there were still some lights downstairs; it was a two-floor house. Shortly after that, about a quarter to twelve, all the lights were out upstairs. I continue:
Mr. Golden and myself, we went up to the door-
As soon as the lights go out they go up to the door and they ring the bell. It took a few minutes and the man came down. Therefore, in a short space of time, in a few minutes-what a few minutes mean I do not know, in fact, but we can assume probably not more than five minutes, according to the particular evidence given by the investigator -adultery took place. The lights went out upstairs. About a quarter to twelve they went up to the door and within a few minutes a man came downstairs and they go on to give other evidence. I use this only to point out that it is ridiculous to expect people to believe that on this particular day adultery took place. This is what it says in the petition, that for the last eight years this has been going on. According to the rules of the Senate you cannot be general, you must specify. Therefore, they specify and they
Private Bills-Divorce say, "And in particular, on the first day of December, 1958, adultery took place." Adultery took place within the space of a few minutes and we all know that this probably is not possible. I assume it may be possible if a couple were in a rush or if they were using a motel for the evening as happens in some of these cases. But the evidence is that they were living together for three years. Certainly by this time they had got sort of accustomed and used to one another. They say that in that space of a few minutes adultery took place on this particular day or this particular night.
So far as saying adultery took place on the first day of December in particular, I think we can say that is absolute nonsense. According to the times given here it did not take place. If these investigators had waited for half or three quarters of an hour after the lights went out, as is usually the case, before they went and knocked on the door then perhaps one could give some credence to the suggestion that adultery or intercourse had taken place at that particular time. But to say that it took place in the space of a few minutes is to say something that I doubt very much, and I am sure the members of the other place doubted it very much.
David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? On what authority does the hon. member profess to come here and to act as an arbitrator in these things? I mean-


Frank Howard: The hon. member in asking his question got as far as the words "I mean". I thought he was going further.


David James Walker: Yes. "Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed, that he has grown so great" to come into this forum and pontificate on such a subject?


Frank Howard: Some weeks ago on the invitation of the Minister of Public Works I became interested in the particular cases before us. I am no authority and I am not attempting to arbitrate. If we are going to be asked to pass divorce cases, then I think we should have an understanding of the full implications of the evidence given before the other place in order to determine whether we are doing the proper thing or not. In answer to the question, if we had not undertaken a thorough study of some of these things there would have been a number of cases already passed by this parliament in which there was a great conflict of evidence. One was a contested case and as a result of our study and asking parliament to study these things we are looking into them carefully. It is not a question of pontificating, arbitrating or setting myself up as an authority, which I have

Private Bills-Divorce
no right to do. It is a question of allowing full discussion and coming to an understanding of these cases so long as they are here before parliament. I think it is the responsibility of all hon. members to do the same sort of thing and to acquaint themselves as thoroughly as possible with the circumstances that exist in order to ensure that we are doing the right thing when we pass a law dissolving a marriage.
I think I can say without the shadow of a doubt that adultery did not take place on the first day of December. We can assume that it has taken place. They have been living together for three years as man and wife. That is the evidence given. But in this particular case, if we pass this divorce on the grounds that adultery took place we will be granting it on the grounds of a common law arrangement having existed, and the reference to adultery having taken place on this particular day will not be borne out. This is the prime factor that will be in our minds, and I am sure it was in the minds of the members of the committee of the other place.
Anyway there is further substantiation of this common law arrangement in the evidence. Also, Mr. Chairman, there are some conflicts between the evidence given by the two investigators.


Mr. Mandziuk:: May I ask the hon. member a question. The hon. member referred to common law arrangements. What does he mean by a common law arrangement? The evidence in this bill proves that these two people, this married man and this woman, were living together for a period of nine years. The hon. member refers to a common law arrangement. I would like to have him clarify that.


Frank Howard: Yes, I would be quite pleased to attempt to do it. Certainly I would not think my thoughts on the question of what common law means would anywhere near approximate the understanding that my hon. friend has after having been so many years in a particular profession. The words "common law" are ordinarily understood by laymen to mean two people, a man and a woman, living together but not legally married. This is the circumstance which we have related-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I must advise the hon. member that his time has expired. Shall clause 1 carry?


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, this question of the common law relationship is one that has received very little consideration from legal authorities but it is very interesting to note that Power in discussing this matter has pointed out the things that are necessary to prove a marriage and what constitutes a marriage. The legal definition of a common

law marriage is that it is one where a man and woman live together in a certain relationship and have children and the husband recognizes the children as being legitimately-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. Would the hon. member explain to me what this has to do with Bill No. SD-43?


William Arnold Peters: In Bill No. SD-43 we are concerned not so much with the charge of adultery because the charge of adultery is incidental to the common law marriage which has lasted for over nine years. I was trying to point out that the common law relationship has been accepted in a number of acts. One of them is the War Veterans Allowance Act.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I cannot see anything in the preamble of this bill referring to a common law relationship. This bill refers to adultery as the cause for divorce. There is no reference to the common law relationship.


William Arnold Peters: When the hon. member for Skeena was discussing this bill a question was asked toward the end of his remarks.


An hon. Member:: No one asked you.


William Arnold Peters: Whether or not I was asked maybe I will see fit to answer. I would suggest that the charge of adultery is only incidental to the situation that has developed over a period of years and that we are not so much concerned with the adultery charge. I am quite sure we can prove that there are no grounds for adultery as such in this bill but that a situation developed over a period of nine years which would tend to convince one that adultery was quite possible and very likely and in fact did happen. Having regard to the over-all situation rather than a specific incident, though the other committee asks for a specific incident, I think we could well grant this divorce as we could have granted the last one on the grounds of a common law alliance.
I would be quite happy to go into the legal definition of what constitutes adultery and I think the evidence here will not bear that out. Before we come to the evidence of the detectives it might be wise to mention one other matter that I think is a consideration in this case, and I have reference to the petitioner herself. The petitioner was asked by her lawyer how long it was since she had lived with her husband. The actual question was:
Q. When Is the last time you lived together with your husband?



[Stage Direction]
Q. You have been separated for approximately 10 years?
A. Yes.

This woman has lived apart from her husband for 10 years. As the committee is well aware, the length of time that elapsed from the committing of the first act of adultery of which the wife had knowledge gives rise to the charge that undue delay took place in this case, and undue delay is an absolute bar to the granting of the divorce.
J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: May I ask the hon. member a question?


William Arnold Peters: Yes.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: On what authority does he base the assertion that undue delay bars the petitioner from seeking a remedy in the courts?


Charles Edward Rea: Order. That question certainly is not relevant to this bill.


William Arnold Peters: It seems, Mr. Chairman, that you have ruled that the question is not admissible anyway. Mr. Power has certainly pointed out that this is one of the absolute bars to the granting of a divorce. I only point this out as an indication that this case did not develop overnight. This was not a case of the husband entering into other arrangements over a short period of time and the wife instigating divorce proceedings immediately to seek relief from this situation. This situation carried on for a long time.
The evidence of the investigators appears to be the only thing in which many members are interested and I wish to deal now with their investigation of the so-called adultery. I think we are being unfair and unrealistic in a case of this kind when we ask that adultery be proved. That was my point in endorsing the argument the hon. member for Skeena made that a divorce can be granted on the basis of a common law arrangement.
But when one specific incident in that common law alliance has to be proved and there is not going to be reference to the fact that there is a common law alliance then we are going to have to be as specific in this case as if the husband had gone to a hotel and had been caught in adultery there with a woman. If that is not going to be proved then we should be willing to grant the divorce on the grounds of the husband having lived publicly and openly in a common law alliance. The investigator in this particular case was Mr. Peter Rosen. He is 38 years old and lives in Montreal.


Mr. Chambers:: What has that got to do with it?


William Arnold Peters: His occupation is investigator. The lawyer asked him these questions:
Q. I show you exhibit 2, a photograph. Can you tell me whose photograph that is?
A. Mr. Louis Martz.
Private Bills-Divorce
Q. Did you have occasion to investigate Mr. Louis Martz's conduct around the first of September, 1958?
A. That's right.
This is nine years after the couple terminated the marriage, according to the information given by the petitioner.
Q. Will you tell the court what you discovered?
A. I investigated Mr. Martz's movements about a week prior to December 1, 1958, and found he was living at 10675 Gariepy street in Montreal North, and I found he was living there with a woman. On further investigation I found they had been living there for the last three years together.
What he is saying is that the couple made no secret of the fact that they were living in a common law alliance outside the bonds of normal matrimony, and while this is not an admission of adultery I suggest it is certainly an admission that one of the original partners to the marriage had terminated his connections and had begun a liaison with another woman which he intended to continue. I suggest that this in itself should warrant us in granting the divorce. The witness continued:
On December 1, 1958, my man, Mr. Golden, and myself drove up to Gariepy street at approximately 6.30 in the evening and we parked ourselves close by and we waited. About 7.30 that evening Mr. Martz drove up with his truck and he drove his truck into the back yard of the house and then he came out of the yard and into the house. We stayed there until about approximately 11.30 in the evening. Mr. Martz nor the lady in the house came out. At about 11.30 we noticed the lights went out downstairs and there were still some lights upstairs. It was a two-floor house. Shortly after that, about a quarter to twelve, all the lights were out upstairs. Mr. Golden and myself, we went up to the door and we rang the bell. It took a few minutes and a man- the light came on in the vestibule and a man came to the door and he opened the door. I asked to speak to Mr. Louis Martz and he said "That's me. What is it?" I said "We would like to speak to you" and he opened the door and we walked right into the house. I showed him the picture that I had, exhibit 2. I asked him if that was his picture and if he was Louis Martz, and he said yes. I said that we were acting on behalf of his wife and he said "What does she want? What is she bothering me for? I wish she wouldn't keep bothering me. I have been living here. I don't want to be bothered by anybody". I said "Well, we have to get the evidence against you. You are living here with a woman." He said "So what. We have been living together for nine years." I said "That's none of our affairs" and we made our way up the stairs to the second floor, which was a bedroom and a den, and there was a woman in the bedroom and she spoke to Mr. Martz and she said "What do they want?" and he said "It's my wife making trouble for me" and I said "There is no trouble. We just want to know what your name is and that's all". The woman and Mr. Martz discussed something between themselves for a minute or so and then she told us her name was Marie Titleman. There was no one else in the house. We looked around. The bedroom itself had a double bed with two dressers in the room and a couple of chairs and there was woman's

Private Bills-Divorce
and man's clothing in the cupboards in the same room. I then told Mr. Golden we had seen enough, and we left.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I think they had seen everything. They even went through the cupboards in the house in order to meet the legal requirements for establishing that adultery had been committed. They invaded the privacy of a family and of a home. Just what did they see? They walked into the house and a man admitted that he was Mr. Martz. He admitted that he was living with this woman, but that is of no importance whatever. We are not interested in that. All we are interested in is establishing that on this particular day, at this particular time, adultery did take place. They looked around and they found some clothing in the cupboard, both men's and women's clothing. They found that both of these people were living there, something they knew before they went there. But they did not find them committing adultery.
Adultery is not something that happens over a period of a week, it happens in a specified period. Some proof must be presented that adultery did take place. I am suggesting that the witnesses did not even attempt to prove that adultery had been committed. This was not important at all. All they did was to find out who the corespondent was. This is absolutely necessary in order to meet the requirements of the law because in presenting a divorce bill we must give the proper name of the corespondent. Except when exceptional circumstances are involved it is impossible under our Canadian law to establish grounds for divorce without giving the name of the corespondent.
This is what has happened. We are confronted with a common law alliance. The implication is that adultery has taken place. In order to establish this fact the detectives in this case went into the house, examined the situation and talked to the man. He admitted the common law alliance, but he did not admit that adultery had taken place on this particular day. The committee is being asked to suppose that adultery did take place or could have taken place. I suggest it is not necessarily proved that the man was in the bedroom upstairs. The evidence does suggest that the lady was upstairs, but there is no proof that this man was not sleeping in the den. There is no proof that this man was not sleeping downstairs on this particular night. There is not even mention of the pillows in this case. Mention is made of the fact that a couple of cushions were involved rather than pillows. We do not even have the limited evidence given in other cases which does give a much clearer indication that adultery could have taken place.


I should like to refer to this question of adultery. On another occasion I said that if a man admitted living at common law the divorce could not be granted on that ground. I was wrong and the lawyers in the house were right. What the judges and courts have discussed on previous occasions was the fact that an admission of adultery was serious, sometimes having criminal implications, and there was always a suspicion the man was doing so by pre-arrangement in order that the divorce could be granted. The common law alliance was not of too much importance, but adultery had to be committed-


Charles Edward Rea: Order; the hon. member is discussing the proceedings in a divorce case and not Bill No. SD-43.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I think in this particular case we have before us a common law alliance which has implications of adultery. I am quite happy to see this divorce bill granted on the stipulation it is granted on the basis of a common law alliance, not adultery, because adultery has not been proven.


Charles Edward Rea: We can just discuss this bill and whether or not, according to the evidence, adultery has been committed. According to the judgment of the committee of the other place, it has been, and that is all we can discuss.


William Arnold Peters: In this case, I would say we certainly have before us no evidence that adultery was committed on this particular day.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Vote against the bill, then.


William Arnold Peters: I might vote against it. We have not concluded our discussion of the matter as yet. There may be something said by members on the other side of the house that would change my mind. I admit I was partly wrong in my statement on a previous occasion. The chairman of the committee of the other place asked this question:
Q. Was anything said about them living together while you were there?
A. Mr. Martz told us that they were living in that house for about three years, but after further talk he said "We have been living together for nine years in different places but they had lived there for three years". In fact, last week I went up there and I checked again and the same woman was still living in the house with Mr. Martz. They were still living at the same address.
I believe the chairman of the committee of the other place was very concerned about this matter. This is not the normal, stereotyped question we find in other cases. It is rather a different type of question and shows his concern about these people living together, and what the arrangement was.

In so far as the implication that adultery could have taken place is concerned, I might say that in looking through Mr. Power's book I am unable to find any indication that a divorce was granted on the ground of what is called common law arrangement. It is for this reason that I am quite concerned-as was the chairman of the committee of the other place-about the fact of the alliance or the arrangement that was made and which, in my humble opinion and I think in the opinion of many members of the other place, was given full consideration, and the divorce was granted.
There was a second witness to this incident on this particular night and that was Mr. Abe Golden, age 52, living in Montreal and also classified as to occupation as an investigator. Defence counsel Mr. Blank started his questioning in this way:
Q. Mr. Golden, I show you a photograph, exhibit 2. Do you recognize the photograph?
A. Mr. Louis Martz.
Q. Did you have occasion to visit premises at 10675 Gariepy street in Montreal on December 1, 1958, with Mr. Rosen?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you tell the committee what you saw and heard?
A. At approximately 11.30 p.m. Mr. Rosen rang the bell and it was answered by a man. We entered the house and the man had on his pyjamas. Mr. Rosen showed him the photograph and he admitted he was the man in the picture.
It would appear that he was in this picture more than just in this particular photograph.
Q. And what happened?
A. While we were conversing I followed Mr. Rosen upstairs to the bedroom and there was a woman in bed.
That is quite an interesting sentence:
While we were conversing X followed Mr. Rosen upstairs and there was a woman in bed.
I suppose he left Mr. Martz downstairs conversing with himself. But in any event they arrived upstairs.
Mr. Martz got nasty and wanted to know what it was all about-
I presume that is while he was discussing matters with himself downstairs.
-and we told him we were there on behalf of his wife. He said, "What is she bothering me for? I have been living with this woman for nine years." We then left.
Mr. Chairman, they did not leave then. They looked through the dresser drawers. They examined the cupboards and they ascertained for themselves that women's clothing and men's clothing was contained in those cupboards. This fellow therefore left too soon because there should be another couple of lines to the questioning of him as to whether there was a reasonable indication that a man and a woman both shared that particular room.
Private Bills-Divorce
Q. Do you recall about seven years ago X asked you to serve a subpoena upon a woman in connection with a case of Louis Martz?
A. Yes.
Q. Is this the same woman you served on Querbes street?
A. Yes, sir.
By the Chairman (Senator Barbour):
Q. Was the bedroom on the same floor that you entered?
A. The bedroom was upstairs.
Then Senator Bradley asks some questions that I think should have been asked by the lawyer himself. His questioning went in this way:
Q. You went upstairs?
A. Yes.
Q. What were the conditions you found in that
room?
A. The bed was disturbed. There were two cushions on the bed. It was a double bed.
Q. Any evidence of clothing there?
A. Yes, there were clothes on the bed and on the bureau.
Q. Men's and women's?
A. Yes.
Q. How was Mr. Martz dressed?
A. He had on his pyjamas, sir.
Q. And the woman?
A. The woman was covered up.
Q. She was in bed?
A. Yes, sir.
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you would be obliged to draw a fairly strong inference from this evidence of these two investigators if you were going to draw the inference that the charge of adultery had been substantiated or, as I suppose the lawyers would say, that a prima facie case had been established that would indicate adultery in this case. I think the investigators were also of the opinion that if people lived in an open and public common law alliance it was rather foolish for them to be there and to go through the rigmarole they must go through in these cases in order to indicate beyond a reasonable doubt that adultery took place.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, this is not an established case of adultery. By the admission of the respondent, the lack of appeal by the corespondent and the inference that has been drawn from the evidence of the plaintiff, I would suggest that there are good grounds for granting this divorce; but this ground must be the ground of common law alliance and not the ground of an adultery charge as has been indicated in the petition. If the committee saw fit to pass this bill today by changing the interpretation from an adultery charge to an adultery charge over a period of years because of a common law arrangement, then I would be quite happy to have this divorce granted on the common law ground. Unless somebody objects to it, it

Dominion-Provincial Relations is my opinion that this bill will be passed on the ground of common law alliance.


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


Frank Howard: Next sitting.


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: Now?


Frank Howard: I should like it to be read
on the next day.


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Frank Howard: I rise on a point of order. If
I rise to discuss third reading now, presumably we shall reach six o'clock and the third reading will then be adjourned and the bill will fall to the bottom of the order paper. It is not my intention or desire to have that happen. That is why I asked that it be allowed to be read a third time the next day.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this bill be read a third time at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) for the second reading of Bill No. C-56, to amend the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I had drawn attention to the fact that although the debate on this measure began on April 26, the Liberal opposition did not know at that time how it was going to vote. The debate was resumed on May 4; the opposition did not know then how they were going to vote; it was resumed on May 5, and only as that day passed, and the Leader of the Opposition was finally able to declare himself, did we learn how the Liberals opposite intend to vote on this measure.


As an old friend of the hon. member for Laurier, I think a serious injustice has been done to him by his leader. The hon. member could not possibly have made the speech he did make in opening the debate on this measure for the opposition on April 26 without expecting that he and his associates would vote against it. Otherwise, what he said on that occasion, and the attitude he took, become utterly incomprehensible, and I do not think the hon. gentleman takes incomprehensible positions. Similarly, another frontbencher on the other side, the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) does not ordinarily take incomprehensible positions but he, like the hon. member for Laurier, has been left in an impossible position by the way in which the Leader of the Opposition has now pulled the rug from under his feet.
There is a question of responsibility in this house for utterances made in it. I intend to digress for a moment and offer this comment on the speech made by the hon. member for Laurier in launching the debate on behalf of the official opposition. I am reading part of an editorial which appeared in a well-known Liberal journal, the Toronto Star of April 30:
The Hon. Lionel Chevrier, former Liberal transport minister, is exaggerating when he describes the new federal-provincial university grants program as-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I was about to rise on what, I imagine, is the same point. I think it would be out of order to cite the opinions of a newspaper reflecting on statements of an hon. member made in the course of a debate in this house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, there are parts of this editorial which I think fully comply with the ruling you have given-


Paul Joseph James Martin: How could it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: We read editorials in this house-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not commenting on a
debate before the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not reading a portion which comments on a debate; I am reading an observation on a position taken in relation to this question.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid the minister
has ruined his position by reading the first part of the editorial. It is true that a good deal of editorial comment on the policy which is enshrined in this bill has been used, and that would be in order. However, anything that is attributed in a critical way to an individual member in a debate here goes beyond

what is permissible in my view, and I hope the minister will govern himself accordingly.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then I draw
attention, with the support of a Liberal source in this regard, to the fact that the charge which has been made in relation to this matter-and I shall be returning to this subject-"will not enhance Liberal party prestige in the rest of Canada or the cause of Canadian education which has suffered from the enforced poverty of Canadian universities". I add this: that "this new arrangement, whatever its faults, has the merit of being acceptable to Quebec and providing funds for Quebec universities".
Let me recall here just what it was that the hon. member for Laurier had to say about this measure when he spoke on April 26. This was the lead-off speech; this was the keynote speech for the Liberal opposition. This is what he said, as recorded at page 3282 of Hansard:
There is a new constitutional problem created by this bill.
And further:
This is, to say the least, a fantastic piece of legislation. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that no other federal government or minister of finance since confederation has dared to intervene so emphatically, so evidently and so thoroughly in an exclusively provincial matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Did you ever hear a more blatant example of irresponsibility in this house? The very members who now purport, by rapping their desks, to endorse this extraordinary statement by the hon. member for Laurier are those who in a few minutes will be in the invidious position of voting in favour of this measure.
The hon. member for Laurier proceeded:
The province will become a mere fiscal agent of the federal authority with respect to a direct provincial tax raised for a provincial purpose. This is surely the height of arrogance.
The height of arrogance? I say it is the height of irresponsibility for hon. members in this house to pretend any longer that they have a sense of responsibility and make such statements as that about a measure which is before them and then turn around and vote in favour of the measure. How can any self-respecting member, how can any self-respecting opposition, how can any self-respecting political party say those things about a measure and then vote for it? If hon. members opposite really believe what was said on their behalf by the hon. member for Laurier how can they follow such a course? How can they claim to be following an
Dominion-Provincial Relations honourable course except by voting against a measure which they have condemned in such emphatic terms?
How can the hon. member for Laurier describe this legislation as fantastic and then vote in favour of it? How can he say that no other federal government or minister of finance since confederation has dared to intervene in this way in an exclusively provincial matter, and yet vote in support of what he calls an intervention by the federal government in a provincial field? How can he, as a self-respecting member, say of this bill that the province will become a mere fiscal agent of the federal authority and then turn around and vote in favour of that very proposition?
The course that the opposition has followed in this debate amounts to an utter negation of responsibility. The hon. gentleman wound up by saying that this was surely the height of arrogance. Mr. Speaker, surely it is the height of folly on the part of the opposition to think they can carry conviction to the Canadian people when they talk out of both sides of their mouths while they are debating and then vote in exactly the opposite way. I say that if hon. members opposite believe what was said on their behalf by the hon. member for Laurier they are defaulting in their duty by not opposing this measure. I say, further, that the Leader of the Opposition, when he spoke in this house on May 5 announcing that he and his followers intended to vote for this measure, repudiated what was said earlier on behalf of himself and his party by the hon. member for Laurier, the hon. member for Levis and other members; and he repudiated Mr. Lesage. I say that we have surely heard the height of hypocrisy and double-talk.
Admittedly the opposition was faced with a dilemma with respect to this measure, but surely the way for them to win respect in the face of a dilemma is to take their courage in both hands and stick by what they say in this house, not run away from it. They will not win respect from the Canadian people by a pusillanimous attitude of this kind.
We saw an effort being made by the Leader of the Opposition on May 5 to introduce a diversionary tactic. He wanted to get the mind of the house away from the provisions of this bill with respect to university grants so he tried to bring in as a red herring an argument about equalization, as applied to the other amendment contained in this bill, in relation to the Federal-Provincial TaxSharing Arrangements Act.
It was a pretty transparent diversion. We did not oppose the principle of equalization in 1956. On the contrary, we extended the

Dominion-Provincial Relations principle of equalization in the 1958 amendment to this legislation; we extended it again by the 1959 amendment and we are extending it again by this amendment which is now before the house. We have nothing to learn from Liberals opposite about the equalization principle or about meeting the needs of the provinces and improving their fiscal positions, because we did something to meet those needs and have done more than any Canadian government in history has ever done.
I am always interested in questions of timing on the part of the opposition. I found something very interesting with regard to the timing of their deliverances on this subject. On March 18 the resolution in anticipation of this measure was moved and it was known to hon. members opposite that the provision for increasing from 10 per cent to 13 per cent the provincial share of the yield from the personal income tax would expire at midnight on March 31. I had hoped that we would resume debate on the resolution the following week and I did make that suggestion to hon. members opposite.
For reasons which to them appeared adequate they did not wish the debate to be resumed at that time and consequently it could not be resumed until April 1 and on that day the resolution was passed. But it was well known to them at that time, indeed it had been a matter of agreement between parties in the house, that the balance of the period up to the date of the Easter adjournment would be fully occupied with the debate on the budget. So the provinces in the meantime dropped back to the 10 per cent share of the personal income tax and it will not rise again to 13 per cent until this measure becomes law.
However, that was not the matter that seemed to concern hon. members opposite. I seem to find another purpose in their timing effort in this regard, for I find that while any attempt to advance the measure further had been effectively precluded by the position they had taken before Easter, the Liberal leader in the province of Quebec-


An hon. Member:: Who is he?


Donald Methuen Fleming: -Mr. Lesage on April 13 delivered himself of his views on this measure. There, I think, is an interesting matter of timing because hon. members opposite timed their attitudes on this measure in such a way that the resolution would be passed and the bill would be introduced before Easter, but the bill would not be advanced to second reading and they would not have to take their positions, and in the meantime Mr. Lesage, having seen the bill, delivered himself of his opinion on the bill.

In a report coming from the city of Quebec, which is printed in an article in the Globe and Mail of April 14, appears the following;
Liberal leader Jean Lesage said today that he will denounce the current federal-provincial agreement on the financing of university grants if his party takes power at the next general elections.
Very interesting. Yet the same party is going to vote for this measure on second reading in this chamber tonight. The report proceeds:
Mr. Lesage said that the right given in the bill to the federal Minister of Finance to approve any arrangement between the provincial government and the universities constituted a most dangerous precedent in the field of provincial autonomy.
In addition, the fact that Quebec would have to return the difference between its 1 per cent increase in corporation tax and the grants authorized-$1.50 per head of population-to the federal treasury meant that the federal government was "deciding on the use of a tax which the province was imposing for purely provincial purposes..."
Mr. Lesage said that this policy of federal-provincial fiscal relations would constitute a major theme of the Liberal campaign during the next two months.
I find it very interesting that hon. members opposite evidently did not wish to be called upon to take a position in this house on second reading of the bill until after Mr. Lesage had delivered his views on the bill in the province of Quebec.
It is perfectly evident that when the hon. member for Laurier spoke on this measure in this house on April 26 he was speaking in accord with the views expressed by Mr. Lesage to which I have just referred. That is why I say that a grave injustice has been done to him when his leader chose to repudiate him when he spoke in this house on April 5. It is evident that hon. members opposite were waiting to take their lead from Mr. Lesage. They waited for his signal, they received his signal, and I think the result has been a sacrifice on the part of a once great party of self respect in the way they have gone about announcing their position in this matter.
I shall have something further to say about the speech made by the hon. member for Laurier. He laboured so hard to establish some respectability for what he called the St. Laurent formula. I will call it the Liberal formula as reflected in the federal-provincial relations and the university grants legislation when we came into office. To try to give that formula some measure of respectability he did his best to tie us, the government, up with it as though we were approving him. He read some portions of speeches I made in the house previously, but, believe me, he was very selective in his treatment of my previous utterances in the

house. He omitted my declared determination to find some solution for the problems we had inherited from them. I would crave the right to remind the hon. member of something that I said in this house on September 6, 1958 when I asked the house to approve the estimates of the Department of Finance including the item for federal grants to universities that year. This was not referred to by the hon. member in his speech. I am quoting from page 4725 of Hansard for September 6, 1958:
I wish to make it clear on behalf of the government that we would wish the institutions of higher learning in Quebec to have the benefit of the provision intended on their behalf by parliament. The province of Quebec has more than a quarter of the population of Canada. Last year it had one-third of the students of all of Canada attending institutions of higher learning. Quebec pays its full share of taxes out of which this vote is made available, and the matter has been the subject of representations made by our members of parliament from Quebec.
The hon. member did not quote that and did not say anything in accord with sentiments of that kind. Further on the following page I said:
Now I say, Mr. Chairman, of this agreement in relation to the attitude of the present government, that while the formula contained in the present agreement has not so far been such as to be viewed with favour in the province of Quebec, if there is any formula or modification of the present agreement which anyone cares to put forward which would permit the institutions of higher learning in the province of Quebec to participate, and which is in keeping with the national interest, we as a government are prepared to give it serious consideration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is exactly what Mr. St. Laurent said.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is exactly what Mr. St. Laurent did not do, and not one of the hon. members opposite did what we have done in this regard.
The next year, while asking the house to approve a similar estimate for federal grants to universities, I made the following observation as reported at page 6393 of Hansard of July 18, 1959. This somehow escaped the attention of the hon. member for Laurier.
This is still the position of the government.
That was said with reference to what I had said the year before, just now quoted.
I add to what I said last year that as this situation develops, if there is no change of attitude, no change in the basis on which these university grants are payable, it must be recognized by all that the present situation cannot continue. In other words, some way acceptable to the jurisdiction that controls universities in Quebec, some method must be worked out that will make those sums intended for the province of Quebec available to the institutions in that province in some form or other.
I can say, Mr. Chairman, I shall certainly devote the best efforts of which I am capable in trying
Dominion-Provincial Relations
to evolve some modification of this present provision that will make the grants available to all parts of Canada in a way that will be fair and equitable. I say without reservation that the committee cannot contemplate with equanimity a situation under which a large portion of this grant that is earmarked for the institutions of higher learning in Quebec is simply accumulating and is not being made available to be used for the purpose for which parliament intended it.
I closed with these words, Mr. Chairman:
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 year a most intensive effort must be made to grapple with this very great difficulty. For my part, I 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.
The hon. member did his best to equalize the position of the government and the opposition. We want no part of the position of the opposition in this respect. Our position was that we were not satisfied with the provisions in relation to the university grants. We were not satisfied as long as they were on the basis under which it became impossible for the institutions of higher learning in the province of Quebec to derive any benefit from them. I reject any attempt to link us with the interpretations that the hon. gentleman opposite has used.
Then he talked about the constitution and he got all mixed up in the constitution. He wandered into the theory of delegation, that there is no right on the part of one level of government in this country to delegate jurisdiction to another level. That was completely irrelevant because there is no delegation whatsoever involved in this measure.
Let me endeavour to clarify the position for the hon. member because he has completely misapprehended it and consequently has allowed himself to stray into a most far fetched interpretation of this measure. What does this bill do? It offers an alternative, an alternative to the present system of university grants, and it offers that alternative to all provinces in this country. This is open to every province. It does not matter whether it has signed an agreement to rent the corporation tax field to the federal government or not, we want to put all provinces in this country on a footing of equality; therefore, this legislation provides that any province that had rented that field to the federal government and desires to alter its agreement and resume the collection of corporation taxes will be permitted to do so and then it can act on the alternative basis with respect to the university grants.
The decision is left to each province. Nothing is forced upon any province; nothing
3756	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations is taken from any province. No province is hurt. So far as the accounting is concerned at the end of the year, this is a provision in a federal government statute in relation to the measure of accounting for these funds that this legislation provides to be paid by the federal government over to the provincial governments under certain terms laid down in the federal legislation. Is this a trespass? We are simply confining ourselves in this respect to what is proper federal legislation.
This bill does not purport, as the hon. gentleman thought, to confer taxing rights on the provinces. The federal government has no jurisdiction whatever to confer taxing rights on the provinces.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nobody ever said that at all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is from the constitution of this country that the provinces derive their right to levy taxation, not from the federal government. This measure does not purport to instruct any provincial government or legislature to do anything. When the legislature of the province of Quebec in recent months raised the corporation tax in that province from 9 per cent to 10 per cent it proceeded in exercise of its own constitutional rights. It sought nothing of the federal government or of the federal jurisdiction; it exercised its own rights of its own volition as a free and sovereign legislature.
Incidentally, it may surpass imagination or belief, in the light of what has been said by hon. members opposite in this debate, that the measures that were taken by the Quebec legislature in that regard were taken unanimously in that legislature. There was no voice of dissent raised there. When legislation was passed there to raise the rate of corporation tax from 9 per cent to 10 per cent there was no voice of dissent raised there by the Liberal opposition in the house. When the Quebec legislature was invited to provide grants equivalent to $1.75 per capita of population in that province, available equally among all the universities and institutions of higher learning in that province on the basis of student enrolment, there was not a word of opposition to that measure registered in the legislature of Quebec. No, every member voted for those measures. Those were measures taken by that legislature in exercise of its own sovereign rights.
How can so brilliant a man as the hon. member for Laurier be capable of such a befuddled interpretation of the plain words of the bill?
Look at what he said at page 3282 of Hansard. It just does not bear any more resemblance to the facts of this bill than day


does to night. Let me say to him that there is no provision whatsoever in this bill requiring a province to levy an additional tax of 1 per cent on corporate income. The province could raise the money to pay the direct grants to the universities by any method available to it under the constitution. The point is simply this. If the province wishes to replace the present federal grants to universities by equivalent direct provincial grants and if, as the legislation provides, satisfactory arrangements, in the view of the minister, exist for the payment of such direct provincial grants, the corporate taxpayers of that province will receive an additional abatement of 1 per cent in the rate of corporate income tax. That is the federal corporate income tax. Further, in order to preserve equity among provinces, the calculated value of that additional abatement to the corporate taxpayers, and hence to the province, will be adjusted to $1.50 per capita by means of an additional payment or deduction from payments that are provided to be made under the terms of the act. It cannot be asserted that the bill either provides for the levying of a provincial tax on corporate income or that it provides for taking back any part of a provincial levy.
The hon. member went through some strange efforts at argument. He got mixed up in his references to one ninth of the standard corporation income tax referred to in the bill. He thought that that was the provincial tax. Of course, he was quite wrong. The standard corporation income tax is not only not a provincial tax-it is not even a federal tax, but a means of defining and calculating the amount due as tax rental under the provisions of the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act. I trust that the next time the hon. member goes agunning he will come back with more game.


Lionel Chevrier: He will go again, don't worry.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If he goes again I hope he will have a clearer head than he had when he undertook his speech on April 26.


Lionel Chevrier: At least he will deal with the bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We are told now that there are conditions imposed. There were no conditions imposed upon the sovereign legislature of the province of Quebec in doing what was done; but in doing what the federal government is prepared to do with the money that is raised by federal legislation and for which the federal government must take the responsibility, the language of the bill is

perfectly clear and is confined properly to the exercise of what is clearly federal jurisdiction.
What on the other hand is the effect of opposition to this bill, the kind of attack that was delivered on the bill by the hon. member for Laurier and other hon. members opposite? If that is the position of the opposition, then it means that Quebec-if that position were to triumph-would be denied, as it was before, the benefit of the legislation, the benefit of the equivalent of those federal grants. But for this bill Quebec would have been doomed to be denied the benefit of these provisions. Had hon. members opposite continued in office it never would have received one cent because they would not have changed their formula which they have praised so loudly in the course of this debate. They would not have changed it and Quebec would have had nothing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How do you know?


Donald Methuen Fleming: We will not be misled by their double talk now. Quebec would not have had the benefit of the more than $25 million which has now been distributed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Under the St. Laurent formula.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the Liberals had continued in office they would have continued to sit tight. They would have continued their nefarious efforts to starve the province of Quebec into submission. I say very firmly that we of this government were not prepared to stand idly by and see a great province of this country treated in that discriminatory manner. In the view of this government, unlike the former government, there are no second-class provinces in this country.
Let them praise their formula. Let them take the new formula proposed, whether in relation to university grants or in relation to the increase that this bill provides for the remaining two-year period covered by the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act in the provincial share of the yield from the personal income tax. They say their formula was so wonderful. They are full of praise of it. If their formula had continued in effect, and it would have if they had continued in office, the provinces of this country, in respect of the yield from the personal income tax, would have gone $55.9 million short in the fiscal year 1958-59 compared with what they did receive under the present government; $65 million in the fiscal year 1959-60; and an estimated $68.3 million in the present fiscal year. That is just $190 79951-0-237
Dominion-Provincial Relations million to date, and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) says that is a mere nothing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I never said anything of the kind.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In addition we are providing $100 million through the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants. Therefore, with another year to go beyond the present fiscal year in relation to the increase of 3 per cent in the yield from the personal income tax and in addition to the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants you will see that the provinces, as a result of the changes made by parliament at the request of the present government, will have derived by the end of the five-year period more than a quarter of a billion dollars that they would not have had if there had not been a change of government. That is quite apart from the increases we have made in the provision of university grants and in the provision that is now made by this bill in its other feature.
The last point I wish to mention is that the hon. member for Laurier sought to make a virtue out of the fact that there was no lapse in recent years in connection with the provisions that were made and the share of the institutions of learning in the province of Quebec simply accumulated. I do not like to say it was the Liberal purpose but it certainly was the effect of Liberal policy that the growing accumulation year by year had the effect, and I suspect was intended to have the effect, of exerting ever-increasing pressure on the province of Quebec to yield.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was to make sure they would get their share.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That accumulation began in 1956 and, but for the present government and the present measure it would have simply continued to accumulate rather than being available for distribution upon acceptable terms. I say that there is no virtue in mere accumulation. The fact is that there is some definite virtue and, I think, satisfaction to parliament in the fact that we have worked out a method that has enabled the distribution of that accumulation to be made on an acceptable basis.
Finally, I say that this is a commendable measure. It is fair to all. It is fair to all persons in this country and to all provinces. It takes nothing from any person or from any province. There is no interference whatsoever with the jurisdiction of any province. This measure respects fully the constitutional rights of every province, their rights in respect of taxation, their sacred rights in respect of education. All of the rights of the

Dominion-Provincial Relations provinces are respected in this measure. Let us have an end to the kind of double talk that has characterized the speeches we have heard from the Liberal opposition in the course of this debate. The time has now come to stand up and be counted.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I presume we are going into committee on the bill shortly. If the hon. gentleman wishes to put his question in committee that might be more appropriate.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to put it now if the minister will allow it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Very well.


Lionel Chevrier: The question is this. Is the Minister of Finance of the same view now as he was in 1958 that federal grants to universities as distributed by the former government and continued by this government are constitutional?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member has raised that point because perhaps I did not deal with it quite as fully as I should have.


Lionel Chevrier: You dealt with none of the points.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was concerned about the time limit so I appreciate very much the opportunity the hon. gentleman has now given me to deal with that question. In the course of this debate we have witnessed a good deal of playing with the words "constitution" and "constitutional". Hon. members opposite have sought to put the word through some kind of strait-jacket and, when they say "unconstitutional", treat it as though it simply meant something that would be treated by the courts as ultra vires if an issue arose and it came before the courts in litigation. When we talk not infrequently in these debates, about things being constitutional or unconstitutional I believe we are speaking-I hope we are- about those things that will contribute to the effective operation of the constitutional structure of this country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Double talk.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate would not know the difference between double talk and triple talk. His is never quite so simple as ordinary plain talk; it is either double, triple or quadruple.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I say what I mean and I mean what I say.
(Mr. Fleming (Eglinton).]


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I go further and say it is clear that when, through items in the estimates, we increased from $1 to $1.50 per capita the funds available to the universities, that was not the kind of legislation that would be ruled ultra vires in the courts, but as long as that kind of legislation had the effect of making effective provision for the institutions of higher learning only in nine provinces and was set up on such a basis that assistance could never become available to the institutions in another province, then we say that this is not the way to treat the Canadian constitution. This is not the way to enable the Canadian constitution to work effectively as it ought to work, as men of good will in all parts of the country want to see it work.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I have the permission of the minister to ask him another question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: With pleasure.


Mr. Speaker:: I must report to the house that the minister's time has expired.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister has indicated his willingness to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Only by unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) has a question of privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My question of privilege is this: I did not wish to interrupt the minister when he was speaking, but the minister completely misrepresented the position I have taken, and have always taken-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the hon. member has a right, if he feels that his views or statements have been misrepresented by a speaker, to call attention to it and make his explanation briefly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister said-I am not absolutely sure that I can reproduce his words precisely, and I am quite willing to have the minister correct me if I am not being

fair-that I had treated the increase in the equalization payments as though it were nothing. That, sir, is not true. I have welcomed them every time they have been introduced, and I have always given this government credit for doing it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On the question of privilege, sir; the hon. member has, it is quite true, allowed himself generously, graciously, condescendingly, to speak well of the action of the government in providing the Atlantic provinces adjustment grant, but he has always poured ridicule on and he has always minimized the increase that the present government has made in the provincial share of the yield from the personal income tax. It was for this reason I gave those very substantial figures in the course of my remarks tonight. So, what looks to him like a very, very small change in the St. Laurent formula, has meant about $190 million to the provinces in these last three years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The record speaks for itself.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance in his opening remarks made some very kind references to his friendship with me and I, of course, can recall the days at Osgoode Hall when he was as flambuoyant then as he was this evening and, of course, those of us who sat in the classroom with him

Dominion-Provincial Relations remember how very often the hon. gentleman would make a great deal of noise about a point of law only to discover at the end that there was no point to his argument at all. I say this to him respectfully, because this evening in the remarks which he made so loudly and with such eloquence I do not think he made any attempt to reply with any degree of seriousness to the objections which were posed by those of us who sit on this side of the house to certain aspects of this bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And for which you all voted.


Lionel Chevrier: The Minister of Justice
made a point of interrupting me by saying that this was a bill for which we all voted. Yes. The Minister of Justice may not remember that on a similar occasion, when he and his colleagues sat on this side of the house, they did worse than that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On what occasion? Give
chapter and verse now.


Lionel Chevrier: When there was a discussion of the National Housing Act in 1954 during a period of four days the hon. gentleman and his friends criticized the government day in and day out and then, when the vote was taken, they voted in favour of the measure.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No constitutional issue there; no provincial election then.


Lionel Chevrier: More than that, Mr. Chairman, there was, during the discussion of that bill-


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: I am surprised that the Minister of Justice is not able to sit there and take it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are surprised and disappointed.


Lionel Chevrier: I am disappointed at you. If you will only listen to what I have to say perhaps the disappointment will be on the other side. I was about to say that on third reading of that bill there was an amendment moved by a member of the C.C.F. party that the bill be not read the third time, because of an amendment concerning interest. Again the members of the Conservative opposition who criticized our conduct so strongly tonight through the Minister of Finance voted on third reading, on the amendment, with the government of the day.


An hon. Member:: Discuss the bill.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I am going to discuss the bill, do not worry about that. But the Minister of Finance did not discuss the bill. He raised a smokescreen, and for 40 minutes


all he tried to do was to attempt to show that there was a division between us in so far as our attitude is concerned.


An hon. Member:: He convinced you.


Lionel Chevrier: There is no division. I intend at this stage to put on record-


An hon. Member:: Smokescreen.


Lionel Chevrier: There is no one better than the Minister of Finance at being able to raise a smokescreen around an issue such as this, though he has not been very successful.


An hon. Member:: You voted for it.


Lionel Chevrier: Apparently hon. members on the other side of the house do not like this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


An hon. Member:: We love it.


Lionel Chevrier: At least they should do us the courtesy of listening to this speech in the same way as we listened to speeches from the other side of the house. However, if hon. members opposite want to interrupt, let them go ahead and do so because I can speak a great deal louder than they can. I may not be able to wave, the way the Minister of Finance does, and hop, step and jump as he did this evening, but at least I intend to talk to the bill if I am given an opportunity to do so.


Jacques Flynn: Order. May I remind all hon. members that it is not permitted by the rules to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor without first obtaining permission, nor is it permitted to interrupt while the chairman is speaking. I would ask for the co-operation of everyone so that this debate may proceed in an orderly way and so that the hon. member for Laurier may proceed to discuss the bill which is before us.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your intervention and I will proceed to answer the point which was raised, namely that there was a difference of opinion between the Leader of the Opposition, and myself and the members of our party. Apparently the Minister of Finance had completely forgotten what I stated as recorded at page 3284 of Hansard of April 26, 1960, and I quote:
In conclusion I should like to summarize the attitude of the official opposition toward the main parts of the bill. We support the increased payment to the province; that is, the extension of the rate of 13 per cent of the standard individual income tax for a further period of two years, although such an arrangement is not what the provinces were led to believe they would get from the present government before the last general election. Next, we are also in favour of the university grants paid out of the federal treasury, which were started by a Liberal government and distributed through the Canadian universities

foundation or, as I suggested last year, through a provincial universities foundation or council, because such grants are in the public interest; they are not financed by a specific direct tax, and they are not accompanied by any conditions affecting education.
So far as the constitutional basis of the proposed new arrangement for federal financial aid to universities through the provinces is concerned, we believe this is an attempt to go beyond the jurisdiction of parliament. We do not feel that anyone in this house should be an accessory to what seems to us a violation of the constitution, even if such violation were to last for a period of only two years. Therefore we feel that the government should either satisfy the house that the bill is completely constitutional or give us an assurance that the necessary modifications will be made during the course of the discussion to bring the bill within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon.
member read on a little further.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister asked a question and I indicated that when we got that assurance then we would consider our position. But the point I am making is that there is no difference of opinion on what was said by myself on this occasion and what was said by the Leader of the Opposition. The Minister of Finance sought to raise a difference of opinion but there was none, and I repeat now that we voted for the second reading of this bill because we believed in equalization payments. We voted for the second reading-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, surely it is not in keeping with the rules of this house for an hon. member, after a vote is taken, to get up and give his reasons for voting as he has. There is a rule of the house which precludes any reflection on a vote. The vote on second reading has been taken and we are not now debating second reading; we are in committee of the whole on clause 1. It is not open to any hon. member now to rise and make a speech indicating the reason why he voted for a bill after speaking against it, or in any other way. That is completely contrary to the rules and proceedings of this house.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, the clause we are on is clause 1 which deals with equalization. I was saying that we voted for the principle and if that offends my hon. friend I do not think it offends against the rules. However, let me put it in this way. I say that we are in favour of the bill because we believe in equalization payments.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, clause 1 of the bill has nothing to do with equalization. It has to do with revising agreements at the option
Dominion-Provincial Relations of any province which has signed an agreement and now wishes to go on the new alternative basis which is proposed.


Lionel Chevrier: The first clause deals with an amendment of the arrangements under the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act which is a continuation of the tax-sharing arrangement and which includes equalization payments. I should not be interrupted by the minister, because I believe I am in order.
Mr. Chairman, we believe in university grants, as I said in the statement which I read out. We believe in a continuation of the St. Laurent formula and we believe also that the principle laid down in this clause 1 is one which we can support.
However, there are many hon. members in this house, and I refer particularly to the Quebec Conservative members, who opposed the payments of grants by the foundation, as set out in the definition, within the province. That is why the government has submitted to the house this bill. It is a method which we think raises serious doubts, serious doubts of a constitutional nature which I do not intend to repeat because I put them on record during the course of the original discussion.
In due course, however, we propose to move an amendment to this bill which we think will remove the objectionable features of the bill and which will offer a new method of distributing the grants which we believe is more acceptable and will do away with the seriousness of the objections which I placed on Hansard on an earlier occasion.
There are, it seems to me, a number of objections which have not yet been removed by the Minister of Finance during the course of his statement. The words which I mentioned in this bill, "in the opinion of the minister"-for example.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, that is in a later clause of the bill. We are discussing clause 1 and surely it is not open to the hon. member to stray around and discuss all the clauses at the one time. He is talking of a provision under clause 2 of the bill and we are on clause 1.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, could I say a word on the point of order raised by the Minister of Finance. It is a time-honoured practice in this house which has never been more frequently asserted than by the hon. gentleman who is now Acting Prime Minister that on clause 1 of a bill-I may say this was upheld by your predecessors, Mr. Chairman, and also upheld by you only yesterday when the Minister of Finance raised a point about the resolution stage of a tax resolution -there is a general debate about the provisions and the attitudes of the parties to the

Dominion-Provincial Relations details of the bill which cannot be discussed on second reading. What my hon. friend from Laurier was seeking to do was to indicate, since this bill constitutes a scheme of things, to indicate all in one piece so that it will be comprehensible to hon. gentlemen opposite whom we are trying to persuade, that this course should be taken. This cannot be done if a new kind of restriction is to be put upon us, a restriction which was argued against so ably and convincingly, and so frequently, by the present Acting Prime Minister when he sat over here and which you yourself, sir, upheld only the other night.


Jacques Flynn: I understand the practice generally is that on clause 1 of a bill discussion of a general nature can take place and some latitude should be given. However, may I point out to the hon. member for Laurier that going into too many details might bring about repetition when we come to clause 2. I think his views at this point should be more general and not relate to detail as to what his proposed amendment will try to correct; otherwise we would have repetition of debate. But I agree that on clause 1 general considerations may be given.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I realize there is perhaps a point there. I will not discuss further at this time the amendment which I had intended to move. I will leave it for a later stage. However, I would like within the confines of this clause to recapitulate succinctly, the position so far as we are concerned and I think I can do it under three heads.
It seems to me that there are several objections to the proposed alternatives that the government has outlined in this bill. The first one was in the words which are underlined in the bill, "in the opinion of the minister." It seems to me they raise a serious constitutional doubt in the light of section 93 because they constitute a clear and direct interference with the sovereign right of the province in this field. Here is a field of legislation which is referred to in this bill. Here is a proposed federal statute. Here is a proposed federal law which in fact says directly to the province: "You shall make an arrangement with the universities of the province which shall be satisfactory to the federal Minister of Finance".


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nonsense.


Lionel Chevrier: That is set out in the bill. Moreover, parliament is being asked to say that the arrangement to be made between the provincial government and the universities must be in accordance with and subject to terms and conditions not inconsistent with those contained in any agreement entered

into between the federal Minister of Finance and the Canadian universities foundation. In the face of that it seems to me that, in the matter of education, over which the province alone has jurisdiction, the provincial government will therefore be bound by these definitions and by this agreement to which it will not even be a party.
Then there is, of course, the very serious objection contained in the last part of the bill on page 3 that if more than $1.50 per capita is derived from the provincial tax the federal government must claim the excess as a debt due to Canada. If this is not against the letter of the constitution, then it seems to me it is against the spirit of the constitution. In any event, if it is neither it is odious because the federal government under the terms of the bill will then be claiming the proceeds of a provincial tax collected for provincial purposes.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: Why did the hon.
member vote for a bill so odious?


Lionel Chevrier: I put on Hansard the reasons for that a moment ago and I was interrupted by the Minister of Finance because I could not discuss it. Now my friend asks the same question.
Without offending the rules of the house I should like to move now to another aspect of this which I think is of considerable importance to us all and particularly to those hon. members who took part in the discussion. I should like to discuss for a moment the consideration of the obligations imposed on the provincial government with respect to its transactions with the universities in the province, in the agreement which is referred to in the bill as being made between the Minister of Finance and the Canadian universities foundation. Here, of course, I want to refer in an especial manner to what three hon. members speaking in this house had to say on the subject, but more particularly the hon. member for Bellechasse. On Friday, April 1, 1960, the hon. member for Bellechasse had this to say, and I quote from his words at page 2811 of Hansard:
(Translation):
First, under the 1952 legislation, institutions qualifying for grants-
(Text):
The hon. member was dealing with what was done by the former administration at that time.
(Translation):
-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-
Of which I have here a copy.
-which gave a federal definition of those terms, and also fo the terms "student" and "university".
And the hon. member for Bellechasse went on to say:
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 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.
And the hon. member added, a little further on:
That time, no further compromise was possible, and federal grants were spectacularly rejected.
(Text):
That is a very strange assertion to come from the hon. member for Bellechasse.


Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. May I refer to citation 148 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition. Surely, this is repetitious. Citation 148 reads:
(1)	It is a wholesome restraint upon members that they cannot revive a debate already concluded: and it would be little use in preventing the same question from being offered twice in the same session if, without being offered, its merits might be discussed again and again.
(2)	It is irregular to reflect upon, argue against, or in any manner call in question, in debate, the past acts or proceedings of the house, on the obvious ground that, besides tending to revise discussion upon questions which have already been once decided, such reflections are uncourteous to the house and irregular in principle in as much as the member is himself included in and bound by a vote agreed to by a majority; and it seems that, reflecting upon or questioning the acts of the "majority" is equivalent to reflecting upon the house.
With all due deference I contend that what the hon. member for Laurier is doing at the present time is completely contrary to the rule as set out in this citation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point raised by the hon. member for Stormont, I do not suppose you need any guidance because it has always been the practice in the house to treat the whole debate from the beginning of the resolution stage until the completion of third reading as a single debate.


Jacques Flynn: It seems to me that citation 148 refers to repetition of debate during the same session but, generally speaking, the discussion of a bill is only one debate.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I was interrupted I was trying to indicate, and I had about reached the point
Dominion-Provincial Relations where I was citing the hon. member for Bellechasse, and I had referred also to the same argument made by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere and in part by the hon. member for Charlevoix, wherein a great deal was made of those definitions, but I should like to tell the committee that those definitions had no legal status whatsoever. Those definitions were put in the order in council P.C. 123 for the sole object of calculating the grant and, it seems to me, that does not need a great deal of explanation in so far as this committee is concerned.
Indeed, if the federal government were to offer grants to the universities there had to be some kind of definitions and there had to be some kind of a basis upon which the grants could be paid. There had to be a definition of a university, of university level, of a university degree and of a student; otherwise, the grants could not have been paid, and that is why they were put in the order in council. Thus, those definitions were not in any way as stated by the hon. members in this debate, an encroachment upon the provincial field; but, Mr. Chairman, lo and behold there appears on the scene the Minister of Finance. On the eighteenth day of January, 1960 he enters into an agreement with the Canadian universities foundation, with the national conference of Canadian universities, and in clause 13 there appear the same words, "student, university, university degree and university level", with the same definitions, word for word. I will place on Hansard the French equivalent of what the hon. member for Bellechasse said was a fantastic intrusion and encroachment upon the provincial field.
Here in the agreement made between the Minister of Finance and the Canadian universities foundation is the definition of university level:
"university level", with respect to a province, means a stage of an educational program that is more advanced than the stage that is generally accepted in the province as the university entrance requirement.
And, in the French language:
(Translation):
University level:
With regard to a province, a more advanced curriculum than is generally accepted in the provinces as a prerequisite university enrolment.
(Text):
Word for word with what the hon. member for Bellechasse put on Hansard, the same argument as was made by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere and in part the same argument as made by the hon. member for Charlevoix. Will these three members and the other hon. members from

Dominion-Provincial Relations the province of Quebec rise in their places and condemn these definitions? They are exactly the same as those brought into effect by the former administration in order in council P.C. 123. If these members are logical with themselves, if they are honest with themselves, then of course they will say that either they did not know about this or, if they knew about it, they should never have made the argument because if it was wrong to use those definitions in 1952, which in no sense was an attack upon the structure of education in a province, surely it is wrong to use them in 1960. It is word for word, phrase for phrase, clause for clause exactly the same. I challenge these three hon. members who entered this debate to rise during the course of the discussion and to tell us why there is not the same objection today in 1960 to the agreement between the Minister of Finance and the Canadian universities foundation.
(Translation):


Mr. Dorion:: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for speaking from a seat other than mine. May I ask a question of the hon. member?


Lionel Chevrier: Certainly.


Noël Dorion: If I understood correctly, what the hon. member for Laurier just quoted is part of an agreement between the Minister of Finance and the federation of universities. Am I right?


Lionel Chevrier: You are.


Noël Dorion: In that case, could the hon. member not make a distinction between an agreement concluded by the concerned parties and an order of definitions given in a unilateral way by a minister of the crown?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there is a distinction to be made, except that, in this case, the agreement is mentioned in the bill and, in fact, the province is party to the agreement, even if it did not sign it. There lies our objection.
(Text):
That, sir, is the other point to which I want to come.
(Translation):


Mr. Asselin:: It is far-fetched.
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend says that that is pulling hairs. Just let him listen to this and see if it is because, after all, if what was done heretofore by the former administration is being done word for word by this administration surely it must be as bad, if it was bad, providing hon. members want to be consistent.

(Translation):


Noël Dorion: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry-*


Lionel Chevrier: No, just a moment. I have not yet finished answering the question of the hon. member for Bellechasse.


Noël Dorion: I do not want to pester the hon. member for Laurier, but-


Lionel Chevrier: Go ahead.


Noël Dorion: Are Quebec universities members of the Canadian universities foundation?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, the agreement between the minister and the Canadian universities foundation, obviously, does not affect universities of the province of Quebec, but on the other hand, under this bill the province of Quebec is subject to the agreement between the minister and the Canadian universities' foundation and is-


An hon. Member:: Bound.


Lionel Chevrier: Bound, that is the word-* thank you-as it is said in the bill. It is the point I wanted to make because, if you look at the wording of section 2 (4) you will see this: that-
(Text):
Satisfactory arrangements must be made for the payment by the province directly to institutions of higher learning in the province.
(Translation):
And listen to this:
(Text):
-in accordance with and subject to terms and conditions not inconsistent with those contained in any agreement entered into between the minister and the Canadian universities foundation.
This means that the province will be bound, although it is not a party to this agreement, by the terms that are contained in the agreement and therefore bound by the definition "student"; bound by the definition "university level"; to which the hon. member for Bellechasse took such strong objection; bound by the definition of "university degree"; and also bound by the definition of "university". These are definitions which the hon. member for Bellechasse found were so strong and so fantastic. He said that they were a fantastic provision. Here the bill goes much further than the hon. member may want it to go. From now on if this bill is approved the province in its dealings with the universities will have to comply with any agreement to which it is not a party-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, no.


Lionel Chevrier: -and made by the Minister of Finance with the Canadian universities foundation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Lionel Chevrier: You can ask your question when I am through.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member was very quick to ask me questions.


Lionel Chevrier: Very well, go ahead.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is it not clear to the hon. member from reading that provision that the agreement between the Minister of Finance and the Canadian universities foundation will have application only to those moneys that are paid over by the minister in pursuance of the legislation to the foundation and that does not include any provision for any province that is a prescribed province, a province which does not rent the corporate tax field to the federal government?


Lionel Chevrier: The minister had better amend his bill because that is not my understanding of it or he had better read the bill. The minister apparently does not understand his own bill because here is what it says:
"Prescribed province" means a province ...
(i)	that has not entered into a tax rental agreement ...
(ii)	in which, for that fiscal year, satisfactory arrangements exist in the opinion of the minister-
It is a unilateral deal.
-for the payment by the province directly to institutions of higher learning in the province, in accordance with and subject to terms and conditions not inconsistent with those contained-
In the agreement made between the minister and the Canadian universities foundation. I submit it could not be plainer than it is in this bill. That may not be the intention-


Donald Methuen Fleming: How can you
misread the provision in that way?


Lionel Chevrier: -but there is no doubt that the significance of the definitions used up to now for the sole purpose of measuring grants will be completely changed because under this provision the provincial government will be bound in its dealings with the universities in the province. This means that when the provincial government makes annual grants available to the universities within the province it will have to accept the definition of "student"-


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you were very generous with the hon. member in allowing a general discussion. It was about three quarters of an hour ago that he embarked on that, but his whole speech now is related to the details
Dominion-Provincial Relations of clause 2. We are just headed into endless repetition when we come to these clauses. Surely the hon. member must have some regard for the rules of the house. If he is going to discuss the details of clause 2, then in my respectful submission that can only be done when you call clause 2, Mr. Chairman. This is not general discussion at all. This is the most detailed kind of discussion of a clause that has not yet been called by the Chair.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order, I was interrupted three times, twice by the hon. member for Bellechasse and once by the Minister of Finance, and asked to give reasons why I made the statement earlier, and I was attempting to reply. The minister asked for it and now that he is getting it he raised an objection because he does not like the interpretation.


Jacques Flynn: Order. We have been allowing time for the interruptions, but the hon. member's time has expired.


An hon. Member:: Let him go ahead.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you.


Jacques Flynn: I may say I was beginning to worry about the discussion of clause 2 because it seemed to me that it was going a little beyond the rule allowing general debate on clause 1. In any event, as the hon. member's time has expired, I do not have to rule on that.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the committee allow me to complete the answer to the questions asked of me by some hon. members?


Mr. Henderson:: Southern courtesy, yes.


Lionel Chevrier: The courtesy for which I am asking now I have many times extended to members on the other side of the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am quite sure that the committee would wish to extend every courtesy to the hon. member who is speaking for his party. I can only ask, Mr. Chairman, that any general discussion which is permitted be general discussion or else discussion pertinent to the provisions of clause 1, and that detailed discussion of clause 2 be reserved until we reach clause 2. There will be ample opportunity for discussion of clause 2 then. There is no infringement of the hon. member's rights in proceedings as I am suggesting.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the Minister of Finance for giving me the opportunity of continuing for a moment longer. I think the remainder of my remarks I could make on clause 2, but if I were able to make them now I would not have to make them on clause 2. I would, in order not to encroach

Dominion-Provincial Relations upon the time of the committee, simply like to conclude the answers to the questions which were put to me by two hon. members, and then I could resume my seat. This would take a matter of a few minutes.
What I was on the point of saying, Mr. Chairman, when I was interrupted was that if the Minister of Finance at any time found that the agreement which he had made with the foundation was not satisfactory he could change that agreement. If he changed that agreement and its provisions, including the definitions which I have put on Hansard, then the provincial government would again, in its place, have to change the arrangement made between itself and the universities and re-negotiate with them an entirely new arrangement. So, it seemed to me, in answer to these questions, that it was quite evident that this bill contained a clear element of compulsion which had been introduced into this federal legislation with regard to education or, more concisely, to the relations which exist between the provincial government and the universities in the province.
It is for that reason I am astonished that the members of the Quebec Conservative party have not noticed this anomaly or, having noticed it, have not raised it at all. So far as we are concerned we feel that according to our constitution a provincial government is completely free to deal with the universities in the province as it sees fit. It is also a matter of concern to us that it should be the business of the federal government to interfere at all, as it seems now quite clear the federal government will be doing, in the field of education by the wording contained in this bill. That is why we cannot accept the provisions that I have mentioned in the bill. We wonder how it is that the Quebec Conservative members can accept them now after the criticism they made against the definitions, when in no way they were binding upon the provincial government in its relations with the universities in the province.
There are two other points I should like to make but I do not want to trespass unduly on the time of the committee. I shall reserve them for the discussion under clause 2.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious that the hon. member has wandered far under the guise of carrying on a general discussion such as is permitted on the first clause of a bill when in committee. I do not intend at this moment to follow him in his detailed discussion of the individual provisions and detailed terms of clause 2 of the bill. If I were to do so I would be following him into an open and very clear breach of the rules. I will simply say at this moment, reserving in detail my remarks by way of

reply until the proper time when you call clause 2 of the bill, that I do not think I have heard, in 15 years in this house, such a jumbled misunderstanding of any provision of a bill as I heard in this committee on the part of the hon. member for Laurier this evening. I do not like to say that; I regret saying it, but it is a fact.


Lionel Chevrier: That does not deal very well with the point, does it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I pointed out that I will be pleased to deal with this in detail when we reach clause 2 of the bill. I would not wish the remarks of the hon. member, who has strayed so far from clause 1, to be interpreted as having any validity by reason of their not being mentioned at this point.
I simply make a general observation and hope, in the meantime, the hon. member will really read the provisions of the bill and in that way correct for himself this hopeless jumble in which he finds himself as a result of completely misreading and misinterpreting the plain provisions of this bill.


Lionel Chevrier: I have read it very carefully, and I have spent a lot of time on it. I am surprised that is the only answer of the Minister of Finance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not the only answer; the answer will be given at the time it ought to be given when clause 2 of the bill is under discussion, and when the hon. member ought to have made his remarks.
(Translation):


Rodolphe Leduc: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with much interest to the various members who participated in this debate. Furthermore, I have listened carefully to the outline given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming).
I fail to understand the attitude of the Minister of Finance, that of the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer), as well as that of the Quebec premier.
I should like to know from the Minister of Finance whether there is some agreement between the government of the province of Quebec and the federal government. I read in yesterday's press a report of a speech made in Joliette by the Quebec premier and I have here that part of it which will interest the house. Here is what it says:
Mr. Barrette said that there was never any question of an agreement with Ottawa, but a decision taken by an autonomous government to settle a thorny problem. Thus, by proudly expressing our will, we finally succeeded in recovering for Quebec $10 million in taxes every year, and the $25 million lying dormant in Ottawa coffers.
We even got the federal government to admit that it will entirely vacate the field of education, thus finally winning out after years of struggle.

Would the Minister of Finance tell us whether there really was an agreement or not? I am sure everybody would be interested to know whether such an agreement exists. I have here the last letter-


Jacques Flynn: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member's arguments are still quite close to clause 2 of the bill, and I wonder whether it would not be better for the committee to vote on clause 1 before dealing with clause 2, which seems to be the only one of interest to him. In committee it is impossible to start a discussion all over again on second reading. It is permissible to make a few remarks of a general nature on clause
1,	but no go so to repeat the whole debate on second reading. When we come to clause
2,	or to any other clause, it can be fully discussed.
I wonder whether it would not be better, in the interests of orderly discussion, to reserve the remarks which the hon. member is now making until we examine clause 2.


Lionel Chevrier: I have a suggestion to
make to the Minister of Finance. I might perhaps make it in English.
(Text):
If I may I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister of Finance in English and it is this. In order to assist a more orderly discussion in the debate I suggest that we suspend discussion of clause 1 and go on to clause 2 on the understanding that we may have a general discussion on clause 2. The reason I make that suggestion is this. We have an amendment to propose later on. If it were approved it would require a con-sequetial amendment to clause 1. Otherwise the chairman is going to be pehaps in the difficult position of being obliged to rule. None the less, I think the hon. member for Gatineau and those will follow him should have the general latitude that is allowed under clause 1. I make that suggestion in gn effort to be helpful.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The rules of the house make ample provision for proceedings with reference to bills that come before the house, Mr. Chairman. I suggest that we simply follow the rules of the house. So far as clause 1 of the bill is concerned, if the hon. member has an amendment to introduce and if it is relevant, then I suggest that he introduce it. So far as discussion of clause 1 is concerned, Mr. Chairman, you have indicated that you are prepared to countenance some general discussion. Any other discussion, in my respectful submission, must be strictly relevant to the terms of clause 1.
I do not propose to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Laurier under which
Dominion-Provincial Relations we would reverse the order of the clauses and start jumping around the bill. The provisions of clause 1 of the bill are quite clear. They are simply enabling provisions in relation to the revision of any existing agreement that any province has entered into for the purpose of renting fields of taxation to the federal government. Clause 2 apparently is the clause that principally interests hon. members opposite. But surely that is no reason for departure from the rules of the house. If there is discussion relevant to clause 1, I suggest that we should proceed with it. If the discussion that hon. members wish to initiate relates to clause 2, then let us follow the proper procedure and adopt clause 1 and then proceed to clause 2.


Jacques Flynn: May I point out that of course the practice has allowed general discussion on clause 1 of the bill; but nevertheless the rule of strict relevancy applies and it is not permissible to revive a debate on second reading. It therefore seems to me that the remarks of the hon. member for Gatineau were relevant only to clause 2 and were not of the general nature that I have in mind that could be included in remarks on clause 1, and not referring especially to clause 1. I would therefore ask him to wait until we reach clause 2 in order to continue in this line of discussion.
(Translation):


Rodolphe Leduc: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since we must discuss only the items concerning clause 7, here is what it says:
1.	Subsection (3) of section 6 of the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
Well, Mr. Chairman, I will deal with the sharing of taxes and it is precisely because I want to discuss the sharing of taxes that I would like to know whether the government of Quebec has signed an agreement with Ottawa because, according to the statements of the premier and according to the act adopted in Quebec under which an additional tax of 1 per cent will be raised on the income of the corporations, there is no mention whatsoever that a part of this amount should to be paid back to Ottawa.


Léon Balcer: There is no mention either of an agreement in the bill.


Jacques Flynn: I believe the point again raised by the member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc) is not related to clause 1. The only place where there could be a relationship with the provincial act to which he referred is in clause 2. But clause 1 refers to a general agreement, a general method of tax-sharing. I believe the point he raised

Dominion-Provincial Relations is related only to clause 2 and I am sure that at that time he will have an opportunity to discuss it. So, I would urge him to wait till we come to that clause.


Mr. Roberge:: Mr. Chairman, if I may be allowed to make a remark in connection with your own call to order, it is said in the explanatory note of the bill:
The purpose of clauses 1 and 2 of this bill is 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.
By simply reading the explanatory note as well as clause 1, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, that it would be in order for the member for Gatineau to discuss this matter.
(Text):


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wonder whether I can help to clarify this provision of clause 1? Otherwise we are going to waste a good deal of time in going on as we are and, if I may say so, in a disorderly way. The provision of clause 1 of the bill affects only those provinces which up to this time have entered into agreements with the federal government to rent to the federal government the field of the corporation tax. There are eight provinces that have entered into such agreements. Ontario collects its own corporation tax. Quebec has no agreement with the federal government; it collects its own corporation tax. This provision now under debate, Mr. Chairman, simply has reference to those eight provinces which up to this time have entered into agreements to rent that one field of taxation to the federal government and it permits them, if they so desire, to revise, repeal or amend the agreement they have made with the federal government in order to resume the collection of the corporation tax. This clause could have no application to provinces in the position today of Ontario and Quebec.


Lionel Chevrier: May I say a word on this matter because here-


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Jacques Flynn: Order. It being ten o'clock, I think we might continue this discussion when the committee sits again. Then I will hear the hon. member, unless there is unanimous consent to continue now.


Lionel Chevrier: I can do it in about two minutes.


Jacques Flynn: Unless there is unanimous consent to proceed, I shall be obliged to call it ten o'clock.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I suggest that as we are all trying to accommodate one another here this evening perhaps the committee might be willing to continue its sitting for the two minutes so that the hon. member may complete his comment on the point of order.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the minister.


Jacques Flynn: Is the committee agreeable to that procedure?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lionel Chevrier: The only point I want to make is this, and I will make it quickly. On the discussion of the resolution as well as on the discussion on second reading we are prevented from dealing with the bill clause by clause. There is a rule which prohibits that procedure, and it is a very good one. We speak on the principle, and that is what we did. Now we come into committee and what are we being told? We are being told that we cannot discuss this matter on clause 1, that we must go to clause 2 or wait until discussion of clause 3. We feel that on clause 1, as you yourself, Mr. Chairman, said earlier, there should be a general discussion which should not be in too great detail in order that hon. members might put their objections, if they have any, on record. Then when we come to clause 2 we shall have to deal with that, and clause 3 similarly. That is the proposition I make.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can only say that the proposition which the hon. gentleman has put forward is completely at variance with the rules of this house. The discussion on clause 1 may be general, if that is permitted, but when it becomes detailed' it must be relevant to clause 1, not to clause 2. Discussion on the details of clause 2 must await the calling of clause 2.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance has spoken again, I suggest you call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Jacques Flynn: It being ten o'clock I will deal with the point of order on a later occasion.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business is to be tomorrow?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We shall continue consideration of Bill No. C-56. If that is finished we shall go on with the budget resolutions.


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

Questions
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS	2. Not applicable.
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Badanai: 1.	Was the surveying of the sites for radar installations at or near Moosonee, Ontario, advertised?
2.	If so, who was the successful tender?
3.	What did the job of surveying the line cost?
Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):
1. No.
3.	The location survey was carried out by the Royal Canadian Air Force.



CUSTOMS ACT


Mr. Mcllraiih: 1.	In how many cases has paragraph (b) of subsection 7 of section 40A of the Customs Act, as enacted by chapter 26 of the statutes of 1958, been applied since February 22, 1960?
2.	What was the value for duty of the fresh fruits and vegetables to which this paragraph was applied?
Answer by: Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):
1.	Nil.
2.	Not applicable.



END OF VOLUME III


[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 25, 1960


[Stage Direction]
Miss Margaret Ailken (York-Humber)
presented the third and fourth reports of the standing committee on standing orders, and moved that the reports be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.