1960-04-26

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1960-61

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1961, was presented by Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): I wish to announce certain appointments and transfers of senior government officers.
The governor in council has today accepted the resignation of Mr. J. G. Bisson as chairman of the unemployment insurance commission and has appointed him consul general for Canada in New Orleans.
Mr. Laval Fortier, who has been deputy minister of citizenship and immigration, has been appointed chairman of the unemployment insurance commission.
Dr. George F. Davidson, who has been deputy minister of welfare, has been appointed deputy minister of citizenship and immigration.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: The agricultural stabilization board will support the price of wool produced in Canada for the period April 1, 1960 to March 31, 1961 at 60 cents per pound for the average wholesale price of western range choice, halfblood staple, and eastern domestic, quarter-blood staple combined.
The prescribed price will be approximately 113 per cent of the base price or ten-year average of the two grades, basis f.o.b. Toronto, which is a slightly higher percentage than for the 1959 clip for which the prescribed price was approximately 110.5 per cent of the ten-year average. The support price for
the 1959 clip resulted in the board making a deficiency payment of 21 cents per pound on all eligible graded wool.
The support price for 1960 is the same as that provided for the 1959 clip. It is considered that this support price is necessary and justified in order to assist the Canadian sheep industry.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house I would like to make an announcement about the government's program for assisting NATO countries to set up strategic stockpiles of wheat flour.
Hon. members will recall that on June 1 of last year the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) informed the house, as reported at page 4189 of Hansard, of the government's intention to ask parliament for $10 million for that purpose. He recalled how he had brought forward at the meeting of heads of governments of NATO countries at Paris in December, 1957 a proposal for the establishment of a food bank among the NATO countries for use in the event of an outbreak of hostilities. He expressed at that time the willingness of the Canadian government to play its part in the establishment of such food reserves. The house was made aware of the facts of the matter on July 19, 1958 during the debate on the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.
Later, in October of that year, 1958, the terms of the Canadian offer were made known in detail to our NATO allies. During the course of last year, as the Prime Minister reported, discussions were carried on with interested countries, but these took longer than we had expected and no agreements were reached in time to enable us to make use of the $10 million voted for the last fiscal year. However, I am now able to announce, and I do so with pleasure, that an agreement was concluded yesterday with Norway under which Canada will provide
20,000	tons of wheat flour later this year for wartime emergency stockpiling purposes in Norway. In due course, when the supplementary estimates of my department for this year

External Affairs
come before the house, an item will be included to cover the expenditures that will be involved in this agreement.
The agreement with Norway took the form of an exchange of notes between myself and the Norwegian ambassador. These set out the terms and conditions under which the wheat flour will be provided by Canada and stored by Norway. With your leave I wish to table copies of the notes.
Briefly, the agreement provides that 20,000 tons of flour suitably packaged for long storage will be delivered to Canadian seaports to be specified by the government, and that Norway will inspect and assume title to the flour at those ports with all expenses thereafter being borne by the Norwegian government. They will transport the flour to Norway where they will store it for emergency wartime use. When it is no longer fit for human consumption it will be replaced by Norway either by wheat or wheat flour so as to maintain the original level of the stockpile at 20,000 tons.
I may perhaps add that the ambassador of Norway expressed to me his government's appreciation for Canada's contribution to their food stockpile within the framework of our common NATO defence objectives.
Mr. Speaker, I would now ask leave to table copies of these notes.


Mr. Winch:: One other C.C.F. proposal accepted.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the house will greatly welcome the minister's announcement in so far as it refers to arrangements made between Canada and Norway by which we can help in this way a country with which we have worked so closely and constructively over the years in NATO and outside NATO, and which certainly deserves the kind of assistance the minister has mentioned.
However, I regret very much, and perhaps the minister does also, that it has not been found possible to carry out the original proposal, which went far beyond this present arrangement, for the establishment of a food bank in NATO. I would hope that this kind of assistance which is now being extended on a bilateral basis can be developed so that one day we will be able to do this sort of thing collectively inside NATO.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement made by the government has the support of the C.C.F. group in this House of Commons. We feel that this is the right kind of emphasis for a policy undertaken in association with a NATO country. As the days go by I think more and more

emphasis should be placed on economic assistance and collaboration rather than on the present excessive emphasis on military matters to the exclusion of important economic questions.
The quantity of wheat involved is not large. It is a relatively small quantity of wheat in terms of the quantity of wheat that Canada has made available in the past by way of economic assistance to the Colombo plan countries and other countries. We welcome this announcement, and we hope the government will consider taking similar action with regard to the Colombo plan countries so that in 1960 by way of economic assistance through the provision of wheat and flour we may at least equal the assistance we provided last year. At the moment we are very far short of doing so.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members will have seen in the press, the town of Lars in southern Iran was struck on Sunday, April 24, by an earthquake which, on the basis of news reports, may have caused between 1,500 and 3,000 deaths and extensive property damage. The Canadian representative in Tehran has been instructed to convey to the Iranian government expressions of sympathy in the name of Canada.
I am sure all the hon. members of this house would wish to join me in expressing to the government and people of Iran our sincere condolences over this tragedy, which is evoking the deepest sympathy across Canada. We have been in touch with the Canadian Red Cross, which is making efforts to ascertain whether Canadian help might eventually be required for victims of the disaster. As yet no request for assistance has been received.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sure those of us who sit on this side will wish to join the minister in his expression of sympathy in what is obviously a terrible disaster. We feel also that this sympathy would be more impressive if we could follow it up by help through the Red Cross, as suggested by the minister.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: We
in this group join with the minister in his expression of sympathy for these most unfortunate people who have suffered as a result of this momentous disaster. Like the leader of the official opposition we trust this sympathy will find material expression in the days ahead.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: number of hon. members have recently expressed interest in the meetings which have been held lately by the unemployment insurance advisory committee dealing with regulations 172 and 173. I have also received a number of submissions in connection with this matter, and inquiries as to the effect of these regulations. In view of the interest thus shown I would seek the indulgence of the house at this time to make a brief statement.
As the house knows, the regulations were recently considered by the advisory committee, which then reported to the unemployment insurance commission. Following these considerations the matter was reviewed by the government, with the result that the position has now been returned to almost exactly where it stood before September 27 last when the last changes in these regulations were made. Holiday pay will continue to be regarded as earnings in the case of a general plant shutdown for holidays occurring within six weeks of a claimant's separation from employment. Payment for single holidays will continue to be regarded as earnings during a week of unemployment after separation. This will prevent payment of benefits to claimants who are on vacation.
For all other purposes, holiday pay upon separation will revert to the status which prevailed prior to September 27,	1959.
Severance pay will no longer be regarded as earnings, and this will apply also to bonuses and gratuities either in lump sums or instalments. Thus to all intents and purposes the situation reverts to what it was before September 27, 1959. The regulations as now amended will be effective as from March 27 last.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he would care to comment on the situation which has arisen at the conference on the law of the sea at Geneva, where the Canadian proposal was defeated yesterday so narrowly.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will have seen the press reports concerning today's vote at the law of the sea conference, at which by the narrow margin of one vote-in fact I think it was
Inquiries of the Ministry a percentage of a vote-the joint Canada-United States proposal failed to gain the necessary two thirds majority. The vote was 54 in favour and 28 against with 5 abstentions.
Efforts were made immediately after the vote to have the proposal reconsidered, but the motion for reconsideration was also defeated by a very narrow margin. As a result the conference has terminated without having arrived at a conclusion of any kind, and the international community is now left without agreement on a rule of law on the territorial sea and Ashing limits. Naturally the government will now have to consider what action might have to be taken in the light of this failure.
I should like to pay tribute to Hon. George Drew, who led the Canadian delegation, and all his colleagues for the vigorous way in which they have dedicated themselves during the weeks of the conference and indeed for many months before in working for a formula which would provide for the orderly development of international law in this important held.
During the conference, as hon. members know, we reached a compromise with the United States and together with that country Canada has carried out one of the most extensive diplomatic campaigns we have ever undertaken in an effort to line up the necessary support. We have done everything possible to achieve a positive result. Both those in Geneva and in our missions abroad who worked toward this end deserve the highest commendation.
There has been one feature with regard to the Canada-United States compromise plan which I think has been misunderstood across the country. In the original Canadian plan we advocated a six-mile territorial limit and then a six-mile excluded Ashing zone. The United States brought forward the same proposal with the proviso that in the outer six miles the so-called historic rights would continue in perpetuity. Canada has been willing to negotiate bilaterally or on a multilateral basis with countries Ashing within twelve miles of our shores for a phasing-out period of these so-called historic rights. The compromise reached was that a ten-year period for phasing-out would be written into the convention.
The inference has been taken by some papers in Canada that we were willing to negotiate for a period beyond ten years; that is to say, perhaps for twenty years. But this was never the intention. We had been willing originally to negotiate for a period certainly not greater than ten years and preferably less; then when the compromise was reached

Inquiries of the Ministry the only change made was that that was to be written right into the convention rather than being negotiated. At no time was there any intention to have the so-called historic rights last for longer than ten years.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. If he does not have the answer readily available perhaps he could take this question as notice. Does the minister know whether any of the nations which have enjoyed these so-called historic rights in Canadian waters voted against the Canada-United States proposal?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker; I think all the western European countries voted for the Canada-United States proposal.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
minister whether in view of the result of the vote the Canadian government is giving any consideration to taking unilateral action under the Canada-United States proposal?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, it would be premature as yet to say what further steps Canada will take. Actually the whole question will have to be given very careful consideration. It might be possible for some sort of convention to be reached among the 54 states that voted in favour of the Canada-United States proposal, but we would have to look into all the implications of advocating a course of that kind. I am not yet in a position to say what we would do.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, as one conservationist to another I want to fire a double-barrelled question, purely for exploratory purposes, to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
My question is based on a report in this morning's Globe and Mail which indicates that a certain Mr. Elmhurst suggests that some of his hardwood timber has suffered considerable loss over the years from the depradations of great blue herons, which are migratory birds. He has been given a permit by someone authorizing him to shoot or otherwise destroy the birds. Since he is a good conservationist he refuses to do this.
My questions are first, who has the authority to issue permits for the destruction of migratory birds? Second, will the minister have this case investigated to make certain of the continued protection of these great


blue herons, and also to see whether some arrangements can be made for compensation to this worthy conservationist?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I should like to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question.
Under the Migratory Birds Convention Act and regulations the chief game officer of a province or, in certain circumstances, game officers appointed under the provisions of the act may issue permits for the destruction of migratory birds that are causing or are likely to cause serious damage to crops or other interests.
With regard to the second part, there has been an exchange of correspondence between Ontario and the Canadian wildlife service on this matter. The service has recommended that, when the birds come in the spring, attempts to scare them should first be made. If this is unsuccessful and damage continues, some of the birds could be killed under permit in order to protect this man's property.
I assure the hon. member that we will look into this matter further to ensure the observance of the best interests of the conservation of migratory birds, having regard also for the protection of private property from damage.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monfeifh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, on April 12 the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) asked me if it was planned to hold a meeting of the federal-provincial advisory board to consider changes in the regulations affecting payment of old age assistance, disability allowances and blind persons allowances.
As I informed the estimates committee on March 8 last, a meeting had in fact already been held, on September 28-29 last year. The changes which were discussed and tentatively agreed to at that meeting have now been circulated in draft form to the provinces, which must indicate their official concurrence before we can proceed further. As soon as the provinces have all given their official approval the draft amendments will be placed before the governor in council for final approval, and I hope this can be done shortly.

Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the minister received any complaints or objections from any of the provinces regarding those parts of the regulations affecting oil and gas development, which he announced several weeks ago, which involve sovereignty over and control of off-shore rights? If so, what is their substance?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge there have been no complaints as yet.



INTERNATIONAL TRADE FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address two questions to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister inform the house whether the mayor of Montreal has been invited as an official representative to the conference to decide on the world's fair, which is to take place in 1967, being held in Montreal? Can the minister also tell us why the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) announced in Montreal that Canada has a slim chance of having the fair?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Both these questions should be addressed to the Postmaster General, who has responsibility in this matter.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received requests from the joint transportation committee of the Fort William and Port Arthur chambers of commerce asking that the lakehead harbour be given the status of an ocean port? If so, can the minister tell the house whether the request is receiving favourable consideration?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I have received no request of that kind.



ALBERTA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to repeat a question I put to the Prime Minister on April 11, before the Easter recess. It was whether the Prime Minister had received a letter from the brotherhood of maintenance of way employees, Alberta lodge, protesting against the abolition of sections, and also against the drastic cut being made in maintenance of way forces, in which it is urgently requested the Prime Minister use his good offices to inquire into these employment conditions. My question was:
Has the Prime Minister made such inquiry and, if so, with what results?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: My recollection is that I did receive such a letter, and it was acknowledged. Because of the fact that the Minister of Transport reports on these matters on behalf of Canadian National Railways, it was directed to him in order that he might communicate with the railways in the usual course.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder if I could direct the question to the Minister of Transport. My only reason for asking it of the Prime Minister was that the communication was not directed to the Minister of Transport but to the Prime Minister alone. I wonder if I could ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Transport to ascertain whether these representations made to the Prime Minister by the Alberta lodge were passed on to the Canadian National Railways, and with what result.


George Harris Hees: It is my recollection, Mr. Speaker, that I received such representations and that they were passed along to the Canadian National Railways, but I will check on that.



PATENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State arising out of the statement he made to the house on April 4, when he tabled the report of the royal commission on patents of inventions, wherein he said that appropriate legislation would not be introduced this session but next session, and that interested persons would have a chance to make submissions. My question is this. Does

Inquiries of the Ministry the same policy apply with respect to the royal commission report on industrial designs and copyright? In other words, is legislation being considered in these fields as well?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of State):: Well, Mr. Speaker, when I tabled the report I made the statement that part of the inquiry was not carried on by the commission. As I said in the statement, the report on trade marks had been brought forward quite recently and there were some amendments, and it was for that reason we did not ask the commission to carry on with its inquiry on trade marks.
In so far as any suggestions are concerned that the public might have in connection with these matters, of course the department is always quite pleased to receive them.


Hazen Robert Argue: I believe the minister misunderstood my question. My question did not have to do with trade marks but was related to the government's action, if any, with respect to the report tabled in this house in 1958 dealing with copyright and industrial design. My question is, is the government taking the the same attitude toward these two reports that it has taken with regard to the report on patents of inventions, namely that interested parties can make submissions on these two questions between now and the next session of parliament and that the government, at the next session of parliament, will consider appropriate legislation?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, that is a question of government policy, and it will be announced in due course.


Hazen Robert Argue: As a supplementary question, may I ask whether the government is giving any consideration to legislation in these two important fields, upon which we have had reports since 1958?


Léon Balcer: These reports are under consideration.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I reiterate a question I asked yesterday in the absence of the Minister of National Revenue. Has the minister been made aware of the fact that on the very day the President of the French republic was in Canada, there was, on the French network of the C.B.C., a program having to do with Marshal Petain? My question was, is the minister aware of this program and, if so, has the C.B.C. offered any explanation to the minister?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I was made aware of this matter by reading about it in the newspapers. No explanation, if one is possible, has been received from the C.B.C. I have asked for one, and I will be very interested in receiving it and passing it on to the house.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yesterday in my absence the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) put forward a suggestion in the form of a question, to the effect that United States tourists entering this country be given some form of letter or document explaining the facts regarding the premium on the Canadian dollar.
I should like to point out to the hon. member that this is a good suggestion, and I appreciate it. However, we have had it in effect now for two years. Approximately a million and a half pamphlets entitled "Friendly Advice to American Tourists" have been given to tourists as they entered the country, through the co-operation of the customs department. In addition we supply copies of this booklet and posters to boards of trade in the cities and towns of Canada, and they distribute them to their members so that United States tourists entering these places of business can get this information from these pamphlets.
The third thing we do is issue a border crossing leaflet which explains the exchange problems and other matters of interest to the tourists in so far as travel in this country is concerned. The total distribution of these three items has amounted to some five million, so there has been a very widespread distribution.
The fourth thing we are doing is co-operating very closely with the Canadian tourist association in its program of public relations to make the tourists more aware of the problems relating to exchange.


Hubert Badanai: May
I ask a supplementary question. My question was whether the minister was going to write a letter explaining the situation with regard to silver. Two years ago we were not discounting silver.


Some hon. Members:: Order.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Yesterday the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) asked me a question with regard to a proposed hydrocarbon pipe line to the lakehead. As I said yesterday, this is a matter for the national energy board. The board informs me that no application to construct such a pipe line is before them; consequently I cannot answer the second part of the question, which had to do with the building up of a petrochemical industry at the Canadian lakehead in connection with the proposed line. The question is still in the hypothetical stage.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to address a question to the Acting Secretary of State. On March 23 last the hon. member for Kootenay West moved for the production of papers relating to pension vesting principles. I do not want to cause anyone any undue excitement or activity, but would the minister inquire as to when these papers are likely to be produced?


Léon Balcer: I will inquire.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the Minister of National Revenue whether it is his intention at this session to put a motion on the order paper to set up a committee on broadcasting.


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes, it is my intention.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister, in drafting his motion, have regard to the undertaking he gave to the opposition during the debate in 1958, so as to ensure that the first priority of the committee will be to carry out those inquiries that the minister said would be carried out?


George Clyde Nowlan: Of course the scope and nature of the inquiry, subject to the rules, will be in the hands of the committee once it is constituted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the minister misunderstood my question. I asked him whether 79951-0-207
Inquiries of the Ministry
in drafting his motion, he would have regard
to the undertakings he gave to the house.


George Clyde Nowlan: I always have regard to the undertakings I give to the house.



REPORTED NEGOTIATIONS FOR SALE TO MEXICO

[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 arising out of the Canadian Press report to the effect that negotiations are being conducted between Canada and Mexico for the sale of $10 million worth of Canadian steel to that country. Can the minister say what progress is being made in these negotiations, and whether the conclusion of such a sale depends on the provision of adequate export credit?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The negotiations are still being carried on, and I do not think it would be appropriate to go into any detail with regard to that matter at the moment.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a supplementary question. Can the minister comment on the part of the report to the effect that an agreement is likely or is imminent?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is which?


Hazen Robert Argue: That an agreement is imminent or is likely to be signed almost immediately.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I hope the report is accurate.


Hazen Robert Argue: Does the minister not know? It is his department.



INQUIRY AS TO CHANGE IN METHOD OF REPORTING PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his capacity as house leader. I do so because I do not know where else to direct it at the moment. In view of the fact that I have just noticed a Hansard reporter enter the house with a tapewriter in his possession, I wish to ask the minister whether it is the intention to move toward a different system of recording speeches in this house, from that of shorthand notes to the use of tapewriters?
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): I am told that it is a shorthand machine, not a typewriter.


Frank Howard: I have a supplementary question. I have just had indicated to me by my

Dominion-Provincial Relations friend the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) what the minister said. I did not catch his remark, but I understood him to say it is not a typewriter. I did not say it was a typewriter; I said "tapewriter".



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

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-56, to amend the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to repeat anything that was said at the resolution stage of this amendment. That resolution has already been the subject of a two-day debate, on March 18 and again on April 1. The resolution received the unanimous approval of the house. I thank the house for that approval and for the approving comments that were made in connection with the alternative basis proposed in relation to university grants. I hope the house will be able now to accord the same unanimous support to the bill.
Briefly, the bill has two features. The first concerns the increase from 10 per cent to 13 per cent in the provincial share of the yield from the personal income tax. That increase will, by the terms of this bill, become effective now until March 31, 1962.
The second feature of the bill concerns the alternative basis in relation to university grants. The statute as it is proposed to be amended will make provision for the payment of university grants equivalent to $1.50 per head of population in each province. If this bill is adopted, item 125 of the main estimates for the current fiscal year will be withdrawn. In the second place the provision becomes affective now on a statutory basis for two years. Hitherto it has been on an annual basis only, simply by reason of an item in the estimates.
The third comment concerns the alternative method that is now available to any province. The bill also makes provision for power to be given to revise any tax-sharing agreement which any province has entered into in the event that it now desires to resume the collection of the corporation tax for one or both of the two remaining years of the current five-year period under the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act.
I comment on only one matter that was raised in debate at the resolution stage. Attention was drawn to the fact that those who

now constitute the government and its supporters in the house did not support this measure when it was introduced by the former administration in 1956; and yet, having come into office, the agreements that were entered into in pursuance of that statute have been continued in force and have been fully recognized by the government.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, we did not support this measure when it was introduced in the house in 1956. Indeed, we voted against it, and we divided the house on the bill. But I would point out, as I have had occasion to do in former debates, that in pursuance of the terms of this enactment, agreements were entered into by the former federal government with nine of the provincial governments. When we came into office and since then we have fully honoured and carried out the terms of those agreements and will, of course, continue to do so during the full period they are in force up to March 31, 1962. We are not the kind of people who repudiate agreements that have been entered into in pursuance of legislation passed by the parliament of Canada. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we have greatly improved, for the benefit of the provinces, the terms upon which nine provinces entered into these agreements, and we have made those improvements for the benefit of the ten provinces both with respect to the tax rental features of the agreements and the principle of equalization which was written into the bill in order to aid the fiscally weaker provinces.
We made those improvements at the expense of our own federal fiscal position at a time when we were incurring deficits. I point out that this bill, if now adopted, will assure to the provinces for the balance of the present quinquennial period to March 31, 1962, the benefit of the increased federal payments.
Finally, the house is aware that the Prime Minister has invited the premiers of all of the provinces to meet in a plenary dominion-provincial conference to be held in Ottawa on July 25, 26 and 27 next. The continuing committee of officials drawn from both federal and provincial governments, which has done such useful work from which the ministers of finance and provincial treasurers at their meetings held in July and October of 1957 derived much benefit, will be invited to meet in advance of the plenary conference.
The matters to be submitted to the conference will concern financial relations between the dominion and the provinces in the period following March 31, 1962. It is therefore not anticipated that, if the house sees

fit to adopt the present bill, further amendments to the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act will be required during the balance of the present period to March 31, 1962.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance stated that there was not much that he intended to add to what had already been said on the resolution. However, he reiterated some of the statements he made on that occasion and added one or two additional remarks which I do not believe change the substance of what he said during the course of the debate on the resolution. So this leaves the position, in so far the as the principle of this bill is concerned, exactly where it was when the discussion on the resolution terminated.
I would like to deal with this bill in several of its aspects, but before doing so I would like to say something with reference to the historical and constitutional aspects of the situation. In 1950 all Canadian universities requested from the federal government financial assistance with respect to their position as it was then found, and these representations were made to the Massey commission. The Massey commission was impressed by the representations which were made to it. It was impressed not only because of the need of the universities at the time and because of the fact that the representations pointed to the responsibility of the federal government in this sphere, but because there is no doubt that without any exception all Canadian universities at the time felt that assistance should be forthcoming.
So in 1951 the Massey commission made representations to this effect to the then government, and the government of Mr. St. Laurent accepted those recommendations and a special item providing for direct federal grants to universities was included in the 1951-52 estimates. All present Conservative members who were sitting on this side of the house at that time supported the measure.
Thereafter consultations were held with the provinces, and as a result of these consultations all provincial governments accepted the idea of direct federal grants to universities for the year 1951-52. So that what appears today to the Quebec Conservatives as a crime committed by the St. Laurent government was approved in the fiscal year 1951-52 first by all Canadian universities, next by all provincial governments, and also by all political parties in this house including the Conservative party. Therefore when the Quebec members accuse the St. Laurent government, they must not forget for one moment 79951-0-207J
26, 1960	3279
Dominion-Provincial Relations that they are also blaming their own party, including, of course, the present Prime * Minister and the Minister of Finance, who were enthusiastic accessories to the so-called crime of constitutional infringement.
Now I come quickly to 1956. It became evident to the former prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, in that year that the amount which had been put in the estimates in 1951-52 was not sufficient and that the universities would require greater assistance, including those in the province of Quebec. Mr. St. Laurent therefore proposed to double the grants, and he asked the national conference of Canadian universities to assume the responsibility for distributing the money to each university so as to make sure that any interference by the federal government with the freedom of individual universities would be absolutely impossible.
Again all Canadian universities accepted Mr. St. Laurent's proposal, but this time the Prime Minister added another feature by providing that the funds would accumulate if a university decided to refuse the grants temporarily, and as a result of that provision the sum of $25 million has been accumulated for Quebec universities since 1956. I am sure those universities are today very grateful to Mr. St. Laurent for making that provision, because otherwise it would not have been possible for them to recoup the millions of dollars which then would have been lost.
When the new proposal was introduced in the house by the former government early in 1957 it was again approved by all political parties, including the Conservative party. The Quebec Conservative members should not forget the attitude taken then by their own party. For the second time, in 1957 as in 1952, Quebec universities had to refuse the annual federal grants after having approved the formula. Again they feared retaliatory measures by the Quebec government. This becomes quite evident when we realize that all universities outside Quebec, including French speaking and Catholic institutions, accepted federal assistance. That I think is a point which hon. members on the other side of the house, particularly from the province of Quebec, seem to forget.
This deadlock was also recognized by the present government, which during more than two years in office did absolutely nothing to solve the problem. Last October hon. Mr. Sauve took the initiative and started negotiations with the federal government. Because of his action a solution became possible, and the Minister of Finance acknowledged his contribution when he paid tribute to him in his speech in this house at the resolution stage.

Dominion-Provincial Relations
So much lor the historical aspect of the situation. I now turn my remarks to the constitutional aspect. Here I state, sir, without any equivocation that there is a clear and profound division of opinion on this question within the ranks of the Conservative party. There is a division of opinion on the one hand in so far as the older members of the Conservative party are concerned and, on the other hand, in so far as the newly elected members from the province of Quebec are concerned. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the older Conservatives maintain that federal grants to universities are perfectly constitutional and that they should continue to be provided. On the contrary the newly elected Conservatives from Quebec argue that such grants are unconstitutional and that they are a clear violation of the constitution.
There is only one group which thus far has remained silent in the house on the issue, and that is the Quebec ministers in the government. Not one of them during the course of these debates which have come up in the house from time to time has had a word to say on this very important subject. The Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer), the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. O'Hurley), the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois) and the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) have never uttered a word on this important matter in the house. As representatives of the province of Quebec in the cabinet they have a clear obligation to participate in this debate, and they must now define their attitude in this respect.
The Quebec ministers cannot avoid the issue. This bill provides for federal grants to universities, and they will have to take a definite stand when they vote on it. The only honourable course for them to follow under such conditions, it seems to me-and I say this with all deference-is to define and justify their attitude before they express it by their vote. Therefore we shall anticipate' their participation in this debate with great interest.
I said a moment ago that the views of the older Conservatives were that federal grants to universities were perfectly constitutional. This cannot be disputed in any way whatsoever when one considers the attitude which was taken in 1951 and 1957 when those hon. members were in opposition; and since they have become members of the present government the introduction of this bill, for that matter, is another manifestation of those views which were clearly expressed by the
[Mr. Chevrier.)
Minister of Finance in this house on September 6, 1958 and again on March 18, 1960. The minister spoke in French when he said:
(Translation):
This government scrupulously respects the terms of the Canadian constitution and will always do. It is plainly recognized that education is a field of jurisdiction exclusively assigned to the provinces. The increased grants proposed by the government are merely a needed assistance to universities without any interference in any provincial field intended by the government.
(Text):
This can be found on page 2227 of Hansard. Such a statement could not be simpler or more clear, for the Minister of Finance, speaking twice on behalf of the present government, said that federal grants constitute a necessary assistance to universities and that the government does not thereby intervene in any provincial field. The Liberal party has expressed exactly similar views since 1951. The difference between ourselves and the Conservative party is that we have had the honesty and courage to make this statement from one end of the country to the other, including the province of Quebec. This is exactly what I said when I spoke in the house on July 18, 1959, as will be found on page 6678 of Hansard, and I quote:
(Translation):
Since they were established in 1951 we have always said that such grants were constitutional.
(Text):
For having said exactly what the Minister of Finance stated on September 6, 1958 and repeated on March 18, 1960, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion) chose to attack me as appears at page 2809 of Hansard, when he spoke on the resolution preceding this bill on April 1, 1960. I have only one question to ask the hon. member for Bellechasse, and it is this. Why did he not have the courage to attack the Minister of Finance and his own party when he spoke in the house on April 1, instead of attempting to convince the house that he was opposed only to the point of view adopted by the Liberals?
The Minister of Finance made a very important statement twice in this house; that the federal government is not intervening in a provincial field when it makes university grants. I hope that in the course of this debate the Quebec Conservative members will address their constitutional objections to him, and ask the Minister of Finance to justify the position he holds in this respect. Even the hon. member for Bellechasse was at pains, and in an embarrassing position,

the other day when asked to reply to a question by my colleague the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), when he stated that the Quebec government had the constitutional right to give financial assistance to universities outside Quebec. I am in agreement with the hon. member on this; but if the Quebec government can vote -and I quote his words-grants to universities outside Quebec at the request of those universities and with the consent of the governments of those provinces-and this quotation may be found on page 2813 of Hansard -although it has no jurisdiction whatsoever over education outside Quebec, then surely the federal parliament has the prerogative of voting similar grants to universities in any province without interfering in any way with the exclusive right of the provincial legislatures over education. The only constitutional limitations on such federal grants are that the federal government cannot finance them through a specific direct tax, and that it cannot use such assistance to impose compulsory regulations in educational matters or to encroach on the exclusive provincial jurisdiction in that field.
This was the position adopted by Mr. St. Laurent, and it is the position we are taking today. So far as the Liberal party is concerned we shall never tolerate any encroachment into this exclusive provincial field. The newly elected members from the province of Quebec still claim, however, that federal grants to universities are clearly a violation of the constitution.


Mr. Martel:: That is true.


Lionel Chevrier: I am interrupted and told that is true. If that is true, I submit that if the hon. member and those associated with him honestly and sincerely hold such a view then they cannot support this measure. If they are of that opinion they cannot support a measure which is unconstitutional.


An hon. Member:: This is not a direct grant; that is the difference.


Lionel Chevrier: This provides for federal grants to universities according to the St. Laurent formula, which the hon. member and his friends so violently opposed during the last electoral campaigns in Quebec. The only difference is that this grant, instead of being provided for by a vote in the estimates, will from now on be paid as a statutory item. This change, however, establishes these grants on a much more permanent basis than before. The government has stated its intention, and in fact this intention has been confirmed by the statement the minister made a few
26. 1960	3281
Dominion-Provincial Relations moments ago, that these grants will be carried on until March, 1962 notwithstanding the dominion-provincial conference to be held next July.
The fact that Quebec universities will not receive the grants on the basis of the earlier formula does not change the constitutional position in any way. In other words, if a formula is a clear violation of the constitution, the fact that it will not apply in one province does not make it constitutional, and all hon. members of this house have the obligation of preserving the constitution not only in their respective provinces but in the whole of Canada. The Quebec Conservative members, no matter how hard they try, cannot escape this responsibility.
Now I should like to come to the formula which is to be found in the bill, and to discuss it in a general way. I claim that the formula as found in the bill does not solve the constitutional issue which exists at present according to the Quebec Conservative members. On the contrary, as I will show later, it raises new and much more serious constitutional difficulties of its own.
At this stage, however, I should like to show that the new formula, like the present one, provides for federal grants for the purpose of education. The essential difference between the two formulae resides in the fact that they follow two different methods of distribution of the same federal grants.
Indeed, the Minister of Finance has always been consistent and frank in this matter. He believes that federal grants are constitutional. He never intended to abolish them, though he was prepared to change the method of distribution. That is what he said on September 6, 1958, and what he repeated on the resolution preceding this bill:
I emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that in reference to this subject of the basis of distribution this present government makes no rigid approach. We adopt no take it or leave it attitude in regard to this basis of distribution.
Those words may be found at page 2227 of Hansard of March 18, 1960. In other words what the Minister of Finance said was this. We intend to continue to provide federal grants to help Canadian universities, but we are prepared to modify their method of distribution. That is exactly what the minister is doing in this bill. Here again he has been very clear and frank, when he said in introducing the resolution as reported at page 2225 of Hansard of March 18, 1960:
The amendment proposed will simply provide alternative arrangements so that grants now paid by the federal government to institutions of higher

Dominion-Provincial Relations learning under the authority of the annual Appropriation Act can be paid out of the federal treasury through the Canadian universities foundation under the authority of the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act or, under certain circumstances, when a province so desires directly, by that province.
Therefore, according to the Minister of Finance himself, the bill provides for university grants paid out of the federal treasury. In the one case these federal grants will be paid through the Canadian universities foundation and in the other through the province. The fact that such federal grants will be made to universities through the Canadian universities foundation or through the province does not in any way modify the constitutional position in this respect. According to the new method embodied in this bill the university grants will be paid out of the federal treasury through a tax abatement not exceeding $1.50 per capita and, if necessary, through a straight conditional payment to the provincial government.
The constitutional position in so far as section 93 is concerned is not changed or altered in any way by this bill. If, as the Quebec Conservative members claim, the federal government does not have the power to provide grants to universities, then this bill is clearly unconstitutional and ultra vires. These Quebec Conservative members have no escape, therefore; because surely no pretext can be used to justify the violation of the constitution. However, as I said earlier, there is a new constitutional problem created by this bill.
While the new method of distribution does not remove in any way the constitutional issue raised by the Quebec Conservative members in regard to the present basis of distribution it does pose a new and, in my opinion, a genuine constitutional difficulty. This problem is related to section 92 of the constitution, which provides that-
-in each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to ... direct taxation within the province in order to the raising of a revenue for provincial purposes.
The press release issued by the Prime Minister on December 10, 1959 contains the following statement which has been embodied in this bill:
If the government of a province requests the change to be made in respect of that province, and undertakes to provide additional grants to the universities in that province on a scale equivalent to the present federal grants of $1.50 per capita, then parliament will be asked to authorize an increase of 1 per cent in the abatement made in the federal corporation tax in respect of that

province, from 9 per cent to 10 per cent. This increased allowance for a provincial corporation tax would be in lieu of federal grants for universities in that province. It would be necessary for the provincial legislature then to impose an additional corporation tax equivalent to the reduction in the federal tax and to authorize the payment of the additional grants to the universities.
In other words, the federal government in this bill is saying to a province "We will reduce our corporation income tax, which is a direct tax, by 1 per cent on the following conditions. The provincial government must levy a direct tax of at least 1 per cent on corporation income; the proceeds of that provincial tax must be distributed to the universities in the province, and the total grant must not be less than $1.50 per capita. If the proceeds of that tax exceed $1.50 per capita we, the federal government, will appropriate the surplus of those provincial revenues."
Under such conditions the federal government determines when a provincial tax will be levied, what will be its minimum rate, how it will be utilized for a provincial purpose, and what will be its maximum yield to the provincial treasury. For all practical purposes, therefore, as the Minister of Finance has said, university grants will be paid out of the federal treasury by the province.
But that is not the whole story. In addition, the arrangement to be made by the province with the universities will have to be in accordance with and subject to terms and conditions not inconsistent with those contained in any agreement entered into between the Minister of Finance and the Canadian universities foundation. Therefore the provincial government, in distributing its own money to universities within the province, will have to comply with conditions set out in an agreement to which it is not even a party and which will be determined, for all practical purposes, unilaterally by the Minister of Finance.
Finally, the Minister of Finance will be the only judge to determine whether the arrangements made by the provincial government with the universities within the province are satisfactory.
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. The way a provincial government

deals with universities within the province is not in any way the concern of the federal government. Under the proposed arrangement, however, the provincial government is not even in the same position as the Canadian universities foundation, which will at least have the opportunity to discuss the terms of its agreement with the Minister of Finance. 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 arrangement amounts to a delegation by the federal government of a provincial power to a provincial government. This is surely the height of arrogance, because our courts have decided that even the delegation of a federal power to a legislature or vice versa was unconstitutional.
In this connection I would like to quote from a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the case of the attorney general of Nova Scotia et al v. the Attorney General of Canada et al, found at page 369 of Dominion Law Reports, volume 4, 1950. I should like to read just one sentence from the headnote and then a portion of the judgment of Mr. Justice Estey. The headnote of this case reads in part as follows:
Neither the parliament of Canada nor the legislature of any province can delegate one to the other (to be exercised by that other as a parliament or legislature, as the case may be) any of the legislative authority respectively conferred upon them by the British North America Act and especially by sections 91 and 92 thereof.
At page 391 Mr. Justice Estey, among other things, had this to say:
Moreover, the provisions of the British North America Act contemplate these legislative bodies will, at all times, in the exercise of their sovereign jurisdiction, act as principals. There is no express provision nor is there any under which it could be reasonably implied that these bodies were intended to act as agents one for the other.
It would appear that the position which I have been taking is confirmed by a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.
According to the provisions of the present bill the provincial government will, for all practical purposes, act as agent for the federal government but in a provincial field. The new scheme, therefore, raises a very serious constitutional issue which is related to the exclusive right of the provinces to raise direct taxes for provincial purposes and to spend the proceeds as the legislature see fit. Our courts have already decided that the federal government and the provinces do not
26. 1960
Dominion-Provincial Relations have the right to surrender by mutual consent a prerogative or a responsibility assigned to them by the constitution. If a province cannot transfer its exclusive constitutional powers to the federal government, it cannot by implication accept any specific limitation on the exercise of those powers imposed by parliament as the condition of an arrangement, because such limitation would amount to the partial surrender of those powers to parliament.
I have grave doubts about the constitutionality of the new arrangement embodied in this bill. I am not, of course, competent enough in constitutional matters to be sure that this new scheme is, in fact, ultra vires in its entirety, but I am quite confident that it is at least incompatible with the spirit of our constitution.
Moreover, there is another feature in the arrangement contained in this bill which appears to be an encroachment on the exclusive taxation powers of provincial legislatures. This is the provision:
"There may be deducted from any payment to the province under this act or otherwise recovered as a debt due to Canada by the province, any amount by which one ninth of the standard corporation income tax as applied to the province for that fiscal year exceeds an amount calculated by multiplying the population of the province for the calendar year ending in that fiscal year by one dollar and fifty cents."
In other words, the federal government asserts under this provision that if the yield of the additional provincial tax of 1 per cent exceeds $1.50 per head, the excess of that provincial tax raised for a provincial purpose belongs to the federal government and will be recovered as a debt due to the federal treasury by the province. This, it seems to me, is a violation of section 92 of the constitution. Under our constitutional provisions the federal government does not have access to direct taxation raised for a provincial purpose. Such taxation raised for a provincial purpose belongs exclusively to the provinces. Moreover, revenues raised by a province under section 92 belong to the legislature of that province exclusively, and the federal government cannot claim any share of such revenues in the form of deductions or otherwise as if those were a debt due by the province to the federal treasury.
Here I should like to substantiate the opinion I express by a Supreme Court of Canada decision in 1930 in the reference "Troops in Cape Breton". The court, at page 562 of its 1930 reports, had this to say:
The Solicitor General in his very candid argument did not contend that the duty to pay these

Dominion-Provincial Relations expenses could be imposed by the dominion on the province in invitum and that, of course, would be a plain violation of the fundamental principle of the British North America Act. The revenues of the province are vested in His Majesty as the supreme head of the province, and the right of appropriation of all such revenues belongs to the legislature of the province exclusively.
The provision authorizing the deduction of moneys due by a province under these sections from the annual subsidy does not help the dominion. Obviously such a deduction could not constitutionally be made, unless the province was under an obligation to pay.
It is quite evident, therefore, that a share of provincial revenues produced by direct taxation, such as a corporation income tax, and raised for a provincial purpose, namely education, cannot be claimed as a debt due to the federal treasury by a province. Moreover, since there is no such debt, the province has no obligation to pay the amount claimed by the federal government. And since the province has no obligation to pay, the deduction that the federal government intends to make under the terms of this bill cannot constitutionally be made, as the Supreme Court of Canada has already pointed out in the decision of 1930.
It has been said that this bill is an improvement over the present situation, and that it is a step in the right direction. I certainly cannot agree with these views. On the contrary, I believe that several provisions of this bill constitute the worst intrusion ever attempted by a federal government in the affairs of a province. From that point of view I feel that it establishes a very bad precedent and that it is a step in the wrong direction.
In conclusion I should like to summarize the attitude of the official opposition toward the main parts of this bill. We support the increased payment to the provinces; 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: May I ask the
hon. gentleman a question? Does he intend to vote for the bill or against it on second reading?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, that is the question which hon. members and the Minister of Finance ask from time to time and I will give him the same answer which he gave to us consistently when he sat on this side of the house. The conclusion I came to was quite clear, and the minister will find out in due course what the position is. In other words-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does the hon. member not know now?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, right now. In other words, if the Minister of Finance can remove the constitutional objections which I have listed and which are now in the bill, then we will give consideration to the question.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have a question.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member who is just finishing wishes to accept it, all right.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Are the objections of the hon. member to the bill identical to those expressed by the former member for Montma-gny-L'Islet?


Lionel Chevrier: There is a Latin maxim
which says in cauda venenum, that it is in the last part of the question that the sting is to be found. I presume my hon. friend had an ulterior motive when he asked the question. If my hon. friend had listened carefully to what I stated he would have found that I have gone much farther than the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Dorion) in stating that, in my opinion, some parts of this bill are entirely unconstitutional.
(Translation):


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, as a member of parliament and a cabinet minister from the province of

Quebec, it gives me pleasure to rise in full support of the bill now before us. The problem of federal aid to universities is one that has been troubling public opinion in the province of Quebec for many years. It is a difficult problem, and in the last federal election, our party had promised to the people of Quebec that it would find a solution. The Conservative members had made that promise and they have kept it.
The solution was not easy to come by, but I think we have found a good formula, thanks to the co-operation of both the Quebec provincial government and the federal government.
The object of the bill is to enable the people of Quebec to receive their share of the millions of dollars raised by Ottawa to help the universities of the province.
The formula put forward by the former government was unacceptable and had been rejected not only by the government of the province of Quebec and by the Quebec universities, but also by the people themselves.
Such a piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, which had the effect of isolating Quebec, was of course unsatisfactory and even harmful to national unity.


Mr. Bourgei:: Listen to the way he says that.


Léon Balcer: It is obvious that Canada's universities play a vital role in the orientation of the free world, for the countries that form it are more than ever in need of elites, thinkers, scientists, intellectuals, economists, to help them find their way through the obstacles and ambushes which present international developments put in their path.
Never before have universities of all countries of the free world, and more specifically Canadian universities, been in greater need of financial assistance to carry on their task.
Up to that point, I do not hesitate to say that the Liberals themselves had understood, at the time, the serious problem which educators had to face. But, unfortunately, the previous government had come to the conclusion that it could settle all problems without due regard for the historical and political realities of our country, that is, the rights and duties of all concerned, or the fact that the province of Quebec is not a province like the others.
It goes without saying-
79951-0-208
26. I960
Dominion-Provincial Relations


Mr. Boulanger:: There is no unanimity on that point.


Léon Balcer: -that if there had not been, in 1867, a province where a very large majority of the inhabitants were of French origin, it would not have been necessary to spell out, in the British North America Act, that there were any French rights in Canada; it would not have been necessary to say that the Canadian parliament, that the federal courts should be bilingual, as well as the legislative assembly of the province of Quebec; but it was recognized, a priori, that the province of Quebec was not, from the very start, a province like the others.
Besides, why should we have entrusted to provincial governments the exclusive power of looking after education, if the educational system had been the same in all the provinces which were to become members of the confederation?
Nobody will dare deny that the British North America Act, pact or contract, is a modus vivendi between French-speaking Canadians and English-speaking Canadians.
One has only to read the text of the constitution to realize that the fathers of confederation wanted the province of Quebec to be different from the others, with, for instance, its fixed provincial constituencies where English-speaking voters were in the majority at the time.
In their formula, the Liberals had overlooked historical facts, so vivid in the province of Quebec, with the result that even if English-speaking provinces could obtain the millions collected by Ottawa to provide assistance to universities, the people of Quebec were being taxed like all the others while its universities were compelled to turn down the largesses of the federal government.
People outside the French province, wondered when they found that, year after year, Quebec leaders were turning down federal grants. Our opponents went so far as to describe that attitude as "segregationism" but it was the Liberals, with their anticonstitutional formula, who applied a policy of intellectual segregation with regard to Quebec.
I would even say that they are responsible for the little anti-Quebec outbreak of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) who, after all, only repeated in 1960 what the Liberals, for the last four years of their regime, had been saying to anybody who

Dominion-Provincial Relations would listen. At the time when the university grants bill was introduced, the Liberals had come to believe that every evil which fell upon this country could only be blamed on the Quebec voters. At that time the Liberals did not dare to launch a straightforward attack against the hon. Mr. Duplessis and his autonomist policies. They relieved their feelings by attacking the province of Quebec of which Mr. Duplessis obviously had become the living symbol.
To stand well with the federal ministers from Quebec, it was necessary at the time to miss no opportunity to refer with pity or disdain to the backward French province which, it was claimed, was keeping to itself; where it was said people did not understand the general progress of Canada; where people allegedly refused to keep abreast of other Canadians. It was then that there was launched the famous formula from very high quarters and without the slightest provocation, after all the province of Quebec is a province like all the others.
Therefore, the hon. member for Port Arthur, who knows nothing about Quebec, only repeated in his own words, in 1960, what government members said in Ottawa in 1955. That attitude of national disunity and misunderstanding on the part of some Canadians with regard to the others, may, in all fairness, scarcely be blamed on the C.C.F., which has never taken root in Quebec-unlike the Liberals who were maintained in power for 22 years thanks to that province.
I insist on the fact that our universities were and still are in need of money, and Quebec universities as much and maybe more than those of other provinces. However, the Liberals' method of offering that money as grants from Ottawa was definitely unacceptable to Quebec. Indeed, the procedure imposed, and not merely suggested, by the Liberal party, was both a mistake and a danger to national unity.
The fact that it seemed adequate in nine out of ten provinces did not make it more acceptable in the French province. That is why it was unanimously rejected by the government, the universities and the population of Quebec, while the taxpayers in that province were nevertheless compelled to pay taxes for the benefit of all Canadians but themselves, despite the well-established principle "no taxation without representation".
Under the present arrangement, we want all Canadians, whatever their racial origin or

their creed, to start off with equal opportunities. Our primary object is to offer all men and women in this country equal opportunity of winning university degrees enabling them to hold their own in the Canadian nation of tomorrow.
The present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) was the first Canadian government leader to maintain that the French language and the culture that goes with it, are part of the basic liberties which are worth upholding, and this could never be accomplished so long as Quebec universities were compelled to exist under distressed abstention. That is why we have sought to develop a formula making for a fair treatment of both the taxpayers and the institutions of higher learning of Quebec. Consequently, this bill represents an arrangement based on the Canadian economic situation and the history background of the oldest Canadian province.
We realize that the population of the nine other provinces is satisfied with the system which has been in force up to now, but we offer an alternative, a realistic compromise allowing a province such as the province of Quebec, to grant to its university population the benefits which it was forced to refuse because of its scrupulous respect for the constitution and for autonomy.
An interesting feature of this alternative is that it is offered to any province which, of its own free will, wishes to avail itself of the new formula. Up to now, the province of Quebec has been the only one to do so, but any other Canadian province may act likewise if it sees some advantage in such a course of action.
Certainly, I do not suggest that the formula was easy to find or that we did not have many difficulties to overcome. But due to the good offices of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and to the good will of the Quebec premiers, we have succeeded.
At this point, I wish to pay a tribute to Messrs. Duplessis, Sauve and Barrette.
I know that during the debate on the resolution, the opposition spokesmen tried to suggest that one thing, and one thing only, barred the way to an earlier settlement: Mr. Duplessis' uncompromising attitude for all that concerned, directly or indirectly, the constitution of Canada.
Well, I remind the house with pleasure that the initial negotiations for the settlement of this question were entered into with

the hon. Mr. Duplessis. I do not want to lessen the extraordinary talent of Hon. Paul Sauve, whose very short term in office gave rise to so many hopes that are now becoming a reality. But I might say that Mr. Sauve, throughout his discussions with the federal government about the problem of aid to the universities of the province of Quebec, always stated that he was following in the steps of his predecessor whose thought he was only taking up again.
Last July, I personally had an opportunity to discuss with Premier Duplessis various propositions for the purpose of coming to an agreement.
A few days before his death, Mr. Duplessis stated that he would be in a position to submit, in October, a positive proposition to the ministers in Ottawa. It was the Hon. Paul Sauve who submitted that positive proposition. Federal ministers discussed it with Mr. Sauve and, at the time of his tragic death, only a few details remained to be worked out, which was done during a private interview between Mr. Antonio Barrette, Mr. Sauve's successor, and the Minister of Finance, sponsor of the bill which is now before us.
Therefore, we had claimed, under the Liberal administration, that it was possible to settle this problem in a constitutional way and to the satisfaction of the premiers of all the provinces. We have kept our word admirably, because Premier Barrette himself believes that this bill is consistent with the terms of Mr. Duplessis' proposal, which was submitted again by Mr. Sauve, and later by Mr. Barrette himself.
That solution was made possible through an increase in the provincial tax on corporations, deductible from the federal tax. Now the fact is that we were the promoters of the "deductibility" formula at the 1954 Conservative convention held in Ottawa. I remember defending the deductibility formula in the House of Commons, on April 26, 1954, when I replied to the arguments of the then minister of northern affairs and national resources, now leader of the Liberal opposition in Quebec, Mr. Jean Lesage.
The applause is rather muffled.
And those who would like to know exactly what was being claimed by the then Liberal minister, now disguised as a prophet of autonomy, and by the newborn infant of provincial autonomy, the hon. member for 79951-0-2084
Dominion-Provincial Relations Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), can read two enlightening articles by Mr. Clement Brown, in Le Devoir of Friday and Saturday last. Le Devoir's parliamentary correspondent reports fully, word for word, the very terms in which Mr. Lesage objected to the deductibility of provincial income tax from federal income tax.
1 am not afraid to say, as a federal minister, that this bill is the best possible way of solving the crisis for which the Liberals were responsible in the first instance. It is a formula which allows the province of Quebec to recover its place at the forefront of the provinces that form the confederation. It allows the universities of Quebec to develop and prosper like all institutions of higher learning in the other provinces of Canada.
If we now go back to twenty five years ago, we realize that, between 1936 and 1960, the old province of Quebec has developed more than it did between the time of the discovery of Canada and 1936. Thanks to Mr. Duplessis' energetic and bold policy, it has become a great provincial state and an industrial giant.
Messrs. Sauve and Barrette took over from their predecessor and, in less than a year, gave the province of Quebec a new trend, under the impetus of their personal leadership. That is why the provincial session which has just come to a close in Quebec city, will go down in history as the session of education.
The new leader of the Union Nationale has managed to come to an agreement with Ottawa and to obtain from our government the share which, by right, belonged to the universities of Quebec. The hon. Mr. Barrette introduced three bills in the Quebec legislature, one to recover the money accumulating in the coffers of the conference of universities, the second to increase provincial grants to Quebec universities, and the third to raise the income tax of business concerns to provide funds for education in Quebec.
The object of this bill is to make that tax deductible from federal tax, so that the people of Quebec will not have to pay more for the same services than is paid by the people of Ontario or of other provinces. (Text):


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wanted to ask you if you would

Dominion-Provincial Relations take note of citation 144 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms which states:
144. It is a rule in both houses of parliament that a member must address the house orally, and not read from a written, previously prepared speech-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Johnson:: Why did not the hon. member object when the hon. member for Laurier was speaking?


Douglas Mason Fisher: The challenge has been thrown out by a question asking why I did not object when the hon. member for Laurier was speaking. I quite agree that I should have done so. It seems to me that both these hon. members, who are veteran members of the House of Commons, are breaking this rule. I just wanted to draw that matter to the attention of the house.


Mr. Ricard:: He is just following his notes.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) should read his speeches once in a while and that, if he did so, he would make fewer mistakes.


Douglas Mason Fisher: On the point of order, may I say that that statement is nothing more than a bare-faced admission that the hon. member is reading his speech rather than consulting his notes. If that is the case it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that you should rule that he should not read his speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the rule is quite clear that hon. members should not read their speeches. They are, of course, entitled to consult their notes. I know that the rule has not been very strictly applied generally but I would ask all hon. members on all sides of the house to remember that this rule still exists.


John Whitney Pickersgill: After all, it is his maiden speech.


Léon Balcer: The maiden speech of the hon. member for Laurier.
(Translation) :
The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to make the Liberal legislation on aid to Canadian universities legal under the Canadian constitution.
In future, the province of Quebec will be spending $175 million to help education in the province. Had he done nothing else, Mr. Barrette would go down in history as a very great premier-


An hon. Member:: Since confederation.


Léon Balcer: I am happy and proud, as a Conservative cabinet minister and as a member from Quebec, to be able to say we have contributed to this worthy cause by finding

a solution to the problem of financial aid to universities. We have thus carried out an election promise, and more important, we have rectified a grievous injustice.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if
the minister will permit a question?


Léon Balcer: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did I correctly understand the minister to say-I was following him quite closely-that the Liberal formula for aid to universities was unconstitutional, or "anti-constitutionale", I think the word was? If the minister said that, how does he justify belonging to a government which is continuing the same formula in this bill which is now before the house?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, any legislation which finds its place in only nine provinces out of ten and is not acceptable to the tenth province leaves a very grave doubt as to its constitutionality. But by this new bill moved by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) we make it possible for every province in Canada to benefit from federal legislation. I know that in the other provinces people were considering this legislation as being constitutional, but in the province of Quebec not only the government but the people of the province have always regarded it as unconstitutional. When we took power we were faced with the facts and we decided to try to find a solution to this problem. It took us a certain time but I think we have come forward with a splendid solution.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Would the minister allow me a question?
Why did he not vote against grants to universities in 1951 and 1957?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I do not remember about 1951, but I recall having been the only member to vote against them in 1957.


Lionel Chevrier: In view of what you have just said, why did you not vote against grants to universities in 1951?


Léon Balcer: My recollection is not too good. I think I was not in the house at the time.


Lionel Chevrier: I have here Hansard for 1951 and 1957.
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister a question. Is he now putting forward a new constitutional doctrine-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think this is turning into an exchange which will-


Léon Balcer: I think the Leader of the Opposition is asking me a question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes. I would like to ask if the minister is now putting forward a new constitutional doctrine, the divisibility of the constitution?


Léon Balcer: The legislation is not bringing forward divisibility of the constitution. We are proposing an alternative which is available to any provincial government which will be applicable all across Canada. The Liberal legislation was made applicable only to nine provinces out of ten.
(Translation):


Mr. Adrien Meunier (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked the Sollicitor General (Mr. Balcer) to delve a little more into the subject matter of the bill, to comment upon it, and to examine the various clauses, and then to tell us what he thinks of them, instead of limiting himself to generalities, as he did. I want to point out some statements he made. He told us that the university problem was difficult to solve; that we had an indefensible policy; and that the university crisis was due to the Liberals.
Can the Solicitor General tell me if, from 1952 to 1957, any move was made or any action taken by the government of the province of Quebec towards the settlement of this university issue.


Léon Balcer: And what about you?


Adrien Meunier: It has always been said and it was brought up at the resolution stage, that the Liberals had closed the door to any discussions; that they had not entered into discussions with Quebec leaders and that Quebec had not smiled at them. Besides, it was claimed that the Union Nationale government had opened discussions to settle that matter of universities only last year when Mr. Sauve came to Ottawa. It seems to me that in order to settle any problem, ordinarily two sides- two governments in this instance-must be satisfied, and some basis of agreement must be found. If no talks are held, if everyone refuses to budge, no problem will ever be settled. Now, in this case, the money was here in Ottawa, and it was up to the Quebec government to take the lead and ask the Ottawa government to settle the problem. Finally, it was settled, but in a haphazard
26, 1960
Dominion-Provincial Relations way, as I will show in the course of my remarks. A settlement is proposed, but what type of settlement?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is under a Conservative government.


Adrien Meunier: I would have liked the Solicitor General to say a word about the bill and to tell us what he thinks about it. The purpose of the bill submitted to us is twofold. First, we are asked to extend for two years the rental of the provincial share of income tax; then, the bill provides an arrangement between Canada and the provinces for the sharing of corporation income tax with regard to federal government grants to universities.
I want to deal with this latter proposal, Mr. Speaker, because this proposed amendment is something new in this bill. At the resolution stage of this bill, several members spoke feelingly of autonomy or rather told us that the field of education belongs to the provinces. We all know that, Mr. Speaker, and besides, it is guaranteed by the constitution.
Others told us with deep emotion about the furrow of education in Quebec that the late premier had ploughed, a furrow that had been dug by someone else.
I agree, Mr. Speaker, that this cannot be made a matter of sentiment. It is a problem of common concern to the federal government and to the provinces. We have to face it as a whole, and know what it is all about.
This bill offers the provinces to take 1 per cent on corporation taxes and to subsidize their universities at the rate of $1.50 per capita out of the tax proceeds. If, however, the amount thus collected at the rate of $1.50 per capita is in excess of that allowed and worked out by the federal government, the surplus collected by the province shall be deducted from equalization payments.
Where the amount collected by a province is less than $1.50 per capita, the federal government will make up the difference.
However, for this agreement to come into effect and to become law, it is necessary, as mentioned in section 9a, paragraph (b), subparagraph ii, of the act that,
satisfactory arrangements exist in the opinion of the minister for the payment by the province directly to institutions of higher learning in the province, of amounts by way of grants.
It is therefore essential, under that act, that money collected from corporations by

Dominion-Provincial Relations the province be affected to universities, and the federal government grants this permission on the understanding that this obligation will actually be fulfilled.
It follows, therefore, that if the minister is not satisfied with the use made of the moneys collected from corporations, he may withdraw the offer he makes under this act, and resume his taxation power over corporations.
In the final analysis, the federal government decides, when a provincial tax is decreed, what its rate will be, what provincial purpose it will serve and what it will yield to the provincial treasury.
Those conditions, Mr. Speaker, are onerous and are an encroachment on the autonomy of the provinces.
The formula we are being asked to approve is different from the old formula proposed by the government of Mr. St. Laurent and which was deemed unacceptable.
Under the previous formula, the universities were free to accept unconditionally the grants which were offered to them and to spend the money as they liked.
The formula of the St. Laurent government merely gave a definition of a university under the terms of the act, in order to limit the institutions which were to receive those grants. Indeed had the word "university" not been defined, some institutions or schools would have claimed their rights to those grants and we should have had confusion and imbroglios.
I want to rectify an article published in Le Devoir of April 9, 1960, under the signature of its correspondent, Mr. Brown, in which the latter stated that under the formula submitted by the St. Laurent government the minister of finance was "the ultimate judge with regard to grants, in that he was given the tremendous power of defining university education, universities, etc.," and there the author of the article stops, without going any further.
I have to tell that correspondent that his statement was false and inaccurate, because the formula submitted by the St. Laurent government did not at all define university education.
I have here before me the agreement concluded in 1957, between the then minister of finance (Mr. Harris) and the national conference of universities, and paragraph 8 gives a definition of the words "population", "province", "student", "university", "university de-

gree", "university level", but there is no definition whatsoever of the expression "university education".
Since that agreement was renewed in January 1960, between the present Minister of Finance and the Canadian universities foundation, the same definition of the words "population", "student", "university", "university degree", "university level", can be found under paragraph 13, but there is not a single word tending to define the expression "university education".
Some of the terms used in the 1957 convention have been renewed in the 1960 agreement, which was signed by the present Minister of Finance.
I wonder if the correspondent of Le Devoir wanted to mislead his readers or whether he thought they knew nothing about this, but I can tell him, without having reached the degree of intelligence and superiority which he assumes for himself, that we are able to read a text, that we know the definition of certain words, and that we can tell an insect from an animal.


Mr. Pigeon:: This is rather far fetched.


Mr. Denis:: That is understood.


Adrien Meunier: I must say the present Prime Minister, and the Minister of Finance have been logical; that they have never attacked the constitutionality of the law; that they never claimed that it encroached upon provincial laws.
The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Che-vrier) quoted the words spoken by the Minister of Finance in the house, in 1958, as reported in Hansard. I should like to repeat what the hon. member for Laurier said, but since the time at my disposal is limited, I will merely say that the hon. member for Laurier was repeating the very words spoken by the Minister of Finance, in 1958.
Here is what he actually said in 1960:
As long as this government directs the destinies of this country, it will never interfere in the field of education, which comes under provincial jurisdiction.
That has always been his position, frank and clear. We knew where we stood.
But, considering his attitude today, we can well wonder whether the Minister of Finance has not changed his mind. Does he not see in his bill some interference on the part of his government in the provincial field?
The Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) has told us about the needs of universities-we

know all about those needs-and he has told us about the unacceptable formula submitted at the time of the Liberal regime, but to which, however, no counter proposal was ever made. He also referred to the crisis brought about by the Liberals. But I wonder whether it would not have been better for him to tell us about this bill and to tell us what he thinks about it. I also ask the other Quebec ministers, including the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois) whom I see in his seat, and the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) whether they consider that the St. Laurent formula worked against provincial autonomy? Is the present formula not more dangerous?


Maurice Bourget: That is an invitation.


Azellus Denis: The ministers do not speak with one voice.


Adrien Meunier: The other point I wish to raise, and which I mentioned in fact at the outset of my remarks is that the excess amount collected by the province which chooses to exercise its option of collecting 1 per cent of the corporation tax will be deducted from the equalization payments to the province.
In other words, the province will become a tax collector for the federal government. The federal government says to the provinces: I authorize you to collect this tax, I order you to use it in such a way, and if you collect more than the amount agreed between us, you will return the balance to me in one form or another.
I would have liked the Solicitor General to discuss that aspect of the bill and tell us his views on the matter.
The hon. member for Laurier, a moment ago, quoted judgments from the supreme court of which I have a copy here. I shall refrain from going back over that, because I do not want to take up too much of the house's time. However, under the constitution, the provinces have the right to raise direct taxes for provincial purposes and to spend them as directed by the legislature. This also holds true for the federal government, which can raise any tax for its own purposes and spend the proceeds as directed by parliament.
That question has been settled by our courts and I shall not refer to it again.
The hon. member for Laurier quoted the judgment of Mr. Justice Estey-and Mr. Justice Taschereau and Mr. Justice Kerwin
Dominion-Provincial Relations share that opinion-to the effect that no province nor the federal government may become each other's collection agency.
On the basis of that judgment of the supreme court, if a province cannot transfer its powers of taxation to the central government, it follows by implication that it cannot take orders or enter into any agreement limiting its powers, because in so doing it is surrendering part of its prerogatives.
That would seem to us a breach of section 92 of the constitution which provides that the central government has no right to direct taxation money levied for provincial purposes.
In fact, such tax levied for provincial purposes belongs exclusively to the provinces.
It was said that this bill is an improvement on the old formula and is a step in the right direction; I do not agree. On the contrary, I suggest the bill is a flagrant interference by the federal government in provincial affairs and a step, not in the right direction, but a serious and dangerous step backwards.
The provincial government has no right to act as the agent of the federal government to collect a tax, and the latter has no right to limit the provincial government in its taxation powers.
We all know that universities need money and particularly those of Quebec who were starving and were longing for the money put aside for them by the conference of universities. They are glad today to recover what belongs to them, but if they are able to do so, it is because a wise and farsighted government, under the leadership of the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent, had included a provision allowing those sums to be put aside so that our institutions could collect them when they decided to do so, and this, without any directions on the way to use them.
This bill includes formalities and obligations that I have already mentioned and which make it the worst encroachment on provincial autonomy. If this is the result of the word "autonomy" that we have heard during many years at every turn and in all occasions, that result is quite poor and small. I say that this bill is a bad bargain.
I would like to hear the other ministers from Quebec explain their stand on this matter, since the Solicitor General mentioned it a few moments ago.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how the Quebec ministers would be able to justify their stand

Dominion-Provincial Relations in the face of the thesis they defended? They may say that universities today have the money they wanted-and that is true-but I shall answer that they have it at a price they denounced as dangerous, as an infringement of autonomy, not to mention the fact that if they voted in favour of this bill, they will trample under foot all the principles they advocated. If the ministers from Quebec are trying to refloat the Union Nationale by means of that legislation, they have not much to offer to that party. The effect might not be as considerable, nor as efficient as they thought.


Léon Balcer: Are you trying to refloat Mr. Lesage?	,


Adrien Meunier: I beg your pardon? Often the desired result is not achieved.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Are you referring to Mr. Lesage?


Adrien Meunier: It often happens, Mr. Speaker, that the desired result is not achieved, they try by every means to make us forget the disastrous policy of the Quebec government, and that is why somebody well known and close to the Prime Minister organized the visit of the premier of Quebec to Toronto, to show the people of that city that the Union Nationale party is not as noxious as it has been said or described to be.
Mr. Speaker, I shall vote for the maintenance of the payment of 13 per cent of the income tax to the provinces; but, with regard to the option offered the provinces in respect of university grants, I cannot accept it in its present form, and it should be modified su as to safeguard provincial autonomy. Autonomy is a big word which has been preached and the meaning of which has been developed over the years. I cannot vote in favour of this bill, in its present form, because it is dangerous and far-reaching, and because it affects provincial autonomy in a most serious way.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I ask the hon. member for Papineau a question?


Adrien Meunier: Surely.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Does the hon. member share the views of Mr. Lesage? And what does "totonomy" eat in winter?


Adrien Meunier: I believe in autonomy. I shall answer you right away. You are asking me what "totonomy" eats; now I don't know about that-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is going to eat up Lesage.


Adrien Meunier: One moment, please. You asked me a question and you would like

me to answer it. What does "totonomy" eat in winter? I have not the slightest idea what "totonomy" eats but I know that at this time and as a result of Union Nationale "totonomy" there are in Quebec some 200,000 unemployed, and in Montreal alone 80,000. If the province of Quebec had all the money owed to it by the federal government and that it did not receive because of that "totonomy", well, there would be less unemployment in Quebec.


Mr. Robert Lafreniere (Quebec-Monlmorency):: Mr. Speaker, on this matter, several interesting speeches were delivered by talented speakers from both sides of the house. I must say, however, that interest does not necessarily mean truth. For many reasons, I should like today, on behalf of the electors of the constituency I represent, to express my views on this Bill C-56, concerning education.
One of those reasons, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that I represent a constituency where is located one of the finest institutions of higher learning in Canada, Laval University of Quebec city.
Mr. Speaker, do not fear that in saying this, I am having an embarrassing superiority complex, but be assured that I feel a deep and legitimate pride. Besides, I know that other fine universities exist in Canada, and to name but one, I will mention the University of British Columbia, which I visited about a fortnight ago with the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Taylor). All Canadians must also be proud of that university, especially western wanadians, because it is an institution dating from the second half of the nineteenth century and which has known, ever since, a continuous, glorious and successful development.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary to stress any further the idea that education is, beyond any doubt, a provincial responsibility. The present government, through the voice of several of its ministers, time and again has clearly expressed its opinion on the matter, and the provincial authorities, at least in principle, have given their agreement. There is no doubt also, in my humble opinion, that the fathers of confederation were thinking of the universities when they put education under provincial jurisdiction, since several subsidized universities already existed at that time.
Besides, the term "education", to use philosophical language has an intention that goes much beyond what we call instruction, and applies to the whole training process

leading to information and physical and moral formation of the individual. How then could we limit the term education when referring to university grants, and apply it only to primary and secondary schools?
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the term education, as it is used in the confederation act, applies, in my opinion, to university education, and the Liberal government should have taken that theory into account, when it set up the university grant system. Be that as it may, I will limit my remarks to the principle of the bill we are now considering.
Under this bill, the provinces would have an opportunity to pay the grants themselves by raising their own corporation tax. In my humble view, an important aspect of this legislation is the Conservative government's care to abide by the 1867 confederation pact by handing back to the provinces the possibility of raising the taxes required to meet the needs of universities through the deduction of a provincial tax from the federal tax.
Mr. Speaker, probably a number of Liberals will find weaknesses in this formula, but it is acceptable. Furthermore, it must be pointed out that we are repairing an old building which had been badly put together in the first place. The legislation is fantastic, to borrow an expression from the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), but it is legislation that it is long overdue.
In short, the true situation is not as described by the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Meunier) who said that the provincial government will be the agent of the federal government. After all, what has the provincial government done, or rather, what has the federal government said? It has said: I give you the right to raise taxes. What has happened in fact is that the government of the province of Quebec, at least, has raised a tax and, for the first time in 25 years, the federal government has withdrawn from that field of taxation so as to abide by the spirit of the Canadian constitution.
What is surprising in all the discussions about this matter is the obvious about-face of certain Liberal authorities. Just to prove it, I should like to recall certain statements made by Mr. Jean Lesage, which are quoted in part by Clement Brown in an article which appeared in Le Devoir for April 23, 1960. I quote:
In his speech of April 14, 1954, Mr. Jean Lesage described as consistent with the constitution "the distribution among the provinces of taxation revenues... by parliament". He quoted a few figures in support of his view.
However, Mr. Lesage added: "I think that nobody will deny that, in order to maintain our system of government, every level of government must have the financial resources it needs to fulfil Its constitutional obligations".
The Liberal leader then went on to say that in the absence of federal grants, certain have not
Private Bills-Divorce
provinces would not be able to meet their needs.
With regard to the tax legislation on personal incomes enacted by the Duplessis government, Mr. Lesage made the following distinction: (1) first, there is the tax legislation itself, and Quebec is entitled to enact it; (2) then there is the matter of the federal deduction of the new provincial tax, something to which Ottawa cannot agree.
Speaking to the Minister of Finance, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) said, as reported at page 4726 of Hansard of September 6, 1958:
When he says they would welcome a formula which would make it possible for Quebec to accept this kind of assistance, I can assure him that when we were in office certainly we would have welcomed any formula which would have made that possible; indeed, we certainly sought such a formula.
May I add, Mr. Speaker, that I was surprised to hear another Liberal voice, that of the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc) say the words we find at page 2816 of Hansard of April 1, 1960:
It is my understanding that only the tax collector is changed, and nothing else.
Would the hon. member deny or consider only very lightly the theory of Sir Wilfrid Laurier who said "it does not make sense that a government should collect the revenues while another spends them".
Why, Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member not repeat also the theory of his former colleague, Mr. Lesage, that "to maintain our system of government, each level must have the financial resources it needs to fulfil its constitutional obligations?" I will repeat, Mr. Speaker, that in the principles and in practical application, the Conservative government has always been and is still the best safeguard of the rights of the provinces and may I add that this bill will benefit all the provinces which will want to take advantage of it.
I would not want to let this opportunity go by without, as a member from the province of Quebec, putting the record straight following the very unfair remarks made by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville (Mr. Dupuis) on April 1, 1960 and which we find at page 2831 of Hansard. I quote:
I cannot help remembering all the years we lost, when our young people might have enjoyed a university education which was refused them, under the pretext of protecting a sham autonomy.
Would this mean, Mr. Speaker, that for having refused the federal grants to universities, the provincial government failed to fulfill its obligations towards our universities? It is not quite the testimony of a former rector of Laval University, which I find in L'Evenement Journal, of Friday June 13, 1958. Here is what Msgr. Ferdinand Vandry, vice-rector of Laval University, said at that time:
"It is a mistake", said Msgr. Vandry, "for the press to make so much out of the federal government's

Private Bills
grants to Canadian universities, and a mistake to contend that we should accept those grants. Those grants amount to almost nothing compared to what we get from the provincial government, which, thanks to the broadmindedness and understanding of Mr. Duplessis, has made Laval what it is today."
And Msgr. Vandry goes on to say: "I have been the rector of this university for nine years, and I am now in a position to state that over a period of ten years the provincial government has given Laval University a total of $22,000,000. I think that those are things that should be said, because we must say them. The initiator of the 'Cite Uni-versitaire', Msgr. Vandry added, is actually and truly Mr. Duplessis himself."
(Text):



PRIVATE BILLS

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.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, before the orders are called, may I have the unanimous consent of the house to revert to motions?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give the hon. member for Halifax unanimous consent to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



AUDREY LOUISE BRYAN SEVIGNY

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
March 4-House again in committee of the whole on Bill SD-18, an act for the relief of Audrey Louise Bryan Sevigny. (Without amendment).
-Mr. McCleave.
Robert Jardine McCleave: That the order for: "House again in committee of the whole on Bill SD-18, an act for the relief of Audrey Louise Bryan Sevigny" be discharged and that the said bill be referred back to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, together with the evidence taken and the papers produced in respect of the said bill before the Senate standing committee on divorce.
Motion agreed to and order discharged.


Mr. Morton:: I should like to rise at this time and on behalf of those who are sponsoring bills concerning various corporations once again ask the unanimous consent of the house to deal with certain bills in the following order. There has been a discussion between the various interests concerned and an arrangement worked out which will respect those interests. The suggestion to which I am asking unanimous consent is that we deal, first of all, with items numbered 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 and 78, and item 140 in committee first; then, deal with bills covered by items 230, 249 and 250. They are bills for second reading. Then, we could proceed to deal with the divorce bills for second reading so that they could be referred to the

committee. I understand they can be dealt with in bulk all together.
I understand they include the following items, 141 to 180 inclusive; 183 to 229 inclusive; 233 to 248 inclusive; 252 to 275 inclusive and 277 to 284 inclusive. Then, we could revert to the order starting with item 68.


Mr. Speaker:: The house has heard the proposal, which requires unanimous consent, to change the order of the items on the order paper. The suggestion is to deal in committee first with items 70 to 78 inclusive and 140, then report those bills and then deal with second readings of non-divorce and divorce bills standing for second reading. I think that is the substance of the suggestion.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not objecting to the procedure, but I wonder if the hon. member would explain what urgency there is for this procedure.


Murray Douglas Morton: A number of companies concerned have intimated that they would like to start business on the first of May. They have their offices set up, but cannot do so until these bills are passed. Unfortunately, since the Senate will not be here they will be late anyway, but this will expedite the situation and, at the same time, it does get some of the divorce bills into committee where they might be dealt with.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: A pretty poor precedent.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the house so order, unanimously?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-7, to incorporate United Canada Insurance Company-Mr. Grafftey.
Bill No. S-14, to incorporate Munich Reinsurance Company of Canada-Mr. Webster.
Bill No. S-15, to incorporate the College of General Practice of Canada-Mr. Bissonnette.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-13 to incorporate Canadian Reassurance Company -Mr. Morton-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, as I understand this bill, this company is almost identical in name with another insurance company called Canadian Reinsurance Company, the only difference being in the one case the word "Reassurance" is used and in the other "Reinsurance" is used. I think this is an objectionable practice and one that ought to be discontinued. I am aware that this is done with the full knowledge of the superintendent of insurance, and I am aware that the

owners of the companies are common owners. Since they are set up as separate corporate entities, however, they need not continue to have a common ownership. There is no obligation in that respect. This is a practice that I think is thoroughly bad and ought to be discouraged. There should be a distinctive name that is not confusing with other company names granted incorporation by this parliament.
There is one other practice that I find objectionable. It is no longer the practice in the incorporation of these companies to clear the names, to find out and report to parliament whether or not the name is objectionable from the point of view of similarity to other companies incorporated by letters patent. This practice was followed for a great number of years where incorporation took place by a special act. It was left, of course, to parliament or the appropriate committee of parliament to deal with it and decide whether or not a charter would be granted regardless of the similarity of names. This information was brought forward for the consideration of the committee concerned with the particular bill or for parliament itself. The discontinuance of that practice is something which, I think, should not be allowed to pass unnoticed.
I have no particular objection to this bill. I am merely seizing the opportunity of raising these two matters which I think are of importance.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-17, respecting The National Sanitarium Association.-Mr. Small.
Bill No. S-ll, respecting Montreal Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Webster.
Bill No. S-16, to incorporate Matador Pipe Line Company, Ltd.-Mr. Chown.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-21, respecting Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company-Mr. MacLellan-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Capital stock.
George James McIlraith: May I ask the sponsor of this bill what effect, if any, the use of the additional powers granted by this bill will have on this Canadian company earning foreign exchange?
Private Bills


Mr. MacLellan:: The purpose of this bill is merely to increase the capitalization of Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company in connection with building a second line to the continent of Europe for trans-Atlantic messages. The funds have already been advanced by the parent company in the United States of America for the doing of this work. This work is almost completed now.


George James McIlraith: My question had to do with the earning of foreign funds by this Canadian company and what, if any, effect this second line would have in increasing the balance of payments or bringing them more in our favour. It seems to me if that could be done, it is an extremely important thing. Regrettably, any earnings that will be brought into Canada by way of foreign exchange will to a large extent go out to the United States parent of this company and this opportunity of earning foreign exchange has largely been lost.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-20, respecting British Columbia Telephone Company-Mr. Jung-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Acquisition of shares.
George James McIlraith: This bill was debated at the second reading stage and a good deal of evidence was given concerning it when it was before the standing committee. I am concerned with only one very narrow point and it is this. I must say that the charter of the British Columbia Telephone Company is a somewhat confusing document to understand. I therefore put forward my views with some hesitation. I defy anyone to be very precise and clear in his opinion of the exact legal position of that company after reading the relevant legislation concerning it.
In any event, it has been stated in debate in all of the three places where this bill was discussed that its immediate purpose was to enable the British Columbia Telephone Company to acquire another company operating in British Columbia, namely Northwest Telephone Company. As far as I am concerned, I have no objection whatever to that procedure. There can be no objection, as I see it, to the purpose of this bill as stated.
The British Columbia Telephone Company charter, as I read it, limits the British Columbia Telephone Company to constructing and operating lines in British Columbia. Then
3296	HOUSE OF
Private Bills	^ <- T>
it has some incidental powers to acquire connecting lines going outside the province. But section 9 of the relevant legislation enables it to acquire shares in companies having similar objects. The bill now before us seeks to clarify that section 9 in order to make it clear-because it was not clear formerly- that section 9 enables it to acquire all the shares of any company or to acquire another company by purchase of its shares.
But the difficulty as I see it or the narrow point which concerns me is this. Both the British Columbia Telephone Company and indeed the company it seeks to acquire are largely United States owned corporations. I have no immediate objection to that fact. I recognize the need for foreign capital in this country as well as does anyone else. But by this amendment we are putting this British Columbia company in the position where it can go anywhere throughout the whole of Canada and acquire, through this amended bill, any other telephone companies in Canada.
There are many hundreds of telephone companies in all the other provinces of Canada except the three prairie provinces. It seems to me that a question of principle is involved as to whether or not-with the increased importance of telecommunications, with the developments of the last ten years and particularly their military significance-we are going to enable a foreign-owned and controlled company to acquire other companies and thus establish a network system across this country.
I think it is elementary to point out that our regulatory control of telephone companies-inasmuch as there is any control- is through the board of transport commissioners and the Railway Act. Indeed, the legislation refers to the Railway Act. I of course hold the view that with the changes that have come in this whole field in the postwar years, particularly in the last ten years, it is necessary to have that whole area reexamined or re-appraised and the appropriate changes made in the general legislation on this subject.
Certainly I would ask the government whether or not they have considered the question of principle raised by this amended bill. I should like to have their views. I have put my own views forward with some hesitation on the subject because, as a result of the old draftsmanship-perhaps I had better say that instead of "confusing"-of some of the clauses in the special act incorporating British Columbia Telephone Company there is a considerable degree of obscurity. If I am right in reading the amending bill now before us as enabling this company, which by its own charter is limited to British Columbia,


Lf ka-i. C* - ^ c\- <>ir*rjt s
to go into any or all of the other provinces in Canada and buy any other telephone companies and thus establish a national system across this country. I think it is something that the government ought properly to look at. The government has an obligation to the House of Commons to give its views on this point before the bill passes. I have no objection to any other features in the bill; I have just that one narrow point which I think should be considered and dealt with.


Mr. Jung:: Mr. Chairman, I have had the privilege of discussing this point with the hon. member for Ottawa West and I am grateful to him for having discussed this matter again before this committee. In view of what he has said about the complicated nature of the incorporating act, it would be almost an impertinence for a junior counsel like myself to dispute anything said by the hon. member who is a very eminent counsel. But because of the discussions that I have had with the hon. member for Ottawa West I took the opportunity of discussing this matter not only with the parliamentary agent of the company but also with the officials of the company itself.
I have been assured by the parliamentary agent that the question of the proposed expansion does not derogate in the slightest from the original principle of the incorporating act, and the original principle is not being altered by the bill. If it may satisfy the hon. member, I have a telegram which I received from the British Columbia Telephone Company which reads as follows:
Douglas Jung, M.P., Parliament Bldgs., Ottawa, Ont.
The company has no intention of enlarging its operations beyond the powers which it presently holds. It does however propose to extend northward into the Yukon to Alaska.
British Columbia Telephone Co.
I think there was no withholding of information. The company frankly and honestly answered all questions put to it in the standing committee. It noted that it wished to take over the operations of the Northwest Telephone Company, and I think it would be a physical impossibility at this time for the company to come east and take over any or all of the 4,500 other telephone companies now in operation in Canada. From my discussions with the hon. member for Ottawa West I think he is more concerned with the rapid changes in communication and the fact that our legislation has not kept pace with this aspect. I think the hon. member has taken this opportunity to put his views on the record and I agree with him. It may be that in time we may have to set up a different board of control to look into communications, but for the purposes of this bill

we must limit our discussion to the clause under discussion and I hope that what I have said this afternoon will satisfy the hon. member for Ottawa West.


Mr. Macdonnell:: May we be informed whether this question raised by the hon. member for Ottawa West was discussed in the committee and if they were satisfied, or was there this sort of sketchy discussion which we have had now?


George James McIlraith: I am not on the standing committee, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the hon. member for Vancouver Centre for his courteous references, and I want to make it very clear that I think the company declared their intentions quite clearly before the committee. I think the proponents of the bill in this house and the other place also declared the intentions of the company quite clearly, and I think no question can be raised about that. I really wish to raise only the one question as to the wisdom of this parliament granting this kind of power when the company coming before parliament is not asking for it and does not intend to use it. It is a power that is very far-reaching and certainly one which ought not to be granted without consideration by the government of the day. I do not know whether the government has considered the point or not. I wish they would. I have no objection at all to what the British Columbia Telephone Company are seeking to do; I merely question the wisdom of parliament granting this power which is contained in the bill now before the committee and which I think goes much further than the power parliament ought to grant without government consideration, particularly when that wide power is not requested by the company.


Mr. O'Hurley:: I should like to ask the hon. member for Vancouver Centre if this question was raised in committee and discussed?


Douglas Jung: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


George James McIlraith: I am not aware that this question was discussed in committee. I have the committee evidence here but I have been unable to find any discussion about it. However, perhaps it was.


Douglas Jung: I understand that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam raised the question together with other members of the committee when they expressed the fear that the passing of the amendment would enable the British Columbia Telephone Company to go beyond the telephonic legislation of British Columbia. I think the parliamentary agent at that time dealt with that problem, and from
Private Bills
what I have read into the record this afternoon, namely the telegram from the company itself, that possibility is precluded at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Douglas Jung: the third reading of the bill.


George James McIlraith: I do not
want to reiterate anything I have said during the committee stage, but if there is no immediate urgency about getting this bill through before Friday I am wondering whether the government will consider looking at the point I raised. I put the point forward with some hesitation, but I do think it is worthy of consideration by the government. If there is no real reason for having the bill given third reading today instead of on Friday, I would ask the government to look at it in the interval.


Douglas Jung: Naturally, I would hesitate about having this bill delayed. I know of no pressing reason why the bill should not be given third reading today in fairness to this company, and I feel the company is entitled to have third reading now. I am sure there will be other opportunities to raise the point which was brought forward by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) and I can assure him that when that happens he will find a strong supporter for his views in myself. However, I ask the hon. member if he would not extend the courtesy to this company of regarding with favour the third reading of this bill now.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: the second reading of Bill No. S-22, to incorporate Laurentide Finance Company.


Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):: May we
have some explanation of this bill?
(Translation):


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Speaker, this bill is being introduced under chapter 251 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, amended by chapter 46 of the Statutes of Canada, 1956.
It refers also to the Loan Companies Act, chapter 28, which applies almost entirely to this bill.
At present, only four companies are incorporated in this way, three of which are

Private Bills-Divorce
subsidiaries of American companies and only-one being a Canadian company.
All petitioners of this bill are Canadian and the assets of this new company, the Laurentide Finance Company, in French La Laurentide Compagnie de finance, are wholly owned by Canadians.
I think the house is justified in passing this bill.
The bill is, of course, drafted as prescribed in the appendix of this act, that is the bill is drafted according to the schedule to chapter 251 of the revised statutes.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

Mr. Murray Smith (Winnipeg North) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-23, respecting the International Loan Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the sole purpose of this bill is to change the name of the International Loan Company to that of the International Savings and Mortgage Corporation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

Mr. G. E. Halpenny (London) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-18, to incorporate Adanac General Insurance Company of Canada.	*


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


George Ernest Halpenny: Mr. Speaker, Adanac will be a wholly owned subsidiary of the Delta Acceptance Corporation of London. That is a strong company, which also owns the Crescent Finance Corporation which holds a federal small loans licence and operates more or less throughout Canada. Most such companies have their wholly owned insurance subsidiaries and in order that Delta may protect its own investment and the collateral which it is financing it is necessary to have these insurance facilities.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.
Mr. Speaker:: There are a number of private divorce bills for second reading. Is it the pleasure of the house that they be taken in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill SD-156 for the relief of Dorcina Doris
Dubuc Clark.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-157, for the relief of Gerald Healy.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-158, for the relief of Marlene May Myles Robinson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-159, for the relief of Phyllis Louise Clements Harris.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-160, for the relief of Anne Olivia Sinclair Fuller.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-161, for the relief of Viola Mabel Stead Cole.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-162, for the relief of Patricia Ann Shirley Howell.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-163, for the relief of Lillian Juanita Sheppard Simpson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-164, for the relief of Ivy Winifred Grace Arthur Birks.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-165, for the relief of Barbara Ruth Aird Barwick.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-166, for the relief of Diane M. L. Turner Hammond.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-167, for the relief of Dorothy Craven Masse Perrett.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-168, for the relief of Helen Landau Shuster.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-169, for the relief of Fagy Litner Selinger.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-170, for the relief of Pearl Shed-lack Dubin Birnbaum.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-171, for the relief of Joseph Szczepanski.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-172, for the relief of Magdalena Beata Landau Weissler.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-173, for the relief of Frantisek Sladek.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-174, for the relief of Kathleen Beatrice Title Levy.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-175, for the relief of Helen Caroline Coleman Lewchuk.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-176, for the relief of Marie Paule Andree Mercier Rowney.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-177, for the relief of Alexander Leslie Mittler.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-178,	for	the	relief	of	Beatrice
Jean Madsen Rockburn.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-179, for the relief of Emma Strachan Maclnnes Creery.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-180, for the relief of Vira (Vera) Kotyk Marsden.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-181, for the relief of Shashi Kumar Pande.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-182, for the relief of Ethel Georgina Pottle Pallen.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-183,	for	the	relief	of	Marilyn
Shendelman Kagan.-Mr. McCleave.

Bill SD-184, for the relief of Joseph Henri Marcel Vinet.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-185, for the relief of Martha Dam-mel Reiche Domnauer.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-186, for the relief of June Isabella Adamson Hogan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-187, for the relief of Wincenty Strzelczyk.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-188, for the relief of Janina Rod-zoch Nowak.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-189, for the relief of Margaret Ruth McLellan Kennedy.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-190, for the relief of Hazel Ina McEwing Hickey.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-191, for the relief of Marie Marthe Alberta Ladouceur Parenteau.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-192, for the relief of Olga Gokler Crisan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-193, for the relief of George Graham Thresh.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-194, for the relief of Joseph Arthur Porcheron.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-195, for the relief of Paul Drolet Massue.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-196, for the relief of David Byrne Kieran.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-197, for the relief of Nina Finkel-stein Anshell.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-198, for the relief of Joseph Leo Roger Latendresse.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-199, for the relief of Norma Rosalie Parsons Turgeon.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-200, for the relief of Maria Reich-inger Lehnen.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-201, for the relief of Marie Cecile Leda Vezeau Leger.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-202, for the relief of Rose Mary Dubeau Pietrinferno.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-203, for the relief of Daniel Edward Napasney.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-204, for the relief of Pauline Mary Ann Irene Patry Gaudreau.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-205, for the relief of Rose Ella Katherelos Parry.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-206, for the relief of Gwendolyn Marion Mizener Nassif.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-207, for the relief of Joseph Ernest Coutu.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-208, for the relief of Joseph Henri Berube.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-209, for the relief of Maria Hocheder Weber.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-210, for the relief of Sherrill Ordidge Glandsdorp.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-211, for the relief of Bronislaw Kulawik.-Mr. McCleave.
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill SD-212, for the relief of Pauline Sornin
Barrett.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-213, for the relief of Sandra Maxine Shoore Shedwasser.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-214, for the relief of Margaret Maclaren Harris.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-215, for the relief of Irmgard Poikonen Horvath.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-216, for the relief of Estelle Labelle Baxter Robertson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-217, for the relief of Alphonse Yared.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-218, for the relief of Andre Lamothe.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-219, for the relief of Rita Hamel Labranche.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-220, for the relief of Lionel Boucher. -Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-221, for the relief of Eliza Boudreau Filion.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-222, for the relief of William Leslie Baillie.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-223, for the relief of Pauline Handji Edelstein.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-224, for the relief of Molly Brenda Stein Butterman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-225, for the relief of Laurette Biron Valade.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-226, for the relief of Viviane Hirsch Montmartin Gadbois.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-227, for the relief of Grace Kara Forshaw.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-228, for the relief of Gloria Helene Stotland Titleman.-Mr McCleave.
Bill SD-229, for the relief of Armand Simeon Lavictoire.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-230, for the relief of Audrey Mary Crosbie Morris.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-231, for the relief of Joyce Tabah Tomy.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-232, for the relief of Ruth Irene Diakur Mendel.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-233, for the relief of Florence Beryl Kellam Weinstein.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-234, for the relief of Marie Esteie Caprari.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-235, for the relief of Olive Bowes Schofield.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-236, for the relief of Jeanne Beauchemin Arpin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-237, for the relief of Jean Claude Bilodeau.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-238, for the relief of Robert George Butler.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-239, for the relief of Helen Harpes
Avon.-Mr. McCleave.

Private Bills-Divorce
Bill SD-240, for the relief of Sonia Slovsky Coppel.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-241, for the relief of Shirley Hu-berman Schreiber.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-242, for the relief of Paulette Goldberg Slepp.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-243, for the relief of Richard Austin Evans.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-244, for the relief of Marion Mary Treen Frosst.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-245, for the relief of Joyce Mary Whiteman Rogers.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-246, for the relief of Vera Arlene Perry Locke.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-247, for the relief of Beatriki Bour-boulis Angelidis.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-248, for the relief of Jessie Margaret Cross Joly.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-249, for the relief of Guy Labrosse. -Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-250, for the relief of Joyce Agnes Catherine Wilkinson Greenwood.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-251, for the relief of Jacques Cormier.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-252, for the relief of Mary Lorraine Little Copping.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-253, for the relief of Sylvia Tra-chimovsky Fox.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-254, for the relief of Kathleen Shannon Keene.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-255, for the relief of Jean Elizabeth MacCuaig Vinters.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-256, for the relief of Lucy Sekora Budnik.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-257, for the relief of Joyce Middle-hurst Walker.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-258, for the relief of Patricia Shirley Rydberg Menzies.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-259, for the relief of Real Blier.- Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-260, for the relief of Viola Elsie Ann Johnson Anderson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-261, for the relief of Margis Wellisch Ruszugar Hancz.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-262, for the relief of Janina Lu-kaszewicz Soloducha.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-263, for the relief of Arthur Wood-bridge Dale.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-264, for the relief of Maria Jacoba Arens Mannens.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-265, for the relief of Gerard Henri Turgeon.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-266, for the relief of Nancy Jane Wyllie Wood Aylwin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-267, for the relief of Yves Brodeur.-Mr. McCleave.

Bill SD-268, for the relief of James Joseph
Sceviour.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-269, for the relief of Leon Zygow-ski.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-270, for the relief of Neeltje Doruijter Van der Spoel.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-271, for the relief of Paul L'Heu-reux.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-272, for the relief of Joseph Daniel Bernardin Daigle.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-273, for the relief of Giovanna Intini Mancuso.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-274, for the relief of Eileen Williams Gushue.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-275, for the relief of Jean Eleanor Jackson Connell.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-276, for the relief of George Henry Basil.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill	SD-277,	for	the	relief	of	Eileen
Kathleen Astley Craig.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-278, for the relief of Edith Tobat Heinemann.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-279, for the relief of Davis Zave Garmaise.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill	SD-280,	for	the	relief	of	Marie
Frederique Raphaelle Mireille Fortier Kingsbury.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-281, for the relief of Franko (Franz) Stapinskyj.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-282, for the relief of Eva Facey Lund.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-283, for the relief of Joan Dunn Ostrosky.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-284, for the relief of Teresa Greco Caputo.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-285, for the relief of William Pinkerton.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-286, for the relief of Frank David Cousens.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-287, for the relief of Denise Baril Sarrazin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-288, for the relief of Wassily de Krokhaleff.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-289, for the relief of Henriette Rioux Beaupre.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-290, for the relief of Lillian Olive Robertson Reinhold.-Mr. McCleave.



THIRD READING MARIE RITA DUBE HOULD

Robert Jardine McCleave: the third reading of Bill No. SD-38 for the relief of Marie Rita Dube Hould.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the house of two points in this case which require clarification. The first relates to two photographs used in identifying one of the individuals involved,

Dominion-Provincial Relations
one photograph which was used by the investigators in attempting to establish adultery and a different one used in committee with no indication as to whether there was any similarity between the two photographs. The second point relates to a conflict of evidence between the two investigators, one of whom said that they kept a hotel room on the ninth floor of a Montreal hotel under observation for approximately two and one half hours and the other of whom said they came down into the lobby. I believe the miscellaneous private bills committee should investigate and ensure that the evidence was properly given.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That Bill No. SD-38 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the miscellaneous private bills committee.
Smith (Calgary South)
Smith (Simcoe North)
Smith (Winnipeg North)
Southam
Spencer
Stanton
Starr
Stinson
Thomas
Thompson
Thrasher
Walker
Webb
Webster
Weichel
Winkler
Wratten-94.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Does the house give unanimous consent to deal with third readings now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
The house divided on the amendment (Mr. Howard) which was negatived on the following division:


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
++YEAS
Messrs:
Argue	Howard
Fisher	Peters-5.
Herridge
++NAYS
Messrs:
Aiken	Hees
Allmark	Hellyer
Barrington	Hicks
Beech	Hodgson
Bell (Carleton)	Horner (Jasper-Edson)
Best	Howe
Browne (Vancouver-	Jones
Kingsway)	Jorgenson
Brunsden	Jung
Campbell	Kennedy
(Lambton-Kent)	Lennard
Campbell (Stormont)	Maclnnis
Cardiff	MacLellan
Carter	Macnaughton
Casselman, Mrs.	Macquarrie
Cathers	MacRae
Chambers	McBain
Charlton	McCleave
Chown	McFarlane
Churchill	McGee
Crestohl	McGrath
Crouse	McGregor
Danforth	Mcllraith
Dinsdale	Milligan
Doucett	Mitchell
Drysdale	Monteith (Perth)
Fairfield	Morton
Fane	Nasserden
Fraser	Nesbitt
Garland	Nielsen
Grafftey	Noble
Grills	Nugent
Gundlock	O'Leary
Hales	Pallett
Halpenny	Payne
Hamilton (Notre Dame	Pearkes
de Grace)	Phillips
Hamilton (Qu'Appelle)	Rapp
Hamilton (York West)	Rowe
Harkness	Small

[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.
(Translation):
Robert B. Lafrenière: Mr. Speaker, towards the end of this afternoon's discussion on this bill, I had been quoting the testimony of a former rector of Laval University about the generous treatment received by Quebec universities during the period when the provincial government refused to accept federal grants.
To the figures I then mentioned I now wish to add that, since 1945, the Quebec government has paid to universities in my province the substantial amount of $112,036,297.38.
This continuing policy on the part of the government which was then headed by the hon. Mr. Duplessis, is, I feel, adequate proof of the consideration he gave to university education.
Before resuming my seat, I must express my regret with regard to some parts of the speech made in this house on April 1, 1960 by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). I am sorry that, because of a lack of information rather than ill intent, the hon. member, when dealing with Canadianism, should have spoken of the existence of a superiority complex in French Canada.

Dominion-Provincial Relations
As a matter of fact, I do not see that many provinces, besides Quebec, have shown greater broadmindedness and greater respect for minorities.
No one can fairly claim that French-speaking Canadians have at any time tried to impose their language or their religion on the minorities which have chosen to live in Quebec.
I should like to quote here a page from a speech delivered by the Rev. Father Georges Desjardins, a Jesuit, on the treatments of minorities. Here is what he said in his book entitled: Quebec Schools
Other racial groups, upon settling in Canada, have had to accept the existing legislation. When they arrive in Quebec, immigrants find a confessional and Christian school system, either Catholic or Protestant, which has been officially recognized as such since 1846, but which in fact existed long before that date. They must therefore choose between Catholic or Protestant schools. The Jews have chosen Protestant schools. They are therefore regarded as Protestants for the purposes of distribution, as between Catholic and Protestant school boards, of provincial and municipal grants, and also of the undenominational tax (corporation tax).
The Quebec government has been so generous in the sharing of such grants and taxes that Protestant boards have, from time to time, been favoured to the detriment of Catholic boards which every year lose considerable revenues to which they are entitled. In any event, Jews have received from Catholic Quebec the maximum positive rights they could be granted. Under the tradition of the province, they can also require the authorities of Protestant schools attended by their children to arrange for the latter to receive the religious education to which they are entitled under natural law.
As regards Catholic minorities-Irish, English, Scottish, Italian, Hungarian, Syrian and others- they have always received a very liberal treatment from the Catholic committee on education and from Catholic school boards. None of those minorities pay double tax. All their children are educated at the expense of the Catholic taxpayers, without any racial discrimination.
In support of this, I might quote the words of an English-speaking Protestant, Mr. James Patton, secretary of the Quebec Protestant teachers' association. Here is what he said:
(Text):
We are well treated here. We get our full share of tax money. The Catholics go out of their way to be fair and even generous to us. We are only embarrassed because the Roman Catholic schools in other provinces do not get the same break-*
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I believe those things should be mentioned in this house so that the province of Quebec may be considered as it should be, that is to say as an asset within the Canadian confederation.
As regards the bill we have been discussing since the beginning of this sitting, I shall merely sum up my views in saying that the present government has agreed to withdraw from a taxation field in which the provincial

government can itself levy income which will have to be granted to universities.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that giving the provinces the taxation rights they need to fulfil their purposes is indeed the best way to respect the confederation pact.
May I say, in conclusion that the universities are, so to speak, the cultural yardstick of a people and that both the federal and provincial governments must protect their interests.
However, Mr. Speaker, it is also necessary that our people continue to live in an atmosphere of good understanding and harmony, for the safeguard of the Canadian confederation. The action taken by the present Conservative government is such as to achieve that purpose, and we commend the government for having done so.


Mr. Rodolphe Leduc (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have an opportunity to take part in this important debate. Let me say, to begin with, that the grants to Canadian universities were first paid under legislation passed by parliament in 1951.
It was as a result of the report of the Massey commission that all Canadian universities and all Canadian provinces applied for federal assistance as a means of carrying on their work.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It was much before that.


Rodolphe Leduc: Following the report of the Massey commission, the Liberal government at that time decided to make grants to Canadian universities.
The grant at that time amounted to 50 cents per capita and, in 1951-52, all the universities and every province in Canada accepted those grants.
Since 1952, the province of Quebec, or the universities of the province of Quebec, have not claimed federal grants until a few weeks ago.
In 1956, however, when the Liberal government, headed by the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, realized that the province of Quebec was losing millions of dollars every year because of the universities' failure to accept the federal grants, it amended the act by establishing a fund into which the moneys left unclaimed by the universities were deposited, so that the universities might claim them later on.
The attitude of the Liberals on the matter of grants to universities is known throughout Canada. It was stated by Mr. St. Laurent in this house that grants to universities are constitutional. At that time, all the Conservatives in the opposition, those from Quebec as well as those from other provinces,

recognized, as they still do, that grants to universities are no impediment to provincial autonomy in the matter of education.
As for us, our attitude has always been logical. We, Liberals, have always maintained the same attitude since 1951. We have always made grants available to universities, and with no strings attached. Even the Conservative party, since it has been in office, has kept the same formula. The Minister of Finance himself, in his statement a few days ago when he introduced the resolution, said that the formula of grants to universities was constitutional.
However, I know one member, the only one from the province of Quebec, who is of the old guard, the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer), who made a speech this afternoon.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: A magnificent speech.


Rodolphe Leduc: A speech which my friend says was magnificent.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: As compared to yours.


Rodolphe Leduc: But time will tell if his speech was magnificent. Mr. Balcer boasted this afternoon that the universities of the province of Quebec were very pleased to receive $25 million in aid from the federal government.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: And under a Conservative government.


Rodolphe Leduc: But, if Mr. Balcer had thought for a minute of the position he has always taken in the house, he would remember that he has contributed nothing to this grant of $25 million that the universities have received. And for a very good reason: because since 1952, Mr. Balcer invariably voted against the payment of those grants.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I remind the hon. member that he must not refer to his colleague by his personal name, but by the name of his constituency.


Rodolphe Leduc: The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) speaking in this house on January 29,	1957 on the subject of
university grants made as reported on page 762 of Hansard for January 29, 1957, the following statement:
Mr. Chairman, like all other hon. members who have spoken on this subject, I am greatly alarmed by the difficult situation which the Canadian universities are in at the present time. Like all hon. members in this house, I have the greatest respect for my own alma mater, namely Laval University. I can easily picture all the problems that face this great institution at the present time, having regard to the increase in the cost of living, the increase in the cost of materials, and various other difficulties which the authorities of this great university must face at the present time. However, I am sorry to be the only voice so far which has been raised against this vote.
Dominion-Provincial Relations
Those words were uttered before the adjournment of the debate at five o'clock. The hon. member for Three Rivers resumed his speech later the same day when he said, as reported at page 772 of Hansard:
-close to $700 million, unless it finds ways to hand money around so it will not have to blush about all that accumulated money derived from its reckless taxation over the last four years.
I know that my colleagues from other provinces who are not as scrupulous or as touchy as I am, because they do not belong to a minority, are ready to welcome that federal assistance to universities, because they are thinking only of the problems of those institutions. This is also the case of other provincial governments and universities in other provinces which are also prepared to accept federal grants and even urge that they be made larger.
Consequently, I do not want to insist that the universities of other provinces be penalized, but I do not believe that Quebec itself should be penalized because it attaches greater importance to the constitution than do the other provinces. Therefore, I ask the federal government to add an income tax deductibility clause proportionate to the amount which the Quebec institutions would have received if they all had accepted the offer of the federal government. The deductibility has already been considered in the past for other reasons, and I believe it might be possible in this way to help universities without encroaching upon the constitution.
In this way the concern shown by the government and Quebec institutions for the letter of the constitution would be respected, and all the universities of this country would be treated on an equal basis.
Without the addition of such a section, and in its present form, I believe that the item now under consideration is unacceptable. Consequently, I will have to vote against this item.
I must say that the member for Three Rivers hardly deserves any compliments from the universities of the province of Quebec.


Jean-Jacques Martel: It is his suggestion that is being put into effect.


Rodolphe Leduc: But I was amazed when I heard him talk this afternoon as Solicitor General, as expert legal adviser of the government, and expound his theory on "constitutionality".
I made a note of the question that was put to him by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) -


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He did not realize what question he was asking.


Rodolphe Leduc: I also made a note of the answer of the hon. member for Three Rivers in which he expressed a new constitutional theory. He stated that when a bill is accepted by nine provinces but not by a tenth, it becomes unconstitutional.
Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You are the one who did not understand him.


Rodolphe Leduc: Have you ever heard-

Dominion-Provincial Relations


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He did not understand.


Rodolphe Leduc: Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard so fallacious a theory expressed by a legal expert of the government?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He has not been here very long.


Azellus Denis: Don't be silly.


Rodolphe Leduc: Mr. Speaker, not only is the theory a novel one, but I wonder how his fellow cabinet members will welcome it.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You will never be able to understand that.


Rodolphe Leduc: During his remarks this afternoon, the hon. member for Three Rivers mentioned some educational legislation passed in Quebec, and he said that three new bills had been voted. He forgot one; there were four bills passed, and 1 shall mention them to him.
First of all, there was Bill No. 3, entitled "An act regarding university real estate investments". Bill No. 58 was also passed, entitled "An act respecting financial assistance to provincial universities". The legislature also voted Bill No. 50 entitled "An act authorizing the granting of subsidies to institutions of classical learning and certain other schools." And finally, they passed Bill No. 60 to establish a source of revenue in respect of universities, the education fund and the corporation tax.
Those four very good pieces of legislation were passed unanimously in Quebec.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Even the Grits are obliged to vote with the government.


Rodolphe Leduc: The Liberal members of Mr. Lesage voted in favour of that legislation-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Lesage did not vote.


Rodolphe Leduc: It was very easy for the Liberals to support such legislation because-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The Union Nationale has
never done anything but good.


Rodolphe Leduc: -because the government of the province of Quebec was implementing the policy or program of the Liberals.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: They have been in the opposition for 20 years.


Rodolphe Leduc: For several years-


Mr. J. A. Habel (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Has the house reached the point where the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) can, by his shouts, impose his will upon other members of the house?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order-


Maurice Bourget: Why don't you sit down and be reasonable?


Azellus Denis: Don't be a wet blanket.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: As you can see, Mr. Speaker, they are like a pack of wolves. When one of them is attacked, they have to bunch up, 150 together.
On the point of order raised by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel), I think the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc) is the only one to blame for lowering the discussion to this level. We have to meet the Liberals wherever they are, and if this means stooping, well-


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I can hear but one at a time.
I must point out that interjections have been made from all sides of the house, and I urge the members, wherever they sit, not to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor.


Rodolphe Leduc: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lapalme, the leader of the provincial Liberal party, has advocated in Quebec for many years statutory grants for our universities, our colleges, our schoolboards-


Mr. Tremblay:: And Mr. Lesage?


Rodolphe Leduc: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to answer all the questions the Conservative members will want to ask me when I am through with my remarks.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: When the time for that will be gone.


Rodolphe Leduc: As I was saying, for many years Messrs. Lapalme and Lesage have advocated statutory grants in the legislature of Quebec, and this is known to all-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have no objection to a reference being made to legislation on education passed by the Quebec legislature, but in my opinion the hon. member is going a little too far at the moment, and I would ask him to revert to the subject of the bill at hand.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order may I respectfully submit that this afternoon-


An hon. Member:: Watchdog.


Lionel Chevrier: Would you please repeat what you just said?


An hon. Member:: Quebec watchdog.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Cornwall refugee.


Lionel Chevrier: May I remind you,
Mr. Speaker, that this afternooon the


Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) referred to Messrs. Duplessis and Sauve on several occasions, and so did the hon. member for Que-bec-Montmorency (Mr. Lafreniere). Since they were permitted to do so without any objection from the Chair, the hon. member who now has the floor should have the same right.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I remind the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) that the Solicitor General and the member for Quebec-Montmorency referred this afternoon to university grants by the Quebec provincial government. They did not discuss the principle of the legislation; they dealt with assistance in general in relation to the problem of the grants that the federal government is allowed to make through those subsidies or the bill which is being discussed, and this is entirely different from the position adopted by the hon. member for Gatineau who is dealing with the statutory grants system in the province of Quebec as it relates not only to universities, but to all the school boards and other boards which have nothing to do with the bill under consideration at this time.


Rodolphe Leduc: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to abide by your ruling but, in dealing with Bill No. C-56, I cannot help dealing with statutory grants in relation to it because one of the clauses of the bill states that an amount of $1.50 per capita must be granted to the universities by the province. Now for this money to be granted to universities, it is necessary under the new bill that statutory subsidies be provided, and that is why the principle of statutory subsidies was adopted by the government of Quebec. Those statutory subsidies in Quebec amount to $1.75 per capita as against a federal contribution of $1.50 per capita.
Mr. Speaker, I feel it will be readily realized that I am not at all out of order in dealing with statutory subsidies in the province of Quebec, since those subsidies have been established under an agreement between the provincial government and the federal government.
Actually the province of Quebec has come into all the money laid aside at the time of the Liberal administration headed by the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent for assistance to universities, that is $25 million, and this, through no amendment of the federal legislation since it has not yet been passed. In fact, we are still at the stage of the second reading of this bill. Moreover, the province of Quebec having passed four bills, and two in particular, this has enabled universities to collect the $25 million that was being retained here.
26, 1960	3305
Dominion-Provincial Relations


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Thanks	to	a	Conservative
government.


An hon. Member:: The money had changed colour.
Another hon. Member: It had been promised by the same government.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Thanks	to	a	Conservative
government.


Rodolphe Leduc: I am therefore justified in inferring, say what the Conservatives will, that the policy of the Union Nationale has changed in the last six months. It has changed considerably and continues to change every day.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Enough to beat the next Liberal government.


Rodolphe Leduc: I hope that	it	will changeenough so that the province of Quebec will be able to take	advantage	of	all the federal
grants which are available to all provinces in Canada. I have always been in favour of university grants. Our universities need money for their work. They have a part to play not only at the provincial level but in the national and international fields. And this is one of the reasons which justify the granting of federal subsidies to all our Canadian universities. And in granting these subsidies without imposing any conditions whatsoever, the government is in no way interfering with provincial autonomy. We all know that section 93 of the British North American Act gives the provinces exclusive jurisdiction in matters of education.
The federal government by its grants to universities does not interfere in the field of education any more than the province of Quebec interfered in that field by awarding special grants to the University of Ottawa, which is outside of the province of Quebec. Did the federal government infringe upon the rights of the province of Quebec in educational matters when the latter accepted federal grants towards technical and vocational training in that province? Certainly not more than the United States and the other countries when they award grants to the universities throughout the world. At this point, I think of the Rockefeller institute which grants research fellowships to our universities each year. The acceptance of such grants, whether they come from a government or an individual, does not constitute an encroachment upon the constitution.
I am in favour of university grants, but at the same time I do say that the bill as introduced in this house-and I made a careful study of it-is an encroachment upon provincial autonomy. And this, because the bill in its present form enables provincial governments to levy a one tenth tax on the

Dominion-Provincial Relations profits of corporations, but under the condition that this tax does not yield more than $1.50 per capita. Should it yield more, the government reserves the right, under this bill, to deduct the difference from the equalization payments. In my opinion, this is an encroachment on provincial autonomy. Moreover, this act is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Canada has rendered a decision providing that when a province levies a direct tax for provincial purposes, the federal government has no right to claim any share of the moneys collected by the province. According to me, this bill is unconstitutional and unless the government gives an explanation to my satisfaction, I shall withhold my decision on this bill.


Mr. Allard:: May I direct a question to the hon. member? Can the hon. member tell us on what section of our constitution he bases his statement that federal grants to universities are constitutional?


Rodolphe Leduc: The answer is very simple. The Minister of Finance himself, when he introduced his bill, stated that subsidies granted to Canadian universities are constitutional. The same view has been expressed by the Prime Minister of Canada and by all hon. Conservative members, except perhaps the Solicitor General before he became a cabinet member. In fact, they all shared the same view.


Maurice Allard: Would the hon. member
answer my question and tell us on the basis of what section of our Canadian constitution he personally states whether those grants are constitutional or not?


Rodolphe Leduc: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question put by the hon. member-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Coming from the member for Papineau-


Rodolphe Leduc: -may I say this to the member for Sherbrooke:
The government is and will always be scrupulously respectful of the constitution of this country. We recognize and respect the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces in the field of education. The increased grants proposed by the government are nothing but necessary assistance to the universities, without the government interfering in any provincial sphere.


Mr. Noel Dorion (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions, since I have had the honour of being elected to this house, and particularly in the debate on the resolution which preceded this piece of legislation, I expressed my views as clearly as possible


on the precedent which was created in 1951 by the federal government of the time.
I tried to show, both by historical facts and by references to the constitution, that the principle then established represented a serious mistake, and that only the provinces had rights and obligations in educational matters, at every level of the educational system.
I also emphasized the serious danger that Quebec was likely to run into had it yielded on that point.
In order to avoid repetition, I shall therefore try today not to deal again with those angles of the problem, though they may be of capital importance in the establishment of a national unity consistent with the constitution.
Since then, I heard various views on the subject and in spite of my sincere and loyal efforts, I found nothing in them which might shake my position or any of the arguments I used in support of my position.
In consequence-though it may displease those who do not share my opinion, and with all due respect for the views of others-I want to confirm once more, at the very beginning of my remarks, that federal grants to our institutions of higher learning in this country are obviously inconsistent with the imperative principles of our constitution and contrary to the rights, powers and obligations which are an exclusively provincial field.
It is with this reservation that I wish to deal with the legislation now before us, which tends to lessen the singularly serious effects of the 1951 precedent with regard to the only province which, in this matter, offered a resistance that was all the more vigorous and consistent for its being based on history, on the constitution, and on the firm will to preserve full and complete freedom of action.
Everybody is familar with the background of that legislation. Since 1951, the federal parliament has been called upon to vote annual grants to our universities, and thus to by-pass the provincial governments which are exclusively responsible in the educational field.
That precedent, which has recurred each year ever since, has become a kind of institution, so much more difficult to uproot that nine provinces out of ten have accepted it without the least objection; in fact they even declared themselves favourable to it. Only Quebec has consistently rejected it. It so

happened, at a given moment, that the Quebec attitude did not please the authorities in Ottawa. By what means could its resistance be shaken?
So, in 1954, a method was resorted to which, it was hoped, would prove workable. It was stated that in so far as Quebec grants were concerned, they would accumulate in the treasury of the national conference of Canadian universities, in the obvious hope that such a Tantalus torment would give our institutions of higher learning such an appetite, would develop such an amount of gastric juice that in the end they would give in.
Fortunately, the nature and strength of the motives which had inspired Quebec were grossly misconstrued.
Beyond the purely material and financial point of view, there was a principle at stake, the principle of fiscal and constitutional liberties, a principle which, to a large extent, inspired the federative pact of 1867, and the ignoring of which would surely have brought about the abortion of the Charlottetown, Quebec and London conferences.
The accomplished fact brought about by that precedent of 1951 had none the less become a source of serious injustice towards the citizens of Quebec. Were they not contributing a large share of the taxes which were distributed in the other provinces by way of university grants?
Was there no possibility of a compromise that would take into account both the desires of the other provinces and the position so steadfastly held by the province of Quebec? Both the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) and the Quebec provincial authorities- who were also anxious to recover the share of taxes raised for provincial purposes, and to which in all fairness the province was entitled-devoted themselves to finding a compromise solution.
The legislation now before us is the outcome of those co-operative efforts. What does it amount to?
The best way to answer that question is to borrow the words of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), in the speech he delivered on March 18 last, as recorded on page 2229 of Hansard. Here is what he said:
In conclusion may I endeavour to summarize the effect of the legislation now proposed. In addition to assuring to the provinces till March 31, 1962 the benefit of the increase from 10 to 13 per cent in their share of the yield from the personal income tax, this measure will
26, 1960
Dominion-Provincial Relations
(a)	offer all provinces equally an alternative to the present system of federal assistance to universities in the knowledge that none of them will suffer any diminution in consequence of the adoption by its province of the alternative plan;
(b)	place both the present system and the new alternative system on a firm statutory basis for the next two years conterminous with the period of the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act.
What is the nature of this alternative system referred to by the minister? It simply allows provinces which have made no arrangements with the federal government to rent their power to levy taxes on corporations or provinces which, though having entered into such an arrangement, now wish to terminate it with the federal government's concurrence, to receive an additional 1 per cent tax on corporations, a tax which can be deducted from the federal tax.
It may happen however, that the amounts recovered in this way by the provinces will either be greater than the amount that would have been paid to their universities by the federal government, or it may be less. In either case, there will be an annual adjustment, with the federal government either retaining the balance on equalization payments or adding to such payments to make up the amount. In that way, the provinces will receive equal treatment, without discrimination, whatever system they choose.
The essential requirement for any province to take advantage of this new system is that the province make satisfactory arrangements, in the minister's judgment, to pay its institutions of higher learning at least the equivalent of the sums they would have received if they had taken advantage of the method now in force. In other words, the province must actually discharge its obligations toward our universities.
Of course, this act is not perfect. It shows the effect of the factual conditions that brought it about. It stems from a precedent inherited by this government and for which the government must now make allowance, mainly in view of the attitude of nine of the ten provinces of the country.
Last year I pointed out those difficulties and I drew the fire of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), a delayed fire since it came several months after the remarks I had made on this matter. He had then described as illogical and irrational the remarks I had made to this effect. Today, he wanted to act as our mentor and dictate the course we should follow. I admit that I am not at all inclined to accept his counsel, particularly

Dominion-Provincial Relations
after the constitutional heresies that crammed the speech he made this afternoon. I will truly feel in better company if I follow the counsel given on July 21 last by the editor of Le Devoir, a paper which surely cannot be suspected of centralizing tendencies. Here are Mr. Gerard Filion's views on this matter:
The strongest argument is the will of the other provinces. Nine provinces want federal grants, as they want health insurance, as they want family allowances, as they want this and that. Therefore, no Quebec veto can impede progress.
Important remarks could be made in that respect and restrictions indicated as well. However, taking it for granted that the will of nine provinces must finally win over the veto of one, there is but one solution left-setting up a special system for that province. For there is nothing in the constitution to compel Canadian provinces to accept a single procedure every time a step forward is to be taken. Diversity has no built-in evil and it may even become an asset.
That brings back to me the time of the union. While that constitution had been evolved in order to unite the two Canadas on a legislative and an administrative basis, what happened instead was that, throughout the existence of that system, there were three groups of legislation: one for Lower Canada, one for Upper Canada and a third one for the Union, it being utterly impossible and unnatural to amalgamate our two ethnic groups.
May I add that contrary to the hon. member for Laurier, Mr. Filion has the advantage of not being a mere layman in the matter of provincial autonomy.
This text from Le Devoir also provides an opportunity to point out to the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) how far we are from wanting to veto the stand taken by the other provinces. We readily understand that their interests are divergent and that they are entitled to hold views different from ours. It is ridiculous to imagine for a moment that we are attempting to impose on them a sort of one-way Canadianism steeped exclusively in our traditions, our customs and our aspirations.
But neither do we want reduced to a minimum the constitutional rights and freedoms which were granted to us by the act of 1867 and have enabled the province of Quebec to play its part as the centre of French culture in our country, a culture that is and will remain one of the elements absolutely essential to the existence and development of the Canadian people. And because the bill before us is along that line of thought, because it will enable the provinces which so desire to recover their power


of taxation for educational purposes, I do not hesitate at all to support it as an improvement which the province of Quebec may rightfully welcome.
Some people-and it was their privilege to do so-paid particular attention to certain details of this bill and saw in them serious encroachments upon provincial autonomy. For example they took exception to it because it leaves it to the minister to ascertain that the agreements reached by the universities and the provinces wishing to take advantage of this bill are really consistent with its provisions.
I admit that, at first, that requirement disturbed me and that I would have liked a better formula. But on that objection, which I discussed with some of my colleagues, I was told: Is it not up to the minister responsible for the administration of the act to find out whether or not facts are consistent with the provisions of that legislation and if the latter can therefore be put into effect? Otherwise, who would be responsible for it? Mr. Jean Lesage, who has suddenly become the fiercest autonomist, suggested that the Canadian universities foundation could act as an umpire. Mr. Lesage, who is burning today what he worshipped yesterday, and who actively took part in establishing the precedent which is at the very root of the difficulties we are now trying to solve, has, as I say, the ardent enthusiasm as well as the deficiencies of a neophyte. Is he not aware that there is such a thing as ministerial responsibility and that the only three instruments of the state are the legislative, the executive and the judiciary? What principle would allow us to ignore one of those three when there is a question of arbitrating a possible conflict between two opposed jurisdictions?
Mr. Lesage seems to have a rather failing memory. He was there, as a member of the cabinet when chapter 29, Statutes of Canada 4-5 Elizabeth II, to which this bill is related was passed in 1956. Let him read over closely each provision of that text and he will see the extent of the powers specifically given to the minister of finance, whether for the purpose of setting up equalization payments, or stabilization payments or of making any necessary adjustments.
What strikes me especially in this bill is the fact that from now on, the minister will have no control over the structure of our institutions of higher learning and over the required conditions to be eligible for grants. It will not be up to him anymore, as had been decided in 1952 by Mr. Lesage and his friends, to define the terms "university",

"student", "university degree", "university level". That problem will, from now on, be the responsibility of both the provinces and the educational institutions themselves.
This bill will therefore end such intrusions. 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-and it must be pointed out here that the term "arrangements" does not refer only to legislation, but has a much broader meaning-he will no longer, as in the past, be in a position to simply ignore the provinces, and to dictate directly to the universities the terms under which they may receive grants.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, that is a substantial and a very welcome gain. The Hon. Paul Sauve, whose political sense was justly commended by all, was the first to recognize this fact when, in his letter of December 14, 1959 to the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada, he wrote:
My colleagues and I are pleased with your decision to offer an alternative to the present system of federal grants to Canadian universities, to take better account of the letter of the British North America Act.
Another aspect of this measure is that it represents a temporary compromise. On that point also, Mr. Sauve expressed satisfaction in the following terms:
We are very happy that your letter indicates your intention to review the federal government policy in this matter, in the light of future discussions on the extent and nature of fiscal relations between the federal government and the provinces after March 31, 1962. It is therefore only a matter of considering a temporary modus vivendi which would obtain for the next two fiscal years only, that is until we take the decisions we shall be called upon to take and which will apply as of March 31, 1962.
The attitude of the late premier of the province of Quebec was, in this case, in keeping with the opinion of Rev. Father Ares, a prominent sociologist, whose authority in such matters could certainly not be questioned, and who, in January 1960, stated the following:
This is a solution which, in spite of its basic defect, deserves consideration on at least four counts: (1) it is probably, in the circumstances, the only possible solution, in view of the attitude of the other provinces, which insist on getting federal help: (2) it is essentially provisional, since its duration is fixed at two years, and that in 1962 everything must be reconsidered: (3) it is in line with autonomists' claims, since it recognizes -under certain conditions, of course-the rights of provincial governments to levy a special tax, deductible from federal tax, and to earmark such a tax for the financial upkeep of universities; (4) it paves the way to the settlement of an extremely
79951-0-209
Dominion-Provincial Relations
complex and delicate matter: that of the disposal of the sums which have been accumulating in Ottawa since 1952, in favour of Quebec universities.
At the purely practical level, that settlement affords Quebec invaluable advantages, and to convince oneself, one has only to consider provincial legislation passed during the last session, in anticipation of the provisional settlement assured by this measure. An educational fund had been set up in 1946, which was financed by miscellaneous sources. From now on, that fund will be increased by a tenth of the corporation tax, that is, for this fiscal year, by an approximate sum of $9,850,000. Out of that fund, in addition to the sums paid to school boards, as well as the basic grants which the universities and classical colleges are already getting, a payment of a sum equivalent to $1.75 per capita or 25 cents more than the proportion determined by the federal government will be provided for which will give a total amount of about $8,750,000.
At this point, a comment is in order, Mr. Speaker. In a conference he delivered recently before the students of Sir George Williams College, Mr. Lesage had in that respect the following remark to make:
What a glaring breach of Quebec autonomy it is to let Ottawa itself set the amount of provincial taxes to be collected for provincial purposes.
I should like to know on what basis Mr. Lesage can possibly make such a statement. Where, when and how did the federal government ever set the amount of taxes that Quebec is entitled to collect to meet its provincial obligations and deal with matters of its own jurisdiction? The fact that during its last session Quebec chose to set the amount to be levied for the universities at $1.75 instead of $1.50 per capita is the best possible denial of such a contention. Where Ottawa has actually placed a limit in its legislation is in the maximum deduction on its corporation taxes, just as the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent had done in 1956 by recognizing the principle involved, the very principle that had been so violently rejected two years before by Mr. Lesage himself.
Finally, to come back to the legislation recently voted in Quebec, I shall recall that a sinking fund was created to assist universities and affiliated colleges which wanted to proceed with expansion and development projects. These capital costs will be financed by income tax revenue, as well as by the $25 million accrued at the Canadian universities foundation and paid out to Quebec universities for retransmission to the

Dominion-Provincial Relations Quebec government, which is to use the money to this effect.
In other words, not only has Quebec rid its institutions of higher learning of a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, but it made sure that henceforth there would be no more attempt on the part of the federal government to encroach upon the exercise of its rights, powers and obligations in respect of our educational establishments. From now on, it will carry out exclusively on its own the task deferred upon it, which consists in favoring the expansion of education and culture among the people for which it is responsible.
Mr. Speaker, those are the happy results of the compromise upon which rests the legislation now before us. That compromise has the advantage of deferring upon any province who would wish to do so, the responsibility of collecting on its own taxes for the financing of education without in the least hurting the financial and material interests of the other provinces. That seems to me a step in the right direction, a step towards the liberation from that kind of feudal system in which Ottawa has tried to keep the provinces of our dominion for the past 20 years.
Those considerations remind me of some statements made on December 17, 1940 to the Halifax Herald by one of the greatest statesmen of his time, the day after the publication of the Rowell-Sirois report, which is, to a considerable extent, the basis of the important change in the course of Canadian policy which took place at that. time. These are the terms and conditions under which the Hon. Mr. Cahan, former member of the Nova Scotia legislature, secretary of state in the Bennett government, and one of the highest legal authorities of his time, thought it possible to maintain responsible government in each one of this country's legislatures. I quote:
(Text):
I have always believed that dominion-provincial relations will only be placed on a stable basis when the provincial government is made responsible for raising the revenues which it annually expends. That should be the ideal basis of responsible selfgovernment. But this Sirois scheme makes the provinces more dependent upon grants and donations from the federal treasury, for the maintenance of provincial services.
The provincial legislature will come to exercise, year by year, the functions of a municipal council which is dependent, in matters of finance, upon the benefactions which it receives from the federal treasury. The dominion government will hold the purse, and financial control will gradually extend to the exercise of legislative and administrative control.
Many people would doubtless welcome that change, but the people of each province must decide for themselves whether the province shall become wholly dependent upon the dominion government,

or whether, in the administration of provincial affairs, the provincial government shall continue to maintain a considerable measure of independence, which is usually described as provincial autonomy. That raises an issue which the electors of each province must decide for themselves.
(Translation):
Those, Mr. Speaker, were the words of one of the most brilliant statesmen of his generation. Such words were the result of a fruitful experience in public affairs, extensive knowledge of Canada's history and constitutional law, and a sharp sense of reality.
Though they were spoken nearly 20 years ago, those words are still surprisingly up to date. In my view, they contain the doctrine that should inspire all our leaders, whatever their party and whatever the sphere of influence in which they are called upon to exercise their activity. In returning to the spirit and letter of the 1867 act, we shall be working to insure harmony and peace among the various groups that have to live side by side in this country.
It cannot be overemphasized that the 1867 constitution which, before being a piece of legislation enacted by the imperial parliament, was first an agreement reached between the four pioneer provinces of our Canadian homeland, had been carefully drafted by wise and enlightened statesmen endowed with remarkably sharp foresight. While very different in background, religious beliefs and political views, they united their efforts and goodwill in an attempt to put an end to the fratricidal struggles which, for so long, had pitted our forefathers against one another, and to secure for our two ethnic groups the rights and freedoms which would enable them to live together in harmony and to develop each according to its own traditions, culture and personality.
In so far as we remained faithful to the creative spirit of those great ancestors, we had every reason to be satisfied with the relations between the provinces and the central government, and with those between Canadians of Anglo-Saxon origin and Canadians of French origin. God grant that this teaching of history will not cease to guide us and to inspire us in the settlement of conflicts such as the one which the legislation before us today aims to bring to an end, as well as in the general administration of the public affairs of the country.
In this way, we shall be for the whole world an example of a great country where segregation, even in its most insidious form, has no hold on us, of a country different from all the others because of its particular

features, of a country that has remained faithful, both in spirit and in heart, to the two great civilizations from which it has risen and inherited such great and noble traditions.


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the hon. member for Bellechasse? If the hon. member for Belle-chasse deems it completely constitutional to levy a provincial corporation tax for educational purposes, how can he explain that the federal government should, under the same bill, have the authority to compel the province of Quebec to return a portion of the same tax? Is that provision in the bill not the very contradiction of Mr. Cahan's statement?


Noël Dorion: I am willing to assume that the hon. member has paid close attention to what I said. However, he leaves me with the impression that either I did not make myself clear or he misunderstood me. 1 rather believe that I was not quite clear.
At the beginning of my remarks, 1 very definitely stated that in my opinion the federal government is not allowed under the constitution to subsidize universities. I said that we were faced with an accomplished fact and that we try to evolve a temporary solution through a compromise. That is my view on the bill now before us.


Mr. Gabriel Roberge (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, in recent years, I had become used, generally, to speak before the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion). Due to the tradition of alternation, it so happens to-night that I have to speak after him. I must tell you that this makes me very happy since I will have the opportunity to take up certain assertions he made about statements of mine in the past.
Until this afternoon, we believed on this side of the house that there were only two protectors of the constitution on the side of the Conservative members from Quebec. I refer to the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) and the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion), who spoke just before me. But we realized this afternoon that we had a new protector of the Canadian constitution in my hon. friend and university classmate, the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer). I will come back a little later during my remarks to the statement my friend the Solicitor General made this afternoon about the constitution.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take up certain assertions, and to make the record straight about what I said previously in this house on the subject of university 79951-0-209'
Dominion-Provincial Relations grants. According to page 2648 of Hansard of April 13, 1959, unrevised English version, the hon. member for Sherbrooke referred to what I had previously said. He was then taking part in the debate on the budget and I had made a speech on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Well, on that occasion, in January 1959, I had given my views to the house on this matter of university grants. After having tried, in my humble way, to expound the Canadian constitution, I said the following that I quote from the speech of the hon. member for Sherbrooke:
Therefore, I repeat that in my opinion the fathers of confederation, in good faith, did not think in terms of universities when section 93 was enacted.
And according to what he said-I hope he did not have a text-the hon. member for Sherbrooke added:
Mr. Speaker, I must reply to that statement made by the member for Megantic that I have never heard such superficial and inadequate interpretation of the Canadian constitution.
And he went on ...
In 1867 in addition to Laval University_
I must say that, through the reference to that quotation which at that time seemed to be the very words of the hon. member for Sherbrooke, I realized when he spoke that I had read that somewhere. But the hon. member for Sherbrooke corrected himself a few days later and indicated that the text he mentioned referred to an article published in Le Devoir of March 14, 1959, over the signature of Mr. J. Rodolphe Thibodeau, under the heading: "The reader's views."
Both statements are absolutely identical. 1 do not want to insinuate, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Sherbrooke arrogated somebody else's writings to himself. I only want to point out that at that time he did not indicate that somebody else had written that in a newspaper.
I wish to refer to his statement that my interpretation was superficial and inadequate.
Since then, I have found that I am not the only one to have expressed that opinion and I have here the brief submitted by McGill University, in Montreal, to the royal commission on constitutional problems which, if I am not mistaken, was known as the Tremblay commission.
That brief does not carry any signature nor any indication of the author's name, but I have every reason to believe that it was drafted by somebody who is considered as an expert in constitutional law and who is precisely a professor in constitutional law at McGill University.
3312	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Relations
As can be seen on pages 14 and 15 of the brief:
(Text):
Section 93 of the British North America Act makes no specific mention of universities nor does it touch upon the problem of financing their development. So far as we know, the subject of universities was not once discussed at any of the meetings of the fathers of confederation, and if we think of the situation that existed in Canada in 1867 we need not be surprised that the universities received so little consideration.
(Translation):
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, I was not the only one in 1959 to think that the fathers of confederation never had universities in mind when drafting the Quebec resolutions and later on the London resolutions which are the basis of the British North America Act.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said in the beginning, I am privileged and sorry to see that the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion) is not in his seat as I want to refer to what he said the first of April 1960 concerning the resolution when he referred to certain things I had said in January 1959.
I am now quoting the very words uttered on the first of April by the member for Bellechasse and which can be found in the French Hansard, page 2940:
In the first place, Mr. Chairman, contrary to what the hon. member for Megantic seems to think, Laval was not the only Quebec university in 1867.
And he then refers to what I had said in January 1959.
And Mr. Speaker, here is what I did say in January 1959. I quote from the English Hansard of January 20, 1959, page 133.
I had just expressed my humble opinion that the fathers of confederation had not foreseen in 1867 what could happen in 1950 or 1960 and I said:
Besides, if I am not mistaken, universities...
Universities, note the plural.
-at the time were private institutions. At least, it is a well known fact, in so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, where, for instance, Laval University has been established in 1852 by the Quebec seminary.
I did not refer then to the other universities which might have been established in the province of Quebec, namely McGill and Bishop's Universities, because I only mentioned Laval University as being a private institution.
An attempt was made, unwittingly I am sure, to restrict the import of the statement I made at that time.
Mr. Speaker, coming back to the topic which the hon. member for Bellechasse dealt with on April 1, 1960, in an effort to show that

Dominion-Provincial Relations Hon. James McGill, designed to establish in Montreal a high school which later became McGill University.
As regards the royal institution, the hon. member for Bellechasse quoted chapter 18 of the 1854 act. You will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to quote an act adopted in 1863, which is Act 26 Victoria, chapter 6, page 3 of the preface of the brief submitted by McGill University to the commission of inquiry on constitutional problems. I read the following:
(Text):
Under various acts of the legislature of the province of Quebec culminating in the act of 1863 (26 Viet. c. 26)-
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I see there is a mistake; it is not chapter 26, but chapter 6.
(Text):
-the board of governors of McGill University was also invested with the title and powers of the Royal Institution for the Advancement of Learning, which had been created by act of the legislature in 1801.
(Translation):
That means that as early as 1863 there no longer existed any royal institution, and the acts and authority of that institution had been handed over to McGill University. In 1867, when the British North America Act was drafted and agreed to in London, it was only fair that any money or property left by the royal institution, or if McGill University should later on become dependent on that foundation due to that act of the union, it should be returned to the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec.
However, there is more to it than that, Mr. Speaker. I have learned during my short experience that you must refer not only to legal documents but to their sources. Furthermore, in order to find out what certain legislators meant and, to a certain extent, to understand the Canadian constitution, the hon. member for Bellechasse could read the speeches made by the authors of that legislation, or any other. I find in a publication of the Public Archives of Canada, entitled Index to the Debates on Confederation, 1865, a foreword or introduction, written by professor Frank Scott to whom I referred a moment ago; but, this time, it is actually professor Scott who wrote this introduction, which I should like to paraphrase.
Professor Scott deplores the fact that there was no substantial report made of the Charlottetown conference, nor of the Quebec conference, nor of the speeches which were delivered there, except perhaps that which is reported in Confederation Documents, of 1895, which I quoted a moment ago.

After having deplored that, professor Scott adds, as recorded on page 7:
However, the general principles of federal union were hotly discussed on many occasions, both in parliament and on the hustings.
Then we read a sentence which is of no importance for the sake of my own argument. And professor Scott goes on to say:
However the researcher must consult the various parliamentary journals and the official reports if he wants to read up on the subject. After all, the parliamentary debates of Canada on confederation are the only copy and the only substantial and serious analysis of the project of a union and of the developments of that project until the end of the Quebec conference.
At page 9, the author goes on to say this:
We shall not reach unanimity on the value and the purport of those debates. The evidence, like any evidence of the kind, must be studied with care and used cautiously.
Farther down, the author says:
It is none the less very important evidence which acquaints with the thoughts, hopes and fears of the leaders of the time on confederation.
Mr. Speaker, I shall spare you some other representations that I might make because time is getting on.
With the help of this index which is very well made, I read in the report of the debates that took place in 1865 the speeches of those who attended the conferences of Charlottetown and Quebec.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, I shall not quote everything I read because I ran through all the parts where mention was made of education and schools, and nowhere did I find any reference to universities and institutions of higher learning. However, mention was made of Catholic confessional schools, of dissident schools, of public schools and of separate schools, and it is the only reason, in my opinion, why paragraph 6 of the forty third resolution was enacted. It reads as follows:
(Text):
Education, saving the rights and privileges that the Protestant and Catholic minorities in both Canadas may possess as to their denominational schools at the time that the union comes into operation.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, in the light of paragraph 6 of resolution 43 which later became section 93 of the British North America Act, we see that the only concern of the fathers of confederation, and of all those who studied the 72 resolutions was the safeguard of the minority in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, in order to allow them to keep the school system that had been instituted in each of these provinces.
Mr. Speaker, having quoted those facts, I believe that if the hon. member for Bellechasse had a right to conclude that the fathers

of confederation had necessarily thought of universities in drafting those texts, I have a right also to come to the conclusion I drew last year. Besides, I am not the only one to come to this conclusion. May I remind you, however, of the words quoted at the beginning of my remarks.
But there is more. As I said before, I am not the only one to think so, and I would quote in this respect what Rev. Father Egide-M. Roy, of the minor brothers, said in 1924, in his book entitled "The development of the French-Canadian school system". I read it after I had expressed my views on the matter last year, Mr. Speaker. This is what Rev. Father Roy has to say on page 231:
In order to give some idea of education in the province of Quebec, we must first put aside secondary and higher education, i.e. classical colleges and universities. These institutions have been developed under the sole leadership of the clergy and they remained outside all governmental action or influence. They are private corporations, with their own identity. If for the past few years, they have been receiving grants-which are anyhow rather meagre-they nevertheless keep their complete independence.
That was what Rev. Father Roy said in 1924, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that conditions have not changed, either in 1951 nor in 1957 nor in 1960.
I therefore think, Mr. Speaker, that I am entitled to express my humble opinion and to conclude that the central government, or rather the central parliament, has a perfect right to vote grants to the universities without encroaching on provincial autonomy in the educational field.
There is an important distinction to be made between the power to grant subsidies -or make gifts-and the authority to legislate in educational matters.
And this is what I find on page 17 of the brief submitted by McGill University:
(Text):
Much confusion, has arisen in discussion of this subject through a failure to distinguish between
Business of the House
the power to spend crown moneys on behalf of education and the power to make laws in relation to education.
(Translation):
There is a basic difference between distributing sums of money collected by way of direct taxation in the federal field, and the power to legislate in the field of education.
Under the Liberal formula, the government of the time placed no condition on the use to be made of the funds distributed, it had no controlling authority over the administration of universities; it exercised no influence in the drafting of curricula or in the choice of teachers. In fact, all that was done at the time, that is in 1951, and since, was to determine the amount of money to be given by the federal government to institutions of higher learning, both in the province of Quebec and in the other Canadian provinces.
Mr. Speaker, at this stage of my remarks, I think we have reached an appropriate time to ask you to call it ten o'clock.
(Text):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask if there is any change in the program announced last night for the business of the week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No change in the program; we expect tomorrow, by arrangement, to have the debate on apartheid. I will announce the business for Thursday and Friday tomorrow if there is any change in the program as outlined.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder if I could get some indication at this stage as to what we will be doing on Monday next?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Monday of next week would be a supply motion.


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