1964-07-07

LABOUR RELATIONS


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the house would permit me to read a telegram I received just before coming into the house, which is signed by vice presidents of the two railway companies and has to do with the outstanding discussions between the railways and the unions. This telegram reads as follows:
The following telegram has been sent to Mr. Bernard Wilson, director of industrial relations, Department of Labour:
"In the matter of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and a dispute affecting the negotiating committee representing the associated non-operating unions-
Dear Mr. Wilson:
With your letter of May 26th, our file 761:325:64, you sent us a copy of the report of the board of conciliation and investigation which dealt with the above dispute. Since receipt of the report, the presidents of Canadian National and Canadian Pacific have had discussions with government. We are now communicating with Mr. F. H. Hall, chairman of the associated non-operating unions negotiating committee, to arrange a meeting for the purpose of negotiating an agreement on the basis of the conciliation board's recommendations."
Yours very truly,
D. I. McNeill, vice president, personnel, Canadian Pacific Railway Company
W. T. Wilson, vice president, personnel and labour relations, Canadian National Railways
Perhaps it might be convenient for hon. members if there could be agreement to have two further communications appended to today's Hansard. It is not necessary to follow this course in connection with the telegram I just read because it will be in Hamard itself. The other two communications are a letter dated June 22 addressed to the Prime Minister by the presidents of the two railways, and a reply, in identical terms, to the presidents of the two railways dated June 30, which
refer to the matter mentioned in the report. In view of the very general interest I wonder if, when these are tabled, the house would consider giving consent to having them appear as an appendix to today's Hansard.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What is the nature of the letter, the substance of the letter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The letter from the railway companies sets out the position taken by the railway companies with regard to the conciliation board report, and the Prime Minister's letter is a reply to the letter.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to grant consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of documents above referred to see appendix.]


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words concerning the statement just made by the Minister of Transport and the document he has tabled.
We all know the railway unions and the management of the two largest railway companies in Canada are now negotiating the renewal of their contracts.
All sorts of rumours are circulating at the present time-in fact, they are not just rumours, since the Minister of Transport, by the replies he gave yesterday, seemed to imply they were true-to the effect that the federal government would provide new subsidies to the C.N.R. and C.P.R. to offset the salary increase which will be granted to employees of those two large companies.
We have nothing to say against a wage increase for railway employees, on the contrary; however, we object to the government increasing its subsidies to the two railway companies concerned, because we note at the present time that the rates of those companies are much lower than those of trucking companies for the transport of similar goods. This is unfair competition, since the railway companies are using moneys granted by the federal government and the Department of Transport to cut down their rates. Taxes paid by private trucking companies are used to subsidize their competitors which can thus reduce their rates.

Indian Affairs
Mr. Speaker, this is something quite inconsistent and absurd. The private trucking industry in Canada is being jeopardized with the taxes paid by the people.
I feel that the Minister of Transport should give the house the formal assurance that there will be no further development in the granting of subsidies to railway companies until the matter is aired before the house and then referred to the committee on railways, airlines and telegraph lines.
The minister said that the MacPherson report would be considered in the fall. I suggest, however, that the Department of Transport should not grant any additional subsidies to the C.N.R. or to the C.P.R. until the standing committee on railways, airlines and telegraph lines has had an opportunity to look into this problem of cut rates.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport should take this request into consideration and he should not add to the uneasiness which prevails at the present time in the trucking industry.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: We all
welcome, I think, the indication that the companies are accepting the majority report. But in the news reports about the meeting with the government last week-one can assume they were somewhat inspired since no official spokesman was named-the indications were that there was some quid pro quo promised, given or undertaken by the government with regard to the companies. I think it is unfortunate the minister has not given any information as to whether there is any substance in these rumours, or about the general position the government took in regard to the majority report. If there is a quid pro quo to the companies-and it is hard to imagine the Canadian Pacific Railway being so amenable without something like this-it seems to me we should know about it at the earliest opportunity.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, Indian communities will be assisted in raising their living standards and improving their economic, social and cultural life by means of an intensified community development program which will supplement present government assistance.
[Mr. Grcgoire.!
An investment of some $3,551,000 over the next three years is proposed for this aspect of Indian development, which will be conducted by the Indian affairs branch on its own and in association with various provincial and other agencies. This amount is the minimum needed for an intensive three year program. This is the price tag for the assembled skills, organizational instruments and operating techniques which constitute this new process.
In its application, the proposed community development program is designed to employ, to the greatest extent possible, all the available material and human resources in Indian communities and in each province. One of its effects will be to step up mobilization of Indian initiative and to further promote self sufficiency. One of its end results will be to accelerate transfer to Indian communities of responsibility and authority for the management of their affairs, with concurrent limitations in government controls.
In organizational terms, this program will provide one important framework for co-ordinating and enhancing the efforts of existing health, education, welfare and economic development services in Indian communities. In facilitating the development of Indian communities this program would fill a serious gap in existing programs and reduce costs in such palliative areas as welfare assistance payments.
The success of this latest self help program is expected to bring reserves closer to being self sufficient communities and thus reduce the need for reliance on relief and other welfare assistance. This will depend in large measure on the participation of the Indians themselves in efforts to improve their level of living with as much reliance as possible on their own initiative. The program makes provision for technical and other services which will help them to establish self sufficiency. It will be noted immediately that there are over 200,000 Indians in Canada, and that at the present rate of increase there will be around 250,000 in six years.
There is a requirement for a large number of persons skilled in the field of community development to work on reserves and, as the program develops, members of the Indian communities concerned will be engaged in developing local programs. In a number of cases community development workers will be engaged and directed by the department. In other cases, with the approval of Indian bands concerned, such workers will be supplied by arrangement with provincial gov-

ernments. Canada has a shortage of qualified workers in the field of community development and it is hoped that university courses in this field soon will be established. Special courses now are being arranged for departmental staff engaged in this work to study the essential philosophy and techniques involved.
The community development program is being introduced in the three stages beginning in 1964-65 and extending to 1966-67. The stage beyond 1966-67 will represent an on-going program. Although the community development process will result in many tangible improvements on reserves, the very nature of the process is such that it is impossible to spell out in advance which specific projects and services are to be undertaken first. To preserve the effectiveness of the community development process, therefore, and particularly the decision making process at the local level, it will be necessary to make a general allocation of community development funds to each region. Under this arrangement, specific allocation will be controlled by the regional supervisor in relation to emerging needs and development on particular reserves.
As a general principle the community development program will recognize that it is neither desirable nor practicable to abolish reserves. A corollary to this is that the perpetuation or worsening of conditions on reserves will not provide incentives for people to leave. Such conditions tend to have the opposite effect in reducing mobility. Community development therefore implies acceptance of reserves as Indian communities. A community development effort will need to be sustained at least until those reserves which have the necessary potential are brought to approximate social and economic parity with neighbouring non-Indian communities. Where no economic basis for the existence of a reserve can be found, the community development process can be employed equally effectively in resettling people in other areas.
In essence, the community development program represents a conscious effort by the government to guide the forces of change in the best interests of Indian communities and the country at large. It is based on recognition that in the past purely technological approaches have frequently failed to achieve the desired results or have caused unforeseen damage to people. In undertaking this program I will remain concerned not only with the economic and technical prerequisites and
Indian Affairs
consequences of change but also with its social and cultural dimensions.


John George Diefenbaker: The statement made by the minister is most interesting. It is impossible, of course, to deal in any detail now with the representations he has made in respect to the changes designed to improve and elevate the position of Indians within our country. Any action taken in this connection is most commendable, giving the Indians a greater and ever increasing equality of opportunity while at the same time maintaining the treaty rights which are of the essence of our relationship with them.
This is a further step along the road we were endeavouring to map out when we were sitting opposite, giving to the Indians equality with other citizens of our country, providing them with the franchise heretofore denied to them and also ensuring representation in parliament by the appointment of Senator Gladstone to the other place.
Over the years the Indians have been of particular interest to me, beginning when we first went west in the area of Fort Carlton. I have seen the Indians passing from a position of great difficulty and squalid poverty to a state of gradual improvement and I am sure the present plan will do still more to equalize that condition of citizenship which all of us in our country must establish. Discrimination was removed in law through the bill of rights. Economic opportunity was provided through rising standards and the provision of technical schools for the Indian people who are, technologically, of a high standard of ability, but who had not possessed an opportunity to advance and improve their position.
I say to the minister that the action outlined in this statement will receive the full support of the opposition, for all of us are tremendously interested in assuring that the Indian population of our country shall attain the highest possible standards. I return to what I said near the beginning of my remarks. At all times we must preserve their treaty rights which are sacred in their sight and sacred, in their view, to the maintenance of the relationship between the Indian population and the rest of Canada.
I hope that at the same time the minister is proceeding to have set up the Indian claims commission so that their historic rights, which too often over the years have been violated and diminished, shall be given the full consideration of a semi-judicial body and, where

Indian Affairs
wrongs have taken place, right will be substituted.


Mr.  T. S. Barnell@Comox-Alberni: Mr. Speaker, we of the New Democratic party certainly welcome the statement which has been made to the house today by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The statement, necessarily I suppose, was couched in rather broad and general terms, but as I listened to it I did feel that due consideration had been given to the need for a flexibility of approach in dealing with a community development program for the Indian people in various parts of the country. I have been feeling for some time that this session has been singularly lacking in the attention it has focused upon the affairs of the Indian people, at least on the surface of things. It is therefore good to know that the minister and his department have been doing some work behind the scenes which has resulted in this announcement today.
I was glad to note that consideration is being given to the retention of homes for the Indian people on their reserves and in their communities, because I am coming increasingly to feel that it is worth while in this country that an opportunity be given for the perpetuation of some of the contributions to our culture which can be made by the Indian people, and I think it is from their own communities that some of this type of development can stem. We certainly shall be studying fhe statement in detail, and probably studying with more attention and in greater detail the manner in which the proposed program is to be worked out. So often it seems that these high sounding programs, when it gets down to the brass tacks of working them out, do not meet in full the promises and purposes as announced by a minister.
Certainly as far as I am concerned, and I am sure as far as my colleagues in the New Democratic party are concerned, we do hope that this is not going to be another one of those cases where there was too little too late in dealing adequately with the situation as it affects the Indian people of Canada. I can say that we pledge our full support to the minister and the government in making this program something that will be very worth while for the Indian people of the country.


Mr.  A. B. Paiierson@Fraser Valley: Mr. Speaker, we join in expressing appreciation to the minister for the statement he has made this afternoon with respect to the Indian community development program. We realize, of course, that this is not the time for debate,

and we are looking forward to the estimates of the department being brought before us so we can get a more extended statement and also have the opportunity of discussion and debate on the matter.
We all know there is a wide divergence of opinion across the country as to the best way to meet the challenge posed by the problems of our Indian people. I feel there is a growing interest on the part of people generally with respect to this particular matter. I suggest that in conjunction with the Indian community development program it is essential that there also be an education program which will assist our Indian people to accept responsibility, to meet the challenge and to achieve the destiny which is theirs as citizens of this country.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we approve of the intention of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Tremblay) to do something in order to improve the conditions of the Indians in Canada. It is not that we do not mean well in our country but often we do not know how to go about it. In this regard we want the department to consult the representatives of the Indians when decisions have to be taken which will affect them or when certain community development programs have to be carried out.
We believe that the Indian people should be consulted, that they should voice their opinions on those programs intended to help them. The department must also see to preserve their cultural heritage and their traditions, since they were, after all, the first occupants of this country.
First of all, the Indian people need to be understood in order to be assisted.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I realize it is not common practice for more than one member of a party to rise on occasions of this nature, but-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member will realize that if we start making exceptions, standing orders go out the window. It is customary for only the leaders of the different parties to comment on motions.


Erik Nielsen: Then I must raise a question
of privilege, since there appears to be a great omission from the statement made by the minister. As he is aware, reserves-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is surely raising a grievance, not a question of privilege, and he will have ample time to do this later on in the proceedings.


Erik Nielsen: Sir, I believe-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Winkler:: Same old gang.


Erik Nielsen: If Your Honour will call the howlers to order so you can hear my question of privilege, perhaps a decision might be made on it. The minister in his remarks-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: -referred only to provinces, and I was simply going to ask him whether this program applied to the Indian people in the Yukon and Northwest Territories as well.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to be quite obvious that the hon. member has raised a question which he could ask on orders of the day. There is no question of privilege or grievance here; it is merely a question.

On the orders of the day:


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration concerning the announcement he made this afternoon. He made no mention of the Yukon and Northwest Territories, of the application of the program announced by him to those territories, although he made reference to the application of the program to reservations. As I am sure he must be aware, there are no reserves in either territory. Can he tell the house whether the program he has announced is applicable to the Indian people of the north?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that, in the case of reserves, the community development program is carried out within the reserves, but we do not intend to limit our program to reserves.
Canadian Indians living in the Northwest Territories or in the Yukon will benefit by the program announced today.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. ,G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the
Inquiries of the Ministry Secretary of State for External Affairs whether any representation has been made by the U.S.S.R. to the government of Canada, as apparently has been the case with Japan, to show the acceptance by the Soviet of a peace force under the United Nations whereby all the nations except the five permanent members of the security council would make a contribution. I would also ask him whether, other than the press dispatches, there has been any communication from the Soviet government in this connection to the government of Canada.
Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no formal communication between the Soviet union and the government of Canada. The foreign ministry of Japan announced yesterday that it had received a proposal from the Soviet union, and an Associated Press dispatch indicated that this proposal would be circulated to members of the United Nations. That proposal has not been received yet, but I would say that, subject to careful further examination, we would regard this proposal as an important statement in principle by the Soviet union, and particularly so because of the Canadian interest in the principles of UN peace keeping.
The Soviet proposal seems to be a restatement by the Soviet union of its position with regard to article 43 of the charter of the United Nations. The proposal as reported suggests that the Soviet union would be prepared to support the financing of a permanent peace keeping force under the auspices of the United Nations; but that there is no indication, in anything which has yet been made public, that the Soviet union is prepared to meet the financial obligations which the international court of justice says are due from the Soviet union in respect of peace keeping operations already undertaken by the United Nations.
I can assure the right hon. gentleman that if this proposal is presented to Canada formally we shall give it very careful consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister whether he has any explanation of the fact that the U.S.S.R. made this suggestion to Japan rather than to one or other of the nations which have made their contri-b.ution to peace keeping operations, or particularly direct to the United Nations. Is there any explanation of this rather unusual course?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can offer anything more than

Inquiries of the Ministry conjecture. However, Japan is a country which has given indication of its interest in peace keeping and I know that my right hon. friend did not single out Japan as a country that had not done so. I can offer no explanation of the fact that Japan seems to have been the initial recipient of the proposals.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the minister a supplementary question. In view of the extreme importance of this proposal, will the minister communicate the contents of any actual proposal which is made to the house just as soon as possible?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, sir.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has received from the secretary general of the United Nations any confirmation as to how many Greek troops were landed in Cyprus, whether it is true that Cypriot police kept the United Nations forces from viewing such landings, and what course the United Nations intends to follow in view of this violation of the security council resolution.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, we have been in touch with the United Nations today. There is a difference of view as to the extent and nature of these importations. Beyond that I do not think it is now desirable to go. The course the United Nations will follow is one that cannot be stated firmly at this time because, as my hon. friend knows, meetings are now under way in Geneva under the direction of the mediator. Until these negotiations are over I do not think it would be desirable to suggest what course might be followed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am somewhat at a loss as to the minister's answer with regard to the degree of importations he mentioned. I ask the minister, has it been substantiated by the United Nations that Greek forces over and above the nominal establishment which is allowed on the island of Cyprus have been landed there, and is there any confirmation of the fact that Cypriot police kept United Nations forces from viewing this landing? I wonder whether these two facts have been confirmed.


Murdo William Martin: I am sorry I did not answer the last part of the question. It is a fact that at least on one occasion at Limassol the United Nations force was restrained from carrying out its tasks under the security council resolution. There should be no confusion with regard to my observation concerning the extent of importations. I can only say that there is a difference of view as to the extent of infiltrations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether it is not becoming increasingly apparent that, to use the language of the street, the United Nations is being played for a sucker by the government of Cyprus with reference to the landing of Greek troops and preventing the United Nations forces from viewing what is going on, and with reference more recently to the speeches of General Grivas calling for enosis, which is in complete violation of the security council's resolution? I ask the minister if the Canadian government intends to make representations to the United Nations with a view to having that body make clear to the government of Cyprus that these violations of the security council resolution will leave the United Nations with no alternative than to take steps to discipline those who are violating the resolution or to withdraw the peace keeping forces from Cyprus, which were put there in the first place to protect Cyprus from an anticipated Turkish invasion.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, the United Nations force was established by the United Nations primarily to assist in keeping the peace in Cyprus. It was not sent there for the primary purpose of preventing an invasion, but there is no doubt that the decision to establish the United Nations peace keeping force on the 13th of March did assist very considerably in making invasion from any quarter impossible or undesirable.
There is also no doubt that the operations of the United Nations force have been made more difficult by a number of the factors mentioned by the hon. member. The Canadian government, not only within the last few days but even before the NATO ministerial meeting at The Hague, has taken a firm position with regard to any action that adds to or complicates the work of the peace force. As I mentioned yesterday, there have been important negotiations this week, with one meeting going on in Geneva, another in NATO and discussions elsewhere.

I have had occasion to call in the ambassador of Greece, with whom I had a long talk yesterday, and I have made it clear, as has the secretary general of the United Nations, that these involvements that add to the task of the force are not in the interests of the United Nations peace keeping operation. I can say that, notwithstanding all these difficulties, the United Nations continues to serve a very important purpose on that troubled island.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker; I do not want to belabour this point. We are receiving some information from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but it seems to me that the newspapers have far more access to information than we have. I have before me four or five press headlines such as "Darkened Convoys Race Across Cyprus at Night", "Geneva Talks Opening Amid Arms Build-up", as well as a picture of General Grivas, official agent of the Greek government, being welcomed as a hero in Cyprus.
It seems to me that we need more specific information, and are deserving of having at least as much information as the press has. My specific question to the minister is, has he been in direct contact with the Greek government concerning the landing of Greek nationals in Cyprus? The other day the Greek foreign minister rebuked the minister for having made a statement about this. It seems to me we should have more information.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In answer to my hon. friend's question may I say that all the stories that appear in the news media are not necessarily correct. I may say to the house that Cyprus is one of the most serious problems to face us in many years, certainly since the end of the second world war. In a matter of such vital importance I would not be properly discharging my responsibilities as Secretary of State for External Affairs, if I did not weigh as carefully as I can what I say in this house and the possible effect of my words in certain other countries. Our position has been made known with regard to actions taken by particular forces and by particular personalities. I can say that, as a result of the position taken by Canada and other countries, an effort is being made to bring about a solution to this problem under conditions that I hope will not cause a serious situation on the island to further develop.
It is one thing to conjecture without responsibility. But I am sure my hon. friend will appreciate that I do not give all the 20220-326J
Inquiries of the Ministry details, because I cannot in these circumstances discharge my obligations if I speak in anything but the most general language. As long as I hold this responsibility I propose to take this course, and I am sure that the former minister of labour, who was a minister of the crown, fully appreciates that this is correct and proper.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister speaks of the necessity of generality of statement, of which there is no greater exponent than he. I ask the minister whether any further investigation has been made by his department relative to the question I asked over a week ago, in which I pointed out that according to the press some 4,000 Greek troops had infiltrated into Cyprus clandestinely. Has he had occasion to communicate with the C.B.C. regarding a report from London to that effect several days ago, broadcast over the air waves by Mr. Patrick Keat-ley, a reputable commentator? Has he looked into that question? Furthermore, realizing that a debate cannot take place at this time, and with 1,100 Canadians on this island, will the minister allow parliament a few hours tomorrow in which to discuss this matter? Certainly this is a question upon which the house should have the fullest information. We cannot get it through questions on orders of the day, and that is understandable.
Certainly Canadians as a whole want to know what is the position of our forces there. Are they in any way in great danger through any failure taking place or any action that is occurring from time to time, in particular with reference to the Greek underground leader? This is what Canadians want to know. They do not want the minister to go into particulars, but they want more than just generalizations to the effect that last March we sent forces there and that did a great deal. We want to know what the position is on July 7. What is the position of these forces? Are they, by reason of a failure of the United Nations, in any way in jeopardy in which they ought not to be?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of my hon. friend's question I must say that I am not in the habit of taking or accepting as final, information that comes from news correspondents abroad.


John George Diefenbaker: The C.B.C.?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The C.B.C. or any source. Canada has a diplomatic mission

Inquiries of the Ministry in Cyprus and we also have diplomatic missions in countries that have a vital interest in this matter. I may assure my hon. friend that we are relying primarily on these sources. The story to which my hon. friend directs our attention emanated from Ankara. The story was repeated over the B.B.C. and appeared in an English newspaper. We have studied the allegation and the figure mentioned. This question has been investigated by the United Nations itself. The UN authorities do not agree with the figure.
With regard to the second suggestion, I will be glad to discuss that with my colleagues. The external affairs committee will be meeting I think on Thursday, and that would also afford an opportunity. In any event, I will give consideration to the suggestion.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to thank the hon. gentleman for his very full statement. I simply suggest this to him, that the committee on external affairs cannot take the place of the house as a whole on a matter like this.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: May
I ask a supplementary question. In addition to making a protest or statement in the press, did the Greek government make a protest or representations to the Canadian government or to the Canadian ambassador in Athens in regard to the statements made in the house last week, particularly the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to the landing of Greek troops on Cyprus? If so, what reply was given?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have had no report from our mission in Athens of any such protest. I may say that when the press story in question came to my attention, I at once asked the Greek ambassador to come to see me. This he did yesterday.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister has said the figure of 4,000 Greek troops landing on Cyprus is considered inaccurate by the United Nations. May I ask the minister what is the United Nations estimate of the number of Greek troops landed on Cyprus?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure my hon. friend would agree that this is the kind of information which I should not be asked to give, and which I do not propose to give at this time.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: May I ask
the Minister of National Defence a supplementary question. In the event that the peaceful solution of this Cyprus problem suggested by the Secretary of State for Ex-

ternal Affairs does not work out in that way, can the minister tell us the location of the aircraft carrier Bonaventure at the present time, and how soon it could be sent to Cyprus in the event it may prove necessary to remove our troops? We do not want another Hong Kong.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend that the Department of National Defence has fulfilled its responsibilities in this matter in all respects, and has considered any possible eventuality that may occur there. I can also assure my hon. friend in this regard that the whereabouts of the Bonaventure from time to time is not a relevant factor.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I just ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs one final question. In view of the fact that questions on orders of the day are of necessity unsatisfactory, and the very keen interest there is in Canada in this question, will the minister take into consideration the advisability of having a two hour debate or a half day debate on this question so the people of Canada will be fully satisfied that the situation is well in hand, and so the United Nations and other countries may know something of the views of the members of the House of Commons regarding this situation in which we have a very serious stake in manpower.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have already indicated I will be glad to consider that.



SAFETY OF CANADIANS FOLLOWING UN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I hope in this case he will be able to be more lucid than he has been with questions over Cyprus. This question concerns Canadians in the Congo, and is further to a question I asked a week ago. Does the minister know how many Canadians there are at present in the Congo; who they are-are they missionaries or UN employees-what steps have been taken to remove them from the danger areas around Albertville, and finally, could he give us his latest word on their safety and whether they are in any danger?


Mr. Speaker:: Important as the question is, surely it is one for the order paper.


Robert Norman Thompson: I have been trying to ask a question supplementary

to at least part of the question asked by the hon. member for Oxford. There is now a very dangerous situation existing in Bujumbura, the capital of Burundi, where a civil war is taking place. There are a number of Canadians there, both independently and associated with the United Nations. Does the minister have any word for us about the safety of those people?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was about to reply to the question when Mr. Speaker ruled it was a matter for the order paper. There are several people concerning whom inquiries have been made, and most of them have been found safe in various parts of the Congo. I know only of one individual whose name has been given to us and whose whereabouts have not yet been determined.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph P. O'Keefe (SI. John's East):: should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Is the minister aware that a Newfoundlander, Miss Mary-Lou Farrell of St. John's East, recently won the title of Miss Dominion of Canada, and that she will very soon represent all of Canada in the Miss Universe international talent and beauty contest in Florida, and later the Miss World contest in London?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was not aware of that fact. I am sure that the house shares in the pleasure of learning it. My colleague the Minister of Transport regards Newfoundland as the heart of Canada. It is now clear that there will be many, as a result of the information just conveyed, who will believe that Newfoundland could become the heart of the universe.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question which does not arise out of the peculiarly important matter that has just been dealt with so succinctly and carefully by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I wanted to ask him about the contents of the correspondence that passed between the Prime Minister and the presidents of the railways which he so kindly made available to me.
Inquiries of the Ministry
I should like to ask him what undertaking, if any, was given by the Prime Minister to the presidents of the two railways concerning the added costs which will be assumed by them if they accept the wage increases. I do this because the letter states:
-it is recognized that, while the resolution preceding introduction of this legislation-
That is a reference to the MacPherson royal commission.
-is awaiting consideration by parliament, other items of parliamentary business must be dealt with first.
This statement is in the Prime Minister's letter. Later on he says:
-so that the government would be afforded an opportunity to decide what additional temporary financial adjustments would be justified to assist the railways during the period up to the coming into effect of the proposed new railway legislation.
Has there been any undertaking, direct or indirect, that all or any part of the additional $57 million over a period of two years, I think, is going to be paid by the Canadian people? Was that conducive in any way to the attitude of the railways in agreeing to the majority report?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No undertaking was given to the presidents of the railways beyond that set out in the letter addressed to the presidents by the Prime Minister on June 30, of which I have tabled a copy which is to appear as an appendix to Hansard today.


John George Diefenbaker: Whatever course the railways take will depend upon their interpretation of the hopefulness expressed by the Prime Minister in that letter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I only speak for the government; the railways speak for themselves.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker,
I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether additional grants will be given to the Canadian National Railways until the new legislation is considered by parliament and the standing committee on railways?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is a hypothetical question but I think the hon. gentleman, as an old and experienced parliamentarian, knows the government cannot pay money to the railways that is not voted by parliament.

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to put the same question to the Minister of Transport but this time I would like to have a reply and to be told whether the government intends to increase the railway subsidy without the matter having been discussed by parliament as it is being done with respect to the $50 million which are paid to the railways even though they have not been passed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite apparent that no moneys can be paid by the government, for any purpose, that have not been voted by parliament.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether any commitment has been made to the Canadian truckers' association in regard to this subsidy, and whether he has told the association that it will not be on after September this year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir, no undertaking of any kind has been given to the Canadian truckers' association. The president of that association met my hon. friend the Acting Prime Minister and myself this morning. We listened to their representations, and beyond assuring them that the present and proposed payments, which incidentally have been made to the railways for several years, were of a temporary character until such time as the MacPherson legislation might be passed and come into operation, no commitment of any kind was made to them; and it was explained to them that we could not make any statement to them before we made a statement to parliament.



PASSAMAQUODDY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. J. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister and is based upon a press dispatch of this morning reporting that consideration of the Passamaquoddy project in the United States senate has been postponed until 1965. Has the Acting Prime Minister any additional information to give the house in connection with this matter?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the report to which my hon. friend draws my attention. Of

course this does not concern the Canadian government directly. There was an exploratory talk with representatives of the United States with regard to the United States position on this project. Beyond that there is nothing further to report at the present time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice in his capacity as house leader. Inasmuch as the house is now more sensibly launched on a legislative program, could the minister inform the house when we might return to the consideration of main estimates?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, there is to be a meeting of the house leaders tonight-at least I am attempting to call one-and I think I will be in a position to be more precise about the answer to this question tomorrow.



STEFS TO INCREASE EXPORTS TO GREAT BRITAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the beef shortage in the United Kingdom, where I understand the price is $2 per pound for choice cuts as compared with the Canadian price of 79 cents per pound, and in view of the United States attempt to break into this market, will the minister inform the house what attempt Canada has made to capture any part of this market, and will he give the details?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put this on the order paper.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I would like to discuss it at ten o'clock.



SOCIAL ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would she inform the house whether she has

received any communication from the minister of welfare in Saskatchewan, and whether she answered that communication, concerning jobs for those on social welfare?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have a recollection that I did receive such a communication last week, but I am not certain whether it has been answered. I shall be glad to look it up and advise my hon. friend.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, would the minister take immediate action on this matter; because the press in the west is full of complaints that no answer has been given by the federal government on this matter which is of political interest in Saskatchewan.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No doubt my hon. friend and the house know that this matter has been discussed over the years and that the position heretofore taken, as a result of the meeting of advisers from all the provinces, was that work for relief as such, as the phrase is generally understood, was not a matter which received the sympathy of the federal government. I am not certain whether the correspondence may indicate what type of scheme it is that the present government in Saskatchewan has in mind, but I shall be pleased to look up this correspondence and inform the house later.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, who I am sorry is not still in the chamber, asked me a question with respect to correspondence with the province of Saskatchewan with regard to work for relief. I have just had brought to my attention that the recent correspondence of the department has not been on that subject. In fact there has been no correspondence on this subject.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sf. Hyacinlhe-Bagof):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Is the minister considering amending the Criminal Code in order to legalize the situation regarding pari mutuel at horse races?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter of government
Inquiries of the Ministry policy which will be announced in the normal course of the session.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonfon-Slralhcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Does Northern Transportation Company now have on order, or under construction, a ship designed to do the job for which they purchased their L.S.M., or for a similar type of operation?


Mr. Speaker:: This, it seems to me, is a good question for the order paper.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the statement by Mr. Gilchrist, president of Eldorado, which appeared in last night's issue of the Ottawa Journal, that the experts in the uranium industry had not been optimistic enough in their forecasts of future demands for this fuel, would the minister and the government reconsider their decision to close down the uranium mines and end the stockpiling program?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the statement referred to and I am not aware of it, but I will undertake to have a look at it and see what can be done.



BANCROFT, ONT.  NEGOTIATIONS BY FRENCH COMPANY FOR MINERAL RIGHTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: On June 30 the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac asked me whether I was aware that the Mokta company of Paris, France, is now negotiating in the Bancroft area for the purchase of the mineral rights to properties with uranium deposits. I can inform the hon. member that both the government department and the government agency directly concerned are aware of these negotiations and all possible assistance will be provided. We are now awaiting a written

Inquiries of the Ministry request which will describe in exact terms the information and aid required.
May I also, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, refer to the question which was asked today by the same hon. member? He asked my colleague the Minister of Industry about a statement made by Mr. Gilchrist. I can tell him that when the decision was made with regard to stockpiling, the views of Mr. Gilchrist were well known.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: should like to thank the Minister of Trade and Commerce for his answer to my question. Does he not agree that these companies from other countries, are apparently showing more foresight than this government in now coming into Canada and buying up properties and rights to this precious mineral which, according to Mr. Gilchrist, is going to be in demand very soon?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliefte-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put an urgent question to the Minister of Transport.
Since we abolished the tolls on Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges while we were in office, I would like to ask the minister if the same thing will soon be done for the Champlain bridge.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Notwithstanding the urgency attached by the hon. member to the question, it concerns an area at least 50 miles from his constituency, and I think I will have to take it as notice.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has a report been received on this matter of misappropriation of funds by R.C.M.P. personnel, and will the minister give details to the house as he promised in order


to clear up the misunderstanding and unfortunate criticism?


Guy Favreau: am not in a position to report to the house as yet.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does the minister not think this matter should be accelerated, and that an indication should be given as to when the report will be made available to the house?


Guy Favreau: I do not think it is within the propriety of my function to intervene in the disposition of disciplinary matters within the R.C.M.P., at a time when the independence of the R.C.M.P. in these matters ought to be fully respected.


Thomas Miller Bell: Do I take it from the minister's reply that there is an admission that serious matters are under investigation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely there has been a full investigation.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the Acting Prime Minister or to the Minister of Finance. My question is asked in the light of an article by Bruce Macdonald respecting a conflict of interest, which appeared in this morning's Globe and Mail. Did a cabinet minister suggest to Liberal senators that they get on with the business of chartering certain banks, applications for which are before the other place, before a suspicion grows in the public mind that those charters are being delayed because of a conflict of interest on the part of certain members of the other place? If so, did such a cabinet minister make the suggestion on behalf of the cabinet.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Not to my knowledge. I certainly made no such statement myself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the Minister of Finance received any protest from business, banking or other interests with regard to this alleged conflict of interest?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think-I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I began to answer a question which the hon. gentleman did not ask. I have received a complaint that this matter ought to

be speeded up, but it was an unofficial complaint. As to the question the hon. member asked, the answer is no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of Finance mind answering the question I did not ask? That answer might be more helpful.


An hon. Member:: Ask it now.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale):: Some days ago I directed a question to the Minister of Agriculture regarding the critical situation faced by livestock in the northern areas of Saskatchewan. Have any steps been taken to alleviate the situation, and would the Acting Prime Minister have any reply to make to this question of mine?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I informed the house yesterday, the Minister of Agriculture is today conferring in Regina with representatives of the government of the province of Saskatchewan, and this is one matter which undoubtedly is under discussion.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Is the hon. gentleman ready to make the statement which he said yesterday he would be making today regarding the placing on the order paper of the resolution preceding the student loans legislation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope it will be possible to do that by the end of the week, perhaps by Friday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Acting Prime Minister be a little more lucid in his answer? Did he mean the resolution would be on the order paper by the end of the week or just that there would be a statement on the matter by the end of the week?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If there is any difficulty in this case, the lack of lucidity must be on the part of the hon. gentleman, because he asked me about the resolution. I
Inquiries of the Ministry hope the resolution will be on the order paper by about Friday of this week.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked a question about the number of provincial premiers who have replied to the Prime Minister's letter of June 26. The premiers of Alberta, Nova Scotia and British Columbia have done so.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Yesterday, as on previous
occasions, I tried to get some information about the 40 acres of the Kitsilano Indian reserve at Vancouver, part of which the C.B.C. has been endeavouring to acquire. I now direct my remarks to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has he, within the last couple of days, made any suggestions to the mayor or other officials of Vancouver regarding a suggested settlement whereby 20 acres would be maintained as parkland providing the C.B.C. received the balance.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I thought yesterday it might be just as well if we started getting some news from home in respect of this property instead of so much from abroad. At one point it was my intention to intervene.
This property is a former Indian reserve purchased by the federal government of Canada. A large sum of money was paid to the Indians for its acquisition. It is the property of the federal government. It was used by the R.C.A.F. during the war and since, and has become surplus to their requirements at the present time. The C.B.C. indicated that it was interested in some of the property, namely five buildings in all. These are splendid concrete buildings of considerable value, and are estimated by our Department of Public Works to have an earning capacity of $200,000 annually; so they are substantial buildings.

Inquiries of the Ministry
The property has now been declared surplus, and reference was made first to the government of the province of British Columbia as to their probable requirements. I think they indicated that they had no desire to use any of the property. Then the matter was taken up with the city, and the city is interested in it, particularly the parks board of the city of Vancouver. In recent years a portion of the area was given to parks use by the city and it is the desire of the parks board-and, I think, of many of the people of Vancouver, too-to extend the park area there.
I was not present on the occasion of the visit of Mr. Ouimet to city council, though my colleague the Postmaster General was. I think Mr. Ouimet outlined to council the requirements of the C.B.C. in respect of five buildings and a requisite amount of land to be used for parking purposes. I have suggested since that it would be highly advisable for the C.B.C. to make a formal request for their requirements and the property they need. My colleague the Secretary of State is in agreement with this, and I understand that some time very soon the C.B.C. will be making that official request.
I have suggested that I would be prepared to assist in the allocation of the remainder of the property, not to the parks board of Vancouver, because we manifestly cannot deal with them, but to the city of Vancouver. I would suggest this could probably be done over an extended lease, and if it is their desire to have it used for parks purposes of course the city of Vancouver could negotiate with the parks board. However, I think the first requirement is to withdraw from the total property the requirements of the C.B.C., and we expect this will be done by way of a formal request in a matter of days.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it not a fact that there is strong objection to the C.B.C. having any portion of this property in Vancouver, particularly on the part of the parks board?


Arthur Laing: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that there was an objection, which I think was quite considerable, in the city of Vancouver to the C.B.C. going on the property. However, since a number of explanations have been made in respect to the proportion of the entire property and the buildings required by the C.B.C., the financial position of the C.B.C. in Vancouver as compared with going into a downtown property, and the limitation put by the C.B.C. on its requirements there, I am quite certain that I can assure my right


hon. friend that opinion within the city has changed markedly.
While the members of the parks board would prefer to take all the property and return it into parks, I must say that the right hon. gentleman, if he knew the buildings, would agree with me-


John George Diefenbaker: I know the buildings.


Arthur Laing: -that we cannot demolish those buildings, because they are extremely valuable buildings. The parks board might have uses for the buildings, but I would question whether they have uses for them in their entirety. They might put the buildings to some use. We think we can accommodate, to the extent of the majority opinion in Vancouver, the desires of both bodies.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it not a fact that the C.B.C. intends to demolish these buildings if they get the property?


Arthur Laing: Oh, no, not at all; not under any circumstances. It is the full intention of the C.B.C. to use these extremely valuable properties, and for a very extended period of time. As a matter of fact they have informed the council of Vancouver that they would like to be safely lodged there for a period of not less than 30 years; that is, in these concrete buildings. They are permanent type buildings able to carry two extra stories. This is the nub of the question. I think we simply cannot, in all conscience, have these extremely valuable buildings demolished. There are seven in all, and they desire five for their use.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, if the requirements of the C.B.C. were met, how much of the 40 acres would be left available to the parks board of Vancouver for parkland?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Approximately 15 acres.



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, July 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hellyer for the third reading of Bill No. C-90, to amend the National Defence Act.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Mr. Churchill:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.



YOUTH ALLOWANCES


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: the second reading of Bill No. C-108, to provide for the payment of youth allowances.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, before this bill is given second reading I think we should have a fuller explanation than we have had so far. If it is not the minister's intention to speak at this time, I would certainly like to say something about it. We had considerable discussion on April 28 with regard to this matter of allowances to teen-agers between the ages of 15 and 18; in other words, those of 16 and
17	years of age. The discussion arose on that occasion over the changes in the Income Tax Act in anticipation of this legislation being passed.
The suggestion was made at that time by myself and others in this house that a simpler way of providing this assistance to the parents of Canada would be through an amendment to the Family Allowances Act extending family allowances to the age of
18	years. I still feel this suggestion should be given consideration before we go on with this bill. Therefore it seems to me this bill should be withdrawn and the government should take the other method of providing this assistance to parents of teen-agers attending school, namely by simply raising the age limit under the Family Allowances Act.
This becomes part of a larger question in Canada today, and is bound up with the efforts on the part of all Canadians to satisfy as far as they possibly can the special aspirations of the people of the province of Quebec. This was admitted by the Minister of Finance on April 28, when he was questioned about the feasibility of granting this special assistance to parents through raising the age limit under the Family Allowances Act. The Minister of Finance said this, as reported at page 2693 of Hansard:
Theoretically, I suppose, if the federal government wanted to extend the present family allowance arrangements up to the age of 18 they could do so and this would apply everywhere in Canada, including Quebec; and the government of Quebec could in that event do one of two things: It could either continue to pay its present education grants, which would mean there would be roughly twice as much paid in the province of Quebec in respect to children aged 16 and 17 as would be paid elsewhere in Canada, or alternatively, it could say: The federal government is now paying these sums; we shall stop our payments. Either of these
Youth Allowances
decisions would be perfectly logical, I suggest. However, the government of the province of Quebec says: We have been in this field for three or four years; we are doing it in a way which seems to us reasonable; a way which seems acceptable to our people, one which is well established; and we want to go on doing it that way; we would prefer it if you would pay to us the equivalent of what would have been paid by the federal government net, after income tax and so on, and if it were paid directly in respect of the children.
Anyone could argue whether or not this was a good way of doing it. As I say, the federal government could charge right ahead, ignore the fact that this is an established program in Quebec and insist on paying the amounts directly to the mothers despite the fact that the government of the province does not want this done. Or the government of Canada could say: We recognize the fact that you have been in this field for three or four years. We are not going to pay any more than the citizens of Quebec would have got under our new scheme, but instead of paying them double and embarrassing everybody we shall pay the net equivalent to the government of Quebec. And this is what will be proposed when the legislation is presented in this house.
I should like to commend the Minister of Finance for a straightforward statement of that kind; it brings the matter quite clearly into focus. But as he pointed out, anyone can argue whether or not this is the right way of doing it. As far as I am concerned, speaking on behalf of the people in the constituency of Middlesex West, I think this is not the best way of doing it. It is not the best way of doing it because of our efforts to hold this land of ours together in unity and happiness. When actions are taken by the federal government which tend in any way to divide the people of this country I think it is a mistake, and I think this legislation as proposed by the government in relation to youth allowances has this effect of dividing rather than unifying Canada.
Let us just look for a moment, Mr. Speaker, at the various clauses and provisions of Bill No. C-108. Starting with clause 2 (c), we see that young people are placed on the same basis as children under the Family Allowances Act. Clause 2 (c) (ii) says that a "dependant youth" is a person who has reached the age of 16 but is not yet 18 years of age, and-
-is, by reason of any mental or physical infirmity, precluded from attending or attending on a fulltime basis at a school or university;
Under the Family Allowances Act parents cannot collect family allowances unless their children are attending school. To put it in simple language, under the Family Allowances Act all children able to attend school should be at school. If those who are able to attend school are not at school, then their

Youth Allowances
parents are not entitled to family allowances on their behalf. Clause 2 (f) defines "parent" in this way:
"parent" means a person resident in a province other than a province providing schooling allowances who maintains a dependant youth, but does not include an institution as defined by the regulations;
In other words, the reference in this clause to a parent resident in a province other than a province providing schooling allowances means that the province concerned is the province of Quebec. Therefore these allowances cannot under this legislation be paid to parents residing in Quebec. Then clause 3 says:
Subject to this act, there may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund to a parent, in respect of a dependant youth maintained by such parent other than a dependant youth in respect of whom an allowance is payable under any law described in paragraph (h) of section 2, a monthly allowance of ten dollars.
Again we come to the idea that parents in Quebec are exempted under this legislation. These youth allowances as provided in the act cannot be paid to parents in the province of Quebec.
Although there may be some in the house who can find justification for this, I suggest that this is wrong in principle. We are treating parents in different parts of Canada differently, and I think they should all be treated alike. Therefore I submit that the government should withdraw this legislation and this assistance to the parents of children who are going to school-our teen-agers

although I admit that this legislation will otherwise be very worthy legislation for the house to pass. I am quite willing to support the government in bringing assistance to parents of 16 and 17 year old students, but this should be done through the Family Allowances Act so that all parents across the country from coast to coast, as well as their children, would be treated alike.
I am hoping that the government can see its way clear to withdraw this measure and extend family allowances. While I favour granting assistance to parents of 16 and 17 year old children, I believe it can be done in a better way through an amendment to the Family Allowances Act. I feel I should oppose this legislation in view of the fact that there is a better alternative.


Mr. Monleith:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the minister was going to make some opening remarks. As she moved the motion you may consider that she has spoken, but if she does have opening remarks

I suggest that the house give permission for her to speak now without closing the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does
the minister wish to make any opening remarks at this time? It is understood that the minister is not closing the debate on second reading.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is my point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member for Middlesex West, in his desire to get his remarks on the record, did not give me the opportunity to first set out the position of the government with respect to the bill. Indeed, if he had waited until he had heard the position of the government it might have changed his mind and led him not to exhaust himself on this warm afternoon.
The bill now before the house is not, as the house is well aware, an extension of the Family Allowances Act, which method of procedure was considered and for reasons which will be explained later was not followed, but is called a youth allowances bill. It is expected that hon. members will find this a more efficient way of doing what all hon. members have indicated they are desirous of doing.
Bill No. C-108, Mr. Speaker, represents a significant step forward, it is believed, in encouraging our young people to make the most of their educational opportunities. As hon. members are aware, the family allowances program, which has been in operation since 1945, provides assistance to parents of children under 16 years of age. In the 19 years since that program started the federal government has paid out more than $6J billion toward the care, maintenance, education and advancement of these younger Canadians.
But now it is felt that it is time to move forward again. It has been felt for some time that 16 and 17 year olds should also be given incentives to continue their training and education to equip them better for employment in the modem world. That, stated very briefly, is the purpose and objective of the proposed legislation.
The extra $10 a month proposed in the bill is designed to help meet the higher costs of looking after children in this particular age group. It does not, of course, begin to provide full maintenance or assistance for such children, and no one would ever suggest that it would do so. It is, however, meant to provide

an incentive to parents to persuade their children of the value of pursuing their education as far as they possibly can.
The government feels that it is money well spent to ensure that the country has an uninterrupted flow of young people coming into the labour force with the highest possible educational qualifications to meet the ever heightening demands of modern society. It represents one more advance in our continuing battle against unemployment. What is proposed in the bill is the provision of an allowance of $10 a month for the full 12 months of each year provided, of course, the youth, as defined in the bill, remains in school. Hon. members will note that in addition the government wishes to render assistance to parents of children who, by reason of a physical or mental impairment, are unable to attend school. This allowance will serve to partly close the gap for such children who, as all hon. members know, may not qualify for disability allowances until they reach the age of 18 years.
As has been pointed out, the province of Quebec has for some time had a schooling allowance program similar to the youth allowances set out in the bill. However, the Quebec provincial law provides only for a $10 allowance for each of 10 months of the year. Nor does that legislation provide for disabled children not at school. We are informed, however, that the government of the province of Quebec plan to introduce amendments which will bring their provincial program of assistance to students into line with the proposed federal program, so there will be equality in all ten provinces.
Because the province of Quebec already has its own similar program, arrangements will be made whereby instead of paying these allowances in that province, as has already been noted by the hon. member, a financial equivalent will be provided in order that the wider benefits of this bill will be available to children of the province of Quebec. All hon. members will notice that the equivalent provisions are not contained in the bill, but I am sure they will have already noted that they are contained in a resolution appearing as order No. 61 on the order paper, which deals with fiscal arrangements with the provinces.
Apart from the province of Quebec, Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that there are now in Canada some 502,000 persons in the age group 16 to 18, of whom some 350,000 are attending school. It is hoped that the incentive provided by the allowances may prove suf-
Youth Allowances
ficiently attractive to bring many other children back to school or otherwise cause them to pursue job or career training. Only experience will tell us how many additional children will benefit from this program, but the government hopes that large numbers will do so. Sometimes even this modest amount of assistance is enough to make the whole difference between children leaving school too early and staying on for further training.
Assuming that 375,000 children will participate initially, it is estimated that the cost to the federal government for the remaining seven months of the present year will be in excess of $27 million. This will not, of course, include the additional amount for the province of Quebec, which will be based on the number of children in that province for whom comparable provision has been made.
I should also point out, Mr. Speaker, that an important feature of this program will be to provide comparable assistance to parents who are unfortunate enough to have children in this age group who, by reason of mental or physical infirmity, are precluded from attending school or university. There are in Canada some 25,000 children aged 16 and 17 who are mentally or physically afflicted, or both. Fortunately most of them are not so disabled as to be unable to pursue their education, and they are continuing to do so.
It is estimated, none the less, that of these
25.000	children there may be 4,000 or perhaps
5.000	who will benefit from the allowance as their infirmity is such to rule out their attendance at school. The government feels it would be unfair to provide assistance to parents with children in a position to enjoy the advantages of advanced schooling and deny it to those whose children are, for physical or mental reasons, unable to do so.
As I also mentioned, this allowance will help bridge the gap to care for youngsters who are in receipt of family allowances to the age of 16 and who, under present circumstances, are unable to qualify for any further allowance until they have reached the age of 18 when they may qualify under the Disabled Persons Allowance Act.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the object of the program is to assist Canadian parents with children in the age group specified if those children are furthering their educational opportunities, as well as those who by reason of infirmity are unable to do so.
Apart from the relatively few children who are precluded from attending school, we do not propose to assist parents in supporting children who do not go to school. In other

Youth Allowances
words, Mr. Speaker, the legislation will not provide for assistance to parents of children who do not go to school for whatever personal reasons they may have. I should perhaps point out that the educational requirements of the provinces do not require any child to attend school beyond the age of 16. Some of the provinces provide even a lower age at which children may discontinue compulsory schooling. Across the land schooling is compulsory to the ages of 14, 15 or 16. It is my understanding that in British Columbia the age at which a child may leave school is 15; in Alberta it is 15; in Saskatchewan, 15; in Manitoba it is 14 and 16 depending on certain conditions which must be decided by the locality municipality; in Ontario, 16; in New Brunswick, 16; in Nova Scotia it is 14 in rural areas and 16 in urban areas; in Prince Edward Island, 15; and in Newfoundland, 15.
We feel, therefore, the program should act as an incentive to children to pursue their educational opportunities even though they are not legally required to do so by provincial laws. As was stated by my colleague the Minister of Finance in his budget speech of March 16 last, the government believes that the expenditure involved will be an important investment in raising the level of skills and ability of our labour force, and thus will improve the growth and development of our economy. This measure is one we can afford this year. It will help young Canadians to fit themselves for better jobs.
We are hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that the allowances can become effective with the beginning of the next school year in September. It will be necessary, of course, to forward application forms to parents throughout the summer. Hon. members will realize this is not an automatic payment, but there must be an application to have the children qualify under the act. We are prepared to send out these application forms and set the machinery in motion as soon as parliament will have approved the legislation. Since all hon. members have heretofore indicated their approval in principle, it is hoped that there remains ample time for a thorough discussion of the details of the bill. I therefore respectfully move the adoption of this bill to provide additional allowances for young children.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we have urged for some considerable time that a measure such as is now before us, in one form or another, should be presented to parliament. Therefore we welcome this legislation, and we hope it

will not take very long for parliament to deal with it so the application forms might be sent out, and so the payments to be made under this legislation to the parents of 16 and 17 year old children might be in their hands commencing in September of this year.
All of us in the house agreed readily to the proposal that there be no debate at the resolution stage of this measure. I think there is also a general disposition today to proceed as expeditiously as we can with this stage of this legislation. As I say, we have been asking for it ourselves for a long time, and we support the measure now that it has been placed before us.
However, one or two issues do arise. One of them has already been stated by the hon. member for Middlesex West. He has stated his opposition to this measure for the reasons that he holds. He has stated that opposition quite clearly. I must say that I do not agree with the criticism he has made of the form in which this legislation is presented to us. I know, Mr. Speaker, it would be very nice, neat and tidy if all legislation in this country could be drafted in such a way, for all time, that it would be uniform in its application across Canada. But that is not the Canada in which we live.
The hon. member for Middlesex West said we should extend our efforts to hold this land together in unity. I agree with him. However, this does not necessarily mean that we achieve unity by establishing some rigid mould which we insist must be applied across the country. It sems to me we have to take cognizance of the different approaches, the different scales of values that there are in the various parts of our country. It seems to me that this legislation does that. The fact is, and I have had occasion to say this with regard to other pieces of legislation, that the people of Quebec value their autonomy in a very special way. Equally it is a fact that the Canadians of the other nine provinces place a special value on the benefits of confederation, place a special value on what comes from the central government. Although it may be a lot more difficult to work things out in the light of these two facts, I think if we are going to be realistic, if we are going to hold this land together in unity, we have to accept these two facts.
What I see in this legislation is an effort to meet these facts; an effort to recognize that Canadians in nine of our provinces like receiving payments such as these from the central government, but that it is also a fact that the Canadians in one province

like to feel they are getting them through their own provincial government. I see nothing wrong in accommodating this legislation to the facts of Canadian life. I think we are going to have to do more of this kind of thing. If we do it carefully, if we do it with a realization of the values of our people in the various parts of the country, I think instead of causing a division in Canada it could help strengthen that unity that we value so greatly.
I do not criticize the hon. member for Middlesex West for raising the point he did this afternoon. I think it is well that this point should be raised, that criticism such as he made should be stated quite clearly. I think it is a good idea also for all of us to look at the issue clearly and realize the kind of pattern we are going to have to develop if we are to hold this land together in unity. I suggest if we start developing a pattern whereby we do achieve a situation that recognizes for the people of nine provinces their emphasis upon the values of confederation, their desire to receive things from the central government, and recognizes the desire of the people in the other province for the autonomy that means so much to them, instead of causing disunity it could actually bring about unity.
I suspect it has taken a great deal of soulsearching, a great deal of negotiating, a great deal of very difficult drafting to come forward with this legislation in this form. It occurs to me that a good job has been done. We do not have the kind of reservations about it that were expressed by the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas). We shall support the bill.
I am also glad, having in mind the suggestion that it is good to say things openly, that it has been said quite clearly by the minister that this legislation in the main has as its aim inducing parents to persuade their 16 and 17 year old children to stay in school. I am glad she made it clear that it does have an educational motive at its base. This is something we are sometimes reluctant to talk about in public because of the fact that education in itself is an exclusive provincial responsibility under the British North America Act.
In many respects we have already gone into this field. We have devised vocational education grants, university grants, and Canada Council grants in ways that use federal money to assist in raising the level of education in Canada without interfering with the provincial responsibility for education as such.
Youth Allowances
I think we should go on doing that kind of thing. That is precisely one of the things this piece of legislation does. It helps to raise the level of education by encouraging more parents to encourage their children to stay in school, yet it does not interfere in any way, shape or form with provincial control over education as such. Therefore I am glad that the legislation in its drafting is geared to the educational question, and I am glad the minister stated that quite clearly in her speech this afternoon.
I note with interest that the legislation has been drafted so that it is possible for a 16 or 17 year old to draw the allowance for the full 12 months provided he is in school up until April, and again in school by October. I also notice the inducements that some of the details seem to provide to encourage a student to continue in school for a second year. All told, the people who have done this drafting have wrestled with a difficult problem and have come up with a very satisfactory answer.
We in common with members in all parties in the house, have for a long time been looking for family allowances, or youth allowances, to be extended to keep children in school when they are 16 and 17 years old. We are only sorry it has taken so long, but now that the legislation is before us we support it, and we hope it can get through all its stages in this day's sitting.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If the house will allow me to reply to what was said by the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas) perhaps I could clear up one or two misunderstandings. It has been suggested that there will be differences in the payments in different parts of the country, and this is one of the things that has been cleared up.
Hon. members will recall that when the proposal to extend youth allowances to the 16 and 17 year old age group was first considered we were confronted with four complicating factors. These were some of the things we had in mind at the time the income tax resolution was being debated in the house, when I made the remarks quoted by the hon. member.
Those complicating factors were, first, that in one province, the province of Quebec, that province had been paying school allowances to the parents of 16 and 17 year olds for some years. Second, these payments in the province of Quebec were at the rate of $10 per month for ten months of the year only.

Youth Allowances
The proposed payments by the federal government were to be at the rate of $10 per month for 12 months. Third, under the Quebec plan payments were not made on account of disabled children age 16 and 17. Under the federal plan it was proposed that the payments would apply both to children who remain in school and to those who are unable to do so because of disability.
Fourth, the personal exemptions under the federal Income Tax Act are reduced from $550 to $300 per annum in the case of children whose parents are entitled to benefits under the Family Allowances Act, but this differential is not applied in the case of 16 and 17 year olds entitled to school allowances in the province of Quebec.
Those were four complicating factors, and because of them it was originally proposed to pay to the government of Quebec an annual sum equal to the net amount which parents of children in Quebec would have received if the payments to them were made by the federal government direct, less the additional amounts of income taxes they would pay because of the reduction in the exemption from $550 to $300 per annum. In addition, some adjustment would be necessary due to the fact that parents in Quebec would receive $10 a month for ten months only and would not receive anything on account of disabled children.
In the course of that debate on the income tax resolution the hon. member for Middlesex West, and others, pointed out that under this formula cases could arise where the federal income tax payable by a parent living on one side of the Ottawa river, for example, would be different from the tax payable by a parent in exactly similar circumstances residing on the other side of the river. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) asked me questions, and as a result of his questions this became quite clear to all hon. members of the house. I may say this difficulty was pointed out by members on all sides of the house.
Since that debate in April the government has given further consideration to the best way of handling this difficult and complex situation, and in the meantime certain things have happened. In the first place the province of Quebec enacted legislation extending its $10 a month school allowance to a full 12 months. Second, Quebec has now introduced a bill which, if it is passed by the Quebec legislature, will provide that the same amounts are paid to disabled children in that province, so that as far as the payments are

concerned they will be the same in all parts of Canada.
I am sure we were all very pleased about this development because I know all of us share the feeling of the hon. member for Middlesex West that it would be too bad if, in an important social measure of this kind, there were differences between the benefits in different parts of Canada. In the light of these changed circumstances it seems all the more important that people all over Canada should be treated in exactly the same way.
Accordingly it is proposed that there should be no reduction in the exemptions from $550 to $300 per annum in respect of children aged 16 and 17 whose parents receive youth allowances. There is good justification for this of course, quite apart from the desirability of having a uniform system across the country, because it costs more to keep 16 and 17 year olds at school than it does to look after dependant children of younger ages. I think most of the parents in the house would agree with me that 16 and 17 are the critical years for many young people when they decide whether to drop out of school or to continue further education.
The extra $250 of income tax exemption for their parents will place an additional emphasis on the goal which I think is shared by members of all parties in the house, which is to create conditions under which young people are more likely to stay in school longer and thus receive the training which will fit them for the kind of jobs likely to be available in the future. For this reason I think there is ample justification for adopting a different approach in the case of youth allowances for 16 and 17 year olds from that followed in the case of family allowances.
I appreciate being allowed to make this interjection at this time. It seemed important to clear up the points which had been raised by hon. members opposite and which, I had a feeling, might be raised by others if an explanation were not given.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: The Social Credit party is on record since its national convention in 1961 as being in favour of extending family allowances to 16 and 17 year old children. The proposal before us this afternoon is slightly different but I do not believe it is so different as to warrant our taking any exception to it.
We are pleased to note that the bill provides for allowances to be made in the amount of $10 per month in respect of students attending school, as well as for those who are incapacitated either mentally or physically to

the extent that they are unable to attend school. We know there have been many attempts made during the past few years to improve the educational standards of the young people in Canada. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on the retraining of older workers who have been displaced by automation in one form or another. We therefore feel it is essential that an effort be made to improve educational standards and that incentives should be offered in this regard. We are pleased to consider this measure as another step forward in the improvement of the educational standards of this country.
We have noted over the years with some concern that a revolution is taking place in the industrial life in this country as a result of automation. This is affecting not only young people who are entering the work force but also people who have been engaged in what they thought was a steady job for years. There is growing apprehension about the permanency of even certain occupations which have been reasonably stable for a long time. Only a few days ago a memorandum was sent to the President of the United States concerning this important matter. I am bringing it to the attention of the house this afternoon because I believe many of us have failed to appreciate the implications of this revolution brought about by automation and have done none of the thinking which needs to be done in order to change some of our basic concepts about the relationship between jobs and income. This memorandum which was sent to the President of the United States was signed by 23 eminent personalities in the United States including economists and university professors. I do not wish to spend a great deal of time on it, but I would like to draw the following to the attention of the house:
President Johnson was asked Sunday to consider "radically new strategies to meet radically new circumstances" in the nation's economic and social life as a result of automation and technological change.
A 723-page memorandum called The Triple Revolution was sent to the President by a group of 26 economists, labour leaders, authors and educators who said it was prepared "out of a feeling of foreboding for the nation's future".
I intend to read just one more paragraph; I shall summarize this greatly:
They proposed some form of paying everyone so they can buy the unbelievable quantity of goods the country can produce, even though everyone doesn't work to earn their incomes. There just won't be enough jobs to permit everyone to work, they argued.
Youth Allowances
I am not prepared at this stage to go as far as to say we can enter upon an economic order in which everyone will be paid an income whether or not they work, but I do believe we have come far enough to recognize that most of the unemployment in Canada today occurs among those with the least education-the least amount of training and skill. As long as this is the situation I think the subject before us this afternoon is an extremely important one. The memorandum to which I have referred goes on to say:
As jobs diminish proportionate to the work force some way must be found to permit the growing population to get a fair share of the abundant economy.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) has pointed out that there is at the present time a compulsory requirement that children attend school until a certain age. This is a provincial matter, of course, and in some provinces the age is 14 years. In others it is 15 years, and in two provinces I think it is as high as 16 years. In this day and age, taking into account the skills which are required in certain jobs, it is impossible for a young person to obtain by the age of 16 the skills needed to cope with the social and economic order which exists today and I suggest the provinces should consider increasing the age up to which attendance in schools is compulsorily required from 14 or 15 or 16, to perhaps 18. This would not impose any hardship on the vast majority of the children of this country because most parents, even today, although they are not required to do so, send their children to school until they are 18 or even older. I think the tremendous expenditures we undertake in this country in providing welfare, relief and unemployment benefits each year would be greatly reduced if the standards of education and training could be improved. For this reason I think the incentive provided by these youth allowances is to be welcomed. Perhaps it does not go far enough, but having said this I must add that it is perhaps as far as the federal government can go. At least it is a step in the right direction.
A few minutes ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) said that people all over Canada should be treated in the same way. In the bill before us there are certain special exemptions or special regulations made to provide for the province of Quebec on account of the program which has been in operation in that province for the last three or four years. I agree that people all over Canada should be

Youth Allowances
treated the same way and I think this principle should apply not only to the bill before us but to other federal legislation. We know that some time ago provision was made for provincial governments to levy a provincial sales tax.
At the time I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) and his parliamentary secretary if there was any provision in that act to make a cash payment in lieu of sales taxes to those provinces which do not levy a retail sales tax, and the answer was no. The provinces of Alberta and Manitoba happen to be, I think, the only two provinces which do not impose this kind of levy. If the Minister of Finance is going to give effect of what he said this afternoon, certainly there should be some payment made to these provinces in lieu of a tax which they do not levy.
This is only one instance, Mr. Speaker. We also have what might be called a stubborn refusal on the part of the Department of National Health and Welfare to recognize that the province of Alberta has its rights and jurisdiction in the way it wants to run its hospitalization program. But as I said they stubbornly refuse to recognize that the way the province does it is within the rights of the province, and the province is discriminated against to the tune of millions of dollars every year because the federal authorities do not happen to like the way the province has this program set up. It happens to be one of the most advanced provincial hospitalization programs in Canada; but because they charge some small deterrent fees rather than collecting premiums or imposing a provincial sales tax to cover these hospitalization expenses, the federal government refuses to recognize this program in the payments they make. These are just two examples, and there are many more. When item No. 61, which deals with federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, is brought before this house-and I hope it is later this week-I intend to say a great deal more about this discriminatory action on the part of the federal government toward some provinces.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It may come up later today.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I hope it does come up later today. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I think this argument could be pursued better when that resolution is before the house. We have been told this program is going to cost $27 million, plus whatever the cash payment to the province of Quebec may be, and I think this is a small amount indeed in relation to the benefits that will be provided. In fact, I think it could be predicted at this time that the cost of the

unemployment benefits that are paid both through the Unemployment Insurance Act and the many social welfare agencies will be less because of the conditions with regard to payments that are set out in this bill.
The minister pointed out that something like
502.000	people in Canada fall within this age group and at the outset she expected that about 350,000 of those are attending school and would thus be qualified to receive this benefit as soon as it becomes effective. We hope that the remaining 152,000 young people will be encouraged to re-enter school and equip themselves to cope with the social and economic conditions that they must face in Canada. As I said, Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit party endorsed a very similar type of program as much as three years ago. We are not particularly unhappy about the form in which it is brought in, although it is slightly different. For that reason we intend to support this measure.


Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I must say at the outset that for many years we advocated, in the province of Quebec, an allowance payable not only to the 16 or 17 year-olds who are attending school but throughout the school years. Our representations have probably been a powerful incentive, since the province of Quebec launched an outstanding educational program in the last few years.
The last report on school attendance indicates that, as regards undergraduate and graduate studies in 1962, there were almost
10.000	more students in Quebec than in Ontario, although Ontario's population is greater by a million people. In my opinion, that is a sign that Quebec is really on the move towards an increasingly higher education in every field as well as at the university, technical and polytechnic levels.
We are glad also to find that spokesmen for all parties have recognized that, for the past few years, the Quebec government has been paying school allowances to parents who have 16 or 17 year old children still attending school. This goes to show that, once again, Quebec has taken the lead- something we are proud of-and is headed toward an emancipation and a political and economic climate worthy of that province and as a result of which Quebec will no longer be looked upon as a poor relation within the Canadian confederation.
Mr. Speaker, at this stage of my remarks I must congratulate those who drafted the

legislation now before us, especially for having found the wording necessary to respect what the French Canadians in Quebec- who are very touchy-have always claimed: their rights in the field of education. It was finally recognized that this right was reserved exclusively to the provinces.
Indeed, a way was found to promote as much as possible education and schooling for our young people of 16 and 17, under a piece of legislation whose purpose is to bring about uniform education standards in Canada and to promote school attendance.
I hope that the two bills introduced in the Quebec legislature in order to tally with the legislation now before us were drafted to cover not only a ten-month schooling period as in the past, but the whole 12 months of the calendar year while enabling parents of physically or mentally handicapped children to take advantage of this $10 allowance.
I think there is a great similarity between the Family Allowances Act which requires school attendance and this measure stipulating school attendance up to the age of 16.
But if it was seen fit to draft this legislation differently, it is undoubtedly to recognize the principle that legislation concerning public education comes under provincial jurisdiction and constitutes provincial rights recognized and accepted within the framework of co-operative federalism which has been put forward for almost a year.
However, there is a principle that should also be acknowledged in the preparation of such pieces of legislation: that is, the one who collects should also be the one who spends, or the one who spends must be the one entitled to collect the money he is allowed to spend.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) gave some explanations about the revision of the Income Tax Act, the benefits that the parents will receive and tax exemptions of $500 or $350. He might also consider the possibility of handing over to the provinces, as soon as possible, the fiscal rights which belong to them, as has been claimed already by the Quebec government, namely 25 per cent of personal and corporate income tax, as well as 100 per cent of estate duties.
In my opinion, the spirit of the constitution would thus be respected and, at the same time, this would fulfil the aspirations of the province of Quebec which not only wants to be a forerunner as far as certain pieces of legislation are concerned, such as school allowances for the 16 and 17 year olds, but also which wants to assume all its responsi-
Youth Allowances
bilities, in order to enable each of its citizens to take full advantage of what the province can give them.
I hope that the Minister of Finance, once again within the concept of co-operative federalism, will be in a position with the provincial revenue ministers, to draw up his next budget so as to enable the province of Quebec to collect the necessary amounts to maintain that progress in the educational field.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, as will be remembered, all parties in the house agreed to let the resolution preceding this bill pass without discussion, which I think is indicative of our desire to proceed as rapidly as possible. I know this legislation has the anxiety of our party, and I am assuming of all parties, and we want to see the legislation passed in plenty of time so that the bill can take effect by the first of the fall term. The minister mentioned that she was hopeful that this measure would be in effect by September 1, and if there is any real criticism to be made I think possibly it is that the bill has not been before us prior to this so that the discussion could have been gone through and the mechanics proceeded with.
I should like to say that for some time I have been fully aware of the need for this endeavour to keep children in school for a longer period of time. This ties in with the technical and vocational program instituted by the former government and encourages children to stay in school longer; it also makes it possible for parents in some cases to assist them to stay there. I am quite convinced that this bill is going to require a great deal of mechanical work. I do not know how much additional staff the minister will have to have, but I can understand that to get the benefits rolling will require a great deal of work. As a consequence certainly we are going to get on with this measure as rapidly as possible.
I should like to mention, Mr. Speaker, that during the last campaign this was part of our platform, which is all the more reason for our being fully in agreement with the intent behind this measure. However, we indicated that we would prefer to see family allowances extended to 16 and 17 year olds in school.
I think there is, Mr. Speaker, some slight misunderstanding perhaps about the term "in school". Even now the parents of children up to 16 years of age do not receive family

Youth Allowances
allowances on behalf of their children if those children are able to go to school but are not attending school during the schooling months. Therefore I am heartily in accord with this bill. However, I think it should be understood that while we are bringing in youth allowances, as they are called, to cover our 16 and 17 year olds attending school, it really does not amount to anything much more than an extension of the regular family allowance, and I think that this would have been the cleanest way to provide them.
This is really an endeavour to reimburse the province of Quebec for the funds issued by them for the same purpose that this bill seeks to provide for the rest of Canada. It is a further extension of the opting-out principle. As I said earlier, we would have preferred to see a simple amendment to the Family Allowances Act which would have permitted payment of allowances to parents on behalf of children of 16 or 17 years of age still attending school and provided a uniform basis all across Canada. When we get to the clauses of the bill we will certainly have many questions to ask; but at the moment I am wondering whether, if in the future any other provinces wish to opt out, they would be permitted to do so as the bill permits Quebec to do at the moment.
I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) assured us in his remarks, although I did not get them all down, that some of the complicating factors would be taken care of by amending legislation in the province of Quebec. Their legislation at the present time pays the allowance only during ten months of the year, whereas this federal legislation proposes that if a child is attending school the allowance will be paid for the full 12 months of the year. If I understood the minister correctly, he said that Quebec was passing legislation to adjust this and also to take care of disabled children.
When I was minister I received many beseeching letters from parents-not exactly complaints but pitiful letters-pointing out that many of them, and particularly widowed mothers, had to take their children out of school because they did not have sufficient funds to keep them in school. The child had to go out to work. I do not say that this legislation is the end-all, but it will certainly be of assistance, I am quite convinced of that.
During the debate on the budget resolutions the Minister of Finance made a statement which I would remind him was another withdrawal. As reported at page 3260, near the bottom of the last paragraph, where he was

dealing with withdrawing from the tax resolution allowances to 16 and 17 year olds, he said this:
In this way members will have before them the details of the administration of these new allowances, the arrangements for fiscal compensation for Quebec and the related income tax changes, and they may then be considered together.
This is not the situation at the moment. The minister pointed out that the resolution is number 61 on the order paper, but we do not have the legislation before us and we are operating somewhat in the dark.
There are some matters of uncertainty in the bill before us. I refer to clause 7 which mentions taxation and clause 11 (b), which has been claimed by some to be a sleeper clause. Despite these things we certainly support the bill 100 per cent and wish to see it passed as rapidly as possible, but I think these details should be explained when we get to the committee stage. I am sure the minister will answer the questions we wish to ask. Reserving that right, we certainly do not intend to delay passage of the bill. We realize the urgency and I can only say that the bill should have been before us prior to now.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, as others have said who have participated in the debate, I do not intend to be lengthy at all. I listened to the minister explain the legislation this afternoon and point out its aims and objects to which, as is well known, we subscribe. As the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) stated, we believe that the legislation is somewhat late in being placed before the house. I had this in mind this afternoon when during the question period I asked the house leader about the main estimates because I believe that the government finds itself in an embarrassing position with regard to the legislative program.
Today we have this very important piece of legislation before us and, as has already been pointed out, it might just as well have been before us some time ago when it would have been dealt with just as expeditiously as it will be today. I think also of the student loan legislation which is not even on the order paper yet. This is extremely important legislation in relation to the educational program of the country and the same is true of the legislation now before us.
I trust you will bear with me, Mr. Speaker, if I seem a little irrelevant from time to time because it is not often that I take the floor. I hope the government will lend a

sympathetic ear to the admonition I am going to deliver. If the student loan legislation does not come before us soon I feel we are going to be lost in the usual mismanagement of the business of the house by the government and the legislation will be passed too late for students to take advantage of it this year.
In our view the bill before us now is good legislation and we know that the objects mentioned by the minister are most desirable. There is no question that in some cases the financial relief and assistance offered under the bill will do a great deal of good in [DOT]educing the number of students who drop Dut of school because of lack of finances, ind those 16 and 17 are, of course, primarily affected. But when we go one step beyond chat age group we come to the university students who, as I said a moment ago, need immediate consideration. Therefore I think the minister should have tried to induce the government to bring forward the student loan legislation before the legislation we are now considering.
It is not that I wish to complain or that we do not think this is a good measure. We have indicated to the government and to the country that we are willing to support it as we are doing today and we will see that the bill is passed probably as quickly as the government wants it passed. Before the day is over this measure will probably have been dealt with.
But it is beyond my comprehension to understand why the government has acted in the way it has in the last few weeks. Surely this would have been a better piece of legislation for the house to have been considering a week ago than what we did discuss. As was clearly pointed out last week, the people of the country are getting absolutely fed up with the discussion of the Prime Minister's flag, and this legislation is what we should have had before the house last week or two weeks ago.
When the end of this week comes and a number of legislative matters have been dealt with, I hope the government will not turn around and take advantage of the fact that these legislative matters have been dealt with after spending 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 days on things which are of no concern. If the government had acted in a reasonable and responsible manner prior to the last discussion of interim supply we could have dealt with these legislative matters then. I know that by the end of the current week the country will be
Youth Allowances
satisfied with the way we have dealt with the legislative program.
I believe there are a number of considerations involved in the legislation before us. For instance, I have before me the most recent edition of Maclean's magazine in which there is an article on dropouts in the school system by Hugh J. Irving. I believe it would be worth while for every hon. member to read it. The author heaps a lot of scorn on students who become dropouts. He sets out many of the reasons why dropouts occur and says that teachers, psychiatrists, politicians and others concerned make many worthless statements and do not understand the problem. This may be so but I know that so far as the people I represent are concerned this legislation will be very valuable and will serve the purpose for which it is designed. It will be of great benefit in the future.
After all, Canada is not to be compared to a totalitarian state where the government directs the course of education as it chooses. We do not believe we can fit students into particular categories or force them to obtain certain qualifications. In my humble opinion this legislation is designed to assist the student so that, first, he will have a better opportunity to become qualified and, second, so that in this advancing industrial age he will not be thrown on the labour market without some academic or other qualifications. If he is not in the academic field, then there is the technical school program developed by the former minister of labour, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr). This plan will be advanced and expanded and a number of students in the 16 and 17 year age group will be able to take advantage of it. As we move into the age of automation, these institutions will be able to take care of these students so that they will have worth-while qualifications and be able to take their rightful places in the industrial field and make their contribution to the way of life that we will enjoy in the future.


Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, the government is to be commended for introducing Bill No. C-108. In extending youth allowances by two years, thousands of girls and boys will be enabled to complete high school and thus reduce the percentage of student dropouts in this country. This is the most compelling justification for the bill, as the minister pointed out earlier this afternoon in her statement.
An inevitable result will be to increase university enrolment in every Canadian prov-

Youth Allowances
ince. For this and other reasons the number ol students attending institutions of higher learning is expected to double in the next ten years. To meet this problem federal authorities have a responsibility to support provincial governments in all ways consistent with our constitution. The pressing need of the immediate future will be to develop a systematic long range program for the planning and financing of university development with respect both to operating costs and capital requirements for the years ahead.
The goal of such a plan must be to enable universities in all parts of the country to discharge their responsibilities in a way that does not place any one institution at an advantage over another with respect to the payment of staff or the provision of facilities. In providing strong leadership of this kind, the federal government would make a contribution to national unity that could not be achieved in any other way. A commendable beginning has been made voluntarily by the Canadian universities foundation. They have established a commission on the financing of higher education at a cost of $200,000. The money has been contributed by the Ford foundation and by Canadian industries.
Their report, which is expected in 1965 will include:
(a)	Prospective financial requirements of universities and colleges for operation, research, physical facilities and student aid;
(b)	The proportion of the financial support of higher education which should be provided by tuition fees, contributions from governments, corporations, foundations and individuals;
(c)	Policies regarding, the allocation of funds for higher education and criteria by which institutions and students should be deemed eligible to receive such aid;
(d)	Organization for the financing of higher education, including the role of appropriate agencies for the distribution of funds.
This voluntary effort should mark the beginning of a continuing task to be undertaken by a government agency similar to that of the scientific secretariat recently announced in the House of Commons by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). The time has come for a bold and imaginative approach in developing a policy of assisting the provinces to provide adequate facilities for the higher education of their young people. Effective leadership must begin from a centre of study and planning established by some responsible federal agency.

I wish to give briefly five reasons to justify federal involvement in higher education as well as in research.
(1)	The Canadian union of students maintain that only one half of the young people who are capable of higher education ever enrol in a Canadian university. They assert that such a waste of human talent is indefensible. Since every democratic state desires to see its people achieve the full extent of their potential development, a federal government in concert with provincial authorities must accept a large share of responsibility for improving this condition.
(2)	The work of universities does not end at the provincial boundaries. In each of the larger universities there are students from all the provinces. Likewise the graduates of the universities are distributed over the entire country. They are one of the most mobile elements in the working population and comprise a source of skilled and educated personnel which is available to the nation as a whole. Since all benefit from the work of our most capable men and women, it is not unreasonable to ask that all should contribute to their training.
(3)	In our increasingly complex industrial life, the role of the universities in sustaining and improving society is now vital. Never before has the public welfare in its social, cultural and economic aspects been so dependant upon the effective functioning of our universities. This calls for a high level of investment in higher education both from private industry and from provincial and federal governments.
(4)	The commission on Canada's economic prospects, of which the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) was chairman, expressed the following view in 1956:
It is our duty to point out most emphatically that it is vitally important to Canada's future for the status of our universities to be improved and strengthened and for their facilities to be increased. In this connection it must suffice us to express the strong opinion that no government which bears any share of responsibility for the future economic development of this country can allow a solution to the pressing financial problems of the universities to go by default.
(5)	The federal government has recognized that it has a responsibility for supporting the universities by its per capita grants to the provinces, by its grants to scholars through the national research council, by capital grants through Canada Council, and by loans for student residences through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

While these contributions have been praiseworthy in the past, they are already inadequate today. There is little evidence that there is any appreciation of the tremendous needs of the future in all parts of Canada. One fact is clear: Only the federal government has the resources to provide the certainty and uniformity essential to any broad scheme of financial assistance to higher education in this country.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have carefully considered this Bill No. C-108 derived from the Family Allowances Act of 1944-45.
Personally, I support this measure and I will vote for it, but I should like to make a few reserves and suggestions with respect to its constitutionality. In the light of the Canadian constitution, the fields of social security and education are a responsibility of the provinces and normally should be administered by the provinces. Besides, on the occasion of a number of federal-provincial conferences, namely those of 1963 and 1964, as well as previous conferences, the province of Quebec and other provinces clearly expressed their views on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that a fiscal compensation would be granted to the province of Quebec indicates that the federal government admits the unconstitutionality of its legislation. It makes the payment of school allowances conditional, as it imposes conditions on the provinces which have the full responsibility in the field of education.
I know that there have been for some time exchanges between the officials of the federal government and those of some provinces, especially the province of Quebec.
The government should hand over to the provinces a wider taxation field and enable them to adequately discharge their responsibilities in fields like social security and education.
This Bill No. C-108, Mr. Speaker, is in some way similar to the Family Allowances Act of 1944-45 and two other pieces of social security legislation, the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Old Age Pensions Act.
In 1940 administrative responsibility for unemployment insurance was given to the federal government, but, in order to meet the requirements and respect the rights of the provinces, the constitution was amended and the federal government was able to set up a fund to provide for unemployment insurance benefits. Moreover, as regards old age pensions, a constitutional amendment was passed
Youth Allowances
in 1951 to enable the federal government to legislate and to establish an old age security fund.
When the federal government passed the Family Allowances Act, in 1944, it ignored the provinces and did not amend the constitution. It did not set up a special fund but merely drew upon the consolidated revenue fund.
That is why I suggest that the government should propose an amendment to the constitution to legalize its action even though I feel that social, educational, civil and family matters come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion that social security and education should receive special consideration at the next federal-provincial conference, in order that an agreement might be arrived at in those fields, if possible, and that their taxation fields might be returned to the provinces so that they might be able to fully exercise their prerogatives.
Mr. Speaker, it is well known that for over 25 years conflicts have arisen between the provinces and the federal government concerning their respective responsibilities, in order to know whether the federal government should intervene in those fields which, normally, come under provincial jurisdiction. On the other hand, the provinces endeavour to recuperate their taxation powers as much as possible so that the objectives of the federal government might not come into conflict with their rights.
Consequently, it is my opinion that serious consideration should be given to social security and education during a forthcoming federal-provincial conference, in order that these fields may come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces with the federal government returning to the provinces the necessary taxation fields which would enable them to discharge their responsibilities. By so doing, I feel that there would be less frustration and that confederation would be strengthened.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, for a change it gives me great pleasure to disagree violently with the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon). All of the speeches made this afternoon on this bill dealt with education. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) clearly outlined that in this age of automation the people likely to be most hurt will be the ones without the benefit of education, and even

Youth Allowances
expressed some doubt that even at that all ol us can be employed.
The hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler), chief whip of the Conservative party, quoted Maclean's magazine, and we see many articles in newspapers pointing out that education is no longer a municipal affair. In fact it is no longer a provincial matter. With great respect I think today it is a matter for this government, and to hear the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm taking the opposite view is absolutely contradictory to the feelings of the times.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I said at the beginning of my remarks that I support the bill, but I said also that it would be better to respect provincial rights and to have agreement with the Quebec government on this matter. I think many provinces share my views.


Steven Otto: It is just on that point I would like to disagree. It is a curious thing that in this country with 19 million population we do not have in our federal government a minister of education or a department of education. We have one Minister of Agriculture, with another coming up, but no minister of education. It is not only curious but tragic.
If a man does not get a sound education, let us say in one of the maritime provinces, and becomes unemployable, who is going to be responsible for the maintenance of him and his family? Is it the province, or is it up to this government to make the unemployment insurance funds available in order to support him and his family?
As I say, it is no longer a matter of municipal or provincial concern. A meeting of Canadian teachers recently resolved that education today is a national concern. I support this bill very strongly but it seems a devious way, an indirect way to accomplish what we know should be done, and that is for the federal government to be concerned with educational matters. I strongly suggest that all of us, and the government in particular, pay great attention in the contemplated amendments to the British North America Act to work out a scheme by which education will be a national concern and become the business of this government.
Surely all of us here, surely all the governments that are formed from time to time will pay just as much respect to the separate schools of the separate groups, and to their different educational requirements, as does each province. That would be my recommendation, rather than that put forward by the

hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house listened with attention and interest to the remarks of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto). I am led to believe that he frequently is placed in a position of flying kites for the government, and I am waiting for further support on the other side of the house for this proposition that denies every principle of confederation, that an amendment be made to the British North America Act to provide for the control of education by the federal parliament.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Don't hold your breath.


John George Diefenbaker: The warmth with which it was received by hon. gentlemen opposite indicates that the hon. member spoke with some authority, but certainly not an authority that is acceptable to members belonging to the Conservative party, nor has such a proposition ever been acceptable to them.
I have followed the discussion today with considerable interest. What is being achieved here, in what the hon. member for York East referred to as a devious way, is the amendment of the family allowances legislation to extend the period within which payment is made to cover those attending school at the ages of 16 and 17 years. I may appropriate from the hon. member that expression, devious, because it is very clear that what is being done merits that descriptive word of the hon. gentleman. Sitting as he does among those who bring about this change this way instead of doing so directly by amendment of the Family Allowances Act, the expression that he used has that appropriateness that will deserve an answer from some of those associated with him in the government of the day.
This matter has been delayed unnecessarily. During the election campaign of 1963 a promise was made that the very first legislation introduced would be legislation to assure that young men and women of 16 and 17 years of age, described in the legislation as youth, would merit the immediate payment of the family allowance. But the matter has been delayed. Why it should have been delayed I do not know. But I do know that on more than one occasion we in the official opposition endeavoured to secure action thereon. It is well to recall some of the discussions in this connection so that the record may be complete. On May 20, 1963, speaking on the address, I asked for action in this

regard and used these words as recorded on page 45 of Hansard:
In order to assure that the youth of our country can carry on, what is going to be done in respect of the important matter of family allowances, of extending their applicability to youths up to 18 years of age who are attending school? What action is being taken in this regard?
That speech was made 14 or 15 months ago. The undertaking given by the members of the Liberal party, who support the government of the day, was that this legislation would be brought in immediately. It was among those things which were to be brought in within the 60 days of decision, those unlamented days that turned out otherwise. We continued to press over and over again for action in this regard. When the session resumed in the fall, I asked the following question of the Prime Minister on October 24. Here is the exchange as recorded in Hansard:
I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him if it is the policy of the government to extend family allowances beyond the age of 16 for boys and girls who remain in school.


Mr. Pearson:: Yes, that remains the policy of the government.


John George Diefenbaker: Will it be brought up this session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It will be brought up as soon as it can be arranged.
In other words there has been unjustified delay in this connection.
From time to time among those who do not understand parliament I hear it said that motions and amendments respecting matters on which the opposition are demanding action ought not to be made because they delay the business of the house. Well I would point out -and it is most interesting to have this pointed out for the purpose of the record-that what took place in February last indicates how a government, regimenting its supporters, can bring about the defeat of that which each and every one of them had advocated. On February 26 the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) seconded by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) moved that the following words be added to the address in reply to a speech from the throne:
We respectfully regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to propose the extension of family allowances to children 16 to 18 years of age who still attend school.
It would have been very easy for the government, if there had been any desire on its part to bring in this legislation so that it would apply in accordance with the promise made in the election of 1962-63, to have given some support to this. They could not 20220-327
Youth Allowances
argue that it amounted to a vote of nonconfidence because, by the simple expedient of saying it was not, they could have availed themselves of a means-to use the words of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto), a devious means-of getting around an amendment moved by the opposition. Well the amendment was moved, and behold what happened. The record here is tremendously interesting. Those people who say they carry out their election promises voted on this question on February 27.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Did the minister vote against it?


John George Diefenbaker: She will tell you herself, I presume. I must say that if she did not she belonged to that distinguished group who were absent from the house at the time. I think she is here in the list. Oh yes-Miss LaMarsh; she is here. And all the others who sit over there are included in the list voting against the measure they had promised, and which they had postponed. I also find it is interesting to be reminded that some of those who sit to my left found it necessary to vote against this proposition. I listened to the words of the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson). He is all for this. Yet he voted against it when it was moved as an amendment. I do not wish to embarrass hon. members. There will surely be some others who will speak on this. But it is most interesting that those who sit to my left in the Social Credit group, all of them, in addition to the one to whom I have made reference, also voted against this proposal. I see the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) rising. I was not going to mention him, but he also voted among the "nays".


Mr. Patterson:: Would the right hon. gentleman permit a question? Did that amendment mean, had it been carried out, that there would have been an extension of the allowance to that age group?


John George Diefenbaker: Had the government at the time said the vote was not to be taken as a vote of confidence, then the house would have spoken. But no amount of hair splitting on the part of the hon. gentleman can justify his voting against this proposition on the occasion in question when, as a matter of fact, he had told his constituents beforehand that he believed in it.
This is the kind of thing which makes people suspicious of parliament, if they are. I could go on and name others, but the hon. gentleman insisted that he be included in the

Youth Allowances
list by rising and asking a question. If there are any other members over there who wish to be included all they have to do is rise, and I will name them. All of which indicates the inconsistency of the attitudes taken by some of the hon. members who were elected to oppose the present government. I think it would be of interest if hon. gentlemen would turn to page 340 of Hansard lor February 27 and try to explain to the house today how, in these few short months, they have been converted to a different stand.
That is the benefit-I am speaking more seriously now-of these motions and amendments. They force the government to act. All over Canada, after we had taken this stand, one newspaper after another referred to the inconsistency shown by hon. members opposite, none of whom was more inconsistent than the minister of health.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Would the right hon. gentleman permit a question? Perhaps he could tell the house how it was that motions frequently moved during the years from 1957 to 1962 were insufficient to enable the administration which he headed to act in this regard.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a most interesting question. I wish I could deal with it in detail, because the amendments which the government of today moved when in opposition, and which they have run away from now they are in office, are most illuminating. That is the kind of interruption which is always beneficial and in keeping with the best parliamentary practice. Hon. members may recall that the government was going to bring in a development fund. This was to be the cornerstone of our economic development- a national development fund. Day after day they preached that. They introduced it, by amendment. And ever since they came to office they have been running away from it, fearful of taking the essential step by which they were going to bring about an improvement in the economy. I wish I had a record of some of the other amendments, few if any of which have received any attention on the part of the government, now that it is in office. We took the stand-and it was made perfectly clear-that the legislation in this regard was going to be introduced in February of 1963, at which time we met defeat in the house. We intended to do this, and the legislation was ready for the purpose of extending these allowances. And what has happened? Those who voted for this government, relying on the promise that this would be among the first things they would bring before parliament, have, as in so many other

cases, been entirely deluded if not deceived. Again, to borrow that expression which I am sure will become a monumental one and which was coined a few minutes ago by the hon. member for York East with the knowledge that he has of those with whom he sits, the government obtained its support by devious ways.
There is a provision with regard to the provinces that do not wish to come under the plan directly. I am not going to deal on this occasion with that problem in any detail. An opportunity is going to come very shortly to speak at length in connection with dominion-provincial relations, in connection with the provision of those things that will bring about unity within the nation.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Your resignation.


John George Diefenbaker: But I do say at once that many thinking Canadians today are becoming very concerned at the degree to which the constitution is being subverted, its principles deviated from, legislation brought in effective for some provinces in Canada but not for others. In other words, these people are very concerned with the degree to which this government, in the few months it has been in office, is bringing about within Canada division and disunity by policies that cannot but divide this country at a time when, as always, unity is of primary consideration. This concept that is receiving the support of this government, namely of dividing this nation, is something that is dangerous to the future of our confederation. Every step that is taken by the government in advancing division within this country is fraught with danger to the preservation of our national unity. I shall deal with that in more detail when the opportunity comes.
Sir, we in the opposition have heard over and over again, from elements of the press which have never shown any affection for the Conservative party, that in the opposition we follow a course of endeavouring to prevent the government bringing in its legislative program. Nothing of the kind. Yesterday the defence matter was before the house; today it was passed on division.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Today it is youth allowances.


John George Diefenbaker: The defence bill was passed on division following an exhibition on the part of the government of stubborn refusal to give information to parliament, and we wanted this to remain as a monument to this government in the days ahead. Today

legislation is brought before this house to provide for the extension of family allowances. We are going to support it. It represents the stand we have taken. All we ask of this government is that it bring in its legislative program instead of endeavouring to bulldoze parliament.


Mr. Starr:: Muzzle.


John George Diefenbaker: Not to muzzle-to bulldoze parliament is the only expression to describe it.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The same old speech.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the attitude taken by this government, which says that unless we pass this flag resolution, this personal pennant, we are going to sit here all summer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to see the support the government has. This indicates that those hon. gentlemen-and I would like to identify them-who sit on the periphery of the cabinet are entirely in agreement with an attitude of trying to muzzle parliament into doing those things that the government wants done. Bring on your legislative program. Come along with your loans to students. You have not got it ready. You have been talking about it for months; bring it in. It isn't ready; you have not drafted it; you have come to no agreement with the provinces. Yet you pretend that these things will be done. Bring in the legislation with regard to 10,000-


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the right hon. gentleman a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


George James McIlraith: Is the right hon. gentleman discussing second reading of a bill which is part of the government's program, or is he discussing something else?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. gentleman came in. He did not hear the argument, obviously. He does not know what took place, and he interrupts with that ignorance that so often characterizes him. All I have to say in that regard is, bring in the legislation and we will give it immediate attention. We will give support to this measure or any legislative program to carry out those things beneficial to Canada. Such matters will receive attention, and immediate attention. But I again point out to the hon. gentleman, whose kindly nature is I know foreign to intimidation of any kind, that you are not going to be able to browbeat parliament into 20220-327J
Youth Allowances
a position where you require parliament to do what you want done, on a matter that does not have the general support of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: There is a bill before parliament now.


John George Diefenbaker: Did somebody over there speak of parliament? Are they going to speak' of parliament and how it operates?


Thomas Miller Bell: The pipe line boys.


John George Diefenbaker: Let those who know not parliament give me their idea about parliament, or endeavour to lead this house to believe they have any knowledge of it. This legislation is beneficial. We support it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to see who
applauds. The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) makes a great contribution to the house, because he is the official ap-plauder-and I thank him very, very much.


David Vaughan Pugh: He always misses his cue, though.


John George Diefenbaker: I have been diverted by the interruption of the minister, and I return to the bill. This legislation is about 13 months late. We were at all times ready to support it. The Liberal party said it would be brought in during the 60 days, and the 60 days have become almost 400 days.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, after hearing the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) cry out a moment ago that the government should introduce up to date legislation, I wonder why he did not restrict himself to Bill No. C-108, which is precisely a measure likely to help young Canadians 16 and 17 years of age.
After stating that he supported the principle of the bill, he managed to include in his remarks a few statements which are surely not to his credit. For instance, he said that this legislation would cause more division in Canada. The game of the Leader of the Opposition at present is to cause division in the country.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. At no time did I say that, either directly or indirectly.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, in my right hon. friend's language I would say this, that while

Youth Allowances
I was sitting here I heard him say that the government was dividing Canada-


John George Diefenbaker: That is what I said, but I was not referring to this.


David Réal Caouette: -and that it was creating division with its legislation. Who has stopped the former prime minister of Canada from presenting legislation like that we have before us and are discussing today? Who has prevented him from doing that?

Mr. Speaker, that is nothing new for the Leader of the Opposition, since he stated in the past that family allowances were merely a piece of legislation to assist French Canadians in the province of Quebec. But I realized myself that in western Canada, and in the riding of the Leader of the Opposition, there were as many large families as there are in the province of Quebec.
Another point on which the Leader of the Opposition was wrong is that some years ago he was against family allowances because, he said, they were designed to help families in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said he would support this legislation. We shall also support it, but we think that $10 a month for 16 and 17 year old Canadians attending school, college or university does not represent very much, considering what family heads must spend to maintain their children at university or at school when they are 16 and 17.
One hundred dollars a year. The province grants scholarships of $250, $300 and $400- and when you belong to the right party, it might probably go to $500-plus $100 granted by the federal government.
What does that amount to, when we have to pay up to $1,500 and $2,000 a year so that our young people can complete their education and secure the qualifications they are entitled to.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides for the payment of $10 per month for our 16 and 17 year old youths. While this bill is an extension of family allowances to assist our young people who continue their studies, what help is $10 a month for our young people attending university? Is that not laughing at people, at parents, and at the rising generation?
Mr. Speaker, the bill is far from complete. I appreciate that, for election purposes, one can use measures like Bill No. C-108 to say: We have extended family allowances to children of 16 and 17 attending schools and universities. But it does not mean much to
the young people, and particularly to family heads who must support their children and look after their education.
For a youth of 16 or 17 who leaves public school to go to high school or technical school, $10 per month is not much. Moreover, in Quebec, students have been getting this allowance of $10 a month for a year or two. But today, when the federal government intervenes and offers this additional family allowance, the provincial authorities cancel the $10 they were paying last year. That is what is happening now in Quebec.
Our young people need greater consideration on the part of administrators, both provincial and federal. The physical possibilities are tremendous in this country. We have schools and, if there are not enough, we can build more. However, to maintain our young people in those institutions is a financial problem, not a question of good will. The problem is not one of intelligence, but of money, and as long as the authorities, federal or provincial, will not tackle the difficulty at its source, we will continue to have before us measures such as Bill No. C-108, which the Leader of the Opposition is ready to support, even though he did not bring it forward when he was in office, as I pointed out a few moments ago.
It has been said that this bill or others of the same type are apt to create division in Canada. What division can we create in the country with $10 a month? The problem is much more deep rooted and serious and it will not be settled by haphazard solutions. It is not by such remedies that we will restore the mutual confidence which perhaps has already existed in Canada and which must naturally exist, but it is by bold measures which will bring a gleam of hope to the whole population. In short, we need something that will restore confidence in our parliamentary institutions, the government, the administration.
Mr. Speaker, it has been said that Social Credit members were irresponsible visionaries. However, they suggested solutions, but these were rejected.
Let us examine the solutions which this government is putting forward today to assist students who wish to complete their studies. The government is offering $10 a month, for ten months in a given year, which amounts to $100. No matter how Social Credit proposals are ridiculed, they are not without merit. If and when the government decides to consider these proposals seriously, it will perhaps realize that, instead of sinking


towards socializing and socialistic policies as it is now doing, it is possible, by controlling not human beings but finance, to put our national resources and the Canadian physical potential at the service of the Canadian people. Monetary reform is the only thing that should be taken into account to get the results we want.
There have been some suggestions, plans and planning. And we still see the government introducing bills similar to the one now under consideration; it is a new planning to help students: extended allowances.
Mr. Speaker, the Social Crediters did not lie 25 years ago; Major Douglas was not wrong 40 years ago. Now, I sincerely believe that if the government had fully considered the suggestions of Social Credit, it would have stopped a long time ago disguising its legislation in financial tentacles which are not our own but which control us.
Oddly enough, the government is reluctant to grapple with financial problems or tackle the financial giants, but it is willing to take on human beings-children, students and parents.
Mr. Speaker, Social Credit knows the solution to the problems that were caused entirely by successive governments, Grits or Tories, Liberals or Conservatives. Today, faced with the depressed conditions in which we find not only the students but the people in general, it is high time that we take exceptional measures to correct abuses at the source, which lies in the financial system, which scoffs at people and at governments and controls or tries to control the political parties, whatever they are.
Mr. Speaker, as I have said time and time again, the government should assume its responsibilities. We should stop presenting to the people legislation like Bill No. C-108. Ten dollars a month. We will certainly vote for those $10 a month, because it is better than nothing, but what can a university student do with $10 a month?
You know, Mr. Speaker-and the government knows it also-that he cannot do much. Nevertheless, let us accept the principle that students need help, because the monetary system is not only fictitious but obsolete. Our students, your sons as well as mine, thereby suffer, and we think that we are going to help them by granting $10 a month. Our group is going to vote for that amount of $10 a month as proposed by the government, but we wish that it were more generous. The government should be as generous towards our students as towards our soldiers in Cy-
Youth Allowances
prus, in the Congo and in the other countries of the world. When peace has to be restored in the world, we spend millions and millions of dollars; but to help our own sons, our own students, the government offers $10 a month.
Mr. Speaker, I shall close my remarks by saying that those $10 a month are not enough, that we are mocking our young people of 16 and 17, because they need more to continue and complete their studies, in order to contribute not only to the economic development of Canada, but to its cultural development as well.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Cote (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to the proposal made by the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) concerning the establishment of a federal department of education.
In my opinion, the major role the federal government could play in the field of education would be to pay the cost of education of English and French minorities in the ten provinces of Canada.


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want, with my other colleagues of the opposition, to support the principle of Bill No. C-108. Along with the other members who have already spoken, I want to say how important it is to encourage young people to remain in school as long as possible. Too often students leave school to take employment which provides them with a good wage, but they regret it later on.
I am sure other members of the house often see such cases. Young Canadians come to my office looking for work, and then they tell me: "Mr. Grafftey, I intend to quit school."
I think, Mr. Speaker, that all members of every political party in the House of Commons must encourage young Canadians to stay in school as long as possible.

At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that with other members of the opposition I intend to support fully the principle of the bill. I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) to the effect that education should fall under the jurisdiction of the federal parliament.

Maybe the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville (Mr. Dupuis) agrees with me about the fact that this is undoubtedly the reason why Mr. Lesage asked for the separation of Liberal

Youth Allowances
forces in the province of Quebec, because the Liberal party never said in Quebec the same things it proclaimed outside that province.

I feel that the hon. member for York East, in putting forward such a proposition, certainly shows us why Mr. Lesage asked for the separation of the Liberal forces in the province of Quebec. It is simply because little by little Canadians are realizing that Liberalism means division. The Liberals have never said the same thing in the province of Quebec as they have outside the province of Quebec.
During the debate this afternoon I could not help taking great interest in the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). In 1964 most hon. members are beginning to recognize the fact that uniformity does not underlie the Canada of today. I agree completely with the approach of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to the problem when he states that unity in diversity underlies the mosaic or the facts of life, so to speak, in Canada today.
In supporting the basic principles of the legislation I wish to make some suggestions, and I am not going to be adamant at all. I simply say I have a great suspicion that what the government is seeking to obtain is very good and desirable but, as with so many things that the government led by this Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is trying to do, it is going about it in absolutely the wrong way. I suspect that one thing this debate is going to point up and emphasize is the fact that the machinery for permanent consultation between the federal government and the provinces is woefully inadequate. What is going on today underlines once more why time and time again I have suggested both inside and outside the House of Commons the immediate creation of a permanent secretariat for federal-provincial relations at the prime ministerial and premier level. If we are in the dark in many areas in this debate as we approach this important subject, it is because to my knowledge not enough prior consultation has gone on with the provinces in relation to this problem before this bill was placed before hon. members. If adequate prior consultation had gone on with the provinces generally and Quebec in particular we would not, to a great extent, be debating in the dark today.
The hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) said in general terms that because the bill

based on a resolution under No. 61 on government orders is not before us at the moment we are forced to debate not only the principle but many of the details of this bill in the dark. Hon. members opposite laugh, but I suggest that federal-provincial relations and details of this sort are of great importance.


Mr. Macaluso:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member said that members were laughing. If there are hon. members laughing they must be on the other side because I heard nothing.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: We are all asleep.


William Heward Grafftey: The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) says, "We are all asleep". Certainly, she must have been sound asleep in the area of federal-provincial relations. The Minister of National Health and Welfare, surrounded by her centralizing colleagues, have done more in terms of creating national disunity in this country than any government in the history of our nation.
I come again to the general atmosphere surrounding this problem before it was brought before the House of Commons and underlines the fact that, time and time again we have found the permanent consultative machinery between the federal government and the provinces woefully inadequate. I suggest that had there been a greater degree of open consultation based on this permanent machinery we would have been helped in this debate today. If the terms of the bill based on resolution No. 61 were before us, the debate could easily be more meaningful. Why do I say that? Not having seen the bill itself, I am not going to be dogmatic on this point. However our party has said, why were family allowances not simply extended and then the proper fiscal arrangements to provide for the province of Quebec recapturing its proper fiscal powers not made? We ask that question without any knowledge of what real consultation went on with the provinces, without the terms of the bill based on resolution 61 before us.
We are obviously handicapped, Mr. Speaker, when we go into these details. I suppose members opposite will say it is obstruction when we want to know the real facts which touch upon one of the most important subjects before the Canadian people today, namely federal-provincial relations. Am I not right in saying, Mr. Speaker, that under the present family allowance legislation the only time the allowance is not paid in respect of children under the age of 16 is when the children are

not in school and they should be? The minister says no, and I am willing to be corrected.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I will close the debate if I speak.


William Heward Grafftey: The minister says no, that is not the case. But I still come back, Mr. Speaker, to the general proposition, without being adamant about it, that with the scanty information we have at the moment we have every reason to believe that the ends desired by this legislation would have been achieved by a simple extension of the Family Allowances Act and compensation made to the province of Quebec to enable it to recapture certain fields of taxation.
While I support the principle of the bill, I certainly reserve my right to say that the government is attempting to achieve a good end but is going about it in a wrong way. I had not intended originally to speak in this debate. I may be redundant when I say that the debate so far has pointed up time and time again the immediate necessity for the establishment of permanent consultative machinery for federal-provincial relations, not only between departments but between the Prime Minister and the premiers. Unless this is done immediately, Mr. Speaker, debates such as this in the federal House of Commons are going to continue to be unsatisfactory. We are going to go into dark areas where members of the opposition will not be able to speak with any real authority unless the proper consultation takes place and unless the proper homework is being done on these matters. I believe this could easily be another case in which the federal government initially got into trouble because they attached an education rider to their legislation. Then there had to be another retreat. Otherwise they would simply have extended family allowances and made a taxation provision for the province of Quebec.
As I mentioned a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, I am supporting the principle of the bill. I thought it wise, before six o'clock was reached, to support the principle and to add this reservation that I and many other members on this side of the house have at the present time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A to inform the house that the question to be raised at ten o'clock this evening is as follows:
Youth Allowances
The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh), beef prices, entry into the United Kingdom market.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Miss LaMarsh for the second reading of Bill No. C-108, to provide for the payment of youth allowances.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Reg Cantelon (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, prior to six o'clock we heard a great many short speeches on this particular topic, and I can assure you that what I have to say this evening will not take very long either. I approve the legislation which is presented and I do not intend to delay the passage of it.
Most hon. members approve of it on the basis that it will assist parents to keep their children in school for another two years, but there is one small criticism I have to offer. It will only assist parents to keep children in school during the years 16 and 17, and a little elementary arithmetic will indicate that most of the children who leave school at age 17 will not have completed grade 12, let alone grade 13 in Ontario. In some instances this might cause a bit a difficulty for the parents and therefore I regret that the assistance is not being made available also for those aged 18 years.
Mention has been made that the program will cost us some $27 million this year, plus the amount that will be given to the province of Quebec as a direct grant. This is quite a bit of money, but from my standpoint it is a justifiable expenditure. It is a certainty that no country ever suffers from having a highly educated population and anything we can do to assist in raising the general level of education is to be highly commended. For this reason it is a good thing that this allowance is being granted to 16 and 17 year olds and I am only sorry that the 18 year olds are not included.
We know unemployment is always greatest in those areas where the people are the most

Youth Allowances
poorly educated. Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but this is the general experience, and if this is so again we have a very good reason for making this grant to parents.
I am also glad that the province of Quebec has seen fit to co-operate in this particular case. In some other instances there has been a great deal of difficulty in securing co-operation from that province but, as was pointed out by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) this afternoon, by modifying their legislation they have gone along with this plan. In particular I am glad to see that what I would call the only real logical objection to the legislation has been removed by the fact that the income tax exemption will be kept at $550 for parents who have children aged 16 and 17 years attending school.
I regret that we are still waiting for the student loans legislation and I hope it will be introduced as quickly as the minister can do so. I am also extremely sorry that the legislation for the 10,000 scholarships which were to be granted, about which the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) spoke a year ago last March, is still delayed. I hope it will soon come out of the limbo of the unknown, wherever it is, and be presented to us at an early date.
With these few comments, Mr. Speaker, again I want to express my general approval of this legislation and hope it will receive speedy passage.


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


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks on the legislation now before us. I also want to remind the house of certain statements, certain planks of the Liberal platform. First of all, I should say that this bill comes very late and that, because of the lack of preparation with regard to it, the Canadian people have lost at least 15 months of benefits which might have been paid to our young people who are qualified under that legislation tending to give them an opportunity to finish their education.
The problem of education is of the highest important for the French Canadian nation as for the remainder of the country.
I noted, like several others in the house, the remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto)-who was rebuffed by his own fellow member for Longueuil (Mr. Cote). We find that even

within the Liberal membership, there is no unity of thought with regard to this bill. It is hardly surprising that in the caucus the government members were unable to agree among themselves on a measure which might have been acceptable to, and would have been accepted by the House of Commons, because they could not even agree on the kind of legislation they wanted to bring in.
Mr. Speaker, I have before me folders from the two last election campaigns of the Liberal party, in which they promised to extend family allowances to boys and girls of 16 and 17 who are attending school. Here are some folders which were distributed during the general election of June 18, 1962, in which we may see the following:

A new Liberal government will:
Extend family allowances beyond the age of 16 for boys and girls who remain students. This will mean that more teen-agers can qualify for skilled jobs.

And further on:

Help to invest in Canadian youth by voting for your Liberal candidate on June 18.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear the applause coming from the other side of the house, but when I think about the young people in Canada, and more particularly those of the province of Quebec, I feel sad because the young people of the province of Quebec and of the rest of the country have been deprived for 15 months of what had been promised in 1962 by those who are today applauding this legislation.
Here, I would like to refer to a circular letter, written in French, in order to satisfy my friends opposite, in which it is said that a Liberal government would re-establish security thanks to allowances payable in regard to children aged 16 years still attending school.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Well, it pleases me considerably, Mr. Speaker, to hear applause from my friends opposite, because this is a unique proof of their sincerity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: This is something they had promised two years ago, but once in office, they waited for 15 months before carrying out their promise. For 15 months, they

deprived the youth of this country of the benefits of legislation that we also had promised.


An hon. Member:: Six years in office.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Today, they pat themselves on the back because they have been inactive for a long time.
My hon. friends opposite will regret having spoken out of turn. In fact, to remind them of what we were intending to do, I will ask them to refer to page 2885 of Hansard for April 12, 1962, when the then minister, now the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith), said:
Mr. Speaker, I have an announcement to make which I believe represents a new breakthrough in Canada's welfare system.
I have today written the provincial ministers informing them of the government's intention to initiate a new program of welfare grants designed to assist in overcoming major deficiencies in our present nation-wide network of welfare services.
The then minister wrote in black and white that we were just waiting for the proper time to submit the legislation to the house.
Further on the same page, we can read:


Mr. Drouin:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow me a question?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wishes to-


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) tell me why the Conservative government waited until April 12, 1962 to put such legislation on the order paper, while they had been in power for six years?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, the answer is quite simple. There was so much to do, things had been left pending so long, there was so much to do over because of the neglect and the lack of vision and foresight of our hon. friends opposite who preceded us; in brief, the 22 years of inaction of the Liberal party had put us in such a position that we had to tackle the most urgent problems first.
In the first place, we gave our old people a pension which-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I remind hon. members that we are now discussing Bill No. C-108, an act to provide for the payment of youth allowances?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I realize that quite well. But I was carried to other ground by my hon. friend from Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Drouin).
Now, I should like to go on putting on the record what the former minister of national 20220-328
Youth Allowances
health and welfare stated, as can be seen on page 2885 of Hansard of April 12, 1962. I quote:
This new program will be complemented by the establishment of a national council of welfare, as announced in the speech from the throne.
That seems clear to me. First of all, we informed the house of the legislation that we proposed to introduce. We could not do everything at the same time. We had to follow the normal procedure in the house. In fact, my hon. friend from Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes, who is a lawyer, will recognize that there is a certain procedure to follow in this house. Indeed, if we had departed from the normal course of procedure, he would have been the first to blame us.
A little further, the minister stated:
As I have indicated previously, I would also like the council to consider a number of other important social security matters such as the development of a new and integrated approach to public assistance, and the need for an increase in the level of benefits under family allowances, along with the question of raising the age limit at which such allowances are paid in the case of children who are still attending school.
Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals and Social Credit marriage had not taken place early in February 1963, the young people of Quebec and the other provinces would have been in receipt of family allowances long ago, and a Conservative government would have granted them. But because a Liberal government was elected, young people were deprived for at least 15 months of family allowances they were entitled to.
As I said, it is a shame that the Liberal party has deprived for so long those young people of the allowances they need in order to prepare their future.
If I were to give a piece of advice to my hon. friends opposite, I would suggest that they pass this measure as soon as possible, so that they might be forgiven the great injustice they did to Canadian youth.


Hon. Yvon Dupuis (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make a long speech, but I cannot let pass unanswered the remarks which have just been made by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard).
We are now considering Bill No. C-108 which all Canadian people want us to pass and which will enable our young students aged 16 and 17 to take advantage of another social measure.
I wish to remind the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot that this social measure follows all the others which were passed by the

Youth Allowances
parliament ot Canada through the years, and I call his attention to the fact that all the social measures now in our statutes were introduced, passed and put in the statutes under Liberal governments.
I am always surprised to see our Conservative friends resent the fact that we waited a few months to keep an election promise.
During the years of Conservative administration, which have been quite numerous, we never witnessed the passing of a single social measure proposed by the Conservatives. All social legislation, old age pensions, unemployment insurance, family allowances, pensions for the blind, pensions for the disabled, each one of those social measures was passed in this house under a Liberal regime.
But now we have the hon. member for St Hyacinthe-Bagot raising a hue and cry because the Liberal party waited 15 months, according to him, before keeping an election promise. Mr. Speaker, I think all Canadians realize that, even if we did wait 15 months, at least we kept our promise.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. minister a question?


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would mind repeating his question, because I did not understand it.


Eric Alfred Winkler: May I ask the hon. minister a question?


Yvon Dupuis: With great pleasure.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I wonder if the minister was one of those six bucks boys of 1957.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I will say to the hon. member that when the Conservatives do something good, it is always when they improve on existing Liberal legislation. They can never initiate any themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I will summarize my comments as follows. For six years, the Conservative party did not take advantage of opportunities to do Canadians justice in the field of social security. However, during the few months we have been in power, we have succeeded in keeping most of our promises. During six years of Conservative administration, more than 265 promises were put aside by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).

Mr. Speaker, I think that if our Conservative friends were sincere and if the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot were sincere, they would admit that the measure under consideration must be passed so as to enable young Canadian students to take advantage of another measure of social security which is another achievement of the Liberal party of Canada.


Mr. Vincent:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio. Can he give us the list of promises carried out by the Liberal party since it came into power, and thus enlighten all Canadians, because at present there is a big question mark about that all over Canada.
On that list, I should not like the minister to mention tax increases, measures-


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, you are well aware that if I answered the question put by my hon. friend I would be out of order. He should know that himself. As a matter of fact, it is because he knows I would be out of order and you would call me to order that he ventures to ask that question. He knows very well that if I had a right to do so, I could draw up a long list of all the achievements of the Liberal party since it came back into power.
One thing is sure. We promised to replace inaction by action, and action is there before you. Let the question come to a vote and you will see that we will keep our promises.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, could the minister have unanimous consent to take a minute and give us that list?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Moore).


Mr. H. A. Moore (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, after the political interlude I would like to refer back to the bill. I fully agree with the principle of extending family allowances to include those students of the ages of 16 and 17, and I intend to support it wholeheartedly. However, I would like to make one point in this regard. If all that is needed to accomplish this objective is an extension of the present act, why is this separate bill needed? To administer youth allowances will require, in this case, new machinery, a new department and added expense, when we already have machinery set up to administer family allowances.

I agree that youths who are unable to attend school through physical or mental deficiency should be included in this program, because due to the fact that they are unable to work they cannot contribute to their own upkeep. The fact that they are unable to attend school should not make them ineligible. These young people should be eligible for this allowance, and the parents of these wholly dependant children of 16 or 17 years of age should receive the additional $10 a month. All of us who are parents realize, I am sure, that it requires more money to give students of this age an education than has been the case in former times. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that if the only reason for this special bill, rather than making a simple amendment to the act, is to help out one province, I think it is time that province made some concessions, for a change.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say just a brief word on Bill No. C-108, which I think the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) wrongly enumerated as Bill No. 75 when he was speaking.


Yvon Dupuis: I agree; it is 108.


Erik Nielsen: I think this is the first time a member opposite has been quick to agree with any of the constructive criticisms that have come from this side. I think, though, that one cannot allow some of the comments of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) to go unchallenged. He seems to forget- and if he wants to search his memory accurately he will realize this is so-that it was the Bennett government that planned the unemployment insurance legislation, which the subsequent Liberal government adopted as good legislation, and it was supported by the official opposition.
The Minister without Portfolio also seems to forget that it was during those six years he so decried a moment ago that old age allowances, disabled persons allowances, veterans allowances and old age pensions were increased. This was at a time when the cost of living demanded it, and the Liberal government of the day would not do anything about it. He seems to have forgotten also, that in what he termed the few months this government has been in office-actually it has been in office for 15 months, and 15 months too long, for my money-after those deceitful promises were made across this country of 60 days of blazing action, it was this official opposition that brought about the increase in old age allowances and pensions.
20220-328i
Youth Allowances
Therefore I do not think the Minister without Portfolio has too much to blow his horn about on that subject, because it was the responsible action of the official opposition that brought about an enforcement of those myriads of Liberal promises that were so irresponsibly made during the last election campaign. I remember one in 1958, when the Liberal party then went so far as to promise a $1,000 bonus to every honeymooning couple in Canada. I can remember these things, so I think the minister should not shout too loudly about the Liberal party.
I want for a moment again to draw the attention of the minister responsible for introducing this bill to an apparent neglect of the two northern territories of this country, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. She will find, if she reads the bill carefully- and she would know this, if she had read it carefully-that in the definition section in clause 2, paragraph (h), a province as defined therein might very well exclude the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. She will also find that in paragraph (i) of clause 2 a school as defined therein might very well exclude the operation of the very worth while objective of this bill in the two territories I have mentioned.
Throughout the years there has been a very sad problem in the northern territories where students attending school and wanting to further their education have been met with the almost unbearable cost of having to seek higher education in outside centres. They find the expense of having to get to the higher institutions of learning which do not exist in the north a very burdensome one indeed. Therefore any such assistance in this regard would be very greatly appreciated by the student population and by the parents who have to support that population in the north. There are no universities in the north, as the minister knows, and there are also no colleges. For a parent to have to bear the burden of the return air fare to send their children outside-we call it outside-to these institutions of learning is difficult, particularly where the parent concerned is in the lower or middle income groups, and especially so as the size of the family increases.
There is a much greater criticism which can be levelled at the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad to see in this connection the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) in his seat. I can remember him discussing the budget resolutions. I realize he is not interested in the remarks I am passing now, but he might recall that he stood up and gave the house

Youth Allowances
his assurance that measures affecting the budget resolutions would be introduced and put before parliament all at once in a bundle, as it were. This was, as he explained at the time, so that we could understand the implications which were inherent in clauses such as clause 7 and clause 11 (b) of Bill No. C-108. In fact, there is an order on page 9 of the order paper, order No. 61, which sets forth the desirability of introducing a measure to provide for the revision of certain fiscal arrangements with the provinces, to provide certain adjustments, and so on.
Here we have a bill which we are asked to pass upon, in which clause 7 has definite financial implications, interprovincial and territorial, as also has clause 11 (b). Yet all the information the Minister of Finance promised us would be available is not available. What assurance have we that a province or a territory would not be allowed to opt out of the provisions of this bill with respect particularly to clauses 7 and 11 (b)? What assurance have we, for instance, that regulations will not be passed which will, in effect, nullify the exemptions provided for in the relevant provisions of the bill? We would have some basis upon which to analyse these questions had the undertaking of the minister in introducing all of these budget resolutions at the same time been adhered to; but he has not done this.
So, sir, I simply say again that in respect to the two clauses I mentioned we are asked to buy a pig in a poke and to pass something which has not been fully explained. We are put in the position of being charged with obstruction if we ask for further information, or ask for the adherence to an undertaking given by the Minister of Finance and to which he has not adhered. We are confronted with information which is not complete in so far as a careful consideration of the financial and other fiscal implications contained in the provisions of the bill are concerned.
Let me say at once I support this measure. I support any measure which will give to the student population of our northern areas in Canada the opportunity to progress along the road of equality which might eventually reach the level of the more settled areas of Canada. All costs are high in the north and education is not the least of these. With no colleges and no universities it becomes ever increasingly important that measures such as these receive the approval of Canadians everywhere.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, supporting as I do this bill which provides for youth allowances, commonly known as

family allowances, to those aged 16 and 17 years, may I say I really had no intention of speaking to the measure on second reading. However because of the tirade of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) a few moments ago when he tried to help the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) to get second reading through as quickly as possible, I feel I should say a few words. I do not know what are the duties of the Minister without Portfolio in the cabinet, but my observations of his job leaves me to believe he is a hatchet man and a mimic. I must say at once that he excels in both these areas and his activities in these occupations suit him to a "t". After listening to his tirade this evening I can understand why he cannot be relied on to assume duties in the cabinet with a department portfolio. I imagine that if he keeps up this type of attitude he will remain a Minister without Portfolio for many years to come.


Yvon Dupuis: Are you jealous?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-108 is a natural and normal sequence in the educational program that was started in 1960 by the federal government, in co-operation with the provinces, the provinces being helped financially, as were the municipalities. Today we are discussing second reading of this youth allowances bill. There was no discussion at the resolution stage. It was agreed by all of us that the resolution should pass. This is a vital bill, vital to everyone. It was vital to the opposition some four or five weeks ago when we asked the government to get on with the legislation. But no, at that time the only thing which had to be passed was the flag resolution, and before all other legislation. Now all of a sudden after four changes of mind and reducing the list of essential business from 38 items to six, we reach this vital piece of legislation. Yet after no debate on the resolution what is the attitude of the government and the minister? They are impatient. They cannot stand debate in this house. They are so frantic to try to create a better image in the eyes of the people in the country that they cannot stand debate of any kind. Well, I cannot agree with this policy. As a member of parliament I have the right, I think, to debate any bill which comes before the house, and this one, important as it is, is one about which I wish to say a few words. They have no patience of any kind. They ask us to pass it right away and say they do not want any debate.

What is the reason tor all this haste? Why is it that we have to pass everything in two or three days and-


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order. I am afraid the hon. member is straying from the question now before the house. I would suggest to the hon. member that the question before the house at this time is not the order of business or the procedure followed by the government in presenting this resolution to the house, but a bill which bears No. C-108 and refers to the payment of youth allowances. I would respectfully suggest to the hon. member that he try to limit his comments to the contents of that bill.


Michael Starr: I hear noises down in the corner, Mr. Speaker, and they are the ones who waste most of the time of this parliament. I was just saying that the reason I want to bring this out is that there is pressure on the part of the government now to try to hold back members from expressing their opinions, and when one tries to debate Bill C-108 providing for youth allowances, which is an important matter to the people of this country, they call it filibustering. I do not call it filibustering. I reserve the right that any member of this house has to speak as many times as the rules will permit on any subject under discussion in parliament.
After we took office we were shocked to find in 1959 that 70 per cent of the available jobs in Canada required skilled labour and only 30 per cent required unskilled labour. Because of the tremendous upsurge of industrial life in Europe at that time we were not able to get sufficient numbers of immigrants with the trades and skills we required in this country. Consequently we felt it was our obligation to provide a proper opportunity for Canadians to acquire the necessary trades and skills required in Canada.
When we approached the provinces regarding this problem, which is the proper way because education is under provincial jurisdiction, they agreed with us entirely but pointed out, that they did not have the facilities in which to train young Canadians to acquire these trades and skills. It was then that we launched a program to build facilities for the young people of this country. With the co-operation of the provinces and the municipalities we were able within two years to build a sufficient number of schools to provide some 139,000 student places each and every year.
We gave an incentive to the provinces, we gave an incentive to the municipalities and,
Youth Allowances
as I pointed out earlier, it was only a natural consequence that an incentive was given to the young people of this country to complete their education because the 30 per cent of jobs requiring unskilled labour will diminish every year and the percentage of jobs requiring skilled labour will become larger and larger. So it is essential that the young people of this country remain in school to complete their education, not just remain in school two years longer but remain in school as long as necessary to complete their education in the particular skill or trade.
I doubt whether the provision in the bill for those aged 16 and 17 will be sufficient to provide an incentive. In most cases I think we are overlooking grade 13 and we should extend the incentive to those who are 18 so that they will be encouraged to continue at school. In my opinion the bill leaves a gap of one year. The incentive provided will carry on to the end of grade 12 but there will be a gap as far as grade 13 is concerned before they enter university where they will be able to get student loans which we hope will be brought before the house and passed.
These things are very essential in the life of our country, and no one can doubt that Canadians are adaptable when it comes to acquiring these trades and skills. No people in the world are more adaptable to education at this time than Canadians, and I have proven this through experience.
I should like to point out to the minister that there is no point in getting impatient about a debate of this kind and if she will possess herself in patience the bill will go through much sooner. If she will also restrain the hatchet man in the cabinet, who makes a speech and then walks out and leaves her holding the bag, she will be able to get the bill passed much sooner.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to make a few remarks on Bill No. C-108 now before us.
I very much approve of a legislation providing an allowance for our young people, not because it is particularly generous, but because it recognizes a principle which we, in this corner of the house, have advocated for a long time. Thus, the government admits the necessity and urgency of enabling our young people to attend school where they will get the necessary education to get on in life.

Youth Allowances
Yet, we have to realize that this legislation is but a faltering step towards education. The old line political parties have accustomed us to expect a somewhat reluctant step by step advance with regard to social legislation, though, of course, when there was a question of taxing the Canadian people they came running forth with giant steps. Yet, it must be admitted that this piece of legislation will make things easier for the young people and their parents who have to provide for their children, and it will increase opportunities for education.
However, as everybody knows and as several members stated tonight in this house, Canadians expect much more from the government with regard to the education of our young people. Today, when for the past ten years at least, we have been through a period of unemployment on a more or less catastrophical scale, our industries can clearly get along without our young people, thus enabling them to get a more thorough education according to their capacities and wishes in order to help them face a rapidly setting in automation. In this country, under our system, machinery is gradually playing a more important role and therefore employees, workers, the people operating those machines will have to have wider knowledge and increased ability in order to make them as efficient as possible and control them instead of being controlled by them.
This legislation to assist young people may make this a little easier, and that is what we want. However, we, on this side of the house-and I have personally asked for it time and time again-would have rather liked a more generous legislation enabling the parents to keep their children longer in school without depriving the other children in the family.
Considering the cost of education today and what it will be tomorrow, it is obvious that $10 a month is far from being enough; but I hope that this first step will enable the government to realize, through experience, that families need more money. This assistance to students, which I will call a salary, should be given as long as they are continuing their studies and should not stop at 18 years of age, as now provided by the act. We know that young people have to go to school longer than that to obtain the necessary education to face life's responsibilities.
Therefore, I would ask the government to consider the possibility of paying this salary as long as our young boys and girls are
IMr. Laprise.l
continuing their studies, and I suggest that this assistance should not be financed by new taxes on loans bearing interest, as will likely be the case for this legislation, because I say that the fact of permitting our youth to attend school for a longer period of time should not in any way deprive the remainder of the citizens of this country of their right to work.
Now, I believe that it is ridiculous and abnormal to compel bachelors and spinsters, or fathers and mothers after they have raised their family, to pay for the education of other people's children.
This is not logical, and the government should find another way to finance this salary to students without levying any new taxes or taking money where there is not enough right now, or without borrowing money bearing interest. The government should rather look to the Bank of Canada to find the money needed to finance this project.
Then I think that all Canadians would be satisfied to have legislation that would actually assist our youth and lead them towards a better future.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: There is one question upon which I should like clarification from the minister, and that deals with the particular case of students who are attending an institution at the present time. This may apply to other provinces as well, but I do know it does apply in the province of Alberta. If there is a child attending an institution as a ward of a public authority, that institution or authority will accumulate the normal allowance payable in respect of that child until the child leaves school. The child is entitled to draw upon this fund, under supervision, a certain amount every month for his own particular benefit because, after all, family allowances were designed for the furtherance of education and the benefit of the child.
In this particular instance the $10 allowance is made for the same purpose. While the act does speak of the parent being the person to whom the payment is made, the French version is a little different because it uses the words "pere ou mere". Unless there is some explanation in the regulations that "p6re ou mere" may also be replaced by a person standing in loco parentis, that is the child as the ward of a public authority, I should like to know from the minister whether the $10 will be payable to some public authority or to the institution on behalf of the child. I

hope the minister is making a note of this particular point.
I know there have been difficulties in the past with regard to institutions accumulating these funds, placing them in deposit accounts and drawing the interest. This was a practice that existed in the past, and I hope it has been discontinued in so far as the earning of interest is concerned, because this money does not belong to the institution or the substitute parent. I do not want to discuss a particular clause, but there seems to be an exemption for the institution as defined in the regulation. There may be a logical explanation for all this and the minister, in her reply, may be able to clarify this particular point. The act should provide for the payment to the child age 16 to 18 without parents, either by reason of being an abandoned child or an orphan and who is under public care because that child is entitled to the same benefits as any other child under more fortunate circumstances. With that reservation or that question, I will await the minister's explanation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? If the minister speaks now, she will close the debate.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take just a few minutes to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) why, instead of introducing a bill, she did not move an amendment to the existing Family Allowances Act, under which the government would pay a $10 monthly allowance to children in the 16 to 18 year old group?
To my mind, this would have been much simpler than to introduce new legislation; it would have been much simpler to move a few amendments to the existing legislation.
I should like the Minister of National Health and Welfare to give us the reasons why, instead of proposing one or two amendments to the existing legislation, she preferred introducing an entirely new piece of legislation to provide for the monthly $10 allowance.
That is the only question I wished to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare. [Text]


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


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With the greatest respect, the seconder is not present in the house.
Youth Allowances


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: My understanding is that a minister does not have to be in the house if he was in the house when the motion was moved previously.


William Heward Grafftey: Is the hon. lady not going to close the debate?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I thought it might be more pertinent if I answered individual questions on the particular sections of the bill when we are in committee, since reference has been made to certain sections. I thought the debate would flow a little more evenly if I answered those questions in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Jay Waldo Monteith: I think the minister intimated this afternoon that it was going to cost approximately $27 million to March 31 next if this were enforced by September 1. Was that with any payment to Quebec or without?
I realize this is going to take quite a deal of mechanical administration. Does the minister envisage any increase in the present staff? I realize a lot of new applications will have to be dealt with during the intervening period if, as was mentioned earlier, this becomes operative by September 1.
I would like some clarification of the actual cost. There must be some figures available regarding the amount of payment to Quebec. I understand the Quebec legislature has agreed to increase its applicable period from 10 months of the year to 12 months, in order to coincide with the federal legislation, and I would like to have some estimate of the cost for a full year, say from April 1, 1965, to March 31, 1966 when the scheme will be operated on a 12 month basis in Quebec. I would also like an estimate of the total cost during a full year in the rest of Canada.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: As I informed the house, the cost is about $27 million. To be more precise it is $26,250,000 for the remaining seven months of 1964-65. And for the province of Quebec for the same period it would be $9 million. For a full 12 month period, 1965 to 1966, it will be $16 million. In other words it is a total for all of Canada of $35,250,000 for seven months and $61 million for a full 12 month period.
My hon. friend suggested earlier that the scheme should include the 18 year olds. The

Youth Allowances
reason lor ceasing the allowance at the age of 18 is that in some provinces this is the age at which young people begin to vote and take responsibility as adults. It will be appreciated that each year adds a cost of roughly $30 million.
With respect to the question posed by my honourable predecessor, and others, as to the number of individuals who might be required to administer this legislation, it was suggested that a whole new staff would be required, but the existing division of family allowances and old age security is expected to administer the program through its 10 regional offices. This is a program that does not apply to everyone. It is one the application of which is for those who find themselves qualified, and the estimate of additional staff required is 75 to 100 employees who will be spread across the country.


William Heward Grafftey: I have already made known my opinion to the minister that the best way of proceeding would be simply to extend the provisions of the Family Allowances Act and then subsequently taxation arrangements could be made, specifically with the province of Quebec. Was this method of procedure considered, and at what point did the minister and the government decide to proceed in the manner in which we are proceeding now, introducing this type of bill and then having the Minister of Finance introduce changes as outlined under resolution 61 on the order paper?
This afternoon I also mentioned that in my opinion the only time when family allowances in respect of children could not be paid was when children are not at school and they should be at school. I understand there are some very detailed residential requirements and I would like the minister to answer these two queries.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: My hon. friend and other hon. members have suggested amendments to the Family Allowances Act, but I would draw to the attention of the committee that there are a number of substantial differences between the matters dealt with by the family allowances legislation and this legislation. It should be borne in mind that the family allowances legislation is available to every child resident in Canada up to age 16. This is not the case with youth allowances. These are available to a restricted group of people, many of whom are not compulsorily required to attend school. As I have pointed out the school leaving ages are 14, 15 and 16 years

for the various provinces. Furthermore, a number of these people are already employed and do not qualify.
In addition we have dealt in this legislation with the payment of allowances for the summer months. If members of the committee will think about the problem for a few minutes they will realize there is considerably more involved than the matter of paying family allowances by simply continuing those allowances to the higher age groups. Schools, at least in the provinces with which I am familiar, normally operate until some time in the month of June. Universities may close in April or May. In other provinces other months are occupied. This is legislation which we hope, through the 10 regional offices, will be operated in an identical way regardless of what the school year may be. Remember that under the regulations schools and universities will encompass very different kinds of institutions.
Therefore in order to satisfy the Auditor General that parliament's wishes are met in the way the legislation is administered, it will be necessary to delay the payment of summer benefits until the fall when it is established that the young persons have returned to school, and at that stage they will catch up with the summer payments. In some cases with those who leave early in the spring, payments will continue, provided it is not the year in which they are expected to graduate.
Earlier my hon. friend suggested that family allowances were universal in application except for the restriction of the residential qualification. This is true, but rather an important qualification; and then of course there is the condition that the child stays on in school. But the two types of legislation, family allowances and youth allowances, are different in purpose to some degree, and very different, in application. However it will be noticed by members of the committee that in drawing the legislation the draftsmen have tried-with the experience of family allowances, which is now 13 or 14 years old-to adopt the phraseology, and benefit from the experience which has already been obtained under family allowances legislation.
It will be noted that we are able to provide for an individual who applies late, possibly because he or she has not heard about these benefits. They can obtain back payments for a period. That is not permitted under the legislation governing family allowances as it

now stands. We have gone further here because we believe it might well be possible that individual parents would not be aware they were entitled to these benefits, and we feel they should not lose them in the circumstances.
Perhaps I could answer on clause 1 some of the other questions which have been asked. The hon. member for Ontario suggested there was a gap existing under this legislation and that students were not covered between the time they left grade 12 and the time they entered university, at which time it is expected that they, the students, will be able to apply for and obtain university loans under forthcoming legislation. In my opinion the hon. member is speaking of Ontario when he talks about grades 12 and 13. It should be borne in mind that in many provinces a child is 17 when he or she completes the first year in university. So in fact there is no gap. This is simply an age limit. It has no reference to attendance at a university or a school.


Michael Starr: Would the minister not think it advisable to take care of the situation in provinces such as Ontario which do have these particular levels in their schools? Does she not think there should be a provision somewhere in the bill to apply exclusively to those provinces where high schools have a grade 13?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I would not want the hon. member to draw the erroneous conclusion that students up to the age of 18 in Ontario cannot fully comply. Whether they are in schools or universities they are entitled to this benefit. The hon. gentleman earlier seemed to equate entering a university with the end of the period for which this allowance is permitted. If in fact a child enters university at 16 or 17 he or she would of course continue to be eligible until the age of 18.


Michael Starr: If there are eight grades in a public school and a child begins school at the age of six he would normally graduate at the age of 13 to high school. Then there are five years to be spent in high school, which takes him to the end of his eighteenth year. It is at this point he would normally enter university.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It by no means follows. I graduated from high school at the age of 17.


Michael Starr: I am not as bright as the minister is, but certainly-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On this very point, I would draw to the hon. lady's attention the fact that
Youth Allowances
today many children transfer from schools in one province to schools in another. For example one of my sons came from Alberta where there is a 12 year pattern to a province where there is a 13 year pattern and whether he is as bright as the hon. lady or not, the years are against him and he will be 19 by the time he graduates. I am not necessarily worried about the $10 but I am thinking of the principle involved. An automatic cut-off is imposed by this legislation. Some students will be attending high school, either in grade 13 or in order to repeat grade 12. Let us not say this legislation is covering all high school students, because that is not the case.
I wish to raise another point having to do with students attending College Militaire Royal either from the maritime provinces or in Quebec and Ontario-those who enter the junior matriculation pattern. One might expect that they would attend school at a younger age. They will be educated to junior matriculation level entirely at public expense, save perhaps for 15 per cent who may enter at the expense of their own parents. Is college militaire to be an excepted institution? I ask this because it appears somewhat odd that a $10 allowance should be made available on behalf of a student who in any event, is entirely supported by the federal government.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The two hon. members who have just spoken have been discussing the differences between education systems in the various provinces. It is for this very reason that an age cut-off date has been chosen. It has been done in order to smooth out the differences which exist across the country. The bill does not propose taking any child to a specific level of education, only to a specific age, namely the eighteenth birthday.
With respect to the point raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West, the legislation indicates that the parent who maintains a child-perhaps I should say the individual who receives the amount-shall include, as far as the bill is concerned, an agency or corporate body such as a child placing agency or children's aid society. However the regulations will exclude the institutions themselves. In other words, if a child is maintained by an institution the institution will not be in receipt of these allowances, but if a child is placed in an institution and maintained by an agency or an actual person the allowance will be paid. I am informed that the definition in the regulations will be:
An orphanage, a children's home, a shelter, refuge or other building, not being a private residence

Youth Allowances
or building, in which children are cared for apart from their parents.
Those are the institutions which will be excluded.
As to the situation in colleges militaires, I am informed that such colleges will not be excepted. They will be included in the definition as schools or universities, so any child in a college which falls into this category will have the benefit of the allowance if maintained by the parents, not if maintained by the state.


Michael Starr: In view of what the minister has said about the efforts of the government and officials to smooth things out, as she put it, perhaps I may be allowed to wonder how much smoothing out will be achieved, because in Ontario a normal child of average intelligence usually does not graduate until he or she reaches the age of 19, or at least after reaching the age of 18. In these circumstances I wonder whether the minister would not consider making at least one concession to Ontario by extending these provisions to the end of the eighteenth year so as to provide an incentive to school attendance until education is complete. I say this because completing grade 12 in certain instances does not amount to a complete education. I understand that children cannot enter some of our universities if they have not completed their year in grade 13. Why not extend this age limit, and by so doing make at least one concession in this session of parliament to the province of Ontario?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps I might continue to answer some of the questions which have been asked. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin has I think been answered. The hon. member for Yukon raised a point which caused me some concern. He asked whether the provinces, as referred to in clause 2, are defined widely enough to include the territories. It is understandable that the hon. member should call attention to the needs of his particular constituency and I have consulted the law officers of the department who inform me that the Interpretation Act defines "provinces" sufficiently widely as to include both the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. So no such worry need agitate the hon. gentleman. Further, Mr. Chairman, the fact that there is no university, college or institution of higher learning of that type within the two territories does not, of course, mean anything with respect to this legislation, in that individual children who attend such institutions

elsewhere are still covered and will be receiving this allowance.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I have just one brief question to follow up that point. It is the only question I will have this evening for the minister. Many students in the Yukon attend the University of Alaska because it is less expensive. Would the provision be applicable to those students attending an institution in the United States?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Considerable attention was given to this question because, as is known, Canada does not provide a full range of university or scholastic education, even taking into consideration all ten provinces. All trades and professions are not covered by our universities. For that reason the legislation is drawn as meaning, and will be interpreted to include, any child within the age limit taking any such education anywhere, so long as that child's parent is resident in Canada.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the minister about this question of the effective date. This afternoon she mentioned that she hoped the bill would be passed in time for the effective date of this legislation to be September 1, 1964. She realizes, I am sure, that it is now July 7, and even if this bill passes this house it must go to the other place and must then receive royal assent. In addition there are a number of other procedures that it must go through before it is law. The minister will realize, I am sure, that in going through all these procedures probably most of July will have gone before the bill becomes an act and part of the statutes of Canada. Therefore I want to ask her about the retroactive part of the bill, upon which she touched very briefly.
I am sure she realizes that in the next 30 or 40 days, which is all that is left between the time this bill will become law and September 1, a great many people will be away on holidays. There is also the matter of giving this problem sufficient publicity so that the parents of children in this age group will know about it. Then there is the problem of distributing application forms; and I am sure that in any new departure of this kind there will be some administrative problems, particularly in informing the public as to where to apply, how to apply, and so on. In addition there may even be a number of problems respecting proof of age for some of these young people, particularly if they are new Canadians from some other country and do not have their birth certificates. And there

are all the other inherent problems in embarking upon a new program.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would explain a little more fully what she meant by retroactive in this connection. Further, is there going to be a protracted date, if I may call it that, to perhaps November 1 or even December? That is to say, with respect to all applications that are received and approved by November or December with regard to these young people, will there be retroactive payments to September 1? The minister touched briefly on this question in her remarks, and I am wondering whether she can tell us how much time will be allowed for these retroactive payments. Perhaps she will also say whether there will be some special regulations or circumstances taken into account to get this program started, in view of the short time remaining between now and the beginning of the school year.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, hon. members will be interested in the type of thing that has to be done in the time left between the passage of this legislation and the making of the first payment. All this of course is conditional upon passage by both houses, and royal assent. In addition to regulations having been drafted, a notice has been prepared which, subject to the passage of this legislation by parliament, will be mailed out to all parents who have children who will qualify either in August or September in particular. The names of these individuals come to us from our family allowance records, and hon. members will realize that we will have the lists of those moving into this age bracket. This is a bilingual notice and it will be sent out to all such parents. It will give the details of this program. This notice, or letter, will be mailed with the August cheques. In addition there will be sent a bilingual application form which any parent who believes that his or her child qualifies under the definitions in the act will be asked to complete and return. There will be enclosed a self-addressed envelope which will be addressed to the nearest regional director, in which the completed application should be enclosed. That will be done in August, presupposing the passage of this legislation and royal assent.
This will enable payments to begin in the month of September. When I told the committee that 12 months are being allowed to pick up past payments which are due, I meant that this will be done without fetters of any kind. If individuals are absent from
Youth Allowances
the country or have not heard of the legislation, they will be able to go to August of 1965, make their application, and still collect the payment for 12 months back, for each month that the child qualifies. Therefore if someone misses noticing this legislation in August-though this is hardly likely, because they will receive their cheque and read about this legislation then-and does not apply, for instance in September, October or November, the child will lose no benefit whatsoever, provided the parent or individual who maintains the child makes application at a subsequent time. In that event we will date the payments back to the date on which the child qualified; that is to say, up to September 1, 1964. Therefore the child should not in any way lose any benefit.
Although this is a new and rather complicated piece of legislation in that it is selective in its application to those who may qualify, we have allowed 12 months to catch up on any tag ends or on anyone who may not have heard of the legislation. In addition, Mr. Chairman, there will be a rather substantial publicity campaign, so that everybody should know about this program.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister will catch a very large number of these cases by the process she has outlined with regard to the sending out of application forms with the August cheques. But there will be some young people who will of necessity be missed. I refer to young people who are now 17, or are just coming to their 17th birthday and have been off family allowance for eight, ten or more months.
Where will application forms be available? Will they be available in the post offices? It seems to me there would be some value in having some publicity go out saying that application forms may be secured at the post office or some other prearranged place of that sort, so that parents could obtain these application forms at an early date.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: This information is already available, as hon. members will appreciate, in the department because they keep records in the family allowance division of each child as he or she comes of age and ceases to draw family allowance. I am informed by the director that there will be a direct mailing to the parent of each of these children who have already passed the age of 16, and they will be informed of this program themselves. Obviously there will be some who have left the country, who perhaps have died, or have moved and we do not know of the changed

Youth Allowances
circumstances. I am informed that at the moment it is intended that the regional offices will hold these application forms, in the way that many of them now hold old age pension application forms.
If it becomes obvious that a large number of people are writing for these forms, then of course we will make them available in public buildings, as has been suggested. But we will have a very large publicity campaign and hope to bring this program to the attention of everyone interested. In addition, Mr. Chairman, this is a rather popular measure, I suggest to members of the committee, and one which is likely to be talked about quite often by the body politic.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the minister what provision there will be for young people whose 18th birthday comes in the middle of the school year. Will this allowance continue to the end of the school year, irrespective of the fact that they may have already had their 18th birthday?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: These students will be very much in the position of those of us who went to university under the veterans charter. When they reach the age of 18, that will be the last month in which they will receive a cheque.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: One other question. I understood the minister to give the committee earlier the amount of money which would be paid to reimburse the province of Quebec by virtue of the fact that it is carrying on its own program. On what basis will these amounts be paid? Will it be the exact amount which the province of Quebec has paid out in youth allowances each fiscal year? In view of the fact that the amount and the basis on which the payments will be made will be identical in Quebec and in the rest of Canada, it seems to me this would be the simplest way of doing it.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, my colleague has asked me to answer that. The payments will be exactly the same. The province of Quebec will be reimbursed for the amount they pay out in this way.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They will simply submit the amount they have paid out quarterly, or semiannually, or on some basis, and the federal government will reimburse them for the exact amount paid out?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I should say that the basis of compensation will be proposed in the federal-provincial fiscal relations revision legislation

which is the next item on the agenda, and I would ask permission to explain the basis at that time. But essentially what the hon. member has said is correct.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then that is quite satisfactory.


Mr. Weichel:: Mr. Chairman, I am thinking along the same lines as the hon. member for Edmonton West and the hon. member for Ontario with regard to changing this bill so as to cover children until the end of their 18th birthday. If I may give my reasons for saying this, students in grade 13 can be 18 or 19 years of age and will not be covered at the present time. My thought here is that in many cases we find children taking two years to go through grade 13 and probably they will reach 19 years of age in so doing. Therefore I would ask that that matter be taken into consideration.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance just stated that the next order of business is the federal-provincial fiscal revision item, and I am hoping that nothing which is said on this bill will be ruled out of order when we get to that particular resolution. In other words, nothing said now will preclude us from arguing our point at that time, if there is anything to argue. After all, the minister did undertake to present all these pieces of legislation together.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am sure that would be satisfactory, if there is anything to argue when we come to the next piece of legislation.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, there is a question I want to ask which relates to an answer given by the minister. She said she was informed by the director that they would search the files in the family allowances division and mail to each child in the records an application form if they had passed their 16th birthday. If that is correct, there must obviously be a number of parents-I am not going to suggest how many-who will not be receiving any family allowance cheque for the month of August and yet have a child or children between the ages of 16 and 18.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, this is going to be a separate mailing. There may be a feeling that there is a big daddy looking after them every year and paying them a family allowance based on a list some place, but nevertheless a list has already been compiled and their parents will shortly receive a letter notwithstanding the fact they are not receiv-

ing a cheque. There will be a separate mailing during the month of August to advise them of this.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the remarks of the minister with respect to notification to those who have been drawing family allowances. I have found in light of previous experience regarding agricultural or veterans legislation that in the smaller places it is often the case that people fail to realize they can take advantage of certain legislation designed to meet certain circumstances. Would the minister give consideration to seeking the co-operation of women's groups throughout the country, particularly with respect to smaller communities? I am thinking of the provincial headquarters of women's institutes, for instance. If they were informed of the details of this legislation I am sure they would undertake to notify all their locals, particularly in smaller communities. I have found that sort of co-operation very worthwhile. When I have wanted to get information and publicity I have always found I could depend on women to do this, especially those with children.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: And I hope my hon. friend will depend on this woman to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Definitions.
Mr. Lamberi:: Mr. Chairman, with regard to paragraph (c), which defines "dependant youth", under the Family Allowances Act a child must be resident in this country for 12 months before an allowance is paid. Under Department of Citizenship and Immigration legislation an allowance in lieu of family allowance is paid for the first 12 months period to the child of a person or a family landed as an immigrant. Is there any similar provision under this act or the regulations, or under the interpretation of the regulations, whereby this may be done, or do we have to sort of twist the arm of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in this regard? I ask this question because I admit that under this act the interpretation is "a child resident in this country." Will the child be deemed to be resident from the date of landing as an immigrant?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I am informed that this payment will be available to children who qualify with respect to age and attend school permanently from the date they arrive and become resident in the country. We have already been in touch with
Youth Allowances
the department of immigration so we will have their assistance in advising women parents of the benefits to which their children are entitled so that they can apply forthwith. So far as this act is concerned, we will also have recourse, I understand, to the records of assistance paid by the immigration department in order to seek out children who have not yet qualified for family allowance.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I should like to ask the minister a question in relation to clause 2 (h), which says:
''province providing schooling allowances" means a province prescribed by a regulation made on the recommendation of the minister for the purposes of this act as a province in which provision is made, pursuant to any law of the province enacted before the coming into force of this act-
Does this mean that while at the moment these particular arrangements can be made with the province of Quebec, any other province is excluded in the future from handling the thing in the same way?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think it is clear from this legislation that it is open to any province up until the time that royal assent is given to this legislation to enact similar legislation. At the moment I know of only one province with similar legislation. While we have no indication that this is likely to happen in any other province, it cannot happen after royal assent is given to this legislation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In other words, the principle of opting out shall not apply to this act?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, paragraph (d)
says:
"maintain" means maintains wholly or substantially and "substantially" has such meaning as may be prescribed;
Could the minister inform this committee what is meant by " 'substantially' has such meaning as may be prescribed"? I understand that this will be written into the regulations, but can she inform the committee what is the thinking of the department at this time with regard to the use of the word "substantially"?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Draft regulations have been prepared and are similar to the family allowance regulations. A parent maintains a dependant youth substantially if the value of the contribution made by the parent in cash or otherwise for the care, maintenance, education or advancement of the youth is $5 or more per month exclusive of the allowance and such value exceeds the value of the

Youth Allowances
contribution for such purpose made by any other person who has applied for the allowance.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: There is another question with regard to paragraph (h) of clause 2. Would the minister agree that paragraph (h) provides a special privilege for the province of Quebec for all time to come?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Only perhaps if no other province takes advantage of it. I do not think it is a special privilege since identical provisions are available to all children of the same age and the same attendance at school anywhere in Canada. I am of the opinion that members of the committee generally are concerned with the benefit which is passed on to our youth and not with such technical matters. It happens that the province of Quebec is the only province that has brought in such legislation. I understand its legislation has been in effect since 1961. It might very well have been any other province and it might well be that the territories or some other province might call together a special meeting of their legislature and enact such legislation. If so, that province will then qualify, of course.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to ask the minister if she does not think that the principle she has just enunciated should apply to other acts that her department administers as well?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: We are only dealing in the welfare field at the moment with this particular piece of legislation. However, I have some idea of what my hon. friend is referring to.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: I have a question for the minister. I had an inquiry from the parents of a retarded youth who is 17 years of age and is in a school for retarded children. Will the allowance be paid in such cases?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: If the child is maintained by its parent the allowance will be paid.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Will it continue to be paid when the boy reaches 18 years of age or will the allowance stop when he reaches his 18th birthday, as the minister said a few minutes ago?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: As I pointed out on second reading, this allowance stops at age 18 regardless of whether the child would otherwise qualify, but a retarded or disabled child would then be able to apply through the provincial authorities under the shared cost program for a disabled person's allowance which, as the

hon. member knows, is considerably larger than $10 per month.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Chairman, under paragraph (i) of clause 2 school or university is defined. What will be the situation with regard to students taking business courses, typing and so on, after they have finished grade 10, let us say, in business schools where such courses are provided? Are such institutions included under the definition in paragraph (i>?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, if the child is in full-time attendance at such a school which will upgrade skills, payment will then be made to the parent. It may be that members of the committee might wish to know the proposed method of dealing with this. The regulations as presently contemplated will exclude by defining "excepted educational institutions" and will not try to include everything in a long list. The suggested phraseology is to this effect: "Excepted educational institution" referred to in paragraph (i) of section 2 of the act means a school, university or educational institution that does not provide training or instruction of an educational, vocational or technical nature to improve the qualifications of dependant youth for employment or a career or for carrying on or engaging in a trade, business, profession or occupation.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister about the definition of the word "parent". As I understand the situation, under the Family Allowances Act the parent is the mother of the child unless there is some reason for payment to the father. Is the definition of "parent" included in this legislation intended to bring about the same result?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is intended that the cheque will be payable to the mother. As a lawyer my hon. friend knows that there are many cases where payment is not made to the mother but to an alternative parent, and exactly the same procedure will be followed under this legislation.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a question I should like to ask the minister. I am not sure whether her answer covered the question asked by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale. With regard to students taking courses at private schools and institutions where they learn certain technical skills such as typing, office routine and so on, is it the intention of the minister to include business colleges of that type under the definition of "school"?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes. I read the proposed legislation and they are included. The criterion is that attendance be full-time.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: As long as they are attending full-time?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I think that full-time students only are eligible for family allowances. However, there are many Canadian students in the various provinces attending night classes and taking four years to complete their studies instead of two or three. If those students are attending evening classes it is because, obviously, they cannot afford to follow the regular day course.
Now, when schools or universities giving such evening courses are recognized by the provinces, I wonder if the act could not be amended so as to permit such students to receive family allowances. That would surely encourage students who cannot afford to follow the regular day course to continue and complete their studies. Should the minister take such steps, I believe she would indirectly help such students to improve their education.
I also wonder what amount of money the Canadian government would have to spend annually for that purpose?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out in my remarks on second reading, this legislation is not to cover employed children in the two years with which we are concerned. The purpose is to enable children to stay in school or to go back to school if they have left. My hon. friend is dealing with a young person who is employed during the day and goes to night school and such a person will not qualify. Night schools are not included. This covers full-time attendance in lieu of employment. It is anticipated that the young adults to whom he refers would have to have recourse to legislation already enacted by the Department of Labour.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Monthly allowance.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister, under clause 3, on what date of the month these cheques will be payable?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed the cheques will be dated the last day of each month.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I should like to ask the minister if the cheques will be issued directly
Youth Allowances
from Ottawa or if they will be handled by the provincial authorities?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: In so far as the provinces to which the legislation, when it receives royal assent, applies the cheques will be sent out from the regional offices. There was some suggestion that I may be able to place my picture and signature on these cheques, but my colleagues decided they would prefer they go out in the normal way without such embellishment.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
On clause 5-How allowance to be applied.
Jay Waldo Monteith: I have a question on this clause. I am assuming that subclause 2(a) means when a person ceases to be a parent as defined by the act and this simply means if they move to Quebec?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, when they cease to be a parent means either cease to support the child or cease to be in Canada or in a province to which the act applies.


Jay Waldo Monteith: If they move to Quebec.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: They may move to Europe, the United States or any other place or they may cease to maintain the child, such as a deserted mother, or the mother may die.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Then, subclause 3, can the minister give a brief explanation as to how she expects this responsibility to reflect on the parent in notifying when the allowance ceases to be payable?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: As will be seen in subclause 3 the parent must advise us, so obviously a deceased parent cannot do so. I am informed, however, that we have recourse to the Vital Statistics Act for those who die and such information is checked in the normal manner with regard to family allowances. The same checking procedure would take place. It is anticipated also that on the reverse side of the cheque will appear a warning to the parent, together with a certification where the signature is to be placed for endorsement of the cheque, that the child qualifies. This declaration will, month by month, bring to the attention of the parents that it is an offence to make a false declaration. It may very well be that there will be some few individuals who will be caught in the normal checking procedure, as there are in connection with old age allowances and



'5178 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Youth Allowances
all other allowances with which my friend had several years experience.
However everything is being done under the regulations and within the act in order to prevent most unfortunate circumstances where, by error, a parent who is no longer qualified continues to receive and cash cheques, and then subsequently the department could come along and ask for repayment.
Jay Waldo Monteith: That is all I am concerned about.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: Then, I take it that clause 5(b) means that the dependant who graduates from high school at 17 years and 8 months will then stop drawing allowance, is that correct?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, the hon. member is correct, or the child might die or move outside the country or his parents may move outside the country. If the child, let us say, is physically or mentally handicapped, but is suddenly cured and does not go to school or university, he would no longer qualify.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: If three months later he goes to a university, what happens then?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Provided he has not
reached his 18th birthday, he reapplies and is reinstated.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: He would not then get any allowance for the three months between the time he graduates from grade 12 and the time he starts university.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: If this were a break between courses and not an unnatural break then he would be paid for the intervening months. If for instance he stopped in the middle of a year, went to work for a couple of months and then came back, it will be appreciated by members of the committee he would not be reimbursed for the months in which he, himself, broke his education.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: That is not the situation I had in mind. Most of these children would have to wait until they got the results of their grade 12 examinations before they could be sure they would be attending university. There would be no break in their minds, but there may be some question as to whether they were or were not qualified to collect the $10 per month.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: As was pointed out, we have borne this in mind and clause 6 deals with it specifically. The child cannot lose because

he can apply for and receive retroactive payments at any time up to a year.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: I have one other comment to make. Members from Ontario have pointed out that children attending grade 13 would not graduate at age 18 and would be unable to continue drawing this allowance. I think it should be understood that there are no provinces in Canada where the average student would graduate at age 17. As I pointed out earlier this evening this can be verified by a little simple arithmetic. Most children start school at age 6 and they go into grade 1 at age 7. If you add 12 grades to age 6, you will find that in grade 12 a student will be 18 years of age. I believe it would cost very little extra money if we were to continue the policy that has been applied so as to stop paying the allowance once the student graduates. The total cost would not be increased by 50 per cent. The increase would be comparatively small-I should not say "comparatively small", but it would not be the 50 per cent which might appear to be at first glance.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: My question is based on subclause (1) of clause 5 as it is read in conjunction with clause 12. I should like to ask the minister if she really has any hope whatever of enforcing subclause (1) of clause 5 which provides that the allowance payable to the parent shall be applied exclusively for the care, education or advancement of the child. I can see where there may be some cases in which parents receive allowances and do not use them in the proper manner for the maintenance of the child. I can see where there may be a situation in which the department might want to suspend the allowance or even go so far as to prosecute the parent.
In looking at clause 12, however, which is the penalty section, I find there is no penalty provided for a situation of this kind. Subclause (1) of clause 5 therefore seems to me to be an absolutely useless clause. It is a declaration of intention but it is not enforceable in any way. I wonder what real advantage there is in having it there?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, Mr. Chairman, this was one of the things that bothered me when I first saw the draft legislation. It will be appreciated that this is an identical provision to that which is in the Family Allowances Act. There has been a wealth of experience in this matter in which it is found there is a miniscule amount which is diverted away from benefit of the child.
It would be extremely rare if in fact a prosecution were contemplated at all. If I

may make a personal remark to my hon. friend, there is no doubt this is the reason the amounts are paid to the mother because she would have somewhat more interest in applying the payments for the care and education of the children. Experience has been extremely good with the Family Allowances Act. Canadians appreciate the purpose of this legislation and act within the law accordingly.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Is there anything in the remaining clauses or regulations which would permit the department to take any action whatever, if it found this was not being followed? Can the allowance be suspended in a case where the parent is not using the money for the purpose intended?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes. It is not contemplated there would be a prosecution, but the same kind of practice would be followed as in family allowances, that is, an alternative payee would be named so that a responsible person would see that the money went for the care and education of the child.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister satisfy a legitimate curiosity about one aspect of the wording of this bill. I have before me a French version of the bill and with a certain amount of interest I have been comparing it with the English version. I notice in every place where the words "a parent" appear in the English version the words in French are "un pere ou une mere". Is this just a refinement in translation or is there some legal distinction? I will be very curious as to what French Hansard will be doing tomorrow. The minister has used the phrase "a parent" quite often and I wonder what translation will be given to this in Hansard.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed that while there is a "parent" in French the "pere ou mfere" which appears in brackets as one word is intended to carry the same definition, that it is intended to include an actual mother or father, as a literal definition would be, or anyone who stands in loco parentis.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 7-Allowance not subject to taxation or to be assigned or given as security.
Reynold Rapp: The allowance is not subject to taxation, but are parents allowed to get this exemption of $550, or what they are getting for other students?
Youth Allowances


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The parent is entitled to this $550 exemption.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 9-Appeals.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: With respect to subclause (2) would the minister explain what the government has in mind in stating that:
The provisions of the Family Allowances Act and the regulations thereunder with respect to appeals under that act apply mutatis mutandis with respect to appeals under this act.
Are they going to use the same authorities, procedures and persons?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed that appeals are very rare in the Family Allowances Act but, where required, particular boards are set up. I cannot say necessarily they will be the same personnel but the identical procedure will be followed. I am sure my hon. friend knows mutatis mutandis means to apply it as though they were exactly one act.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 10-Regulations.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to stress one point in this connection. When section 4 dealing with application for allowances was carried a few minutes ago, I was not in the house, unfortunately, because I had to attend a meeting elsewhere.
Could I come back to that point at this stage, that is during consideration of section 10, because I should like to get some information from the minister?
If a father or a mother who is entitled to the allowances fails to submit an application on time because he or she has forgotten or because he or she is not familiar with this legislation, would the minister be empowered to authorize the payment of the allowance to which such a person would be entitled even if the application has not been submitted on time?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, as I have explained a number of times it is not discretionary under the act. The parent has a right to go back up to 12 months, so that there is no loss.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, to make sure about the answer just given by the minister,

Youth Allowances
should the father or mother forget to make application and if the child had reached the age of 16 ten months before, could the father or mother then receive the allowances for those ten months? Is that correct according to the answer given by the minister?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Barnett:: Could the minister clarify what the thinking is in respect to the regulations under paragraph (e) which sets out the definition of residence in Canada, particularly as to the kind of absences that will be allowed so that continuity of residence will not be interrupted?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The definition which is presently contemplated is that a parent is resident in a province of Canada, other than a prescribed province, if he is normally physically present and is living and making his home in that province, and intervals of absence therefrom that are of a temporary nature and not associated with residence outside Canada shall be deemed not to interrupt the continuity of that residence. The purpose is that those who go away from our shores on a permanent basis will not be qualified, but if someone goes away temporarily on a job or for a visit he will not be disqualified.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, with all those regulations, I wonder if the minister could not also include one instructing the officials responsible for the administration of the Family Allowances Act that, three months before the end of family allowances prior to the age of 16, a notice should be attached to the cheque to remind parents that application must be made if they want to benefit from the new legislation?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: When every child who is in receipt of family allowance reaches the age of 16 an application form will be sent out, so that we are not concerned, as the act goes into operation, that we will be losing anybody at all. As the whole program goes into effect and continues over the years it will be as well known as are family allowances, and people will automatically apply for these allowances.
It seems that some difficulty has arisen due to a difference in meaning of the word "parents" in the French and English languages. I hesitate to accept responsibility for what I am about to say-I have not asked the

Minister of Justice about it-but in the opinion of a fluently bilingual member of this committee the term "parent" in French includes all blood relations such as uncles and cousins, whereas in English of course it is restricted to the mother and the father. I am now informed that this is correct.


Michael Starr: Would any applicant for these allowances from the province of Quebec have to comply with the terms of this bill or the regulations made under them?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 11-Authority to enter into arrangements.
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It might be better for me to speak French.
May I ask the Minister of Justice whether in clause 11, paragraph (a), in the French version, instead of the word "quelque", we should not use the word "tout" to translate the word "any", so that the paragraph would read: "Conclure avec 'tout' ministere", instead of "avec 'quelque' ministere".


Guy Favreau: I do not think that it would make much difference because, in my opinion, the word "quelque" is rather interchangeable. [Text]
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the title carry?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Before the title carries I should like to ask the minister or the leader of the house a question. The committee has co-operated today in getting the resolution through the committee stage, the government having indicated that it was completely necessary that this should be done so as to proceed with the other stages required. Could the leader of the house tell us whether any arrangements have been made for the Senate to return prior to July 20-I understand they have adjourned until that date-in order that this legislation may pass through the Senate and receive the royal assent?


Guy Favreau: The Senate has apparently been advised that they may be recalled at any appropriate time in order to deal with any legislation which may have to be dealt with.


Jay Waldo Monteith: And is it proposed that they shall be recalled?


Guy Favreau: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill he read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS PROVISION TOR REVISION OF FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS AND TAXATION PROVISIONS

Walter Lockhart Gordon: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the revision of certain fiscal arrangements with the provinces and to provide adjustments of fiscal arrangements and taxation provisions consequential upon the provision of youth allowances to parents resident in certain provinces.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No one should be misled by the apparently simple wording of the resolution. This is a very complicated matter and I think it might be helpful if I were to make a fairly extended explanation of what is proposed, as the bill, if the resolution passes, will cover a number of subjects and I should like to be certain that all members of the committee appreciate its complexities.
In the past year or so the amount of federal-provincial consultation has been increased very considerably. I think it is fair to say that the federal government has demonstrated its willingness to deal in a practical way with some of the urgent financial problems of the provinces.


Michael Starr: Cut out the politics, Walter.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I had to have some sort of introduction.
We have had two federal-provincial conferences which have dealt with a range of matters including the important question of tax-sharing and there have been a number of other conferences which have dealt with specific subjects such as the municipal development and loan fund and the Canada pension plan. As a result of these consultations and our consideration of the financial problems of the provinces the government has come to the conclusion that the fiscal relationship with the provinces was in need of modification before the expiry of the present arrangements on March 31, 1967. Accordingly we made certain proposals to the
Dominion-Provincial Relations provinces at the conclusion of the conference which was held on November 26-27 1963 and again following the conclusion of the conference in Quebec city held from March 31 to April 2, 1964. These proposals will be dealt with in the bill which will be presented in due course.
The fiscal proposals presented to the federal-provincial conference last November involved a change in the basis of equalization and also an increase in the share of the estate tax for the provinces, both to take effect for the fiscal year 1964-65. I think I might read two or three paragraphs from the statement which was issued by the Prime Minister at the conclusion of that conference because they summarize what was agreed to there as concisely as I think could be done. I quote:
On balance, therefore, we have concluded that the most acceptable solution is to restore the basis of equalization which was established in 1956 but subsequently altered. That is to say, equalization will be paid up to the average yield of the standard taxes in the top two provinces.
The other main point under discussion yesterday was the treatment of revenues from natural resources. The balance of the discussion seems to us to be that such revenues should be taken partially into account. The best practical way to do this is, we have concluded, to adjust the equalization which would be payable, to any province having natural resource revenue above the national average, by deducting an amount arrived at as follows: one half of the extent by which the natural resource revenue per capita exceeds the national average, multiplied by the population of the province.
It is estimated that the additional equalization payments under this formula will amount next year to about $55 million.
We also propose one further change in fiscal arrangements for the coming year. The abatement of federal succession duties, which has remained unchanged at 50 per cent since its inception, will be increased to 75 per cent though this increase will not be taken into account in calculating equalization. The cost to the federal treasury of this change is estimated at $32 million.
As noted in the Prime Minister's statement, the proposal is to return to the basis of equalization established in 1956; that is, to equalize the per capita return of the standard taxes in all provinces up to the level of the average per capita return in the two provinces having the highest yield. This equalization to the top two provinces is to replace the present system of equalization based on the national average.
Mr. Chairman, perhaps it would be useful if I illustrated the actual difference, in per capita terms, between the national average yield of standard taxes and the yield in the top two provinces. For the current year 1964-65, at the present rates of standard

Dominion-Provincial Relations taxes-that is, 18, 9, 50-the estimated national average yield is $42.61 per capita, whereas the average yield in the top two provinces, Ontario and British Columbia, is estimated at $54.92 per capita. It can be seen, therefore, that setting aside the effect of the national resource component of the equalization formula, raising a province's yield to the level of the top two, rather than to the national average, means an additional $12.31 per capita. I think it is hardly necessary to say that this matter of equalization is of fundamental importance in the fiscal arrangements between the federal and provincial governments, because the poorer provinces depend to a considerable extent upon some such system of fiscal adjustments to enable them to supply the services for which they are responsible under the constitution. If the equalization system is inadequate, the poorer provinces will be unduly burdened in their attempt to maintain reasonable standards in the public services for which they are responsible; and if they fail to maintain a reasonable standard of essential services, the national interest is affected.
Having said that, I should add that the argument for the equalization of the standard taxes to the level of the top two provinces does not rest on grounds of fairness or broad national interest alone. The provincial origins of the incomes and accumulations of wealth upon which income tax and estate tax yields depend are often widespread and are rarely known with accuracy. This in itself would, I suggest, support the view that some portion of their yield ought to be equalized among the various provinces. But while we believe that equalization of the standard income and estate taxes to the level of the yield in the top two provinces is of vital importance in the maintenance of a healthy federal system, we recognize that other factors have a significant effect on fiscal capacity, and in particular we recognize that there are wide variations in provincial natural resources revenue.
For example, for the year 1961-62 the average natural resources revenue per capita ranges from a low of 15 cents per capita in Prince Edward Island to a high of $94.08 per capita in Alberta. For the other provinces it is as follows: Newfoundland, $3.04; Nova Scotia, $1.84; New Brunswick, $6.52; Quebec, $6.62; Ontario, $6.91; Manitoba, $4.50; Saskatchewan, $22.57; and British Columbia, $37.72. Accordingly, while we believe in an equalization formula which will raise the level of the standard taxes up to the level of the

top two provinces, we also believe that the need for equalization is reduced in provinces that receive natural resources revenue above the national average. That is why the equalization formula which was proposed to the provinces and is now to be recommended to parliament will include a deduction for natural resources revenue in excess of the national average. This deduction will be equal to one half of the per capita amount by which the three year average of a province's natural resources revenue exceeds the per capita national average natural resources revenue, multiplied by the population of that province.
Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend suggested that if I made this statement tonight he might have a chance to read it, and I agreed with him earlier that this was a highly complex calculation. At the present time this deduction would affect the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan, all of which have natural resources revenues in excess of the national average.
Mr. Chairman, I have just finished a brief description of one item that will be included under the resolution and will be provided for in the bill. There are a number of other items that I should like to explain to the committee, but perhaps rather than start on any others tonight we might agree to call it 10.30.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: How long will the minister be?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will be another 15 to 20 minutes.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, in the light of the statement by the minister and the complexity of this matter, certainly we of the official opposition would be prepared to hear him out, because we would like to have this statement to read; then we could discuss the matter more intelligently tomorrow. As one can readily understand, members will be taking down brief notes at this time in order to speak to this matter later, and we will not be able to give it the careful consideration it deserves.


John (Jack) McIntosh: What about the questions that were referred to this time of day, Mr. Chairman? Will they continue afterwards?


Lucien Lamoureux: Yes. The rules provide that the questions can be dealt with after this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe there is only one question in the overtime period, Mr. Chairman, so we agree to go on with this statement.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, we agree that it would be useful to have the minister complete his statement. It will then be printed and we can study it before convening tomorrow.


Gilles Grégoire: Agreed.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think we probably all agree, Mr. Chairman, that this a good thing to do. I will read this as fast as I can.
The statement made by the Prime Minister at the November conference also included the proposal to raise the provincial share of the estate tax from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. The Estate Tax Act was subsequently amended to make an abatement of 75 per cent available to provinces levying their own succession duties. At the present time, British Columbia is the only province in which the 75 per cent abatement from the federal rate is in effect. For the current year, the rate of abatement in effect in Ontario and Quebec is 50 per cent. It is proposed that these two provinces receive an additional 25 per cent of the estate tax in the form of a payment from the federal government. This arrangement was preferred in Ontario and Quebec pending the findings of their tax commissions. The other seven provinces now receive 50 per cent of the yield of the federal estate tax in the form of a payment from the federal government and it is proposed that they receive an additional payment equal to 25 per cent of the federal estate tax.
We made it clear at the November conference that we recognized the increasing burden falling on the provinces because of the rising cost of providing high priority services such as education, and we agreed to do something immediately to ease these burdens. It was understood that a further careful examination of the whole problem would be made with a view to seeing if an adjustment of more substantial kind should be attempted for the next fiscal arrangements period commencing April 1, 1967. However, following further consideration growing out of the discussions at the federal-provincial conference in Quebec city, March 31 to April 2, it was decided that in recognition of the increasing financial needs of the provinces, we should not wait until 1967 before making additional financial resources available to them.
The result of this further consideration was a decision to recommend to parliament that the rate of abatement of the federal individual income tax be increased by an additional two percentage points in the taxation year 1965 and by an additional four percentage points
Dominion-Provincial Relations in 1966 above the level which would have prevailed under the existing legislation. The additional abatements have already been provided for by amendment of section 33 of the Income Tax Act as a result of Bill No. C-91 which received royal assent on June 18. It remains to make the parallel amendment to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act so that the standard individual income tax rates will be the same as the rates of abatement. This is necessary so that the level of equalization will be brought into line with the level of the standard abatement. Under the existing legislation-that is, under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act -the standard individual income tax rises by one percentage point in each of the five years of the agreement period. The standard tax was 16 per cent of the gross federal tax for the taxation year 1962, 17 per cent for the taxation year 1963, 18 per cent for the current taxation year 1964, would rise to 19 per cent for 1965 and to 20 per cent in 1966, the final year of the present period. Under the proposed legislation the standard tax will be 21 per cent for the taxation year 1965, rather than 19, and 24 per cent for the taxation year 1966, rather than the 20 per cent which is now provided for in the legislation. The effect of the increase in the levels of abatement under the Income Tax Act is that any province which chooses to increase its own income tax rates by like amount will be able to obtain the additional revenue from the two percentage points in 1965 and from the four percentage points in 1966 without raising the over-all level of individual income tax. The effect of the increase in the standard tax is to increase the amounts of equalization in line with these higher abatements. In other words, the value of the increased abatement will by this means be equalized to the yield in the top two provinces.
In order that the committee may know the financial importance of the measures which we recommend, I should like permission to place on Hansard at this point a table showing the estimated increase in provincial revenues for the fiscal years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67 which will flow from the implementation of these proposals. If there is unanimous consent I should like to table them now.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table above referred to is as follows:]
[The Chairman.]



ESTIMATED COST TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PROPOSED CHANGE IN EQUALIZATION FORMULA AND INCREASED TAX ABATEMENTS FOR THE THREE FISCAL YEARS 1964-65 TO 1966-67

[Stage Direction]
(thousands of dollars)
Nfld.	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	TotalI 1961,-65 1. November 1963 proposals (a)	Changes in equalization (18-9-50 formula) (b)	Additional 25% of estate tax	2,928 136	517 36	4,297 1,348	4,800 506	34,130 8.3S2	14,417	5,914 1,278	2,723 546	1,601	3,920	55,309 32,170Total, 1964-65	3,064	553	5,645	5,306	42,512	14,417	7,192	3,269	1,601	3,920	87,479II 1965-66 1. November 1963 proposals (a)	Changes in equalization (19-9-50 formula) (b)	Additional 25% of estate tax	3,499 143	641 37	5,186 1,416	5,513 531	45,650 8,802	15,137	7,685 1,342	4,669 574	1,681	4,116	72,843 33,779Sub-total	3,642	678	6,602	6,044	54,452	15,137	9,027	5,243	1,681	4,116	106,6222. April 1964 proposals (a) Additional abatement of 2 points in individual income tax equalized to the top 2	1,694	372	2,638	2,136	19,170	23,018	3,322	3,220	3,488	5,496	64,554
3. Total, 1965-66		5,336	1,050	9,240	8,180	73,622	38,155	12,349	8,463	5,169	9,612	171,176

[Stage Direction]
1. November 1963 proposals
(a)	Changes in equalization (20-9-50 formula) (b)	Additional 25% of estate tax	4,137 151	778 39	6,185 1,486	6,324 557	56,675 9,242	15,894	8,936 1,409	7,034 603	1,765	4,322	90,069 35,468Sub-total	4,288	817	7,671	6,881	65,917	15,894	10,345	7,637	1,765	4,322	125,5372. April 1964 proposals (a) Additional abatement of 4 points in individual income tax equalized to the top 2 provinces*	3,656	804	5,696	4,616	41,408	49,720	7,176	6,956	7,536	11,868	139,4363. Total	7,944	1,621	13,367	11,497	107,325	65,614	17,521	14,593	9,301	16,190	264,973
* Calculated for Alberta and B.C. on assumption that there would be no equalization as a result of the natural resource revenue adjustment,
a
w
[Stage Direction]

o
o
s
[Stage Direction]
o
as
co
Dominion-Provincial Relations
Walter Lockhart Gordon: This table indicates that tor the fiscal year 1964-65 it is estimated that changing to the top two bases ot equalization will bring the provinces an additional $55.3 million and the value of an additional 25 per cent of the estate tax will be $32.2 million, or a total of $87.5 million. For the year 1965-66 it is estimated that the provinces will be $171.2 million better off than under the arrangements now in effect, the proposals made at the November 1963 conference accounting for $106.6 million of this increase and an additional two percentage points of the individual income tax proposed following the Quebec conference accounting for $64.6 million. It is estimated that for the fiscal year 1966-67, the final year of the present fiscal arrangements period, the provinces will be some $265 million better off than they would have been under the present arrangements.
The proposed changes in the fiscal arrangements with the provinces involve both the system of equalization and the amount of the federal abatement and are the two major adjustments of the fiscal arrangements referred to in the resolution. As noted above, they will result in rising financial benefits to the provinces, culminating in an annual gain to them of some $265 million in 1966-67 including the increased abatement already provided under the Income Tax Act. I submit this is a very generous recognition of the financial problems of the provincial governments, Mr. Chairman, and when viewed in the light of the federal government's own sizeable deficits it illustrates in dramatic fashion the government's belief in co-operative federalism.
I should perhaps add a word or two about the effect of these changes on the budgetary position of the federal government. In my budget speech of March 16 last I forecast a deficit for the current fiscal year of $455 million according to the traditional method of accounting. Transfers to the provinces of the amounts contemplated, $265 million on an annual basis in 1966-67, will be bound to increase the federal deficit.
Hon. members know that a very high proportion of the federal government's total expenditures are fixed or uncontrollable if we include defence expenditures and social security payments in the fixed or uncontrollable category. Capital expenditures, for example, which are controllable are estimated at only $268 million for the current year, which is 4 per cent of total expenditures for the year. It is sometimes suggested
Dominion-Provincial Relations this is an area that could be dealt with differently, but as a percentage of the total it is only 4 per cent. In other words, while we are making every effort to keep expenditures in check, the scope for cutting them appreciably or very considerably is not nearly as great as many people think. I mention this to emphasize the problem created for the federal government by the contemplated reduction in its revenues of $265 million a year in order to help the provinces meet their financial difficulties. Obviously there must be limits beyond which the federal government cannot go without endangering its own financial position, and I trust this will be recognized by the provinces as well as by those of us who are in the federal parliament, because to be successful co-operative federalism must work both ways.
While the proposed changes in the system of equalization and the increase in the federal abatement of the individual income tax are the most important of the fiscal revisions that are proposed, the bill will contain a number of other fiscal revisions which are of varying degrees of importance to the provinces. It is proposed that the Federal-Provincial TaxSharing Arrangements Act be amended to permit the use of the one year option for the determination of the succession duty rental applicable in the provinces of Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Manitoba for the years 1957-58 to 1961-62.
This provision will give effect to an undertaking made by two previous administrations but never given statutory authority. Under the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act, chapter 29, 4-5 Elizabeth II, the standard sucession duty applicable to a province for a given year is equal to 50 per cent of the three year average of the succession duties payable on the estates of persons dying in that year and the two preceding years. During the course of the negotiations preceding the signing of the tax rental agreements, it was argued that a renting province should be given the option of a one year basis since in fact a province which did not rent received the 50 per cent abatement on the one year basis.
The then Minister of Finance undertook to secure the authority to make the one year option possible. The undertaking was first extended to the province of British Columbia by letter of February 14, 1957, and subsequently to the province of Saskatchewan by letter of May 17, 1957, and to the province of Manitoba by letter of October 30, 1957. The

Dominion-Provincial Relations other five provinces which rented the succession duty field to Canada were asked by the then minister of finance in letters dated April 24, 1958, whether they wished to avail themselves of the one year option.
No other provinces indicated their desire to avail themselves of the one year option, and on the basis of that inquiry it has therefore been limited to the provinces which requested it, namely British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
The passage of this particular provision will discharge a commitment previously given and will enable us to bring finality to the calculation of the succession duty rentals for those three provinces for the relevant years. It is not possible to tell in advance whether the selection of a one year basis for a succession duty rental would benefit a particular province for a given five year period. If some particularly wealthy person or persons had died in the two year period immediately preceding the agreements, a three year average might benefit a province. Conversely, if succession duties were tending to rise year by year, the one year basis might benefit a province. Because the one year basis will produce different results than the three year average, the option is naturally limited to those provinces which made their choice known at the beginning of the period.
A further provision of the proposed legislation has to do with the recommendations of the royal commission on Newfoundland finances appointed under term 29 of the terms of union. At the present time the payment of $8 million per annum recommended by the royal commission on Newfoundland finances is made under section 3(3) of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the authority to pay this amount extends to March 31, 1967. It is proposed that the $8 million per annum be made payable to the province of Newfoundland in accordance with the recommendation of the royal commission on Newfoundland finances without specifying any terminal date.
Another provision has to do with the Crown Corporations (Provincial Taxes and Fees) Act which was given royal assent on June 18, 1964. In accordance with the provisions of that legislation certain federal crown corporations listed in the schedule to the act are required to pay provincial retail sales taxes, gasoline taxes and motor vehicle licences, with effect from April 1, 1964. This legislation was first proposed in 1962 under the previous government, and it was the intention at that time that the affected corporations should pay the

specified provincial taxes from April 1, 1962. The legislation was never introduced, but the matter has been on the order paper on a number of occasions. While it was thought wrong at this time to give retroactive effect to this legislation, the government does not want the provinces to lose financially-I am referring to the bill that was passed some weeks ago-from the fact that events over which they had no control intervened in such a way as to make it impossible to carry out the original intention. It was more than an intention; it was more or less a commitment. Consequently it is proposed that an estimate be made of the taxes that would have been paid had the legislation been in effect from April 1, 1962 to March 31, 1964 and that such estimated amounts be paid to the provinces. It will come to about $6 million in total for the two years in question.
There is one further matter of importance that will be dealt with in the bill, that is, in the words of the resolution "To provide adjustment of fiscal arrangements and taxation provisions consequential upon the provision of youth allowances to parents resident in certain provinces". The bill dealing with the provision of the youth allowances has now been passed. The house is therefore familiar with the fact that it is not the intention to pay federal youth allowances in a province that provides its own system of schooling allowances on a basis similar to the federal plan. It is proposed that in such a province the federal income tax be reduced by a further 3 percentage points. This requires an amendment to provide an additional abatement of 3 percentage points under section 33 of the Income Tax Act. In provinces in which the federal youth allowances are paid it is proposed that the abatement under section 33 of the Income Tax Act be 21 per cent of the basic federal tax for the taxation year 1965 and in provinces which provide their own schooling allowances, 24 per cent of the basic federal tax.
The value of an additional abatement of 3 per cent in the federal income tax may be more or less than the value of the schooling allowances provided by the province. It is not intended that a province should be better off or worse off as a result of its decision to provide its own system of schooling allowances. If federal revenues decline more by reason of granting the additional 3 per cent abatement in a province providing its own system of schooling allowances than it would have cost the federal government to provide

the youth allowances in the province, we will recover this net loss from that province.
Conversely, if federal revenues are estimated to have declined less as a result of providing the additional 3 per cent abatement of federal individual income tax in a province providing its own system of schooling allowances than it would have cost the federal government to provide the youth allowances in that province, the federal government will pay this difference in cost to the province. Provision will be contained in the bill when it is before the committee for such adjustments.
I hope that the statement I have just made will provide a useful explanation of the subject matter covered by the resolution. The broad purpose is clear. It is to improve the financial position of the provinces and to contribute to order and harmony in federal provincial relations. The specific measures by which we achieve this broad purpose are, however, complex and difficult. I hope that my explanation of these matters has been sufficient but I shall be ready to amplify it later on in the course of debate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I call it 10.30.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the house leader about the business for the rest of the week, but may I suggest to him in view of the complexity of the statement we have just heard from the Minister of Finance he may have to revise his plan for the expediting of the business of the house. I doubt if any one of us anticipated the short resolution appearing as order No. 61 on the order paper would involve such a lengthy and complicated matter. Would the house leader indicate what he has in mind for the rest of the week?


Guy Favreau: May I ask the hon. gentleman from Winnipeg South Centre if what he means is that it is fair to state that the debate on the resolution concerning the fiscal arrangements will not be as short as was expected, and does he want to suggest that we should place the debate on it after some other legislation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not sure that the debate on the resolution would last very long, but with the bill following the resolution, the two combined, it seems to me they would occupy quite a bit of the time of the house and perhaps run over into next week.
Business of the House


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since this seems like an adjourned meeting of the house leaders might I suggest shifting to the 12 mile fishing limit tomorrow and taking this federal-provincial legislation on Thursday?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I feel that we should start by passing the resolution and carrying the bill on first reading, so that each member could have a copy of the legislation and compare it with the remarks just made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon). That would give us time to examine the bill before we discuss it.
Once the resolution has been passed and the bill read the first time, we could follow the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and go on to the bill concerning the fishing limits, and then we could come back to the legislation concerning federal-provincial fiscal arrangements.


Guy Favreau: I am impressed by the fact that the hon. member for Lapointe has read my mind so well. I think it would be fair to all parties if the order agreed to were not changed, because it would be appropriate for all concerned if the debate on the fiscal arrangements resolution were pursued tomorrow, after which would be called the 12 mile zone bill both for its committee stage and third reading. After that we would go back to the fiscal arrangements bill for second reading and committee stage and, we hope, third reading.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If the discussion on the resolution stage is not finished, the minister will not see his bill until next week.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am sure there have been some discussions and possibly some agreement among the house leaders. But as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) mentioned a few moments ago, members of the house can hardly have anticipated the complexity of the bill and of the resolution which has been presented to us in this statement by the minister. In order to be helpful I should like to suggest to the leader of the house and to the government that they would probably expedite the passage of this measure if they would give members of the opposition at least tomorrow in which to consider the statement the Minister
5188	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of Finance (Mr. Gordon) has made. Otherwise, I am sure the resolution will be discussed all day tomorrow and no progress will be made.


Guy Favreau: I will take responsibility for this. Although the order of business to be called by the government will be that just stated, I agree that if at a meeting of the house leaders between now and the resumption of the sitting tomorrow some different agreement is reached, we could proceed on the basis of that agreement. For the moment, the business of the house tomorrow will be as I have just announced.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Did the leader of the house announce the business for Friday?


Guy Favreau: On Friday we will have a day on estimates.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
(Subject matter of questions debated under adjournment motion).
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved:

John (Jack) McIntosh: The reason I asked my question today on orders of the day was twofold; there were two reasons for it. The first reason was in regard to the potential market in the United Kingdom for Canadian beef. Sometime ago, Canada did have a market for this type of beef in the United Kingdom and for some reason unknown we lost that market. It would seem to me that this is the ideal time for us to regain the market we had in the United Kingdom. It possibly is unfortunate that they had a drought in Argentina this past year and were unable to supply their customers.
From press reports I understand that the Americans have sent a shipment of beef to the United Kingdom. I noticed that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) in reply to a question put to him by the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Smallwood) said that the Canadian trade commissioner in Great Britain was investigating this, and he referred to it as a problem. To me, it is not a problem. As Canadians we should not be considering it as a problem. The people in the United Kingdom-yes, they have a problem because their beef prices are so high.


He also said the spread was not great enough. From press reports we understand that special cuts of beef are selling in the United Kingdom for $2 a pound. Similar cuts are selling in Canada at the present time for 79 cents. How much of a spread do you want? I realize these are probably the best cuts, but proportionately the spread should be the same all the way down. Certainly with the devaluation of the Canadian dollar our beef should again be in the running for that market. I ask the parliamentary secretary, what efforts have his department made to regain this market?
My second reason for asking this question has to do with a threatened drought this year in the northern part of the prairies. It may not develop, but unless we get rain very quickly farmers will be forced to sell their cattle herds. Unlike the southern part of the prairie provinces, where provision has been made for such catastrophes because they have had them in the past, the northern part of the prairies has seldom experienced such a catastrophe. They are not prepared for carrying over their herds; they are not prepared by having reserve feed, and they may be forced to settle their problem in one of two ways. They will either have to ship their cattle to the southern part of the province, which is very costly, or they will have to flood the market with this beef.
The department knows what will happen if the market is flooded. Prices will be depressed and this affects the economy of all Canada. I am sure we do not want this to happen. I am also thinking of the future in this connection. Canada is capable of producing much more beef than she can consume, and with the advent of ARDA and the proposed opening of new grazing lands in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, we can produce much more beef. If we do produce more beef, we must have markets in which to sell it. I would ask the department to do everything they possibly can to regain part of this market, bearing in mind that the Americans have already sent trial shipments to Great Britain, that we had this market on a prior occasion, and that there is a special process by which this beef can be prepared for shipment. It can be sent to the United Kingdom in refrigerated cars and ships. I understand that this special process does not require too much preparation. They strip the hides off the cattle, chill the beef and ship it. I realize that we cannot send live cattle over there because it is too costly. But this market was open to beef shippers in Canada before,

and I think this is a golden opportunity for Canada to recapture the market.
I hope the department will consider what I have suggested and that they have already had results from the investigation which the minister said he had under way when he was asked about this on a former occasion.


Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I would say, first, that the answer given by the minister on June 15 to a similar question still holds. Information gathered in the United Kingdom and on the continent by Department of Trade and Commerce officers has not only been collected but has actually been given to the meat packing houses in Canada. I investigated the matter this afternoon and understand that the meat packing houses are now making their beef available to potential buyers in the United Kingdom and Europe. For obvious reasons,
I think I cannot be more specific than that. There is nothing that one meat packing house wants less than to provide information to another meat packing house.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the parliamentary secretary a question? What program has the government got, in case there is a flood on the market of these cattle from the drought areas?
7, 1364	5189
Business of the House


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of this before. I will keep in touch with the situation. I understand the Minister of Agriculture will be back from Regina tomorrow, and I will bring the observations made by the hon. member to his attention. I am now joining with him in keeping the situation under close observation. I share his views on the development of beef raising in Canada, in the sense that I should like my own constituents to become more beef conscious, if I may put it that way, and I should like them to export in the same way as the hon. member would like his own people to export.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, with the agreement of the house may I put on Hansard the fact that after a short meeting of the house leaders, which meetings seem to have been very successful recently, it has been agreed that tomorrow as the first order of business we will proceed with the committee stage and third reading stage of the 12 mile fishing zone bill, after which we will carry on with the debate on the fiscal arrangements resolution.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 11.04 p.m.
20220-329J



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
Montreal, June 22, 1964. Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
We write to apprise you of a situation developing which may bring about a suspension of railway services in Canada.
On May 20, 1964, the Munroe conciliation board, appointed by the Minister of Labour to inquire into a dispute between the railways and their non-operating employees, submitted a majority report recommending wage increases during 1964 and 1965 totalling approximately 19.1 cents per hour or $32.50 per employee per month. This would add to the wage bills of Canadian National and Canadian Pacific amounts estimated at $18.2 million for 1964, $39.0 million for 1965 and $46.3 million for each succeeding year.
This was the latest of a series of conciliation board reports which have dealt with disputes between the railways and their nonoperating employees on a biennial basis since world war II. Between 1946 and 1959 these employees secured increases in wages, fringe benefits, or both, on seven successive occasions. To cover the added costs involved, the railways applied to and received authority from the board of transport commissioners to make general increases in freight rates, the last of which was an increase of 17 per cent effective December 1, 1958. Because this series of general freight rate increases gave rise to allegations of discrimination and inequities in the freight rate structure, in March, 1959, the government announced that no further general increases in freight rates would be permitted pending study by a royal commission to be appointed to inquire into railway transportation in Canada. On May 13, 1959, the MacPherson royal commission was appointed under terms set forth in P.C. 1959-577.
Subsequently parliament enacted the Freight Rates Reduction Act with effect from August 1, 1959, under which the 17 per cent increase in freight rates of December 1, 1958, was rolled back to 10 per cent and the sum
of $20 million per annum was provided to compensate the railways for the loss of revenues therefrom. On May 2, 1960, by order of the board of transport commissioners, the 17 per cent increase was further rolled back from 10 per cent to 8 per cent.
In 1960 the non-operating employees made further demands upon the railways. The conciliation board which dealt with that dispute recommended wage increases totalling some 14 cents per hour together with improved vacation benefits. The railways rejected the report and a strike called for December 3, 1960, was averted by parliament which passed the Railway Operation Continuation Act preventing strike action until May 15, 1961. In the meantime, in March, 1961, the MacPherson royal commission submitted the first volume of its report. The government decided, pending receipt of the complete report, to make interim payments to the railways related to the recommendations of the royal commission in the amount of $50 million per annum. The dispute between the railways and the non-operating employees was settled on the basis of the majority report of the conciliation board and the Railway Operation Continuation Act lapsed.
The second volume of the MacPherson royal commission report was released in January, 1962. In the meantime, the nonoperating employees had made further demands in respect of the years 1962-63. That dispute was settled on the basis of the unanimous report of a conciliation board which added 9 cents per hour to railway payroll costs. The railways accepted the report and undertook the added costs involved which, together with increases accorded running trades employees, totalled some $31.7 million on a recurring annual basis, in anticipation of legislative action to implement the recommendations of the royal commission. As you are aware, such action has been repeatedly delayed.
In the meantime, however, government has further circumscribed the ability of the railways to raise added revenues to meet increased costs and, indeed, has impaired their sources of revenues. On May 7, 1959, by order in council P.C. 1959-569, the authority
[Stage Direction]
granted by the board of transport commissioners, sustained on appeal by the Supreme Court of Canada, to apply demurrage charges on cars loaded with grain consigned to terminal elevators in western Canada, was suspended and has remained so ever since. By an amendment to the Railway Act, on August 1, 1961, the statutory rates covering the movement of grain and grain products in western Canada enacted by parliament in 1925, were made applicable to rapeseed as well. This was done after the board of transport commissioners had dismissed an application that rapeseed be classed as grain. As a result, this artificially low level of rates which is applicable to so large a segment of the railways' traffic and which has become increasingly onerous in the face of rising costs, was not only continued but, indeed, extended with impairment to the revenue position of the railways. On March 30, 1961, by order in council P.C. 1961-497, increases in the at-and-east grain rates authorized by the board of transport commissioners which found the rates in effect to be below cost, were suspended. Successive orders in council have continued this suspension, currently until December 31, 1964.
Throughout the post-war period the railways have necessarily had to accord operating and other employees increases in wages and fringe benefits generally comparable to those secured by the non-operating employees. Recently material prices which had been relatively stable for some time have started to move upwards.
Incidentally, although the railways have continued in effect the reductions in freight rates brought about by the Freight Rates Reduction Act, and while the government has given assurance of its intention to place before parliament the matter of payments at the same rate as last year, this has not yet been done and the railways have not been in receipt of interim payments since December 31, 1963, or payments in respect of the Freight Rates Reduction Act since March 31, 1964.
More recently, the Minister of Transport has stated that no branch line abandonments in western Canada will be permitted pending enactment of legislation based on the Mac-Pherson royal commission report.
Thus the railways find themselves by the action of government deprived of authority to raise added revenues to meet increased costs and circumscribed in their ability to
effect economies through the discontinuance of unremunerative operations. Under these conditions, they cannot undertake the responsibility of assuming added costs of the magnitude implicit in the majority report of the Munroe conciliation board.
Even though rejection of the report may inevitably lead to a railway strike, existing circumstances leave us no alternative. Before taking this action, however, we felt the matter should be placed before you. We will be available for a meeting with you to explore the situation further if that should be desired.
Yours truly,
D. Gordon,
Chairman and president Canadian National Railways
N. R. Crump,
Chairman and president Canadian Pacific Railway Company
The Rt. Hon. L. B. Pearson,
Prime Minister,
Ottawa 4, Ont.
The following communication was directed by the Prime Minister to the presidents of the railways in reply to their letter of June 22, 1964.
Canadian National Telecommunications Ottawa, June 30, 1964.
The letter which you sent forward on June 22, dealing with the wage negotiations between the railways and their non-operating employees and the report of the conciliation board on this matter, has been studied with great care. The federal government is aware of the difficulties for the railways which are inherent in this situation.
The government has indicated to you its firm intention to proceed with new railway legislation which will satisfy major objectives of the report of the MacPherson royal commission on transportation. At the same time, it is recognized that, while the resolution preceding introduction of this legislation is awaiting consideration by parliament, other items of parliamentary business must be dealt with first. This makes it likely that some time will pass before the MacPherson legislation can be considered by parliament.
In these special circumstances the government would undertake to review the situation in six months' time. This review would
[Stage Direction]
take place in the light of an impartial examination of the costs of a wage settlement by the railways in the situation described in your letter, so that the government would be afforded an opportunity to decide what
additional temporary financial adjustments would be justified to assist the railways during the period up to the coming into effect of the proposed new railway legislation.
L. B. Pearson.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, July 8, 1964