1964-07-21

THE GOVERNOR GENERAL


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I should like to announce that Her Majesty the Queen has been graciously pleased to approve the continuance in office of General the Right Honourable Georges Philias Vanier as Governor General of Canada for a further and additional period of one year from the autumn of 1964. This extension of the Governor General's term is a recognition of the dedicated and distinguished manner in which General Vanier has carried out the high responsibilities of his vice regal office. I am sure the Canadian people will welcome the extension which the Governor General has indicated his willingness to accept, and the fact that His Excellency's health makes it possible for him to undertake this responsibility for a further period.
One of the happiest aspects of the extension of the term of General Vanier is that it will mean the continued presence in Rideau Hall of Madame Vanier, whose grace and charm and warmth has so endeared her to Canadians.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: While the cabinet approves the recommendation of a governor general to the Crown, this is one of the prerogatives, as it were, which rests with the Prime Minister. In 1959, I recommended to the Queen that General Vanier was the most outstanding Canadian with the qualifications for the responsibilities which would be his as Governor General of Canada and, as such, the representative of Her Majesty. The intervening years have shown that in the discharge of his duties and in the exercise of his authority General Vanier has acted with greatness, with wisdom, with distinction and, in association with Madame Vanier, with grace. They have honoured the positions they occupy, and I congratulate the government on extending the term of office.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: The willingness of His Excellency Governor General Vanier to remain in his present position for another year will be hailed with enthusiasm by people in all parts of this country. It has been my privilege to have met all the governors general from Lord Tweedsmuir to the present day, and I know of none more popular or more highly respected than the present Governor General, and what I say with respect to him applies equally to Madame Vanier, who is greatly beloved in this country.
I am sure all members of the house will express the hope that His Excellency will enjoy good health throughout the balance of this addition to his term.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there is no single matter on which we in this house and all Canadians will join so unitedly in expressing our pleasure as the fact that Governor General Vanier has been invited to accept and has accepted the responsibility of an additional term of office as Governor General of Canada. All of us who have had the privilege of knowing the Governor General and Madame Vanier personally understand in a special way, I am sure, just how well they have fitted into their responsibilities and have drawn to this office the united support of the Canadian people. I am sure, also, that the Governor General and Madame Vanier are equally loved by those who have not had this privilege.
I believe that the general acceptance of the conference on the family, which they personally sponsored, is indicative of the tremendous good will they have engendered and the tremendous importance of the position they hold at this time as a unifying force in Canada.
Therefore, on behalf of our party and personally, I join in extending congratulations to the Prime Minister for approving the extension of their term of office, and send our best wishes and love to the Governor General and Madame Vanier.


Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, it gives us great pleasure to join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in

Inquiries of the Ministry paying tribute to the Governor General oi Canada, General Vanier, who has accepted to continue in his high position for another year.
Mr. and Mrs. Vanier have been a credit to Canada since they have been filling their important functions, that is, since 1959. Every Canadian, both English speaking and French speaking, is proud of them. They have visited our country from east to west and north to south, and everywhere they have won the affection of all right-thinking Canadians.
Our group wishes them good health and a great deal of happiness.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is the Secretary of State for External Affairs in a position to add anything material to what he said yesterday with regard to the Cyprus situation; and has any extra authority been requested for the Canadian forces in Cyprus, in view of the fact that the orders under which they operated originally have too often limited the discharge of their responsibility?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the United Nations force, including Canada, have had their directives changed from time to time. Recently additional powers were given to them in respect of a particular area near Nicosia.


John George Diefenbaker: When was that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was about a week ago. Yesterday I made reference to meetings which we were having with the contributing powers at the United Nations. A meeting with our permanent representative took place yesterday and I myself had a meeting this morning with the ambassadors for Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Great Britain and Australia, Austria and New Zealand who are contributing police forces. There will be further meetings, as I have indicated, tomorrow and perhaps the day after in New York with the same countries.
I may say that the ambassador for Ireland reminded me this morning that a few days ago the government of Ireland made a decision to send another 400 men to participate in the Irish contingent in the United Nations force. This is, I think, in keeping with the

conviction of that country, and the other participating members, that the United Nations continues, in face of great difficulties, to have a very important role to play. I hope it will be permitted to play that role.
Yesterday I indicated that the secretary general had received a reply from the prime minister of Greece. I learned just before I came into the house that replies have now come in to him from the head of the government of Cyprus and from the vice president representing the Turkish Cypriot community. I have not yet seen these communications.


John George Diefenbaker: Has any word been
received from the prime minister of Turkey relative to alleged incursions by Turkish forces, and the issuance by him of a denial of any such further occurrences?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I know of none yet, Mr. Speaker.


CANADIAN MEMBERSHIP IN ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the forthcoming meeting of the organization of American states and the fact that the Venezuelan suggestion of sanctions against Cuba is likely to receive widespread support at this meeting, has the government of Canada re-evalued its own position in relation to the O.A.S.?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Stale for External Affairs: The Canadian government is re-evaluating that position, as my hon. friend has put it, but that re-evaluation would have no relation to this particular meeting, which has to do with sanctions against Cuba.


Robert Norman Thompson: Does the minister not consider that this whole topic and this meeting are of great concern to Canada, and does the government not plan some action?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows, as perhaps no one else sitting in that corner of the house does, that the government does have a very deep concern about this situation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister give the house the assurance that Canada will make no application for membership in the organization of American states without this matter being referred to parliament?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would not exactly say that would be the correct order. The government, of course, must take its position in connection with policy. This is a matter that would be discussed in parliament at the appropriate time.


John George Diefenbaker: Has there been any change in the thinking of the minister or the Prime Minister; because during the election campaign they promised that the acceptance of Canada as a member of the organization of American states was a matter that was going to receive immediate and effective action.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: The answer to that question is that there has been no change.


RECOGNITION OP QUEBEC DELEGATION IN PARIS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
£Translation]
Mr. Maurice Cole (Chicoulimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he tell the house whether he had time to consider the request made by the provincial government with a view to obtaining the status of general consulate for the Quebec delegation in Paris?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Stale for External Affairs: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I had time to consider the request, but I am not now in a position to give a final answer.



KASHMIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs will not mind another question. It is a twofold one relating to the situation in Kashmir. Can the minister confirm the reports that Canada has doubled her contribution to the Kashmir operation and, second, has the government been approached by the United Nations to increase its effort beyond this to this controversial area?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, there has been no such specific request made by the United Nations. The increase is something that arises partly from rotation by the various participants in this observation mission.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Norman Thompson: The report says Canada has doubled her contribution. Can the minister confirm this?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I just said that what has happened is pursuant to the principle of rotation with regard to this observation mission.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport with reference to the picketing in Montreal of the ship Canuck Trader. May I ask the minister whether this ship was given the Department of Transport contract to supply far northern points, which contract was taken from the motor ship Eskimo, which was specifically built for that purpose. If so, when this transfer was made was the Department of Transport aware that the ship Canuck Trader while in Hong Kong had dismissed its Canadian crew and taken on a Chinese crew?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Canuck Trader has been given a charter for this season for northern supplies, but this charter was not taken from anybody; it was open and available for bids. The bid of the owners of the Canuck Trader, who are Canadian citizens and taxpayers, was $1,000 a day less than that of the Eskimo.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the department decided to save $1,000 a day on this contract was the department aware of the fact, first, that the Canuck Trader was not under Canadian registry although it is owned by a Canadian company; and second, that it had dismissed a crew of Quebec residents and taken on Chinese seamen in order to reduce its costs?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it may be fairly said, Mr. Speaker, that the department was aware of the fact that the ship was not on Canadian register, but that is was lawfully plying Canadian waters and was on British register. It was known that the crew were not Canadians. The additional information which the hon. member has given me now was certainly not known to me.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question. Could I ask the minister if he would be

Inquiries of the Ministry prepared to look into the matter and see whether this could not be corrected?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have been looking into the matter for quite some time and it seems to me that it would be rather difficult at the present time to alter the situation, in view of the commitments that have been made.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a further supplementary question. Would the minister consider the formulation of some new policy to deal with recurring situations of this kind?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be very glad, sir, to give careful consideration to the suggestion of the hon. gentleman. It may very well be that in this particular matter the wisest judgment has not been shown, and I would be very glad indeed to consider every aspect of the situation.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Could he tell the house whether his department could provide forms for tender in French when contracts are to be awarded within the province of Quebec? I have here a form for tender sent to Amos, an exclusively French speaking locality. Three weeks ago a local contractor asked for French forms, but up to now he has not had a reply.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I shall look into this matter without delay.



POSSIBLE SALE OF JET AIRCRAFT TO MALAYSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the minister of defence or possibly to the Minister of Industry. It is in relation to the Reuters news agency report from London early today which says that the prime minister of Malaysia is trying to buy surplus jet aircraft from Canada. My question is, does Canada have surplus jet aircraft, and what kind are they?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the news report to


which reference has been made indicates that the prime minister of Malaysia is hopeful of buying aircraft from new production, not surplus aircraft.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Now that the conference on the Hall report on health services has concluded, is the government prepared to announce its priorities as between a health plan and a pension plan?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minisier of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Will the minister inform the house if the government or her department have decided to take basic responsibility for the coverage of the mentally ill and those in tubercular institutions?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps it might be better if I had a little more time. The conference has been over for about half an hour now, and I would be pleased later this week to make a statement with regard to what was decided at the health ministers' conference.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: May I ask a
supplementary question. On Friday last I asked the minister a question and she said she would look into the matter and report to the house this week. My question related to the representation of the two northern governments of the Yukon and Northwest Territories at this very important conference. Is she in a position to answer now?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am informed they have never been represented, and we will not be departing from that procedure at this time.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielie-L'Assomplion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Can she tell the house whether during the health ministers' conference in Ottawa there was any reference to the recommendation of the Hall commission to entrust with the provinces the administration of health services for Indians and Eskimos?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me the minister indicated that she would be making a statement within a reasonable time.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the Minister of Labour is in a position to make a report regarding the Northland Transportation strike, and whether he has evaluated the serious consequences not only to the people served by these ships but also to industry in the areas in question. What further action is the government going to take to end a situation that is rapidly approaching serious proportions?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this work stoppage involving two vessels and 30 to 40 seamen has been in effect now for about a week. It is based on the desire for an increased rate of wages and improvement in overtime conditions. Two experienced members of the conciliation service of the Department of Labour are at present on the west coast and are standing ready to assist in any way possible in the adjustment of this dispute. It may be that certain hardship will be experienced temporarily by certain industries on the west coast as a result of the cessation of service by these two vessels, but it is expected that alternative arrangements can be made to reduce this hardship to the very minimum. In the meantime every effort will be made to adjust the dispute.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the minister it may be that serious results will follow and in fact already have, and the people are suffering great inconvenience. The minister mentioned alternative ways in which these difficulties or inconveniences or worse will be ameliorated. What did the minister mean in that regard? What alternatives are being pursued and are to be followed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I had in mind, Mr. Speaker, that in cases of this kind where transportation services are interrupted alternative arrangements can usually be made, as was the case recently in Newfoundland 20220-364
Inquiries of the Ministry over a protracted period of time when Clarke Steamships were held up. Traffic moved in that instance, and I think in this case the same thing will likely take place.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister any solid basis in fact for the suggestion that this expectation may be realized? What is the government doing in that connection outside of its limited jurisdiction to assure that these people will not be made to suffer because of a dispute involving the S.I.U. or another trade union?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The dispute is between Northland and Northwest Shipping Companies and the C.B.R.T. It is related to a work situation involving both the C.B.R.T. and the S.I.U., but in this case the dispute is between the companies and the C.B.R.T. My right hon. friend will realize that this strike is in accordance with labour legislation and is in pursuance of the legal right of the workers to take this method to reach their objectives. The solid basis I had in indicating that alternative arrangements might be made is the experience that has taken place in other cases where work stoppages have occurred.


John George Diefenbaker: Is this a correct summary; that without assistance from the minister or the federal government it is expected that something may turn up that will result in these people not suffering, as they will suffer unless action is taken?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend ought to keep this work stoppage in perspective. It involves two vessels and 35 to 40 people.


John George Diefenbaker: What about all the people in the towns and villages?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is not of the great dimension my right hon. friend is attempting to imply.


John George Diefenbaker: By his answer does the minister minimize the effect on these various towns and villages on the Pacific coast? Is he minimizing or ridiculing it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Labour is taking this dispute very seriously, and every effort is being made through the conciliation services to adjust the dispute. The department is attempting to take a realistic approach and not exaggerate the seriousness of an already serious situation.


John George Diefenbaker: The people there will be glad to know you underestimate it.
5740	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry



TORONTO-USE OF U.S. STRIKEBREAKERS IN NEWSPAPER DISPUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister, although it may involve the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. My question relates to the dispute between the international typographical union and the three Toronto daily newspapers, but may I make it clear that I recognize that this dispute comes under provincial jurisdiction. However, my question relates to a purely federal angle. Is the government aware that although a number of professional strikebreakers have been denied entry from the United States to Canada to work in one or more of these plants, some have got in and are exacerbating the situation? Will the government investigate the matter to And out how this was possible?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to look into the matter.



INQUIRIES RESPECTING &quot;DO NOT SHIP&quot; LIST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Yesterday I directed a question to the Minister of Justice in the absence of the Minister of Labour, in reference to inquiries respecting do not ship lists dealing with a particular individual and 1,200 others who were denied the right to ship on vessels on the great lakes because of discrimination, and he promised there would be a report. I wonder whether the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Justice can now give the house a report in this regard.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I read this question in yesterday's Hansard, and I am taking steps to inquire into the facts with respect to the individual mentioned by the hon. member.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Bow River. In view of the concern felt by a good number of members of this house with respect to the operations of the trustees, and the suspicion in certain quarters that a deal has been made with Paul Hall for the surrender of Canadian rights to the disadvantage of Canadian seamen, would the hon. gentleman consider having the trustees come before the industrial


relations committee so they can answer questions and quieten our fears.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am prepared to consider this matter again. It has already been considered and some time ago, as the house knows, I communicated with the trustees on this matter. In their view at that time it would not be in the public interest, or in the interest of carrying out their functions, for them to appear before a committee of this house. However, I will be glad to consider the matter again.


Mr. Graffiey:: What is your view?


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: In answering the hon. member for Bow River with respect to the individual who maintains he was on a do not ship list, the minister informed the house he would look into this situation. How can he do that, bearing in mind that not long ago in this house he denied the existence of a do not ship list?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think the hon. member misunderstood the answer I gave, which was in connection with a particular individual. I promised the hon. member for Bow River I would investigate that particular case. With respect to the do not ship list in general my answer has not changed; it is the same as the answer I gave some weeks ago.


Malcolm MacInnis: The minister has referred to a do not ship list in general. Yet in the house, not too long ago, did not the minister deny the existence of such a list?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the hon. member would rephrase his question.


Malcolm MacInnis: Did not the minister deny the existence of a do not ship list in this house not too long ago?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I did, of course, convey to the house the information I received from the chairman of the board of trustees, Mr. Justice Dryer, that there was no do not ship list in existence, that no such list could be located in the S.I.U. headquarters and that to the knowledge of the trustees it had been destroyed. That is the information which I conveyed on the strength of the word of the chairman.


Malcolm MacInnis: Does not this information now given to the house by the Minister of Labour confirm the need for the question put by the hon. member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is becoming an argument.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of his continual stressing of the fact that the maritime trustees are responsible to parliament, would he not convey to them the feeling of parliament that they should appear before the industrial relations committee; and that in view of the fact they are responsible to parliament, they should not defy parliament by objecting to appearing before this committee?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to convey to the board of trustees the views expressed by the hon. member for Ontario and by other members of the house to the effect that it would be desirable for the members of the board, or the chairman, to appear before a parliamentary committee. On several occasions I have discussed this matter with the chairman and other members of the board, and in each case it was the sincere views expressed by these men that their work might be prejudiced by that kind of public discussion of their day to day activities. That is their basis for indicating that they would prefer not to appear. However, if the chairman of the board or the members of the board express a desire to appear before a parliamentary committee, or acquiesce in the wish expressed by my hon. friend, I will be glad to facilitate their appearance as much as I can.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of Labour not repeat to them that if they felt this would be detrimental to their function, this committee could meet with them in camera, as we suggested earlier, so they will actually have no reason not to agree to appear before this committee?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to convey the view to the chairman of the board that it would be acceptable to members of the house if such a meeting could be held in camera.


Michael Starr: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would not the minister also add his support to this request?


Mr. Churchill:: Instead of just being a messenger boy.


Michael Starr: I wonder whether the minister would acquiesce in this request and add his support to this wish of the members of the house.
20220-364i
Inquiries of the Ministry


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have already indicated that I would do anything I could to facilitate the appearance of the board of trustees before a parliamentary committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Urge them to come.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: But I must still attempt to observe the law passed by this house, that the board is not under the direction of the Minister of Labour, although I will be glad to make known to the board what I would like to happen in this case.


Michael Starr: I ask a further supplementary question; I think this is very important. Does not the minister agree that the board of trustees should appear before the industrial relations committee?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have always taken the view that it might be desirable for the board of trustees to appear before a parliamentary committee, but I have always left this to the board itself in the exercise of the authority given to it by this parliament. I am not in a position to direct the chairman of the board to take this course of action.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Would the minister inform the trustees that he himself has received a letter listing a dozen or more people who are still on the "do not ship" list, which list the trustees themselves deny exists?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Already last week end I asked one of my officials to take this matter up in detail with the chairman and the members of the board. It is my understanding that this was done early this week in an effort to track down the allegations made in this letter from a former member of the S.I.U., who himself has had a rather controversial history within the organization.


Malcolm MacInnis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the legislation setting up the trustees made the trustees responsible to parliament, does not the Minister of Labour agree that the wishes of parliament supersede the wishes of the trustees themselves, and that they should appear before the industrial relations committee?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend should understand that these gentlemen are trustees, and in the exercise of their trusteeship given to them by parliament surely their judgment in matters of this kind ought to be given great weight and

Inquiries of the Ministry respect by members of the House of Commons and also members of the public. If at any time great weight is not to be given to their judgment, then they will find it very difficult to exercise the trusteeship assigned to them.


Malcolm MacInnis: Is the Minister of Labour not aware of the fact that I doubt their judgment, and that is why I, along with many others, wish to see them appear before this committee?



MONTREAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Si. Hyacinihe-Bagoi):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Forestry?
Could the minister report to the house on the negotiations which he undertook in relation to the extended strike at the newspaper La Pressed


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see how this concerns the responsibilities of the Minister of Forestry.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to formulate anew my question to the Minister of Transport respecting cloud seeding in the Saguenay-Lake St. John area. Is he in a position today to give me an answer?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think I can make my reply very brief and say that the Department of Transport does its best to report the weather and even to forecast the weather, but up to now we have not tried to make the weather.



SUBSIDY ON WHEAT PRODUCED FOR DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a question for the government arising out of the reply given to question 1,451 yesterday. The question was:


Has the government, or any spokesman for the government, promised to pay a subsidy for farmers who produce wheat for domestic bread consumption-
And the reply was:
In so far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned, no.
I wonder whether the government could take this as notice and give a more detailed reply to that question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We would be glad to do that.



PROVISION OF FEED LOT FOR SASKATCHEWAN CATTLE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfort-Tisdale):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In his absence I should like to ask his parliamentary secretary to take it as notice. The minister made a statement yesterday with regard to joint federal-provincial assistance to the drought-stricken areas of Saskatchewan. No mention was made that the government would undertake to have a feed lot set up at stockyards say at St. Boniface, Manitoba, for cattle which the market cannot readily absorb. Would the minister give serious consideration to this proposal and see that this does not become a case of providing too little too late, as was the case with regard to a number of cattle-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Reynold Rapp: I should like to discuss this matter on the 10.30 p.m. show.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we could do it in sequence. Would the hon. member put his question on the order paper? Then he might discuss it at 10.30.


Reynold Rapp: On a question of privilege, according to the rules I have the right to ask that this matter be debated at 10.30 tonight.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wish to direct to the Secretary of State, but in his absence perhaps the Prime Minister can give me an answer. As a basis for my question I refer to a speech the minister made at Stratford on July 12, the text of which has just come into my hands from his office this morning. In paragraph 6 on page 3 of his speech, referring to

programs in the public domain initiated by the federal government for the centennial, he said:
Then there is the confederation memorial program providing federal grants not exceeding $2.5 million to each province, to help finance the raising of a commemorative building in every provincial capital. Most of the provinces have selected their project now, and five of them-P.E.I., Newfoundland, Quebec, Manitoba and probably Saskatchewan -will build capital centres for the performing arts, to complete a Canadian cultural centre network!
Has the government had representations from the premier of Saskatchewan asking that the provision requiring the funds to be used for the raising of a commemorative building in every provincial capital be changed and, if so, has this requirement been changed as a result?


Mr. Speaker:: Important as the question is, it does not seem to me to have that sense of urgency that requires an immediate answer.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: With due deference, Mr. Speaker, there is urgency because committees have been set up based on this requirement, and I want to know if it still holds.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I believe a letter has been received from the premier of Saskatchewan. I shall look into the matter at once and see how it stands.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has he received a communication from councillor W. S. MacLean of Eureka, Nova Scotia, regarding the application of the C.N.R. to remove the agent from the station at Hopewell, Nova Scotia? The reason I ask is that the hearing into the matter will be held next week, on July 30, and it is a matter of great urgency to the whole area.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, in view of the wide national importance of the question I shall look into it at once and try to give an answer.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National
Inquiries of the Ministry Resources made an announcement outside the house concerning a matter of far reaching importance to the economy of Canada, and particularly of the Yukon, with respect to a survey for a railroad. Could the minister report to the house any definite arrangements between the government and the company concerned?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely this question could be put on the order paper so that a detailed answer could be given.


Erik Nielsen: With respect, if Your Honour is ruling it out of order on the grounds of urgency I would like to give notice to debate it at 10.30.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice and ask whether it is possible for him now to put at rest the rumour and speculation relative to the construction of a new penitentiary for women. Can he say whether a decision has yet been reached as to the location? If not, when is it anticipated that a decision will be reached; and third, when a location has been decided upon, is it correct, as rumour has it, that construction will not begin prior to the latter part of 1965 or perhaps in 1966?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: On Saturday before last, I spent approximately four hours with representatives of various groups interested in this question. I will shortly be in a position to report to the house as to the government's stand with respect to this matter.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arihur):: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a long question Mr. Speaker. I got the idea from a propaganda leaflet in favour of the red ensign being distributed to members of parliament in the name of the Royal Canadian Legion in Flesherton and printed by the Canadian Intelligence Service Press at Flesherton managed by Ron Costick and Pat Walsh, who are also the leaders of the Christian Action movement.

Inquiries of the Ministry I wish to ask the Prime Minister if he has any answer to give to the question raised in this house by the hon. member for Royal on May 4. The Prime Minister said he had received a telegram from the mayor of Moncton and he intended to look into the matter because he appreciated its importance. I should like to ask him whether he has anything further to report on this rather odd organization.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have not today, but perhaps I will tomorrow. I will look into it.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Can he tell us whether there was some correspondence exchanged between himself and the Quebec premier with regard to Bill No. C-110 concerning loans to students, and if so, would he be prepared to table that correspondence for the benefit of hon. members?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I would be glad to inquire whether this would be acceptable to the premier of Quebec. If it is, as I am sure it will be, I would be glad to table the only document concerned, which is the telegram to which I referred yesterday.



FLAG DEBATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Justice in his capacity as house leader?
Could the minister tell the house, in view of the fact that all hon. members have now expressed their opinions, if the government would be ready to accept the following suggestion:
That the vote on the flag be taken first and the speeches made afterwards?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, that suggestion is certainly attractive, and it would be even more so if we could the same day table all our speeches and take the vote. I am afraid however that this is impossible under the present parliamentary procedure.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Orlikow: Last Thursday the Minister of Justice, in answer to a question, said he would be having a meeting with the authorities on Monday in connection with possible prosecutions in connection with the distribution of hate literature and that he would be reporting to the house on the matter at an early date. I wonder if the hon. gentleman has any report to make as yet to the house.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that because I did not have my little hearing aid on I missed the first part of the question. I am not sure whether the question related to the report that the R.C.M.P. were supposed to make to the attorney general of Ontario. Was the question directed to that matter?


David Orlikow: Yes.


Guy Favreau: In this respect, Mr. Speaker, my understanding was-and I think the position of the attorney general of Ontario has not changed in this regard-that if legally admissible evidence could be submitted to him he would be ready to entertain a test case under the present provisions of the Criminal Code to ascertain whether or not the Criminal Code covered hate literature. However, I must report that in so far as the R.C.M.P. are concerned, it has not been possible as yet to submit evidence which, within the jurisdiction of Ontario, would link one given person or a group of persons with responsibility for having either uttered or circulated the literature which has been brought to the attention of this house.
I think it is in this context that the recent declaration of the attorney general of Ontario must be read and intepreted. As far as his willingness to entertain any such test case should legally admissible evidence be offered, I do not believe he has changed his mind.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice whether, with all the material which is being distributed, and no admissible evidence yet having been found which could be used, the minister will now give more urgent consideration to new legislation which might handle the hate literature which is being distributed.


Guy Favreau: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the house must understand that the difficulty is in obtaining evidence which can legally trace to one given person responsibility for uttering or circulating such literature within the jurisdiction of one given province. But as far as the second part of the question is concerned, I may assure my hon. friend that the matter, as I have already stated in this house, is being actively pursued.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence?
Since last Friday the minister stated that he was against the unrestricted posting of bilingual signs on properties belonging to the Department of National Defence everywhere in Canada, does he intend to recommend that the government restrict the use of bilingual currency and cheques in Canada to the districts inhabited by French Canadians? After all, he must be logical with himself.


Mr. J. A. Habel (Cochrane):: As Mr. Bennett did in 1929 and 1932.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Kent, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. The minister is aware of recent regulations in some national parks, including Point Pelee national park, preventing their use by minors who are not accompanied by an adult. Can the minister inform the house whether his department has been able to implement a method of policing, to prevent vandalism, so
Inquiries of the Ministry these regulations may be modified to allow these children to once more take advantage of the extensive camping facilities?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It does seem to me this is a question for the order paper.


Harold Warren Danforth: May I give notice of debate at 10.30, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Prime Minister. Does the government have any word as to whether the parliament at Westminster has yet put through all its stages the bill amending our constitution which we asked that parliament to pass?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is my impression, Mr. Speaker, that the bill has gone through all its stages, but I would like to confirm that.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Justice is prepared now to answer the question I asked of him last Friday with respect to the conviction and sentence of two members of the R.C.M. Police over what the press called misapplication of funds?


Guy Favreau: still am not in a position to report to the house on that particular matter, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In a press release from his department dated July 8 attention is drawn to the fact that the Finns, Danes and Swedes are all given higher rates of pay than Canadian troops in Cyprus. It goes on to say that a Brazilian private earns nearly twice as much as a Canadian captain, and that the Swedes are paying a $200 bonus to their troops to stay on for a second three months' period.

Inquiries of the Ministry
In view of this situation, to which attention has been drawn by the minister's own department, does he intend to take any steps to raise the pay and allowances of the Canadian troops serving in Cyprus?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: This matter has been under review, Mr. Speaker, but no decision in the affirmative has yet been reached.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES PROPOSED TRIP BY ROYAL COMMISSION TO INTERVIEW TROOPS ABROAD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Could he indicate to the house whether it is true that the members of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism will soon go to Europe to interview members of the Canadian forces now serving overseas?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I had no report to that effect. However, I shall make inquiries and as soon as I have a reply, I will inform the hon. member.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the commission has already spent half a million dollars in taxes paid by the Canadian taxpayers, but settled practically nothing, does the government intend to give that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: -to eastern farmers who need it for the future?



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  A. B. Paiterson@Fraser Valley: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he has any information to give the house in reply to my question of a few days ago with respect to the conference sponsored by the Canadian institute of public relations in co-operation with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, as I said the other day the C.B.C. has nothing to do with the selection of speakers and guests; but I understand that as a result of the protests which have been made in this house those responsible for invitations have tried to repair the errors which were made in the first place.


Mr. Patterson:: A supplementary question based on a reference made by a leading Canadian intellectual in an article in a newspaper-


Harold Edward Winch: Is he a member of the House of Commons?


Alexander Bell Patterson: Yes-to the effect that a certain sum of money has been paid by the C.B.C. to this particular institute. I wonder whether the Secretary of State could advise the house just how much the C.B.C. does contribute to this conference.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I will transfer this request of the hon. member to the C.B.C. for an answer.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Can the minister tell us whether, in view of all the requests which have been made on this side of the house as well as on that side for a committee on broadcasting to be set up, he would give consideration to doing that so we can get into some of these things?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the estimates of my department will be up for consideration at some time, and I think that would be the appropriate time to raise such objections.


Bert Raymond Leboe: A supplementary question. Is it not a fact that the minister is not responsible for the C.B.C., and therefore his estimates have nothing to do with the problem we have in mind? We want a committee on broadcasting. Is the minister going to consider this matter?


Eric Alfred Winkler: A supplementary question; the minister can answer both questions at the same time. Inasmuch as we will probably be sitting here for the course of the summer, it might be wise to have some other course of consideration.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, July 20, consideration in committee of Bill No.

C-110, to facilitate the making of loans to students-Mr. Gordon-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
Mr, Gregoire:: Mr. Chairman, to continue with the remarks I was making last night,
I would like to deal with some of the comments made yesterday by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) in his rather vitriolic speech.
In a nutshell here is what he says: "There has been enough talk, let us take a vote on the bill. If you are not satisfied with the bill, vote against it; if you are, vote for it, so that the bill can be passed and all the students benefit by it".
In other words, since the majority in the house will vote in favour of the bill, it means that the majority will outnumber those upholding the constitutional right.
It also means that the majority will be able to violate the rights of the minority when the vote is taken.
I wonder if this is the type of co-operation which the hon. member for Port Arthur has been claiming for some time between the two great races which have built this country.
In my opinion before voting on such a bill we should have at least the time to express our views and try, if possible, to have the bill amended so that it may satisfy everyone. That is the least a people living under a democratic system could ask for.
This problem brings up the whole matter of the foundation of confederation.
If there is a field where the intrusion of the federal government is unwanted, it is in the educational field. When the federal government tries to intrude in that field, I maintain and repeat that this is a provocation of the French Canadian minority in the country, whose rights were embodied in the constitution of 1867.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) mentioned that the province of Quebec had made known its intention not to take advantage of this legislation, but it has been said right after that the province of Quebec will receive alternative payments under section 12 of Bill No. C-110.
In other words, Ottawa will levy taxes in the province of Quebec, like elsewhere, and will charitably turn over a certain sum of money to that province so that it can set up its own system. The federal government will still be controlling the sources of income through which the province of Quebec can develop its own educational system, so that if, at
Loans to Students
any time Ottawa wants to deprive the province of Quebec of its sources of income nothing can prevent it from doing so.
The alternative payments mentioned in Bill No. C-110 actually are tantamount to a charitable donation given by the federal government to the province of Quebec and to the provinces unwilling to take advantage of this legislation.
We want the province of Quebec to be able to levy itself the taxes it needs in order to meet the obligations it would have to assume if it were itself to implement Bill No. C-110.
In that respect, the Minister of Finance replies that it would be a difficult implementation because the amounts granted to the provinces, for tax deductions, would be extremely small, about $700,000, which would hardly be equivalent to one tenth of 1 per cent of the personal income tax.
Some contend that it is better to take compensation payments because the amount is extremely small. Here is my answer to the Minister of Finance: whether the amount be small or large, this is for us a matter of principle. We do not want the federal government to levy taxes and hand them over to the province of Quebec, to enable it to act in the field of education. We believe that the province of Quebec must collect its own taxes, whatever they amount to, and use them in the field of education.
If it is agreed for $700,000 because it is a small amount, it can be agreed as well for $1 million, because it is still a small amount, it can be agreed for $2 million because it is also a small amount compared to the federal government's budget of $6.5 billion; it can be agreed for $3 million because it is less than 1 per cent of the budget, for $5 million because it is still less than 1 per cent of personal income taxes. At that rate, when will an amount be small or big? That will be left to the discretion of the Minister of Finance, and the province of Quebec will keep on losing the control and jurisdiction it should have in the field of education.
It is then a question of principle, because even though we are told that the province of Quebec does not share in the benefits of Bill No. C-110, it falls within its scope, since it has to comply with the provisions of section 12 of that bill concerning alternative payments.
The province of Quebec may be allowed to borrow directly under the authority of the federal government but its government will

Loans to Students
be bound by the bill as it will have to "take advantage" of section 12.
That is the reason why we think section 12 should be amended. No mention should be made of alternative payments and this section should be altogether replaced by a fiscal abatement consistent with the amount the province of Quebec would pay if it were setting up its own loan plan.
These, Mr. Chairman, are the fundamentals of this bill.
If we accept today that principles be broken because the amount involved is insignificant, it would be impossible to know when the federal government would stop when greater amounts are involved, and it will have opened another door for its activity in the field of education.
Moreover, the Minister of Finance stated himself that there are nine fields of activity in which the federal government acts directly with respect to education. Considering the figures mentioned by the Minister of Finance yesterday, it becomes obvious that the federal government pays $500 million-half a billion-for educational purposes throughout the country.
There is another point that justifies our opposition not to the principle of education or of the development of education in this country, but to the intrusion of the federal government in the development of our educational system, and it is that the more measures there will be on the part of the federal government in those fields, the more obstacles and limits we will have as regards the development of an over-all plan for the extension of education under a single authority in the province of Quebec. The more authorities there will be, federal, provincial or others, to interfere in the educational field, the less opportunities there will be of unifying the development of an over-all plan so as to create a real educational system in the different provinces.
To ensure co-ordination of efforts in that field, the authority must rest with the same government; now, according to the constitution, education comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
Another objection I have against the bill as it stands now is that the objective that we must strive to attain in the field of education is that anyone, from first graders to graduates, who has the necessary qualifications should be able to get the degree of training he wishes to have regardless of the social status or the financial means of his family. It is not by burdening students with debts or by putting them at the mercy of bank 
managers that we will reach that end. We will be successful in our endeavours only if we try to set up free education in the provinces, so that our educational establishments may be within the reach of all.
I know very well that free education is perhaps not the term we should use. It may be free for the pupil and for the student. But in the last instance, there will always be someone who has to pay for it. If it is not the pupil, it will be the parents through taxation. If not the parents, then, under the new credit system we advocate, it will be paid by the development of our natural resources. Those resources will create new credit, which will be paid to help the development of education in the various provinces.
It nevertheless remains that everybody in the various provinces should have access to the universities, colleges and technical schools, and even primary schools.
This free education and this development of education involve more than the possibility of entering university. They involve also the maintenance of the students because, when parents have no means of supporting them they nevertheless have to live, they must have means of living during their courses. Books are also involved, and the building of educational institutions, because, at the rate things are going, more and more young people look to the colleges, technical schools and universities. It is easy to realize that, for several years, there will be a need to build schools, colleges and universities, to give to everybody, not only financial but also physical access to those educational institutions which are necessary if our young people are to pursue their studies.
To give our young people financial means is not everything; they must also have facilities and teachers. At the rate things are going, there is a great and even a serious danger that facilities will not be sufficient, that there will not be enough teachers and physical facilities to enable everybody to have access to education.
That is why I say that this bill not only violates the principles of the Canadian constitution, but that it is contrary to the philosophy that, when you help someone, you do not take advantage of circumstances to push him into debt. Also, the bill is far from complete. We might say that it constitutes a weak promotional statement in the field of education.
For all these reasons we think that Bill No. C-110 should be amended, but specially section 12. That section should be amended

in order to change alternative payments for a formula which would enable the provinces, the province of Quebec in particular because that province demands respect of its rights in the field of education, for a formula, as I say, which would replace alternative payments by an equivalent fiscal abatement. Even if the amount is a small or trivial amount, it will safeguard the principle, and we should therefore take the trouble of amending that section 12, because once the principle is violated, even if it is for a small amount, then il will be a lot easier for the federal government to violate the full rights of the provinces in the field of education.
It would be possible to amend all that. I hope that the minister will be broadminded enough to accept and introduce amendments that will satisfy every group in Canada.
I say and I repeat that intrusions such as this defy and provoke openly those who complain that the federal government wants to centralize everything and take away the rights of the minorities. We do not want to be regarded as a minority in this country. Instead we want to be equal partners within the confederation. Well, our rights and our opinions must be respected, as well as the spirit and the letter of the Canadian constitution, which we are asked to celebrate in 1967.
If we want confederation to be appreciated and celebrated in 1967, first and foremost the words of the constitution must be respected; otherwise, we shall say that the federal government violates continually the Canadian confederation.
Since provincial rights are set aside, because of all those infringements upon the constitution, it would be just as well to set also aside the Canadian constitution and confederation, if its letter and its spirit are to be constantly transgressed.
Even if there is but a small amount at stake the Minister of Finance should be aware of a fundamental principle for the preservation of which French Canadians fight strenuously for they want to keep absolute control in the field of education. If this field is broken into what will the next step be?
That is the field in which we require the greatest respect of our rights and for which we will fight the most.
Consequently, the Minister of Finance should see that the rights of the province of Quebec in the field of education be respected, since, according to him such a small amount is at stake. Otherwise, he will be among the very first people to undermine the foundations
Loans to Students
of our confederation and will have to bear that responsibility on his shoulders.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, we heard a good deal during the course of the previous stage of the debate on the desirability of a university education. I have not had the opportunity of speaking before, and I have a few remarks I should like to address to the committee within the narrower confines of the discussion on the first clause of the bill.
I am reminded of a lot of the things that have been said in regard to university education, and I hope I will not be considered altogether too cynical when I say that many members might as well have said they were against sin and in favour of motherhood, and so on. We have heard a lot of platitudes in regard to the desirability of a university education, but I do think there is a place for it in the over-all educational pattern of the country.
I have been told by some of my friends in industry that far too often we approach the problem of advanced education in this country from the wrong point of view; that far too many people are having to go to engineering schools, for instance, who would be far better qualified for their purposes in later life if they had opportunities at technical schools. In other words we are putting through university high grade technicians. We also know that a number of people go to universities who frankly are not of university calibre, and there should be a greater screening of those who desire to go there.
As has been indicated by previous speakers, particularly by my colleague the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings following the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition at the resolution stage, I think the bill attacks the problem in the wrong way in so far as assisting education is concerned. We know that the universities of this country need help now in trying to do something about the student population explosion they will face within the next decade or 15 years. Yet what we are doing is trying to push more people through facilities that are too limited both as to professorial staff and as to plant. All we are doing is expanding the size and number of classes and diluting the value of the education that may be obtained from a university.
I would have thought it far better for the federal government, the provinces and the private universities to get together on a really thorough-going plan for the provision

Loans to Students
of more building facilities and the necessary university teachers. To my mind this is where the emphasis should have been placed. I would wager that throughout the various provinces today there are very few students with the required get up and go, the desire and the necessary academic qualifications who cannot go to university. I have had a rather keen interest in this regard, and from long study of the desirability of getting more people into the universities I find that the student who really wants to go, can go.
I will admit there are odd occasions when this is not the case, but let us not be told that there are hundreds and thousands of young people who are precluded from going to university today by reason of the fact that they lack the funds. Oh, maybe life is not as sweet for them, maybe it is not as free and easy in some cases as they might like, but I have always felt that a university degree that was well earned was all the more appreciated. I am not saying that students should have to go to university in rags or have to live on water and a crust of bread. Far be it from that. But on the other hand there is such a thing as killing with kindness. Perhaps some people think I am a little bit ice-aged in this regard, but frankly I feel that what is earned is far more appreciated and put to far better use than something handed out on a platter.
Having made those remarks I say this bill has all the good intentions in the world, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. As I have said, this program places the wrong emphasis, and the federal government, if it must get into the field of education-and there are quite reasonable protestations that it should not get into it directly-can work in other directions. If the provincial authorities and the private universities are facing national educational problems, surely there is a way of dealing with them on the basis of plant. The previous administration facilitated the construction of residences for students and other buildings through Central Mortgage and Housing. There is much to be said in favour of that approach. I think there is much more required in providing adequate salaries for more teachers. There is a crying need to encourage the training of more teachers at the post-secondary academic level.
Let us look at the effect of this bill. I do not know whether the minister has actually consulted with his colleague the minister of defence, and in particular with the Associate Minister of National Defence, because I have a strong suspicion that this may knock the 
R.O.T.P. right on the head. The fundamental basis of the regular officer training plan is that the Department of National Defence offers university tuition to young men providing they will repay it, under present regulations, with three years' service in the military forces and, under the amended regulations coming into effect next year, with four years' service.
I have a strong feeling what the answer will be if the average young man is faced with the prospect of an offer to lend him $5,000 over a period of years, and another offer to pay his tuition and certain expenses provided he gives four years' military service immediately after graduating.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Is the hon. member suggesting that this is a method of reducing the defence expenditures of the nation over a period of time?


Norman Platt Lambert: Not one iota, because I have full admiration for the R.O.T.P., but I can tell the minister that a lot of people concerned with the R.O.T.P. have grave doubts as to the future of that program in the next few years as a result of this proposal. The inducements offered by the R.O.T.P. assist people to go through school. I know many young people who go through university on the basis that the government pays for their tuition, simply because they do not have enough themselves to pay their expenses, and they are prepared to pay for their education on the basis of military service. It is a very fair exchange, but knowing the inducement that now may be offered I am just raising this caveat that I hope the present proposal does not adversely affect the R.O.T.P. program.
I am concerned as to what the total impact of this program may be. The minister spoke of a figure of up to $40 million a year, but I do not know the criteria which may be adopted by the various designated authorities who will inquire into the needs for loans. If these criteria are interpreted strictly or restrictively it may be there will not be so many people who will be deemed to be in need of loans. If there is to be a means test imposed the ministry has given no indication of what criteria will be used and the degree of uniformity to be applied across the country.
The minister will readily see the difficulty if province X through its designated authority decides student Y is of such academic standing and is in need of a loan of $900, whereas a neighbouring province on the same basis, assessing the same type of student, decides he needs only $600. It would create a

great deal of injustice if there were to be varying standards, and the same standard must also be applied by whatever province may contract out of the program.
I can see difficulties about clause 4, in which there is a looseness of expression, and there are certain difficulties about clause 15 and a few others which the minister will readily recognize. Having reference to the Bills of Exchange Act there are some difficulties in clause 12 of this bill in reference to sections 47, 48 and 186 of that act. We shall have to deal with those difficulties as we come to the clauses.
In principle, if the federal government is going into the business of lending money or making money available to university students, that is all very good. But I rather think the results may not be as grandiose as anticipated because there are other sources of revenue available, and we do not know how detailed the investigations will be into the necessity for loans.


Mr. Bigg:: I have supported this bill in principle so far but there is a big criticism to be made of it, namely that it will not provide any great answer to the problems of our youth. These problems are so great that anything short of a new look at the whole problem of education will be of no use. I mention this under clause 1 of the bill because I think it is impossible to deal with the substance of the bill unless we discuss the context and the spirit in which it is brought forward. I do not mistrust the motives of the government in regard to the bill, but I think it lacks vision on the whole subject of youth.
I agree with the previous speaker that perhaps we are not attacking this problem in the right place and from the right angle. I do not think it is in the realm of university training where we have the greatest problem, now or in the future. Last night the hon. member for York South said that in the United States there were some 5 million persons unemployed but 4 million job opportunities were not filled. I do not think anybody would suggest that these 4 million job opportunities were solely for university graduates.
I think it means that people can take these jobs if they are upgraded in the technical trades.
I come from a rural district, and I know that the problem is perhaps more acute there. At present there is not a large percentage of
Loans to Students
these rural people who qualify to go to university, but a great many of them are ready to take technical training and what I would call intermediate education, and it is these young people coming from these small bush farms of Canada that I have in mind. It is not restricted to Athabasca by any means; I am sure rural Quebec, rural Ontario and many places in the maritimes are afflicted with this problem. There are large families living on submarginal land in many cases or on an acreage inadequate to support a family properly. There is no way for these young people to remain on the farms. They have got to go into the city and get jobs, and we are doing them no favour by allowing them to leave the farms without the education which would enable them to take their places in the technical world of today.
I do not think the measure before us is wide enough in its scope. I would propose to the government that they set up a whole new department to handle the affairs of our youth. It may interest you to know, Mr. Chairman, that almost every department of the federal government has some section interested in helping youth. In the Department of Labour we have technical and vocational training. There are suggestions that we have a physical fitness program. Under the Canada Council we have millions of dollars set aside for culture and training in good citizenship. One department has no idea what another department is doing. The province of Quebec have recognized this problem, and have set up a youth ministry. They are seized with the problem of co-ordinating all the efforts which have been put forward in the cause of their youth.
I think no program so far is as broad as it should be. Last night my hon. friend from Bow River brought up the question of looking after young people who have fallen foul of the law. They are held in penitentiaries for grown-ups. There is no effort at all made to rehabilitate them or train them before they come out. They are incarcerated with grown up criminals, and they are learning something; they are learning to be criminals. The statistics are well known. Those who go to these so-called correctional institutions become adept at committing further crimes; they are the ones who return-


The Chairman:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member would not mind my interrupting him for the purpose of reminding him that the discussion in committee must be strictly relevant to the subject matter before the committee. While the remarks he has been mak-

Loans to Students
ing are interesting, I suggest that he make a special effort to relate them to the specific question before us, which concerns loans to students.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes. I am having some difficulty-in doing that because when we are about to spend $40 million of the taxpayers' money in one direction, such as making loans to university students, I cannot help suggesting that hon. members might feel, almost unanimously, that this whole bill should be broadened. By changing one or two words in it I am sure we could include thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of young students in this country who have not reached university age.
If we lend this money strictly to university students or to those about to enter universities, I suppose we assume they are going to graduate. I myself am a university graduate and I know the casualties were very high in all the classes I attended. We started at the University of Toronto with one class of 37, and nine got through to graduate three years later. Simple mathematics show that 24 of them dropped out, and they had to drop out into non-graduate occupations.
I suggest, looking to my hon. friend from Edmonton West, that perhaps if we started lower down the scale and looked after the broader field of young people who need education, many of those who now get into these university classes would never reach there; they would never go there if they had an opportunity to get a really good technical training in some other field closer to their abilities and aptitude for survival in this rather desperate economic race of ours.
We should be careful. I cannot go along with the idea that we should lend this money to everybody who wants to enter university. We should look to those who are really qualified to do so and make sure that economic need is not the only criterion to which attention should be paid. We should carefully screen these students and make sure the people we send to university at public expense-and this is what it will amount to in the end-are those who are going to put us, as the hon. member for York South said last night, in the forefront of this industrial world.
In the Soviet union students are not just allowed to go to university holus-bolus. They are only allowed to go if they are top ranking students. But they do have this advantage; there is no restraint put on them for social and economic reasons such as we have in this country. It depends entirely on their
[The Chairman.]
own imagination and ability, and if they fail in so much as one subject they are not allowed to continue. It has been my experience that the average courses in schools are not set for geniuses. They are set to meet the abilities of a good, hard working average person; and a boy who does not take his classes should not be encouraged to go on to university level but should be drained off into the technical and commercial fields.


An hon. Member:: Unless there are extenuating circumstances.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes; but if he is to be given a loan simply on application, a loan which may amount to $5,000, in the end a student who does not do well may be saddled not only with a broken educational record but with a debt of several thousand dollars before being turned out in a half trained state. It would be much better in my view if he had been enabled to enter a technical field more in keeping with his talents.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, yesterday the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), in the course of his remarks, attacked certain hon. members representing the province of Quebec and sitting on this side of the house. He said in particular, and with your permission, I will quote from page 5705 of the official report:
-we get the petty, dirty, nasty little game being played in this chamber of members of the official opposition who come from the province of Quebec, such as represented by that last speech-
As can be seen on page 5706, he said:
It is my opinion, my personal opinion, that the kind of speech made by the hon. member consists of dirty, nasty tactics.
To support his argument, the hon. member referred to the interpretation I gave to certain remarks made earlier in the afternoon by the Minister of Finance. It is true that I did not have the text of the remarks made by the minister but nevertheless, I thought I interpreted and commented his remarks quite fairly.
The minister had said, as can be seen on page 5681 of Hansard, in answer to a question put to him by the hon. member for Lapointe:
I am sure that Quebec students would not wish to hold up this plan for the rest of Canada once they know that it will not apply directly to them.
Interpreting these words, I said that the minister had stated: "Since the province of Quebec will not share in this plan, the stu-

dents of that province have no right to make any representations". At that point, the Minister of Finance, rising on a point of privilege, stated that he had not used that expression. I then accepted readily his explanation, but that did not change the general scope of my remarks.
The hon. member for Port Arthur stood up and said I was using dirty, nasty tactics; he also stated that it was a petty, dirty, nasty little game, a silly business of playing the Quebec game of politics.
In conclusion, the hon. member said:
The rest of us want this bill. Let us have it.
Mr. Chairman, the legendary subtle ways of the hon. member for Port Arthur are perhaps too well known, as is the extreme delicacy of his feelings for the province of Quebec which he shows once in a while. But let us drop the subject. It is useless to exaggerate either the importance of the words that were said, or of the person who said them.
Nevertheless, those remarks incite me to make a few comments, which I think should be made: 1. I categorically deny to have engaged in any business of playing the Quebec or Canadian game of politics, whether silly or not. 2. I deny having adopted any dirty or nasty tactics with regard to anybody. I challenge the hon. member for Port Arthur, who is not here at this time, to prove it. If he should be behind the curtain, as I was just told, let him come back to his seat and answer. 3. I assert my right to proclaim loudly the too obvious defects in the legislation before us. 4. I loudly proclaim the right of every hon. member to make himself heard in this house, without any reservation nor ill-founded accusation on the part of anybody. That is a sacred law for every member, and before yesterday, I had never heard the fundamental right of democracy denounced in this way.


Mr. Paul:: Does the hon. member allow a question?
Does he share the view that, in the case of the hon. member for Port Arthur, brains are inversely proportional to the mass of the matter?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, I leave it to everyone to draw his own conclusions. It seems to me the circumstances are perhaps too solemn to allow for charges of a personal or impersonal nature, like those we heard yesterday.
I shall therefore proceed with my remarks about the speech delivered by the hon.
Loans to Students
member for Port Arthur. I had come to the fifth point. I protest against the position taken by the hon. member for Port Arthur, who would have the house muzzled. Even though we, members from the province of Quebec, are but a minority in this house, it is our duty to claim the rights we are entitled to under the constitution and it is our bounden duty to see that this constitution be entirely respected.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the
hon. member a question?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Loans to Students
with the agreement of all their colleagues in any part of this house-what they really think.
Mr. Chairman, quite candidly, I think that the province of Quebec wants to and must stay what it is; it must go along with progress, in view of the tremendous currents of universal opinion. Quebec must be united and strong, go along with progress and, above all, it must not be treated as a pariah or a poor relation, but recognized as an absolutely equal partner.
But how could you even maintain the appearance of equality with speeches such as the one made yesterday by the hon. member for Port Arthur?
Mr. Chairman, the best way to realize those objectives is for the members of the House of Commons to entertain mutual respect instead of engaging in ungracious and unjustified attacks on each other.
Such are the remarks I wanted to make, though with a certain reluctance to set matters straight and to answer the entirely baseless observations made by the hon. member.
I have but one word to add to this, which may be the epilogue to this story. Yesterday, some of my colleagues asked me why I had not voted when the vote was taken on the second reading of the bill. It can be easily explained, and perhaps my colleagues have also noticed that the Minister of Justice himself has not voted. What happened was that I was paired with him and that in spite of the afternoon happenings, I had pledged my word to the minister and I had to keep it.
In conclusion, I should also say that if the minister had answered some of the questions I directed to him yesterday concerning the amendments which, in our opinion, are desirable to remove the more unacceptable aspects of this bill, I would undoubtedly have voted for the bill.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, just a few words to follow up what was said this afternoon with regard to clause 1 of Bill No. C-110.
I listened with much attention to the comments just made by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau). If the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) was somewhat unkind to hon. members of the official opposition from Quebec, there is nothing unusual in this, as he always had a grudge again the province of Quebec and often proved it. The hon. member does not always realize what is happening in the province of Quebec. He makes haphazard

statements to the effect that hon. members from Quebec want to secede from Canada, whereas people from the English speaking provinces are in a hurry to get rid of that province, as he said yesterday: "Let us take the vote; if Quebec is not satisfied, let it vote against it and shut up". So that is quite easy: Do not let Quebec bother us any more.
The fact remains that once Bill No. C-110 is passed, even if the province of Quebec decides not to resort to it, this legislation will affect all parts of Canada, including Quebec.
This being said, I strongly support the remarks of the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue, as well as his present attitude towards the harebrained statement made yesterday by the hon. member for Port Arthur. As I say, it was nothing new for we have heard other statements of the same kind, but we should pay no more attention to him than he deserves.
I would also like to call the attention of the house on a statement made the day before yesterday by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue when he was dealing with our amendment, as stated on page 5595 of the Hansard for July 16:
Mr. Speaker, the amendment in question definitely contravenes the functions of the Bank of Canada.
I would have liked the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue to tell us what are the exact functions of the Bank of Canada. He himself makes all kinds of assertions. A little farther he goes on to say:
Well, it is obvious that this amendment has been put forward without having been considered seriously :
The hon. member probably considered the situation very carefully before making that statement.
-it is outdated, ridiculous, contradictory in its conclusions and contrary to any sound constitutional principle.
All these meaningless statements.
That is why, in spite of all the flaws contained in the bill, with which we shall deal on another occasion, we will oppose the amendment.
I would advise the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue, before talking through his hat, as he did the day before yesterday, to read the Bank of Canada Act which clearly stipulates its functions: to help and maintain a growing economic development throughout Canada, by the financing-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) is rising on a question of privilege.


Mr. Olto:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, and with great respect to the hon. gentleman for Villeneuve, we argued this point before the vote was taken on the amendment. All we are doing now is hearing more argument on a matter with regard to which a vote was already been taken.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. If I may be permitted to make a few remarks on the point of order of the hon. member for York East, I must say it is obvious that, according to the standing orders of this house, it is not possible to refer to a vote of the house. I take the liberty of reminding the hon. member for Villeneuve of the provisions of standing order 35 that specify that no member may reflect upon any vote of the house, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.


David Réal Caouette: I thank you for that information, Mr. Chairman. But I am not discussing the vote of the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue; I am only discussing his statement-it is different, it is not the same thing-to the effect that we were ridiculous in submitting an amendment. Whether he voted for or against the bill, I do not have the right to deal with that point and I will refrain from doing so, but I would simply like to point out to the house that the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue is quite often putting his foot in his mouth and talking through his hat, particularly when we are dealing with a matter like this one. He should get at the source of the matter and stop making erroneous statements like the one he made the day before yesterday.
I now come back to the substance of the bill concerning which we could read this morning a statement made yesterday by the premier of the province of Quebec and was quoted in the house yesterday by the Minister of Finance:
Mr. Lesage informed Ottawa that Quebec will not take part in the federal student loan plan.
There is a paradox somewhere. I shall demonstrate this.
Mr. Lesage advised the Minister of Finance that his province will not take part in the student loan program, but that it will take advantage instead-it will not take part- it will take advantage instead of the option formula allowing it to receive an alternative payment.
Loans to Students
The premier of the province of Quebec will not take part in the federal student loan scheme, but right there and at the same time, in one breath, he states that he will again come to Ottawa and beg for crumbs called alternative payments. Such is the logic of the premier of the province of Quebec.
When such loans have been granted in the province, this will be left to the province. Then, will the federal government still guarantee to the banks the loans granted to the students of the province of Quebec, according to the compensation payments made to the province or according to the new plan which Mr. Lesage wants to establish?
Here, I say that the premier of the province of Quebec is crafty and astute, and plays the hypocrite, because the premier of the province of Quebec, Mr. Lesage, never, I say never, promised the Quebec students loans bearing interest.
He promised free education to all students of the province of Quebec, and nothing else.
He was elected in 1960 and the Quebec government was to establish a system of free education at all levels: university, technical, secondary, everywhere. But we know what kind of free education we have obtained to date in the province of Quebec. While we used to pay $40 or $45 per month to put our children through school, today, with free education in the province of Quebec, it costs between $85 and $90 per month. That is the whole difference between the time when we paid for the education of our children and the time when we obtained free education. Who benefits by this free education? The bureaucracy of the province of Quebec. Mr. Jean Lesage decided to champion the autonomy of the province and the rights of the provinces. Quebec will participate in the federal student loan plan.
Mr. Lesage started off like a lion and, today, he is acting more and more like a lamb when he has to face Ottawa and federal government proposals. We now have a pretty good idea of his policy of grandeur, for he is acting in an underhand manner and in no other way. In the open, it sounds great to speak of a "policy of grandeur", but what is Mr. Lesage's attitude before this bill? He simply says that he will take part in this program. That is not the solution we suggest. We suggest a system of scholarships for students and free education. That is what we have asked for, and we still ask the federal government to put the Bank of Canada at the disposal of the provinces, not to control but to serve the provinces, learning and education, and to

Loans to Students
allow our children to acquire the knowledge they need and wish to obtain. This should be done with the credit granted by the Bank of Canada.
That is precisely what the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) failed to understand yesterday. He does not understand today, and he will never understand how the Bank of Canada credit could be used.
However, everybody understood that fact in 1939, when we had, for instance, to finance war operations at the outset. In 1939, the Canadian government, under the leadership of Mr. King, called upon the good services of the Bank of Canada and ordered the creation of $200 million to set up an army.
Mr. Chairman, it was possible then to call upon the Bank of Canada. Why today, for the education of our children, is it no longer possible to call upon the same services of the Bank of Canada, to use it and order it to make financially possible what is physically feasible in our country?
Then, the autonomy of every province would be respected. Today, through this bill, attempts are still being made to stir up part of Canada against the province of Quebec, to rouse the Anglo-Saxon element against the French Canadian element, as the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) was doing yesterday, when he said that we were indulging in petty Quebec politics. What was he doing himself? We did not tell him he was playing petty English politics, Ontario politics or even Chinese politics, because what he was reciting yesterday, what he was uttering with such nerve and cheek, sounded more or less like Chinese.
Mr. Chairman, the education of our children is a more important matter than that of the government, of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) or of the Quebec provincial government. It overrides all that. But this student loan scheme was devised by the federal government in co-operation with the provincial governments, while we are merely asking that provincial rights such as those pertaining to education be recognized and suggesting that the provinces be given the taxation sources which belong to them, so they may be free to organize themselves as regards education.
It is claimed that section 12 gives an advantage to a province, but by the same token imposes a yoke instead of letting it set up its own organization. It is suggested that:
-an alternative amount for a province for any loan year is the amount, as determined by the
[Mr. Caouette.3
minister after consultation with the dominion statistician, obtained by (a) multiplying
(i) the aggregate of all amounts paid by the minister in that loan year to banks pursuant to sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 in respect of guaranteed student loans made pursuant to certificates of eligibility issued or caused to be issued by the appropriate authorities-
In the circumstances, the federal government would issue the certificate of eligibility and would stipulate whether or not a student is entitled to a loan.
Yesterday, the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Boutin) mentioned the danger of patronage. We have seen it in the past and we will see it in the future, because if an applicant is on the right side, it will be easy for him to secure a loan, but if he is not on the right side, it will be hard for him to obtain it. Should the bank manager receive a note from a certain politician to that effect, the loan would be refused to the student who applied for it, because it is the minister who decides, after consultation with his high officials, whether he will grant or deny alternative payments to a province.
Mr. Chairman, we are in favour of the principle of assistance to students. The federal government will grant or guarantee, it is the same thing, loans in the province of Quebec. Incidentally, I suggest that if Mr. Lesage, the Quebec premier, is logical when he says that Quebec will take part in the federal system of loans to students, he should state that his government will guarantee loans granted to the Quebec students and he should not accept the guarantee of the federal government. This is the logic of people who prefer to play politics rather than serve the best interests of French Canadian students in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, such a way of dealing with the people may have been helpful for a certain number of years, it may still help for a few years to come, but it will not help forever. Soon he will have to give an account to the people, and the people get tired of being taxed, taxed again and surtaxed. Even this legislation will involve new taxes, and part of those taxes will be redistributed to the province of Quebec as compensation payments. Once again, that is the system of crumbs at the service of the provinces controlled by the centralizing federal policy.
Mr. Chairman, we agree to the principle of the bill which is to help the students, but we do not agree at all with the yoke and everything else imposed upon the students. I hold the government of the province of Quebec fully responsible for the fact that the

federal government, after promising loans without interest to students now proposes loans bearing interest, six months after the students have graduated, because it is then that they will start paying interest on the capital borrowed. But in the province of Quebec, Mr. Lesage had promised free education at all levels, and we remind him about that from here, in Ottawa, in the House of Commons, and we advise him to keep his promises to the students of the province of Quebec, not by giving them an opportunity to run into debt, to sink a little further but by giving them the means to become gradually freer men and to acquire science and knowledge they are entitled to like the students in other provinces. That is possible without infringing on the freedom or the autonomy of the other provinces. I am in favour of respect for the autonomy of all Canadian provinces, but on condition that the autonomy of the province of Quebec is respected by the premier of that province. He sat here for many years; then he should take his responsibilities and give the students what he promised them, namely free tuition at all levels of education.


Mr. Caniin:: Mr. Chairman, the voters of the county of Quebec South and among them the students of Laval University, entrusted me, in 1962, with a Canadian mandate. The first implication of this mandate is, therefore, to look after the welfare of all Canadians and to discuss legislation in parliament from the point of view of their common interest.
This implies, first of all, the respect for the rights of the provinces and the rights of minorities, without obstructing Canada's progress.
I think that a country's progress rests, first of all, upon its human capital. And, among this human capital, more particularly the young people who will the more efficiently take over as they will be prepared to play their part.
It would not be proper standing up for the rights of the provinces and minorities to oppose the bill before us. To my mind this legislation respects provincial autonomy, because it recognizes, more particularly under clause 12, the exclusive right of the provinces in the educational field, and offers them the financial means of discharging their obligations with regard to those matters.
Under this bill, the federal government is not called upon to invest capital for educational purposes. It simply opens up a credit, because the money is lent by the banks, and not by the federal government. Thus, I think
Loans to Students
we may not claim that any adjustment could be made with the provinces, by resorting to the formula of equalization, at least not now.
The only sums of money that the federal government will have to disburse, are the interest payments. Clause 12 expressly provides that every province which would express this wish, be re-imbursed by the federal government for the interest it would have had to pay if such a province had been a party to the scheme. That is to my mind, the special status awarded, not to a single province, but to each of the 10 Canadian provinces which would want to do so, to be the only one to play a part in this assistance which is so much needed for our students, without obstructing the progress of Canada as a whole.
I understand that the province of Quebec will choose this option. With regard to this matter, I feel I am in good company with the Quebec premier when he states that he will not take part in this program, but will take up the option provided by clause 12 of the bill.
The Quebec premier understood that nothing in this legislation impinges upon the exclusive right of the provinces in matters of education. Moreover, this is a formula which enables each federal member to play the part entrusted to him by the people on the national level.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I might direct a question to the hon. member for Quebec South.

Could the hon. member make known his legal opinion on the wording of section 15, having to do with borrowers not of full age?


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Chairman, this is evidently a piece of legislation and we are here as legislators. The constitutionality of an act, in my opinion, must be interpreted by the courts. Should there be a doubt concerning this question, I believe the personal points of view that could be expressed in this respect would not further the case.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, may I put this question to the hon. member: When you say there is a doubt, do you mean you doubt that only civil law may deal with problems of borrowers not of full age in the province?


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Chairman, this is not what I meant. I said that should there be a doubt

Loans to Students
concerning the constitutionality of a legislation, the judiciary would have authority to rule on the question.


Rémi Paul: We shall have an opportunity to discuss the matter later on.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few remarks at this stage in the passage of this legislation because I refrained from saying anything in the debate on second reading. May I say at once that I support the legislation in principle, with some reservations which are not overriding. But I should like to say that in this legislation I see a shocking contrast between the promises of the party now in power and their performance. During the last election campaign we were told ad nauseam about the
10,000	free scholarships which were going to be provided for Canadian university students if the Liberal party came into power. This legislation falls very much short of those promises. I am not sure why the promises were made, whether they were made in good faith through ignorance of what the possibilities of performance were or whether they were made with callous disregard for reality and only as a means of acquiring power.
The object of that party at that time, of course, was to gain power at any cost, it would seem, and it could be they felt the end justified any means whatsoever. But I think for their own peace of mind the government party should at least ease its conscience, and I suggest it might be suitable if they would consider a course of action which it is said was followed by a congressman in the United States, perhaps a mythical one because I do not know whether he actually existed. I would commend to the government party the action he took. It is said that on the day after he was elected he caused to be published in all the newspapers in his district an advertisement to this effect: To whom it may concern: This is to advise the general public that the extravagant and outrageous promises that were made in the heat of the campaign are not to be taken seriously.


Mr. Byrne:: It would have taken a full page advertisement for the Tories.


John Angus MacLean: I think such action would have put the present government in a position where their conscience would at least be clear as far as some of these things are concerned. Although I do not hold strong

views, as many members from the province of Quebec do, with regard to the justification or otherwise of this legislation from a legalistic point of view, I do think it is a bad principle for one level of government to raise taxes which are to be spent by another level of government.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: What would happen to your province?


John Angus MacLean: I was about to say that one exception to this rule is in a federal state where the provinces do not have control over customs duties and many other sources of revenue. Where the federation results in an accumulation of wealth in certain provinces which is drawn from the nation as a whole, that confederation is bound to change the pattern of the economy from what it would have been if the provinces making up the federation were separate entities. With that situation it is absolutely essential, I think, to have equalization payments of some sort so that there will be equality of opportunity in all parts of the country. There may also be other exceptions, but as a general principle I think it is a dangerous course of action for one level of government to collect the money which is going to be spent by another level of government.
I would think that this legislation would be welcomed in the province from which I come. I welcome it myself, and I say that because many of the people I represent are people with whom it has been a tradition for many years, even for centuries in some cases, to try to get a higher education if at all possible. It has been the custom for families to try to put at least one of their sons or daughters through university. There has been a thirst for higher education. I think this has been true generally in the maritimes. I am not excluding other parts of Canada but I believe that the maritime provinces have given a proportionately higher percentage of university trained people to North America generally, people who have been leaders in the professions, politics, the educational world and so on. I do not want to dwell on that point unduly, but for those who have a thirst for higher education and limited means to acquire it this legislation will certainly come as a welcome development.
I went through university during the depression and I know I would have welcomed such an opportunity as this very keenly when

I was going to college because I had to borrow most of the money involved, and it was a hard thing to do in those days.
In Prince Edward Island we have two main institutions of higher learning which have made great contributions to Canada in providing leaders in many fields from among their graduates. I refer to St. Dunstan's University and Prince of Wales college, which is a junior college; but many of the students in Prince Edward Island get part or all of their higher education in other provinces. To these students this legislation will be of great advantage, as in most cases the cost of education is higher to them, as they have to live away from home.
There are a few general questions for clarification purposes I wish to put to the minister. Perhaps he would make a note of them and give answers some time during the committee stage. One thing that concerns me is the application of the loans in the first year. As I see it, the situation that year will be a little different from what it will be after the scheme has been running for four or five years. I visualize that in the first year there will be applications from students who are doing postgraduate courses and this, in my judgment, would cut down the opportunities for other students who are in their undergraduate years. I am wondering what affect this may have or whether it will be of any great importance. It may be minor; I hope it is.
Then there is the matter raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West. I too wonder whether any study has been made of the effect of this program on applications by students for the R.O.T.P. program. I can visualize that the demand for these subsidized higher education courses might go down very considerably when this alternative method is available. I do not consider that as a defect in the legislation or in the scheme, but it might have a detrimental effect on the other program.
Also I am wondering what effect the granting of scholarships-I am thinking of special bursaries and so on-by the national research council, the Department of Fisheries and various other departments to aid students in universities will have on this legislation. If a student gets a scholarship, will this affect his ability to draw a loan?
I am also concerned with the question of the time of payment. I believe it is envisaged that the government will not hold itself liable for bad debts if the banks try to collect loans back in a period of less than five years. I would hope this would not prevent students who are in a position to do so from repaying
Loans to Students
their loans in a period less than five years, and that there would be no clause in the contracts requiring payments to extend over five years.
I am also wondering what calculation has been made of the effect this program will have on increased enrolment of university students in Canadian universities. It will do one of two things, or a combination of both. It will make the money available to people who are going to go to universities anyway. In that case it will not be very effective because if they are going anyway they will have financed themselves from somewhere. Or it will make these loans available to students who otherwise, without them, would not be able to go to university. I am wondering what is the estimate of increased enrolment in universities and what strain this will place on the facilities of the universities.
The minister has estimated that in a period of five years there will be $200 million to $250 million out on loan which, no doubt, is a fairly accurate estimate. But the amount out on loan will continue to increase for more than five years, depending on the length of period of repayment. It may increase for eight or nine years reaching a total of something like $400 million or $500 million. What is the significance of this from a financing point of view? Does this mean that the banks, by virtue of the fact that they will have half a billion dollars out on loan to students, will have their facilities to loan money to other people reduced by that amount, or does it mean that this will be new money that will be brought into the economy? If it is the latter I would point out that each year there will be a load of something like $25 million interest being paid to the banks by new graduates from the universities. I am not particularly objecting to that, but I would have hoped that a program of outright grants could have been introduced to cover this problem at least in part, if not entirely.
I have only one other reservation to express before I sit down. Having embarked on this scheme and when it has been in operation ten years, many young university graduates will be owing the banks a total sum of something like $500 million. At that time, or indeed at any time between now and then, it will be very difficult to introduce a system of scholarships or grants because these graduates will feel aggrieved that the new students will be getting for free what they had to borrow and are in the process of paying back with hard earned money. In practical terms, to introduce a scholarship system later

Loans to Students
I think it would be necessary concurrently to forgive all or part of the outstanding debts of former graduates, and for that reason I see this legislation as an impediment to introducing a scholarship system of free grants to university students.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Chairman, education is too serious a matter for us to limit ourselves to passionate and emotional speeches. I simply wish to speak briefly on the problem before us.
We heard some members of the province of Quebec posing as police dogs for the province of Quebec, against the intrusion of the federal government in the field of education. Personally, I am against centralization through the federal government, and I am in favour of the provisions allowing the provinces to be respected in various fields, being adhered to by the federal government.
However, when we think that since confederation, such rights have been violated, have been taken away from the provinces, we must at least place ourselves in the proper context and finally take a decision concerning the legislation under study.
Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the present monetary system, but this does not mean that I shall vote against all legislation being introduced in this house so long as social credit is not established in Canada. Such attitude would be ridiculous, and I find strange the attitude of those who feign the attitude of the offended virgin, and this, particularly when we know that the federal government pays grants through the national research council, that it awards scholarships through the various federal departments and that nobody objects to this. On the contrary, the universities, in brief, the students themselves -be they graduates or undergraduates, apply for scholarships to the national research council or various federal government departments.
Moreover, I remember very well that from 1936 to 1960, the Quebec premier was winning the elections by firmly refusing any grant from the federal government in the field of education. If this had improved the situation, I would have agreed with him but he was doing so merely to get elected. In fact, electors were saying: "Hon. Mr. Duplessis is opposed to all federal intrusion in provincial fields; Hon. Mr. Duplessis is in favour of autonomy; that is why we elect Mr. Duplessis." And today everyone regrets having elected him for such a long time.

Mr. Chairman, I know this is an intrusion into the field of education, but I am of the opinion that provincial business should remain under provincial jurisdiction.
During the study of the Columbia treaty, there have been many complaints that hon. members were trying to prevent the government of British Columbia from having what it wanted. The hon. members said at that time: "If the federal rights are protected, let us give to British Columbia the authorization it wants, because it is its business." In the province of Quebec, it is the same.
Personally, I am against certain decisions taken by the minister of education but this is my problem, it is my duty to settle it in Quebec, with the provincial authorities. I am a Quebec elector and if I am not satisfied with the Liberal government, I will turn it out.
According to L'tvenement-Journal dated July 15, 1964, the premier of Quebec, who represents the province of Quebec stated:
-the only way of settling the problem was for the Ottawa government to hand over to Quebec, in the form of a fiscal equivalent, the amounts which it would have devoted to the repayment of interest on loans granted to students by banks and other institutions, taking into consideration the proportion pertaining to the Quebec population.
Mr. Chairman, at the moment the authority is represented-unfortunately, I think, but that is beside the point-by Hon. Jean Lesage, and he insisted that the federal government stick to those conditions. I do not see why we, like drowning people trying to grab hold of a small piece of wood, should object to those conditions agreed upon by the province of Quebec. I say again that those who want to indulge in provincial politics and oppose the government should go in the province of Quebec and fight against it as they have a perfect right to do.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is not the point.


Guy Marcoux: The hon. member for Jo-liette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) says it is not the point. Very well, if that is not the point-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is a matter of principle.


Guy Marcoux: Personally, as I said a while ago, I am against hospital insurance in principle, because the practice of medicine and related professions comes under provincial jurisdiction. Now, the Conservative government brought us hospital insurance. As early as 1960, the Lesage government accepted it and, by January 1, 1961, we had it. Today, they want to improve that plan. Although

I am against it, I am in favour of its being improved, because the province of Quebec has accepted it.
Federal government intrusion in the field of education is nothing new. What is needed is to amend the constitution, not only to apply what is allowed by the said constitution but to change it completely for the benefit of everybody, of the 10 provinces and of the two official racial groups in this country. Until this is done, let us simply try to improve the constitution instead of standing almost inconsiderately in opposition to all the improvements the government wants to make.
According to this morning's issue of Le Devoir, the premier of the province of Quebec said:
I cannot for all that send the provincial police in the other provinces.
He meant that the province of Quebec wanted its autonomy to be respected but that if the other provinces did not wish it to be so, that was their problem. This is true. If the provinces do not want to take advantage of all the benefits of confederation, that is up to them. I know that there are several reasons for that; I know that for the other provinces, it is the same thing whether education is the responsibility of the federal government or of the provincial governments. That is their problem, not ours. It is not the problem of the members of the province of Quebec.
I do not want us, members of the province of Quebec, to be considered as traitors to our nation and our race if we approve this legislation.
Somewhere in Bill No. C-110, the government really goes against the law in the province of Quebec; in fact, in section 15, it amends the civil code of the province of Quebec, when it has no right to do so. Only the province of Quebec can amend its own civil code. Then, Mr. Chairman, I am against this clause and I shall state my opposition when the time comes.
However, we are not going to start a discussion of the whole problem because the government keeps on intruding in a field in which it has no jurisdiction.
Mr. Chairman, there is another point on which I should like to comment: in section 2, banks are mentioned and it is said that the word banks means the banks governed by the Bank Act. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this should also include the savings banks of the province of Quebec, the caisses populaires and credit unions.
Loans to Students
The minister said a few days ago that banks lend the money that they have on deposit. He must be ill informed or he did not want to further specify, but he knows very well that only the caisses populaires, savings banks and credit unions lend only their assets, not 100 per cent of their assets but as a rule 50 per cent, while chartered banks can lend from 10 to 12 times more than the amount they hold in reserve.
The minister certainly knows that for it is in the act; I already mentioned the subject.
A while ago, the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) wondered if the fact that banks lend half a billion dollars would prevent them from extending loans to other industries. Really, the former minister of fisheries made me laugh. He knows very well that when there is not enough money, money is created; when the banks are unable to lend the money they have, they lend the money they do not have, and it is quite normal since it is in the Bank Act. The former minister of fisheries, the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean), should not bother about that.
The fact that students will receive money for their studies will not be a nuisance to anybody.
Mr. Chairman, I insist on the fact that at least for the province of Quebec, the caisses populaires, and elsewhere in Canada the credit unions should be mentioned in the bill, so that they might enjoy the same guarantee as chartered banks.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question. It is understood, and I have been informed by the premier, that the province of Quebec will not come under this plan but will receive financial compensation instead. In other words, there will be no lending by the federal government to students in the province of Quebec. I wonder why, in these circumstances, the hon. member thinks there would be much point in including caisses populaires and the Quebec savings banks.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Chairman, I spoke about the caisses populaires and the credit unions. In order to illustrate this, I remind you of the province of Quebec, which has 1,300 caisses populaires, representing assets of more than $1 billion. I am saying that the government should allow the credit unions, as well as the caisses populaires existing in other

Loans to Students
provinces-as there are caisses populaires known as caisses populaires in other provinces -to make loans on such easy terms. As a matter of fact, the repayment of a loan and the payment of interest are seldom as soundly guaranteed as they will be under government legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I am strongly stressing this suggestion because I know that the minister does not wish to show unfairness as regards certain financial bodies in this country and that he will not grant to the chartered banks exclusively, in addition to the monopoly of making money they already have, that which would allow them to be the only ones to make loans to students.
Mr. Chairman, I will not go farther. I only wanted to say that theoretically I favour student loans, but I am against the intrusion of the federal government into the field of education and in many other spheres. Yet in view of the present situation, in view of the fact that we are in 1964 and that there were precedents, that may have been disastrous and can be regretted, I am ready to accept this bill inasmuch as it will not amend the civil code of the province of Quebec, a thing that the federal government is not entitled to do.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I rise to take part in this debate, risking the wrath of the Minister of Finance.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Oh, no.


Michael Starr: May I say, if this will alleviate his fears, that my remarks will be of short duration. I have listened to this debate for a few days now, in which many members of every party in this house have participated and expressed their opinions. There are two areas of objection that have been made to this bill. One of the important ones, of course, has been put forward by the members from Quebec in all the opposition parties because of the evident interference of the federal government in provincial jurisdiction. Even though I may not agree with this personally, nevertheless I feel they have a right to raise this objection if they are firmly convinced, as they seem to be, that there is an intrusion by the federal government in provincial jurisdiction.
The other argument, and the more valid, in my opinion, put forward by many members of the opposition in this house is that this measure is a poor substitute for the promise of scholarships that was made during an election campaign. With this I agree.

Also, Mr. Chairman, difficulties have been cited which students might encounter with the chartered banks and their managers in endeavouring to obtain a loan under this plan at an interest rate which the minister set out as being at this time something like 5f per cent. I can realize how reluctant and loath the bank managers may be in this connection, and I believe that a great deal of difficulty will be experienced by students who will be applying for these loans, after having qualified through the provincial authorities, at the rate of interest which will be prevalent at that time. This rate of interest would of course be much below the interest rates that businesses would have to pay on loans.
This has been a most interesting debate for me, because I have been interested in education for the younger people of this country, so much so that the federal government participated very greatly, financially, in the past few years, with the co-operation of the provinces, in setting up schools that would take care of training in the trades and skills necessary for our labour force. However last night I picked up the Toronto Daily Star and read an article on the front page by Joseph Scanlon. The article is factual; it is well written, and it tries to be fair in every way possible. But the indignation on my part came about when I read the headline of this story, no doubt concocted by someone in Toronto. The headline reads, "Tories throw up student loan roadblock".


Mr. Macdonald:: True.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, someone just said "True"; I think it was the hon. member for Rosedale.


Mr. Monteilh:: As usual.


Michael Starr: I think things of this nature have a very bad effect on everyone concerned. A quick survey of those who participated in this debate shows that up to the time of this story going to press, some 38 members of parliament had participated in it. The score reads something like this: Liberals 10, Conservatives 13, N.D.P. 6, Social Credit 4, and Ralliement Creditiste 5. It shows 13 Conservatives out of a total of 38 members participating-yet this headline says it is the Tories who are throwing up the student loan roadblock.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Michael Starr: Yes.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Would the hon. member not concede that when his colleagues were attempting to prevent this measure passing, on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, they were attempting to put a roadblock in its way?


Michael Starr: I think all the members from Quebec in the opposition parties participated in putting forward that theme, as I pointed out at the beginning of my speech. They are still pointing this up to the government. But certainly it was not the four or five Conservative members from Quebec who threw up the whole roadblock to this measure. They felt it was their duty to do what they believed was right.


William Heward Grafftey: Any more questions?


Michael Starr: I think this kind of headline appearing in the Toronto Star is a determination on the part of that newspaper to distort the facts and the truth and to mislead the public even to the point of printing falsehoods. I have come to the conclusion that this is for political gain of some sort or another, and this includes the hon. member for Rose-dale who said this was true.
I said earlier that there are certain aspects of the argument with which I do not agree, yet yesterday on second reading practically all the members of this house voted for the bill. Why? Because we feel that half a loaf is better than none, and at least those who might be fortunate enough to obtain a loan through bankers who might wish to extend these loans at the interest rate proposed will benefit because of this measure. I believe a member on the government side just made an interjection. They on that side of the chamber are very anxious, it seems to me, when they have spoken in any debate, that it should terminate at that point. I think every member is entitled to express his views. I do not know whether the hon. member has yet spoken, but if he has I suggest he thinks this measure should be passed immediately because he has contributed his words of wisdom.


William Heward Grafftey: No. He read a speech very badly.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: They do not allow them to speak over there.


Michael Starr: On July 14 the Minister of Finance, in his introduction of this bill on second reading, as appears at page 5442 of Hansard, stated the following:
Loans to Students
A university education or its vocational equivalent is the highest achievement of our educational system, and it should be within the financial grasp of every young Canadian who is capable of making good use of it.
These are some of the questions I would ask the minister to answer before we go any further in the deliberations of this bill. Can he explain to us what he had in mind by "vocational equivalent" of a university education? I think that would be of interest to many students and parents at this time.
Second, as I understand it the first year of university in some provinces commences after grade 12 high school. If that is the case then the students in those provinces will be eligible for a loan immediately after completing grade 12. Here again, in the province of Ontario we have a grade 13 in our high schools. If this bill does not apply to students in the province of Ontario until they enrol at university, then I think they are being discriminated against to the extent of that one year compared with the students from other provinces. Therefore I would ask the minister to set out what he has in mind in respect to this matter.
Might I also ask whether the minister anticipates an increase in enrolment at universities or institutions of higher education as a result of this legislation, and what is the estimated increase likely to be? Another question which comes to my mind is this. Suppose that a student obtains a loan for the first year at university and then obtains a loan for the second year. Then in the middle of the second year he drops out of school of his own volition but is unable to obtain work-which is quite possible because he would not have completed his education-in this event who will be responsible for the loan which had been made up to that time?
This is not a bill, Mr. Chairman, which we anticipated debating in the house as a result of promises which were made. Nevertheless we are prepared to pass it, because as I said earlier it is better than nothing. However, I do think that when this bill is passed it will preclude any scholarships in this country put forward by the federal government for many years to come.


Mr. Perron:: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that I had no opportunity at the resolution stage to set forth my views respecting Bill No. C-110, I take the liberty of making a few remarks based on the idea put forward so distinctly by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) indicat-

Loans to Students
ing how, through little means, they succeeded in placing on our statute books legislation encroaching more and more on constitutional rights exclusively reserved for the provinces, such as the field of education.
I do not pretend to be an expert in constitutional law. Again yesterday the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanau-diere showed clearly and distinctly the unconstitutional aspects of this piece of legislation.
The Minister of Finance himself has given the whole list. We talked about the way followed by the federal authority to intrude, little by little, through various means-loans to universities, scholarships granted by different departments in the field of vocational and professional training-into areas where mainly the province of Quebec wanted to preserve jealously its right, from the constitutional viewpoint, in the field of education.
In my opinion we have a right, now more than ever since this bill is under consideration, to seriously consider the way of interpreting a certain democratic formula used in our country.
I notice on page 5720 of Hansard for July 20 that the Minister of Finance stated:
I am not for a moment suggesting that majority opinion makes anything right but, by the same token, I certainly do not agree that minority opinion makes anything right either. The majority has some rights, even in this country.
Then he went on:
I suggest to my right hon. friend that this means in every country including Canada, particularly in Canada.
It is precisely because the majority has rights that the minorities have duties, and these duties consist in making sure that their rights are respected.
If, under the Canadian constitution, Quebec and the other provinces have exclusive rights in the field of education, I think that the representatives of the province of Quebec should, more than ever, show leadership in protecting those constitutional rights, especially in the field of education.
When we study how the other provinces have used their constitutional rights in the field of education as far as minorities are concerned, particularly their French speaking minorities, we appreciate how Quebec is anxious to keep its right to preserve and develop its culture through education, a right which is exclusively reserved to Quebec.
I would have expected a complete revision of the constitution, defining once and for all the rights of the provinces and those of

the federal government. But we have to make the best of what we have obtained up to now.
Under these arrangements, these agreements and even under this co-operative federalism, we are wondering, in the province of Quebec, if all this is not hypocrisy built up as a system in Canada and in the province of Quebec.
Federal-provincial conferences are held where official delegates of every provinces and the federal authorities meet. Then, we part company, and the day following these conferences, all the large newspapers of the two ethnical groups of this country-English and French newspapers-report on the complete failure of this or that federal-provincial conference. Then, after some secret meetings held between various departments, we are told that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds; and two weeks later the same conference was called a tremendous fiasco.
I am wondering if that is not erecting legislative hyprocrisy into a system which is taking root, thanks to a Liberal government in Quebec as well as in Ottawa?
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I understand that the member for Quebec South (Mr. Cantin) should stand up for the minister and try to explain the paradoxical position taken by the premier of the province of Quebec who made a statement yesterday on this subject, saying that he disagreed with the bill, but nevertheless was accepting it since section 12 provides for alternative payments.
I understand that perhaps he owes something to the premier of the province of Quebec for sitting today in the house, even if he says he is the bearer of a Canadian mandate. I also understand that the premier of the province of Quebec has already received a Canadian mandate from the electorate. That is precisely under this mandate that he participated in the setting up of this federal centralizing policy, which he now seems to oppose.
I know that until we have a Social Credit government, we must participate in the present rehabilitation programs and serve the public interests in refusing to run the country into further debt. That is why, as soon as this bill was introduced, we presented an amendment requesting that the financing of this educational aid, which is needed by all the provinces, be achieved while respecting provincial rights.
When a member from Quebec tries to make a comparison to explain why he approves of this bill, saying that the students will be

able to benefit from federal scholarships, as did the hon. member from Quebec-Mont-morency (Mr. Marcoux), it must be remembered that there is a great difference between a federal scholarship which is a gift, a Quebec scholarship and a loan similar to those advocated in Bill No. C-110. It is not the same thing at all. It is not a scholarship to enable a student to continue his studies; it is just a loan, a way of getting into debt; that is why, as a member from the province of Quebec and the Social Credit party, I do not have the right to support this bill in any way, since it forces us, as members of parliament to get into debt another group of people which had yet to fall into the federal government's clutches.
As a second reason, we must take into consideration the respect that Quebec citizens jealously demand from the federal government even if the latter succeeded, through broadcasting, to have admitted the principle that the federal government had rights in the field of education. Even if they succeeded, through the Canada Council and the Massey commission to have certain facts accepted by the province of Quebec, I think this bill, even if it provides for alternative payments, as an exception for the province of Quebec, has nothing in common with the promise of scholarships to be granted by the province of Quebec to further free education, but it is rather related to a system of bank loans.
That is quite a difference between free education promised by the officer responsible for education in the province of Quebec, the minister of education, or between the version given by the premier of the province of Quebec concerning free education at all levels and his paradoxical acceptance in the statement he made last night.
I do not think that we, not as representatives of the province of Quebec, but simply as Canadians, could accept this bill because the representative of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec as well as those of the Ralliement Creditiste strongly objected to the bill from a constitutional point of view, because it is a direct interference in a field where the people of the province of Quebec will be more than ever jealous of the rights given to them by the constitution.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, we were all shocked by the remarks made in this house by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) who charged the Conservative members from Quebec of using mean tactics concerning the bill now before us, Bill No. C-110.
20220-365i
Loans to Students
Mr. Chairman, I think it is the responsibility of all members of the house to be the guardians of the Canadian constitution and to endeavour to respect it. I know that several members in this house have no concern in that regard. If Ottawa interferes in the field of education, that leaves them quite cold. But it is not the same in the case of hon. members from the province of Quebec.
Precisely because the province of Quebec has a culture different from that of the other provinces and its own educational system, I think hon. members, in particular those from the province of Quebec, should make it a point to defend in the house the Canadian constitution, especially section 93 which gives full jurisdiction to the provinces in the field of education.
Mr. Chairman, I think that the minority enjoys the same rights as the majority in the house and that speeches like the one made by the hon. for member for Port Arthur do not help national unity. It is exactly the kind of speeches which breed separatism in some regions of Canada, especially in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, hon. members should understand the province of Quebec and make much of it, because French Canadians are a minority in Canada and North America. The stronger Quebec will be and the more the provincial jurisdictions will be respected and the more the autonomy of Quebec is respected, the more satisfied, will be the citizens of Quebec, and then we will have a more closely united Canada. It must not be forgotten that the province of Quebec acts as a brake to the annexation of Canada to United States, because it has a different language and culture from other provinces. We would be the first ones to object to our annexation to the United States, because we wish to keep our culture, our language and our rights.
Mr. Chairman, the students of Quebec are not the only ones to object strongly to this bill. There are also some associations of students in English speaking provinces.
This is what I find in Le Devoir of July 21:
The president of the students' association of the University of Toronto, Mr. John Roberts, asserts that the federal legislation providing loans for students will not help those who are in greatest need of financial assistance. Referring to the legislation which enables students to borrow up to $1,000 a year from any chartered bank, while the federal government guarantees the loan and pays the interest, Mr. Roberts pointed out that it will benefit science students at the expense of art students who get paid lower salaries after completing their studies.

Loans to Students
This shows that when the federal government interferes in a field outside its own jurisdiction, it often creates inconveniences and problems. And in this case, as I pointed out, the president of the students' association of the University of Toronto is raising objections regarding this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is a new type of co-operative federalism. It must be borne in mind that the St. Jean Baptiste society federation termed co-operative federalism national suicide. When advantage is taken of this disguised formula to interfere in an exclusively provincial field, co-operative federalism is a policy of division, because there is an option formula. By giving a choice to any province that wants it, the government recognizes thereby that the bill is unconstitutional. If the federal government actually saw fit to include an option in this legislation, it is because it is unacceptable under the constitution. The nine English speaking provinces do not object to an intrusion of the federal government in the educational field, because the majority is English speaking as in Ottawa. Such is not the case in the province of Quebec and this is why such a violation of the Canadian constitution is so serious, because the province of Quebec is not a province like the others.
It seems to me that, by granting an option under this bill, the federal government condemns itself and admits that this bill is ultra vires. We would be very happy to know the opinion of the Minister of Justice, and to know whether he shares the view I am expressing at the present time, namely that the very fact of granting an option to the provinces, if desired, constitutes an admission that the bill is ultra vires and that the federal government is dealing with problems which do not concern itj in brief, that this bill represents an encroachment on the jurisdiction of the provinces.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think that we are resorting to dishonest tactics, as stated by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), when we demand respect for the Canadian constitution each time the federal government enters or intrudes into a field of provincial jurisdiction, from which it never withdraws. On the contrary, it goes on interfering more all the time. This bill constitutes a policy of separation, of division, which is contrary, in my opinion, to the principles of national unity.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance should beware of the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne), the high priest of centraliza-

tion. The province of Quebec does not accept the theories proclaimed by the Secretary of State. In fact, I want to tell the Minister of Finance that, on two occasions, the Secretary of State was rejected by the population in the Quebec East constituency, because the population of the province of Quebec does not agree with the kind of theories put forward by him.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: However, he took refuge in the constituency of Outremont-St. Jean, and he even announced he would increase his majority in the next general election. As if the people in Outremont-St. Jean were not able to judge the Secretary of State on his own merits. He should visit his own constituency during the week end in order to get the opinions of his electors.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I am sure the hon. member will recognize that he is deviating from the subject matter under consideration, that is granting loans to students.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, if the Secretary of State were not afraid to defend his principles, he would be in the house to answer the numerous attacks on his theory of cooperative federalism. But no. He prefers to retire to his office, in order to avoid the attacks against him in this house.
I ask the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice to open their eyes once and for all, because this separatist wave in the province of Quebec was never as strong as when the federal government started applying the doctrine of co-operative federalism advocated by the Secretary of State. Gentlemen, endeavour to open your eyes in order to save Canada and have greater national unity in this country.
An exception is made for some provinces, and the opportunity is taken to intrude in the field of education, which is a provincial responsibility.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege, because any member can stand up and speak on a question of privilege concerning his other colleagues. Now, my question of privilege concerns all hon. members.
In my opinion, no member has the right, unless he has evidence to the contrary, to interpret the absence of a minister or of a member of the house as a wish or an intention to avoid the obligation to answer any charge, no more than I would myself have the right to accuse the hon. member for

Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm of choosing precisely the time when the Secretary of State is absent to level charges against him.


An hon. Member:: He is in the house.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, since the Secretary of State has returned to the fold, has taken the trouble, in spite of his many tasks, to come to the house, I ask him, in the interest of his party and of national unity, to contradict, for instance, the statement made by the St. Jean-Baptiste societies federation respecting co-operative federalism. As a matter of fact, the federation calls co-operative federalism national suicide. We would be very happy to hear the Secretary of State refute this serious charge which imperils his own centralizing theory.
Knowing the Secretary of State's theories, I suggest that Bill No. C-110 will lead the federal government into setting up a federal department of education, which we do not want and which the province of Quebec does not want.
I know that the Secretary of State would be very pleased with the establishment of a federal department of education, because it would be the crowning piece of his career as a centralizer.
Mr. Chairman, we are surprised with the attitude of Mr. Lesage, the Quebec premier, who is showing his true face to the Quebec population. He follows in the centralizers' wake, instead of becoming the champion of provincial autonomy.
I suggest that the premier should read the third volume of the report of the royal commission on constitutional problems and particularly page 288 which says:
As long as the federal system is not abolished, the efficient operation of government requires that provinces shall keep taxation powers proportionate to the extent of their constitutional responsibilities. The province of Quebec preferred to give up important revenues rather than agree to a method of grants which might imply any reduction of its autonomy and surrender of its prerogatives.
Mr. Chairman, section 93 of the Canadian constitution is clear on this point: education belongs exclusively to the provinces.
This is also confirmed by the well-known report of the Tremblay commission which studied constitutional problems.
Why such obstinacy on the part of the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, who continuously attempt to introduce bills tending to undermine the autonomy of the provinces in the field of education? Why? I am asking the Secretary of State, why does the federal government not
Loans to Students
give directly to the provinces the sources of revenue they need to meet their obligations, instead of trying to enchain them? Why always introduce bills that only aggravate division in Canada and separatism in the province of Quebec?
After the numerous defeats he experienced in the province of Quebec, the Secretary of State should realize that. His own leader overlooked him, because he appointed the Minister of Justice as leader of Quebec Liberals, but he is no more acceptable, since he follows in the footsteps of the Secretary of State.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I suggest that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm should remember the standing orders of the house, and I am sure he will admit that at the committee stage hon. members must restrict their observations to the matter before the committee. Now, the matter before the committee is Bill No. C-110, entitled an act to facilitate the making of loans to students.
I am aware that in making personal allegations concerning certain members of the government, the hon. member undoubtedly was carried away in the heat of the discussion, but by such digressions he wandered quite far from the matter under discussion.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I think that my observations are relevant to the bill before the house, because I am discussing cooperative federalism and repeated attacks by the federal government against the provinces. And when I talk about the Secretary of State, I am talking about the power behind the throne at the present time. I am talking about something that does exist. Moreover, it is an admitted fact that students associations in the province of Quebec and also certain students associations in other provinces are complaining about this bill. Also, the students associations of the province of Quebec think that this legislation is ultra vires and constitutes an infringement upon a field of provincial jurisdiction. That is clear, Mr. Chairman.
Why this stubbornness on the part of the Secretary of State? I have never seen, Mr. Chairman, such a stubborn man.
Even the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), speaking at the last convention of the provincial Liberal federation stated the following:
In a sound federal system, both sectors of government fully respect the jurisdiction and responsibilities of the other sector.

Loans to Students
In a sound federal system does this mean, Mr. Chairman, that since the government is proposing such a bill, the present federal system is unsound?
Mr. Chairman, we would be pleased to see the Minister of Justice, the leader of Quebec Liberals, assume his responsibilities and say to the house what he thinks about the constitutionality of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, the option should be a temporary compromise, and what surprises me is to see Mr. Lesage accept it without a time limit. In doing so, he is betraying the autonomist aspirations and traditions of the province of Quebec.
I am not surprised at what the premier of Quebec did. He is following in the footsteps of Mr. Adelard Godbout who, in 1940, by a mere letter, handed over to the federal government in Ottawa the taxation rights of the province of Quebec. Today it is Mr. Lesage's turn to do the same, this time with a telegram. He has raised the white flag of surrender.
If he is not an autonomist, at least it can be said that he is consistent, because in 1958, at the Liberal convention held in Ottawa to choose a leader, he urged the federal government to adopt a program designed to invade the field of education by asking Ottawa to grant scholarships to students.
Never has the province of Quebec been as badly treated, from a constitutional point of view, as it is now by the Pearson-Lesage tandem. By his attitude the premier of the province of Quebec has already paved the way for Ottawa to establish a federal department of education. Never have the autonomist traditions and aspirations of the province of Quebec been so offhandedly betrayed by a Quebec premier who, in co-operating with Ottawa, rates higher marks for collusion than for sincerity.
Mr. Chairman, I have been shocked by the shameful stand taken by the Liberal members from the province of Quebec who, during this debate, and with but three exceptions, have all been conspicuous by their partisanship at the expense of the mandate they received from their electors.
First we heard the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner), then the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) and finally the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Cantin).
Mr. Chairman, I would advise those hon. members to go back to university and attend the lectures of their former professor, Louis-Philippe Pigeon, on constitutional law. They

need it more than ever, in order to see things differently, to defend the interests of their province and, by the same token, of their country, instead of being the slaves of a political party, instead of selling down the river the sacred principles of the province of Quebec in order to please their party and maybe get a promotion.
Mr. Chairman, the members who praised this legislation are siding with the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). And you know what he thinks of the principles we support on this side of the house.


Mr, Lamoniagne:: Talk about your leader.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Does the Secretary of State
wish to make a speech.


Maurice Lamontagne: I asked you to talk about your leader.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. The Secretary of State remains seated confortably while making remarks. He was taught, in two instances, a lesson on procedure in the Quebec east county; he should do a little more talking to defend his theory on co-operative federalism, instead of remaining in his seat.
Mr. Chairman, I would advise the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche, as well as the hon. member for Quebec South, who are much more politicians than lawyers, to read section 93 of the constitution and the second volume of the Tremblay commission, from page 227 on. They would find in it numerous arguments for refusing the federal government either direct or indirect interference in the field of education.
By their attitude in the house, and the silence of their colleagues from Quebec, they become famous not for services rendered to their province, but for being in the pay of the centralizing brains in their party, including the Secretary of State and the Minister of Finance, who is much influenced by the former and by the Minister of Justice.
As far as the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay) is concerned, he never utters a word, he remains silent. We would like to hear from him. We know that he has many problems with immigration, but, at least, he should stand up to promote his province's interest and defend the Canadian constitution. If the minister would resign because his party violates the Canadian constitution, I could guarantee his re-election for 50 years to come.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. members who spoke so highly of this legislation, like the hon.

member for St. Maurice-Lafleche and the hon. member for Quebec South, will receive as pay for their treason, 30 pieces, that will likely take the shape of a promotion before long.
Mr. Chairman, why, once again, does the Secretary of State persist in refusing to give back to the provinces their taxation powers?
The richer provinces would be prepared to compromise and to give some special revenues to the poorer provinces in order to enable them to be on an equal footing with the others.
Why persist in refusing to surrender to the provinces their taxation powers? Why be dependent on this new theory, co-operative federalism, which is condemned by everyone in the province of Quebec except by the present government and the provincial premier?
Mr. Chairman, if hon. members such as the Secretary of State and the Minister of Justice refuse to speak, we will know in a few minutes whether they are sincere, because we have many amendments to introduce in the house.


Mr. Belanger:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with my colleagues of the Ralliement Creditiste to denounce with all my energy this further intrusion of the federal government in the field of education which, as every member of the house agrees-this is the tragic side of the matter-comes exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. Yet, the great majority of members are ready all the same to infringe upon this field by voting for this bill.
It seems, Mr. Chairman, that only members of the Ralliement Creditiste are against this measure and are not trying to find any excuse to allow the government to enter into this field. They seem to be the only ones who are unwilling to let their province be crucified, not even on a golden cross. This makes me wonder where are the Quebec representatives in the other parties, and especially those who try, much to the annoyance of their colleagues from other provinces, to pose as champions of the French fact within the two old-line parties, as in the Social Credit party sitting to our right.
But before explaining in my fashion the reasons why my colleagues and myself are indomitably against this bill, I must admit that, as was said earlier, we are not against the principle of the bill. As a matter of fact, one would have to be blind or unfair to fail to recognize that young people through-
Loans to Students
out the country need help to be able to reach and attend university and complete higher studies.
I admit that today education is not a luxury, but actually a great need. I suspect that those unable to attend university or institutions of higher learning will face more and more a very dismal future, especially if nothing is changed in our present educational system.
I understand that the legislation now under consideration is meant to redress social injustice existing for so long and which only enabled the wealthy families to send their children to university. I also understand that there is an urgent need for the country to promote education in order to have a greater number of scientists, of engineers, in all branches, physicians, lawyers, notaries, and highly qualified businessmen.
We have to hasten to make up for lost time and to keep ourselves up to date with the rapid development of science. In short, we admit these facts and we wish one day that the only standards required from those who would like to attend university would be the ability, the necessary qualifications and not the financial means.
But what we, members of the Ralliement Creditistes, do not admit is the method used to reach that objective.
I do not admit it because it is an attempt to interfere to a greater extent in the field of education.
The tragedy I mentioned at the beginning is precisely that abnormal fact which makes everyone say: It is a provincial field, a provincial right recognized by all, but only members of the Ralliement Creditistes strongly protest against its violation, except possibly-and I must add to their great merit-some Conservative members from Quebec.
But contrary to other hon. members from Quebec, we are not ready to accept, at face value, the fact that the provinces' autonomy is protected and guaranteed in that bill by compensation payments and the choice open to the provinces to participate or not in the loans scheme.
When I speak of the Quebec members, I single out first the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) who needed a good deal of imagination and particularly of political partisanship to find that this bill does not infringe upon the rights of the provinces. As reported on page 5482 of Hansard, he said:

Loans to Students
For us, Quebeckers, education is the field where we are most concerned about our prerogatives and, under no circumstances will we tolerate any intrusion in that sector. The survival and emancipation of French Canada depend on education, and we will fight for our rights in this regard to the last ditch. If we want to survive, we must be intolerant in this matter.
Those are fine words but, unfortunately, the hon. member contradicted himself a little later when he said:
I hope that nobody will deny that education is exclusively a provincial matter. Anyone questioning that would get one biting answer from all hon. members of the province of Quebec, regardless of their political affiliation.
Still further he added:
Now, the government is well aware of the problem that comes up in this legislation, that is the possible conflict between two different jurisdictions. Having understood that difficulty, it has prepared its bill so as to remedy that problem.
I would like the hon. member for St. Mau-riee-Lafleche to tell me how and where the government has drafted its bill so as to remedy the constitutional problem.
And he goes out of his way to give a long and erudite explanation which is just empty words so far as I am concerned to try and justify the glaring encroachment of the government formed by his party into a field which, in his own admission, comes exclusively under the provincial government and, of course, he voted in favour of the bill while denouncing such encroachments by the federal government.
But we have to draw the line somewhere. Are we for or against provincial autonomy? If we are for provincial autonomy, when the federal government gives money to the provincial government for a specific purpose, and especially if it is for education, it indicates that the federal government is infringing upon provincial rights and all members of parliament who claim to be anticentralizers should vote against the bill as it now stands.
As for the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), Conservative deputy leader and official leader of Quebec Conservatives, he was as vague as always.
Here is what he stated as reported in Hansard of July 14, last, at page 5477:
Well, the aim of the legislation before us tonight is to enable some students in our universities to obtain the necessary loans for continuing their studies. To my mind, this legislation will not meet with much opposition on the part of hon. members from the other provinces, except Quebec. On the contrary, I even believe that it will be rather enthusiastically welcomed.

It has no doubt been enthusiastically welcomed by the hon. member for Montreal, Mr. Pigeon-


An hon. Member:: He does not represent a Montreal riding but that of Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: I made a mistake. I meant the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assompition Montcalm.
But, in the case of the province of Quebec, the situation is somewhat more difficult, because there is a rather delicate constitutional problem involved.
He admitted then.
As a matter of fact, the premier of the province of Quebec, Mr. Lesage, made a somewhat violent statement when this question was raised. He even threatened to resort to the courts in order to have the constitutional priority of the province acknowledged in that field.
There has been a lot of change since then. He continued as follows:
More recently, we saw with a certain amazement that the students' associations of Laval, Montreal and Sherbrooke universities, as well as the association of the students of classical colleges and teachers' colleges send to the Minister of Finance a resolution protesting against this intrusion of the federal government in the field of education, which is essentially provincial.
And he kept on speaking in the same vein, to conclude with the following:
There is no doubt, as always, that with such priority measures we are venturing into fields of activity where the needs are most pressing, in the education program of a given province, to achieve better results. For my part, I wanted to make that reservation about the constitutional aspect of the measure now before us and I must say that, because of the options provided for under section 12 concerning repayments, well, I shall support the bill while making a strong reservation from a constitutional standpoint.
Such are the words spoken by the hon. member for Three Rivers-


Michael Starr: On a point of order. My point of order is that the hon. member who now has the floor has been taking from their context certain words which were spoken by the hon. member for Three Rivers. I would say that if he wishes to give the whole story he should read the whole speech.


Lucien Lamoureux: I am sure of one thing. According to the spirit of our standing orders, the hon. member is allowed to make a reference to a speech made by another member but he is not entitled to quote the whole speech as, apparently, he wants to do now.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: I think the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) is quite touchy, for that

is exactly what I did, Mr. Chairman. I quoted just a few extracts to which I was referring.


Norman Platt Lambert: Quote his speech in extenso.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: The speech of the hon. member for Three Rivers is quite boring. Although I am asked to read it to the house, I prefer to refrain from doing so because I do not intend to continue to bore the house in reading his speech.


An hon. Member:: As far as we are concerned, it is not very exciting.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: No, it is not very exciting for us either.
After all, Mr. Chairman, his speech could be resumed by saying this: I know that this measure is a centralizing one and that it violates an exclusive right of the provinces. I claim to be the leader of the French Canadians in my party but, in spite of all that, I will vote for the bill.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I feel it is also my duty to point out to the hon. member that since, as he knows it, the matter now under consideration in committee is Bill No. C-110, dealing with the allocation of student loans, and since his speech really seems to deal with the speech made by another member, he should come back to the matter we are discussing now.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: I must say that, at the exact moment you interrupted me, I was through quoting the speech delivered by the hon. member for Three Rivers. At that moment, those were my own comments I was adding and as I believe that the bill before us is unconstitutional, I wanted to define the position taken by the hon. member for Three Rivers as regards this subject, but I shall refrain from describing it because I would use unparliamentary terms.
Besides, I think his own constituents will be able to define such a stand in the coming election.
I was listening a little while ago to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon). I had the impression of witnessing the birth of the new leader of the Conservative members because such an attitude forebodes an impending change. There are five French Canadian Conservative members from the province of Quebec and they are all divided.
I do not want to speak at length of the constitutionality of the bill under consideration because everyone here recognizes that education comes under provincial jurisdiction. The government itself provided certain 20220-366
Loans to Students
sections in the bill in an attempt to disguise this intrusion. But the principle at stake is and still remains the same. The federal government occupies fields of taxation which belong to the provinces; it levies certain sums of money which should be levied by the provinces, then offers the provincial governments to spend that money in such and such a field.
This is what is unconstitutional and, moreover, it is intrinsically bad and dangerous when it concerns education. Try as you may to do all kinds of leaps and gymnastics with the statutes, this will never change the principle. The interest which will be handed back to the province of Quebec is money that should have been collected by the province of Quebec so it could grant its own loans and pay the interests thereon.
On the other hand, the measure as brought in will not really help the student, since after all this measure will permit a student to mortgage his future, a thing that he can hardly do at the present time, and without knowing whether he will pass his examinations and reimburse his loan easily.
I think that the institutions which will benefit the most will be the chartered bank system which will have the opportunity of earning interest on $40 million a year. I think it was the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) who said that the fact of lending $40 million to the students would create a dearth of credit for other industries, in other fields. At this time, I would point out to him that each bank note which will be lent to students will be guaranteed by the government and that for each bank note, the bank may multiply it by 10 and create new credit. The amount of $40 million is an interesting one, and a very safe one too, as capital and interests are guaranteed by the people. If that was the only means available, I would be ready to welcome it, but we members of the Social Credit, ask and shall continue to ask that all provinces be given back the taxation fields which were their own, to be able to administer themselves without having to resort to the federal government in every field awarded to them by the constitution.
Moreover, we are asking and shall continue to ask that all moneys which constitute what is called social capital, be created by the Bank of Canada and not by the chartered banks.


Lucien Lamoureux: I would like to recall that, under standing orders of the house, all speeches made should be in relation to the

Loans to Students
item discussed and that at this time, the legislation before us concerns student loans.
I believe that the hon. member is now straying away from the subject matter.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I think that my comments were quite in order. I was trying to indicate that loans could be made to students in another manner than the one provided for in this bill. Therefore, I am in order in discussing section 1 of this legislation. While the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is shaking his head, as long as the Chair does not say the opposite,
I shall continue discussing that matter.


Lucien Lamoureux: I regret but I cannot accept the interpretation of the standing orders as presented by the hon. member for Charlevoix. According to the standing orders, any discussion must be related to the bill before the committee and it is not permitted to consider alternative systems to come to the conclusions derived from the bill now before the committee.
I therefore invite him, as far as possible, to relate his remarks to the very precise matter which is now before us.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Since the matter concerns loans granted by the banks, I think it is in order to discuss banking matters, and what we are asking the government is simply to pay out loans to students with debt free money.
The government knows what that is. I think it was on November 6, 1963 that we, Social Crediters, moved an amendment in which we were asking the government, that is the Conservative government, to accept debt free money. At that time, most of today's hon. members voted for debt free money. If we read the official record of the debate, we see there the names of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Transport, almost all hon. members of that time.
That is what we are asking: that banks create money and give it to the provinces. Thus the government will achieve its purpose without violating the rights given to us by the constitution.
At all events, what we are asking for in the final analysis is this: if the government does not want to accept debt free money, let it at least give back to the provinces their taxation rights so that not only the province of Quebec but all the provinces might manage by themselves. I find it strange that in this house there is only the province of Quebec which is anxious to defend its
[The Chairman.]
autonomy and which claims its rights with such vigour.
Anyway, I know that the other provinces have reasons to claim some rights and that if this autonomy were applied on a large scale, in as perfect a way as possible, we would not have to deplore today a separatist wave which is felt not only in the province of Quebec but also in other provinces.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, may I call it
six o'clock?
Mr. Chairman, I have only a few remarks to make on the debate before second reading, before the consideration of the bill clause by clause. I shall be brief; if I were granted only five minutes, but since it is almost six o'clock-
I merely want to ask the minister to show his good faith, for after the many speeches he heard and especially those of the hon. members from the province of Quebec, since it is that province which is mostly concerned by the bill, we must take stock of the question before analysing the bill clause by clause. We must take stock of this point, and that is why I would ask the minister to show his good will and introduce himself the amendment that we all wish with respect to this bill.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock? [Text]


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the committee that the questions to be raised at 10.30 o'clock this evening are as follows:
First, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen); northern affairs, reported intention to carry out railway survey: second, the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp); agriculture, Saskatchewan, request for provision of feed lots: third, the hon. member for Kent, (Ont.) (Mr. Danforth); national parks, regulations prohibiting use by minors not accompanied by adults.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 3 p.m.
Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, when the house adjourned at six o'clock I was about to make a few suggestions to the Minister of Finance with regard to Bill No. C-110 which we are now considering.

After all the discussion-there have been many speeches-the Minister of Finance must have noticed a difference between the province of Quebec and the other provinces, because all the other provinces are ready to accept the bill as it is, or perhaps with a few unimportant amendments. But we, from the province of Quebec, are unable to accept it, even with all the good will in the world.
Many opinions have been expressed and many requests have been made to the Minister of Finance. Moreover, many speeches have been made by hon. members from our group, as well as by other French Canadian members who wish to defend the cause of the province of Quebec in this house. Then came the requests from Quebec university students, in support of what we were saying here in this house.
I would point out to the minister that we sincerely believed he would be bringing us a few minor amendments. We have not proposed any at this stage, because we can feel that the great majority are in favour of this bill and we do not want to impose lengthy speeches upon the hon. members. However, it is absolutely essential that the minister take some action to prevent the prolonged and accelerated disagreement of the province of Quebec, within confederation, due to the attitude of the present government.
Today the minister seemed to insist upon the statement made by Hon. Jean Lesage, premier of the province of Quebec. I was wondering why the Minister of Finance seemed so sure of his opinions. I see now that he has met the Quebec premier. After having read in Le Devoir that the Quebec premier had stated that Quebec would not take part in the federal system of loans to students, I was quite glad. At first, I was pleased with the title. But when I read further on that he had said that he would rather take advantage of the option formula which would enable him to receive an alternative payment, I immediately disapproved that attitude. It is this crucial point which has prompted our objection to the bill now under study. When the Quebec premier stated: "I will not take part in the federal program of loans to students, but I will accept the sums given by the federal government as a compensation", we had to show our disapproval.
Mr. Chairman, it should be borne in mind that mankind was doomed once because of a forbidden fruit, and I believe this is the forbidden fruit that Mr. Lesage should never have accepted.
Loans to Students
This afternoon, the Minister of Finance told us that the Quebec premier stands for the province of Quebec. I agree that Mr. Lesage stands for the province of Quebec for a certain time, and maybe not for long; but I no longer agree with him when he says that Mr. Lesage stands for the majority of the people of Quebec. I would even go so far as to say that French Canadian members of the Liberal party share this opinion, because after all is said, when we receive something from the federal government, it is because the latter collected it in our province under the guise of taxes to return a part of it to us.
I see the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) who shakes his head and I ask him if it is for that reason. I wonder how he cannot possibly admit that this is an intrusion by the federal government when it is said that compensation payments will be given back to the province of Quebec. Necessarily, those compensation payments come from taxes paid by the province of Quebec, there is no argument about it.
If we refuse to accept those compensation payments, the federal government will not be able to levy taxes in the province on account of those compensation payments. We want to prevent the government from opening this gap so as to rob again the province of Quebec.
I said previously in several of my speeches that we were old enough to levy our own taxes. We do not need the federal government to levy those taxes and then to give us back the amount collected. We are old enough to do that and we need those taxes to protect our rights.
That is exactly what I want to blame the federal government for. The premier says that the province of Quebec will not participate in that loans scheme but if the federal government gives it something, it follows that it will get it back through the back door.
I might be going against the premier of Quebec in that respect but I am happy to do so because he is violating the constitution. It is more serious for a provincial premier to do that than for a private member of the House of Commons.
I heard the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Cantin) say that we are federal administrators and legislators and that we must act as Canadians.
Well, I am here in Canada as a "Canadian French Canadian" and I defend the province of Quebec in this parliament. No one can stop

Loans to Students
me from doing so any more than I can stop an Anglo-Saxon from defending his English speaking province.
That is why, at the outset of my remarks, I said that I fully agree with any province which is in favour of this bill. However, if that does not suit the province of Quebec, we just have to make a small amendment with which the Minister of Finance is familiar to replace the alternative payments by a tax abatement of some kind-0.5 or 0.9 per cent- in favour of any province which withdraws from the scheme. Everybody would agree, nobody could say that we are violating the constitution. I believe the minister must have given serious thought to it as he is much more qualified than I am in this respect. I wonder now what is preventing him from taking an initiative of this kind.
Instead of having these alternative payments, we could return a certain percentage of the taxation rights to the province of Quebec. It seems to me it would be much easier to do this than to do what was agreed upon with the provincial minister, who is a former Ottawa centralizer-we know him.
I suggest that, should the Minister of Finance consider this little amendment, everybody will agree with him. Moreover, he will make many friends in the province of Quebec.
On the other hand, when we blame Mr. Jean Lesage for accepting this bill, he states: "I cannot possibly send the provincial police in the other provinces". That is not what we ask of him. He should leave the other provinces in peace, as the other provinces leave him in peace, but he should look after his province and cease to play "trust", even on a small scale.
We are not meddling in the affairs of other provinces, the hon. members are aware of that. But our only protection is the constitution. We are told that this bill does not violate the constitution. However, I have spoken with some sincere members and, confidentially, they admit that such an amendment would be preferable.
I see the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel) who does not speak often-


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I prefer not to speak rather than say such nonsense.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I say to the hon. member for Cochrane that we are judged according to our brains.


Lucien Lamoureux: I urge the hon. member to come back to the subject now under study.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask you to have this bleating stopped. I simply want to make a few suggestions of interest to French Canadians. In the meantime there is a herd of French Canadians on the other side, who do not know to which manger they should turn. I would ask them to remain quietly in their corner and at least listen to what is said, if they do not dare to stand up for French Canadians on this point.
I ask them to do so in all sincerity, because I never attacked anybody in the house. I am just expressing my ideas, that is all.
On the other hand, I sincerely regret that, after all that has been expounded in the house, it will be impossible to use the Bank of Canada, which would be the most natural thing in the world.
But while remaining under our stupid monetary system, nevertheless, I think that we are able to bring about a few improvements.
What I cannot conceive, is that the chartered banks alone will have the right to make these loans. At this point, I shall ask the hon. minister-and I know that it is still possible to do so-to extend this authorization to the caisses populaires, or credit unions, in all those provinces which accept the bill, or to the provincial banks, like the Bank of Alberta or the future bank of British Columbia. As far as the province of Quebec is concerned, if, instead of creating this famous societe generale de financement scheme, Premier Jean Lesage had really taken the people's side, he would have set up the provincial bank of Quebec, which would have been a much better proposition.
At this stage, the government might have given to those provincial banks the same power as it concedes to banks with an individual charter.
The Minister of Finance is laughing because his specialized field is not concerned here.
I always wonder why those chartered banks are so favoured by the federal government while they are in process of controlling the whole economy of the country. Privileges granted to charter banks should be extended to provincial banks and to caisses populaires, which should be allowed to create credit as those private companies are allowed to.
It seems to me that provincial corporations should have at least the same rights as individuals in Canada. I am asking the minister to try to examine this financing method to encourage our credit unions, our pro-

vincial financing organizations, so that they will be able to give efficient assistance to our students.
Those are the two suggestions I wanted to make to the minister. I hope he will take them seriously and that we will be able at last to conclude our debate on this bill, for you may be sure that should there be no amendment, there is not a single serious-minded French Canadian who could vote for the bill as it is worded at present.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I am stating sincerely that there is not a single serious-minded Canadian who can vote for this bill. Hon. members, I leave this to your consideration. You will account for your deeds in your respective constituencies.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to make a long speech; I merely wish to say that I have been convinced of the legality of the legislation not only since the beginning of the discussions here but ever since the preparation of the bill.
I rise only to prevent certain discussions which could follow from consideration of this legislation section by section, especially section 15 which will be examined much later on.
I must say right now that even though I am quite satisfied myself with the validity of section 15, I must admit that after hearing some speeches in the house, I realize that there may be some confusion about whether or not the provincial judicial procedure should be followed to recover the principal and interest in the case of any loan.
I give notice immediately that when we reach clause 15 I will move an amendment which will clarify that clause and will also quiet the fears of those who worry, with good reason in some cases, about the wording of the said clause.
I am saying this now to prevent any premature debate on the validity of clause 15 when we consider clause 3 setting up the banks' jurisdiction.
I do not intend to limit the right to free discussion which exists in the house, at least to the extent it has always existed, but I want to let hon. members know what the government intends to do when we reach that part of the bill.


Mr. Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the attention of the committee very briefly to certain implications of the Canada student loan legisla-
Loans to Students
tion. This bill provides for student loans to a maximum of $1,000 a year for a maximum of five years at a "specified educational institution", that is, one offering courses at the post-secondary school level. When a student has ceased to be a full time student for seven months he is liable for payment of interest or principal on the $5,000.
Let us examine some of the possible consequences of this situation. No student can be expected to finance a university education on the maximum of $1,000 a year and if a student must drop out for a year to earn enough to further his education his loan will fall due in the midst of his efforts and his education will be delayed even further. A student who ceases to qualify academically for the loan and must drop out to work will face the same problem. This is a severe obstruction to the intended purpose of the bill.
Let us then consider the successful student who completes his education on student loans. Those who find good jobs on graduation will experience no difficulty in paying their debts. However if a student should wish to pursue graduate studies, medicine or dentistry it will be virtually impossible for him to do so. Such studies are expensive enough without the added burden of a loan repayment. Medical students pay from one half to two thirds more than other university students and dental students pay even more.
At the moment our graduate students comprise only 0.6 per cent of the student age population compared with 1.4 per cent in the United States. In this country, where young people are not required to spend time in the armed forces, they should be making a far better showing than this. Yet we choose this time to provide effective discouragement.
The Hall commission report has stated that by 1971 we will need 7,100 new doctors and 2,130 new dentists. The medical and dental graduates of 1971 are entering university this year or have already entered. Those who choose to pursue medical or dental careers will be prevented from or delayed in doing so if they should take advantage of loans now.
One grave deficiency of the legislation is the failure to provide loans for students beyond the undergraduate level. Not only does it fail to provide for these students but it offers direct discouragement. The terms of the bill must be changed and clarified so that students proceeding beyond the undergraduate level will be exempt from payment of interest or principal while their formal studies continue. During this period, as during

Loans to Students
the undergraduate period, the government should continue to accept responsibility for the interest payments. Furthermore, new legislation must be introduced immediately to provide direct financial aid for students at this level, as recommended by the Hall commission report.
The government has made a faltering step in the direction of student aid and perhaps we should not scorn it, but they must not be allowed to believe that they have done enough. The program of scholarships we heard so much about at election time has vanished and has been replaced by a scheme that may do more harm than good in the long run. It is one more in the series of government attempts to make it appear that they are taking adequate action on our most serious problems. They know it is inadequate and they must not be allowed to forget this.
To state that loans will give the student the feeling of having earned his way to an education and that scholarships are somehow equivalent to charity is ludicrous. Any intelligent student who works hard enough to gain a scholarship deserves it and has most certainly earned his way. This must not be used as an excuse to avoid scholarships any longer.
We need not only a broader loan program but scholarships and bursaries of all kinds to provide the doctors, dentists, nurses, medical teachers and other professional people we need so badly. We must not settle for stopgap measures.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 1 carry?


Mr. Macaluso:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question? If the hon. member for Hamilton South had listened to the speeches made by hon. members on this side he would know that they said that this legislation was not adequate enough but was only one step in a number of procedures that should be followed in order to aid education in this country. The hon. member has left the impression-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is that a question?


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: -that this legislation was put forward-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: -as the only answer.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I ask the hon. member for Hamilton South if he was in the house to hear those speeches?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Make a speech if you can, but don't try to make one now.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I spoke Tuesday night.
Where were you?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May we have order in the committee, please. I understand that the hon. member has made a statement. I will now recognize the hon. member for Ber-thier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, I rise simply to thank the Minister of Justice for his understanding of the legal arguments raised by some Quebec members, especially the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue, the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot and by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm as well as those raised by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) on the motion before second reading of this bill.
It is much easier for a member to vote for this bill, although, as a matter of principle, I myself will vote against it; I want nevertheless to thank the minister for his concession-


An hon. Member:: It has not been made yet.


Rémi Paul: -for the minor concession he made, and I think it is my duty to thank him for having understood a little the legal problem which arises in the text of this bill.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Scoit:: Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Is clause 1 carried?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Definitions.
Mr. Balcer:: Mr. Chairman, I know that arguments have often been put forward in the course of this debate which have clearly shown that we are all agreed on this side of the house that section 2(c) should be amended in order to include caisses populaires, credit unions and savings banks. We should bear in mind that the caisses populaires are now playing a most important role in every financial transaction made in a very large sector of the population of the province of Quebec and of elsewhere.
The caisses populaires have progressed considerably in the past few years and have rendered extraordinary services to the people

of the province of Quebec in providing a certain part of the population with banking services and credit which it could hardly get before the establishment of those institutions.
That is why I intend to move, seconded by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temisca-mingue (Mr. Martineau) that section 2(c) be amended by adding after the last words the following words:
Caisses populaires, savings banks and credit unions.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Very well.


Norman Platt Lambert: On a point of order I wonder if perhaps we should adopt the procedure we have previously had on bills in committee stage, that while one does not require a clear cut vote on each of the subparagraphs of a clause, for the sake of orderly procedure we should discuss each subclause seriatim. I believe the hon. member for Yukon has an amendment to paragraph (b) and we are now considering one to paragraph (c). Perhaps the Chair could unsnarl us from this little difficulty.


Lucien Lamoureux: It might be unusual to consider an interpretation clause by paragraphs but in view of what the hon. member says it would appear to be an easier procedure in this instance. However, since we have received an amendment to a particular paragraph, if it is agreeable to the committee I think we should proceed with it and then go back to paragraph (b).


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Could I have a copy of the amendment?


Lucien Lamoureux: Unfortunately there is no copy, but the suggestion has been made that it be translated, and without guaranteeing the result I shall attempt to translate it. It is proposed by Mr. Balcer seconded by Mr. Martineau that paragraph (c) of clause 2 be amended by adding after the last word the following words, "caisses populaires, Quebec savings banks and the credit unions."


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I find it difficult in this bilingual country to get the general drift of the amendment without seeing it in both languages, but in the first place I quite agree, in fact I more than agree, that the caisses populaires and the credit unions form a very important part of the financial machinery and structure of the country.
As I said last night in replying to a question that was raised earlier by the hon. member for Burnaby-Cioquitlam, in other
Loans to Students
legislation of this general kind, under the banking clauses of the B.N.A. Act there is only one case where the credit unions and the caisses populaires have been included.
I may have the title wrong but this was covered in the fisheries loan act.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, and in that case it was felt it was particularly important to include the credit unions because of the important part that they fill in that particular industry. But in practice it has been found that only a very small percentage of the loans have been made by the credit unions under that act. I gave the particulars last night, and no loan of any kind under that act has been made by any credit union since 1961.
There were several reasons why this clause was drafted in the way it was, and it certainly was not intended to cast disparagement on the credit unions or caisses populaires which, as I say, fill a very important role. However, it was not felt that in practice they would be likely to lend very much money under the provisions of this bill.
There was also some question in the minds of the draftsmen as to whether, even by implication, it was wise at this time, despite the recommendations of the royal commission on banking and finance and in anticipation of any revisions of the Bank Act that may be passed by the house, to suggest even by indirection and in advance of closer study that the credit unions, the caisses populaires and the Quebec savings bank come under the general heading of banking. This has been recommended by the royal commission, but the government has been very careful not to comment as yet on the recommendations of the royal commission, and certainly I would not wish to do so in connection with this bill.
It seems to me that a lot more study should be made of the recommendations of the royal commission and of their implications before the government, and I suggest all hon. members as well, go on record or even imply what they think the term banking should include. I would remind hon. members that this has not been clearly defined up to date and I question whether this is the time to move into that area.
This bill is based in very large measure on the rights of the federal government in the general area of banking. I have no doubt that if we restrict it, as it is suggested here, to the words that a bank means a bank to which

Loans to Students
the Bank Act applies, we will avoid taking a step which some hon. members may not wish to take when the Bank Act is up for revision. I personally have no doubt that students will not be restricted in obtaining loans because of the way in which this definition is drawn, and I base that largely on the experience to date with this type of loans by credit unions and the caisses populaires.
It would seem to me that, because in my view there will be no discrimination as far as the students are concerned in their ability to get loans, and because it is desirable in many ways that students should be completely mobile and free to go to universities or vocational training schools anywhere in Canada, and because quite frankly I would hope this committee would not take a step now which might have implications when we come to consider another very important bill before this session is over, I would hope the hon. member will not press this amendment. I would also point out that as far as the province of Quebec is concerned the question is an academic one because, as the hon. gentleman knows, Quebec intends to take advantage of clause 12 of the bill and the act will not apply directly to students in that province. I think all that remains for me to say is that I hope the hon. member will not press this amendment.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, the amendment I proposed is mainly a question of principle.
I believe the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) advanced certain arguments which, at first, might not seem to call for the inclusion of caisses populaires in this clause. But I have to point out the fact that, in the past, the government has been criticized because certain federal statutes ignored the caisses populaires. Merely as an illustration, I want to mention the case of loans on farm machinery and the purchase of herds. I believe that, in the case of loans on farm machinery, it would have been very useful to include the caisses populaires among the lending institutions in order to enable farmers in the various rural centres to avail themselves of banking services and to borrow in their own districts.
I understand that the province of Quebec has a rather special status under this bill, but I shall nevertheless insist I be allowed to submit my amendment to the house and have the principle recognized that each time the federal government resorts to the services of banking institutions, in order to lend money to the public under some federal legis-

lation it is in the public interest to allow the caisses populaires, the credit unions and savings banks in Canada to render the same service to their customers.
We should recall that the banks are resorting to those various means of serving their customers, and I think that the benefits which might accrue to the chartered banks under this bill, should also be given to the caisses populaires, credit unions and savings banks in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, I want to apologize to the minister for having submitted him only a draft of this amendment. On the other hand, the observations he made indicate that he understood very well the letter and the meaning of my proposed amendment.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Ever since I came to this house I have been impressed with the logic of my friends from the province of Quebec but on this particular occasion I must say the logic escapes me. We have been listening to speeches for three or four days, now, about the dangers of federal government interference with provincial rights, provincial status and provincial opinions. Yet the hon. member for Three Rivers now proposes an amendment which would have the federal government move in and give, if not instructions, then certainly directions to provincially incorporated institutions. This is something which this government felt would not be welcome in the province of Quebec. We would not have had the temerity to suggest such a thing. Well, I have always admired the courage of the hon. member for Three Rivers in many fields, but this is an example of courage which frankly confuses me.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Can we conclude from the minister's remarks that his bill really infringes provincial rights?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I have not said that at all. It does not infringe on provincial rights. But what the hon. member for Three Rivers is suggesting might do so, in the minds of some people. But it is his suggestion, not mine and I have nothing more to say except that I question the wisdom of following the course he is suggesting.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I will not take up the time of the committee for long. In this instance however I feel that, as the minister has suggested, in the course of the last few days we have had a tremendous amount of debate with regard to this bill in general. Inasmuch as education is involved I think we should

be extremely lenient, and if hon. members will excuse the word, liberal-


Some hon. Members:: A good word.


Eric Alfred Winkler: -with a small "1" in the way we offer the assistance which this bill is intended to provide for students who wish to make use of its provisions. It may be that the Liberal leader in the province of Quebec will opt out of this scheme. I do not know. There have been intimations, but that is beside the point. It may be that the minister has decided that the credit unions to which my hon. friend from Three Rivers referred exist only in the province of Quebec. Perhaps that is what the hon. gentleman believes. The one thing I know is that there are credit unions throughout the Dominion of Canada. They exist throughout western Canada. In eastern Canada there are also caisses populates as well as in the Atlantic provinces, as one of my hon. friends suggests, and in the Yukon and in the Northwest Territories. Surely if there is a service to be rendered to those who wish to use the facilities the government is offering, the minister should bend his views in this regard. If the hon. gentleman would just listen for a few minutes maybe I could get my words across to him. It may be that in the minister's view this is strictly a provincial matter. But I cannot see how this involves a study of the Bank Act. It involves education. If there is a departure from the constitutional position with regard to any of the provinces, then we have to take into account the whole area of the philosophical thinking of the political parties in this regard, as one member of this committee suggested a few minutes ago. After all, the minister did vote in favour of interest free money; his opinions were sufficiently flexible in this regard and in these circumstances it seems to me he should be able to give favourable consideration to extending these facilities to students who need to take advantage of them, bearing in mind that chartered banks do not have branches in all the areas of Canada.


Reynold Rapp: I shall take the time of the committee for only a few minutes. May I say I was prepared to speak on the N.D.P. amendment with regard to credit unions; I was not aware that the hon. member for Three Rivers had a similar amendment to put forward.
In my opinion we cannot ignore the fact that credit unions are part of our lives. Approximately 16 per cent of the population of this country are members of credit unions.
Loans to Students
I would also like to point out that savings in Canada amount to approximately $1J billion. To ignore these facts and not to include this amendment under paragraph Cc) would not be the right thing to do, because these credit unions are all across Canada and many people, in rural areas in particular, have only the credit unions as their lending institutions. For that reason I would strongly support this amendment brought in by the hon. member for Three Rivers and I am sure it will be supported by many other hon. members of this house.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister resorted to a real fallacy a while ago when he considered as an intrusion into provincial rights the amendment of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer).
Indeed, as a few hon. members explained it very well a moment ago, institutions whose scope extends all over the country are not institutions reserved to the province of Quebec. They can very well conduct business outside as well as inside the province of Quebec. It will rest with them to decide whether they can accept these loans.
I think the minister, by excluding these institutions from the provisions of this act, needlessly restricts their scope and is thus being prejudicial to those institutions.
That is why I am pleased to support the amendment of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer).


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I share to some mild degree the surprise indicated by the Minister of Finance with regard to the amendment which was introduced by the hon. member for Three Rivers and which has been so eloquently supported by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temisca-mingue. However, as the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale has already indicated, I did have drafted an amendment which I had intended to introduce. While naturally I think my wording is better than that of the amendment of the hon. member for Three Rivers, nevertheless the substance is so close to being the same that I am happy to support the motion he has moved. Just for the record I would like to say that I had intended to move that the paragraph be amended by adding the following words thereto:
"Or co-operative credit society, caisse populaire or credit union which is incorporated according to the laws of a province".

Loans to Students
I did have some slight hesitation, in view of some of the discussion I have listened to in the house, about including in my amendment the words "caisse populaire", in case that might be interpreted by anyone as being an attempt on my part to infringe upon the rights of the province of Quebec. But I have an idea there may be organizations within the province of Ontario, and possibly within the province of New Brunswick, which perform the same function.


An hon. Member:: And Alberta.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: And Alberta. They have not got to British Columbia yet. I think this is a subject matter that deserves the very serious consideration of the committee. I was rather surprised when the Minister of Finance last night intimated that he did not feel it would be appropriate to have this type of provision included in the bill at this time. I made particular note then that he made reference to the question of the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act and the inclusion of credit unions in its provisions. I was quite interested in the manner in which he attempted to suggest that the experience under that act was a good reason for not having credit unions included in this one. His reason was that there probably would not be too much use made of them. I was rather surprised when the minister said this, because I was in the house at the time this subject matter came up for discussion with regard to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. I realize that the Minister of Finance was not a member of the house at that time, but if he will check the record I think he will find that the argument advanced by the then Liberal spokesmen against the inclusion of caisses populaires and credit unions in the fisheries bill was exactly the reverse of the argument he advanced here tonight and last night. The argument that was advanced against the inclusion of credit unions in the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act was the fact that this provision would be used so widely that it would create a lot of administrative difficulties, in that many of the credit unions, particularly on the Atlantic coast, were comparatively small organizations.
The minister will find, if he checks the record, that as a result of the pressure which built up in great part from some of the members who were then sitting on the government side of the house, this matter did receive rather extensive consideration in committee and the inclusion of credit unions
was finally agreed to and adopted and made part of the legislation. I think it is rather ironic that the minister should have used that argument, because as far as I can see the question of principle in the inclusion of credit unions is just as important today as it was at the time the bill in connection with the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act was before the house.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, when I spoke a minute or two ago I explained that in the original draft that is now before the committee, caisses populaires and credit unions had been left out because I was afraid at that time among other things that perhaps some hon. members would think the government was treading on provincial toes, which of course we would be very reluctant to do, and in fact we would not do. But if my hon. friend and all hon. members of the committee are satisfied that this amendment does not infringe provincial rights in any way, we would be happy to accept it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, may I-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Is the house ready for the question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, before taking the vote, we would be very happy to have-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I thought I had-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. [Translation]
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has the floor.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I thought I still had the floor, Mr. Chairman. I yielded it to the minister because I understood he had something that he wished to say.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: O.K.; go on.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: But if I may say so, I had not concluded the remarks I intended to make, although I quite freely admit that the tenor of some of them may be slightly changed in view of what the minister has just said. I may say I am really very pleased that the minister has so readily accepted the idea of including credit unions because, as I was about to point out, as far as I know the credit

unions have done the real pioneering in the field of making special provisions for student loans. To me it would be very ironic if, having done that, they should not be in a position now to secure the kind of government guarantee that is available under this legislation. I know that my own credit union has had a special plan, as far as the limit of its resources has allowed it to do so, of making interest free loans to students for quite a number of years. This has been done without the benefit of government guarantee. I think it should also be made clear at this point that the credit union movement also pioneered another very important provision of this bill, and that is the principle of providing insurance in the event of the death of the borrower. So in a very full sense I think it can probably be agreed that the credit movement in Canada has really fathered this legislation to the point of its introduction into the parliament of Canada.
I was just going to suggest, Mr. Chairman, in view of the position stated by the minister the other night, that the small "1" liberalism of the Liberal party seemed to retreat very quickly like a hermit crab into the shell of hardened conservatism when it came to the government side. But I am glad to see the government has been bold enough to come out of its shell and to accept the proposal Which has been placed before the house in this connection.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I am simply rising to ask whether you would read the exact wording of the amendment, because it was not very clear to us, so we know what the amendment is.


Lucien Lamoureux: I am forced to read it in French because the amendment has been proposed in French to the Chair.

It is moved by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), seconded by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiseamingue (Mr. Martineau), that paragraph (c) of clause 2 be amended by adding after the last word the following words: the caisses populaires, the savings banks and the credit unions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What about the English copy, Mr. Chairman? Where do these words come? After the word "applies"?


Lucien Lamoureux: I assume that the translation will be made to conform with the text. Paragraph (c) would probably read, and I submit should read:
"Bank" means a bank to which the Bank Act applies-
Loans to Students
And then a comma, and then:
-les caisses populaires, les caisses d'epargne et credit unions.
That would be a literal translation, I think.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, this is the worry of the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Justice, it is not mine; but it seems to me that you might want to leave the amendment until the legal officers have had a chance to draft it, because I think there should be some clarification of what is meant by the terms "cooperative bank", "credit union", and "caisses populaires", so as to restrict it to those incorporated under provincial legislation.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I must say that this is a very good suggestion. I wonder whether this particular paragraph could stand until the matter is clarified and copies are available in both languages so that we know what we are doing.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed that the amendment now proposed be allowed to stand until such time as the members of the committee have had a chance to see it in both languages and the problem of drafting has been resolved?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Raymond Martineau: There is just one question I should like to ask the minister, Mr. Chairman. It is understood, of course, that he is accepting the principle of the amendment?


Lucien Lamoureux: If it is agreed that we allow the amendment to stand we would revert to paragraph (a) as was suggested in the first instance.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I think there was a question asked by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) to the effect that, before the amendment is allowed to stand, he would like to see the government agree to the admission of the principle.
To this I would simply reply that we would be very glad to extend the number of lending institutions which could grant those loans to students, provided the opposition and especially the hon. member for Three Rivers and his seconder agree that, should the principle be admitted, that will not constitute legislation concerning the caisses populaires or credit unions, which are provincial institutions, but will be taken as a piece of legislation incidental to the substantive measure now before us.

Loans to Students


Paul Raymond Martineau: Ancillary.


Guy Favreau: Yes, ancillary.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, my seconder and I are pleased to accept the proposal put forth by the Minister of Justice.


Mr. MacNaughl:: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to propose to this clause on behalf of the government.


Lucien Lamoureux: Which clause is this?


John Watson MacNaught: Clause 2.


Lucien Lamoureux: But which paragraph?


Mr.  A. B. Paiterson@Fraser Valley: Mr. Chairman, just before paragraph (c) of this clause is stood I should like to ask the minister whether he will take into consideration the fact that in the province of Alberta they have a great many treasury branches. I think the minister should take that into consideration when drafting this legislation.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, we will be very glad to take that matter into consideration when the revision of the Bank Act is under discussion, but I think it would be premature to do that here.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Well, if the credit unions and these other agencies are going to be considered now, I think the treasury branches of Alberta ought to be included as well.


Lucien Lamoureux: I suggest that the whole discussion of this proposed amendment be allowed to stand because certainly we will not make any progress while the amendment is being redrafted or revised. This would allow the committee to revert to paragraph (a). Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Chairman, the
amendment I propose to move affects the whole clause. Inasmuch as we have to do some renumbering I think it would be proper to move the amendment now. Therefore I move:
That clause 2 be renumbered as subclause (1) of clause 2, and that there be added Immediately after subclause (1) of clause 2 the following subclause :
"(2) In its application to the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, the expression 'lieutenant governor in council' in this act means the commissioner of the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories, as the case may be".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, on a matter of procedure, with great respect it seems to
[Mr. Favreau.1
me that what the Solicitor General has proposed really comes after we have gone through all the paragraphs, (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k) and (1). As I understand it, the Solicitor General is proposing that all of the paragraphs we now have from (a) to (1) be subclause (1) of clause 2.


John Watson MacNaught: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And that there be a new subclause (2) which will come after paragraph (1). Therefore I suggest that we follow your lead, Mr. Chairman, and go through from paragraph (a) to (1) before we take up something which is to appear in the text after (1).


Lucien Lamoureux: I would agree with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, because this amendment would come after we had reached paragraph (1). I submit that the amendment should be proposed at that time.


John Watson MacNaught: Then I am quite happy to allow it to stand.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, if I have the assurance of the minister that he will put the amendment at that time I will vote for paragraph (b) as it now stands. But I think that the procedure adopted by the Solicitor General in the first instance was correct, because paragraph (b) would not have gotten by me as it now stands unless I had that assurance.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to propose to paragraph (b) and paragraph (k), if this is the appropriate time.


Lucien Lamoureux: May I suggest to the hon. member that we are now discussing paragraph (a) of clause 2. Have we completed our discussion of that paragraph?


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, as we are now discussing paragraph (a) of clause 2 I should like to direct a question or two to the Minister of Finance in connection with this bill, which has my wholehearted endorsation. In this bill we read the words "academic year" and "specified educational institution" in many places, but there is no direct reference whatsoever made to hospital schools of nursing. In the provinces of Canada the hospital schools of nursing come under the departments of health, not under the departments of education. There has been a slight breakthrough in the province of Ontario where the Ontario department of education assists in the education of registered nursing assistants. However, that is a very small percentage of

the courses of training provided for nurses offered by the provincial government.
I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if it could be officially recorded that the terms "academic year" and "specified educational institution" do not exclude those benefits from students in hospital schools of nursing throughout the dominion. Would he also advise us just what is meant by "post-secondary education" because some courses such as registered nursing assistant can be entered by a student with a grade 10 pass mark. Some hospital schools of nursing require grade 12 or grade 13. I ask therefore, what does postsecondary education mean in the wording of this bill?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: In reply to the first question, Mr. Chairman, any institution that was recognized by the appropriate authority in a province would qualify under this bill. It is not the intention of the federal authorities to reach down into the provinces and indicate which institutions should qualify or not qualify. This would be done by the appropriate authority in the province, so long as they are post-secondary institutions.
Now, I would hope that nursing schools and, similar vocational training schools would be included by the appropriate authority of the provinces because the provisions of this bill were intended to cover people taking that kind of training, which is very necessary training. My friend, the hon. member for York-Humber, has a particular interest in this, as we all know. I can assure him that the intention is, so far as the federal government is concerned, to cover these classes under the bill. The actual designation would be made or not made by the appropriate provincial authority.
When the hon. member asks whether this bill would cover people who take some vocational course at the end of grade 10, I must say that I feel that probably the post secondary education clause would cover post matriculation at grade 12 or grade 13, but this is something that would be dealt with in the regulations and covered after further discussions with the provinces.


Lucien Lamoureux: Should we go now to paragraph (b)?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I am putting before the committee an amendment to paragraph (b), and the same amendment would apply to paragraph (k), but since we have not yet come to paragraph (k) I will deal with paragraph (b) alone. The copies of the amend-
Loans to Students
ment I have here, and which I will furnish to hon. members, include both (b) and (k).
The purpose of the amendment is to remedy a constitutional defect in the bill which I endeavoured to point out to the house in the debate on second reading on July 15. Without the amendment, I confidently assert, and much more confidently since the debate in this house took place, that the legislation contains a fatal defect which renders it invalid and unconstitutional unless this or some similar amendment is made. Parliament is sometimes described, Mr. Chairman, as a court. I imagine there is no court in the world in which it is less appropriate to make a lengthy legal argument. I will not repeat what I said on second reading the other day; I will just try to summarize the point for any members who were not present on that occasion and who do not read Hansard.
The point is that clause 2 (b), and indeed clause 2 (k) as well, delegate to the lieutenant governor in council, that is to say the provincial cabinet, the right to designate the appropriate authorities who are to have the power to grant certificates of eligibility. Without a certificate of eligibility, you do not get a loan and the whole legislation falls to the ground. The authorities who designate the people who get these certificates are the lieutenant governors in council. The delegation by this parliament to the provincial executive which is set up by the British North America Act and not subordinate in any sense to this parliament is in my view the delegation of a legislative power, and in accordance with the principle laid down by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Nova Scotia Interdelegation Conference case, is an unauthorized and invalid delegation.
The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance made a very courteous and disarming speech in answer to the remarks I made on this matter. I thank him, and indeed I thank the Minister of Finance for their kind references to me in the debate. I must say that as I listened to their words I felt very much like counsel before a judge who hears the judge start his remarks by saying, "I have listened to the very able argument of counsel for the defendant", and who then proceeds to dismiss his case. It is always bad when you hear words of praise coming from those who are trying to persuade. I do not intend to be diverted, Mr. Chairman, by the kind words and able arguments of the parliamentary secretary in support of the constitutionality of this bill.

Loans to Students
They only served to reinforce my conviction that the legislation as it now stands, without amendment, is in fact unconstitutional.
I noticed that the hon. member for Royal, who I hope will speak later in this discussion and who is a former attorney general of one of the provinces, supported my argument. I may say that I have spoken to many other learned members of the house-I will not embarrass them by naming them-who have expressed to me at least the same opinion I advanced. The parliamentary secretary said that the Nova Scotia case dealt with delegation by parliament to the legislatures and vice-versa from the legislatures to parliament, and did not deal with delegation from parliament to the provincial cabinet or vice-versa. Of course, this is so. This is very obvious; but as I pointed out in my previous remarks this is a difference and not a distinction.
It will not have escaped the notice of the parliamentary secretary that at least one of the judges in the Nova Scotia case, Mr. Justice Kellock, made no distinction of this sort and referred to both the executive and the legislature delegation in the same breath, as it were. Nor is there any point, at least in my view, in the suggestion that the lieutenant governor's duties are administrative in nature, which is one of the main arguments presented by the parliamentary secretary. The fact is that the duties of the lieutenant governor are spelled out by the British North America Act. They cannot be added to by parliament. What opinion, I ask you, would be advanced if the provincial legislatures passed an act, without the consent of this parliament, purporting to delegate powers, duties and responsibilities to the governor general in council? The situation would be precisely the same.
As I have said, the parliamentary secretary said that the legislation only delegates administrative authority to the provincial cabinet. I think the parliamentary secretary knows better than that. An administrative duty can, in fact, be delegated. An administrative duty is one which is not discretionary in its nature. Indeed, the standards and details are spelled out by the legislation, leaving only the administrative application to the administrator. If the parliamentary secretary wants authority for that statement I would refer him to the case of Bridge v. The Queen in 1953 Supreme Court Reports. In the present legislation the whole responsibility for selecting the authorities to grant certificates of eligibility is left to the lieutenant governor in council.

The standard of selection is not suggested. The same applies to the selection of the institutions of learning to be covered by the act under clause 2(k). This is left wide open. There is complete discretion in this field, as the Minister of Finance has already pointed out several times in this debate.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that it would be the height of irresponsibility to refuse to amend the defect I have pointed out, even if some hon. members may think I am wrong. The minister and the parliamentary secretary were both kind enough to suggest that in this particular field my opinion, even though they did not agree with it, was entitled to consideration. If that is so, Mr. Chairman, does it not make sense to seek to remedy the defect even if they are not sure it exists? There is a Latin maxim familiar to some, ex abundanti cautela, which means that if there is a defect or a suggested defect you meet it whether you have to do so or not. I suggest that common sense priciples of draftsmanship should be adopted by the government.
I am trying to salvage this bill from the constitutional wreckers. After listening to my hon. friend, the member for Danforth, I was not so sure the measure deserved to be salvaged. But I would have thought that the people who put forward this legislation in the house and who have spoken in glowing terms of its effects would be the very first ones to welcome with open arms an amendment calculated to remove reasonable doubts, and I suggest these are at least reasonable doubts, as to the constitutional validity.
I quote the parliamentary secretary from page 5576 of Hansard. He is referring to what I had said in the previous debate, and says:
I should not ignore the fact that the learned member proposed an alternative method-
I ask the committee to note these words.
-and in my very humble opinion that alternative was valid and did not affect the fabric of the bill.
If that is so, if the suggestion is valid, if there is a reasonable doubt, and it is admitted there is a reasonable doubt, then I suggest it is pretty obvious that the gap should be plugged and the defect remedied.
What a laughingstock would be made of the government and, what is much worse, of this parliament if we pass this legislation and then the banks refuse to make loans because they say it has not been passed constitutionally, just because we have failed to accept a reasonable amendment that will clear up the doubt. Incidentally the banks have very competent

legal advisers, and I wonder whether the government has secured any opinion from these advisers as to the constitutionality of the particular point I am raising.
The Minister of Finance says: This is a legal problem and it is difficult to be sure who is right; we think we are right and if we are wrong let the courts decide. I do not like to say anything harsh to the Minister of Finance-perhaps it does not matter as at the moment he is not listening

but does he not think it is irresponsible to fail to remedy defects that can be remedied by simple amendment, especially when, if this legislation is held to be defective, many students will be grievously disappointed by this parliament?
I move an amendment, Mr. Chairman, the substance of which is to say that in lieu of the selection of these agencies or authorities by the lieutenant governors in council, which I say is unconstitutional, the delegation shall be to the governor general in council, in regard to whom we clearly have the power, upon the recommendation of the lieutenant governors in council. This will give the same authority to the lieutenant governors in council, will leave provincial rights intact in fact and will plug a constitutional gap. I say that if this amendment is not accepted and if the advice that has been proffered from this side of the house is declined, a very heavy responsibility will rest upon the government for refusing to accept this reasonable amendment.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It is moved by Mr. Brewin:
That Bill C-110, an act to facilitate the making of loans to students, be amended by striking out paragraph (b) in clause 2 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"(b) 'appropriate authority' for a province means such person, body or authority as is designated by the governor general in council on the recommendation of the lieutenant governor in council of that province as the appropriate authority for that province for the purposes of this act."


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Chairman, I thought the minister was about to accept the amendment and I would not have to speak. Is that the case?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think you had better speak.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister needs some help.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Get your instructions from the Minister of Justice.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Chairman, I want to support the hon. member for Greenwood and
Loans to Students
I wish to remind the house of what the Minister of Finance said on July 20 last as found on page 5724 of Hansard:
I have no difficulty, as I have indicated, with the point raised by the hon. member for Greenwood. After very serious and careful consideration, I am advised that in the opinion of the law officers, and also of hon. members who are members of the legal profession, this proposal is unnecessary.
I want to be the second member of the legal profession who does not agree with the minister. I really think that from the point of view of making a case the minister has not been as effective as he is in regard to many other proposals he makes.
As the hon. member for Greenwood said, I think we in this house have an obligation to try to improve legislation, and we have had a very excellent speech by the hon. member warning us of a fundamental fault in the bill. Yet we are apparently going to go blithely along flying in the face of this warning about the constitutional difficulty, and not accept a very simple and reasonable amendment.
When I made a short contribution to the debate the other night I recalled section 65 of the British North America Act which sets out the powers to be exercised by the lieutenant governors of Ontario and Quebec, with advice or alone. I did not even bother to point out that New Brunswick and Nova Scotia at that point did not need a section in the act because the executive councils in those provinces were continued by the B.N.A. Act. With great respect I think that this measure is not as effectively drafted as it might be. A pretty compelling case has been made by the hon. member for Greenwood and I agree with him. As I said, we have had fair warning. Why not be reasonable men and accept this or some other amendment if the minister has a better wording? But the only person who cannot have authority delegated to him, as I tried to point out, is the lieutenant governor in council, and yet in the knowledge of this constitutional provision we fly into this faulty method of proceeding. I hope that if this amendment is not accepted, the government front benches will suggest some other amendment which will in effect get around this now quite bad provision.
I also want to say I would like to agree with the hon. member for Greenwood in asking what advice has been sought, or has any comment been obtained from counsel for the banks and now, I am glad to say, from the credit unions of this country? We can easily pass legislation but if it does not meet the very exacting standards of the banks, then perhaps

Loans to Students
the loans will not be granted and this would be a grave injustice to the students we are trying to help.


Mr. Drouin:: Mr. Chairman, I think that in the case of the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) to the committee it would be advisable to apply the principle which the leader of the N.D.P. (Mr. Douglas) has asked to be applied to the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer).


Guy Marcoux: We have it in French.


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Chairman, do you have that amendment in French?


Paul Raymond Martineau: We have the amendment in French on this side.


Lucien Lamoureux: A French copy of the amendment has not yet been tabled.


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Chairman, the committee will appreciate my difficulty inasmuch as I did not become acquainted with the technical and difficult arguments put forth by the hon. member for Greenwood until they fell from his lips. Consequently I rise with my side bleeding from the spur of the moment. May I say I enter into the lists because I do not wish to offend the constitutional consciences of the hon. members for Greenwood and Royal.
Allow me to say, after listening to the arguments put forth with unusual skill and ability by the hon. member for Greenwood, I still do not despair of the constitutional purity of the clause. Dealing with this matter with appropriate brevity, I would remind myself and the committee of the admonition of Chief Justice Taschereau when he said the court is not concerned with the arguments set out in Hansard when determining constitutional points raised before the supreme court.
As I understood the hon. member for Greenwood, he assailed me most strongly because I stated this was an administrative and not a legislative act. As I understand the law, an administrative act is one more specific in scope, dealing with specific individuals and not dealing with the public in general, and I took comfort in my position from the statement found in the authoritative book "Administrative Law" by H. W. R. Wade. I am reading textually from page 249:
There is only a hazy borderline between legislation and administration, and the assumption that they are two fundamentally different forms of power is misleading.

He went on to say on the same page:
It is easy to see that legislative power is the power to lay down the law for people in general, whereas administrative power is the power to lay down the law for them individually, or in some particular case.
The hon. member for Greenwood opened up his attack by stating there was no discretion given to a person carrying out an administrative act. May I, with great respect to the hon. member and the committee, draw attention to page 250 of the same text where it states:
But where, as happens so frequently, such legislation can be properly administered only by constantly adjusting it to the needs of the situation, allowed.
It is my humble submission, looking at the scope of this bill, that I find no reason to retreat from my position that this is an administrative act which we are delegating to the lieutenant governor in council.


Mr. Peters:: What was the hon. member quoting from?


Lawrence T. Pennell: "Administrative Law" by H. W. R. Wade, LL.D., reader in English law in the University of Cambridge, professor elect of English law in the University of Oxford, member of the council on tribunals.
May I further say, Mr. Chairman, even if it is not an administrative act, in my humble submission we can still delegate legislative power to a subordinate agency. From day to day throughout the year the legislature is delegating authority to the lieutenant governor in council. Parliament is delegating authority of a legislative nature to the governor general in council.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is the hon. member referring to the lieutenant governors of the provinces as subordinate agencies of the parliament of Canada? Is that what he said?


Lawrence T. Pennell: What I am saying is that it is true in an executive capacity the lieutenant governor in council may be a sovereign authority, but within the context of the bill as it is framed, authority can be delegated and parliament has frequently delegated authority to the lieutenant governor in council. The point I am making is that the door was opened long ago and what we are doing is walking through the door opened by parliament. In that connection I refer the house to section 528 of the Criminal Code. I do not know whether the hon. member was a member of the House of Commons when this legislation was passed, but I refer to section 526 which states:

Where an accused Is, pursuant to this Part, found to be insane, the lieutenant governor of the province may make an order for the safe custody of the accused in the place and in the manner that he may direct.
Let me give another illustration.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I ask that the committee bear with me while I complete my arguments. May I observe to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that I am referring now to the Prisons and Reformatories Act, section 13:
The lieutenant governor of any province may from time to time make regulations for the purpose of preventing escapes and preserving discipline in the case of prisoners in any common jail or prison employed beyond the limits of such common jail or prison.
That again I say is another illustration of the parliament of Canada giving authority to the lieutenant governors in council. Under that section they are empowered to make regulations and it is my humble submission that this is a clear illustration of the principle I am putting to the committee.
May I also invite the attention of the committee to a rather interesting pamphlet I have here referring to the law on the office of the lieutenant governor of a province. I would like to refer the committee to the commission that is given to a lieutenant governor and, if I may, I wish to read the material parts:
We have reposed in you, according to the several powers, provisions and directions granted or appointed you by virtue of the Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom... known as "British North America Act, 1867,"-
Then it goes on and says:
-or which may from time to time be given to you, in respect of the said province of... under the sign manual of Our Governor General of Canada or by order of our privy council for Canada-
And it goes on and says further:
-and according to such laws as are or may be in force within the said province-
It is my position, Mr. Chairman, that the lieutenant governor obtains his power from three sources. He gets it under the British North America Act; he gets it according to the commission from the powers given to him from time to time under the sign manual of the governor in council or by order of the privy council, and third-and this is the pertinent part of the argument I am putting forth-
-according to such laws as are or may be in force within the said province-
Loans to Students
I suggest those words were deliberately chosen and carefully framed. You will note they do not say the laws of the province, but from the laws within the province. Therefore in my submission, if this bill is enacted it will become the law within the province and will delegate power to the lieutenant governor in council which can be constitutionally accepted and exercised within the commission granted to the lieutenant governor.
Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to detain the committee unduly. As I indicated earlier, whatever arguments we may make here are not in any event binding on the court which may have to rule on the constitutional point. It is my submission that this is a legislative act which can be properly delegated to the lieutenant governor in council, and I trust I will be acquitted of any disrespect to the hon. member for Greenwood when I invite the committee to reject his amendment.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I ask the hon. member a question? The hon. member has been good enough to suggest that some of the other lawyers in the house, myself and the hon. member for Royal for example, have sufficient experience that when we express a doubt it is, possibly, reasonable. If there is a reasonable doubt, why not resolve that doubt and not endanger the loans which are to be made on the basis of this legislation? What is so vicious about this amendment? The parliamentary secretary himself described it, I think, as a valid amendment and gave his imprimatur to it. Can he explain why, if this is so, our doubts cannot be set at rest by the acceptance of the amendment.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am pleased to note the hon. and learned member for Greenwood has faith in my humble opinion that the amendment he proposed is a valid one. However it did not escape my attention that in his proposed amendment he placed the designation of the proper authority in the hands of governor general in council. This of course represents a shift from what is contained in the bill where the authority is to be designated by the lieutenant governor in council. One should bear in mind that there are a number of members in this committee who might take exception to changing the bill in that way on the grounds that it would constitute an infringement of provincial rights. I say this openly. I feel the amendment is a valid one but I feel, also, there are some who would take exception to it on

Loans to Students
the grounds that it would involve an infringement of provincial rights.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The hon. member did not say what would be the situation if the lieutenant governor of any province did not designate any authority. What action would the governor general in council take?


Lawrence T. Pennell: That is a hypothetical question.


William Heward Grafftey: It is a good one, though.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The hon. member for Brant-Haldimand has made a useful speech but I should like to ask him this, now that we have opinions floating about: Will the provinces, in his opinion, need conjoint legislation to make this clause of the bill effective?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Since I have made a speech in defence of the bill as it stands, I would think the question is superfluous.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I do not think the question is superfluous, and I would appreciate an answer. If the hon. member will not give it, perhaps the minister will give it.


Norman Platt Lambert: I feel the parliamentary secretary should bear in mind that this question can be approached from a different point of view. I have grave reservations as to whether the lieutenant governor in council can do anything more than he is authorized to do by the provincial legislature. A lieutenant governor in council cannot do any more than he is authorized to do by legislation in the appropriate legislature, yet we are in this bill authorizing him to do something for which there is no legislative foundation within the province.
1 would, myself, propose a different type of amendment, but I support the procedure put forward by the hon. member for Greenwood as an alternative. My own view is that designation of the authority by the lieutenant governor in council of a province after authorization by the legislature would meet the case. There would have to be enabling legislation and this might involve a delay unless the provinces gave an undertaking that such legislation would be passed; I think the problem could be circumvented in that way. But I would earnestly suggest to the government that there is a problem. There is grave doubt on this point, and I would accentuate the positive, if I may use that term, of the argument put forward by the hon. member for Greenwood that it is better to be over-careful in this regard than to take a chance. We are not going to resolve the question from a

judicial point of view this evening, but why not be as careful as possible? I suggest that the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Greenwood meets the situation, but if it is not acceptable the committee might consider the suggestion I have made.


Guy Favreau: May I say to the committee in support of the bill as proposed by the Minister of Finance that when this provision was drafted in its present form it was drafted in accordance with the spirit of the discussions and basic arrangements which had been made with the provinces.
There has been much argument to the effect that possibly, although I do not admit it myself, this legislation goes too directly to the sphere of education. It was felt that to the extent that local jurisdiction or administrative action could be retained the more it would be in keeping with the whole spirit of the discussions and the arrangements which were made, bearing in mind that the members of this house believe it is essential in the interest of Canada that loans be made available on a national basis to Canadian students.
Before translating into the present bill this situation in which the lieutenant governor in council in each province would at his discretion, after proper investigation, designate the proper authority, care was taken to ascertain that full jurisdiction was vested in the federal parliament. It did occur to the legal advisers of the crown that in 1951, in the Nova Scotia case to which the hon. member for Greenwood referred, it was clearly decided that there could not be an exchange of legislative powers between the parliament of Canada and the legislatures of the provinces, and vice-versa. This only means that section 92 of the British North America Act states that when laws in relation to one subject may be made by the legislature of a province the province may not transfer to Canada its jurisdiction to legislate in this respect.
I agree with the hon. member for Greenwood and others who have spoken on this point, that we should not transform this House of Commons into a forum for legal and legalistic debate. But just for the information of the members of the house I would say that we have fully considered the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1952 in the case concerning the potato marketing board, which is reported in the Supreme Court Reports for that year at page 392 and the following pages. It was fully considered that in that case the matter of delegation from one legislature or from parliament to a provincial body or organism chosen as the agent of that legisla-

tive body was accepted as constitutional and distinguishable from the situation in the other case to which reference has been made. In other words, when section 91-


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, would the minister permit a question on that point?


Guy Favreau: Yes.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Does he not agree that in the potato reference to which he referred the legislature of Prince Edward Island had authorized the board to receive a delegation from the federal parliament, and that is clearly-as the judgment itself indicates-the basis of the ruling that it is proper for parliament to delegate legislative power to a provincial board?


Guy Favreau: There were two points in that case, Mr. Chairman, and the question of delegation was not the material point. The real question was with respect to the power of the legislature of P.E.I. and whether or not certain legislation enabling the lieutenant governor in council to establish schemes was constitutional. The Supreme Court of Canada said that as the scheme was assumed to be destined for within the province, it was considered to be constitutional. In that case, under a federal scheme the Governor General of Canada was authorized to appoint as a board, for the purpose of the national legislation, any provincial board which was established within the province. In that case-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, legislation.


Guy Favreau: -the P.E.I. board was chosen under the federal legislation as the agency within the province of Prince Edward Island which was to administer the federal law and also regulate trade under the principles of the federal law. It went much further than a single power of administration. It was found in that case that what had happened was that the federal parliament, which had sole jurisdiction under section 91, had accepted full jurisdiction and had properly chosen as its delegated agency an organism or body of a provincial nature, which was not tantamount to delegating to the province part of the legislative power of the federal parliament.
All I want to say to hon. members of this house-and I say this with all respect for those who do not share my own view as the Minister of Justice-is that the matter has been fully studied and that under my responsibility as the Minister of Justice for this country and as the legal adviser of the crown, I have accepted the advice of the legal ad-
Loans to Students
visers in my department, which I fully share. I might be wrong on this. Nobody can, on a point of law, state definitely that something is completely wrong or completely right; all you can do is to go to the authorities and ascertain whether or not you are satisfied on the whole, with regard to legislation which you deem to be in the best interests of Canada, that Canada has jurisdiction to pass it.
This government, under its responsibility, is satisfied that in proposing this legislation to the house, in the form in which we have proposed it, we are putting forward something which is within the constitutional powers of this parliament. In so doing we applied the same good faith and the same spirit of fair judgment as we applied a few minutes ago when, with the agreement of the Minister of Finance, we agreed with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Three Rivers when he submitted an amendment to the bill. This is not for the purpose of simply opposing an amendment. This view is stated for the purpose of obtaining from this house the passage of legislation which is both within the spirit and the letter of the constitution and within the spirit of the arrangements made with the provinces.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Could I ask a question of the minister? Can the lieutenant governor accept any instructions or advice except that coming from his own provincial advisers?


Guy Favreau: Of course, Mr. Chairman, in the way the bill is drafted the government of Canada invites, with regard to what takes place within the province, the advice of the lieutenant governor in council, who is near the situation and from the strict administrative point of view knows which of the institutions concerned are more likely to conform to the aspirations of the citizens of that province in relation to the matter of making loans to students from within the province.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Does this not bring out the question asked by the hon. member for Royal a few minutes ago, namely that this can only be done with enabling provincial legislation?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: That is what I have been trying to ask.


Guy Favreau: As I said, Mr. Chairman, there is not much point in getting into technical, involved, legal argument.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Raymond Martineau: This is the time to be technical. What are we doing here?

Loans to Students


Guy Favreau: There is no need of enabling legislation to allow the lieutenant governor in council, especially in this case, in his administrative capacity to do something which will allow the students of the province to avail themselves of legislation which is beneficial to the whole of Canada.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask one simple question as a layman, not being a lawyer. I would like to ask if this particular clause is not a permissive clause.


Guy Favreau: It surely is not a compulsive clause. It is, I agree, a permissive clause; that is, one that does not compel the lieutenant governor to do something.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. I want to be very clear on this. Does the Minister of Justice say that the provinces will not need enabling legislation to make either paragraph (b) or paragraph (k) of clause 2 effective?


Guy Favreau: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman; I thought I had explained that.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I want it spelled out.


An hon. Member:: Judges won't read this.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Maybe judges won't read it, but perhaps other people will. Does the minister consider that the provinces will need legislation to make this clause, or this bill effective?


Guy Favreau: I do not, Mr. Chairman. It will suffice to have the agreement of the provinces to accept its application.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I have a second question. What provinces have expressed disagreement with this type of amendment? Have the provinces been polled or asked about this amendment?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: In answer to that question, Mr. Chairman, we have not been in continual touch with the provinces during the course of this debate; there has not been any opportunity to do so-and I am not sure that the federal parliament really should find it necessary to carry on that kind of continual discussion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Where is your co-operative federalism?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might say a word or two. In the first place, I want to thank all my hon. legal friends in

this house, of all parties, for their great contribution and very considerable help, and for drawing on their knowledge of the law and producing a variety of contradictory opinions which-I do not know about other non-legal members of this house-have left me, for one, in a state of mild confusion.
We have had opinions expressed that the one thing can be done, that the other thing is right, and that neither will work. It is my responsibility, having listened to all the legal arguments, to make up my mind on behalf of the government whether to accept the carefully considered advice of the government's legal advisers, including the Minister of Justice, or whether I should not accept it. I am quite satisfied to take the legal advice of the Minister of Justice and of the law officers of the crown, and with the greatest respect to all hon. members I suggest that the question be put, that we vote on the amendment, and that we get on with what should be a very simple bill.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, there is one point which I believe has not been considered and which strikes at the very basis of the arguments which have been so forcefully presented. I think the main point of the bill is the definition of who is entitled to receive a loan. We find it in paragraph (e) of clause 2. I am not anticipating this paragraph because it is directly connected with this particular point. My hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg intends to raise this matter on the next paragraph in another connection. Clause 2(e) reads:
"Certificate of eligibility" means a certificate... issued by an appropriate authority-
That authority is the authority we are now considering. It is the authority which has to decide which student is in need of a loan. I believe this is the heart of the legislation, the substantive part. Someone has to define which student is in need of a loan to be provided under this bill. These words "to be in need of a student loan" are not defined anywhere in the bill. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, there is no power presently granted to the governor in council to define which person is in need of a student loan and which person is not. In other words, the bill is completely silent as to who can apply for, and who is in need of, a student loan. There is no power in the governor in council to make such a definition, and I have gone through clause 13 very carefully.
In these circumstances we are left with the situation that the authority we are now discussing is going to have to define what

amounts to the very heart of this bill, namely who is in need of a student loan. The hon. member for Greenwood and the hon. member for Royal raised arguments which were countered by the answer that this was something in the nature of an administrative problem. But it is necessary to have the certifying authority define who is in need of a student loan. I submit it goes much beyond an administrative act and actually becomes a legislative act. I think this is one of the most serious problems which the government will have to face in trying to determine whether this certifying authority will be going beyond its constitutional powers.
This is slightly out of sequence, but it is a very important part of the bill and I think makes the arguments already raised by other hon. members much more valid. We are not dealing merely with something which is defined in the bill and which must be administered. Each province will have to define who is in need of a student loan. As I see it, each province will have to set up a means test, if that is what is required, and will have to decide that one person is in need of a loan while another is not. I think this is very basic to this legislation. Furthermore, the situation would vary from province to province unless a definition is given by this bill or unless some central authority is able to co-ordinate it.
The suggestion made by the hon. member for Greenwood in his amendment is that the Governor General should make this definition on the recommendation of the lieutenant governor. It seems logical that that should be done because in this case he can also define who is in need of a student loan. I think that very serious consideration should be given this particular matter before we go any further with this amendment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance says that he has the responsibility either for accepting or not accepting amendments and advice from various people who have spoken. I want to point out to him however, that the members of this committee also have a responsibility to decide whether or not this is good legislation and whether or not it is going to accomplish the objectives which were set forth. I must confess that after listening to the Minister of Finance and then the Minister of Justice I think that the government is terribly confused about this legislation.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Not at all.
Loans to Students


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister says "not at all". When we were discussing credit unions the minister pointed out that this was banking legislation; that he did not want to do anything which might interfere with it because it was banking legislation; that he did not want to get into provincial jurisdiction. I agree with him about its being banking legislation. I have always taken the position that this legislation is similar to the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, and so on. This is legislation to guarantee bank loans and it comes solely within federal jurisdiction. Then the Minister of Justice gets up tonight and says that, while he is not admitting it, we are now giving these powers to the lieutenant governor in council because there may be a feeling that this really has to do with education.
I wonder whether the members have thought through what is involved in both paragraph (b) and paragraph (k). This parliament is going to guarantee loans to students, but the right to determine the basis upon which those loans will be made to students and the right to determine which institutions shall be considered educational institutions is going to lie exclusively within a provincial body not responsible to the Minister of Finance, but responsible to the lieutenant governor in council of the province.
This, as the minister himself admitted, is a permissive paragraph. The lieutenant governor in council does not have to set up the eligibility authority at all. Or a provincial cabinet could take office which might decide to dismiss the eligibility authority, in which case loans would not be available in that province. This has surely departed a long way from banking legislation. We have not done this under any other loans legislation. Under this legislation the minister is now saying that while the government is going to guarantee loans, the determination as to who will get these loans, under what circumstances the students will get them and the kind of institutions they will have to attend in order to get them will lie with the lieutenant governor in council. It seems to me that this is a great departure from banking legislation.
Now, we laymen are not expected to get into the deep, constitutional arguments that lawyers enjoy. However, laymen, Mr. Chairman, at least know that when the lieutenant governor of a province sits down to pass orders in council they are passed on the basis

Loans to Students
of a provincial statute. The preamble of the order in council must state the statute under which that order in council is passed. Here we say the lieutenant governor in council may pass an order in council on the basis of a federal statute. It seems to me that to make absolutely sure, one of two things has to be done.
We can do as has been done with marketing and other joint legislative fields, that is have the province also pass an act giving to the legislative authority certain powers delegated by this parliament. The lieutenant governor in council can pass an order in council under authority of that provincial statute, using the authority delegated by this parliament. The disadvantage of following that procedure is that most legislatures will not meet until next winter. This legislation should become effective this fall so a student can borrow money to go to university this year.
The other alternative is the one which has been proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood, namely that the governor general in council appoint these boards. This seems to me to be more logical. These boards should be responsible to the governor general in council. The regulations should be passed by the governor general in council and the boards should be responsible to the Minister of Finance. They should be appointed by the governor general in council on the recommendation of the provincial cabinet. It seems to me that this is the proper and logical way to proceed, irrespective of the fact the Minister of Justice can find a potato case in Prince Edward Island that gives some hope this bill might get by.
The fact remains that if there is any doubt at all this committee ought to make sure this legislation will stand up. Even if there is no constitutional objection, and we think there is, I for one would take very serious objection to legislation passed by this parliament being inapplicable in any province where the lieutenant governor in council merely chooses not to appoint the eligibility authority or decides to discontinue the eligibility authority. If a province wants, under clause 12, to come under the alternative payments section, then that is fine. However, under this paragraph (b) the province that failed to make the appointment of an eligibility authority could make this bill inapplicable in that province.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to ask a question? What does he think would happen if, under the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Greenwood, there was no recommendation

from a province or the lieutenant governor in council?


Norman Platt Lambert: The same as here; they do not designate.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is making a big point of the fact that the federal government should designate this authority. Under the amendment that is before us, this would be done on the recommendation of a province. The hon. member's point, or one of his points, was that we would be in a mess, or in difficulty, if the province failed to act. It seems to me we would be in exactly the same position under the amendment that is before us now. I did not intend to make a speech. I was only asking a question and perhaps I should not continue. I have a conclusion, but I will come to that later.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I certainly admit to the minister that under this proposed amendment if a province refuses to make any recommendation we would be in exactly the same position. However, a province might be willing to recommend names but might not be prepared to pass an order in council and to set up and administer a board which would come under federal legislation.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Well, I do not think I can put this in the form of a question so I should not interrupt.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I think serious enough doubt exists based on legal ground, and on the very questionable procedure, to question the advisability of proceeding with paragraph (b) as it is presently constituted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask him one question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman was the premier of Saskatchewan when the grants to universities were paid, as they were paid in 1956 by an item in the Appropriation Act. The item or the relevant part of it referred to grants to institutions of higher learning recognized in each province by the government of Canada and the government of the province to be universities or institutions. I am sure the hon. gentleman will recall that before these grants were paid, in every case the provincial government certified what the institutions were to which they would be paid and they were not paid in any province where that was not done by the province. It

seems to me this is completely analogous with what the government is now seeking to to do in this legislation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the Secretary of State for External Affairs were here and if he were replying to the hon. member, he would say the hon. member has had long parliamentary experience and really ought to know better than to ask a question like that. There is a great deal of difference between the lieutenant governor in council certifying a certain educational institution to receive grants and the lieutenant governor in council appointing an administrative body under a federal act.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, giving a certificate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, not giving a certificate.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, he is.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Surely, the parliamentary
secretary to the Minister of Justice knows better than that. The lieutenant governor in council is not going to give a certificate. Let us read the appropriate clause. The appropriate authority for a province means such person, body or authority as may be designated by the lieutenant governor in council of that province as the appropriate authority for that province for the purposes of this act. In other words, they are going to set up a body under a federal act.
If my friend will look at paragraph (k), he will see that that body, when it is set up, will have the authority to designate what educational institutions will qualify, the attendance at which will entitle the student to a loan.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Any body, including itself.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Exactly; if the hon. member will look at paragraph (e) he will see there that the certificate of eligibility, the whole right to determine what are the qualifications, what are the criteria, for students to be eligible for a loan will be set out by this body. It is not set out by the governor general in council; it is not set out in this act. It is going to be set out by this eligibility authority appointed by the provincial cabinet.
The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that what started out as a legal argument has become much more serious since the statement made by the Minister of Justice. I took his statement to mean that it is not an oversight that this delegation is being given to the provincial legislatures. He does not share the view of the Minister of Finance that this is banking legislation. He takes the position that this is educational legislation and that this parliament must turn over to the provincial cabinets
Loans to Students
the right to set up an administrative body, which administrative body will have very wide discretionary powers and those discretionary powers will include deciding what students will get loans, under what conditions they will get them and what educational institutions they must attend in order to get them. That is very wide discretionary power to give to a body not appointed by the governor general in council and not appointed under regulations of this parliament.
I think the Minister of Finance ought to take tonight to think this over because after the statements made by the Minister of Justice this matter appears much more serious now than it first did. I hope the Minister of Finance will look at this matter to see whether or not he is prepared to accept something along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Greenwood, because if he is not, then I think this matter has got to be gone into very thoroughly tomorrow.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I just want to clear up one point. I never said and I will never agree I said that this legislation was legislation with relation to education. I made this very clear when I said we might agree with the suggestion of the hon. member for Three Rivers, if he admitted that his amendment would not be legislation in relation to credit unions or to caisses populaires, but that the amendment would be purely incidental or ancillary to the basis of this legislation, which is legislation in relation to banking. As between two schemes or two ways of devising a clause, one of which would not remove any ticklish feeling on the part of certain persons or officials or provinces, if both are constitutional and within the powers of parliament, let us choose the one that will be more satisfactory to all concerned and will remove any ticklish feelings. That is all I said. I never said this was legislation in relation to education. It is essentially legislation in relation to banking, and banking is the whole basis of the legislation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister a question? If the minister does not think it has anything to do with education, I agree with him, but why should we then give to the provinces the power to appoint these administrative boards simply to remove a ticklish feeling which the minister says is completely unjustified? Is he asking parliament to pass legislation merely on the basis that someone may have a false impression of the legislation?

Loans to Students


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Perhaps I might explain this in layman's language. The purpose of this legislation is to provide loans to students


Paul Raymond Martineau: Now we know.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: -and I hope we will be able to do this before the next academic year begins. In working this out with the provinces the federal government took the position that the provinces, all of which except Newfoundland have some sort of plan of their own, were in a much better position than the federal government could possibly be to handle these loans and to deal with the students themselves.


An hon. Member:: Why not let them do it?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That is exactly what we are trying to do. In working this out with the people who have had experience in these matters and who understand the practicalities of these matters, including representatives of all provinces, it was felt that the best way of doing this would be to use the existing loan granting machinery in each province. Because some provinces may decide that as this will be a much bigger scheme than their own they may wish to use in addition the facilities of the universities themselves, we have provided in this wording that they may do so. I must say that as I have listened to the discussion I have become increasingly impressed with the fact that the way this is drafted in the legislation before us is the best and most practical way of accomplishing what we all profess to be seeking.


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I find a certain anomaly in what I felt was the tender solicitude for certain provincial feelings as expressed in a sort of aside by the parliamentary secretary, in a different way by the Minister of Finance and in a different way by the Minister of Justice. They do not like to ruffle any feathers. But let us look at section 13 which says that the governor in council may make regulations and then follows the whole litany of regulations.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Do you want to deal with 13?


Norman Platt Lambert: No. It is just that there is inconsistency in the argument. If with regard to this portion of the act there is a tender solicitude for delicate provincial feelings, then certainly they are completely ruffled in section 13 because these particular bodies will be administering federal regulations. This is the argument we are getting into. As I said, I would accept the amendment of the

hon. member for Greenwood although I think it would be far better if the provincial legislatures would authorize their lieutenant governors in council to act under this legislation. I would suggest to the Minister of Justice that his case is distinguishable in that in the potato board case in Prince Edward Island if I am correct, and I am subject to correction, the board was authorized within that provincial complex to receive designated authority from the federal government. That is not the case in this particular instance. There is a very definite component missing in this particular case. May I call it 10.30, Mr. Chairman?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: Ten thirty.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the house leader if he will indicate to us what estimates will be taken up on Friday. We know what the legislative items in front of us are for tomorrow and Thursday.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the estimates to be taken up on Friday will be in the following order: First, the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources; second, those of the Department of Forestry and, third, the estimates of the Department of Industry, if there is time left, including all the projects under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Industry.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the question I asked today had to do with the exploitation of some 20 billion tons of iron in a deposit which straddles the boundary of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories in the vicinity of Snake river. It is my understanding that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has made an announcement outside of the house of a cooperative effort that is going to be made to survey a railroad route through the Yukon territory to the Snake river property. I understand also that there will be an involvement by the Canadian National Railways and by the company which owns the mineral claims in the Yukon and Northwest Territories where these properties are located.

I want to ask the minister to explain as fully as he is able at this moment, consistent with all circumstances as to the security of the interests of the government and of the company involved, the plans with respect to this survey and to forecast, if he can and as far as he can, the plans of the government in the future.
Specifically I would like to ask the minister whether or not his department has been in communication with the White Pass and Yukon railroad with respect to the conversion of that railroad to standard gauge, because I would assume any railroad to be constructed to the Snake river property would be of standard gauge. I might say in closing these brief remarks that a railroad is, of course, an absolute necessity if a deposit of this size is to be exploited economically and to compete with other sources.
It is my hope this deposit could be brought into production within the next decade. Certainly this iron ore deposit, which is estimated as being the largest in the free world, will contribute in no uncertain terms to the national economy of Canada as a whole, and would be of particular interest to the development of resources generally in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. I need not add that the construction of any railroad through the Mayo area to Snake river would be a tremendous advantage for the full exploitation of the extensive mineral potential which is known to exist in this particular area, and of which I am sure the minister is well aware.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think first of all I should thank the hon. member for having raised this question. I think he has given a fairly accurate description of the size of the deposit. We have been told there are in all some 22 billion tons of iron ore of average grade of 43 per cent. The company, Crest Exploration, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Standard of California, have stated they would require beneficiation of the ore before shipping to bring it to something like 69 per cent, and they are very interested in the progress being made in the search for oil and gas in the area, which would be a form of power to beneficiate the ore.
Undoubtedly this tremendous asset will be developed some day and it is in the interests of Canada that it be developed at as early a time as possible. The company has gone to some considerable extent, involving expenditure of some $2 or $3 million including assess-20220-367
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ment of the feasibility of a pipe line, because this area is some 421 miles from water. At the present time iron ore is in a buyers' market but this will not always continue, and various estimates up to 10 years have been made for bringing the deposit into production.
I want to assure the hon. member that we did talk to the Yukon and White Pass, they being the pioneer railway people there, as we thought anything I had to say on the matter might possibly have an immediate reflection on their own activities, and before I uttered the few words in Edmonton we did get in touch with Mr. Frank Browne of that railway. I also believe there have been some discussions between Crest Exploration and the White Pass and Yukon.
As to the C.N.R., the work that is to be undertaken will cost about $50,000. It will help prove or disclaim the feasibility physically of establishing a railway there and in addition, we hope, some cost factors for a comparison between other methods of transport. It is intended to use engineers of the Canadian National Railways and we are expecting to spend about $50,000 on the survey, using some helicopter equipment of the company and splitting the costs between us. We expect a report will be available by October or November of this year.



AGRICULTURE-PROVISION OF FEED LOT FOR SASKATCHEWAN CATTLE

Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, the question which I directed this afternoon to the Minister of Agriculture was in reference to the statement he made yesterday in regard to the drought stricken areas of Saskatchewan. He stated that about 2,500 cattle had been put into community pastures, and other steps were being taken; but there is one matter he did not mention and that is that in about a month's time the farmers will be faced with the problem of taking their cattle to the market.
I would remind him of what happened in 1961 when we had a similar drought in Saskatchewan. There were more cattle on the market than the market could absorb, as a result of which prices were forced down to the extent that the cattle brought in only about half as much as they would usually make at that time of the year. But on that occasion the government set up feed lots. The cattle which the market could not absorb were put into these feed lots and fed at government expense until such time as the market could again absorb them. This is exactly what 1 would like to have the Minister of Agriculture
5796	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion be prepared to do. In about a month's time some of these cattle which farmers may not be able to keep on their hands owing to a shortage of feed will again appear on these markets. I do not wish this to be a case of "too little and too late", because any such arrangement as I have suggested will have to be undertaken in conjunction with the provincial governments before feed lots can be established.
It may be said there is still a month in which to act. But the minister made no mention of any such proposal in his statement, and since there was no word that it had been discussed with the Saskatchewan minister of agriculture I took it for granted that it had been overlooked. It is my contention that unless immediate steps are taken and discussions begun with the ministers of agriculture in the prairie provinces to find ways of dealing with this situation, then the farmers who will have to send their cattle to the markets will again have to sell their livestock at fire sale prices.


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: I wish to thank the hon. member for his interest in this subject. I am sure the farmers in the area he represents appreciate the keen interest he has taken in this particular matter.
I think there is very little I can add to the statement which was made by the Minister of Agriculture as it appears on page 5683 of Hansard. I am sure the hon. member would be the first to agree that if I were to go further and indicate what plans may be contemplated I would be expressing government policy, and that would be beyond my field of responsibility. So all I can say to the hon. member is that I will certainly bring this matter to the attention of the minister and express his grave concern, and I am satisfied that appropriate measures will be taken to deal with the situation.
I should also emphasize that the initial responsibility falls, of course, on the province and it would be incumbent upon the province to approach the federal Department of Agriculture if joint action were thought desirable. Pending that, I can assure the hon. member that the question will be well considered and appropriate action taken.


Reynold Rapp: The statement which the parliamentary secretary has just made is satisfactory to me.



NATIONAL PARKS-REGULATIONS PROHIBITING MINORS UNACCOMPANIED BY ADULTS

Harold Warren Danforth: The question I directed to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources this morning was prompted by representations from various councillors and interested individuals in the counties of Essex and Kent, and dealt particularly with the national park known as the Pelee national park.
Because of recent cases of vandalism in the park the superintendent of the park found it necessary to put in some stringent regulations to the effect that no minors could enter the park for camping purposes unless accompanied by an adult.
As one who spent most of his life growing up in the shadow of Point Pelee national park, I am quite familiar with the park. I know it is one of our smallest national parks and that there is a tremendous influx of people, especially in the summertime, on weekdays and week ends. I know that it is an extremely difficult task to police this park adequately, because of these conditions. But the imposition of a regulation to the effect that minors cannot be admitted for camping purposes unless accompanied by an adult does work undue hardship on a great number of children from the Essex and Kent county areas who would normally go to this park to spend two days, a week or two weeks camping. There are excellent camping facilities in this park, and have been for a number of years, and the park itself is ideal for the younger generation.
My request to the minister today was for him to see whether something could not be done to police this park adequately, so that these regulations might be modified to the degree that children unaccompanied by adults may once again go into the park. The matter is urgent, sir, because this is the time of the school holidays and there are only approximately six weeks left in which a great many children could avail themselves of this opportunity. Certainly it is a case, once more, where a majority of well disciplined children are being made to suffer for the irresponsible acts of a very few. It is my hope that the minister, having received all these delegations and requests, will have had time to look into this matter and can perhaps come up with a feasible solution that might adequately solve this entire problem to the satisfaction of all concerned.


Mr. John N. Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Wednesday, July 22, 1964