1964-07-23

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on external affairs-Mr. Matheson.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table replies to my letter of June 26 on federal-provincial consultations on health services from the governments of Ontario, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan. The only government that has not yet replied is New Brunswick.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Justice I should like to direct this question to the Prime Minister. In view of the question which I directed yesterday to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, does the Prime Minister know the present whereabouts of Hal Banks, who is ignoring a court order and warrant for his arrest while on bail?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not know his whereabouts, but inquiries are being made and it is hoped that a statement can be made tomorrow.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I see the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice is now present, so may I direct this supplementary question to him. Is the Prime Minister or the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice not somewhat surprised that neither he nor his officials in the Department of Justice are aware of Banks' whereabouts? I have been advised by Montreal radio station CKGM, and in particular by Ed Murphy,
a radio commentator, that Hal Banks up to yesterday, and probably today, was apparently at Higgins beach, Scarborough, main post office, Higgins beach, U.S.A. If that information is correct, what is the Department of Justice intending to do about it? Do they intend to institute extradition proceedings?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, my impression, because I have not had a complete report on this, is that there is no direct connection between the appeal proceedings in respect of which the bail bond was issued, and the court proceedings which the hon. member will realize were at the suit of Upper Lakes Shipping. As I said yesterday, I have asked for a full statement on this from the department, and I would expect that a more complete statement will be available when the minister returns tomorrow.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question. Do I take it from the parliamentary secretary that he or the officials of the Department of Justice are aware of Hal Banks' whereabouts, but because of legal procedure or for other reasons they do not intend to do anything immediately with regard to making an early arrest?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I have just said I will have a more complete report for the hon. member tomorrow.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question. Does the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question period is not the time to institute a debate. I will hear all reasonable questions, but it seems to me that the parliamentary secretary has made a fairly complete answer in the circumstances.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, Mr. Speaker, if you would permit me to put the question you could then rule whether or not it is in order. Does the parliamentary secretary not appreciate that if the whereabouts of Banks is known to a radio station but not to the Minister of Justice or his departmental officials, he should investigate immediately so that Banks will not escape into another jurisdiction?
5846	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the significance of all these facts is well appreciated; but I would repeat to the hon. member for the third time that a more complete statement on all aspects of this matter should be available by tomorrow.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the hon. gentleman any statement to make in this regard following the question asked by the hon. member for Bow River yesterday?

Hon, Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hal Banks is an American citizen and we are unable to check whether he has crossed the border and is now in the United States.
He is not required to have a permit from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to cross over to the United States, since he is an American citizen.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Is
not Harold Chamberlain Banks a landed immigrant?


Mr. Tremblay:: As a Canadian resident, Mr. Hal Banks had a domicile in Canada with the privilege to live anywhere in Canada. This privilege can be withdrawn from him only for very serious reasons provided in the Immigration Act.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: supplementary question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice. Since the supreme court has confirmed the conviction of Mr. Banks for illegal picketing at Three Rivers, I should like to ask whether the government is considering charging Mr. Heeneke of Vancouver who was brought to Three Rivers especially to direct these unlawful activities, and Mr. McLaughlin who signed all the cheques to pay for this operation, along with Mr. Banks.


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


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: should like to address a question to the Secre-

tary of State for External Affairs. The other day the minister informed the house that the United Nations secretary general had received a reply from the government of Turkey respecting the build-up of forces on Cyprus-


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Greece.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am sorry-from Greece, but had received no reply from the government of Turkey. He also said a reply had just come in from the government of Cyprus but he had not had time to read it. Can the minister give us some idea of the contents of that message and say whether it is true that Archbishop Makarios has informed the United Nations that the present build-up of men and war materiel will continue despite the request from the secretary general that it should be discontinued?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: A reply from the head of the government of Cyprus was received by the secretary general, and I was so advised. I have also been advised that it does not meet with the satisfaction of the secretary general, who has communicated in turn with the head of the government of Cyprus. The reply of the archbishop is not consistent with the declaration made by the prime minister of Greece. There has been a reply as well from the prime minister of Turkey, and a statement is expected by the secretary general today or tomorrow, I believe.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the secretary of state tell us whether it is correct that the archbishop's message indicated that the government of Cyprus intends to continue the buildup of both men and materiel on the island?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The statement of the archbishop was to the effect that in the absence of an assurance of no invasion it was necessary for the government of Cyprus to take means to protect itself. As I say, the secretary general of the United Nations has communicated directly with the government of Cyprus with regard to this reply.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is it being made clear to the archbishop that the presence of the United Nations force on the island is the very assurance for which he is asking?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That has been made clear by the secretary general and, I may say, by Canada.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Some weeks ago it was suggested by members of the opposition that rules should be promulgated which would empower

the United Nations force in Cyprus to prevent what has actually occurred since, namely incursions by troops from outside the country. Is it now a fact that belatedly the United Nations secretary general has made new rules in this connection?
If so, what is the nature thereof, and will these rules enable our forces as part of the United Nations force to keep out those who would surreptitiously find their way into Cyprus and thereby aggravate the already perilous situation in that island?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the authority of the force does not extend to the right to prevent the ingress of arms or men from outside. The government of Cyprus asserts that this is a right that belongs to it as the duly constituted authority. The view of the United Nations commander and the strong view of the participating governments, is that the terms of reference laid down in accordance with the security council resolution provide for the free movement of the United Nations troops, and that there should be no denial of access of those troops to any area on the island for the purpose of discharging their functions. In a communication I sent quite recently to the secretary general I indicated that I thought this point ought to be taken up very strongly through the commander, and that is now being done.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it then a fact that Archbishop Makarios places himself in the position of taking the stand that the United Nations forces are not allowed to do anything to prevent incursions from outside? If it is, the United Nations force is completely powerless, and the situation will become worse and worse as Makarios becomes more and more defiant of the United Nations.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: My right hon. friend will understand, I am sure, that I have a responsibility at the moment which I wish to discharge. Bearing in mind the important observation he has made, I do not want to say anything that is going to cause difficulty. However, I will say I am firmly of the view, as are the other participating governments in the force, and the commander and the secretary general, and as both the prime minister of Greece and the prime minister of Britain confirmed yesterday, that but for the presence of the United Nations force in Cyprus the situation would be much worse. Great as the difficulties are, we must continue to support the presence of that force, notwithstanding the position taken by particular authorities. If the United Nations force
Inquiries of the Ministry is not able to discharge its responsibilities this will be serious not only for Cyprus but also for NATO, and as serious for the United Nations and for the ultimate role that we hope it will play in situations like this in the future in other places.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, all of which general observation I agree with, but is it not most serious when the United Nations force in that country is treated with contemptuous and cavalier disregard by Makarios? What does the minister say?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My right hon. friend knows that my reaction would be as his, but I do not want to say anything that is going to complicate what is now being done on that island to deal with this very kind of situation, and I am sure my right hon. friend appreciates that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am sure all hon. members will agree with the general statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but may I ask him if it is not time that the United Nations made it clear to Archbishop Makarios that the time has come for him to start cooperating with the United Nations peace keeping force rather than using it as a pawn for his own purposes?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, the time has come for all elements from the involved countries, for the government of Cyprus, and for both communities there, and for other outside nations, to co-operate in trying to bring about some solution to this difficult problem and in trying to bring about peace as a condition precedent to that solution.


Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In answering a question put to him the minister made a statement concerning the United Nations forces in which we take an active participation and which contributed and still contribute to peace keeping activities on Cyprus. My question is this: How is it that we hear rumours here and there to the effect that our forces are absolutely useless on Cyprus? Some months ago the minister himself stated that our troops would be there for three months. The three months have gone by and, today, we are facing exactly the same problem as we did three months ago, and I

Inquiries of the Ministry should like to hear the minister tell the house what is actually the part played by our Canadian soldiers on the island of Cyprus, that is what do they do to maintain peace on that island?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, our Canadian troops are members of the United Nations forces and they are there in order to attempt to contribute to peace-


David Réal Caouette: To attempt.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: -to attempt to contribute to peace. That is all they can do, and I do not think there could be a nobler task.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Malher (New Westminster):: have a question I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Having in mind today's strong declarations by the organization of American states concerning Castro and Cuba, does the minister consider that Canada, having normal relations with all the parties concerned, can play a part in easing the growing tensions in this hemisphere?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: This is an important question. I only received notice of it as I came into the house. I was away from the city this morning. I wish to examine the decisions taken at the meeting in Washington, and after I have done that perhaps I can give a reply later.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister say whether an act respecting the territorial sea and fishing zones of Canada, which received the royal assent a week ago, has yet been proclaimed in part or in whole?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Slale for External Affairs: It has not been proclaimed, but proclamation will not be long delayed.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Pierre-Andre  Boulin@Dorchesler: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I see that he is back from Quebec city and I wonder whether he could give us some information about the conversations he had with the Quebec minister of agriculture in order to help Quebec farmers who are in a very precarious situation?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agricul-lure):: The other day the hon. member asked me a similar question relating to maple syrup. I did not have an opportunity to discuss this with the minister of agriculture, because he was not in Newfoundland. However, I did discuss it with Dr. Mercier, his deputy, and he indicated that they had this under consideration. If they were going to do anything, he would make representations to the federal government.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. The Minister of Agriculture said in his answer that he attended a meeting of the ministers of agriculture in Newfoundland and that he met the Quebec deputy minister of agriculture. But the hon. member for Dorchester did not say anything about Newfoundland, he spoke about the farmers of the province of Quebec. What does the federal Minister of Agriculture propose to do about the Quebec farmers who are now in a terrible slump?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, all the ministers of agriculture and their deputies have been meeting for the last three days at St. John's, Newfoundland. I was invited to attend this conference, and we discussed a great many problems. The minister of agriculture for Quebec was unable to attend because they were trying to wind up the session in Quebec city, so he was represented by his deputy. I had the opportunity of discussing this problem with the deputy minister.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Does the Minister of Agriculture intend to set up a

royal commission to inquire into everything connected with the production and marketing of maple sugar in Canada?


Harry William Hays: No, Mr. Speaker.


Raymond Langlois: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister conducted or is he conducting his own inquiry in this matter?


David Réal Caouette: No, Mr. Speaker.


Harry William Hays: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will let the hon. member for Villeneuve speak for himself. We did give a great deal of consideration to this. Probably I should answer this more fully tomorrow and explain to the hon. member what we did for the maple syrup people last year. We are fully conscious of their problem and, as I say, I have discussed this with the deputy minister and the deputy minister is looking into it. If they feel something should be done, then they are going to make representations to the federal government.


Raymond Langlois: So far has the provincial government made representations to the federal government?


Harry William Hays: Not so far as maple syrup is concerned.


Mr. Vincent Drouin (Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Has the minister received a request for assistance from the apple growers of the province of Quebec, whose crops have been partly destroyed by hail, wind and frost this season?


Harry William Hays: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I received such a request, and I have indicated to the minister of agriculture of Quebec that we are quite prepared to sit down and consider any request they may make in so far as this matter is concerned.


Mr. Boutin:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. He stated a while ago that the matter of the maple syrup crop failure had not come up
Inquiries of the Ministry during his discussions with the Quebec deputy minister of agriculture; could he tell the house when he intends to meet the Quebec minister of agriculture in order to discuss this matter?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that we did discuss maple syrup with the deputy minister but that at the moment there were no representations from the minister of agriculture or his deputy in that connection.



FEED GRAIN ASSISTANCE FOR EASTERN FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Russell MacEwan: Is it
the intention of the Minister of Agriculture to bring forward legislation to set up a feed grain agency in order to assist eastern farmers face the hard farming facts in eastern Canada, as he stated to the P.E.I. Liberal association yesterday?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, as minister responsible for the feed grain policy I shall tomorrow announce the decision of the government on feed grain.



TRANSFER OF GRAIN COMMISSION TO TRADE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday I directed a question to the Minister of Agriculture, but due to the fact that he was called out of the house I did not get a reply. Is the minister now prepared to answer my question regarding the board of grain commissioners?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, there is no thought of any transfer of the board of grain commissioners.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry. Yesterday, as recorded at page 5818 of Hansard, dealing with a question by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre concerning the Neptune aircraft program, the minister said there were no plans to phase out the Neptune. On the same day in answer to a question by the

Inquiries of the Ministry hon. member for Cumberland the Department of National Defence said four Neptune aircraft employed in the maritime patrol role had been removed from service. Is there an explanation for this discrepancy?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: I do not think, Mr. Speaker, there is necessarily any conflict between these two statements. A particular, specific function being carried out by Neptune aircraft has been changed. This does not, however, mean that the Neptune is being taken out of service by the R.C.A.F.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then may I ask the Minister of National Defence what he means by this answer, that four Neptune aircraft employed in the maritime patrol role have been removed from service? Are they no longer used by the Department of National Defence?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, they are probably used in the training field. I will take the question as notice and get the precise answer for my hon. friend.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Could he give us a report on the meeting, that he, the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) and the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Cantin) had with the presidents of the general student associations of Montreal and Laval universities?

Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance:) I have nothing to report, Mr. Speaker. We had a very good meeting with the students and explained the purposes of the bill and the provisions included in it which would permit any province that wishes to receive compensation if it does not want to participate in the scheme. We emphasized the hope of the government, and I am sure of all hon. members, that this legislation will be passed in time so the students of the country can take advantage of it in the coming academic year.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have the presidents of the Quebec students associations suggested to the minister some alternatives to clause 12 of Bill No. C-110 with regard to compensation payments? Is the Minister of Finance prepared to accept their suggestions in that respect?


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is it appropriate for us to debate on orders of the day a matter that will be before us when we get past orders of the day and into committee of the whole? I am not raising this particularly with reference to my hon. friend from Lapointe, as the point should have been raised three or four times in the last few days.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I would like to point out that at the present time I am not asking a question about Bill No. C-110 but simply about the interview which took place between the Minister of Finance, the Secretary of State and the president of the students associations. I think my question is in order.


Mr. Gordon:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I am sure all ministers have many conversations with delegations and people who come to see them. This was not a public meeting. I do not think I should be asked on the orders of the day, or at any other time for that matter, to disclose the details of conversations with two very prominent students from the province of Quebec.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the presidents of the students' associations themselves disclosed, by means of press releases, part of these conversations, could not the Minister of Finance tell us everything that was said?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It does seem to me that this whole question can be very fully discussed in a matter of half an hour, or perhaps even less, and that is the right time to do it. I think the point made by the

hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is properly taken; we perhaps have had too many questions on this subject yesterday and today. I suggest to hon. members that we get on with the business before the house.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I understand that you have upheld the point of order made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). However, students have met with the Minister of Finance and have made a public announcement afterwards. Do we not have the right to question the minister about the public statements made by the "Association generate des etudiants de l'Universite de Montreal"? I understand that within half an hour it will be possible for us to question the minister-


Gilles Grégoire: It will no longer be possible at that time.


David Réal Caouette: As my colleague from Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), says, it will no longer be possible for us to do so at that time. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, we have the right to ask questions from the Minister of Finance and I should like to know whether there has been-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's argument is very interesting but I do not think it is in order, for one very obvious reason. If we were to consider the representations of every student organization across the country and not just those from the city of Montreal and/or Quebec, we might be here for several more weeks.
Questions asked at question time should be immediate, urgent, national in scope and should meet all the other requirements which are well known to hon. members. To isolate a group of students and analyse in detail what they have requested from a minister of the crown would not be proper at this time. It seems to me this is not the proper time nor the place to do this, especially when within perhaps half an hour there will be full opportunity to pose these questions. Therefore in the circumstances I suggest to all hon. members that we get on to another subject.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I recognize the merits of your decision under which we will be able to direct questions to the minister in half an hour. But when you express the opinion that the question concerning the general students
Inquiries of the Ministry association of the university should be put aside, I don't follow you.
Early this afternoon we dealt with the Hal Banks question. His case was settled a long time ago, but just the same, we had to put up with questions dealing with him.
Why can we not direct questions to the Minister of Finance today as regards his interview with students from the province of Quebec?



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport; it arises out of the statement he made yesterday concerning community antenna broadcasting. Will those making new applications or those who have pending applications appear before the board of broadcast governors or the Minister of Transport for their hearing?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: As I understand it, sir, the board of broadcast governors would not be empowered to hold hearings until such time as parliament sees fit to adopt the proposed item in the estimates and it is incorporated in an appropriation bill and given royal assent after passing both houses of parliament. In the meantime all the Minister of Transport intends to do is seek informal advice from the board of broadcast governors in these matters and act on the responsibility vested in him by the Radio Act. Therefore any applications should come, as they always have and indeed as they will even afterward, to the Minister of Transport.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I take it from what the minister has just said that the issuing of these permits will be within the sole discretion of the Minister of Transport. Is that right?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It will be the responsibility of the Minister of Transport, as defined in the Radio Act.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Applications which have been held up during the freeze have in some cases been before the minister for quite some time. Have those been processed in the meantime, and will there be a very quick reply as to whether they are in order?

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that in most cases they can be disposed of almost instantly. It will be done just as quickly as possible. There may be a few cases where the minister may wish to seek certain advice, along the lines of the statement made yesterday, before reaching a conclusion.



INQUIRY AS TO SUMMER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the government set a target date for a summer adjournment of the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. It will depend, of course, upon completion of the program before us.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday the Minister of Labour, at page 5739, when I questioned him regarding the Northland Transportation strike, said:
-it is expected that alternative arrangements can be made to reduce this hardship to the very minimum.
The minister was referring to the hardship being suffered by the people and industries in the area served by these ships. I would ask the minister whether he is in a position to give a report at this time as to what alternative arrangements have been arrived at, if any, and the present position of the strike.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I received a telegram from the president of local 400 of the C.B.R.T. suggesting that the union was prepared to discuss the voluntary manning of a small Northland vessel, Pacific Prince, in case of legitimate hardship to upcoast communities, in providing essential food and medical supplies under the joint supervision of management and the British Columbia federation of labour.
I have transmitted or will transmit this telegram today to the president of the shipping company so this proposal may be considered.
[Mr. Pugh.)

In the meantime we have been following this situation closely. A report was received at the end of yesterday from our industrial relations officer in British Columbia which in general indicated that while undoubtedly inconvenience is being experienced in this area, as yet no serious hardship has arisen. I believe in certain cases other forms of transportation are being used, in one case by truck. We are making every effort to assess the situation and it is expected that Mr. Currie, our senior officer, will attempt to convene a meeting later this week.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question. Did the minister receive a message from the Kitimat chamber of commerce regarding the serious situation created there? Has he also received a message from the officials of the city of Prince Rupert, as well as two mining areas the names of which are not before me at the moment, pointing out how serious is the situation to the people there, to their businesses and to the community as a whole?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did receive these communications some time ago; I think they were referred to earlier by the Leader of the Opposition. We certainly appreciate the concern expressed by these individuals, but in an effort to assess the situation in an objective way the report which I have at the moment is that which I have summarized for the right hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: So in the opinion of the minister these complaints made by responsible bodies such as boards of trade and other organizations are exaggerated; is that what the minister wants the house to believe?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. I assure the Leader of the Opposition that any strike situation is bound to produce inconvenience, and in some cases the kind of justifiable local reaction referred to by my right hon. friend.


Mr. T. S. Barneft (Comox-Alberni):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. I wonder whether the minister is in a position to advise us in more particular form just what communities are involved in the up-coast region in respect to the matters of hardship which have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition. If the minister cannot speak in exact terms of the communities, could he indicate which of the areas or sections of the west coast are involved?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this involves certainly a great deal of detail, but I will

attempt to identify the particular communities. I have a certain amount of information from which I should like, if my hon. friend wishes me to, to get more detail.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question. In view of the fact that local 400 of the C.B. of R.T. and G.W. have offered voluntarily to man the Pacific Prince and take supplies to the up-coast area, may I ask the minister what representations are being made to the company. In the wire the minister received he was asked whether he would use his influence to get the shipping company to co-operate. I understood him to say that he would transmit this wire to the president of the company. What I want to know is, is the minister phoning him or doing anything to expedite this matter as greatly as possible?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will transmit this offer of local 400 to the shipping company, and I will consider whether any other steps ought to be taken in the situation, steps which would not be regarded by either of the parties as a direct interference by the minister in an effort to alter the bargaining situation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary
question. The minister says he will transmit it. I assume the union has already transmitted this offer. Along with the transmission will the minister add his urgent appeal to the company to accept this offer so there may be an assurance of no hardship to up-coast communities?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that I would transmit the offer and I will consider taking any further steps which are justified in the circumstances, steps which would not alter the bargaining situation in any way between the two parties. Surely in a dispute of this kind one of the obligations of the Minister of Labour is to not intervene in a way which would alter a proper bargaining situation which is established under Canadian law.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not asking the minister to intervene. I am simply asking the minister to use his influence to persuade the company to accept a very generous offer for the benefit not of either the union or the company but of any people who may suffer in the up-coast communities. Surely that is a humanitarian enterprise which the minister ought to be prepared to support. All I am asking him is, will he use his influence to that effect?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Allan Joseph MacEachen: With the clarification now given I will be glad to use my influence, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: A supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that negotiations between the company and the employees have broken down and no talks are being held, does not the minister think that, the collective bargaining aspect having broken down, an intervention on his part in an endeavour to bring about a solution is the responsibility of the minister at this time?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to discharge my responsibility as well as I can. However, in a situation of this kind often it is a question of judgment and timing as to whether any particular intervention will be successful. It is a fact that the president of the C.B. of R.T. and G.W. spent some time in Vancouver in an effort to settle the situation. A representative of the board of trustees has been out there; the senior officers of the department are also working on the matter. The strike continues, and just at the time when it is apparent that a further effort might produce fruitful results such effort will be made.


Michael Starr: Would the minister consider communicating with both parties to this dispute in an effort to bring about further collective bargaining so as to produce some settlement of the dispute?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will consider that. As I have already indicated, it is hoped that Mr. Currie will arrange a meeting later this week, which is within a matter of a day or so, in an effort to resume negotiations.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the message from Mr. Thompson had to do with drugs and food and restricted assistance in those fields. With all these labour representatives the minister has mentioned who are out there, how does he explain the fact that this telegram from Mr. Thompson, which was received more than 36 hours ago, has not been transmitted, or any information contained therein passed on to these officials who are out there? This looks like a rather nonchalant attitude on the part of the minister, that it does not really matter; otherwise he would have acted.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Nonsense.


John George Diefenbaker: It is in keeping with the dilatory attitude of this government, since

Inquiries of the Ministry the Prime Minister intervenes; but I ask why the delay? Thirty six hours after the telegram is received it is still in the minister's office.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the allegations made by the right hon. gentleman are not correct or factual.


John George Diefenbaker: What are the allegations which are not correct, may I ask? I say to the minister that 36 hours of waiting around and playing about with this problem is not in keeping with his responsibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely false.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is always the attitude of those who want an alibi to say that an allegation is false. I ask the minister this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. 1 am sure all hon. members must be feeling as hot as I am at the moment, but I wonder if we could get on with our business.


John George Diefenbaker: That kind of answer, coming from a minister whose indolence is permitting this situation to continue, is worthless. It is no answer to say the allegation is false. I myself have a copy of the telegram here. The minister has simply played around. That is all I have to say.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It makes no difference whether the Leader of the Opposition has the telegram or not. He stated that this telegram had reached my office 36 hours ago, and that is not the case.


John George Diefenbaker: When did it reach there? Was it 35 hours ago?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Not even 24.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: A supplementary question which, I may say, lies in a somewhat different direction from the exchange which has just taken place between the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Labour. I should like to ask the Minister of Labour or possibly the Minister of Transport whether either of the two ships which the hon. gentlemen reported yesterday as being involved in this dispute were operating on runs in which any subvention under the jurisdiction of the Canadian maritime commission was involved.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the question is addressed to me, I 

quite frankly do not know the answer, but I dare say I could find out and give this information to the hon. member as rapidly as possible.


John George Diefenbaker: In 35 hours from now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not a question of 35 hours. If a subsidy was granted, it was probably granted over a year ago and probably by the government of the right hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has gone a little astray. He said the failure took place a year ago, and we all know who was in office then.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour in reference to the strike on the west coast. The minister has referred to alternatives. Is he contemplating-and I certainly hope he is not-the use of troops to break this strike as was indicated in the Pearson film?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. P. Deschatelels (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) asked me if it was true that the authorities of the national capital commission intended to interfere in the public transportation service in the national capital.
I wish to assure the hon. member-who is not in his seat unfortunately-that the national capital commission never intended to interfere in the field of public transportation in the area and that this rumour is groundless.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Compfon-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare?
Could the minister tell the house whether she intends to bring forward a bill to increase family allowances before prorogation?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Government policy is usually announced as the government determines in accordance with its program, and is placed before parliament when it is considered time to announce it. I would ask the hon. member to contain himself until the end of the session to ascertain whether or not this action has been taken.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. I wonder if the right hon. gentleman could give a definite answer to my question of two days ago regarding the proposed amendment to section 94A of our constitution. Has it yet passed through all its stages in the two houses of parliament at Westminster?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, the amendment got through all its stages in the House of Lords today, having completed its progress through the House of Commons, and it is expected that the royal assent will be given to it next week.
Incidentally, I hope I will not be out of order if I indicate that in the discussion on this matter in the United Kingdom house of commons a spokesman for the Labour party had this to say:
It is one of the most astonishing and absurd historical anomalies that we have now, as we are doing, to accede to the request of the Canadian parliament that it should be allowed to legislate in regard to old age pensions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the resolution respecting the revised Canada pension plan be placed on the order paper as soon as the amendment to the constitution has received the royal assent?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As the hon. gentleman knows, a white paper will be made available on this subject, I hope within a very few days.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In
view of the statement which the Prime Minister has just read from the speech of a Labour member of the British house of commons, Right Hon. Harold Wilson-


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was Sir Frank Soskice.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, it was a Labour member.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Nice co-operation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of that statement, will the Prime Minister tell us whether he intends to take any steps to bring our constitution home to Canada so that we need not go through this ridiculous rigmarole whenever it is necessary to amend the constitution?


Lester Bowles Pearson: On that point, perhaps I could read a further sentence from the statement made by Sir Frank Soskice:
I would hope the view would prevail in Canada that the time really has come when Canada in terms should be recognized in her own legislation and in ours as what she is, one of the great sovereign countries of the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sure all members of the house will agree with me when I say we should press forward to achieve that objective.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us do it.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: I wish to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources if either he or his parliamentary secretary is sitting in on the current federal-provincial discussions on Canadian welfare services on behalf of the people of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
The minister obviously did not hear my question. I asked him whether either he or his parliamentary secretary is participating in the federal-provincial discussions on welfare services to Canadians, to speak on behalf of the people of the Northwest Territories.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The hon. member was apparently not in the house yesterday when I advised the hon. member for Yukon that as a result of his representations, and consideration by the department, a representative from the department of northern affairs is attending the meeting today of provincial representatives. I might add that this meeting is not dealing with welfare matters generally but with the Canada pension plan.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: On a point of order, I was in the house yesterday and I asked the same question, but I could not get a simple answer from the ministry at that time, which is why I repeated my question today.

Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



MOVING EXPENSES OP CIVILIANS DUE TO RADAR STATION CLOSING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Could he tell us whether steps have been taken or will be taken to reimburse the moving expenses of persons affected by the closing of the radar station at Parent? I am thinking especially of those persons who are not or were not employed at the radar station and of employees of the Department of National Defence not covered by the regulations of that department, when they lose their jobs?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely this is a question for the order paper.



FRASER RIVER-DISCUSSION OP DEVELOPMENT WITH B.C. PREMIER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: was determined to ask this question, Mr. Speaker. I wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources which is urgent and national in scope. Did the minister for external affairs or any member of the federal cabinet discuss with Premier Bennett or any member of the government of British Columbia any subjects related to the development of the Fraser river?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I had the pleasure of a conversation with the premier of British Columbia yesterday in which that subject came up.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of several conversations with Premier Bennett and we discussed the hon. gentleman.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the opinions expressed by the premier of British Columbia and the Secretary of State for External Affairs are printable, I wonder if they could be put on Hansard.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, July 22, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-110, to facilitate the making of loans to students-Mr. Gordon-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 2-Definitions.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening clause 2 of the bill, with a proposed amendment thereto by the Minister of Industry and a subamendment thereto by the hon. member for Yukon, were being considered.
Is the committee ready for the question on the subamendment?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, since we adjourned at six o'clock yesterday I have had the opportunity, at the suggestion of the hon. member for Lapointe, of consulting my pillow. I have also had a chance to read the debate in Hansard and to study the various points made by the hon. member for Yukon, by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George and by other members of the committee. In addition, I have had the opportunity of discussing the question we were debating with the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and with, if I may say so, his very able parliamentary secretary. I am now in a position to state what I believe to be the objective of hon. members of the committee and to make a suggestion.
In the first place, the government agrees with the general premise that the commissioners of the Yukon and of the Northwest Territories should consult with the members of the territorial councils in the matter under discussion.


Mr. Monieiih:: It must have been a good sleep.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: At the same time it is the wish and hope of the government and, I am sure, of all hon. members that the benefits of this legislation should be available to students in all parts of Canada for the next academic year. Hon. members will appreciate that this poses a particular difficulty in so far as the Yukon is concerned where, as the hon. member for Yukon knows perhaps better than any of us, writs were issued on July 10 calling for an election. The election will be held on September 8. It is my under-

standing that the writs will not be returnable until October 16 and that the first meeting of the council will probably be called for early November.
If we were to insist that the commissioner of the Yukon consult with the council or, for that matter, with the advisory committee on finance before any action is taken, it would mean that no appropriate authority could be designated and therefore no loans could be granted to students in the territory in time for the next academic year. This is the case because until the elections have been held and the writs returned there will be no council and no advisory committee with whom the commissioner could consult.
In the case of the Northwest Territories I understand that the next meeting of the council will be held in November. It might be possible, I suppose, to call a special meeting some time in August, but I do not know whether this would be convenient for the members of the council or whether they would feel it was necessary to do so.
In these circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I understand that the hon. member for Yukon would be willing, provided the government first of all withdraws its amendment, to withdraw the subamendment so the government may move a new amendment which would take into account the points about consultation which were raised by the hon. member and by other hon. members, and which at the same time would meet the legal points which have been of concern to the government. If this course is followed it would permit action to be taken this year, of necessity without consultation in so far as the Yukon is concerned this year but it would provide for consultation in the future.
This is the proposal I wish to make. I hope hon. members will feel that this solution meets, in so far as it is possible to do so, most of the points that were raised. I think it certainly meets the principles that were raised, and I hope this approach will commend itself to hon. members of the committee. If it does, then the Minister of Industry on behalf of the Solicitor General will ask leave to withdraw the amendment. I am corrected. I gather that the first move would be to withdraw the subamendment, then the amendment would be withdrawn, then the new amendment would be moved.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Chairman, I am perfectly happy, with the consent of the committee and the hon. member for Athabasca who
Loans to Students
seconded my subamendment yesterday, to withdraw the subamendment on the understanding that the government will withdraw the amendment and introduce a replacement amendment, a copy of which the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance has been kind enough to provide to me.
I am very happy that the government has-acceded to the points that have been made not only by myself but by other members on this side of the house, and I might say that the course that the government is adopting is eminently fair in the circumstances.


Lucien Lamoureux: Has the hon. member for Yukon leave to withdraw the subamendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Subamendment withdrawn.


Lucien Lamoureux: Has the Minister of Industry leave to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, in place of the amendment and subamendment now withdrawn I move:
That Bill C-110, an act to facilitate the making: of loans to students, be amended by renumbering clause 2 as subclause (1) of clause 2 and by adding, 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
(a)	in the application of this act to any academic year commencing before the first day of January, 1965,
(i)	where the council of the Yukon Territory or the council of the Northwest Territories is not in existence when this act comes into force, or where no meeting of such council will take place before the first day of September, 1964, the commissioner of the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories, as the case may be, or
(ii)	in any other case, the commissioner of the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories, acting after consultation with the council of the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories, as the case-may be, and
(b)	in the application of this act to any academic year commencing after the 31st day of December, 1964, the commissioner of the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories, acting after consultation with the council of the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories, as the case may be.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the amendment carry?


Erik Nielsen: I should like to say a few words. We are quite happy to accept the amendment that has been moved by the Minister of Industry. Since the minister of northern affairs is in his seat, I suggest to him that in the future discussion of these

Loans to Students
things can be averted, that is the council of the Yukon Territory not being in session or being dissolved, by making the advisory committee on finance a permanent body which would not change until the election of a new council. In that fashion you would always have the elected representatives of the people of the Yukon acting, in essence, as a form of embryo cabinet, or you would have the executive in consultation with the legislative arm of government in the territory.
With these brief remarks, may I say once again how pleased I and the people of the Yukon are with the co-operation of the government in acceding to this very justifiable request for consultation on matters of this kind.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I will only take a minute to say to the minister, and indeed to the Minister of Industry as well, how pleased I am that this procedure is being followed. Consultation with the elected representatives becomes particularly important when we remember that the council of the Northwest Territories is made up of a preponderance of men who are appointed by the cabinet, none of whom live in the Northwest Territories. They are all southerners; not that that is some kind of sin, but it certainly does mean that southern Canadians have a restricted view of the problems we have. I can assure the Minister of Finance, and indeed all the other ministers, that wherever such consultation is promised in the future in connection with other programs there shall be nothing but cooperation from me as the elected spokesman of the people of the Northwest Territories.
A precedent was announced yesterday by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I was in the house and heard the hon. lady, and I appreciated what she said because for the first time at a federal-provincial conference-conferences which have been going on now for many years-there has been a commitment by a minister to permit representatives from the two northern territories to be in attendance. This is a precedent that
1	recommend to all ministers. I merely want to say again in closing how pleased I am, as the member for the far north, that this course is being followed.
Amendment (Mr. Drury) agreed to.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the clause as amended carry?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, before clause
2	is carried-I was on my feet before it was
[Mr. Nielsen.!
accepted-there is something I should like to point out.
The Minister of Finance said on several occasions that the province of Quebec will not take advantage of Bill No. C-110, but would avail itself instead of the provisions under section 12 of the said bill.
Mr. Chairman, all the questions we, of the province of Quebec, could ask about the various sections of this bill depend ultimately on the provisions and on certain information that the Minister of Finance could provide us on section 12.
This is the situation at present: until we are given adequate information about section 12 of Bill C-110, we find ourselves in a rather peculiar situation. Indeed, should clause 12 of the bill be amended, then many questions or amendments concerning other clauses would no longer be necessary.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether it would be possible to examine clause 12 before we have dealt with clause 2 or before passing on to the others.
If we are satisfied with clause 12, we will not find it necessary to propose amendments to clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6, provided the other provinces wish to accept them in their present form. On the other hand, if clause 12 does not satisfy us, even if it provides for alternative payments, we shall bring forward certain amendments.
Here then, Mr. Chairman, is what I am asking you: Before we go on with clauses 2, 3, 4 and so forth, may we request some information from the Minister of Finance concerning clause 12?
I feel such a request is justified and could speed up the discussion of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you would let us put a few questions to the Minister of Finance, during five or six minutes, as regards clause 12.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member understands that it is not the chairman who allows or denies questions being put. If the committee wishes to consider another clause before the one which is supposed to be studied now, namely clause 3, of course the chairman must comply with the wish of the committee.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, merely to give you an idea, I would have only six or seven very short questions to ask about clause 12, and this would avoid having to revert to it, because if under clause 12, the province of Quebec is completely out of the program, then we have nothing to change in the bill.

I have only six or seven very short questions-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. If the committee allows unanimously some questions being asked on clause 12 before clause 3 is considered, it is up to the committee to decide, and the house will then allow the hon. member to put his questions; but at this time, perhaps we might hear the views of the Minister of Finance.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Well, Mr. Chairman, the committee has spent a fair amount of time on this bill. I have a feeling that if we proceed in the normal way and consider the bill clause by clause, as is customary, probably we will make faster progress than if we were to jump and take up clause 12 now and then come back to this clause. If when we take up clause 12 there are amendments that are accepted by the committee that would have a bearing on earlier clauses, then I would ask the indulgence of the committee to reopen those earlier clauses, if that is necessary, for a consequential amendment. I feel, with great respect to the hon. member for Lapointe, that we should follow the normal committee procedure and consider the bill clause by clause.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, since such seems to be the opinion of the Minister of Finance and that the unanimous consent of the house is then required, I am compelled to study each clause of the bill as if the province of Quebec did not take advantage of it.
For example, I would have liked to ask a question with reference to the remarks made about clause 2, that is suppose the province of Quebec would choose the alternative formula instead of accepting Bill No. C-110, whether the province would then pay interest on loans but would the loans still be guaranteed by the federal government? If the federal government guarantees the loans, it is then obvious that the province of Quebec would have to comply with the provisions of the various clauses of this bill. I shall have then some questions to ask the hon. Minister of Finance about clause 2 before it carries.
There is, for instance, in clause 2, the following definition:
-that offers courses at a post-secondary school level-
Loans to Students
Would the Minister of Finance be able to tell us what he means by "post-secondary school level"?


Mr. Lambert:: That was all explained yesterday.


Gilles Grégoire: For instance, I think that in some provinces the post-secondary level is reached after grade 13, whereas in the province of Quebec, it will probably be more than that, i.e. after the B.A. At this point the classical course would be considered a secondary one, and it is only after the classical course that the post-secondary school level would be reached.
Now, I would like the Minister of Finance to tell us whether he has taken into account the various terminologies used in different provinces or whether there is a uniform standard throughout the country with regard to this legislation.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member has really endorsed the position I took a few minutes ago on the desirability of going through the bill in an orderly fashion. I do not know whether the hon. member was present when I explained to the committee the question of differences in matriculation standards and how this would be determined by the provinces. There is no intention of having a standard that would apply across the country.
Had the hon. member followed the debate he would appreciate that if Quebec were participating under this scheme such questions would be settled by the appropriate authority established by Quebec, and not by this parliament. I also explained I had formal notice from the premier of Quebec saying Quebec will not participate in this scheme except under the provisions of clause 12. With the greatest respect, I believe we would waste the time of the committee if we approached this in a piecemeal fashion.


Gilles Grégoire: Will the minister permit me to ask five or six questions on clause 12?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think we should deal with clause 12 in its proper sequence.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 3-Guaranteed student loan.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, section 3 mentions loans of $1,000 per year up to five years.

Loans to Students
In some faculties, such as the law school, for instance, it is a four year course. In commerce, it is also a four year course. In social sciences, a four year course. In medicine, you have a six year course and in other faculties, as in science, there is a pre-science year after the B.A. and the course extends over six years.
So, the student who enters the law school can complete his studies under the provisions of section 3, that is borrow $1,000 a year for four years. That even leaves him another year for the second year of philosophy, if he wants to borrow money before entering the law school.
But, in the case of the medical student, if he borrows for the first five years of his studies, the sixth year being often considered as that of residence, when the medical student follows his studies at the university -I agree he will do so at the hospital, in certain circumstances, where he will get a salary of some $50 a month, which is not enough for his purpose-then, he will not be in a position to take advantage of this act.
Has the Minister of Finance provided for those university faculties where one must spend more years than in other faculties before getting a master or a doctor degree, that is six or even seven years instead of three or four. Can the Minister of Finance tell us what he intends to do in the case of such faculties where the studies are longer?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: This is another point that was covered fully in the debate, and I explained it at some considerable length I am afraid my hon. friend may not have been here, or perhaps I was not clear enough, but I think other members of the committee understand it. The purpose of this legislation is to make available to students, in provinces that wish to participate in the plan, up to $1,000 a year to a maximum of $5,000. The particulars of the courses, the length of the courses, the nature of the courses, and all those details I have already explained will be determined and settled by the appropriate authorities established by the provinces.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I have followed quite closely consideration of this bill by the committee and have heard the Minister of Finance almost every time he spoke. However, I would say the explanations he gave us were not very clear compared to those contained in section 3 of

the bill, even though the point must be determined by the appropriate authorities in charge of its administration in each province.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that those authorities in charge may not change clause 3 providing that the total borrowed amount will never exceed $5,000.
Now, we find that $1,000 a year is being loaned up to a total of $5,000. Of course, a medical student may say: I shall borrow $800 a year for six years, while a law student may say: I shall borrow $1,000 a year for four years. Now, this is what may happen: when students go in for longer studies, that is in the scientifieal and medical field, which are the faculties where courses are most expensive because of the laboratory and research which has to be done. Those are, as I say, the faculties with the highest fees. It seems that the medical student who undertakes a six-year course, if he wants to have the necessary funds for those six years, should borrow an amount of $800 a year, which will cost him more than it will the law student whose expenses are less, because he has no laboratory equipment to buy. One student will have lesser expenses than the other. One will have to borrow the full amount if he wants to do his six-year course.
There is an anomaly in respect to this, and the Minister of Finance should revise clause 3.
Why impose a five-year limit when there are longer courses of study, if it is intended to give scholarships to students after matriculation, that is for those years which are called belles-lettres, rhetorique, philosophy 1, philosophy 2, plus six years of medical studies. That makes ten years, whereas the student may avail himself of this legislation during five years only.
This is far from sufficient to attain the objective, that is to give everyone the opportunity to attend college or university. That may be possible in certain cases where the course of study is not too long, but for the student who takes up a course requiring several years such as, for instance, science, medicine, physics or chemistry, clause 3 is discriminatory since it will favour certain faculties at the expense of others. It would be more important in the years to come to help those who would be subject to such discrimination because it can be said without fear of contradiction that the faculties of science and medicine are both very important for the development and progress of our country, and because these studies take longer and cost more, clause 3 seems discriminatory.

I wonder whether the minister should not say that in the case of university studies which require a longer time, that the student will be able to benefit every year of their course of the provisions of clause 3, so that they could borrow $1,000 a year. I wonder whether the Minister of Finance could not himself move an amendment along that line for the benefit of the faculties where courses require more than five years.


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, I do not support this bill, as everybody knows, but in section 3, I wonder if the minister, by limiting to $5,000 the total of loans for students, does not prejudice students who, having completed their university studies, want to obtain an M.A. or a Ph.D.
It is very important for the government to pay attention to this, since qualified men with an M.A. or a Ph.D. are too few. If we want to control our economy, we need qualified men, people who will continue their studies after obtaining a B.A. or a licenciate's degree, in order to get an M.A. or a Ph.D.
I wonder if it would not be in the interests of Canadians to propose an amendment so as to provide in this bill an open door to the students who want to complete their studies and obtain a master's or doctor's degree.
I say I am against this bill, but I am nevertheless favourable to giving assistance to students, for this would permit us to have more qualified men, more Canadians with a master's or doctor's degree who, accordingly, would be able to occupy their rightful place on the board of directors of companies, which, unfortunately, are mostly controlled by foreigners at present.


Mr. Cole (Longueuil):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. This attitude of certain hon. members who object to the bill one day and who ask, the day after, that loans be extended, must seem ridiculous to the minister?
I cannot understand such an attitude and I wonder if the Minister of Finance is able to understand it.


Mr. Ricard:: I should like to make a few comments following the remarks of the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Cote).
It is readily realized that we are now considering a bill full of deficiencies and shortcomings resulting from the lack of consideration and care taken in the preparation of this measure, as is the case, for that matter, with all the measures introduced in the house.
It is surely our duty to call the government's attention to the deficiencies of this 20220-371i
Loans to Students
legislation. I ask my Liberal friends who seem to be screwed down to their seats to raise no objections if we try to improve this measure which will surely benefit a great number of Canadians. It is thanks to our interventions that we shall be able to improve this legislation and instead of being blamed, we should be commended.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about the remarks of the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Cote).
It is true that we object to the principle of the bill now under consideration and it is also true, and the hon. member for Longueuil knows it, that the people and students of the province of Quebec also object thereto. But we also know that some members in the house are crawling on all fours and are unable to assert the ideas of the people and students of the province of Quebec. The hon. member for Longueuil is one of those who, in collusion with the Quebec premier, are now trying to have a measure passed by this house which has been rejected by the people.


Lucien Lamoureux: I would ask the hon. member to revert to the specific clause now under consideration.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege and my grievance is in order since it is prompted by the remarks of the hon. member for Longueuil.
I say that the hon. member for Longueuil has no right to attribute intentions to members of the committee. If we are now talking on this bill, it is because it is our duty to do so. We object to the principle of the bill, in the interests of the people of the province of Quebec as a whole, with a great majority of them and nearly 100 per cent of students who do not support it.
We have to do this today because the hon. member for Longueuil is unable to take his responsibilities and keeps on grovelling before the leader of his party.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Mr. Chairman, on this question of privilege-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the hon. member for Longueuil to resume his seat-he is used to remaining seated, let him remain seated.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It seems to me that
the committee would make more progress if we tried to forget calls to order and questions of privilege. I recognize that the hon. member is now talking on a question of privilege and that the hon. member for Longueuil rises in turn on another question of privilege.

Loans to Students
I wonder if it would not be desirable to forget these questions in the general purpose of progressing in the study of the measure.


Gilles Grégoire: I am not really ready to forget all the stupidities uttered by the hon. member for Longueuil. In the circumstances,
I would ask you to invite him to withdraw his words.


Mr.   Coie@Longueuil: I do not think the hon. member for Longueuil is recognized more often than he should be.


Gilles Grégoire: He never takes the floor.


Mr.   Coie@Longueuil: Thus, he has less chance to talk nonsense and say stupid things than some others who do so all day long, particularly the hon. member for Lapointe-and I must say it is most becoming to him.
I think it is my responsibility as a member of the party in office to take the floor. I made a speech on Bill No. C-110 and I think it can easily be compared to the speech made by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), and what I advocated during my remarks is even better than what was put forward by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon).


Mr. Deschaieleis:: Hear, hear.


Lucien Lamoureux: Does clause 3 carry?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I think I had the right, in committee, to make suggestions to the Minister of Finance. I did so politely.
At the outset of my remarks I said that I was against the bill and I had the courage to vote against it, which the hon. member for Longueuil did not have the courage to do.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I would ask the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to co-operate with the other members of the committee.
I am aware that he made some suggestions to the minister, but such being the case, I think it would be more appropriate to put the question. Does the clause carry?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that you ask the hon. member for Longueuil to co-operate with the Chair and the members of the committee.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is clause 3 carried?


Mr.   Coie@Longueuil: Mr. Chairman, I would be most happy to co-operate with the members of the committee, but I want to point out the fact that yesterday the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm could have risen and cast his vote so as to protect provincial rights; instead, he remained seated.
[The Chairman.]


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to drag out the discussion on clause 3, but I think that we, on this side of the house, are ready to co-operate with the minister, because he wants, as does the government, to enact this bill which constitutes an invasion in an exclusively provincial field inasmuch as education comes under provincial jurisdiction.
However, if hon. members on the government side continue to intervene as the hon. member for Longueuil did just now, the government cannot expect perfect co-operation on the part of opposition members.
I shall be very happy to co-operate with the minister, and I am asking the hon. member for Longueuil to help his own minister and not embarrass him as he is doing. I would also suggest that he collaborate with the chairman of the committee who is merely discharging his responsibilities.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister to answer a question I asked, and I know the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) also very much wants an answer with regard to some suggestions that were made to the minister.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, as I said a few minutes ago, I think the students in nine of the provinces of Canada at least are very anxious to have a chance to benefit under this legislation. I have also pointed out that this legislation was developed with the help and assistance of representatives of all ten provinces, including the province of Quebec. I have also pointed out on several occasions, if I remember, that Quebec is not going to participate in this plan directly but only to the extent that is provided for under clause 12. I would hope that hon. members of the committee would remember those facts and help us get on with the bill, because obviously if we talk about it indefinitely no one will benefit from it in this academic year.
As to the suggestions to the effect that the amounts should be increased and all that sort of thing, these are matters which the government has had to take into account after consultation with the provincial representatives, and in the view of the government these are reasonable amounts to recommend. Now, somebody has to take responsibility for this. If it is found that these amounts are inadequate or too much, I am sure the government will have no hesitation in coming back and asking for a revision in the light of that experience.


Michael Starr: Before this clause passes, Mr. Chairman, I wish to remind the minister that I did ask four specific questions which I am very anxious to have answered. I realize that the minister said they would be answered at the appropriate time, but I have looked through the various clauses and I do not seem to be able to pinpoint the appropriate time when any one of them would be answered. Perhaps the minister could help me here.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I have again studied the questions raised by the hon. member for Ontario and it seems to me that the proper place to answer them is when we are dealing with clause 7.


Mr. Balcer:: Mr. Chairman, can the minister tell the house if the government will for instance authorize the banks to make loans of less than $1,000 a year, and if that decision will be up to the bank manager?
I remember that if, at the time I was a student, I had known that at a certain date and a certain time a bank manager could loan money to students, I would have hurried to the bank at nine o'clock in the morning in order to obtain one.
To sum up my thoughts what are going to be the powers of the bank managers with regard to loan decisions?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, as I tried to explain the other day, these decisions as to whether a student needs a loan, the amount of loan he should be granted, and so on, will be made by the appropriate authority set up by the provinces. They will give him a certificate which states that in their opinion the student concerned needs a loan of so much, up to a maximum of $1,000. He will then take the certificate to the bank and get a loan from the bank.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. What would he say of the following hypothetical case. Let us suppose that having received from the proper authorities a certificate of eligibility stating that he needs a certain amount of money a student goes to a bank or caisse populaire to secure a loan, but the manager refuses to lend him any money. If, after making the round of all lending institutions, banks, caisses populaires and others, he still cannot get a loan, would he have some
Loans to Students
kind of a recourse, considering that the federal government is backing his application?
I am thinking more particularly of a student whose father is out of work and who has a loan with the bank or caisse populaire which he cannot pay back. In such a case, could the manager of the bank or caisse populaire tell the student that he cannot get a loan because his father has failed to pay his own debt?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Well, Mr. Chairman, we are raising a lot of hypothetical questions, most of which I think were dealt with earlier. In this particular case, in the first instance I cannot imagine why a bank would not lend the money. The loan is, after all, guaranteed by the federal government. If the bank does not lend the money the student can go to any other branch of any other bank, or to the caisse populaire or credit union, which have now been included. If in the most unlikely event-and I must say I cannot imagine this happening-a student with a certificate from the appropriate authority from the province recommending that he receive a loan for a certain amount in order to further his academic training goes to the bank but is refused that loan, I am reasonably confident that he will get hold of the Minister of Finance without much delay.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct another question to the minister. Will the loans made by the banks to students be non-transferable and not attachable? For instance, if a student has debts, could a garnishee be placed against the loan he has secured to continue his studies?
Or still, in the case of a student whose father owes money to the bank, could the bank manager require that the amount of the loan granted to the son be used to balance the father's account? In other words, could a creditor seize a loan granted to a student?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Well, Mr. Speaker, quite obviously this is a question which will be settled by the laws of the country in the normal way. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to answer such questions of interpretation. The courts will decide those questions according to the laws of the country.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Interest free period.
Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Chairman, with reference to clause 4 which concerns the interest free

Loans to Students
and repayment period, I am completely in agreement with the principle of the bill but I am concerned with the method to be used in establishing need for a loan, in view of the fact that loans are interest free to a student. While the bill states that authority for granting loans shall be designated by the lieutenant governor in any province, it does not clearly define those who may be eligible for loans. This will invariably lead to discrimination among the provinces, for the definition of the word "need" may be entirely different among the provinces of Canada. This could result in loans being made in one province while loans are denied citizens of similar means in other provinces.
In my opinion under this legislation it would appear unnecessary for anyone regardless of means to pay each year for his children's education. For example, a man may be worth $100,000 and have it invested in securities or mortgages at a rate of 6 per cent for a five year period, therefore his money would not be readily available. In these circumstances his son would be justified in borrowing up to $5,000 over a period of five years to help pay for his education, and under the bill this money is interest free. At the end of the five year period plus six months the parent could sell his securities which had been paying him 6 per cent and then repay his son's loan. During this period the $5,000 earned $1,500 interest not compounded. I have not figured it out, but at compound interest I believe the sum would be in excess of $2,000.
It is for this reason, as I have stated earlier, that every parent will avail himself of the opportunity to secure $5,000 in interest free money if he has a child going to college. I would ask the minister, is this the intention of this legislation? If so, it will have more far reaching effect than was originally anticipated. If this rule does not apply then it is discriminatory against many Canadians, since the basis of need will not have been established. I should like to have the minister's interpretation of the point I have raised. In other words, will there be a means test under which these loans will be made available so they will be distributed fairly and equitably right across Canada?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I did explain this yesterday or the day before. I explained that it is not intended that there would be a uniform set of criteria across the country. It seemed to us after consultation with the provincial representatives that the only prac-

tical way was to have the sections of this act which deal with the students themselves and their needs dealt with by provincial bodies who have been doing this same work in some cases for many years.
As to the fear of the hon. member that people may take advantage of these provisions; that people who do not really need the money will borrow it, interest free, and then possibly lend it to their parents, or in other words beat the game in one way or another, I can only say that I do not think the great majority of the people it is proposed to help to obtain higher education in one form or another are the kind of people who will deliberately set out to evade what is the clear intention of this bill. There may be individual cases where this will happen. If there are many of them, I suppose the act will be brought into question and amendments will be necessary. But on the advice of the provincial officials who have helped prepare this bill it is proposed to leave the criteria to the authorities in each province to work out. In most cases they have done so already.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Payment deferred.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance how many years will the student have to repay the amount he borrowed while he was studying? How many years will he be allowed to effect that reimbursement?


Norman Platt Lambert: Read the bill, it is written there.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Between five and ten years, Mr. Chairman.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, you say between five and ten years. But who will make the decision? The student or the bank manager? Who will decide in those circumstances?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The intention here is to leave some leeway so the amount will be taken into account. When a small sum is involved I presume there will be an endeavour to collect it in a shorter period than when the total is larger. This can be worked out between the bank and the student, always with the proviso that the student may, if he so wishes, pay off the loan ahead of time. He

need not be stuck with paying interest for ten years. If he marries a witch-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Not a rich witch, but a nice widow with a lot of money, or receives some windfall or other and finds it convenient to pay off the loan and wishes to do so, he will always have that right.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, does the Minister of Finance mean that the student who borrowed $5,000, while he was studying will have, upon request, a ten year period to effect that reimbursement?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: He will be able to pay it over a ten year period.


Mr. Paul:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask a question. Why does clause 5 of Bill No. C-110 stipulate that interest will be payable from the seventh month after a student has completed his studies when the Liberal party platform stated that the interest would be payable only a year after the end of the studies?
Is that legislation, as it is worded now, justified by any economic factors?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: This was worked out in consultation with provincial representatives, who felt it was a reasonable way of doing it. After all, the program of the Liberal party- and I am delighted to see that the hon. member is so interested in it-


Michael Starr: Let us keep politics out of it and deal with the bill.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I was not the one who raised this question. I know it was suggested that this should be started a year after, but the people with whom we consulted thought six months would be more appropriate.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, does the bill provide for an extension of time in the case of a student who drops out before graduating and who is stuck with a $2,000 debt? Would payment of interests start seven months after the student has quit school?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, I think it is perfectly clear that that is what would happen.
Loans to Students


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, the answer of the Minister of Finance is not very clear at this time.
If a student comes to the end of his studies after borrowing not $2,000 but $5,000 as stipulated in the bill, must he begin paying interest on his loan seven months after the end of his studies?
If that student does not have a job, is unemployed and cannot find work in the area where he lives, in that case does the minister expect that student would be allowed to keep on looking for a job without being persecuted by some bank since he will have borrowed that money under the federal government's guarantee?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I fancy these particular questions will be dealt with in practice without undue difficulty. It is our hope, of course, and it is the whole purpose of the bill that in the kind of society in which we live and which we are now entering, people with appropriate training and education will be the ones who will find it easiest to get jobs. In fact there is a great demand for their services. If, however, there are one or two people, perhaps even more, who are unable to get jobs within six months, if they have no money then they will not be able to pay the interest on their loans. That is obvious. I dare say they will be encouraged to get jobs and encouraged to pay the interest.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask one last question in that connection.
If a student had to discontinue his studies temporarily, let us say for a year, because of illness, and if he resumed them the moment he was well, would he have to pay back the first instalments on his loan seven months after discontinuing his courses? When he returned would he be entitled to borrow again under the act?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: This is another matter which will be covered by the regulations.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, before the discussion goes any further I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance to the following point.
With respect to section 4, we were told time and again yesterday that since the province of Quebec is not interested in the federal

Loans to Students
program, hon. members from that province should at least abstain from making suggestions and recommendations.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that as federal members of parliament, we have the right to speak not only on behalf of Quebec but also on behalf of all the Canadian provinces.
Now, I should like to ask the minister whether, should the province of Quebec have a program different from or similar to the one presented by the Minister of Finance, the federal government will guarantee the loans granted in the province of Quebec as in the other provinces?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
On clause 7-Guarantee by minister.
Walter Lockhart Gordon: Now that we have come to clause 7 I wonder whether I might be permitted to answer some questions that the hon. member for Ontario raised the other day. He has been very patient, for which I am grateful, although not so much for his questions as for his patience. He first of all asked what was meant by the term "vocational equivalent of a university education". I think the point is that loans would be available for students who are taking certain vocational training programs which require, like universities a high school diploma as a prerequisite for enrolment. Those students taking courses which the federal government now supports under program No. 2 of the vocational training agreements would be eligible in the provinces, if the provinces so decide. In short, it will be up to each province to determine which post-secondary institutions will be designated.
The next question was whether the requirement that a student must be studying at a post-secondary school level would work an injustice in the case, for example, of Ontario students who take grade 13 in high school and thus cannot qualify for a loan, when in some provinces grade 13 is taken at university thereby entitling such grade 13 students to qualify for a loan. I do not think there is any great injustice. Ontario students taking grade 13 at high school do not have to pay tuition fees so any injustice there may be, would be quite minor. They do not have to pay tuition fees. Similar students in another province taking grade 13 at university do have to pay tuition fees and their financial need is there-

fore greater. In any case there appears to be a trend toward evening out these requirements. I must say, however, as I have said before, that it is not the intention to have uniform standards across the country, and if this provision tends to promote some mobility amongst students in Canada I think it may be helpful.
The next question was: Will the loan plan cause an increase in enrolment and, if so, how much? I would hope and believe that there will be some increase in enrolment as full time students on the part of many who are now taking night courses and others who are financially unable to afford a university education at the present time. It is not possible, however, to forecast the magnitude of the increase in enrolment which this legislation may bring about.
The next question was: What happens to a student who drops out during a university year and then cannot find work immediately? Who is responsible for repaying the loan? That was the question asked by the hon. member for Lapointe a minute ago. As I indicated, we do not expect this will be a common experience since the loans are to be made to people who have demonstrated that they possess satisfactory scholastic standards. However there may be some drop-outs of this kind, and I think each case will have to be dealt with on its own merits and in the light of the regulations.


Norman Platt Lambert: May I ask the minister a question in connection with paragraph (a) of clause 7?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I wonder whether my hon. friend would allow me to interrupt him. The subclause to which he is referring is the one with regard to which the Solicitor General is going to move an amendment. It will be changed.


Mr. MacNaught:: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-110, an act to facilitate the making of loans to students, be amended by striking out lines 3 to 7 on page 4 and substituting therefor the following:
(i) that the borrower has not received any other loan pursuant to the certificate of eligibility referred to in paragraph (b), or pursuant to any other certificate of eligibility relating to the academic year specified in the certificate of eligibility referred to in paragraph (b), except any such loan the amount of which, when added to the amount of the loan applied for, did not exceed one thousand dollars, and-


Mr.   Olio@: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the minister will grant me a few minutes, especially since the hon. member for Lapointe and the hon. member for Villeneuve

have been kind enough to offer so many suggestions. I should like to point out to the hon. member for Lapointe that no one in this committee has ever intimated that members from Quebec should not be allowed to speak on this bill-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Let us get down to the bill.


Mr. Otto:: -but they have said that more credit would have been given to the hon. gentlemen if Quebec had not opted out. Many of the suggestions were very good. I should like to ask the minister a question on paragraph (b) of clause 7 with regard to the words "to be issued by an appropriate authority relating to that borrower". Is there any provision in this clause or elsewhere in the bill for an appeal? In the event that a student has applied to the authority, and without just reason has been refused a certificate, is there any provision anywhere in the bill under which he may appeal to the minister or to any government authority for a certificate?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will be glad to answer that question. One of the advantages of this formula is that there will be a number of appropriate authorities and if any student is refused a loan by one-I am assuming that in the larger provinces almost all of the universities will be appropriate authorities- he can apply to another. I would also remind my hon. friend that such programs on a more modest scale have been working for some time and a lot of experience has been gained. While I am addressing myself to the hon. member for York East may I say that I appreciated his suggestion the other day that we should get on with the bill and that if it did not work the minister's head should be chopped off. I think that would be a good thing to remember and perhaps we could leave it at that. Let us get on with the bill and if it does not work my head will be on the platter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Do I take it from the minister's remarks that he envisages having a number of eligibility authorities in each province?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would think that in the smaller provinces there would be one authority, but that in most cases they will delegate to the individual universities where the work is done and is being done.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Section 2(b) says:
(b) "appropriate authority" for a province means such person, body or authority as may be designated by the lieutenant governor in council- 20220-372
Loans to Students
I take it, then, we will have only one authority and it may delegate this power to certain persons at each university?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That is correct.


Mr.   Olio@: I believe the parliamentary secretary could answer this question. In the normal case there is provision in every province for an appeal to the court. Will there be an appeal to the courts under the provisions of this bill for a mandamus or something like that?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I withdraw that offer to put my head on a platter, if I thought it was part of a deal or an understanding. My hon. friend is a lawyer and knows much more about the workings of the law than I do. I think he may answer his own question.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman:: Shall clause 7 as amended carry?


Norman Platt Lambert: I think you are getting ahead of yourself, Mr. Chairman, in connection with the procedure that it was agreed we would follow in the discussion of this bill. It was agreed that any lengthy clause would be taken paragraph by paragraph. I have some remarks to pass about one other paragraph if discussion has been concluded on this paragraph.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is there any further discussion on paragraph (b)? Is there any discussion on paragraph (c)? Is there any discussion on paragraph (d)? Is there any discussion on paragraph (e)?


Norman Platt Lambert: I am just wondering, as a matter of interest, if the minister is forecasting some changes in the Bank Act. As we know, under the terms of the Bank Act, the banks are restricted to short or medium term credit, whereas we are now speaking in terms of five or ten years. Does this forecast some changes that may appear in the Bank Act in the future? This is quite contrary to the spirit of the Bank Act as it now exists.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I certainly would not want to enter into a discussion at this particular moment of what might be included in any revision of the Bank Act. I hope my hon. friend will not press me on that particular point.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance said a moment ago, during consideration of a previous clause that students

Loans to Students
might be allowed a period of ten years for repayment of their loan. In connection with the question asked by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), will the students be guaranteed a period of ten years to repay the loans made by a chartered bank?
The minister states that chartered banks have their own regulations. Would it not be possible for the minister or the government to intervene in the regulations of chartered banks and ask them to change their procedure, in the event these regulations are not consistent with the general good of the students.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The legislation provides that loans should be repayable between five and ten years, depending on the amount. The details will be spelled out in the regulations.


David Réal Caouette: Are the banks agreeable?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: A student will borrow from the bank and he will pay the bank over a period of between five and ten years, depending on the amount of the loan. The details will be spelled out in the regulations.


David Réal Caouette: Is this procedure accepted by the banks?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would that period of ten years extend from the time the student becomes liable?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is there any discussion on paragraph (f)?


Norman Platt Lambert: There is one short observation I should like to make on this paragraph. I trust that in the regulations, and those made under clause 13, the banks will not be put in the position that was expressed to me by a senior bank manager. He said, "We are going to get a rate of interest on these loans, but if we have to go through very much paperwork we are going to lose money. We are going to be deterred because we know that paper work on a loan will soon increase the cost of servicing the loan." I trust the paperwork involved in this will be kept down to less than the minimum, if we can reach that point. Certainly the caisses populaires, if they have to go through a tremendous amount of paperwork, will not find these loans attractive at all.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I can assure my hon. friend the paperwork will be kept down, if not to less than the minimum, then at least to the

minimum. If we can get it below the minimum, we will.


Mr. Canielon:: I should like to ask the minister if there is anything in these provisions which would prevent a province like Saskatchewan from operating their own loans system, because that province has regulations which do not seem to fit into this particular plan. For the information of the minister, may I point out what the regulations are? I am quoting from a brochure put out by the Saskatchewan department of education, respecting Saskatchewan government scholarships and loans, which says:
Loans are repayable in instalments of not less than $50 per month after students graduate or complete their courses. Loans are interest free during the period in school and thereafter for the number of months equivalent to the quotient of the loans divided by 50. Any interest charged beyond this point is 6 per cent.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: As I have said, Mr. Chairman, these provisions and the structure of the plan were worked out with the help of the provincial officials who are experienced in this field, including officials from Saskatchewan and those from my own department who now include, I am very pleased to say, the exdeputy treasurer of the province of Saskatchewan. The loans made under the provisions of this act will obviously have to comply with the provisions of this act. This will not interfere with any supplementary loan or any loan that is made under the Saskatchewan act or any other provincial act.
The Depuiy Chairman: Shall clause 7 as amended carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 8-Death of borrower.
Norman Platt Lambert: I am quite in accord with what this clause says, but I will reserve my remarks on this particular clause until we come to clause 15 because I think there is a relationship with some of the arguments which I am anticipating.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister of Finance tell the house whether he is in favour of adding another category of persons to the ones already mentioned, that is students who become ill or disabled during their studies and who have to give them up? I understand that there could not be very many, because there would be only a few students, but just the same, a student who has been going to university for three or four years and who, because of an automobile ac-

cident or because of illness cannot pursue his studies, is facing a very serious problem. In fact, he could not have the advantages of a profession. He would be handicapped and would have a great deal of difficulty in paying back the amount borrowed.
Moreover, in such a case, a young student would probably have to live simply on a social assistance pension or on allowances for disabled persons.
I think that the minister could include in the provisions of clause 8 that category of persons who could be affected by accidents or hazards of life to such a point that they could not repay their loans.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: In the case of physical disability sufficient to make repayment impossible, the government would not pursue the borrower and would conceivably write off the debt depending on whether the disability was permanent or not. This is the practice the government follows in respect of other guaranteed loans where the disability is permanent and the borrower is in a position that he just cannot repay the loan.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, does the Minister of Finance intend to include what he just said in the regulations to be set up under section 13?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It is not proposed to include them in the regulations. What we shall do is follow the same principle in practice. It is an administrative principle that if a situation of this kind occurs it will be considered first of all by treasury board, and if there is a write off recommended, then it is done under the authority the government now has.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, since the federal government guarantees all loans made to students, under clause 8, or clause 9 or any other clause, if a student fails to repay the loan, then the government has to pay it back to the bank, the caisse populaire or the credit union which has made the loan to that student. What we want to know is this: is the government always compelled to repay a loan in case the borrower fails to effect repayment?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That is correct. As in the case of other guaranteed loan schemes, these loans to students will be guaranteed by the gov-
Loans to Students
ernment. When this is done the banks will be more willing to lend the money, and also it will be possible to have it lent at a lower rate of interest than would otherwise be possible. The guarantee is a very important part of this scheme.


Mr. Rapp:: All rights of any bank will terminate in the case of the death of the borrower, but suppose the borrower dies some seven or eight years after receiving the loan, would this be a charge against his estate?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The bank will have no claim against the estate. What we were afraid of was that a graduate of vocational school or university might die and leave a young family with a debt of perhaps $5,000, which the family could not handle. By putting in a guarantee of this kind that sort of situation is taken care of, and, second, it makes it possible to negotiate these loans at a more reasonable rate of interest.


Mr. Olson:: On occasion we have noticed that the banks have added an additional fee, over and above the regular interest rate on personal loans, to take care of life insurance; in other words, life insuring the loans. Inasmuch as clause 8 provides for the termination of any right by the bank against a borrower, is there to be any additional charge above the interest rate? I have forgotten the interest rate which the minister announced and I would be grateful if he would repeat it.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That is prohibited under clause 7(d). There will be no charge in addition to the interest rate.


Reynold Rapp: I did not understand the minister quite clearly. If a borrower passes on seven or eight years after taking out a loan, will his estate be responsible for paying off the loan?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, it will not.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In drawing up this insurance provision against death, was consideration given to including total disability? A person may become totally disabled to the point where he has no possibility of earning any income thereafter, and it seems to me that situation could be covered by a very simple amendment to line 3, inserting after the word death the words "or total disability" of the borrower.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: As I said in answer to a similar question a minute or two ago by the hon. member for Villeneuve, this was considered. It was felt, as in other cases of guaranteed

Loans to Students
loans, the minister or the government have the power to write off the debt.
We would want to leave it flexible enough to be able to investigate the situation fully to make sure it was a permanent disability and not a temporary one. In cases where disability was permanent and some assistance was needed on compassionate grounds, then I am sure the government would act as it does in other cases of guaranteed loans and write oil the debt.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Under what authority would the government do that?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: We have that power under the Financial Administration Act.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is that a fairly cumbersome procedure? I am thinking of a person who has become totally disabled and the bank decides to take action in order to collect its money. Can the minister, without some authority in this bill, take steps quickly enough under the Financial Administration Act to protect the borrower?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: I have one comment and a question relating to clause 8. I think clause 8 is a very wise provision in this legislation but I ask is it not tantamount to insuring the life of the student borrower up to the amount of his total obligation, principal and interest?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, it is term insurance to that extent until such time as he repays the loan. Quite obviously he is not insured after the loan is repaid.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Chairman, has the minister or his department sought professional, actuarial advice with a view to the government's purchasing insurance in order to stabilize, so to speak, loss caused by the incidence of death, which in the future would be bound to cost the taxpayers of the nation a considerable sum of money from year to year? In short, is the minister thinking about buying insurance so that the cost to the government that will arise under clause 8 of this bill will be such as to place the least possible burden on the taxpayers of the country?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have consulted the superintendent of insurance and his officials. We concluded that the best way to handle this question and impose the least possible cost on the taxpayers of the country was for the government to carry the insurance itself; in other words, for the government to be its own insurer and not to farm

it out. This is done in other fields. The estimates are that this will be a very, very low cost.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
On clause 10-Issue of certificates.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity to speak about the interview between the Minister of Finance and the delegates of the general association of Montreal university students; I believe also that Laval University students were also represented.
May I point out that this interview has been a fiasco for the students concerned and they were representing hundreds of students.
I would, therefore, like to put on record the press release issued by the students:
Following our meeting today with Hon. Walter Gordon, Minister of Finance, Hon. Maurice Lamon-tagne, Secretary of State, and Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin, parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport, we want to explain once again why we are opposing federal loans.
We feel that Bill No. C-110 runs directly counter to provincial jurisdiction as far as education is concerned. It does not seem in any way acceptable that the federal government should interfere in a field where planning, decisions and amounts of money granted are the exclusive right of the provincial authorities; we cannot consider as worthy the argument that the federal government has the right, because it has the fiscal autonomy, to use in its own way the money received from taxpayers; such an action becomes unconstitutional as soon as it affects the field of education.
By the same token, we cannot accept, as Mr. Lesage has done, fiscal compensations for Quebec. These can cover joint fields of jurisdiction only. We feel it is unskilful and dangerous to accept fiscal compensations under the pretext that provincial autonomy must be respected.
The autonomy of the provinces will be all the more respected if we, ourselves, refuse to yield in that field. There is no need to send the provincial police in the other provinces to make them understand that a new method of tax sharing will allow each province to set up its own system of assistance to students, while maintaining its exclusive jurisdiction.


John Watson MacNaught: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I cannot see that the letter the hon. gentleman is reading has any relevancy to the clause under discussion.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I still have to read one or two paragraphs. Anyhow, Mr. Chairman, I asked you as well as the hon. member for Stormont about that, and I was told that I could speak about this matter during consideration of clause 10 or 11.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I have
been listening to what the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has been reading, and I am in some difficulty in being able to recognize the relation between the statement he is making and the substance of clause 10.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is mentioned in the section-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
Early this afternoon we asked questions of the Minister of Finance dealing particularly with clauses 10 and 11, it does not matter, they are complementary.


Norman Platt Lambert: That is all.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I must point out that we were told that we could mention documents received from the various student associations of the province of Quebec, during the debate on Bill No. C-110.
Now the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is reading what we wanted to read. We asked permission to ask questions; it was refused under the pretext that we might ask questions a little later this afternoon during the debate on the said bill.
Now the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is perfectly entitled to read the press release. However, the record must show that we were the first ones to draw the attention of the house to the claims of Quebec students.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The objection of the Chair is not to the reading of the document; the objection the Chair is raising concerns the question of relevancy and whether or not this document is relevant to clause 10 which is now under discussion.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, it is mentioned in clause 10-


Mr. Byrne:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I am on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) should wait until I
Loans to Students
have finished my remarks, then he will have all the opportunities he wants to speak.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On a point of order-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The hon. member for Kootenay East has risen on a point of order.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, quite apart from the irrelevancy of the hon. member's remarks-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If you want to begin a war, you will see.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -the appropriate citation of Beauchesne is citation 149, which prohibits the reading of documents commenting on speeches or debates which have taken place in the house. Citation 149 reads as follows:
-a member, while speaking, must not:
(e) read from a printed document or book commenting on any speech made in parliament during the session; nor...
(n) read petitions referring to debates in the house;


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, clause 10 mentions that:
Subject to section 11, the appropriate authority for a province...
Speaking about provincial rights or autonomy or about education, I refer consequently to the appropriate authority in a province and my remarks are related to that. Moreover, whether it concerns clauses 10, 11 or 12, if the house is ready to spare me a few minutes, I will not have to come back to that subject later, and that will save the time of the house, since I only have two paragraphs left to finish that letter.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, perhaps we might let the hon. member finish the letter. I have not seen the letter, and I am very curious about it.


Gilles Grégoire: You have it; it was a press release.


An hon. Member:: It is in the papers.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It may be in the papers, but I have not seen it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You can check it tomorrow in Hansard.

Mr. Chairman, I shall go on with the reading of the letter and I thank the Minister of Finance for allowing me to read it, even it

Loans to Students
the hon. member for Kootenay East objected, which proves once more that he does not know the rules of the house.
The field of education is one in which no compromise can or must be made. More than anybody else, we are aware of the needs of the students. However, we shall not sacrifice the safeguard of an essential principle to a legitimate desire and to legitimate needs.
It cannot be argued either that it would be possible to repatriate later these fiscal compensations through taxation fields. For the federal government, this would be like giving back with one hand what it took away with the other. We state again that the federal government cannot intrude into the field of education. We regret that the representatives of the federal government did not understand that.
This letter is signed by Mr. Michel Vail-lancourt, president of A.G.E.U.M., and by Mr. Michel Latellier, president of A.G.E.L.
Mr. Chairman, the students of the province of Quebec are all against this legislation, because they feel that it represents an intrusion of the federal government in the field of education. The students taught a lesson not only to this government but also to the premier of the province of Quebec, who refuses to take his responsibilities and defend the needs and autonomist rights of the province of Quebec.
Something struck me a while ago. It is that the Minister of Finance was always repeating this argument while mentioning the name of Mr. Lesage. I can assure him that the great majority of the people in the province of Quebec do not support the premier on this matter.
The students of the Montreal and Laval universities should have met with the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin) who completely agrees with their views on the subject. I reproach him with having refused to take his responsibilities at the time of the vote to oppose the project following the statement he made some time ago, when he said that he was against federal loans to students.
I wonder what the government members from the province of Quebec do to support the claims of the students of Laval and Montreal universities?
What is the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard) doing, what is the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Cote) doing and what are the other hon. members I see in this house doing, such as the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Berger), the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) and the others? What are they doing to support the students of Montreal and Laval universities? Most Quebec students are against this bill.

Why are the government members from the province of Quebec such slaves of a political party? Why do they not take their responsibilities and state in the house the opinion of their electors and of the students of the province of Quebec concerning this bill?


David Réal Caouette: Ah, the bad Liberals.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, we must, of course-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I understand that the committee only gave him permission to read the letter to which he made a reference and now, I wonder whether it is the wish of the committee to grant more time to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm so that he can go on discussing freely the contents of that letter?


David Réal Caouette: That was the best speech he ever made; let him go on.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Does the hon. member for Lapointe rise on a point of order?


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. It is inevitable that the matter now under discussion will come up when we get to clause 12. Even if we discuss it on clause 10 or on clause 12, it is a sure thing that on clause 12, we will be allowed to discuss it; and surely, we will do so. Therefore, why not allow a discussion on clause 10, as is being done now?
I suggest that the hon. member for Jo-liette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has started off on a fine speech and I think he should be allowed to continue his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if he has some comments to offer, in view of the great deception caused by his bill among the people and the students of the province of Quebec?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I have a comment I should like to make, Mr. Chairman. I do not know whether we are on a point of order or whether the hon. member was commenting on what my hon. friend said, but it seems to me that we have heard this argument several times in the course of this debate, and that we should stick to the clauses of the bill. It seems to me, with respect, Mr. Chair-

man, that the hon. member is straying away from the subject under discussion.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: But you opened the door and permitted me to place this statement before the house.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, it would appear to me that the discussion is clearly out of order on the clause we are now dealing with. I suggest we return to our discussion of that clause, and in view of what the hon. member for Lapointe has said that we deal with the question of order on clause 12, if and when we get to it.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 11-Limitation on aggregate amount.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, concerning section 11, I would like-


An hon. Member:: This section has carried, the thing is over.


Norman Platt Lambert: The thing is over.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the thing is not over, since I disapprove of the substance of this section. It was called very fast, and moreover, you mentioned it only in English, forgetting to do it in French, also then, the section was carried. But had you called it in French, then I would have had time to rise and put my question.


David Réal Caouette: In the long run, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is annoying with his interventions.


Gilles Grégoire: In fact, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Edmonton West is becoming irritating with his remarks; he should have a cap on the pitcher, so that he would keep silent and we could talk. If he wants to try to intimidate everybody, I may say that as far as we are concerned, we are not at all intimidated. Besides, he has never intimidated us.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask this to the Minister of Finance. In section 11, it is said:
The total loan provision for the loan year commencing in 1964 is $40 million.
Can the Minister of Finance tell us approximately what he expects this will eventually cost the federal government? I am not speaking about the $40 million, since this amount will be loaned, but can the Minister of Finance tell us what will be approximately
Loans to Students
the expenses which the federal government will incur under this act?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Not more than $2 million, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 12-Alternative payment.
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, may I continue with my comments on clause 12?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Lapointe.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, about that clause 12, I have to congratulate the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm for taking it upon himself to read the letter written by the presidents of the general student associations of Montreal and Laval universities.
Of course, a meeting was held between the premier of Quebec and the Minister of Finance, who does not seem to be aware at all of the problem we are discussing now. I have here a telegram from the premier of Quebec. Now, I should like to read you this telegram sent to the Minister of Finance so it can be printed in Hansard and the people can judge the stand taken by the premier of Quebec in this matter.
It is addressed to:
Hon. Walter Gordon, Minister of Finance, House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario:
Clause 12 of Bill No. C-110-


Mr. Moreau:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Lapointe has already indicated to the house that the letter from which he is reading is in the form of a press release. Surely it would save the time of the house if we all read it.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau) to wake up, to come out of his slumber. I was not reading a press release but a telegram addressed by the premier of the province of Quebec to the Minister of Finance and I had mentioned it before. If he thinks that a telegram from the premier of Quebec to the Minister of Finance is a press release, he is completely off the track or he was sleeping.
I shall start over again, then:
Hon. Walter Gordon, Minister of Finance, House
of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.

Loans to Students
Under section 12 of Bill No. C-110, every provincial government is free to withdraw from the application of the federal legislation concerning student loans by informing the Minister of Finance of Canada that a similar program will be set up in the province and that no authority will be designated in that province for the purpose of the federal legislation. Since such notice must be given within 30 days of the passage of that act, the Quebec government informs you this very day that it intends to withdraw from the federal program of student loans as soon as the act designed to establish such program will be ratified. As you know, the province of Quebec already has a provincial loan program.
Therefore, we demand-
And this is the interesting part of it.
Therefore, we demand the alternative payment provided under paragraph 2, section 12 of Bill No. C-110.
Allow me now to digress and depart from the telegram. The Quebec premier proves that he has never understood that the Quebec people are asking for provincial autonomy in the educational field and for the respect of constitutional rights.
We do not want the government to collect taxes and then hand over part of it to the provincial government so that it may use that money for educational purposes. This is not what we want. We have always objected to that.
Before and during the last provincial electoral campaign, the premier said: We want Quebec to control its sources of revenue, so that it can spend that money as it sees fit, in the field of education, instead of allowing the federal government to collect taxes and then to give handouts to Quebec so that it is able to apply that money to education.
The premier should have understand that a long time ago. Now Mr. Lesage is trying to justify himself:
Since the amount involved represents only a very small sum-
One per cent of the personal income tax.
-we shall accept, for the time being, the payment of a financial equivalent-
Because it represents the amount, an amount of about $700,000.
The premier prefers an equivalent.
The students have taught him quite a lesson in that field, because whatever the amount suggested, be it $700,000 or $5 million, it is the principle rather than the money which counts. The Minister of Finance did not understand that and the Quebec premier indicates now that he did not understand it either. Besides, the Quebec university students, when they wrote to the Minister of Finance letters which were read earlier in

the house, said: It is not a matter of $700,000, but a matter of principle. Let it be respected. For $700,000 shall we sell down the river rights granted by the Canadian constitution in 1867? For $700,000 are we going to sell, to the federal government, our rights in the field of education?
The students have well understood it, they who are primarily concerned, who need it most. Why do they object? They object to the fact that this represents a violation of the constitution.
Well, the Quebec premier did not understand that and added, and I am quoting his last words:
We will accept for the time being an equivalent financial payment provided that this equivalent payment is applied in the case of federal programs to which Quebec does not see fit to participate-
Meanwhile, the Quebec premier accepts Ottawa's grants in the field of education. But we have always claimed the right to a tax deduction or abatement. It would represent perhaps one tenth or two tenths of 1 per cent.
Whatever it may be, there is a principle involved; if we forsake the principle in return for a sum of $700,000, as many others have mentioned, will we forsake it for $3,000,000? Where will we draw the line?
Mr. Chairman, compensation payments have been mentioned; well, compensation payments have never been accepted in the province of Quebec. It would be the first time. It will be recalled that the province of Quebec had not accepted direct grants to Quebec universities nor had it accepted compensation payments.
What has Quebec accepted? It has accepted to collect 1 to 2 per cent of personal income tax. Let Quebec collect that amount and distribute it in grants to universities and the principle, the rights of Quebec in the field of education, the constitution and the autonomy of the province in the field of education would be safeguarded.
That is what we want to safeguard: the principle involved. We are asked to sacrifice a matter of principle when a small amount is involved, whereas the students themselves are ready to do without those subventions in order to safeguard a principle.
I wonder if the Minister of Finance would not be prepared to safeguard the matter of principle so as not to fan the flames of dissatisfaction, to move an amendment and certify that Quebec could benefit from a tax rebate, which it would collect itself, a rebate equivalent to the amount that would now be paid in subsidies. That would be the equivalent of two tenths of 1 per cent.

I understand that might complicate matters, but this is a bilingual country and bilingualism complicates matters, there is no doubt about that. We live in a country where it is said all the time that Quebec is not a province like the others, but when the time comes to deal with Quebec, it is treated like the others.
We do not ask more than the other provinces, we do not ask less, but we ask that when acts affecting the rights of the province of Quebec are drafted, the principle not the amount to be given back to the province of Quebec be taken into account-we are ready to accept a tax rebate equivalent to the amount the other provinces would receive. We do not want more, but not less either than what the other provinces will get. On the other hand, we want the principle to be respected, we want that when it is said that the province of Quebec is not a province like the others, everybody understands that it is because that province keeps a watchful eye on the rights belonging to it under the constitution, while the other provinces are not doing so.
The Minister of Finance is able, since he has three experts at his beck and call, to find a formula. Instead of having alternative payments, amounts paid out of charity by Ottawa to the province of Quebec, let Quebec collect funds from its own income sources. This can be compensated by two tenths of 1 per cent.
At present, I doubt that it is two tenths of 1 per cent. I figure that under subsection 2- as if often happens with the Minister of Finance-that such a number must be multiplied by such a coefficient, then the residue must be divided by such a number in relation to another one while the proper product is subtracted, allowance being made for the amount in such a paragraph.
There is an algebra problem there; I examined it thoroughly and I will show it to the minister tonight. It is a silly problem as it is a mix-up of loaned amounts, the bases of which have no foundation at all. Students who are taking courses are mixed up with the number of those who are not taking courses. It reminds me of the problem where you have 10 farmers having 20 cows each; you ask someone to multiply the number of feet, to divide by the number of ears and then to give you the number of gallons of milk you will get at the end of the year.
Mr. Chairman, do the division, the multiplication and the subtraction; do all that and you will find out that there is no sense in it.
Private Bills
Mr. Chairman, may I call it five o'clock?
I will continue my remarks at eight o'clock.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions for the production of papers, private bills and public bills.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions (papers), private bills and public bills.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Notices of motions (papers)-Mr. Orlikow-That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all government statements and directives to government departments during the past year regarding security procedures and investigations.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Stand.


Mr. Prittie:: Mr. Speaker, I had the floor when this motion was last before the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this order to stand or is it proceeding?


John Watson MacNaught: The understanding was that it would stand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have just been informed by the parliamentary secretary to. the Minister of Justice that he had some discussion with the hon. member for Winnipeg North and that there was agreement between them to let the matter stand to another time. If my hon. friend concurs, I think perhaps we would stand by that agreement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order stands.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, July 16, consideration in committee of Bill No. S-27, respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada-Mr. Brown-Mr. Lamoureux in. the chair.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills
On clause 1-Number of directors.
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, if you will refer to Hansard of July 16, 1964, you will see that I had started giving the list of directors of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada and the boards of directors of companies or associations of which they were members. I was getting to the seventh director, Mr. Marcel Faribault.
7.	Mr. Faribault is a director of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. In addition, he is president and general manager of the General Trust of Canada, president of Sherbrooke Trust Co., vice president of Dupuis Freres Ltee, director of La Prevoyance, director of L'Economie Mutuelle d'Assurance, director of Rougier Incorpore, director of La Banque canadienne nationale, director of Miron Co. Ltd., director of Dominion Textile Co. Ltd., director of Les Laboratoires Laurin Ltee, director of The Canadian Mercantile Insurance Company, director The Canadian National Insurance Company, director of The Commerce General Insurance Company, director of The Candiac Development Corp., director of RoyNat Ltd. and director of The Montreal Cottons Ltd.
8.	Mr. John A. Fuller is director of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. In addition, he is chairman of Shawinigan Chemicals Ltd., president of Shawinigan Industries Ltd., director of The United States Steel Corp., director of The Royal Bank of Canada, director of Rolls-Royce of Canada Ltd., director of the British American Oil Co. Ltd., director of Montreal Trust Co., director of The Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, director of Canada General Fund Limited, director of The North American Fund of Canada Ltd., director of The General Reinsurance Corp.
He is also a member of the board of governors of the McGill University, member of the board of governors of the welfare federation of Montreal, member of the executive council of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, member of the Royal Edward Lauren-tian hospital board.
9.	Mr. Frederick Johnson, director of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. He is also director of the Commonwealth International Corp., director of the Commonwealth International Leverage Fund Limited, director of the North American Telegraph Co., director of the Northern Electric Co. Limited, director of Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, director of the Steel Co. of Canada Ltd. He is also honorary director of the

Royal Trust Company. He is a member of the advisory board, Y.M.C.A., and a member of the advisory board, Welfare Federation of Montreal.
10.	Mr. Herbert H. Lank, director of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. He is also president of DuPont of Canada Ltd., director of the Montreal Trust Co., director of the Northern Electric Co. Limited, director of the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Co. Ltd., director of the Consolidated Paper Corp. Ltd., director of the Toronto Dominion Bank, director of the Dominion Bridge Co. Ltd., director of the Canadian Pacific Railway, director of the United Aircraft of Canada Ltd., director of "Le Credit Foncier Franco-Canadien", director of Miron Co. Ltd.
11.	Mr. R. E. Powell, director of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. He is also honorary president and director of Aluminum Co. of Canada Ltd., director of the Bank of Montreal, director of Aluminium Ltd., director of the Saguenay Power Co. Ltd., director of Sprostons Ltd., director of Demerara Bauxite Co. Ltd., director of Alcan Jamaica Ltd., director of the Dominion Bridge Co. Ltd., director of Canafund Co. Ltd., director of Canada General Fund Ltd., director of North American Fund of Canada Ltd., director of the Royal Trust Co., chairman of the board of governors, Labour College of Canada, chancellor of McGill University and also member of the board of Laval University.
12.	Mr. Graham F. Towers, director of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. He is also chairman of the Canadian Investment Fund Ltd., chairman of Canadian Fund Inc., chairman of Canadian Life Assurance Co., chairman of British Petroleum Co. of Canada Ltd., chairman of Arcturus Investment and Development Ltd., director of the Royal Bank of Canada, director of General Motors Corp., director of Moore Corp. Ltd., director of Hudson's Bay Co.
The 13th director of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada is Mr. Richard R. Hough.
Mr. R. Holley Keefler, director of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, is also the chairman and president of Northern Electric Co. Ltd.
The 15th and last director of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada is the man who controls an empire of companies, that is Hon. Robert Henry Winters.
I shall list with pleasure the numerous boards of directors of which he is a member, besides being a director of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.

Mr. Winters is president of the Rio Tinto Mining Co. of Canada Ltd., chairman and chief executive officer, British Newfoundland Corp. Ltd., chairman, Rio Algoma Mines Ltd., chairman, Atlas Steel Co. Ltd., president, Preston Mines Ltd., president, Rio Tinto Dow Ltd., vice president, Canada Permanent Trust Co., director, Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. director, Bathurst Power & Paper Co. Ltd., director, Canada Cement Co. Ltd., director, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, director, Crown Life Insurance Co., director, Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd., director, Globe Indemnity Co. of Canada, director, Hudson Bay Insurance Co., director, the Liverpool-Manitoba Assurance Co., director, Power Corporation of Canada Ltd., director, Rothmans of Pall Mall Canada Ltd., director, Triarch Corporation Ltd., Member Canadian advisory board, Royal-Liverpool Insurance Group, chairman, board of governors, York University, president, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Alumni Association.
Moreover, he is a member and director of other companies and of various social clubs in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I want to draw the attention of the house to the fact that the 15 directors of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada are also members of the board of directors of a very large number of important Canadian companies. In fact, two of them, if not more, are directors of the same company.
For instance, Mr. Cockshutt is a director of a certain company and Hon. Mr. Winters is also a director of the same company.
I shall have the opportunity, a little later, to put on record, in the public interest, the list of directors of the Northern Electric Co. Ltd. Then, and through a strange coincidence, you will be able to discover what an extraordinary empire the Bell Telephone Company has under its financial control.
Mr. Chairman, since other members would like to speak on this subject, I shall stop making any more comments for the time being, although I might come back to this sometimes in the near future, because I do not think this bill will be passed during the present session.


Mr. Rock:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to continue debate on Bill No. S-27 which will give authority to the Bell Telephone Company of Canada to increase the number of directors from 15 to 20.
Private Bills
I should like to refer to a few statements made by the hon. member for Broadview which appear in Hansard at page 5568, as well as a statement made by the hon. member for Three Rivers, and to say it is not true, as was implied, that rates in Quebec and Ontario are higher than on the prairies for the same kind of service. I think the hon. members did leave that impression. The hon. member for Broadview favours the Bell Telephone Company being nationalized and becoming a crown corporation. I should like to remind the committee that he was not elected as a socialist.
I should like also to remind the committee and the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm that the so-called crown corporations that now exist very seldom show any profit. In fact they usually bring in whopping deficits, pay no taxes and have to be subsidized by the taxpayer. I say to hon. members of parliament, "Keep your hands off the Bell Telephone Company". If you feel that this company is unfair about rates of operation, then take your case to the board of transport commissioners, a body formed by this parliament.
I should like to remind the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm and the hon. member for Broadview that the Bell Telephone Company of Canada pays $63 million in income taxes. The company has over 195,000 shareholders, of which 97 per cent are Canadian. It has 26 million shares, 93 per cent of which are Canadian owned. The Northern Electric Company, which is owned 100 per cent by the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, paid in 1963 over $8 million in income taxes and paid dividends of over $5 million to the shareholders. This money, of course, goes indirectly to the shareholders of the Bell Telephone Company.


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


Raymond Rock: Definitely.


David George Hahn: Is the company being run for the benefit of the federal treasury through income taxes, and for the benefit of the shareholders, or is it being run for the benefit of the consuming public who have no other choice if they want a telephone?


Raymond Rock: Both, and I could go farther than that if I wanted to give examples. Let us take as an example the Montreal transportation commission. It was at one time the Montreal tramways company. At that time, the Montreal tramways company used to pay municipal taxes, school taxes and

Private Bills
used to pay for the use of the road. When the company was taken over by the Montreal transportation commission, it did not continue to pay these taxes. This meant that the taxpayers of the municipality had to replace this money through taxes. At one time the company made a profit, but now the commission has a deficit.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I ask a question?

What was its net profit last year?


Raymond Rock: You have the report?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes, $70 million.


Raymond Rock: Seventy million dollars? That is very good. It is a very good example of a private corporation.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: When you have no competition at all?


Raymond Rock: The Bell Telephone Company of Canada provides a perfect example of Canadian ownership. The Minister of Finance has many times made statements encouraging Canadian ownership, and yet here in the house we have threats of socialism which will scare the lights out of Canadian investors. In my opinion the Bell Telephone Company of Canada has given and continues to give first class service. It is doing a better job than any crown corporation could ever hope to do. This company pays dividends to its shareholders, pays federal taxes, pays provincial taxes, municipal taxes and school taxes. Crown corporations pay very little in the way of taxes, make little or no profit but create whopping deficits, and become a heavy burden on the taxpayers of Canada. They are also subsidized on occasion. I cannot comprehend why the Bell Telephone Company of Canada has been criticized in the committee. All they are asking is for power to increase the number of directors. I say let clause 1 carry.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No.


Raymond Rock: You are a socialist.


Mr. Peiers:: At the risk of being one of these socialists, I may say I think there are many reasons why the Bell Telephone Company should be inquired into. I agree entirely, and probably this is the only time in many years, with the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, that the Bell Telephone Company should be considered as a

crown corporation. The reason for this is the inherent faults that lie in monopoly control. This corporation has not produced results, so far as the consumers are concerned, that were produced so far as the shareholders are concerned.
I think it is shocking when one looks at some of the problems we have had, Mr. Chairman. The last speaker mentioned that the Minister of Finance hoped many more of our corporations would be profit making, and that they would be Canadian. The long list of corporate directors of the Bell Telephone Company that was put on the record certainly reads like a who's who of the industrial, corporate and stockbroking world of Canada. One could come to the conclusion that it might not only be United States domination that is dangerous, but any type of monopoly control in Canada may be dangerous and may be detrimental to the operation of any corporation.
Now, one hon. member has mentioned the fact that crown corporations are not always a success. I do not believe he was really talking about crown corporations because the federal government has many of them that are successful. Many of them are operating in a field in which they could not operate at all and provide a service if they were not crown corporations and were not subsidized to some extent. This is true, of course, in the transportation field. After looking over the list the hon. member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm put on Hansard today, I think it will be easy to come to the conclusion that monopoly control of any segment of our economy cannot be anything but detrimental to the nation. If we are going to allow a continuation of this huge monopoly in the field of communication, then in my opinion we are going to have to allow the members of parliament to have a better opportunity of scrutinizing the operations of that company.


Maurice John Moreau: Will the hon. member permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: Yes.


Maurice John Moreau: I might preface it by saying that I am not at all opposed to having this monopoly nationalized. However I should like to ask the hon. member, does he consider this debate should take place in this chamber? It is my impression that perhaps this is really a matter for the provincial legislature. Perhaps the hon. member does not agree.


William Arnold Peters: The Bell Telephone Company was set up under a federal charter which would allow it to operate in the whole field of communications in Canada. There were certain limitations put on it. I believe that, since it has a federal charter, any attempt to change the structure of the company would have to take place in the federal parliament and not in a provincial jurisdiction.
This raises an interesting problem. This company has been before us a number of times. It was here in 1886 for incorporation. It was here in 1882 to get a declaration of powers; in 1884 to get its capital increased. It returned in 1892 to have the capital increased and authority granted for a bond issue.
It came again in 1894 and had its capital increased, and also at that time the arrangement regarding the six months rate allowance was covered. This meant it would have the right where a person had bad credit to ask for an advance of six months expected payment. It came again in 1906 and once more increased its capital. It came in 1920 for a bond issue increasing its capital, and in 1948, as I understand it, with a submission to a royal commission. Again in 1957 there was another inquiry, and now the company returns seeking five additional directors.
Having listened to the list of directors supplied to the committee can anyone suggest any good reason why they would want to add five more, and where they would get five more when they are already overlapping so many other companies? Is there any company in Canada with which Bell Telephone has not a close relation? Having listened to the list supplied by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm I would think they have not missed anything. If they are seeking additional directors this can only mean they are going to want money from outside Canada, and they will be asking for international control rather than monopoly control of capital in Canada. I may say I also think they have government control because Mr. Bob Winters was not appointed to the directorate of that company simply because he was an engineer. The reason for his appointment is because he represents the Liberal government.
I am opposed to Bell Telephone for a very simple reason. They have no heart. They will not give any consideration to any representation made to them. They will not give any consideration to the individual who uses their telephones. They are autocratic in their control and bureaucratic in their operation, and
Private Bills
it is a fact that they make a huge amount of money. Under these circumstances how could they lose money? How could they not have a successful operation?
Since I last spoke on this matter I have received a number of letters and I would like to mention a number of problems raised in them before I move an amendment. The first problem is one which I am sure has been met by all members of parliament, and is one not confined strictly to the Bell Telephone Company. It is one sometimes made against the telephone company I use, the Northern Telephone Company, servicing northern Quebec and northern Ontario.
When a person moves from one residence to another and has his telephone connected in his new residence there is a $6 buzzing-in charge, even though the telephone is sitting there and all that has to be done is press a switch in the telephone office to connect the service. If the telephone had to be moved from one room to another, if a service call had to be made at the new residence, then this charge could be legitimate. At present this is an unreasonable charge for which the consumer receives no benefit whatsoever and for which there is no operational cost to the company. I believe we should have some way of conveying to the company that this buzzing-in charge is not really legitimate.
Another complaint concerns the number of times a customer is called and asked if he wishes to instal a fancy, pastel coloured telephone, for which there is an $11 charge. In fact a great deal of annoyance is given to a resident who does not comply with the request the first time it is made. I remember one incident in this connection when I went into the telephone office in Thessalon to make a long distance call. This was at the time of the discovery of uranium at Blind River and I used to find it more convenient to go to the next town to place calls. The girl operating the exchange there had a number of pastel coloured telephones on the counter. I asked her how much they were worth and she said I could have one for $11. I handed out $11 and was about to take one of these phones from the counter when she told me, "You cannot take it; there is an installation charge." I contend that that $11 charge by the Northern Telephone Company is simply for the sealed casing covering the instrument, and not the instrument itself, and because telephone companies have a monopoly they can charge this amount.
Another complaint concerns billing charges. If you make a complaint in Ottawa nobody

Private Bills
in the Ottawa office can do anything about it because the billing is done by I.B.M. in Montreal and the local office manager has to get in touch with Montreal.
I have one letter here concerning a bill that was overdue and I would like to read part of it. It was sent to me from St. Catharines, Ontario, and is dated July 10. It reads:
If you are collecting evidence to support your case, here is an instance just two weeks old.
A young woman running a store in this city has been forced to pay a "deposit'' of $150 as "assurance" of payment against any future monthly bill. When I say "forced to pay" $150 as security, I mean just that, forced to pay, as she was informed that if that sum was not paid by noon on a certain date (two day's notice) her phone would be disconnected.
Her phone bill for the month had been received only three days before and payment of this-$138 -was also demanded immediately. There were no arrears in payment.
The lady requested me to intercede on her behalf so that the demand for the $150 be withdrawn, but the person I saw at the telephone office refused to consider the request and later that day he phoned the woman to say that he would not even accept a certified cheque-it had to be cash-or the phone would be disconnected at 12 o'clock noon, that day. This is not service, it is tyranny.
The service referred to has been in use for six years. Last year, two cheques were returned marked "N.S.F." but on notification by the telephone company both cheques were immediately honoured. These two unfortunate instances are admitted.
However, during my interview I was told that the service had been withdrawn and the phone disconnected twice in 1963.
I said I had not been informed about that and requested my interviewer to write me stating these facts. He refused to do so and when I asked for the dates of the disconnections he said he could not give them to me as I was not the subscriber concerned-


Lucien Lamoureux: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member and disturb his trend of thought but I wonder how he proposes to relate the subject matter of the remarks he is now making to the question before the committee having to do with the number of directors of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada?
The hon. member realizes that our discussion has to be restricted to this particular instance. It may be-although this is rather difficult for me to comprehend-that what he has been saying has something to do with the appointment of additional directors to the Bell Telephone Company. Perhaps the hon. member would take the first opportunity to relate both subjects to one another.


William Arnold Peters: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, it has been generally conceded that when a company holding a federal charter comes before parliament for an amendment to that charter, we are opening up

the matter with the amending bill because we are amending the original act which established the Bell Telephone Company. I believe this practice should be followed in the case of the Bell Telephone Company, namely that an amendment in the form of this bill opens up the original act and any discussion that relates to the operation of the company is therefore in order, and I so submit.


Lucien Lamoureux: If the hon. member can quote an authority for the proposition he is now advancing, certainly the Chair will recognize it. But that is not the advice of the Chair and that is not the understanding the Chair has of the rules. The rules are specific, namely that in committee speeches must be strictly relevant to the matter at issue. I do not believe there is anything in the rules that says that when we amend a statute we can go beyond the terms of the amending bill. Certainly we cannot go beyond and behind the amending bill to study the details of the act being amended. That is the proposition which I am submitting to the hon. member, and in the circumstances I would ask him to limit his remarks to the bill before this committee.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, we have been discussing Bill No. S-27 for half an hour now and we heard the hon. member for Jacques Cartier-Lasalle (Mr. Rock) speak about all sorts of things, except the increase in the number of directors of the Bell Telephone Company. We have heard the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) tell us what he thought of the same bill.
Now, I wonder whether we need to consult Bourinot and Beauchesne or somebody else, because since five o'clock the Chair has allowed other members to express their views about Bill No. S-27.
I wonder whether it would not have been in order, before we started to wander from the bill now before us, to obtain the unanimous consent of the house, because that is what we have been doing since five o'clock. It being 5.35 p.m., I do not suppose we should bother calling the hon. member for Timiska-ming (Mr. Peters) to order. I think we should keep on doing what we have been doing since five o'clock.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I rise on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, not so much to go into the finer points as to the interpretation of the rules but simply to suggest that certainly in practice the procedure for which the hon.

member for Timiskaming contends has been followed on previous occasions. I well remember on one occasion a number of years ago, when the British Columbia Telephone Company came before parliament with a request for, as I recall it, a bill which would authorize an increase in their capitalization- which I think is on all fours with this bill as far as our procedure is concerned-we were allowed to explore quite fully the operations of that company under their federal charter.


Lucien Lamoureux: Of course, the Chair does not wish to be unduly restrictive. The Chair is, of course, entirely in the hands of the committee. But I am sure hon. members would expect the Chair to bring to the attention of the committee the rules of debate. I still feel that a very important rule with regard to discussion in committee is that we should in all possible circumstances limit the discussion to the subject matter that is before us. I know the hon. member for Timiskaming is very imaginative and he will find some way, I suggest, to relate his comments to the bill now before us.


William Arnold Peters: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, this question has been raised before and I would ask the Chair what Your Honour or your advisers consider to be the reason for treating this question differently at this time. I have mentioned the changes that have been made to this act. There have been many of them. Would Your Honour give me a logical explanation why these changes are included in the bill before us, if they do not relate to the subject matter we are discussing?
These changes appear on the first page of the bill. The heading of the bill is, "An act respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada", and then listed under "preamble" in the margin are a number of dates and chapters of the act. These signify changes in the original act. Personally, I do not agree with the contention that we are not allowed to open discussion on the original bill, otherwise there would be no justification for printing these changes in the margin. I have looked into this matter previously and I can explain each of these notations and what we did at that time in relation to the act. Therefore on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the Chair should give some consideration to the reason for these changes being noted in the bill, and to my original contention, namely that this is an amending bill, it amends the original act establishing
Private Bills
the Bell Telephone Company, and this opens up discussion on the amendments and the original charter. All the amendments that have been made since the Bell Telephone Company was established are included in this bill by way of the notations that appear in the margin.


Lucien Lamoureux: I do not want to get into an argument with the hon. member. He may be right to some extent; but I cannot agree with him that the fact that there is a reference in the preamble to previous amendments allows the committee to consider those previous amendments or is a licence or permission to consider the original act that is being amended by this bill. I do not think this should be the interpretation. I think the hon. member should be guided by the explanatory notes, which specify the purpose of the bill. To my mind-and I submit this very humbly-this is what our discussion here should be about. But again, as I said, if it is the general feeling of members of the committee that our discussion should go beyond the strict terms of the bill before us, I have no objection to that course being followed and I will be pleased to listen to the hon. member.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I do not think we are going beyond the terms of the bill before us, in view of my submission. I do not give a damn whether this company has 15 directors or 20 directors, and I do not think anybody in this chamber could care less; and frankly, between you and me, Mr. Chairman, I do not think the Bell Telephone Company cares one way or the other. It means putting $5,000 or $10,000 for each of these directors in a different pocket; but that does not really mean anything, because they own the company anyway. I say, pass the bill, if that is all it means; if that is all they come before us for. But I do not agree that is why they came here. I do not think we should accept the recommendation they make just because it involves these people. Before I agree to pass this bill, if that is the contention I will want to know who these people are and what they are coming to this parliament for; also why the Bell Telephone Company would want another five non-identified persons added to those who already control the corporate wealth of this nation.
We are discussing the Bell Telephone Company, and if these bills have any merit at all, we should be able to discuss this whole question. This bill will be amending a statute that we have in this country, and if there is any

Private Bills
merit in giving a company a federal charter, surely to goodness there is some merit in looking at what that company has been doing and whether it has been meeting the needs for which we established it. We should be able to consider these matters every time they come to us for an amendment to their federal charter.
If there is no need for this discussion, let us change the system and not make a farce out of parliament by having these bills come before us and then our being held to the strict rule that all we can discuss is what is going to be done by reason of the amending bill. We do not know what these people are going to be paid; we do not know what purpose they will serve; we do not know what their function is. You are saying, Mr. Chairman, that it does not matter to parliament; that it is not parliament's business; that we have no right to raise any questions or discuss any of these matters; that we cannot deal with problems which may have arisen out of some of the changes we have made in the past. If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, there is no point in having private companies come to parliament for a charter. I say this is a farce; this is a waste of time and an abuse of our parliamentary system, in the same way that the divorce procedure we adopted was a waste of our time and an abuse of parliament.


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I think many of the points made by the hon. member for Timiskaming are properly the concern of the shareholders of the company; that is to say, who the directors will be, what salaries they will be paid, and so on. If the hon. member wishes to enter into a debate on whether or not the Bell Telephone Company should be nationalized, I would ask him to introduce a bill to that effect and then the house would be prepared to debate it.


Lucien Lamoureux: I suggest that is not a point of order.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I have considered this matter. We have discussed it with the legal branch but have found it is not a simple matter, like moving an amendment. It is a very complex problem and it would probably tie up the legal branch for months to draft a bill which would remove the monopoly control which this company has. It is not that I have not thought of it.
I shall be moving an amendment, Mr. Chairman, but if your ruling stands it will obviously be out of order. I had hoped to apply the Canadian Bill of Rights to this company so that the individual subscriber would

have some right to go to court and bring to light the abuses which have been inflicted against him. The case I cited illustrated a situation in which the facts given were not correct; the charges which were being made were not correct and were not substantiated. It is a fact that the bill of rights already applies here, but there is a legal term, which escapes me for the moment, dealing with what should be an accomplished fact but is not. The bill we have before us is not an amendment but a bill. I should like your advice, Mr. Chairman, whether or not I can move an amendment which would include the bill of rights in the terms of this bill. What the hon. gentleman says about the board of directors is true. But the hon. member may not know that no company chartered by the federal government has the right by law to increase its directors; they must come to parliament to increase the board of directors. This is because it was felt a long time ago when companies were established that parliament should exercise a certain right over them. When a company came before parliament to ask for an increase in the number of its directors, it had to justify its operations and show that it met the good of the nation and served the purpose for which it was established.


Lucien Lamoureux: May I suggest to the hon. member that if he has an amendment perhaps he should move it as soon as possible, because his time has just about expired, even taking into account the interruption on a point of order. Perhaps within the next minute or so he would move his amendment.


William Arnold Peters: Then I move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek:
That Bill S-27 be amended by adding clause 2 as follows:
"It is hereby declared that the special acts of incorporation of the company, and the Railway Act as incorporated with the said special acts, and every rule, regulation, order or decision of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada made under the said Railway Act as so incorporated that remains in force or hereafter comes into force pursuant to section 51 of the Railway Act, are laws of Canada and shall be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge, or infringe or authorize the company to abrogate, abridge or infringe any of the said rights or freedoms in the Canadian Bill of Rights recognized and declared.
This amendment would allow those who receive the monopolistic services of the Bell Telephone Company to have the right to question the company in a legal proceeding, not under the board of transport commissioners as at present, but with a stay of

execution until they could bring court proceedings.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member is now past his time. Perhaps I could hear some hon. members as to the legality and acceptability of the proposed amendment.


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, just a brief word. I submit that this amendment goes beyond the principle of the bill. The principle of the bill has been adopted by this house, and this amendment goes far beyond that principle. Therefore it is not within the rules of relevancy which apply in this house.


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Chairman, I am in complete agreement with the argument advanced by the hon. member who has just spoken. In my opinion this amendment is out of order inasmuch as it goes away beyond the confines of the bill. Therefore the rule of relevancy as to amendments should apply. It is a well known principle that amendments must be strictly relevant. In this case there is no relevancy whatsoever to any part of the bill presently before the house.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I have read the amendment and like the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), I feel that it is not relevant to the bill under consideration.
The purpose of this bill is to determine whether the Bell Telephone Company of Canada can and shall increase the number of its directors.
Now, the purpose of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) is to alter the legislation governing the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. In my opinion, the hon. member would be better advised if he introduced a bill to amend the act governing the "operations" of companies like the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
I feel the amendment to Bill No. S-27 is absolutely irrelevant and out of order.
That is our interpretation of the amendment in question. We sincerely think it has no connection with Bill No. S-27.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to express an opinion on a point of order in view of the fact that such distinguished members as the hon. member for Edmonton West and the Solicitor General have sought to advise you.
Private Bills
But it does appear to me, Mr. Chairman, that their arguments were related rather to the purpose of the bill as outlined in the explanatory notes than to the principle of the bill itself, and I submit that if we are discussing a point of order in terms of the principle of the bill we should concern ourselves with what actually appears in the bill itself and not become confused by what might be said in the explanatory notes.
I submit that if the bill has any purpose it is that which is clearly set out in the declaration that the business of the company shall be managed by a board. The rest of clause 1 goes on to set out certain terms and conditions regarding the management of the company by the board in relation to the directors, how they are to be appointed and so on. It appears to me that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Timiskaming is on all fours with what seems to be the only real purpose of this bill. It certainly should be in order in my opinion to set any further terms or conditions affecting the manner in which the company is to be managed and I submit that this is what the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Timiskaming seeks to do. It certainly falls within the confines of the principle of the bill and I would therefore suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you rule the amendment to be in order at this stage.


Lucien Lamoureux: The Chair has listened with great interest to what has been said and appreciates the contributions made by hon. members who have given the benefit of their experience and knowledge to assist in rendering a decision. Of course, I rather incline to agree with the proposition submitted by the hon. member for Villeneuve, supported by the hon. member for Edmonton West and the Solicitor General, in the sense that this proposed amendment appears to go beyond the scope of the bill now before us.
I refer members to citation 406 of Beau-chesne's fourth edition at page 285 where it is stated:
Amendments are out ol order if they are
(a) irrelevant to the bill, or beyond its scope, governed by or dependant upon amendments already negatived;
I might refer the hon. member for Timiskaming to standing order 112 which reads:
No important amendment may be proposed to any private bill in the committee of the whole house or at the third reading of the bill unless one day's notice of the same has been given.

Private Bills
This I submit is an amendment of principle and consequently it cannot be moved at this time.
In the third place, it seems to me that this is really a declaration of principle which offends against citation 202(15) of Beauchesne, and for these reasons I must, with regret, advise the hon. member that his amendment appears to be out of order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I shall not speak on the amendment because this matter has been dealt with. I have not too much time to speak on Bill No. S-27, but we have heard, in turn, the two extremes. On the one hand, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier-Lasalle (Mr. Rock) told us that a good Canadian-

Keep your hands off the Bell Telephone Company.

On the other hand, we have heard the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) tell us:

The Bell Telephone Company or similar companies have not produced the results which the people wanted.

Mr. Chairman, if we had waited until a socialist or anybody else in Canada provided us with a telephone service, I think that we would still have to walk to communicate with our neighbours 150 miles away.
The Bell Telephone Company is undoubtedly not perfect, but whether we like it or not it renders services. A sure fact is that we use telephone services; not a single politician would have invented the telephone. The individual initiative of private enterprise was necessary to establish in our country our telephone services.
We are told, Mr. Chairman, that these private companies have made profits in 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963, but that their service is too costly. However, all hon. members and hon. members in particular are able to see that crown corporations have deficits, whereas private companies show profits. Private companies feel responsible, whereas publicly-owned companies, that is the crown corporations, have no responsibilities.
It might be pointed out that the Bell Telephone Company of Canada victimizes quite a few people throughout the nation. But there is anti-trust legislation in Canada, which should apply under the circumstances.
[The Chairman.]
There is much talk about monopolies. The Bell Telephone Company has a monopoly throughout Canada. If it is true that this company has a monopoly and unduly victimizes Canadian citizens, the federal government has under the law a possibility of action in this respect and also the responsibility to stop a company practicing a monopoly from victimizing anybody in this country.
Mr. Chairman, may I point out that it is six o'clock? We shall take up the discussion of Bill No. S-27 again next week.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: No. Six o'clock.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house will now revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-110 to facilitate the making of loans to students-Mr. Gordon-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: When the committee rose at five o'clock we were dealing with clause 11.


Gilles Grégoire: Clause 12.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for Lapointe.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, when the committee adjourned at five o'clock I was speaking on clause 12 and not on clause 11. I was trying to explain the famous algebraic calculation given in paragraph 2 of clause 12. Here is how the alternative payments are worked out:
An alternative amount for a province for any loan year is the amount, as determined by the 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-

Well, Mr. Chairman, I personally made the calculation. I know that the minister has three assistants before him who are undoubtedly good at algebra. If they would be kind enough to take note on a piece of paper of the data of the problem which I will submit to them, they will find that it makes no sense at all.
In (a) (i), there is:
The aggregate of all amounts paid by the minister in that loan year to banks pursuant to sections 6, 7, 8 and 9-
According to that clause 6, we have the interest paid by the minister during one year.
Then, if you wish, we could represent by a capital letter "A" the interest paid on the loans throughout Canada and we will represent by a small letter "a" the interest paid in one province only during one year.
Now, let us look at clause 7. These are the amounts which are not repaid but which, as a result of the minister's guarantee, the government is obliged to pay. Then, with a capital "B" we represent the losses sustained throughout Canada as a result of the guarantee, and with a small "b" we represent the losses sustained in a single province.
Now, clause 8 which is the third expenditure mentioned in clause 12 and which deals with the loss incurred as a result of the death of the borrower. Then with a capital "C" we represent the amounts paid, as a result of those deaths throughout Canada, and with a small "c" the amounts paid, as a result of those deaths, in a single province.


David Réal Caouette: The economists will understand that.


Gilles Grégoire: Now, let us deal with clause 9 to which clause 12 is always referring. Clause 9 deals with payments received by a bank from a borrower. We will now represent by a capital "D" the collection charges due to the banks throughout Canada and by a small "d" the collection charges due to the banks in a single province.
According to clause 12, all that less the amounts collected for Her Majesty or on her behalf during the same year.
There is an amount collected in "A" that is in the amount collected throughout Canada that is represented by a capital "G" and if it is only in a single province, by a small "g".
The sums collected in "B" will be represented by a capital "H", and those collected in "b" will be represented by a small "h".
I think that the three experts of the Department of Finance will be able to understand that.
Loans to Students
The sums collected in "C" will be represented by "J", and those collected in "c" will be represented by the letter "j".
The sums collected in "D" will be represented by "K", while those collected in "d" will be represented by the letter "k".
Now, all this must be multiplied by:
The quotient obtained by dividing
We now come to subparagraph (ii):
(A) the estimated number of persons in that province that, on the first day of that loan year, have attained eighteen years of age and have not attained twenty-five years of age.
Consequently, we will use a capital letter "E" to represent a group of people dispersed throughout Canada, and a small letter "e" to indicate a group confined to a single province.
That number has to be multiplied, that is, divided-since we take the coefficient-by the estimated number of persons in provinces where the appropriate authorities have issued or caused to be issued certificates of eligibility. When we are dealing with the number for Canada as a whole, a capital "F" will be used as the symbol; in the case of a single province, we shall use a small "f".
Then, you have all the data of the problem. Next, you have to subtract-all that, after having multiplied it, to divide by the number of persons aged 17 to 25, divided by the number of those who have obtained from the provinces a certificate of eligibility-then subtract, as I said, according to paragraph (b), the amount to be collected by the government under the provisions of clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9.
Capital and small letters a, b, c, d, g, h, j, k, are again used in connection with loans guaranteed by Ottawa to students who have obtained a certificate of eligibility.
Then with all this data the following equation must be worked out. Large, medium and small brackets are opened. In the small bracket, "A", "B", "C", and "D" are added up, the small bracket is closed a minus sign is written down another small bracket is opened and "G", "H", "J" and "K" are added up, the small and medium brackets are closed and "e" over "f" is multiplied, the large bracket is closed and the minus sign is written down. Then a large and medium brackets are opened where "a" "b" "c" are added up, the small bracket is closed the minus sign is written down and another small bracket is opened where "g" "h" "j" "k" are added, the small and medium brackets are closed.

Loans to Students
We then have the following equation: ([(A+B + C+D)])-(G+H+J+K)lXe/f - [(a+b+c+d) - (g-fh+j+k)]


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: There is nothing complicated in that.


David Réal Caouette: The Minister of Finance understood everything.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You did not use the whole alphabet.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I find the calculations of the hon. member for Lapointe a little difficult to follow. I wonder whether it would be permissible to bring in a blackboard and let him demonstrate his calculations.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, that proves my point. This is extremely complicated. Besides, I reduced the data to the simplest expression and nevertheless, it is still complicated, and very few will be able to understand.
I was trying all this time to give as an example the amount I figured. This equation is impossible and mathematically incorrect. I shall now apply the equivalent figures to every letter I used. As a matter of course, "A" is the interest paid during the year under section 6. Therefore, 6 per cent of $40 million is $2.4 million. If approximately 30 per cent is applied to the province of Quebec, the letter "a" represents $720,000. If under section 7, "B", that is, the loss incurred through the guarantee, for instance, 7 per cent will amount to $8 million for the whole country and the letter "b", $2.4 million for the province of Quebec. If we represent the losses sustained as a result of death by a 3 per cent average, we shall have as value, for capital "C", $1,200,000 and about $360,000 for small "c". If we take capital "D" to represent the collection fees of half of 1 per cent for the whole of Canada, namely $200,000, the small "d" will equal $60,000.
Capital "E" represents the number of young people in Canada between the ages of 17 and 25 according to the Canadian statistics, therefore they would be about 1,500,000 and for the province of Quebec only, small "e", about 450,000.
Capital "F" would be equivalent to 210,000. This is what the minister indicated for the whole country, therefore small "f" would equal 60,000 for the province of Quebec only. Capital "G" equals 0; since it will not recover

the interest paid by the minister on the loans. The same for small "g".
As to capital "H", there is perhaps a 5 per cent recovery on the amounts guaranteed by the government, that is $2 million; and small "h" equals $600,000. Capital "J" and capital "K" equal 0; and small "j" and "k" would equal 0, because there is no possible revenue therein. This means that, if we insert figures into the equation I made just now, it would be equal to capital "A", plus capital "B", plus capital "C", plus capital "D", making up a total of $11,800,000, minus capital "G", plus capital "H", plus capital "J", plus capital "K", which makes $2 million; the total therefore would be $9,800,000. We therefore have to multiply by "e/f", which would give us 450,000, divided by 60,000, which makes 9, giving a total of $85 million.
Now we must substract, under paragraph (b), the sums a + b + c + d-that is $720,000, $2,400,000, $360,000 and $60,000 respectively, which makes a total of $3,540,000 and from which g + h -f j + k, that is $60,000, are subtracted, making $2,940,000, which must in its turn be subtracted from $85,000,000, which means that the answer to or solution of the equation would be $82,060,000, based on the figures given by the minister in the preceding algebraic equation.
The above equation means that the federal government should give Quebec, if that province accepts alternative payments, an amount of $82,060,000 on a total of $40 million for the whole of Canada, from which the Minister of Finance wants the students to benefit.
Mr. Chairman, you will agree with me that this does not make sense. The federal government wants to earmark $40 million for 10 provinces, when under this legislation, it should remit $82,060,000 to the province of Quebec.
Unless the federal government should decide to make use of the Bank of Canada, that is the result we get, but why? Because the minister is all mixed up in his arithmetic, he makes you subtract interests paid to persons who died during the period the program was being carried out. That is multiplied by amounts collected in respect of the loans and divided by the number of students who are attending school and those who are not.
As I was saying before recess, it reminds me of the 10 farmers who had 20 heads of cattle; you multiply by four legs and divide by two ears to find out the number of gallons of milk you will get at the end of the year.

It is exactly the same kind of algebraic equation he is now trying to shove down our throats.
I submitted my figures and if the Minister of Finance wants to check them, he has them too and will compile them. I used these same figures to calculate the algebraic equation which is found in clause 12.
I think we should at least revise those figures and see if there was a mistake somewhere, if the minister is not miscalculating somewhere. The way he is proposing that bill does not make sense.
In any case, even if I succeeded in proving that this clause did not make sense, the matter of principle would remain. The federal government is not entitled to make alternative payments in the field of education. The province of Quebec is jealous of its rights and wants instead to have its own sources of revenue.
To this effect, I have an amendment to introduce and if the Minister of Finance is willing to listen-I apologize to the majority of my colleagues, because usually we always want to introduce our amendments both in French and in English, but unfortunately, I did not have time to have it translated, because this happened during the lunch hour and there was no time to type it out-but I shall have a French copy sent over to them.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve, that section 12 be amended by the addition of the following words at the end of paragraph (1), the period being replaced by a comma:
Or the minister must turn over to any province that so wishes, taxation rights on personal income equivalent to the alternative payment calculated as provided under paragraph (2).
Mr. Chairman, our amendment will not change anything in the wording of the bill; paragraph (1) will remain exactly as it now reads.
If a province prefers alternative payments, it will be able to accept them. If it would rather obtain a share of income out of personal income tax equivalent to the alternative payment, it could get it. We are not asking for more than the alternative payment; we are not asking for less. We are asking exactly the same amount. And then the constitution will at least be respected.
This is a procedure used on several occasions by previous governments when grants were given directly to universities in the province of Quebec; at that time, the Quebec premier refused them. Afterwards, agreement was reached between the Conservative government of the time headed by the present
Loans to Students
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Quebec premier was then Mr. Sauve, I think. In fact, this is what was called the Diefenbaker-Sauve agreement. The principle was acceptable for grants to universities. In fact, it was one of the most appreciated formula; this government accepted it on other occasions. That is why we were surprised that this formula was not accepted at this time.
At any rate, if the Minister of Finance wants to introduce an amendment, we shall be glad to let him move it for us. This will take nothing from anyone and will give nothing to anyone. The only result being that the principle will be respected. The Minister of Finance knows that Quebec has always had its heart set on those principles and that we shall not hesitate to fight for them.
If the minister wishes, we are prepared to withdraw our amendment so as to give him the opportunity to introduce it himself.
I ask the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) who understands rather well the feelings of the Quebec people, to move the amendment, just as he did on other occasions. He could move the amendment, seconded by another autonomist who sometimes defends the interests of Quebec, namely the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Tremblay).
Then everybody will be glad to see that Bill No. C-110 was amended to please everyone.
I ask the Minister of Finance and all government members to accept this amendment, since it does not take anything away from anyone, it does not give anyone anything, except that the principles we want to safeguard, the principles of the constitution, will be respected. Then everyone will be satisfied and no one will have cause to complain.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words while clause 12 is under consideration.
By granting an option, the government recognizes that the bill is illegal and unconstitutional. It recognizes at the same time-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Would it not be in order for you to read at once the amendment I have just moved?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Maybe we could allow the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm to proceed for a moment.

Loans to Students


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, as I just indicated, I think that the government, by including an alternative formula in the bill, recognizes that the legislation is illegal and unconstitutional. I ask the Minister of Finance whether it would not be in the public interest to put off the discussion on this bill for six months and to submit the legislation to the Supreme Court of Canada so that it can decide whether the federal government has the right to interfere in the field of education. I am sure that the Supreme Court of Canada would declare that this bill is unconstitutional. It is against the provisions of section 93 of the Canadian constitution.
The present government thought they could settle all problems, all disputes between the federal government and the provinces with co-operative federalism. But the Minister of Finance must realize that this new formula, conceived by the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) is a wash-out, and only makes more acrimonious the relations between the federal government and the provinces, since the very large majority of the people in the province of Quebec, including the students of the Montreal and Laval universities, are definitely against the bill and the alternative formula included.
Mr. Chairman, I think co-operative federalism is a fiasco which settles absolutely nothing and only contributes to aggravate the wave of separatism in certain provinces of the country. I wonder why the government members coming from Quebec, including the hon. members for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger), Gatineau (Mr. Leduc), Champlain (Mr. Matte), St. Ann (Mr. Loiselle) and St. James (Mr. Rinfret) do not rise and say what they think of the bill? Why do they not take their responsibilities in this house and say what they think of the constitutionality of the legislation, say whether they are in favour of the bill or not?
We would be very pleased, on this side of the house, to know whether they are actually ready to condemn publicly in the house the position taken by the students of the universities of Laval and Montreal and whether they are in favour of the bill introduced by the government. The Quebec population gave a definite mandate to government members in order that they could assume their responsibility in this house and vote according to their conscience. But we know that they are condemning themselves by their silence because, even though they are not in favour of the bill, their partisanship is stronger than
[The Deputy Chairman.]
their conscience. This is the reason why we hope that the electors in their respective ridings will not forgive them this negative stand they take by staying in their seats and refusing to assume their responsibilities.
Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, government members who refuse to vote on this bill deserve to be accused of cowardice for refusing to stand up and say what they think of the measure.
We would like to hear what the hon. members for Mercier, for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel), for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard) and others, think of the bill. It is unfortunate to see the ministers especially those from Quebec, remaining silent and refusing to stand up and assert the rights of Quebec. In fact, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) is not even here at a time when we are discussing a bill which intrudes in the field of education, under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, even though it contains an option for provinces who do not wish to share in the federal plan for loans to students.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order I would like to point out that the Minister of Justice is performing official functions outside the chamber and therefore cannot be present here this evening. His absence from the chamber does not in any way or sense mean acknowledgment that there is any validity in the remarks of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


Norman Platt Lambert: I will advise the committee where the minister is. He is at a young Liberals picnic in western Canada.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Macdonald)-


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If I may interrupt for a minute, in fairness to the Minister of Justice he was here last night or the night before- 1 am losing track of time-but he did express his view very clearly and definitely that he felt this bill was constitutional and that he agreed with the advice of his officials. I would not like to see too much made of the fact that he has not spent as much time on this particular bill as some other members of the committee.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Justice has no excuse for not being present

in the house tonight. Instead of discharging his parliamentary duties and being in the house, he would rather attend political parties.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is shameful and cowardly for him not to be here.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I would remind the hon. member that it is clause 12 of Bill C-110 which we are discussing at the moment.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, we, on this side of the house, deplore the lack of interest shown by certain ministers, more particularly those from Quebec, in respect of a bill which the large majority of the people, but especially Quebec students, consider as an encroachment upon the field of education which is reserved to the provinces.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) prefers going around instead of being in the house-


Walter Lockhart Gordon: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, surely we should not have to put up with this sort of thing in discussing clause 12 of the bill.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I know the truth is extremely painful for our friends opposite because they feel guilty. They are fighting a lost cause in trying to defend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) who was elected to sit in the House of Commons.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I think I have already reminded the hon. member once that the remarks he is now making are not relevant to clause 12.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I will end my remarks by saying that it is shameful to see members on the government side, especially those from the province of Quebec, willingly accept to sit in silence as they were ordered to-


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman; I wonder if the hon. member would confine his remarks to clause 12.
Loans to Students


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, such a direct attack was worthwhile-


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: If we are to make any progress at all, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member must show some responsibility and confine his remarks to the clause under discussion.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I think the point of order raised by the Minister of Industry is well taken, and I would specifically request the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to confine his remarks to clause 12 of the bill before the committee.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, coming back to clause 12 of Bill No. C-110, it has been worthwhile castigating the government members, because we have seen the Minister of Industry and Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Drury) rise and take part in the debate.
But, here comes the champion pharaoh of centralization, the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne).


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is a fact, Mr. Chairman. He has just arrived in the chamber.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The Chair does not propose to continue reminding the hon. member that he is out of order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to the house the triumphal entrance of the Secretary of State, the champion of the co-operative federalism formula.
We would be most happy, Mr. Chairman, to hear the government members on clause 12.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The hon. member's remarks must be related to clause 12.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I am still dealing with clause 12.
What amazes me is to see the government persist in refusing to accede to the request of an important element of the people of this country, the students of Laval and Montreal universities, who have condemned this bill, including clause 12.
What is the government doing? It calls itself a democratic government. Why does it

Loans to Students
refuse to comply with the request made by that important element of the Quebec population, the students? Why persist in refusing to grant the students what they are asking for?
Now we are witnessing the guilty silence of members from Quebec. The hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Cote) is one of them, Mr. Chairman. He is silent and speechless.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) -


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Is it a question of privilege?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: -it is a point of order-as I cannot speak at the same time as he is. If he will be quiet, I will speak.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Then I sit down immediately to allow the hon. member for Longueuil to speak.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Chairman, if I have succeeded in having the hon. member keep quiet, that is something.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, the member for Longueuil has never said more than what we just heard.
As for clause 12 now under consideration, I have heard, as all hon. members, the speech of the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, a pre-election speech or meant for election purposes-


Mr. Habel:: Or for the Union Nationale.


David Réal Caouette: -to try to please the students of his riding. Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has sat on the government side. What then prevented his government from proposing legislation to help Canadian students? What prevented it?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Constitutional considerations.


David Réal Caouette: With 208 members out of 265? The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm was not so prone then to attack left and right as he did a few moments ago.
Mr. Chairman, tolerance has its limits-


Norman Platt Lambert: Amen.


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) says amen. It is about the only sensible thing he has said since coming to this house. He was never able to say anything but amen, even in his own riding.


Norman Platt Lambert: Come over there.


David Réal Caouette: That is why he will not return here after the next general election.


Norman Platt Lambert: Because of whom? I ask you-


David Réal Caouette: It could be because of that.


Norman Platt Lambert: I am inviting you. Why not come?


David Réal Caouette: I can face the hon. member for Edmonton West on any platform anywhere in Canada, at any time, in his own riding as well.


Norman Platt Lambert: Come on. You are afraid?


David Réal Caouette: Twelve in line.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I feel I shall have to ask the hon. member for Villeneuve to come back to the debate on clause 12 of the bill.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to come back to clause 12, but the hon. member for Edmonton West is preventing me from doing so. He has never done anything else but hold up the word of parliament.
Mr. Chairman, we did not hear too much on this section during the past half hour, except when the hon. member for Lapointe gave us his algebra problem which has merits.
However, officials of the Department of Finance do not know too much about algebra, except when it comes to digging into the taxpayers' pockets. They did not understand too much the explanation given by the hon. member for Lapointe, but he was right.
Clause 12 reads as follows:
(1) Where the government of a province has, before the commencement of any loan year, or, in the case of the loan year commencing in 1964, on or before the thirtieth day after this act was assented to, informed the minister that a provincial student loan plan will be in operation in that province in that loan year and that no appropriate authority for that province will be designated for that loan year for the purposes of this act, the minister shall pay to the province, not later than six months after the end of that loan year, an alternative amount calculated as provided in subsection (2).


David Réal Caouette: Paragraph (2) is as clear as paragraph (1). It is probably because the premier of the province of Quebec understood so well paragraph (1) of clause 12 that he said to Ottawa: Mind your own business, we do not want to participate in that plan.
But in paragraph (1), the federal government stipulates that the provincial government will have to put into operation a student loan plan.
Two days ago I asked the Minister of Finance a question. I asked him one yesterday, and I asked him another one today, namely: Will the federal government guarantee the loans granted by the province of

Quebec, even if the Quebec premier says: We shall not participate in your federal plan.
The Minister of Finance told us very candidly and very simply that it is not stipulated in the act.
Well, I am convinced that even the officials of the Department of Finance are completely at sea. The government is trying to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds and is failing both ways.
That clause 12, paragraphs (1), (2), etc., with (i), (ii), etc. is more complicated than the algebraic problem submitted to us a little earlier by the hon. member for Lapointe. I could see the government members laugh when the hon. member for Lapointe spoke of his algebraic problem. Clause 12 of Bill No. C-110 is a real algebraic problem that the Minister of Finance is not even able to solve. There are unknown quantities he cannot find. It is impossible to get a direct answer.
Will the students from the province of Quebec who will borrow money get the federal guarantee? That is what we want to know.
The Minister of Finance cannot answer us. Should he ask his officials who are seated in front of him at present, could they tell us whether the loans made under the present regulations in the province of Quebec would be guaranteed by the federal government or by the government of the province of Quebec? That is what we want to know. For should the province of Quebec guarantee the loans granted to students within that province, then the federal government would not have the right, constitutionally speaking, to collect a single cent in taxes in the province of Quebec.
That does not mean that we stand against those who support the plan as prepared or proposed. If other provinces wish to adopt it, let them do so. But people should stop saying in this house that Quebec citizens or the members from the province of Quebec, Liberals, Conservatives or others, are against that plan because they come from the province of Quebec.
We want the rights of the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia, just as the rights of the maritimes and of the province of Quebec, to be respected integrally and absolutely, especially as regards education.
The Minister of Finance is aware of the fact that education comes under the provinces and not under the House of Commons of Canada.
Loans to Students
Now, if education comes under the provinces, let us give the provinces the financial means required to promote the education of our children and enable our young people to acquire the knowledge and education they are entitled to. Then, the Minister of Finance will go down in history as one of the greatest patriots ever to hold the office of Minister of Finance.
I know that he is a chartered accountant, an authority in finance and constitutional law, and I know he is a man who would not want to infringe upon the freedom of the provinces. That is why section 12, paragraph (1) of Bill No. C-110 was drawn up and brought forward to give the provinces an alternative, the possibility or the plausibility to act according to their aspirations and according to their own decisions.
As it is, the central government at Ottawa infringes upon the rights of the provinces, even if we hear some hon. members like the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) say that only the province of Quebec is against Bill No. C-110 and more particularly against clause 12. It is not as much that we want to object to clause 12 as to the fact that the federal government interferes in the field of education in Canada. Education belongs to the provinces. The province of Quebec must be respected just like all the other provinces.
If the Minister of Finance continues to offer us problems like the one he is putting to us at this moment, by working out equalizations, compensations, by dividing, subtracting, multiplying without ever knowing where he is going, Mr. Chairman, we cannot accept the bill in such a form and substance.
We prefer individual freedom and that liberty in Canada requires the Minister of Finance to agree with the amendment proposed a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Lapointe.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether it would be in order for you to put the amendment to us now.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for Lapointe, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve, moves an amendment which amends subclause (1) of clause 12.
The clause we are discussing here, clause 12, deals with the providing of payments to the provinces. If the translation which I have is correct, I feel that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lapointe deals with

Loans to Students
the rights of taxation. May I quote from page 421 of May's sixteenth edition dealing with amendments:
The fundamental rule that debate must be relevant to a question necessarily involves the rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed.
Stated generally, no matter ought to be raised in debate on a question which would be irrelevant, if moved as an amendment, and an amendment cannot be used for importing arguments which would be irrelevant to the main question.
I believe the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lapointe is not quite in keeping with the intent of clause 12 and I have some doubts whether it is in order. However, I am going to put the question. Is the committee ready for the question?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, before the amendment is put to a vote, I would like to direct two questions to the Minister of Finance. First, has the Minister of Finance made the calculation of the amount of the alternative payments in paragraph (2) of clause 12. Second, can the minister guarantee that the equation he proposed in paragraph (2) is accurate and that he is not making a mistake in his calculations.
Could the minister assure the house that he will arrive at $2 million as shown in his calculations or that he will not arrive instead at $200 million for the whole of Canada? Is the minister sure of the accuracy of his equation?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, this formula was worked out with officials of all the provinces, and believe me I do not mean to suggest that it is just the province of Quebec that is going to take advantage of this particular clause.
So far I have only heard from one province, the province of Quebec, but there may be others which will decide to take advantage of this clause.
I am sure all hon. members listened to the speech made by the hon. member for Lapointe with great interest, though with a certain amount of mystification on the part of those of us who are not versed in the intricacies of Social Credit theory, which requires more concentration perhaps than from those who understand such things.
Quite apart from that, I can answer the question which has been asked by saying that I am satisfied this is a formula that is accurate and which will work. I must say on behalf of the government that this alternative
[The Deputy Chairman.]
proposal put forward in the amendment is not acceptable. The principle is not one with which we are unfamiliar, but in this case the amounts involved are so small that they do not lend themselves to the kind of formula which the amendment proposes. For this reason, the amendment would not be acceptable to the government.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, there are two points here. I would like explanations on the first point especially. The Minister of Finance states that he made the calculation of the algebraic equation in conjunction with the provincial authorities. That is not an argument in itself and is not conclusive proof of the equation's accuracy.
I have personally studied the equation, I made the calculation and I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he would be ready to pledge his word that the equation is correct and if he realizes after, that instead of $800,000, the equation comes to $80 million, would he take the responsibility of giving back to the province of Quebec the exact amount which would be due according to the present equation?
I know that the minister is making a mistake in his calculation, because instead of multiplying the small letter "e" by the coefficient resulting from the division-


Walter Lockhart Gordon: May I interrupt? I am satisfied, Mr. Chairman, that in this case my arithmetic is more accurate than the hon. member's. I would give him that assurance.


Norman Platt Lambert: I will suggest that the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Lapointe is out of order by reason of vagueness. The intention is that there should be a cession or abatement of the rate of tax on revenues, but the amendment does not state for which year. Would it be for the following year or for the year in question? Since the formula envisaged in clause 12 relates to a particular year it is, therefore, identifiable. I am not quarrelling with what the hon. member is trying to do. I am quarrelling with the way in which he proposes to do it. His amendment fails to get to the root of the matter inasmuch as he is not able to identify the cessation year, and therefore the rate of tax on the income of individuals is meaningless. A specific period of time must be named.


Gilles Grégoire: Nothing is taken out of the clause. It is specified in the amendment.


Norman Platt Lambert: I am talking to the committee.


An hon. Member:: All right. Don't keep turning here.


Norman Platt Lambert: I am paying the hon. member the attention I hope he is paying to me. I am saying that if taxation is to be imposed it must be imposed on revenue which is identifiable and not on something which is vague. While I realize what the hon. member is trying to get at, he has failed to express it in his amendment. I would say the amendment fails for that reason.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, with all deference to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, I think the amendment before us is not intended to amend section 12 in the least, but an amendment to safeguard a principle. There is no question of imposing taxes. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) who is day dreaming-and he should continue to do so instead of staying in the House of Commons because he thinks that taxation is mentioned in this clause-


Norman Platt Lambert: You have dealt with income tax.


David Réal Caouette: There is no question of income tax. The problem here is to return to the province what belongs to it.
We want the total amount to be turned over to the provinces concerned, be it Alberta, the province where the hon. member who asked me a question comes from, or any other province. I suggest the amendment is perfectly legal and logical. The amendment is neither calling for the imposition of taxes nor for the reduction of taxes, but for the safeguard of a basic principle, that of provincial autonomy.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I should not like to take too much of the time of the committee, but I wish to express some views on this amendment.
I for one am in favour of the amendment, but I shall confess that I am a little troubled by the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Villeneuve respecting this amendment.
Personally, I feel that the amendment must be supported, because each time the federal government undertakes anything jointly with the provinces, there must always be a means for the provinces to keep their autonomy, and I believe that the best way for them to do so is to keep their taxation fields.
20220-373J
Loans to Students
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance expressed the opinion that in this case it would be rather difficult and costly to determine exactly the percentage and that in the case of some provinces, it might be one hundredth of 1 per cent or a few hundredths of 1 per cent. I sincerely believe that this argument has no foundation.
I feel that for the purpose of respecting provincial autonomy and ensuring a better confederative spirit in the country, there must be agreement and a use of all mathematical means which may be available, and I think that the amendment introduced must be approved by the house in order to respect once more the provincial autonomy.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, before the question is put on the amendment, I must mention the fact that a while ago I directed a question to the Minister of Finance and I should like him to give me a clear and precise answer.
The minister says that he is satisfied that the equation he presented is right. I should like to know if in the case of a mistake in the equation he presented, he undertakes before the house to give the province of Quebec the amounts of money it would be entitled to under the strict observance of the equation that we have in paragraph (2) of clause 12. Does the Minister of Finance guarantee that the province of Quebec will receive exactly the same amounts of money which will result from the algebraic equation explained by the officials of his department, in paragraph (2) of clause 12? I should like to know whether the minister is ready to make an official promise on that point?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I do not really believe there is anything more I can usefully add to this discussion and with great respect I would suggest that the sooner we have the question and vote on it the sooner we will get ahead.


Gilles Grégoire: Is the minister afraid to guarantee the equation formula he submitted to us? Or is he afraid to commit himself, by sticking to that formula? 1 challenge the minister to guarantee it formally in this house.
I wish that he will respect it, once it is passed, and that he will not come up some time with an amendment, saying: I have made a mistake, too much is being given, as the minister is doing at this time. In fact, if he studies his equation, he will find that instead

Loans to Students
of dividing the first paragraph of (ii) by the second, he should divide the second by the first. That is where he makes his mistake.
Before the question is put, the minister should personally pledge himself to respect the conditions of payment he just set forth.
In my opinion, he does not seem to want to do that, because he is beginning to realize that he was wrong in his calculations.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. A few moments ago the Chair expressed some doubt whether the amendment was in order. I recognize some of the comments that have been made in the last few moments, but I should point out to the house that the position of the Chair is not to decide what effect any amendment may have but rather to decide on procedure. As I said a few moments ago, I had some doubts whether the amendment was in order and at that time I suggested it should be placed before the committee so that the committee could vote on it. I should like to carry on that procedure now and ask the committee if it is ready for the question.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, before the question is put, I should like to get an answer from the Minister of Finance. Does he officially undertake to stand by the equation he brought in, or will he say, as he did a while ago: we want to vote. It seems that most members are ready to vote, because they shout "question, question."
But if the minister is wrong, or if he is not sure of his equation, then his duty compels him to admit it in the house before the vote is taken.
That is why I ask him whether he is ready to undertake officially before the house to stand by the algebraic equation he puts forward for the alternative payments.
I think we are entitled to a clear and precise answer in this regard. The minister must not answer evasively. Is he ready to state in the house, that he will stand by the results which will be brought about by the equation mentioned in subsection 2? That is what I want the minister to do.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I am more than delighted to do my very best to give all the information I can to any hon. member of the committee, but I do not think I should be required to do this, that or the other thing three or four times. I have already

implied that I think my hon. friend's arithmetic is just as "screwy" as it could be, just absolute nonsense. I have no doubt at all that this clause has been properly drawn. I have already said so and I can see no possible advantage to the committee for me to keep repeating it.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Finance says that my mathematical argument is "screwy", why does he hesitate to personally pledge himself to respect, in future, the results of the equation he himself proposes? I was not afraid to put forward my equation. Consequently, why does not the minister pledge himself officially to respect the results of his equation, in the future, even if he finds out he is mistaken?


David Réal Caouette: He is afraid.


Gilles Grégoire: I believe that before condemning my algebraic reasoning, the best argument the minister could bring in would be to commit himself to stand by the equation he himself offered us. But I see that he is afraid of doing this, and I think his fear destroys pretty well all his arguments.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance spoke a while ago of fuzzy figures which the hon. member for Lapointe is alleged to have given to the house. Now, if someone happened to get mixed up in mathematical data, I really believe we never saw anything like the show given by the present Minister of Finance. In fact, when he was appointed Minister of Finance, he involved himself in his new tax on capital investments in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance understands today his bill as clearly as he understood his 11 per cent tax, about a year and a half ago.
And now, he is ready to level charges against the hon. member for Lapointe, who offers an algebraic problem less stupid than that which the Minister of Finance presents in section 12 of Bill No. C-110. Consequently, we wish to know whether the minister is ready to guarantee to the province of Quebec and to the whole of Canada the results of his theorem or of his mathematical formula.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, for one moment I thought there might have been an error in the French translation which might have accounted for the difference of opinion or some misunderstanding, but I find it is cor-

rect. Therefore I can assure my hon. friend that the government will stand behind this clause of the bill.


Gilles Grégoire: We will retain that.


Herman Maxwell Batten: All those in favour of the amendment will please stand.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, we are ready to vote immediately but, under standing order 9, we request that the vote be recorded. In fact, standing order 9 states:
Upon a division, the yeas and nays shall not be entered upon the minutes, unless demanded by five members.
Now, there are five of us who demand that yeas and nays be recorded. The standing order does not specify whether the procedure is applicable to the house or to the committee of the whole. However, in special and permanent committees, it has sometimes been requested that the vote be recorded. As I said, five members of our group demand that the yeas and nays be entered upon the minutes.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I think the type of vote for which the hon. member for Lapointe is asking is not the type of vote that is regularly taken in committee. A recorded vote is taken when the Speaker is in the chair.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me to make a few remarks concerning the decision you just rendered, I attended, this year, several meetings of the standing, or special, committees, apart from the regular sittings of the house or of the committee of the whole, and even there, I was informed-I was not present myself and, consequently, I did not know the procedure at the time-that, on some occasions, members had asked that the yeas and nays be registered. Now I think that, if this is possible in standing and special committees, or when Mr. Speaker is in the chair, it should all the more be the case in the committee of the whole, because standing order 9 says:
Upon a division, the yeas and nays shall not be entered upon the minutes, unless demanded by five members.
That standing order does not mention that this should be the case during a sitting of
Loans to Students
the house, Mr. Speaker being in the chair; but simply in the committee of the whole.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who knows the procedure better than I do, might perhaps enlighten the house on this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member for Lapointe if he has not observed the fact that standing order 9 from which he is quoting is within a certain number of rules of the house beginning with standing order No. 2, where one finds the words, "Chapter 1, Sittings of the House"? I am sure the hon. member will notice that standing orders 2 to 14 inclusive are inside that chapter. Therefore standing order 9 applies only to sittings of the house. Unless he can find, and I am sure he cannot, a rule that says that standing order 9 applies in committee of the whole, I submit, Mr. Chairman, that you are perfectly right, that the only kind of vote that can be taken in committee of the whole and that a member has the right to ask for is a standing vote where we are counted and that there is no provision for taking down the names of all the members.


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Herman Maxwell Batten: May I make a ruling on the point of order that has been raised. I should like to refer to citation 242 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, paragraph 6, page 204:
When a vote is taken in committee of the whole or in committees of supply or ways and means, the members rise and are counted by the Clerk Assistant who declares the numbers on each side. No names are recorded. The chairman has a casting vote and in giving it he is governed by the same rules as the Speaker under a similar condition.
All those in favour of the amendment will please rise.
Amendment (Mr. Gregoire) negatived: Yeas, 12; nays, 98.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, now that the amendment has been defeated, I wonder whether the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry and Defence Production might not find some formula of their choice, and express in their own words, to amend clause 12 to try to give satisfaction to those who demand that the various sections of the constitution be preserved.
I am convinced that the Secretary of State or the Minister of Industry and Defence Production who succeeded in submitting two

Loans to Students
amendments today, might find the terminology of an amendment which would safeguard in its entirety provincial jurisdiction in the educational field.
I admit that there may be several provinces, which think that the federal government, having more power and financial strength, might give some assistance in the educational field. But in the case of provinces which refuse to accept this federal government intrusion into this field, and I am speaking particularly of the province of Quebec, it seems to me that the Minister of Finance and the other members of the cabinet who come from the province of Quebec should make it a point to find a formula which would satisfy the representations they receive from everywhere, to safeguard the rights of the province of Quebec in the field of education.
I know that the amount involved is a small one, $700,000-


Mr. Belanger:: But if there were 10.


Gilles Grégoire: If we had 10 such pieces of legislation, as the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Belanger) is saying, it would make $7 million; if we had 100, it would make $70 million.


Mr. Lamontagne:: Why not 1,000?


Gilles Grégoire: It would make $700 million if we had 1,000 such pieces of legislation, ask the Secretary of State. He was told that he was the champion of centralization. I think that throughout his lifetime he defended that; it was one of his ideals.
In spite of it, especially when education is concerned, it seems to me that the Secretary of State, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Industry and Defence Production and the Minister of Public Works could co-operate.


An hon. Member:: And the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Loiselle).


Gilles Grégoire: He cannot. It is unfortunately impossible for him to do so. Do not ask him to do more than he can; small brains cannot conceive big ideas.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the hon. member for St. Ann should be called to order, as he is a bit noisy.
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether the Minister of Finance could not do what he did last night.
Last night, he was ready to vote against the amendment introduced by the hon. mem-

ber for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). We told him to seek advice of his pillow. Today, he came in the house beaming and said: I sought advice of my pillow, I thought it over and I am happy to tell you that today we accept the amendment, but in other terms.
In the circumstances, therefore, I wonder whether the Minister of Finance would agree to let clause 12 stand for tonight, so that we could then pass on to other sections. After sleeping on it, once again, the minister would probably agree tomorrow to propose an amendment himself in order to respect the rights of the provinces in the educational field. I wonder whether he would agree to such an arrangement.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I have hesitated to say what I am about to say for fear that it might be misunderstood by some hon. members of the committee. I believe however that if I fail to say what I am about to say some hon. members of the committee might feel later that they had not fully understood the situation. Later this evening, the acting house leader will be announcing the business of the house for the next two or three days and I wondered whether, with the permission of hon. members, I might inform them of this because it might have a bearing on their views as to how we should proceed. It also enables me to answer my hon. friend.
As has been previously announced, estimates will be considered tomorrow. It will be necessary to take up interim supply on Monday. I merely mention this because, like some other hon. members of the committee, I am afraid if we do not stop all the repetition that has been interesting but rather unproductive, this bill will not pass in time for the students to take advantage of its provisions in this coming academic year.
Therefore I must say to my hon. friend I am prepared to stand behind clause 12 as it now is, as I have told him two or three times already, and I respectfully suggest we might have the question on this clause.


David Réal Caouette: As usual, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance, as well as all his colleagues of the cabinet, are telling us: If you do not accept this clause, if you do not accept the bill, it will be perhaps too late to assist Canadian students.
Mr. Chairman, here is what I should like to know from the Minister of Finance, and I should like him listen to me because now-


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


David Réal Caouette: I will carry on as soon as the Minister of Finance will listen to me.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Believe me, I have been listening.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, here is what I want to know. According to clause 12 which says that a province may withdraw from the scheme or set up its own scheme, supposing that a province does not take advantage of or does not need the benefits, if you want, of Bill No. C-110 and sets up it own scheme to help its own students, either through loans or scholarships, but mainly through loans, will the federal government under this bill guarantee the loans granted by any province whatever, Quebec or Ontario, but according to a scheme set up by the province? That is what I would like to know. The Minister of Finance should reply to that specific question.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Chairman.


David Réal Caouette: Can the minister now tell us whether, in order to pay the interest of other students from the other provinces of Canada, who will avail themselves of the benefits derived from Bill No. C-110, taxes will be levied in all the provinces of Canada?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The costs of this plan will be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund. The provinces that choose not to benefit from it will be reimbursed for what they would otherwise have received, so that everybody will be essentially on the same basis.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And from the same source.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: And from the same source, as my hon. friend points out.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 12 carry?


David Réal Caouette: On division, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: On division; clause 12 agreed to on division.

On clause 13-Regulations.


Norman Platt Lambert: I am going as far as paragraph (p) and would like to have an explanation from the minister-
Loans to Students


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. The hon. member for Lapointe is rising on a point of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I think I heard the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) say that he wishes to discuss one aspect of clause 13 (b). Now, it has been agreed that long sections containing several parts would be examined paragraph by paragraph.
I have a question to ask about paragraph (a) of clause 13 and that is why I should like to speak before the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Norman Platt Lambert: Go ahead.


Lucien Lamoureux: Clause 13 (a).


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister of Finance or his representative tell us whether in a province which chooses to take advantage of clause 12 by withdrawing from the scheme and by getting the federal payments mentioned in clause 12, in such a province would the regulations-
(a) prescribing the forms of agreements, certificates of eligibility, claims, reports or other documents required in connection with student loans or for the effective operation of this act...
-under this legislation, would Quebec have to submit such reports on any loan in return for alternative payments?
Let us suppose for instance, that Quebec paid interest for $10 million would it have to submit, with respect each loan, a report or file comprising such things as the certificate of eligibility, etc.? Under the regulations mentioned in clause 13, will the provinces have to submit such reports?


Mr. Pennell:: No, Mr. Chairman.


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, with the opening words of the clause paragraph (p) reads:
The governor in council may make regulations (p) prescribing any other matter or thing that under this act is to be prescribed or prescribed by the regulations-
In other words, this is really an omnibus clause which says that regulations may be passed by the governor in council with regard to anything that has regard to this bill. I must confess that I am little concerned about the extreme latitude of the language. I know this has been copied ad seriatim in all sorts of acts for many years, but I think we should

Loans to Students
pause at this moment to look at it because this is giving the governor in council absolute carte blanche. I say this because it states that not only can there be prescribed any matter or thing under the act that is to be prescribed, but also that the regulations may prescribe.
What sort of snowball are we being asked to consent to by those in charge of administration? This legislative body is being asked by those in charge of administration to give them this absolute power, and though I am not going to offer any amendment to it I must confess it gives me reason to pause. I suggest to the committee that this sort of thing be examined very carefully, and I may say my uneasiness is shared by many of my colleagues who happen to be lawyers. This thing can get you into all sorts of trouble.
I would like the parliamentary secretary or the Minister of National Revenue, if he is deputizing for his colleague, the Minister of Finance, to give us an explanation, a rational, of why this particular clause is needed. I know that as a former minister, albeit for a short time, if this had been proposed to me by my officials I would have put them to a severe test as to why they needed this type of provision. It is something I definitely do not like.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I appreciate the concern of the hon. member. This is what is sometimes termed a catch-all form and I think it is standard in many of the bills presented to the house. As I understand it, all that it does is this: If you look at page 2 it talks about a prescribed form and says:
"certificate of eligibility" means a certificate in prescribed form.
This paragraph the hon. member is referring to gives the authority under the regulations for that prescribed form.


Norman Platt Lambert: Yes I know, Mr. Chairman. That is all very well. I quite readily understand why regulations may be passed for anything required by the bill, but I must confess some difficulty-and I boggle at this-why there must be authority to pass regulations in conformity with regulations. I know this is administrative convenience. We see this conflict of, shall we say jurisdiction-it is not of interest-as between the legislative and the administrative authorities.
We have seen the sort of things that the police would like to do many times because administratively it would be much more convenient. But this argument in favour of administrative convenience is so simple just to

put forward. We saw just a few weeks ago quite a mighty furore in another city in this province because of a proposal by another government to put into a certain bill what would be really matters of great administrative convenience and assistance; and yet on the basis of public interest those things had to be thrown back, and thrown back without any question.
I am not suggesting that sort of thing will be done here, but I must draw attention to this caveat with regard to the use of this type of proposal in a clause dealing with powers to pass regulations. Why is it that we have requests for an ombudsman? Why is it that we have requests for bills of rights? It is because there is this type of clause in a bill, which gives omnipotent power-and I think this power should be curbed rather than extended. It is for this reason that I at this time on my behalf, and I hope on behalf of many of my colleagues in this house, put forward this caveat.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I can only say that I share the experience of the hon. member for Edmonton West in a professional capacity. We have run into these difficulties. But under clause 13 we have tried to set out everything that has to be prescribed. There may be other things in the bill that have to be prescribed and we may not have picked them all up here. Therefore, this is the safety-valve clause of the paragraph.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, in support of the position taken by the hon. member for Edmonton West, is paragraph (q) not wide enough to provide all the safety-valve one needs, if I may put it that way? Perhaps I should read paragraph (q), and again I will read it with the opening words:
The governor in council may make regulations, (q) generally, for carrying into effect the purposes and provisions of this act.
I put it to the government quite seriously: Would anything be lost if paragraph (p) were removed?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I understand that paragraph (q) has had judicial interpretation in other acts and the courts have held that it has to be given a very narrow interpretation. Consequently I feel that we need both (p) and (q) to ensure the proper administration of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe the word "narrow" comes into this question, but it seems to me that if the government has power "generally",

that word has a pretty wide meaning. The paragraph says, "generally, for carrying into effect the purposes and provisions of this act". That wording is pretty wide, and the government hardly needs another safety-valve.


Lawrence T. Pennell: All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that the courts have interpreted it in that way. Our intentions may be clear to us, but the courts may put a different interpretation on them when these words are construed by the courts. Therefore I do not think one should take exception to the fact that the government takes adequate measures to ensure the proper administration of the bill.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall paragraph (p) carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Lucien Lamoureux: Carried, on division. Shall paragraph (q) carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause 13 agreed to.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 14 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause 14 agreed to.
On clause 15-Right of recovery by bank.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, in connection with this clause is there not an amendment from the government?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The Minister of Justice did say he had an amendment. I understand he was proposing it because he thought it would be satisfactory to certain members of the committee. However we have not reached agreement on it, and I understand some different wording was suggested, which I received only half a minute ago. I am asking my parliamentary secretary to look at this wording.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for
Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may be allowed to make a statement, in view of certain queries that have been raised.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. Is it the intention of the minister or someone on his behalf to move an amendment at this time? If not, I would like to call on the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If you would call on the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, until we have had a chance to look at this wording that has 20220-374
Loans to Students
just been suggested, that would be convenient.


Mr. Winkler:: You have had four days in which to do that.


David Vaughan Pugh: Surely, Mr. Chairman, if the government is now going to bring in an amendment, it would be a waste of time to ask an hon. member to speak on clause 15. If an amendment is pending, there is not much point in an hon. member speaking to this clause as it stands at the moment. The government should have had this amendment ready.


Lucien Lamoureux: As far as the Chair is concerned, there is no amendment before us. The hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Are we to understand that the government would have an amendment to clause 15 and that, through negligence, that amendment is not even ready and the Minister of Finance would ask us to carry it as fast as possible or else, if the amendment is not ready it would not be surprising, that the Minister of Finance got his papers mixed up once more and does not know which amendment he should move.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order-
Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere discussing clause 14 or 15?


Rémi Paul: Clause 15, Mr. Chairman.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, if the government intends to submit an amendment to clause 15 why not give the Minister of Finance the opportunity to submit the amendment, in order that the member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere may discuss the amendment at the same time as clause 15?


Lucien Lamoureux: The members can only deal with the matter under discussion, and since we are considering clause 15 of the bill, I suggest that under the circumstances, the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-De-lanaudiere should discuss clause 15.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, it seems strange that the government, who were urging us a few moments

Loans to Students
ago to hurry because they want to get this measure through for the students, now find they have not their amendment ready.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I suggest that if the parliamentary secretary wants to look at the wording of this proposed amendment, there is not much point discussing the clause if it is going to be amended or if an amendment is to be proposed with regard to it. Would it meet the wishes of the committee if we went on with clauses 16, 17 and 18 and came back to 15? Would not this be simpler than discussing a clause which is likely to be amended in the course of the next few minutes?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, so far as the point of order is concerned, I believe that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) is right in suggesting that the other clauses, namely clauses 16,17, etc. be discussed now, so as to enable the Minister of Finance -who seems to be in a nasty mess-to move the amendment he is in a position to move and this, so as not to oblige the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere to beat the air, as he usually does.
Mr. Chairman, I think we should proceed to the consideration of the other clauses until the minister decides to move his amendment and we will come back afterwards to clause 15.


Léon Balcer: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out that we are discussing clause 15 at present, which is an unreliable one, and I think the committee would benefit by hearing the observations of the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere in this regard.
The hon. member should be allowed to express his opinion about this clause as I am sure that what he has to say will be of assistance to the minister and to the members of the government and that following his speech, the amendment we are supposed to get from the government would be definitely improved and would become clear and accurate.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, may I offer a word of explanation in view of the queries which have been raised about the amendment proposed by the government. Last Tuesday evening, I believe it was, the Minister of Justice informed the house that he would put forward an amendment which in good faith he thought would remove-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I wish to call your attention to the fact that the simultaneous translation system is not working at present.


Lawrence T. Pennell: -would remove the objection which had been voiced by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere, who at that time I believe was expressing an opinion on behalf of a number of his colleagues. That draft proposal was put before the hon. member, but he has informed the Minister of Justice that it did not meet their objection and therefore would not have expedited the passage of the bill. I believe the hon. member will confirm that it was in view of his remarks that it did not meet this objection that he would not expect that the amendment would be put forward by the government. I would respectfully invite the hon. member either to confirm or deny my understanding of the situation.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, it would not be honest for me not to begin by telling the house about certain conversations I had with the Minister of Justice as well as with the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Pennell) and the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Macdonald).
It is true that the Minister of Justice had told me about an amendment the government intended to bring forward. I shall refrain from reading it to you, because it would be neither sensible nor honest for me to do so, but, at that time, I pointed out to the Minister of Justice and to the house, as shown at page 5776 of Hansard, that we appreciated the fact that he wanted to introduce some amendments. However, without knowing then their exact scope and extent, I did say he was making but a minor concession and that I felt duty bound to thank him for having understood a little the legal problem which arose in the text of the bill.
I did not accept the proposed amendment for two reasons:
First, I considered it was not up to me, as an humble member, to decide whether that amendment satisfied everybody and I felt I could not take it upon myself to commit my colleagues to it.
Then, the amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice only covered the form of procedure, whereas there is much more to the

bill inasmuch as it involves the very essence of civil law.
Mr. Chairman, I have followed with great interest all the discussions which took place in committee on this bill. Yesterday, speaking to the motion introduced by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), I think the Minister of Finance said something like this: "The purpose of this legislation is to mobilize financial resources to help students; it is a bank bill."
Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to the five point program of the Liberal party in the last election campaign, in which it is stated in chapter 2 "that the Liberal party would introduce, for vocational training, a measure to establish a fund for student loans, these loans bearing interest only a year after the completion of studies."
Why is the government trying today to make us believe that this legislation is a banking measure?
Mr. Chairman, it will be alleged that the proposed legislation is based on section 95 of the Bank Act, which is chapter 12 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. I also know that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance or to the Minister of Justice will quote a judgment passed by the privy council or the supreme court to point out that persons under age are allowed to carry out banking operations.
I respectfully submit that in the opinion of the highest judicial authorities, it is necessary to interpret the scope and nature of the action taken by those carrying out banking operations under subsection 1 of section 95.
But I respectfully submit that in this case it is not a banking operation nor a banking transaction. To transact from the civil point of view, it is necessary to take into consideration the legal capacity of persons transacting or dealing with the bank to secure a loan, in accordance with the objective of that legislation.
The Minister of Finance and more especially the Minister of Justice have been quite annoyed when members on this side of the house raised several legal questions about the study of this bill.
As shown on page 5789 of Hansard for July 21, 1964, the Minister of Justice stated the following:
As I said, Mr. Chairman, there is not much point in getting into technical, involved, legal argument.
Mr. Chairman, I am of the opinion that it behoves us all to examine the legal effect of the piece of legislation now before us. If legislators are entrusted with the passage 20220-3744
Loans to Students
of this measure in accordance with the needs of the population, I believe that lawyers, not exclusively but specially, must scrutinize the bill, must examine its legal effect and the data relating thereto. That is why I intend to bring in an amendment respecting clause 15 of the bill in a moment.
I repeat, and I should like to say so a third time, that I ask particularly the members from the province of Quebec who belong to the legal fraternity, including the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Works, to listen to the argumentation I will make, and I would be very glad if they could refute it before I realize that I am wrong.
If nobody rises to refute the legal argumentation I am bringing forward, then I will conclude that you allow the very basis of provincial autonomy to be undermined for the benefit of a political party or to satisfy an election promise you made during the election campaign.
Clause 15 concerns an exclusively civil problem. This section deals with the legal capacity of citizens. Under this act, you consider that a person under age is of full age.
Now, I submit respectfully that we must face then an imperative provision of civil rights which fall within the jurisdiction of the province, according to sections 92 and 93 of the constitution.
I submit respectfully that the exclusive rights of provincial legislatures are defined in section 92 and specially in section 93 dealing with the property of civil rights.
I had the opportunity to study for quite a while, in co-operation with the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Marti-neau), the whole structure of the civil code and of the code of civil procedure of the province of Quebec. I am sure that the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) will quote, during the study of that section, the various points at issue.
However, I want to make it clear that I do not intervene to safeguard the civil law of the province of Quebec. If I do so, it is to protect the civil rights of the ten Canadian provinces.
Hon. members opposite tell us that this is a banking operation, that bank loans are concerned and that it is therefore an ancillary power conferred to us under the Bank Act.
I will go back to the argument I put forward last Tuesday on this matter of ancillary power.
Ancillary power, as stated by the privy council, only applies in matters that come ex-

Loans to Students
clusively under federal jurisdiction. The privy council ruled that the federal government could do so in order to respect and apply a federal jurisdiction when it is necessary to legislate.
But, in the present case, we are dealing with a problem concerning education and civil rights. So much so that the government hesitated for a moment, realizing that the code of civil procedure should at least be protected by the amendment proposed, the effect of which was to partially correct this situation.
But I should like to mention to my learned colleagues who are lawyers and who sit to your right, Mr. Chairman, this theory of the privy council called "Pith and Substance", that is colorated legislation.
What does this mean?
Well, Mr. Chairman, it was decided by the privy council and the various courts of the supreme court, that the courts must consider, in studying legislation-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I hope that the hon. member will allow me to ask him a question?


Rémi Paul: Certainly.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I am trying to follow his argument. I should like to know whether, in his argument, he only considers the case of a student from the province of Quebec or that of a student from Quebec and the nine other provinces.


Rémi Paul: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Public Works on account of his responsibilities, cannot always take part in the debates. But I shall reply, as the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Cantin) did yesterday: I have been elected to discuss the problem of the Canadian people and, by discussing the problem of our civil rights, I set specifically aside the Quebec civil law because section 92, which I mention, does not make any distinction in favour of the province of Quebec.
My learned friend may have forgotten about it but the theory of the colorated legislation -he will see it in a few minutes-applies here because the three law cases I intend to mention have an application outside the province of Quebec.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: You had not said so.


Rémi Paul: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but the minister-I saw him a few minutes ago reading a document-has probably forgotten that important portion of my remarks. I said that I intervened in order to preserve

the civil rights of the ten provinces. I have said so clearly, Mr. Chairman.


Norman Platt Lambert: And the Yukon?


Rémi Paul: And that of the Yukon.
I was saying, Mr. Chairman, that there is a legislation which is called pith and substance, that is colorated legislation. That is what the government is presenting, Mr. Chairman, because the courts decided they had to face the facts and the true implications of a piece of legislation, and not its form.
On the pretext of allowing banks to make loans to students, the people of Canada are offered a colorated piece of legislation, because the bill under consideration is primarily concerned with helping education and students. Besides, when he introduced this bill, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) was careful to mention that, in so doing, he was fulfilling part of the Liberal party platform.
Mr. Chairman, we are dealing in this case with a colorated piece of legislation, that is to say the federal government legislates in a field foreign to it, that is a field which belongs exclusively to the provinces, under the terms of section 92 of the British North America Act.
It was decided that in such a case the legislation should be declared unconstitutional. In the decisions of the privy council, "colorated legislation" is the name given to legislation which has been given a false look to have it fall in a different category from that to which it belongs.
If this is not colorated legislation, what is it then, Mr. Chairman?
We legislate for a definite purpose: help education and students-by means of a bill now under consideration-that is through credit that will be granted by the banks.
I wonder if during the last election campaign our learned friends opposite explained to the people the attraction of an amendment to the Bank Act. If this is banking legislation, why submit it to us under this guise? The government needed only to introduce an amendment to change the Bank Act.
There is a well known case, Attorney General of Canada v. attorney of Alberta. 1916, Appeal Cases, page 584, which I take the liberty of quoting to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon). I hope he will ask his advisers to check this jurisprudence, which comes from the privy council.
The matter in that case consisted of a legislative measure that the province of Alberta

had brought forward in order to tax the banking institutions operating within the province. The case was even brought before the privy council, which ruled that banks were federal institutions and that, therefore, the provinces did not have that right. For this theory concerning the colorated legislation is reversible, that is, that it must apply to the federal as well as to the provincial field.
It is under such colorated legislation that this legislative measure brought forward by the attorney general for Alberta was ruled wholly illegal by the privy council.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we could quote also two other cases from the privy council, namely, the Reciprocal Insurance case, 1923, Appeal Cases, page 340, and another case, attorney general of Canada v. attorney general for Alberta, 1939, Appeal Cases, page 117.
I challenge the learned attorneys on the other side of the house. I have listened with great interest to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Cantin). His intervention was a little cold, a little uneasy, a little-


Mr. Marlineau:: Timorous.


Rémi Paul: -a little timorous, a little sickly. It was really co-operative federalism.
While we are discussing theories, while provincial autonomy is at stake, we see that the Secretary of State finds that funny. It is quite understandable that he thinks it is funny for a member to rise in the house to defend provincial rights, because he himself is the greatest centralizer the federal political arena has had for the last century.
I myself can find it funny, Mr. Chairman, to see the Secretary of State paying so little attention to this piece of legislation, when problems we study are vital to the survival of the provinces, because it concerns respect for civil rights and education.
Under section 93(1) of the B.N.A. Act, education falls under provincial jurisdiction, just like property and civil rights, under section 92(13) of the same act.
It is not funny when an hon. member rises in this house and has the courage that you do not have, Mr. Secretary of State. You do not have the courage to rise in this house and expound the legal reasons in favour of the government concerning this legislation.
I see the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner) who raised, yesterday, an argument which was destroyed this morning by the Minister of Finance.
Loans to Students
I hope that you will take the time to study the legislation now before us and I would ask you to meditate upon the statement made by the presidents of A.G.E.U.M. and A.G.E.L. I do not intend to read the letter which was sent to us by the presidents of those associations.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Comox-Albemi.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, earlier this evening we had a ruling from the Chair that the clause we are now discussing has nothing to do with the courage or lack of courage of other members of the house in rising or not rising to discuss the bill. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in keeping with the earlier decision you might consider calling the hon. member who now has the floor to order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The point raised by the hon. member is well taken and I am sure the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere will keep that in mind, tTranslation]


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, I did not suggest that hon. members from the province of Quebec did not have the courage to discuss the present bill, but I said and I repeat that they do not have the courage to stand up for provincial autonomy. I therefore ask them to meditate this paragraph of the letter sent by the two presidents of the student associations of Montreal and Laval universities, which I mentioned before to the effect that:
The educational field is one where we must not give an inch. We are, more than anybody else, aware of the students' needs. But we shall not sacrifice the safeguard of an essential principle to even legitimate wishes and needs.
I can understand, Mr. Chairman, that there may be some doubts depending on whether you are a centralizer or an autonomist when discussing this legislation and wanting to determine if there is a constitutional problem; but considering the way the government is acting, when it submits clause 15 to us, there is no doubt that civil rights are at stake and that the federal government is directly encroaching on provincial jurisdiction, which it has no right to do.
Why does the government try so much to introduce an amendment? And why discuss it with me rather than someone else? I rejected the amendment because, personally, I did not consider it adequate and second, I never was authorized by my colleagues to

Loans to Students
determine the adequacy or inadequacy of any amendment introduced by the government.
Third, I explained earlier that this concerns a legal principle concerning the legal capacity and not the form of contracts, because this clause has two aspects; an aspect dealing with civil rights and another with civil procedure.
The government would have liked simply to remove or to conceal the civil procedure aspect and retain the serious basic deficiency contained in this legislation.
That is why I intend to move an amendment, as I mentioned a while ago. This amendment was studied and drawn up with the member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) and it reads as follows:
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue, that all the words after the words ''the borrower", in clause 15, be deleted and replaced by the following words: everything in accordance with provincial laws concerning the legal capacity, inasmuch as such laws are applicable.
If he reads this amendment, my hon. friend, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Desehatelets) will be further convinced. He will see that the amendment proposed does not affect in any way the civil law of the province of Quebec, but is designed rather to respect fully the civil rights of the provinces.
I wonder why the government could not accept this amendment. We are not changing anything at all in the objective of this bill.
We simply want to confirm a constitutional legal situation which exists, namely that if we have doubts as to the constitutional aspect of the legislation in the field of education there are none as far as civil rights are concerned.
I do not see why the government would refuse this amendment which changes absolutely nothing in its intended purpose. If the government wants to get credit for this proposal, I shall be glad to withdraw my amendment because by my interjection or interjections in this debate I had no intention to engage in politics but to preserve the rights of the province of Quebec, especially because I know that the premier, Hon. Jean Lesage, has already told the people that he would opt out of this legislation.
As my hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Cantin) said so aptly, those who are elected members of the Canadian parliament must legislate for the common good of Canada.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau),

who is not here, but is properly represented by his parliamentary secretary (Mr. Macdonald), and the Solicitor General (Mr. Mac-Naught) will both, in agreement with the brilliant lawyers who occupy the treasury benches, approach the legislation with the thought of correcting this error.
Should they succeed in convincing me that I am wrong, I will be happy to withdraw my amendment and to take back what I said; but as long as we lack the courage-with all due deference to my hon. friend who seemed to object to this a while ago-as long as we lack the courage to discuss the legal aspect of this problem, I have reason to believe this is a centralizing legislation. That is why I shall vote in favour of this amendment, but I regret I have to inform the house that after this, I shall vote against the bill, for, since the beginning, I have stated my convictions and my principles, and, in the circumstances, I am still sure that it can be but a bill encroaching on the field of education, and which I cannot approve.


Lucien Lamoureux: It is moved by Mr. Paul, seconded by Mr. Martineau, that all the words following the word "borrower" in the fourth line of clause 15, be struck off to be replaced by the following words:
the whole pursuant to provincial legislation concerning legal capacity and inasmuch as such a legislation is applicable.
May I draw to the attention of the hon. member that the word "borrower", which he has mentioned, appears twice in clause 15? I would therefore suggest that he indicate, in order to clarify the situation, whether he refers to the word "borrower" in line 2, or to the word "borrower" in line 4.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, the word to be deleted is the word "borrower" in the fourth line, and the result of the amendment would be to delete the following words:
-as though the latter had been of frill age at the time the loan was made.


Lucien Lamoureux: I can then say that the amendment moved by the hon. member should read thus:
It is moved by Mr. Paul, seconded by Mr. Martineau, that all the words following the word "borrower" in the fourth line of clause 15, be struck off to be replaced by the following words:
the whole pursuant to the provincial legislation concerning legal capacity and inasmuch as such legislation is applicable.


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, may I call your attention to the fact that the word "bor-

rower" appears twice in the fourth line in the English version.


Lucien Lamoureux: In the French version, the word "borrower" appears once in the second line, also in the fourth line, and the amendment applies only to the words which come after the word "borrower" in the fourth line.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out to the house that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere is to amend all the words which come after the words "the borrower", and even if the word "borrower" appears in the second and fourth lines, the amendment specifies "the borrower". That means that the amendment is worded in the usual way and that it does not lead to any confusion; therefore, I think there is no need to alter the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanau-diere.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. In my opinion, the confusion is due to the fact that a few members are reading the English version of the bill, while, in the French version, the word "em-prunteur" appears only once, in the fourth line and the amendment should apply to that word.


Norman Platt Lambert: There is confusion between the English and the French texts. They do not conform, whereas in the fourth line of the English text, the term "the borrower" appears twice "from the borrower as though the borrower".
I quite accept the version of the hon. member for Lapointe, to the effect that in the second line, it says "a borrower" but the word "borrower" appears twice in the fourth line.


Lucien Lamoureux: For the benefit of the hon. member for Edmonton West, may I read clause 15:
A guaranteed student loan made by a bank to a borrower not of full age, and Interest thereon other than interest payable under section 6, is recoverable by a bank from the borrower as though the borrower had been of full age at the time the loan was made.
Well, in the fourth line, there is the word "borrower".


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, the English and French versions of the bill differ, because, in English, the words "the borrower" are used twice. In French, we read as follows:
-par une banque, de l'emprunteur, comme si ce dernier avait 6te majeur-
Loans to Students
Consequently, the English version does not conform with the French version. In English, we should say: as though the latter had been . .. That is the difference between the existing English and French versions of the bill. That is what makes it confusing.


Lucien Lamoureux: I feel it would be advisable to make the change I suggested, because the amendment, as it appears in French, is certainly not clear and it seems to me the words "from the borrower" should be added in the English text.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, as pointed out a while ago by the hon. member for Lapointe, the amendment applies to the word "l'em-prunteur" in the French version. There can be no doubt, then, that the amendment refers to the words which come after the word "l'emprunteur", whereas in the second line you have the words "un emprunteur".


Lucien Lamoureux: But the hon. member will note that, the way this text is written, in clause 15, the word "emprunteur" wherever it appears is misleading.
That is why the words "in clause 15" have to be included somewhere in the text.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, we have listened with great interest to the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere. First of all, he asked us to listen very attentively, because he maintained that he had very important legal considerations to submit to us respecting clause 15.
Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that the hon. member should have mixed purely partisan remarks with legal considerations at this stage of the debate on a bill which fills such a great need among Canadian students.
I regret it and I shall discuss it for a few minutes only. It should be noted that members on this side are in favour of the bill and hope to see it passed as soon as possible whereas some hon. members opposite have, for the past few days, been making a lot of noise and extending this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I should like to remind the minister of the remarks I addressed to other members earlier in the debate. I suggest that he limit himself to the point under consideration, namely clause 15 of the bill.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I shall limit my remarks to the legal point raised by the hon. member.

Loans to Students
Clause 15 has undoubtedly been examined very carefully not only by members of the government but also by officials of the Department of Justice. The hon. member has enough experience to appreciate that we would not have introduced clause 15 without first looking up the jurisprudence and precedents applicable in such a case.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, would the minister allow me a question?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, since it is already 22 minutes past ten, I should like to reply to the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere first of all. If the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue wishes to ask me questions afterwards, I will be glad to answer.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister is speaking from personal experience.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, there is an order in council of 1894-and that is going back quite a while-concerning the scope-


David Réal Caouette: What year?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1894. That order in council deals with the rights and prerogatives of the Canadian parliament under section 91 of the B.N.A. Act and, in a case similar to the one we are now discussing, the privy council stated this, among other things: "The Canadian parliament may give to the banks certain powers regarding banking operations, even if such powers are contrary to section 92 concerning property and civil rights of a province". Since the passing of that order in council, the highest courts in the land have systematically adhered to it. I would also like to quote from a judgment rendered by Hon. Justice Challies of the Quebec superior court in the case of Gregory Company Incorporated v. Imperial Bank.
I do not intend, at this stage of the debate, to argue very long. The purpose of this bill is to authorize the banks to make student loans guaranteed by the federal government. This, of course, means banking operations and bank loans are definitely within banking operations provided under section 91 of the B.N.A. Act.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, would the minister permit a question?


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Ber-thier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere rose before you did in order to put a question to the minister.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, I know that the hon. minister has studied the jurisprudence and the judgment he just quoted with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Macdonald) who handed the said judgment to him, a few minutes ago. Mr. Chairman, could the minister contradict the allegation I am going to make? In the case he just referred to, the question was to ascertain whether a minor was entitled to withdraw a bank deposit. Therefore, it has nothing to do with legislation like that now before us, because it is a bank transaction based on a civil action.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, by asking that question, the hon. member refers me once again to the privy council warrant of which I shall quote only one paragraph. Here it is:

Section 91 (15) of the B.N.A. Act 1867 gives to that parliament power to legislate over every transaction within the legitimate business of a banker,
-and no doubt a loan is within the legitimate business of a banker- notwithstanding that the exercise of such power interferes with property and civil rights in the province (see section 92(13)), and confers upon a bank privileges as a lender which the provincial law does not recognize.

I think that is quite clear.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Would the hon. minister allow me a question now?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member will let me continue my remarks, I shall answer his questions later on.
Now, I should like to deal with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Ber-thier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere, and more particularly with the part that says: "the whole pursuant to provincial legislation."
Since when does legislation relating to bank operations come under a provincial legislation? Since when do we have to submit to the provisions of the civil code of a province, a prerogative granted to the parliament of Canada under section 91 of the B.N.A. Act concerning banking operations.
I say to the hon. member that the amendment he introduced is sheer nonsense. It represents a contradiction between the powers provided in sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act and this is so true, that if we were going to pass the amendment of the hon. member, this would mean that the federal government would be unable to re-

cover the loans it extended in good faith to Canadian students, because under provincial acts, of course, minors cannot enter into legal obligations. But minors can enter into obligations under the powers given to the federal government by section 91 of the British North America Act and of a provision of the act passed by the federal parliament.
My hon. friend asks the government to renounce one of the privileges given to them under the Bank Act, which would make this legislation totally inoperative. In the circumstances, we cannot accept his amendment and I invite the hon. member to study again the privy council case I mentioned, which clearly establishes the constitutionality of clause 15, which is intra vires of the powers of the federal parliament under the Bank Act.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, I wish to direct two or three questions to the minister. According to his argument, the minister seemed to suggest that the federal government would have the right to legislate in this field, only if the act is essentially a bank measure. Is it true?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Not necessarily, Mr. Chairman. By passing Bill No. C-110, the federal parliament gives to the banks the right to extend loans.


David Réal Caouette: To whom?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: To a borrower who would be a person under age.


Rémi Paul: What about the married woman?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, in view of the minister's first answer, I would like to ask him if the government has introduced this bill to help the banks or the students?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, this is not a new right, but a right that is provided under clause 15. I shall, in due course, quote from other orders in council. The provisions of this section are in conformity with jurisprudence followed since 1894 by the highest courts of the country, including Quebec's courts.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A final question to the minister, Mr. Chairman. Considering his previous answers, could the minister tell us why, if this is primarily a banking measure, the government has not considered it advisable to amend the Bank Act, since he entitled this bill: An act to facilitate the making of loans to students, if this is a banking measure?
Loans to Students


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I cannot indeed repeat what I said. I have given to the hon. member-


Paul Raymond Martineau: You cannot answer-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: -the rulings of the courts concerning the matter.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The minister just said that he read out judgments. I respectfully submit of 1894, which has been contradicted by subsequent decisions of the privy council.


Lucien Lamoureux: The question of privilege raised by the hon. member is unjustified.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I read out another decision.


Lucien Lamoureux: In answering the other question, the minister could perhaps clear the point raised by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere, but I am of the opinion that this question of privilege was unjustified.


An hon. Member:: He cannot give an answer.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the minister who has just made statements dating back to 1894. We are in 1964, are we not? As my colleague from Lapointe suggested the other day, we could go back to 292 B.C.
What I wish to point out to the minister is that the Bank of Canada Act did not exist in 1894, since it was passed only in 1934. It is not so very old, since it was passed 30 years ago. Under federal legislation, the Bank of Canada is authorized to lend money to provinces, municipalities, etc. Is the minister aware of the fact that under our banking system, the Bank of Canada can finance provincial ventures in the field of education?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: No, Mr. Chairman, I cannot see where that discussion would lead us.
We legislate here on the Bank Act. I would again remind the hon. member that parliament is entitled to legislate on all matters referred to in section 91 of the B.N.A. Act. Therefore, this measure is constitutional, even if the privileges provided for in the bill come in conflict with the property and civil rights mentioned in section 92.
Such is the bearing of every court decision rendered since 1894, and this has been consistent.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Chairman.

Loans to Students
Surely, the minister is aware that the rights of the civil courts of a province cannot be evaded. Now, that is what Bill No. C-110 is doing.
All this amendment claims is that the act shall comply with provincial acts concerning legal capacity, as far as these acts are applicable within the limits of a province.
Now, I do not think that sections 91 or 92 of the British North America Act can be changed at this stage. I do not think either that the minister is right in referring to regulations dating back to 1894 or 1867.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: If I admitted that the hon. member for Villeneuve is right, I would subject to the provincial act, the legal capacity to contract of the students; I would say that, in any conflict, the provincial act would apply.
This would mean that the loans which will be granted could not be recovered.
Therefore, we say: By virtue of section 91, we have the right to legislate concerning banking transactions and by virtue of banking transactions, the capacity of the individual to contract is not the same as under the civil code of the province of Quebec. That is what we are saying.


Lucien Lamoureux: The	hon.	member	for
Edmonton West.


Gilles Grégoire: I thought it was our turn, since two Conservative members already spoke, whereas not a single Social Crediter has spoken yet. I am well aware of your sense of justice in this regard.


Lucien Lamoureux: The	hon.	member	for
Edmonton West.


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, we have a little private confab going on at this end.
The more I listen to the Minister of Public Works and his colleagues, the more they seem to confuse bills and loans. The whole bill is replete with the term "loan". A loan comports a promise to pay. I would suggest that the Minister of Public Works, whose emphasis on banking transactions does not bring him within any bank act or anything, has run afoul of the Bills of Exchange Act. I know the argument the minister may advance, but I would say that in so far as civil rights and contractual obligations are concerned with respect to any loan made under this or any other act, they are subject to the law of con-

tract and the civil rights of a province. I do not think there is any question in regard to that.
Therefore, we must look to the terms as to what is going to be done. Money is going to be borrowed. There will be an undertaking to repay. I put it to the minister that a promissory note is involved here, not only in the narrow sense but in the widest sense possible. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice may shake his head, but I think he sees the point I have in mind. We know what a promissory note is. Under the terms of the Bills of Exchange Act, chapter 15 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, a promissory note is an unconditional promise in writing which is made by one person to another- all the terms are satisfied so far-signed by the maker, engaging to pay on demand or at a fixed and determinable future time a sum certain in money to the order of a specified person or to bearer. I could also bring in the operation of sections 47, 48 and 186 of the Bills of Exchange Act which go to capacity to contract.
Now, we know for certain that a minor cannot sign a bill of exchange under the terms of this act, with the exception of enforcement by a holder in due course. But any bank knowing it is dealing with a minor is not a holder in due course. I know this is legal and technical, so the Minister of Industry had better pay attention. By section 186 all the conditions applying to bills of exchange and capacity to contract are applied to promissory notes.
It may be that this argument will be countered-and I am trying to meet the arguments ahead of time-by saying that because the crown has undertaken to indemnify the banks in the event of death, this is not an unconditional promise to pay. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that all the government has substituted here is a form of guaranteed payment, the same as though it had endorsed its name on the back of the note. Hon. gentlemen opposite who do not agree with me would have to argue that if a parent or relative or guardian were acting as endorser of a note, it would not be an unconditional promise to pay, and therefore not a note within the terms of the act.
Regulations under clause 13 as accepted by the committee prescribe the measures to be taken by the banks in the event of default and the procedure to be followed by the banks to recover the amount of the loan outstanding. The statement that a loan will not be collectible from the estate of the deceased

student who still owes money is a form of guarantee. It does not amount to an unconditional promise in writing to the bank. Remember, the promise is to the bank, and there are no conditions attached to the banks power to recover money lent; no disability imposed upon the bank as to its right to recover. Therefore I say this loan agreement is to be an unconditional promise in writing. Some people may suggest that because of the various undertakings the form will not be that of a promissory note.
Have hon. members seen the form of note under the arrangements for making a home improvement loan, or a note under section 88 of the Bank Act? It is a document almost a yard long, but still it is a promissory note. It does not matter. The promissory note is included within the entire document and one cannot get around it. It is there, and I suggest that by insisting this was loan legislation, strictly a financial matter, the government has merely become trapped deeper and deeper. They cannot have it both ways. It would have been better to have wiped out this clause entirely, because the banks, having taken security in the form of a note from an infant, will enforce it within the province. The infant defendant must raise the defence of being an infant, and we know that that is not an entire defence, so the burden is upon the student to prove that this was a form of promissory note for which he would not be liable. I would say that the chances of recovery would be 99,999 per cent and that the defence would not succeed.
I would suggest that the amendment put forward by my colleague from Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere placing liability for this type of loan strictly under provincial jurisdiction is merely declaratory and does not impose any rights or obligations, whereas this particular clause proposed by the government does, affecting also civil rights over which we have no authority; and therefore I claim that the clause is bad. I would certainly accept the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere, it being merely declaratory.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: One question, Mr. Chairman. Really the essence of what the hon. member is saying is that every loan agreement is a negotiable instrument. Is that not right?


Norman Platt Lambert: A loan agreement may be assigned. They are assigned. A loan agreement may be between an individual and a bank or between two individuals, and is assignable in both cases. Certainly if it comes into the hands
Loans to Students
of a holder for value it is. There is no defence under the Bills of Exchange Act. But in this instance the bank has no recourse to being a holder for value. Therefore that defence would not be open to the individual.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member is asserting that whatever the conditions of any particular agreement, it is a negotiable instrument, using the term in a technical sense, within the terms of the Bills of Exchange Act. I suggest to him he is quite mistaken and I am sure his colleagues of the Alberta bar would agree with me.


Norman Platt Lambert: I do not think the hon. member has read the bill because subclause (d) of clause 13 says that the governor in council may make regulations providing for the assignment or transfer by banks of agreements between borrowers and banks. Negotiable? There is your answer.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, as seconder of the amendment-


Gilles Grégoire: Why is it that only Conservatives are talking?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I shall recognize the hon. member for Lapointe later. The hon. member for Pontiac-T6miscamingue seconded the amendment and that is why he has the floor.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Let me assure the hon. member for Lapointe that I shall be very happy to let him have the floor in a few minutes, when I finish my remarks It is precisely in my capacity of seconder of this motion that I want to intervene at this stage to support the amendment moved by that learned lawyer, the hon. member for Ber-thier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere.
I think that the government could have avoided many pitfalls if, instead of rather lackadaisically preparing the bill, it had followed the advice of such competent lawyers as my hon. friend, the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere.
The most striking part of the argument advanced by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere, were his remarks concerning the legislation commonly called "coloured legislation" or "the pith and substance of the legislation".
Naturally, I listened with great attention to the Minister of Public Works. The more he progressed in his argument, the more I realize this was indeed "coloured legislation", in other words, legislation which is intended to look different from what it is in

Loans to Students
fact. I do not believe that the minister can seriously say this is mainly a banking legislation, and that the ends and intentions of this legislation concerning loans to students are only ancillary conclusions of this legislation, which would primarily be banking legislation.
This becomes apparent when we consider various points in this legislation and also when we analyse the presentation the Minister of Finance gave it in the first instance in introducing the resolution before the house, it was apparent when, two days ago, the bright parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Pennell) also outlined the aims and the nature of this legislation.
In each intervention they both put forward the need for adopting this legislation in order to help students.
By any chance, has this resolution been introduced in order to help the banks? If the answer to my first question is in the affirmative and if the answer to my second question is in the negative, it is absolutely apparent that this is a legislation under colour-colour is an important word in the context-of being banking legislation, or else altogether different legislation. This is a legislation the nature of which mainly concerns public education and public teaching.
Mr. Chairman, if such is the case, under the constitution the federal government does not have the right to legislate in the matter on the basis of his ancillary powers, because they are simply reserved for cases concerning matters falling mainly within the competence of the federal government. Such is not the case. We have another proof of that if we look at the very title of this legislation-
An act to facilitate the making of loans to students.
Therefore, we must conclude that from a constitutional point of view, it is a matter concerning which the federal government has no right to legislate.
Second, we come to the point where it is also a legislation which transgresses the whole economy of our system and that goes also for my colleagues of all the other provinces, because there is not only the civil code of the province of Quebec, but also the basic principles of common law which stand as statutes all across Canada.
That is why we, as federal legislators, are quite at ease to deal with that, not only to defend the civil code of the province of

Quebec, but also to defend the merits of the common law applicable in all other regions of the country.
Mr. Chairman, we must therefore ask ourselves whether this clause concerns only the legal capacity or the minority of the contracting parties. Indeed, no other conclusion is possible, because clause 15 says:
A guaranteed student loan made by a bank to a borrower not of full age, and interest thereon other than interest payable under section 6, is recoverable by a bank from the borrower as though the borrower had been of full age at the time the loan was made.
It must then be ascertained what is meant by a person under age and for that, we must refer to section 246 of the civil code of the province of Quebec which reads as follows:
Persons of either sex remain in minority until they attain the full age of 21 years.
Well, what is the objective of this clause? It is deemed to contradict directly section 246 which provides that the condition of the minor remains till the age of 21 years, and this by a legislative text which is unconstitutional as far as this parliament's powers are concerned. They want to transform a person under age into a person of full age. Well, this condition of being under age under the civil rights of the province of Quebec entails many consequences, and clause 15 as worded contradicts all these consequences.
For the information of the Minister of Public Works, I could list the main sections of the civil code of the province of Quebec which are contradicted by this absolutely incongruous provision. You have, for instance, section 248 of the civil code which reads as follows:
The disabilities, the rights and privileges resulting from minority, the acts the minor may do and the suits he may bring, the cases in which he may demand to be relieved, the manner and time of making the demand, and other like questions, are determined in the third book of the present code, and in the code of civil procedure.
There is a whole series of basic sections of our civil code which are violated by these explicit provisions. These are sections 304, 643, 763, 831, 833, 907, 938, 1001s, 1267, 1707, 2030, 2031, 2086, 2114, 2147b, 2157b, 2232, 2243, 2269; they are all in the civil code as well as sections 78, 174, 1177, 1209, 1263 of the civil procedure code. Those are basic sections which all concern the civil law of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, the civil rights of the province of Quebec were always drawn up by learned jurists and passed on by a succes-

sion of studious generations, especially devoted however, to the importance of retaining principles which we received from the French law, derived from the Paris custom.
And today, with a single pen stroke, many sections including those I mentioned are being violated.
I challenge the Minister of Public Works -who has spoken a while ago without convincing many people-and his colleagues on the other side of the house, to prove that the provisions of clause 15, as drawn up now, do not violate those sections.
In the civil code, as well as in the civil procedure code of the province of Quebec, we find very specific provisions which indicate how we should proceed to recover a debt incurred by a person under age.
And here, we turn up our noses at the protective measures issued for the good of persons under age and we pretend, by way of a simple legislative text, to translate the minority into the majority. It would be just as logical for the federal government to propose, through such a decree, that a man become a woman, or vice-versa. This is just as senseless, Mr. Chairman.
Further, I cannot understand why, after the statement made two days ago by the Minister of Justice, we do not want to follow up today the pledge taken by the federal Minister of Justice on behalf of the government.
In fact, here is what the Minister of Justice stated, as can be found on page 5775 of Hansard:
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...
Mr. Chairman, we must insist on those last words:
-will quiet the fears of those who worry, with good reason in some cases, about the wording of the said clause.
Mr. Chairman, we studied this measure section by section and we now are on clause 15. We are told today that there will be no amendment proposed.
I know-and the parliamentary secretary of the Minister of Justice will repeat it no doubt-that some explanation was given, but I feel it is unsatisfactory in many respects.
It is true that the opinion of the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinongd-Delanau-diere was sought on the scope of this amendment, and as was to be expected, the hon. member said that the proposed amendment
Loans to Students
was inadequate. As a matter of fact, it was inadequate because it failed to remove the offensive part of clause 15. In other words, in spite of this amendment, the student under age was still considered as being of full age, which is clearly against the provisions of the civil code, which I quoted a few minutes ago, and only provided a certain protection as to procedure to follow for repayment. It was undoubtedly an inadequate amendment.
But the point I want to raise is this: If there should be any worry, and rightly so, about the interferences of this clause, it was the government's responsibility and that of the Minister of Finance in particular, to present an amendment in order to get rid of that concern which the minister himself said was found, and if the parliamentary secretary had moved an amendment we could have discussed its merits. We would have no doubt come to a satisfactory and adequate understanding to guarantee the rights of the civil code of the province of Quebec as well as those of common law of the other provinces.
The Minister of Public Works has stated, I believe, that under the Bank Act, and the Bills of Exchange Act, this was the practice. In my opinion, the minister went quite beyond the legal reality, with regard to this matter.
I could, for instance, mention section 48 of the Bills of Exchange Act, chapter 15 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, which I have here in English. I quote:

Where a bill Is drawn or endorsed by an Infant, minor, or corporation having no capacity or power to incur liability on a bill, the drawing or endorsement entitles the holder to receive payment of the bill, and to enforce it against any other party thereto.

Any party having legal capacity is bound by the bill but the minor cannot be, whereas in that clause, the minor is assimilated, purely and simply, to a person enjoying full capacity.
Before ending my remarks, I say that this provision is unconstitutional and that it would create the worst precedent possible in the field of public legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I have never seen a government care so little about such important matters. As a matter of fact, one only has to remember the careless remarks made by the parliamentary secretary when he explained why he refused to proceed now with an amendment which he had found warranted.
Mr. Chairman, it seems that it is not too late for the government to change its mind.

Loans to Students
Even if consideration of that section had to stand until tomorrow morning to allow officials of the Department of Justice to draft a proper amendment or remove clause 15 entirely, I think it would be well worthwhile. In my opinion, in the years to come it would be better to eliminate this source of dispute -and I really mean a source of dispute- because this clause is truly a nest of lawsuits since any time a minor is sued under this unconstitutional provision, he will just have to invoke provincial law to have the lawsuit thrown out of court on a technicality.
Since the clause is ill-founded, I feel the government should introduce an appropriate amendment or remove the clause entirely.
In my opinion, if members on this side of the house really wish to do their duty as members of parliament, they must insist that such a course of action be followed before the clause is passed by the committee.


Gilles Grégoire: Just one word, Mr. Chairman. I feel-


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I should like to draw the attention of the house to the fact that the adjournment hour has arrived. I would ask the house to give consideration to changing the order of business for tomorrow so that this important matter could be concluded. I think the tenor of the debate is set now. There are other speakers who wish to speak, so I ask the government to give consideration to changing the order of business so that tlje debate can be concluded tomorrow.


Eric Alfred Winkler: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as there was unanimous consent at 10.30-I think the hon. member for Timiskaming agreed-to proceed with our discussion in order that-


William Arnold Peters: We agreed not to disagree at the time.


Mr. Fisher:: Fifteen minutes.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Anyway, we agreed to proceed in order that some progress might be made. Then we had an intervention on the part of a member of the treasury benches across the way, which seemed to me to spark things out of proportion to the advice given by the Minister of Justice several nights ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is the absolute truth, and if hon. members do not like it, it is still the truth.

As we proceeded this evening it became apparent that there was a technical matter involved, and goodness knows the house has warned the government in the course of this week. I think if the government anticipates being flexible in this matter we should be prepared to sit here until four o'clock tomorrow morning until they realize that we mean to finish.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Let me assure my colleagues on the other side that I have not changed my opinion that we should pass this measure at the earliest possible date, which seems to be getting later all the time.
Hon. members may recall a technical argument some evenings ago with regard to the same question. This is a legal dispute, so in this regard it is not for me to enter the matter this evening. But we should not try to limit debate because there are other people who want to make a contribution.
It seems to me that if one of our children breaks a window in somebody else's basement we sure know who is going to pay for it, and I suggest it is the same here. The only difference is that we have a great legal dispute which can be settled, and easily settled, by the government changing its mind again, as it has done before, and letting us proceed and get the bill finished tonight-not tomorrow or next week, but tonight.


Gilles Grégoire: 
Mr. Baldwin:: It is not often that I think along the same lines as the hon. member for Lapointe, but I find that I have written down three words-the words "pursuant to law", and applying them to this clause, the provision would then read:
A guaranteed student loan made by a bank to a borrower not of full age and Interest thereon other than interest payable under section 6. is recoverable by a bank from the borrower pursuant to law.
I wish to support the suggestion that this clause goes right to the root of the bill. It may be that on some occasions one clause of a bill would be ultra vires yet it would not affect the rest of the measure, but I suggest to the government that this particular clause goes to the very base of this legislation and if it were declared ultra vires the whole act, in my submission, would go with it. This is something which none of us here wish to see. I therefore make the suggestion and generally support what the hon. member for Lapointe said. I think the proposal I have made is an improvement upon what the committee has so far been considering, while still achieving what the hon. member had in mind. Possibly the government should give some thought to this because it would leave the situation covered by the existing provincial laws.
Loans to Students [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say only one word on clause 15, which reads as follows:
A guaranteed student loan made by a bank to a borrower not of full age, and interest thereon other than interest payable under clause 6, is recoverable by a bank from the borrower as though the borrower had been of full age at the time the loan was made.
Therefore, according to this section, a loan can be made to a youth of 18 years of age, if it is stated that the bank considers that this borrower who is not of full age is of full age for the purpose. It is an extraordinary thing, which has never been heard of in Canada.
Let us therefore respect the code that exists in each of the Canadian provinces.
For me, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berthier-MaskinongS-De-lanaudiere (Mr. Paul) is entirely in accordance with the rules and regulations if it reads as follows:
The whole In accordance with the provincial acts, concerning legal capacity to the extent that such acts are applicable.
By clause 15, a borrower who is not of full age becomes of full age through some kind of magic trick.
For instance, it is strange that in business -I myself am in the automobile business- if I sell a car-


William Arnold Peters: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it would appear to me that this matter has been drawn to the attention of the committee and unless the government is prepared to give some indication that the argument now taking place is producing some results I would ask you again to call it adjournment time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, when we agreed to sit beyond the regular time it was suggested to us it might take 15 minutes or half an hour or that we would certainly be able to finish within a reasonable time. If there is no hope of finding some rapprochement between the two points of view that have been expressed, it seems to me we should either agree to settle this matter by 11.30 or we should call it 10.30 and try to reach some agreement to deal with this legislation tomorrow morning, instead of going on with the estimates. Certainly we are not going to sit until four o'clock in the morning listening to constant reiteration of

Loans to Students
points of view, unless there is some hope of reaching a settlement.


Paul Raymond Martineau: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, if the government would give some indication as to what it intends to do we might be out of here in a few minutes.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I think it has been clear from the beginning of this debate that the government feels this clause is necessary. I am not a lawyer but on the basis of the advice I have received I state that in the opinion of the government the amendment before the committee would nullify this clause for all practical purposes and we might just as well not have this legislation at all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: This is the opinion of the government. I do not say it is your opinion but it is our opinion, and when I say that I do so on the advice I have received. So I would respectfully suggest that we vote on the amendment, which the government is not in a position to support.


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I ask the minister a question? If what he says is true, that the amendment would void the purpose of the clause itself, is that not an implicit admission that the government is legislating in the provincial field?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It certainly is not, Mr. Chairman, and this has been made clear. First of all, it has been made clear tonight and it was certainly made clear before in the early stages of the debate. I have tried to the reasonably patient-


Paul Raymond Martineau: You had better be patient for a little while yet.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: -but I would respectfully suggest that we vote on the amendment before the committee.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I have indeed listened carefully to the arguments of the Minister of Finance, as well as to those of three other Conservative members who spoke before him.


William Arnold Peters: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I insist that you observe the clock.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: An 11.30 deadline.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I insist that you observe the clock.


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Chairman, I think it is the desire of all hon. members, as expressed by the leader of the New Democratic party, that we carry on until 11.30 to see if we cannot finish this important legislation tonight, so that students will be able to take advantage of it this year.


An hon. Member:: Threats.


John Watson MacNaught: No, no threats.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Is it agreed that the committee carry on until 11.30?


Gilles Grégoire: I shall take only five or six minutes of the time left until 11.30.


Norman Platt Lambert: Split it in two.


Gilles Grégoire: Would the hon. member for Edmonton West wish to take the floor again on that matter? He discussed the legislation as long as he wished, a while ago. If he had put a cork on his jug, then our business would have advanced faster.
Mr. Chairman, I listened closely to the remarks made by the Minister of Public Works for whom I have much sympathy. However, his observation did not convince me. I submit that this legislation is of a banking nature rather than concerning the legal capacity of minors and I do not agree with him at all. He is wrong. At that rate, the federal government could take advantage of any legislation and include a banking provision to interfere in any field at all. In such a case, we could say that the municipalities could use the Bank Act or that the banks could use the municipalities act. It is somewhat as if the federal government introduced banking legislation to help a municipality and passed an amendment to force them to hoist a union jack on the city hall. And it would be said that it came under the banks act. Come, now. The arguments he advanced sounded a little like that.
According to the argument put forward by the minister, it is true that a minor can do business with a bank each time it is to his advantage; but when it is to his disadvantage, let us say that a youth of 18 borrows $1,000 from a bank and instead of using the money to pay for his tuition he spends it to buy a car and has an accident on the highway so that the $1,000 vanish into thin air, then the civil code says clearly that the bank would

not be entitled to demand the repayment of the loan.
This is what happens-and the Minister of Public Works will agree I am sure-in the usual course of banking business. But why should a change be made under the students loans act? There would be no reason.
Now the minister says that if the amendment of the hon. member for Berthier-Mas-kinonge-Delanaudiere was passed, this would cancel the act. This is not true, because the bank would then be repaid by the minor; it might get repayment from the minor, unless it might be proved that he could not enjoy the loan.
If the minor used the loan to study, the bank will not lose anything under the guarantee of the government, and then the amendment included in the bill would not cancel at all the provisions of the bill as a whole. This is quite simple.
This would help the minors in general who would take advantage of the loan to continue their studies, but in the case of minors who would be at a disadvantage because of the loan-and this will happen-then the federal government will have to pay, under the guarantee it gives under section 7, I believe, of the bill. Section 7 has not been inserted in the bill for nothing. It is there for a purpose. That is when minors would use it.
As it stands now, however, the bill goes directly against the Quebec code of civil procedure. The Minister of Public Works should be the first one to realize it and we cannot accept that.
It is also contrary to civil procedure in other provinces. It is said that Quebec will not participate in the scheme. As far as we are concerned, we will let the other provinces vote on that. If they want to hang themselves, let them do it; indeed, that is what they have been doing for years by favouring centralization.
The other provinces are surrendering all their powers, all their jurisdictions to Ottawa. As for us, we will not participate in the program; it will not concern us. It is up to the other provinces to make up their own minds; if they want to surrender all their powers to Ottawa, if Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia and the maritime provinces want to do that, I could not care less, it is up to them to decide, not us.
At least, in our case, we will have fought for our rights. As far as clause 15 is concerned, it will not violate our rights, but they will be violated, in principle, by clause 12.
Loans to Students
You have all voted against the province of Quebec; and yet, I will remind the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume) that, yesterday, when they asked something to ensure the respect of their rights, we approved their request. But they have not returned the courtesy.


Some hon. Members:: Question. Question.


Gilles Grégoire: You can say "question" as much as you want. As far as I am concerned, I shall say what I have to say until 11.30 p.m.
Yesterday, we spoke to support a measure which did not concern us very much, concerning the respect of the rights of the Yukon and Northwest Territories. But on the vote on clause 12, we did not get the same treatment. As far as clause 15 is concerned, we are not going to benefit therefrom. We are telling the other provinces that we will give them our support to ensure respect of their rights. If they are against the majority, let them vote against the clause, but if they want to vote for it, let them do it, I could not care less.
In any case, the only thing I want to say is that the arguments of the Minister of Public Works as well as those of the Minister of Finance or his parliamentary secretary have not convinced me in any way. They succeeded only in showing me that their arguments did not hold water.
On that, Mr. Chairman, still respectful of the rights of the provinces, I resume my seat before 11.30 so that the bill can be put to a vote. As far as we are concerned, we will not be disturbed for all that. If nine provinces want to give everything to the central government in Ottawa, let them do it. Then, only one province will have safeguarded its own rights, and the nine others will be in tow of the federal government.
In short, the province of Quebec will be the second, because then there will only be associate provinces. We shall be able to discuss together certain matters of common concern to all, but there will be only one province, namely the province of Quebec, and nine other provinces which will really make one, so that, living side by side, we shall be able to co-operate with one another, enjoying rights conferred on us by a new constitution. Then, we shall form a new Canada.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the house ready to vote on the amendment?
Loans to Students



Amendment (Mr. Paul) negatived: yeas 34, nays 69.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, I was paired with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau); had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the clause carry.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gilles Grégoire: On division, Mr. Chairman. [Text]


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 16-Authority to enter into arrangements.
Gilles Grégoire: No, Mr. Chairman. I would like to put a question concerning clause 16 which reads as follows:
The minister may
(a) enter into arrangements with any department, branch or agency of the government of Canada or any other public or private organization or agency to assist the minister in carrying out the purposes and provisions of this act;
I hope the minister will not enter into any kind of arrangement with public or private organizations in the province of Quebec, that he will not interfere in a matter where he has no business, especially in the field of education. I hope clause 16 will not allow him to do that.
I would like to have the assurance of the minister in that matter.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The purpose is to permit the government to enter into agreements with any universities that may be delegated to act on behalf of the provincial authorities, and I can guarantee that if Quebec does not come in under this plan we will not be making any agreements with universities or any other private bodies in Quebec.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 17-Payment out of consolidated revenue fund.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I would still have a small question to ask. It should not take long, just a couple of minutes.
[The Chairman.]
A year ago, when we were dealing with municipal loans and, I believe, an amount of $400 million, I asked the Minister of Finance if he could not go and get the required credit from the Bank of Canada. Now, the Minister of Finance, or rather the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp), who was in charge at that time, replied that such a thing would not be possible for as large an amount as $400 million.
But since today we are only dealing with a small amount of $2 million a year, perhaps the Minister of Finance would be willing to make a test and go and get the required credit, not in the taxpayers' pockets in the form of taxes, but from the Bank of Canada?
The amount involved is small since it is only $2 million.
In 1939, at the beginning of the war, the Minister of Finance of the Liberal government got $200 million to place the country on a war footing. The present Minister of Finance would perhaps agree to go and get this small amount of $2 million from the Bank of Canada. I should like to have his comment on that point.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Chairman.
Clause 17 agreed to.
On clause 18-Report to parliament.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 18 carry.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the bill carry?
Bill reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Next sitting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting of the house; agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
acting house leader about the business for tomorrow and Monday?


John Watson MacNaught: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will take as the first item of business the third reading of the bill relating to student loans. Then we will consider main estimates;

northern affairs, forestry, and industry. On Monday we will consider interim supply.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the acting house leader why we will not be going on with Bill No. C-lll concerning certain fiscal arrangements, which was part of the program? It has been announced day after day as following the student loans bill, and was considered by the Prime Minister to be essential so that the arrangements can be made with the provinces.


John Watson MacNaught: The bill relating to fiscal arrangements will be taken up immediately after we have disposed of interim supply.
Business of the House


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I lodge a vigorous protest at this rearrangement of the business of the house, after we have been told time and time again that these legislative items would come before interim supply. Surely the government can stick to a program for two or three days?


John Watson MacNaught: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that interim supply is of great importance and it must be considered early in the week, on Monday.


[Stage Direction]
It being thirty six minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, July 24, 1964