1964-07-20

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Howard: Since Mr. A. E. Fry has been the superintendent of the Yukon Indian agency, upon what specific dates has he visited Telegraph Creek, B.C. and. for each of those visits (a) by what means did he arrive (b) how long did he stay, indicated by minutes, hours, days, or weeks as the case may be (c) did he meet with any native Indian people and, if so, who were they and for how long did the meeting or meetings last (d) did he meet with any people other than native Indians and, if so, who were they and how long did the meeting or meetings last (e) by what means did he leave?


Mr. Badanai:: January 5, March 16, June 21 and October 21, 1963. There is no detailed record of the meetings with native Indian people and other persons and the following is the only information available:
January 5, 1963: (a) by air; (b) one and one half hours; (c) no; (d) yes, the R.C.M. Police officer for one and one half hours;
(e)	by air.
March 16, 1963: (a) by R.C.M. Police vehicle; (b) two days; (c) yes, with various Indian people; (d) yes, conferred with R.C.M. Police and nurse; (e) by R.C.M. Police vehicle.
June 21, 1963: (a) by air; (b) the visit was for the sole purpose of picking up the Indian chief and taking him to Iskut for a band council meeting; (c) no; (d) yes, the R.C.M. Police officer for a brief discussion during the stopover; (e) by air.
October 21, 1963: (a) by air; (b) two days;
(c)	yes, but detailed information is not available as visits were made to most of the Indian homes in the community; (d) yes, the R.C.M. Police officer; (e) by air.


REGULATIONS RESPECTING WIRE TAPPING
Mr. Knowles: Are there in effect any regulations or orders in council, published or unpublished, respecting wire tapping of telephone or telegraph communications and, if so, what are the numbers and dates thereof?
20220-359i


Mr. Davis:: (a) There are no regulations or orders in council, published or unpublished, respecting wire tapping of telephone or telegraphic communications.
(b) Answered by (a).


SHARES IN FINANCE COMPANIES HELD BY CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Fisher: Do any crown corporations hold shares in finance companies and, if so, which corporations, which companies, and, to what extent?


Mr. Lamontagne:: No.


RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE IN POLAND
Mr. O'Keefe: Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs checked the accuracy of the report on religious intolerance in Poland where over two million children are affected or involved, as contained in the Globe and Mail, June 15, page three and, if so, what steps does the government intend to take in this matter?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: In connection with the question asked by the member for St. John's East, I would like to inform the house that I have asked our embassy in Warsaw to check the accuracy of this report of religious intolerance in Poland. I have now been advised by our embassy in Warsaw that the Globe and Mail article was substantially accurate. The problem raised by the Globe and Mail article apparently dates back to a law passed by the Polish parliament in the summer of 1961 forbidding religious education in schools. This law was interpreted by the Polish authorities as applying to summer camps as well, and priests have consequently been barred from conducting services within them.
As the house is aware, the Canadian government is against any form of religious intolerance. However, it is felt that any action taken by the government in this regard might have an effect contrary to that intended and could be interpreted as an intrusion in the internal affairs of another country. Considering these possible repercussions, the government does not propose to take action at the present time, beyond the informal inquiries we have made.

Questions


ARDA-OFFICE SPACE AND EQUIPMENT
Mr. Perron: 1.	Are the premises presently occupied by the ARDA administration leased and, if so, what is the amount, the duration and the conditions of the
2.	Do the office equipment and supplies belong to the government, or are they leased?
3.	If equipment and supplies are leased, what is the name of the lessor, and what are the amounts and duration of the leases?
4.	What plans are being proposed or studied by ARDA respecting works in the county of Beauce and what is the nature and probable cost of such works?

Answer: 1. 'We understand that this Question deals with the ARDA administration in Mont Joli. Therefore, it comes under the jurisdiction of the Quebec provincial government.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	The following project has been approved for Beauce county: Conservation of soil and water along the ruisseau des Castors in the following areas: St. Jules, St. Frederic, Tring Junction and St. Joseph des Erables.
The shareable costs amount to $66,071.25 and the federal contribution to $33,035.63.


*MAIN CONTRACTORS, SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN DAM
Mr. Fisher: 1 What is the name of the firm or the names of the firms which are the main contractors for the South Saskatchewan dam?
2.	Has the government received any representations from this contractor or these contractors regarding the financial terms of the contract and, if so, what is the gist of the representations and what response or consideration is the government giving to these representations?
3.	Is there any provision in the contract or contracts for a review of the price as a result of unforeseen difficulties and costs?


Mr. Hays:: 1. The names of firms which have had major contracts for the construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam are: Joint venture:-Peter Kiewit Sons Company of Canada, Ltd.; A1 Johnson Construction Co. of Canada, Limited; Pool Construction Company, Limited; McNamara Construction Western Limited; Piggott Construction Limited; Bedford Construction Company Limited.
Joint venture:-Emil Anderson Construction Co. Ltd.; Square M Construction Limited; Coleman Collieries Limited.
2.	The government has received two representations concerning the financial terms of these contracts, (1) Bedford Construction Company Limited asked to be relieved of

their contract obligations before the contract work was completed. An agreement was entered into whereby Canada has undertaken to have the work completed by another contractor, and Bedford Construction Company Limited has undertaken to reimburse Canada for any additional costs to Canada incurred by this arrangement, (2) The joint venture of Kiewit-Johnson-Poole has submitted a document requesting consideration of additional compensation for work carried out under two of their contracts in connection with the construction of the tunnels. This submission is now under study by P.F.R.A.
3.	The contract documents used in connection with the construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam are standard government of Canada forms. The standard form of contract used in all departments was changed on March 31, 1963, and consequently both forms are in use in contracts currently in force on this project. The new contract form introduced on March 31, 1963, has provision for price negotiation in the event of unforeseen difficulties in construction.


LETTER RESPECTING GEORGIAN BAY WATER LEVEL
Mr. Loney: Did the Prime Minister receive a letter dated April 28, from the Georgian bay development association and, if so, what action was taken by the Prime Minister to meet the serious situation referred to in the said letter?


John (Jack) Davis: The Prime Minister received a letter dated April 28 from the Georgian bay development association containing certain suggestions about the improvement of the water levels in the lake Huron basin. Action taken by the government concerning the water levels in lake Huron and Georgian bay has included an emergency dredging program, already announced in the house by the Minister of Public Works, and a request to the governments of Ontario and Quebec for their concurrence in a proposed reference to the international joint commission for a study of methods of regulating the whole great lakes-St. Lawrence basin, since the present regulatory regime under the international joint commission is confined to lake Superior, lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence river. In order to bring about some improvement in water levels in the St. Mary's river and lake Huron, the international joint commission recently authorized an increase in the outflow from lake Superior of 10,000 cubic feet per second in addition to the outflow called for by the rule curve.


CAMP IPPERWASH, ONT.
Mr. McCutcheon: 1.	What percentage of the facilities at Camp Ipperwash, Ontario are being used by the armed forces?
2.	How large is the area of the camp?
3.	How many acres of the camp are needed for present use?
4.	Has the study referred to last year re: the future use of the camp been completed and. if so, what are the conclusions?
Answer: 1. 100 per cent.
2.	2477.76 acres.
3.	All.
4.	Yes; the conclusions were that Camp Ipperwash is the only D.N.D. owned property in western Ontario with the variety of facilities needed to support the regular, militia and cadet training now conducted or planned for western Ontario and that it is to be kept open all year.


REDUCTIONS IN EXPENDITURES FOR RESERVE AND CADET FORCES
Mr. Coates: 1.	What has been the reduction to date in expenditures authorized for the reserve and cadet forces of the three armed services in the fiscal year 1963-64 compared to 1962-63?
2.	What is the proposed reduction in personnel in each of the above services for the next 12 months period?
Answer: 1. There was no over-all reduction in expenditures authorized for the reserves and cadet forces of the three armed services in the fiscal year 1963-64 compared to 196263. However, in 1962-63 there was an additional expenditure for the special militia training program and if this is taken into consideration there was an over-all reduction of approximately $5,790,262 in 1963-64 compared to 1962-63.
2.	It was announced on December 5, 1963, that it was intended to reduce the reserve forces as follows: R.C.N. reserve from 4,000 to approximately 2,700; the militia from
51,000	to approximately 30,000; and the R.C.A.F. reserves from 2,200 to approximately 860.


STRENGTH OF ARMED FORCES
Mi. Coaies: 1.	What is the present strength, all ranks, of the (a) Canadian army (b) Royal Canadian Air Force (c) Royal Canadian Navy?
2.	What were the comparable figures in each case 12 months ago?
3.	What are the estimated figures in each case 12 months hence?
Answer: 1. As at 31 May 1964, (a) 48,351; (b) 50,906; (c), 20,591.
Questions
2.	As at 31 May 1963, (a) 49,550; (b) 52,304; (c) 21,416.
3.	It is not possible at this time to forecast the strength of the armed forces on May 31, 1965.


HARBOUR IMPROVEMENT AND BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION, PICTOU, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What were the names of the tenderers and the amounts of the various tenders for harbour improvements and bridge construction at Pictou, Nova Scotia?
2.	To whom will the contract be awarded?


Mr. Deschatelets:: 1. S. Macintosh Construction Ltd., Stellarton, N.S., $4,940.20; Colin R. MacDonald Ltd., Antigonish, N.S., $5,080; R. A. Douglas Ltd., New Glasgow, N.S., $5,535; R. C. Goodall & A. E. MacMaster, Pictou, N.S., $6,390; Joseph Almon, New Glasgow, N.S., $9,750.
2.	Not known at present. The low tenderer has requested permission to withdraw.


SPECIAL VOTE FOR B.C. INDIANS
Mr. Howard: 1.	Is the so-called special vote of $100,000 for Indians of B.C. now apportioned on a per capita basis to individual Indian agencies and, if not, when will such a plan be put into effect?
2.	What criteria or guide posts will be established to ensure that the money will be fairly apportioned amongst the various bands in each agency?
3.	At the time the $100,000 was established as a special vote what was the date and the Indian population in B.C.?
4.	What is the Indian population in B.C. at the present time?
5.	In terms of 1964 dollars what is the value of this so-called special vote of $100,000?


Hubert Badanai: 1. Yes.
2.	Within each agency, the funds are apportioned to each Indian band on a per capita basis.
3.	This vote was established in 1927 at which time the estimated Indian population in B.C. was 24,781.
4.	40,955 as at December 31, 1963.
5.	In terms of 1964 dollars, the vote is valued at $100,000. In terms of 1927 dollars, the present value of the B.C. special vote is calculated to be $46,000.


*LOW RENTAL HOUSING PROJECT, SASKATOON
Mrs. Jones: 1.	When is the anticipated date for completion of the Cosmopolitan Courts low rental housing project in Saskatoon?
2.	What are the relative contributions to the oost of construction by various levels of government and organization (s) ?

Questions


Mr. Nicholson:: This being the first starred question asked by the hon. member for Saskatoon requiring an oral answer, I should like to extend my greetings to the hon. member before answering the question.
As to the first part of the question, the date is January 31, 1963. Answering the second part, proposed contributions are as follows:	province of Saskatchewan grant,
$169,140; city of Saskatoon grant, $62,400; Cosmopolitan international club of Saskatoon, $40,000; federal government share of winter works grant, $12,632.
In addition, a limited dividend loan under section 16 of the National Housing Act has been approved for $455,492. However, an application is being made to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to increase this amount of loan to $561,538. That application will receive consideration when it comes forward.
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saskatoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mrs. Eloise Jones (Saskatoon):: I thank the members of the house for their great courtesy.
I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General, who in reply to starred question No. 1,449 stated that the anticipated date for the completion of the Cosmopolitan Courts low rental housing project in Saskatoon would be in the year 1963. I wonder if the hon. gentleman would repeat the answer he gave to that question.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: If I said 1963 I meant 1965, and in the written sheet which was filed it said 1965.


FREE MILK FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN
Mr. Dinsdale: Did the Prime Minister, at Port Hope, Ontario, promise to introduce a system of free milk for children in school and, if so, when will the measure be implemented?


John (Jack) Davis: The Prime Minister said at Port Hope on March 5, 1963, that a Liberal government would take the initiative in formulating, in co-operation with the provinces and with farmers and milk distributors, a system of free milk for children in school. This has been discussed with the ministers of agriculture of all the provinces and there will be further discussions with them about the possibility of implementing such a program.


SUBSIDY ON WHEAT FOR DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION
Mr. Dinsdale: Has the government or any spokesman for the government promised to pay a subsidy for farmers who produce wheat for domestic bread consumption and, if so (a) what is the nature of this subsidy
(b)	when will it be implemented?


Harry William Hays: In so far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned, no.


SALES TAX ON HEATING DUCTS
Mr. Irvine: 1.	On manufacturing and fabricating air conditioning or heating ducts subject to 8 per cent or 11 per cent federal sales tax, whichever might apply at the time, on what basis do the following come under this tax structure (a) manufacturing or fabricating operations performed on the job site (b) manufacturing or fabricating operations performed within the building under construction
(c)	manufacturing or operations performed in a factory set up to prefabricate or manufacture these ducts and transporting of the finished product to the job site?
2.	If the tax assessment on each enumerated operation is not the same (a) what is the assessment of each of the above listed operations (b) upon what basis do the assessments differ, if such is the case, and for what reasons?


Mr. Benson:: 1. (a) The making or fabricating of air conditioning or heating ducts on the job site is not regarded as manufacturing unless the operations are conducted in a temporary workshop or factory set up at the site.
(b)	The making or fabricating of the ducts within the building under construction is not regarded as manufacturing.
(c)	Ducts manufactured or prefabricated in a factory are subject to sales tax.
2. (a) Sales tax applies to material content only, unless the ducts are manufactured in a factory on or off the job site in which case sales tax is payable on the selling price.
(b) The tax application differs since the tax applies to ducts manufactured and not to those made or fabricated on the job site or within the building under construction.


CONTRACT FOR POSTAL SERVICE, ANGLIERS AND GUIGUES, QUE.
Mr. Mariineau: 1.	Has a contract been awarded to ensure that, as of July 1, 1964, postal service will be carried out in Angliers and Guigues, in Temiscamingue county and, if so, to whom has the contract been awarded?
2.	Were public tenders Invited for this contract and, if so, who were the tenderers?
3.	Did Mr. Hubert Paquin, former operator of the service, send in a tender and was he informed that he was the only tenderer and that he would be awarded the contract?

4.	If the contract was awarded to another tenderer, why did the department change its decision and was there another call for tenders and, if so, was such an invitation made public and in what manner?

Answer: 1. A contract was awarded to Mr. Henri Barrette on the 27th May, 1964. He was notified that the commencement date would be July 1, 1964.
2.	Yes. Mr. Hubert Paquin submitted the only tender at $2,825 which was excessive and, in accordance with section 26 of the Post Office Act, Mr. Paquin was given an opportunity to revise his tender. He reduced the amount of his tender to $2,403.84. As this offer was still considered to be too high, offers were invited from other persons in the area and the following offers were received: Henri Barrette, $1,900; Zacharie Gagne, $2,089.92; Hubert Paquin, $2,150 (new reduced offer).
Section 26 of the Post Office Act reads as follows:
"Where in the opinion of the Postmaster General the lowest tender received after public advertisement is excessive, he may refuse to accept any tender and may give to each tenderer an opportunity to revise his tender, and if a reasonable offer is received he may enter into the contract with the tenderer who has submitted the lowest reasonable offer, but if no reasonable offer is received the Postmaster General may either again invite tenders pursuant to section 22 or may invite offers from any person in such manner as he deems expedient, and an offer so received shall for the purpose of sections 24, 25 and 30 be deemed to be a tender."
3.	Mr. Hubert Paquin submitted a tender (see part 2). There is no indication or reason to believe that Mr. Paquin would be told that he was the only tenderer and that he would be awarded the contract as no such authorization had been issued.
4.	See 1, 2 and 3.


ROYAL COMMISSION ON BICULTURALISM- EUROPEAN STUDIES
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What is the name of the person representing the royal commission on bilingualism and bicul-turalism in Europe and what is the basis for his remuneration?
2.	What comparative studies is he carrying out in Europe?
3.	Will any meetings be held in connection with these studies and, if so, (a) where will these meetings take place (b) who will be invited to participate?
Questions
4.	Are any members of the royal commission being sent to Europe to assist in these studies and, if so, which members?


John (Jack) Davis: I am informed by the co-chairmen of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism as follows:
1.	Dr. Jacques Brazeau, $1,500 as a retainer.
2.	Under a C. D. Howe fellowship, a study of bilingualism and biculturalism in Belgian institutions. He will also assemble bibliographic data and information on studies of bilingualism and biculturalism which are currently being undertaken by European scholars in both Belgium and Switzerland.
3.	Professor Brazeau will meet scholars and public officials in Belgium and Switzerland.
4.	No.


CAPITAL GRANTS TO A AND B FAIRS
Mr. Hales: 1.	What are the names of the class A and B fairs in all provinces which have received major capital grants from the Canada Department of Agriculture for each of the last six years?
2.	Does the Minister of Agriculture propose to cancel these grants and, if so, effective on what date?


Harry William Hays: 1. Payments were made for major capital grants to the class A and B fairs listed below during the fiscal years as shown,
1958-59: Charlottetown Driving Park and Exhibition, Charlottetown, P.E.I.; Exposition Regionale de Quebec, Montmagny, Que.; Exposition Provinciale de Quebec, Quebec, Que.; La Societe d'Agriculture du Compte d'Artha-baska, Victoriaville, Que.; La Socidt6 d'Agriculture du Compte de Chicoutimi, Chicoutimi, Que.; La Society d'Agriculture du Comptd de Roberval, Roberval, Que.; Societe d'Agricul-ture du Compte de Richelieu, Sorel, Que.; Belleville Agricultural Society, Belleville, Out.; Lindsay Central Exhibition, Lindsay, Ont.; Western Fair, London, Ont.; Aylmer Fair, Aylmer, Ont.; County of Peel Agricultural Society, Brampton, Ont.; Moore Agricultural Society, Brigden, Ont.; Carp Agricultural Society, Carp, Ont.; Canadian Lakehead Exhibition, Fort William, Ont.; Kingston and District Agricultural Society, Kingston, Ont.; Leamington District Agricultural Society, Leamington, Ont.; East Peterborough Agricultural Society, Norwood, Ont.; Dufferin Agricultural Society, Orangeville, Ont.; Renfrew Agricultural Society, Renfrew, Ont.; Woodstock Agricultural Society, Woodstock, Ont.; The Provincial Exhibition of Manitoba, Brandon, Man.; Dauphin Agricultural Society, Dauphin, Man.; Portage In-

Questions
dustrial Exhibition, Portage La Prairie, Man.; Prince Albert Exhibition, Prince Albert, Sask.; Estevan Agricultural Society, Estevan, Sask.; Moose Jaw Exhibition Company, Moose Jaw, Sask.; Yorkton Agricultural and Industrial Exhibition, Yorkton, Sask.; Red Deer Agricultural Society, Red Deer, Alta.; Chilliwack Agricultural Association, Chilliwack, B.C.
1959-	60: Charlottetown Driving Park and Exhibition, Charlottetown, P.E.I.; Exposition Regionale de Quebec, Montmagny, Que.; Exposition Provinciale de Quebec, Quebec, Que.; Canada's Great Eastern Exhibition, Sherbrooke, Que.; Societe d'Agriculture du District de St. Hyacinthe, St. Hyacinthe, Que.; La Societe d'Agriculture du District de Rimouski, Rimouski, Que.; Societe d'Agriculture du Compte de Richelieu, Sorel, Que.; Belleville Agricultural Society, Belleville, Ont.; The Peterborough Exhibition, Peterborough, Ont.; Ancaster Agricultural Society, Ancaster, Ont.; Lincoln District Agricultural Society, Beams-ville, Ont.; County of Peel Agricultural Society, Brampton, Ont.; Moore Agricultural Society, Brigden, Ont.; Dresden Agricultural Society, Dresden, Ont.; Leamington District Agricultural Society, Leamington, Ont.; Hal-ton Agricultural Society, Milton, Ont.; East Peterborough Agricultural Society, Norwood, Ont.; Duflerin Agricultural Society, Orangeville, Ont.; Renfrew Agricultural Society, Renfrew, Ont.; County of Carleton Agricultural Society, Richmond, Ont.; Ridgetown District Agricultural Society, Ridgetown, Ont.; Walkerton Agricultural Society, Walkerton, Ont.; The Provincial Exhibition of Manitoba, Brandon, Man.; Dufferin Agricultural Society, Carman, Man.; Prince Albert Exhibition, Prince Albert, Sask.; Moose Jaw Exhibition Company, Moose Jaw, Sask.; Yorkton Agricultural and Industrial Exhibition, Yorkton, Sask.; Camrose Agricultural Society, Camrose, Alta.; Lethbridge and District Exhibition and Rodeo, Lethbridge, Alta.; Red Deer Agricultural Society, Red Deer, Alta.; Vegreville Agricultural Society, Vegreville, Alta.; Interior Provincial Exhibition, Armstrong, B.C.; Chilliwack Agricultural Association, Chilliwack, B.C.; Cowichan Agricultural and Industrial Exhibition, Duncan, B.C.
1960-	61: Charlottetown Driving Park and Exhibition, Charlottetown, P.E.I.; Nova Scotia Provincial Exhibition, Truro, N.S.; Annapolis County Exhibition, Lawrencetown, N.S.; Cumberland County Exhibition, Oxford, N.S.; Hants County Exhibition, Windsor, N.S.; Exposition Regionale de Quebec, Montmagny, Que.; Societe d'Agriculture du District de St. Hyacinthe, St. Hyacinthe, Que.; La Commis-

sion du Terrain de L'Exposition, Trois Rivieres, Que.; La Societe d'Agriculture du Compte de Chicoutimi, Chicoutimi, Que.; Brome County Agriculture Society, Knowl-ton, Que.; La Societe d'Agriculture du Compte de Roberval, Roberval, Que.; Shawville Fair, Shawville, Que.; Societe d'Agriculture du Compte de Richelieu, Sorel, Que.; La Soci6t6 d'Agriculture du Compte de Kamouraska, St. Pascal, Que.; Belleville Agricultural Society, Belleville, Ont.; South Waterloo Agricultural Society, Galt, Ont.; Norfolk County Agricultural Society, Simcoe, Ont.; Moore Agricultural Society, Brigden, Ont.; Dresden Agricultural Society, Dresden, Ont.; Dufferin Agricultural Society, Orangeville, Ont.; Renfrew Agricultural Society, Renfrew, Ont.; Stratford Agricultural Society, Stratford, Ont.; Woodstock Agricultural Society, Woodstock Ont.; The Provincial Exhibition of Manitoba, Brandon, Man.; The Red River Exhibition Association, Winnipeg, Man.; Portage Industrial Exhibition, Portage La Prairie, Man.; Moose Jaw Exhibition Company, Moose Jaw, Sask.; Swift Current Agricultural and Exhibition Association, Swift Current, Sask.; Yorkton Agricultural and Industrial Exhibition, Yorkton, Sask.; Red Deer Agricultural Society, Red Deer, Alta.; Vermilion Agricultural Society, Vermilion, Alta.; Interior Provincial Exhibition, Armstrong, B.C.; Chilliwack Agricultural Association, Chilliwack, B.C.; Cowichan Agricultural and Industrial Exhibition, Duncan, B.C.
1961-62:	Lunenberg County Exhibition,
Bridgewater, N.S.; Cumberland County Exhibition, Oxford, N.S.; Yarmouth County Agricultural Society, Yarmouth, N.S.; Canada's Great Eastern Exhibition, Sherbrooke, Que.; La Commission du Terrain de L'Exposition, Trois Rivieres, Que.; Shawville Fair, Shawville, Que.; Exposition Ste. Scholastique, St. Scholastique, Que.; Soci6t6 d'Agriculture du Compte de Richelieu, Sorel, Que.; La Soci6t6 d'Agriculture du Compte de Kamouraska, St. Pascal, Que.; South Waterloo Agricultural Society, Galt, Ont.; Lincoln District Agricultural Society, Beamsville, Ont.; Caledonia Agricultural Society, Caledonia, Ont.; Dresden Agricultural Society, Dresden, Ont.; Elmira and Woolwich Agricultural Society, Elmira, Ont.; Kenyon Agricultural Society, Maxville, Ont.; Dufferin Agricultural Society, Orangeville, Ont.; Paris Agricultural Society, Paris, Ont.; Petrolia and Enniskillen Agricultural Society, Petrolia, Ont.; North Wentworth Agricultural Society, Rockton, Ont.; Stratford Agricultural Society, Stratford,

Ont.; The Red River Exhibition Association, Winnipeg, Man.; Dufferin Agricultural Society, Carman, Man.; Virden Agricultural Society, Virden, Man.; Prince Albert Exhibition, Prince Albert, Sask.; Moose Jaw Exhibition Company, Moose Jaw, Sask.; Weyburn Agricultural Society, Weyburn, Sask.; Camrose Agricultural Society, Camrose, Alta.; Lethbridge and District Exhibition and Rodeo, Lethbridge, Alta.; Red Deer Agricultural Society, Red Deer, Alta.; Vegreville Exhibition Association Ltd., Vegreville, Alta.; Vermilion Agricultural Society, Vermilion, Alta.; Lower Fraser Valley Exhibition Association, Clover-dale, B.C.
1962-	63: Charlottetown Driving Park and Exhibition, Charlottetown, P.E.I.; Society d'Agriculture du District de St. Hyacinthe, St. Hyacinthe, Que.; La Commission du Terrain de L'Exposition, Trois Rivieres, Que.; La Societe d'Agriculture du Compte de Rob-erval, Roberval, Que.; Exposition Ste. Schol-astique, Ste. Scholastique, Que.; Societe d'Agriculture du Compte de Richelieu, Sorel, Que.; Moore Agricultural Society, Brigden, Ont.; Hanover, Bentinck and Brant Agricultural Society, Hanover, Ont.; Leamington District Agricultural Society, Leamington, Ont.; Markham Fair, Markham, Ont.; Kenyon Agricultural Society, Maxville, Ont.; Metcalfe Agricultural Society, Metcalfe, Ont.; Lennox District Agricultural Society, Napanee, Ont.; Cumberland Township Agricultural Society, Navan, Ont.; Dufferin Agricultural Society, Orangeville, Ont.; Paris Agricultural Society, Paris, Ont.; Petrolia and Enniskillen Agricultural Society, Petrolia, Ont.; Strathroy Agricultural Society, Strathroy, Ont.; Woodstock Agricultural Society, Woodstock, Ont.; The Provincial Exhibition of Manitoba, Brandon, Man.; The Red River Exhibition Association, Winnipeg, Man.; Dufferin Agricultural Society, Carman, Man.; Portage Industrial Exhibition, Portage La Prairie, Man.; Virden Agricultural Society, Virden, Man.; Melfort Agricultural Society, Melfort, Sask.; Moose Jaw Agricultural and Exhibition Association, Moose Jaw, Sask.; Pacific National Exhibition, Vancouver, B.C.; Central Fraser Valley Fairs Association, Abbotsford, B.C.; Chilliwack Agricultural Association, Chilliwack, B.C.; Lower Fraser Valley Exhibition Association, Cloverdale, B.C.; Cowichan Agricultural and Industrial Exhibition, Duncan, B.C.; North and South Saanich Agricultural Society, Saanichton, B.C.
1963-	64:	La Societe d'Agriculture du
Compte de Roberval, Roberval, Que.; Moore
Questions
Agricultural Society, Brigden, Ont.; Hanover, Bentinck and Brant Agricultural Society, Hanover, Ont.; Markham Fair, Markham, Ont.; Pacific National Exhibition, Vancouver, B.C.
2. No. The entire assistance program to fairs and exhibitions is presently under review.


INDIAN STUDENTS AT ST. ANNE'S SCHOOL, FORT WILLIAM, ONT.
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Were the school children from the Fort William reserve, who were sent to St. Anne's school in Fort William, sent there with the approval of their parents?
2.	Did a representative of the Indian affairs branch meet with the parents on October 2. 1963, and tell the parents that unless the children enrolled at St. Anne's school they would not be able to attend any school at all for the rest of the term?
3.	Are the Indian students attending St. Anne's school required to eat their lunch in a room separate from the non-Indians and, if so, who ordered this procedure?


Hubert Badanai: 1. Yes, on the understanding no alternative arrangement could be made for the children's education.
2.	At the meeting referred to above, the district superintendent of schools advised the parents that up to that date he had been unable to secure the services of a teacher for the reserve school and it was unlikely that he would be able to secure one for the remainder of the school year. The only alternative would be to send the children to a separate school in Fort William where he had been able to secure their admission. The parents were asked if they would support such arrangements.
3.	From inquiries made by the department it is understood that, at the outset, all children who brought their lunches were required to eat them in one of three classrooms, but there was no assignment of pupils to the rooms. Discipline problems developed and some of the older Indian pupils believed to be responsible were assigned by the principal to eat their lunches in a room under supervision. Indian students not connected with the misbehaviour were free to select from the three classrooms the place in which they wished to eat their lunches.


RACE TRACK BETTING
Mr. Coates: 1. What amounts were wagered in Canada in 1959,	1960, 1961,	1962 and 1963, in parimutuel
betting at race tracks?

Questions
2. What amounts were secured by the federal and
provincial governments from parimutuel betting in the years noted above?


Harry William Hays: 1. 1959, $134,215,976; 1960, $141,419,679; 1961, $163,258,089; 1962, $180,422,650; 1963, $203,056,267.
2.
	Provincial tax	Federal levy
1959	$ 9,243,601.69	$ 671,042.661960	9,578,475.38	707,063.361961	11,036,002.58	816,246.331962	12,248,472.12	902,062.251963	13,783,104.32	1,015,223.04


INVESTIGATION OF GOVERNMENT SWEEPSTAKES
Mr. Coates: Is it the intention of the government to institute investigations in countries with government sponsored sweepstakes, such as Ireland, to determine the per capita involvement of citizens in such a scheme?


John (Jack) Davis: No.


PROVISION FOR CELEBRATION OF DOMINION DAY ON MONDAY
Mrs. Jones: Will the government consider the advisability of amending the present statutes in order to provide for the celebration of Dominion day on a Monday so that urban dwellers in particular will be able to enjoy a long holiday week end?


John (Jack) Davis: The government is not contemplating such legislation at the present time.


ST. SYLVESTRE RADAR STATION-LOCAL EFFECT OF CLOSING
Mr. Choqueile: To what extent has the local economy of St. Sylvestre, Lotbiniere county, been improved by the operation of the St. Sylvestre radar station and to what extent will it be affected by the closing down of the said station?

Answer: No records have been maintained of the financial effect on the local economy of operating the R.C.A.F. radar station at St. Sylvestre.


ST. SYLVESTRE RADAR STATION  USE BY PRIVATE CONCERNS
Mr. Choqueile: 1.	Have governmental authorities been approached by private concerns interested in using installations. equipment and buildings, located at the radar station of St. Sylvestre, Lotbinibre county?
2.	If such private concerns have approached governmental authorities for the use of the installation located at the radar station of St. Sylvestre (a) what are their names (b) what is the nature of each proposed project (c) what does the government intend to do regarding the projects submitted?


Mr. Drury:: 1. No. The area development agency was aware of a group which might be interested in the development of a recreational enterprise using at least part of the radar station as St. Sylvestre but a proposal to acquire the installations has not been received by the government.
2. See answer to 1.


ST. SYLVESTRE RADAR STATION-TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES
Mr. Choqueile: In view of the fact that the radar station at St. Sylvestre, Lotbiniere county, will be closed in the near future, have employees coming under the civil service commission been transferred elsewhere and, if so, where have they been transferred?

Answer: When the close-out of R.C.A.F. station St. Sylvestre was announced there were 41 civilian employees on strength who had been hired through the civil service commission. As of July 13, 1964, the following transfers had been made to the locations indicated:
Number of
Location	employees
Eastern Quebec headquarters and Camp Valcartier (army), Quebec, P.Q.	14
Defence Construction Ltd., Camp
Valcartier, P.Q.	3
R.C.A.F. station St. Hubert, St.
Hubert, P.Q.	1
R.C.A.F. station Rockcliffe, Rockcliffe, Ont.	2
R.C.A.F. station Bagotville, Bagotville, P.Q.	l
R.C.A.F. station, St. Margarets, St.
Margarets, N.B.	1
R.C.A.F. station Senneterre, Senne-terre, P.Q.	l
R.C.A.F. station St. Jean, St. Jean,
P.Q.	1
Total transferred	24
Additional transfers have been arranged,
to take effect in the near future, as follows:
Number of
Location	employees
Eastern Quebec headquarters and Camp Valcartier (army), Quebec, P.Q.	4
R.C.A.F. station St. Hubert, St.
Hubert, P.Q.	1
Department of Transport, Quebec,
P.Q.	1

In addition to the above, three civilians have signified they are not interested in transfer, one has resigned and seven are still on strength. Efforts will continue to be made to transfer the seven on strength before the unit is closed.


ST. SYLVESTRE RADAR STATION  MILITARY USE
Mr. Choquelte: Does the Minister of National Defence intend using the radar station at St. Sylvestre, Lot-biniere county, for some other military purpose, either for the establishment of a military camp or for use as a base for other operations?

Answer: No.


TRANSFER OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICE TO LABOUR DEPARTMENT
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Did the government or the Minister of Labour appoint a committee to study the recommendation of the Gill committee for the transfer of the facilities of the national employment service to the Department of Labour?
2.	If so, who are the members of this committee, and what are its terms of reference?
3.	Has this committee made a report and, if not, when is such a report expected, and will it be submitted to parliament?
4.	Will the facilities of the national employment service be transferred to the Department of Labour by an administrative decision, or will this be done by an amendment to section 22 of the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Mr. MacEachen:: 1. Yes. The Minister of Labour announced to the House of Commons on February 24, 1964 the formation of a committee to effect the transfer of the national employment service to the Department of Labour.
2.	Dr. George Davidson, the director of the bureau of government organization and secretary of the treasury board, Mr. George V. Haythome, the deputy minister of labour, and Mr. Laval Fortier, chief commissioner of the unemployment insurance commission. The principal task of the committee will be to consider the methods by which the transfer may be most efficiently effected within the shortest possible time, having regard to the unemployment insurance branch's operations.
3.	The Minister of Labour has received an interim report from the chairman of the committee and will be receiving further reports from time to time. The committee is mainly concerned with administrative arrangements designed to efficiently effect the transfer, and
20220-360J
Questions
it is not contemplated that reports of the committee will be submitted to parliament.
4.	Supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1965 on page 11 contains vote 7(a) to authorize the governor in council to transfer the national employment service to the Department of Labour.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. Irvine: 1.	What is the composition of the national capital commission?
2.	What are the duties and powers of the commission?
Answer: 1. The commission consists of 20 members appointed by the governor in council. Its membership comprises a member from each of the 10 provinces; at least two members from the city of Ottawa; at least one member from the city of Hull; and at least one member from a local municipality in Ontario and Quebec respectively, other than the cities of Ottawa and Hull.
Commissioners hold office during pleasure for not more than two consecutive terms, each term not to exceed four years.
2. The duties and powers of the commission are as follows:
(a)	Duties, to prepare plans for and assist in the development, conservation and improvement of the national capital region in order that the nature and character of the seat of the government of Canada may be in accordance with its national significance.
(b)	Powers,
(a)	acquire, hold, administer or develop property;
(b)	sell, grant, convey, lease or otherwise dispose of or make available to any person any property, subject to such conditions and limitations as it considers necessary or desirable;
(c)	construct, maintain and operate parks, squares, highways, parkways, bridges, buildings and any other works;
(d)	maintain and improve any property of the commission, or any other property under the control and management of a department, at the request of the authority or minister in charge thereof;
(e)	co-operate or engage in joint projects with, or make grants to, local municipalities or other authorities for the improvement, development or maintenance of property;
(f)	construct, maintain and operate, or grant concessions for the operation of, places of entertainment, amusement, recreation, refreshment, or other places of public interest

Questions
or accommodation upon any property of the commission;
(g)	administer, preserve and maintain any historic place or historic museum;
(h)	conduct investigations and researches in connection with the planning of the national capital region; and
(i)	generally, do and authorize such things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects and purposes of the commission and the exercise of its powers.


DIRECTIONS TO NEWSPAPERS RESPECTING EDITORIAL PAGES
Mr. MacRae: Have memoranda been Issued from the office of the Postmaster General to newspapers Indicating that the editorial pages in such newspapers must be placed within the first five pages of each issue and, if so, what is the reason for such interference with the press?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No. The department is not concerned as to where the editorial material is placed in any publication. However,, a postal regulation of many years standing does stipulate that publications claiming special second class rates must contain an endorsement, "Authorized as second class mail by the Post Office Department, Ottawa, and for payment of postage in cash, " printed on one of the first five pages or on the cover in which the publication is enclosed.


DAMAGE TO STATUE OF GENERAL WOLFE
Mr. MacRae: 1.	Has the statue of General Wolfe recently defaced by vandals at Quebec been restored and, if not, when is it expected that the necessary reconstruction will be completed?
2.	Have the vandals responsible for this been apprehended and, if so, what legal action was taken and what was the result of such action?


Mr. Laing:: The national battlefields commission which is the agency responsible for the restoration of this statue advises as follows: 1. The reconstruction is expected to be completed by May, 1965,
2. No.


* LETTERS AND PETITIONS SUPPORTING RED ENSIGN
Mr. Coates: What is the total number of signatures affixed to letters and petitions received since September 5, 1945, by the office of the Secretary of State, urging the retention of the red ensign as Canada's national flag?


Mr. Stewart:: The answer to this question is 149,465 as of July 15, 1964.


REPLACEMENT OF RED ENSIGN ON PLAINS OF ABRAHAM
Mr. Coates: Has the Canadian red ensign, destroyed by students of Laval University on the plains of Abraham, been replaced and is it presently flying at that location?


Arthur Laing: The national battlefields commission, which is the agency responsible for the administration of the park known as the plains of Abraham, advises that while the Canadian red ensign was lowered by students it was not destroyed and that the actual flag involved in the incident is flying at the present time.


FLYING OF NEW FLAG ON H.M.C.S. &quot;YUKON&quot;
Mr. Coates: 1.	Who was the officer in charge of H.M.C.S. Yukon when the new flag design was flown from the mainstaff?
2.	What were the names of the individuals who prepared the flag for flying?
3.	Was the flag manufactured during the period when the individuals in question were on duty?
4.	Who supplied the materials to manufacture the pennant in question?
5.	What were the names of the individuals who raised the pennant on the mainstaff of H.M.C.S. Yukon?
6.	Was the white or blue ensign retired during the period the new flag design flew and for how long a period did it fly?
7.	Were other ships of the Royal Canadian Navy in the area when the new flag design was run up the mainstaff and could they view it as well?
Answer: 1 to 5. The commanding officer of H.M.C.S. Yukon is Commander R. W. Cocks, R.C.N. H.M.C.S. Yukon left Halifax on 22 May 1964 on an extended cruise away from Canada which is not yet completed. The flag resembling the proposed new Canadian flag was made on board out of the stock of bunting held on board for the repair and manufacture of signal flags. As he was aware that the flag was being made the commanding officer assumes full responsibility for its manufacture and use.
6.	No, for a period of two hours, 13 June 1964.
7.	Three other ships of the R.C.N. were in the area at the time and it is possible that some members of the crew could have observed it.


PICTOU ISLAND, N.S., DREDGING
Mr. MacEwan: Is it the intention of the government to carry out dredging at Pictou island, N.S. during the current fiscal year and, if so, by whom and when will the work commence?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Yes, it is proposed to have this work performed by departmental plant. Starting date is dependant upon weather, and progress made on other programmed works.


PAINTING OF DOCK PILING, CARIBOU, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: Is it the intention of the government to carry out painting of the steel piling at the dock located at Caribou, N.S. and, if so, when will the work commence and who will do the work?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: No, not at the present time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: As this question concerns two departments it should be directed to the Prime Minister. It is in connection with the Cyprus situation and the apparent deterioration there in the relationship between the Cypriots and the United Nations force and the contemplated or threatened withdrawal by the contingents of Sweden and Denmark.
Is the Prime Minister in a position to say anything more than has appeared in the press in connection with this, and what is the present position in so far as the Canadian contribution is concerned?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the position, as the right hon. gentleman has stated, is most difficult and delicate. I am going to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to answer the question based on the latest telegrams which have come in this morning and which he has had more of an opportunity to examine than I have as yet.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman will understand that one would have anticipated this question, which is a proper question in the circumstances.
I would like to say in answer that the movement of troops and war material into Cyprus is of course a cause for legitimate concern. The concern of the Canadian government has been made crystal clear to the United Nations and to the countries directly concerned. Sweden and Denmark have now done likewise.
In my statement to the house on Friday I indicated the action which we had taken, in concert with certain other governments,
Inquiries of the Ministry to bring appropriate pressure to bear so that the arms build-up would be brought to a halt. In taking these actions we felt we were acting consistently as a member of the United Nations peace force in the performance of a task which at the beginning we all recognized in this house would not be an easy one. However, we did not anticipate at that time that the task would be made infinitely more difficult by clandestine action to build up the war potential on the island.
This is a matter of collective interest to all the contributing countries, and we are therefore taking collective action to obtain strict observance of the terms of the security council resolutions. Our permanent representative at the United Nations is today seeing the representatives of other contributors to the peace force, and at Canada's suggestion the group will be meeting tomorrow with senior United Nations officials concerned with the Cyprus operation. The object of what we and other contributors have been doing is to induce those directly concerned to refrain from exacerbating an already dangerous situation.
I said on Friday that the secretary general of the United Nations had made an appeal to Greece and Turkey and to the Cypriot communities. By that time there had developed a common appraisal of the extent of the arms build-up. The prime minister of Greece, Mr. Papandreou, has now replied to the United Nations secretary general and his ambassador gave me that reply this morning. I give part of it to the house. The reply, in part, reads:
I fully agree-
This is in answer to the secretary general:
' that the arms build-up in Cyprus must be halted. I am accordingly issuing a statement in which I call upon all concerned to rely upon the efforts of the United Nations peace force and the mediator for a final and lasting solution to the problems confronting Cyprus and I declare that I am looking forward to the full implementation of your program.
I may say to the right hon. gentleman that this morning I saw the Greek ambassador and the Turkish ambassador as well.


John George Diefenbaker: Certainly the announcement made by the prime minister of Greece is one which will be accepted with appreciation. I am sure, by all who desire to bring about an early ending of tensions and difficulties on this island. The Secretary of State for External Affairs says that strict observance of the terms under which the United Nations forces went into the island is being imposed in order to prevent an increase in the numbers of forces clandestinely infiltrating the island.

Inquiries of the Ministry Is the minister in a position to say what are the nature of the sanctions, if that is the proper expression, to ensure this strict observance; because certainly the experience of the last few weeks in what has taken place in Cyprus would not, without further elucidation, lead us to have great hopes for the future.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I would hope there would be agreement on the part of other countries concerned with the suggestion which has been made regarding stabilizing the situation, establishing a freeze on the importation of men and material and adopting certain other courses which have been proposed. As to whether these will succeed I cannot say, of course, but my right hon. friend may be assured that these courses are being carefully studied and discussed in the appropriate places.


John George Diefenbaker: If I may ask one other supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, it would be this. Has Canada joined with Sweden and Denmark and expressed a view similar to those views which have been expressed by the other two countries, namely that unless there is favourable action in this regard the Canadian forces would be in an impossible position under the perilous circumstances surrounding their operations?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, a close examination of what was said by the foreign minister for Denmark in the statement he issued on Saturday, and of the communication addressed to the secretary general on Friday by the foreign minister for Sweden, will reveal that there was no decision to withdraw. What was involved in those communications was the suggestion, in the one case, that a security council meeting be held, and depending on the outcome, the government of Sweden would then give consideration to its future participation.
I may say to my right hon. friend that some six weeks ago I indicated in no uncertain terms that the force must be given an opportunity to carry out its obligations and that, if it was clear that this could not be done, the United Nations would have to give consideration to the position of the force. However, I do not want to say anything which would suggest that in the face of great difficulties the United Nations, called upon to deal with a difficult situation, is not prepared to meet that situation. The very suggestion of withdrawal could open up speculation which I do not believe would be justified. Suffice it to say, having in mind contingency

plans, United Nations is taking every step to discharge its responsibility under the most difficult circumstances.


John George Diefenbaker: But matters have worsened so much in six weeks.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. While all members will welcome the assurance given by the prime minister of Greece to the United Nations, could I ask the minister whether any similar assurance has been received from the government of Turkey?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No similar assurance has yet come to our attention. I discussed a number of matters this morning with the Turkish ambassador.



ATTENDANCE OF CANADIAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the Warsaw summit conference which opens tomorrow. In view of the difficulties regarding protocol raised through the attendance of the head of state of the East German government, which we do not officially recognize, can the hon. gentleman tell us whether Canada's representatives will be attending the reception tomorrow for Premier Khrushchev?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know what the intentions of the ambassador may happen to be, but I will inquire. Canada usually seeks to be social and friendly in these matters, though such social intercourse does not imply ideological acceptance.


Robert Norman Thompson: I asked my question
because it is reported that various diplomatic representatives of the free world are seeking advice from their superiors at home regarding the situation. Heads of state will be arriving simultaneously tomorrow for the conference, not only from countries with which we have diplomatic relations but also from East Germany, with which we do not. I thought the minister might have a word for our representative in this regard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the ambassador has no intention of calling upon the representative of a state with which Canada does not have diplomatic relations. If Mr. JULY 20, 1964
Khrushchev knew the personality of our ambassador, I think he would seek our ambassador out.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in view of the interest in this matter. Is it not correct to say that representatives of the government of Canada have met with representatives of the government of China on occasion in order to consummate a wheat deal?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There have been occasions, I suppose, when that was necessary.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm reports that Arnold Smith, assistant under secretary of state of the Department of External Affairs, is likely to be named secretary general of the new commonwealth secretariat?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, those reports are highly speculative. There has not yet been a meeting of commonwealth representatives to discuss how this secretariat could be organized, let alone those who would be responsible for its administration.


Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Prime Minister received any word from some of the African nations indicating that such an appointment would be welcomed by them?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not received that information.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has he received a letter from the president of the University of Montreal students' union, the president of Laval University students' union and the president of Sherbrooke University students' union, asking
Inquiries of the Ministry that the study of Bill No. C-110 be suspended pending a meeting between representatives of the federal government, the government of the province of Quebec and the Quebec students' union?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the Minister of Finance to deal with that question.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the communications to which my hon. friend referred were received by the Prime Minister, who passed them on to me. I might say I have also received a communication from the prime minister of the province of Quebec.
I think I should remind hon. members that we had discussions on the question of student loans at the federal-provincial conference in Quebec on March 31 to April 2. Since that time we have had further discussions and conversations with officials of the provinces and, if I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to acknowledge the very considerable help they gave us in working out the details of the plan now before parliament.
The plan includes a provision that permits the government of a province to elect to stay out of the student loan plan and to receive equivalent financial compensation. I have been notified by the prime minister of Quebec that that province will take' advantage of this provision. I should add that Quebec has a comprehensive scheme of its own which includes not only student loans but bursaries and scholarships.
In view of the fact that Quebec will not be participating in the federal plan of student loans, and in view of the urgency to get this plan into operation in other provinces so that students in the other nine provinces can avail themselves of it in the coming academic year, I would not wish to see any undue or unnecessary delay in passing the legislation now before the house. I am sure that Quebec students would not wish to hold up this plan for the rest of Canada once they know that it will not apply directly to them.
I may add that I would be only too pleased on behalf of the government to see Quebec students or their representatives at any time.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.
Would the Minister of Finance, who, by the way, has just agreed to meet Quebec university students union representatives be

Inquiries of the Ministry prepared to consider the suggestion made by the students' associations that an equivalent source of revenue should be given to the province of Quebec instead of corresponding payments?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, this of course will be done. It is fully understood by both this government and the government of Quebec, and it is certainly fully understood by the prime minister of Quebec who, after all, is entitled to speak for that province.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance?
Since he is about to meet the presidents of the Quebec students' general associations and as it would be advisable for that meeting to take place before consideration in committee of Bill No. C-110, could the minister tell the house whether he is prepared to meet them tomorrow at a quarter after one?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am not sure that the hon. gentleman understood the answer I gave him a little earlier, when I replied to his first question. I think if he would read my reply he would understand what my position is. As far as making a specific appointment is concerned, if the students concerned would be good enough to get in touch with me directly I think we would make better progress.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice?
I know that the minister had the opportunity over the week end to review Bill No. C-110 and I would like to know if it is true that he now intends to recommend to his colleague the Minister of Finance to move an amendment to the bill in order to eliminate the provisions which violate the civil code, and in particular clause 15 of the said bill?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a request to elicit information that has always been considered as confidential between members of the cabinet; I do not think that I have to answer that question at this time.
I think that the best answer will still be in the way the bill is going to be introduced in the house.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, may I put my
question in very simple terms? Is it the minister's intention to introduce any amendments to this bill?


Guy Favreau: I do not think that we can, on the orders of the day, discuss a matter which in a few minutes will come up for debate with regard to a bill on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have tried to be lenient because the question is a very interesting one, but I must agree with the Minister of Justice and his interpretation.


Paul Raymond Martineau: On a point of order, I know the minister has made a very pertinent remark, but this is the position in which the house finds itself. In a few minutes we shall be considering the second reading of Bill No. C-110. Before we can vote on this bill we must know if the minister intends to eliminate from it certain sections, particularly section 15 which contravenes the provisions of the civil code of the province of Quebec. How can we vote on the principle of the bill without having an answer to this question?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the question period is not the time at which to give legal interpretations or to engage in extended discussion of a bill which is set down on the order paper for discussion immediately after this stage of our proceedings.


Paul Raymond Martineau: But on second reading we are not permitted to ask questions regarding details of the bill, and this particular question goes to the very heart of the measure. We shall be very glad to know whether the minister intends, as I think he does, to amend these sections which concern the civil code.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melforl-Tisdale):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Since an announcement was made over the week end by the minister of agriculture for Saskatchewan regarding assistance to the drought stricken areas of that province, and the house has not been informed of this agreement between the federal and provincial governments, will the minister inform the house now whether this

program will be similar to the one we implemented in 1961 and which was appreciated by the farmers of that area? Will the program include a freight assistance program for the movement of fodder to these drought stricken areas of Saskatchewan?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, when I was in Saskatchewan recently I arranged for P.F.R.A. to proceed immediately with an extension to the Meeting Lake community pasture which, along with some vacant capacity in the Spiritwood pasture, would enable P.F.R.A. to accommodate another 2,500 head of cattle. This was advertised widely throughout the area, both through the agricultural representatives and the press, but to date only about 100 additional head have been brought to the pastures.
This may indicate that in spite of the extremely dry weather the problem is probably more one of winter fodder than of immediate pasture or feed. There is no sign of any extensive liquidation of cattle. There are probably a few extra yearling heifers coming to market for which there is a ready outlet.
There have been some recent local showers in the north, particularly in the Melfort area, and where these have occurred the grass is reported to be picking up quickly.
The province of Saskatchewan is introducing a program of assisting in the transportation cost of moving fodder to the drought area, of moving haying machinery and of trucking cattle to feed. As was the case in 1961, the federal government will share the cost of this with the province on a 50-50 basis.
The community well drilling program has been extended for the fiscal year 1964-65. Under this program the municipality pays 30 per cent of the cost and the provincial and federal governments share the balance.
These are the measures which have been taken to deal with the immediate situation. We are discussing also with the province more long range measures to encourage farmers to provide fodder and water reserves against the eventuality of drought. I am not yet in a position to make a precise statement with respect to these, but I hope to do so in the not too distant future.
I should like to add that when applications are received from Quebec or Manitoba the same consideration will be given to these provinces, and to the province of Alberta, where these serious drought conditions exist.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Reynold Rapp: May I ask a supplementary question. The minister informed the house that there was some assistance from these local showers. However, they are too late. I think the government in conjunction with the provincial government, should take immediate steps to relieve this serious situation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister if, in the agreement with Saskatchewan, the government included any provision for the federal government to share with the provincial government part of the cost of feed and fodder to be shipped into the drought area?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I discussed this with the minister of agriculture from Saskatchewan, and the particular part they wish to play relates to the freight assistance, the movement of machinery and equipment and this sort of thing. We, of course, are sharing in this program on a 50-50 basis.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I have a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister advised the drought stricken tourist operators of lake Huron that no assistance can be given to them?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have been in touch with them and the matter is still under consideration. The kind of assistance requested and the way in which it was to be applied was not considered practical. We are giving further consideration to the matter.


Mr. G. D. Clancy (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is permissible at this time to ask a question supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Hum-boldt-Melfort-Tisdale of the Minister of Agriculture. I was very interested in his prepared statement, but he did not tell us anything that the government was going to do. What is the minister prepared to do to share costs with Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta? What are your plans, and why not disclose them?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister's statement was fairly long, and perhaps it would be advisable to read it in Hansard.



FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN RAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my question to

Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Transport and, at the same time, to rise on a question of privilege, because I feel it is of concern to a great number of members of the house, as well as to many farmers of the Saguenay-Lake St. John area.
I should like to ask the government whether it participates directly or indirectly in the experiments now being carried out in the Saguenay-Lake St. John area and consisting in cloud seeding, so as to induce more frequent rainfalls, which has already resulted in serious damage to our farmers, by preventing several of them to sow their fields already prepared for that purpose?
I would like to know whether the government is taking part in those experiments now under way, whether it has been informed of the matter, whether it has authorized the companies now proceeding with those experiments; in addition does the minister intend to conduct an investigation in order to determine who will be responsible and whether the citizens will receive compensation for damages suffered as a result of those experiments which moreover are prejudicial to tourists in the Saguenay-Lake St. John area who have left on account of bad weather.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am really afraid I was rather confused by the question. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would let me read it and try to give an answer later.



SOYBEANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent, Ont.l: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the house expect a very early announcement on the government's stabilized price for soybeans promised since March last?
Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to be able to make this announcement at the first of the week but I can do so now. The floor price will be $2.15, and this is the same as last year. It is not expected it will be used, because the price of soybeans is about $2.75.



ASSISTANCE TO MAPLE SYRUP


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.


Could the minister inform the house whether he proposes to meet shortly with the Quebec minister of agriculture to discuss ways and means of assisting Quebec maple syrup producers whose crop was a total failure last spring?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, we have had many representations from the maple syrup people. However, we have not had any from the minister of agriculture, but I will be seeing him tomorrow afternoon.


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Since the minister just stated that he will meet his opposite number from the province of Quebec tomorrow afternoon, can he tell us whether the question of Quebec maple syrup producers appears on the agenda?


Harry William Hays: I will be glad to raise this question with the minister when I see him tomorrow.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: On Friday I directed a question to the Minister of Labour in connection with a strike in British Columbia concerning Northland Transportation. I pointed out the serious effects of that strike and the protests received from the Kitimat chamber of commerce as well as others. Today I received a further telegram in this connection to the effect that the situation has deteriorated, and no action has been taken.
I ask the minister, or whoever is speaking for him today, to let the house know what is being done to assure that these communities which are in a desperate situation economically receive immediate relief from the serious conditions under which they operate, and also what is going to be done to meet the situation where segments of the fishing and mining industries are being brought to a standstill. The supplies required by the people served by this steamship line are not being delivered in consequence of the strike.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour has asked that I express his regret at being unable to receive the question the Leader of the Opposition asked on Friday. He was unavoidably absent from the house.
The question which the hon. gentleman raised was somewhat lengthy, but may be summarized in these words:
This is a matter engaging the attention of two labour officials and I ask that urgent efforts be made to bring about a solution of the problem as between the C.B.R.T. and the S.I.U. in order to end the inconvenience to these people.
The situation, of course, involves a dispute between local 400 of the Canadian brotherhood of railway trainmen and Northland Shipping. Mr. Tysoe of the Department of Labour and an assistant are on the spot prepared to offer any assistance that falls within their jurisdiction. The disputants have lived up to the terms of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, and it is therefore a legal strike.
Now, the question of what may be done to assist in bringing supplies and other equipment, food and so on, to the isolated communities concerned is a matter that the government will have to decide if this contingency requires its attention. The minister will be returning to the house this afternoon, and I will refer this urgent matter to his attention.


John George Diefenbaker: I understand the circumstances under which the Minister of Labour is absent, but this is a matter of very serious concern. It has been going on now for some six days. Is there not some action the federal government can take, such as sending an investigator out there? After all, whether it is a legal strike or not, thousands of people are suffering. The mining industry in the areas in question is in a position that is anything but favourable. The communities of Kitimat and others served by this steamship company require action. Will the federal government not send out an investigator? Certainly the presence of two labour officials has achieved nothing up to this moment. While the strike may be legal, the results are of such a nature as to deserve action by the federal government.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to bring the representations of the hon. gentleman to the attention of the minister when he returns this afternoon, but I wish to reiterate that so far as the jurisdiction of the
Inquiries of the Ministry Department of Labour is concerned, everything possible is being done.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it would be appropriate for me to mention another labour dispute which has been of very great significance both to myself and to the hon. member for Kootenay West. Though it is not a matter coming within the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour in Ottawa I want to say that the strike which began on the week end between the mine, mill and smelter workers' union and the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Corporation by negotiation has been successfully concluded, to the great satisfaction of all concerned.


John George Diefenbaker: I hope the government, in the case I brought before them, will act now and bring about a similar settlement.



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

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, this is a question I was going to direct to the Minister of Labour but in his absence, and as it may also be a matter for the Minister of Justice, I shall pose it to him. I preface it with this sentence; that a Peter Chutskoff of Port Arthur claims that Hal Banks put him on a 99 year do not ship list, with 1,200 others, and he has been refused a job because he is not and cannot become a member of the S.I.U. What steps are the government taking to prevent this type of discrimination with respect to these men being refused jobs on ships on the great lakes because they have been refused entry to the S.I.U.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I do not have knowledge of the particular facts in this case, and I shall have to confer about the question with the Minister of Labour.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I am a little slow in asking a question supplementary to the one posed by the hon. member for Bow River, but in view of the fact that Mr. Millard is reported as saying there was no discrimination in this case, and that we have been told in this house there is no do not ship list in existence, would the minister go into this question fully and report to the house later with respect to Mr. Chutskoff, who served in the merchant marine during the war and for 18 months in the Princess Patricia Light Infantry, to make sure there is no violation of the bill of rights or of the rights of this veteran, and that he

Inquiries of the Ministry is not being discriminated against by Mr. Paul Hall in the United States through some back door method?


Guy Favreau: The matter will certainly be looked into.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. May we take it from the statement made this morning by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and released to the press, that it is the firm wish of the federal government to have a conference on the Hall report within the six months suggested by the report? Can the Prime Minister tell us what prospect there is for holding a conference within that period?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the first stage of that consultation is taking place at the present time, and
I	hope it will be successful so we will be able to pass on without delay to the next stage.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. How much of an increase in unemployment would have to take place before the minister would consider taking off the 11 per cent sales tax?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am afraid I did not hear the hon. member's question.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: How much of increase in unemployment would have to take place before the minister would consider taking off the
II	per cent sales tax?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling that some hon. gentlemen opposite are confused by what is happening in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I read the other day that the increase in construction, according to the Maclean-Southam building news reports, was up 29 per cent for the five months ending in
[Mr. Herridge.l

May. I do not know of any single comparable period when the increase has been as great as that. I would also suggest to my hon. friend that later this week there will probably be an announcement about forecasts of investment expectations for the balance of the year, and I think he will be quite satisfied that there are no taxes that are stopping the expansion of the economy.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, seeing the minister is so voluble in his explanations I wonder whether he would mind telling the house how much of an increase in the cost of living must take place before the government will do anything about that.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think the country is going along pretty well, Mr. Speaker.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY BRITISH COLUMBIA    REQUEST FOR PARTICIPATION IN EXTENSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister arising out of a reported statement by the premier of British Columbia, presumably as a prelude to his forthcoming visit to Ottawa. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the premier of British Columbia has requested the federal government to participate in an extension of the trans-Canada highway from Nanaimo north to Port Hardy near the north end of Vancouver island. If so, has the federal government yet given an indication as to its position in connection with these negotiations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, that request has been made, and it is still under consideration.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister make a suggestion at the commonwealth conference regarding the possibility of the commonwealth securing its own distinctive flag?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. That matter did not come up.



INFLUENCE OF LABOUR AGREEMENT ON ZINC EXPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the fact that the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers has just signed an agreement with the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company which provides for one of the best package deals for labour in Canadian history, can the minister assure the house that he does not expect any change in the favourable balance with respect to the export of zinc from Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: am not aware of the details of the package deal to which the hon. gentleman refers, but I rejoice with him that a satisfactory agreement has been reached. If it will serve to perpetuate our past performance I can assure him we do not look forward to an unfavourable balance on current account with respect to zinc.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, July 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gordon for the second reading of Bill No. C-110, to facilitate the making of loans to students.
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, the question of education and training on a large scale takes on new importance in 1964. When we think of the fact that the young people coming out of our schools need more training and education than we ever needed when we finished our schooling, we cannot but realize the significance which legislators should attribute to the education and training of the rising generation.
The fact that the cost of education is continually increasing is another reason to attach importance to this question.
Recent statistics indicate that a third of the 282,000 Canadian unemployed are young people who probably are without jobs because they are ill prepared to occupy more important positions when they enter the labour field after leaving school.
The legislation now before us, Bill No. C-110, provides for student loans. The object
Loans to Students
of this legislation is most important and even excellent in itself. Indeed, it is very laudable.
However, even if those who put forward this legislation do intend to help the students, we nevertheless should look twice at their poor intentions before taking action, because I think that this government is invading a field which is not properly its own. As a matter of fact, one does not have to listen for very long to the protests with which this legislation has met to be convinced that there are many who dislike it as there are many who, like myself, say that the federal government impinges upon activities over which it has no jurisdiction. And, to add weight to the point I	am trying	to	make, I shouldlike to draw the attention	of	the house to	an
article published in La Presse of February 26, 1964. Under the title "Encroachment by consent", Mr. Vincent Prince states:
Could it be, by any chance, that Ottawa, under the cover of co-operative federalism, is trying to impose upon us	"encroachment	by consent"?
And a little	further on:
Just remember last year's legislation to enable Ottawa to grant loans to municipalities. Think especially of the federal plan now under discussion and which, this time, deals with financial assistance to students.
In my humble opinion, this is not co-operation of a federal nature, but rather an encroachment on federalism itself.
And a little further, he draws the following conclusion:
Ottawa tells tb provinces: "Let me look after municipalities and students for you. We are encroaching upon your jurisdiction but, if you agree, that becomes co-operative federalism."
Need I add that the students themselves voiced protests also and, at this stage, I refer to the comments and objections made by the various Quebec university student associations. All those bodies have expressed their opinions and objections to the authorities concerned. I should like to point out that, among those who have protested, there is the Laval University Liberal club; last Friday, one of its members stated that the legislation under consideration in the house is an encroachment of the federal government upon a field of provincial jurisdiction.
And what did Mr. Paul Sauriol say about that same legislation?
In an article published in Le Devoir on July 15, 1964, referring to comments made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne), Mr. Sauriol came to the following conclusion:
That is what is called respecting the rights of the provinces. That system remains unacceptable

Loans to Students
because the central government is taking the initiative in matters which fall exclusively under provincial jurisdiction, collecting and using taxes in that way for provincial purposes, imposing controls and the terms of its program even to the provinces which would like to be kept out of it.
Mr. Clement Brown, journalist for Mont-real-Matin, is also asking himself some questions. For instance, he wonders:
Who will decide and what will be the yardstick?
In other words, Mr. Brown wonders what will be the criteria to determine who will be entitled to a loan.
He goes on:
Will it be necessary to produce one's income tax returns both to the provincial department of education and to the banks managers who, in some provinces, will administer the loans? Incidentally, what have the managers to do with the financial structures of education and the relations between the students and the institution where they are studying?
Even some rather influential Liberal members have clearly expressed their views on that point.
I should like to put on record the statement made by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin) on March 18, 1964, as reported in Le Devoir:
Why should the central government help students by granting them loans while provinces could look after that much better?
And further:
Mr. Pepin advocated a new agreement on taxation sharing, stating that the present practices are based on wartime economy.
Another one who claims, Mr. Speaker, a complete disapproval of the federal government's intrusion in a field of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
What did Mr. Lesage himself say, the day after the last federal-provincial conference? Here is what he said, as reported in the Montreal-Matin of April 3, 1964:
We definitely cannot accept that, even in good faith, the federal administration make the mistake of encroaching upon a field which undeniably falls under our own jurisdiction and which moreover, we occupy, have been occupying for more than three years already.
Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but the Minister of Finance himself recognized indirectly that the field of education comes under provincial jurisdiction when he said, as can be seen on page 5443 of Hansard for July 14, 1964:
We recognize that the provinces are better able than the federal government to determine which students require assistance for the pursuit of their education in provincial educational institutions.

This, Mr. Speaker, clearly shows that education comes under provincial jurisdiction. I would like to refer now to the election campaign of 1960 in the province of Quebec when the present premier of that province, Hon. Jean Lesage, promised free education at every level in the province of Quebec.
If the Quebec premier promised free education it was because he was convinced that education was entirely and solely under provincial jurisdiction. I am sure that he would not have promised something which was not within his jurisdiction. I think that having studied the matter, he realized that education came completely under provincial jurisdiction.
As the minister himself admitted a few minutes ago, there is in the province of Quebec a scholarship system available to students of that province who do not have the money to complete their studies.
There are also honour loans granted by the St. Jean-Baptiste society to young people anxious to further their studies. I know what I am speaking about, because every year, I canvass the city of St. Hyacinthe and the neighbourhood, to raise funds, so that the St. Jean-Baptiste society might grant loans without interest to our young people who can give proof of their honesty and of their wish to improve their knowledge.
Mr. Speaker, the bill now before the house is definitely an underhanded interference on the part of centralists in a field coming under exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
I shall not make a complete analysis of this legislation from a legal point of view. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Ber-thier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Chapdelaine) did make such a complete analysis. They stated the objections that we, from the province of Quebec, should put forward to oppose this legislation and to suggest to the proper authorities, and more particularly to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), to take the necessary steps and means to guarantee that there will not be another encroachment upon provincial autonomy.
When reference is made to provincial autonomy, that does not apply only to the province of Quebec. We must also protect the other provinces that have a direct responsibility in this field of education.
Let us, in the federal field, look after matters which concern us more particularly and which come under our jurisdiction. We have

to deal with enough matters of federal jurisdiction without continuously attempting to interfere with provincial responsibilities. Let the provinces look after their own responsibilities. Being closer to the problems, the provincial governments are in a better position to solve them to the satisfaction of the parties concerned.
Incidentally, I should like to ask the minister, in his capacity of Minister of Justice, and also as a representative from the province of Quebec, to speak up for his colleagues from the province of Quebec who surely must have made representations to him. Even if it is embarrassing to accept the suggestions of the opposition, I urge him to take all necessary steps to safeguard the autonomy, the prerogatives and the rights of the province of Quebec and of the other provinces. I also ask him to see to it that a committee of the house be set up, so that the parties concerned with this problem might have an opportunity to contribute to its solution.
You know, Mr. Speaker, that the people most interested in this matter, that is the students, do not fear to rise and object to a legislation which could be favourable to them financially. There certainly must be a very serious reason for that.
It is because these young people see in the present measure a serious threat to provincial autonomy.
The seriousness with which these young people approach the question might well be stressed, and they should be encouraged to keep on considering in this way the measures which have a great bearing on their future, and on that of their province.
If the present Liberal federal government has so much surplus income that it must enter fields of provincial autonomy, I would like to make a few suggestions to solve that problem. First of all, I would advise the Minister of Finance to withdraw from taxation fields belonging specifically to the provinces and to give them jurisdiction and the greatest possibility of acquiring, through taxation, the moneys they need.
If, after taking this action it still has too much revenue, to the point where it does not know what to do with it, then, I would ask it to abandon immediately the 11 per cent tax.
The legislation before us is certainly, as I said before, very commendable, but since it tends to diminish the influence and authority of other bodies, the provincial governments, and in my opinion, we, of the province of Quebec, should object. Besides, that is what
Loans to Students
I intend to do as soon as the legislation comes before us for consideration, and after the few remarks I still have to make.
I feel, as an obligation toward my electors of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, that I must do everything I can to protect provincial autonomy.
In 1957, when I first sought to be elected by my fellow citizens in my riding, I deplored at the time that provincial autonomy had not been respected by the Liberal government. I suggested that if provincial autonomy was not respected, if it was trodden underfoot, it was because here, in this House of Commons, the province of Quebec was not represented by members who had the provincial autonomy at heart and were ready to stand up for it.
At the time I made, in this respect, the following pledge: If the voters of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot honoured me by sending me to the House of Commons, I would seize every opportunity to stand up for the rights and prerogatives of the provinces.
I am repeating it because, by doing so, I think that I am helping not only the province of Quebec, but all the other provinces, because the latter should also have their jurisdiction protected.
Moreover, with regard to Bill No. C-110, unless some amendments answering the claims of my hon. friend from Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere and of my desk-mate, the hon. member for Pontiac-Temis-camingue (Mr. Martineau), be brought to this legislation, I shall deem it my duty to vote against the legislation, in order to protect the rights and prerogatives of the provincial governments in matters of education and training.


Mr. Macdonald:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the hon. member allow a question?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: My question to the hon. member is whether he is speaking for his colleagues from Ontario also in categorizing student loans as a grave menace.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It seems to me I said very plainly that I was speaking in accord with my responsibilities to my electors, and I said

Loans to Students
that in doing so I was not only rendering a service to the province of Quebec but also to the province of Ontario and all the other provinces. In this respect I hope the hon. member will devote as much sincerity to the discharge of his own responsibilities as I do to mine.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Certainly.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: When your party was in office you passed a law providing assistance to technical and vocational schools; do you not find that that was also an infringement of the provinces' autonomy?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That was not the same thing at all at the time, and it was even such a good one-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -the agreement that was reached was so advantageous that Hon. Jean Lesage said that he would like to have the Diefenbaker-Sauve formula.


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be rather brief this afternoon, since several members have already spoken on Bill No. C-110 concerning the making of loans to students.
First, I must say that I am expressing my own point of view and that nobody else in this house is involved in this respect. I am totally against the bill now before us, not because I am against assistance to students, for the students, as we know, are in urgent need of money, whether they are technical, high school or university students, since their holidays are rather short and it is somewhat difficult for them to find work that would permit them to pay their tuition fees.
If I object to Bill No. C-110, it is simply because, once again, the central government interferes in a field where it must not come in. In 1867, when the provinces got together to set up confederation, it was clearly decided that the field of education would remain under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces and that the central government would have no say in the matter.
In every province there is a system of education which meets adequately the needs of the children and the students. We fail to see why the central government should interfere in a matter where the provincial governments are doing a good job.

In the province of Quebec we have not only an educational system but also a system of scholarships, and some associations grant loans to students. We do not see why the federal government should put grit in the bearings.
I am absolutely opposed to the intrusion of the federal government in the field of education. However, I am surprised by the attitude of the premier of the province of Quebec who approves Bill No. C-110, when we know that, not a very long while ago, he stated that he would take legal action against the federal government should the latter implement Bill No. C-110.
Today we see Mr. Lesage act like a sheep as he always did when he was a member of this parliament, get coaxed by the federal government and accept without protest Bill No. C-110, which is an intrusion of the federal government into the field of education, an exclusive responsibility of the provinces.
One does not have to be a premier to understand that; the students themselves, although they need money and know that some help would be welcome, blame the federal government which intrudes into the field of education.
If we read newspaper reports we see that the students' unions at Montreal, Quebec and Sherbrooke universities ask the federal government to withdraw this bill pending a meeting between the students themselves and the government of the province of Quebec to discuss the matter.
Here is what a newspaper of Wednesday, July 15, says:
The students federal loan bill is questionable, because it is another intrusion of the Ottawa government into the field of education, and also because it is a poor substitute for free education. This program is a real compendium of the basic faults of co-operative federalism.
A formula so eloquently advocated by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis).
Moreover, I must say that for some time now the federal government has been endeavouring to centralize everything here in Ottawa by depriving the provinces of rights which confederation reserved for them, by invading more and more fields which had been made the exclusive responsibility of the provinces.
We have our school boards which are responsible for our children's education. When they are unable to do so or when they lack the necessary money, because the provincial or the federal governments collect taxes from the taxpayers, leaving nothing to the school

boards, the latter have to ask the provincial government for the necessary money to meet the needs of their respective parishes. We can thus see that the federal government tries to centralize more and more and we can understand Hon. Jean Lesage's attitude. In fact, in 1953 and 1954, he was advocating greater centralization here, in Ottawa; we are not surprised then that he lets the federal government intrude into provincial fields and infringe upon rights and prerogatives that are exclusively provincial.
As an hon. member from the province of Quebec mentioned last week, would that not be a first stage in a policy which will soon lead to the creation of a federal department of education? If we must come to that, it would be unfortunate that in 1964 hon. members would have been gulled by the student loans since, later on, they will have to answer to the federal department of education.
I do not think that the setting up of a federal department of education is the thing to do, because each province has its own mentality, its own educational system which meets its requirements and the needs of its inhabitants. If we are to pass this bill and set up in a few years a federal department of education, I believe that many of us will live to regret it.
As it is difficult enough to come to an agreement among the various provinces, more particularly when mutual understanding between the two great races in Canada enters into it, we should not widen the gap on purpose and aggravate the slight uneasiness which seems to exist between those two great Canadian races.
I am surprised that several pieces of legislation which are now submitted by the federal government apparently just seek to widen the gap between the two great races in Canada, instead of uniting them.
We have now a Liberal government, the Pearson government, which seems bent on widening this gap. It would be unfortunate that following this Bill No. C-110, and various other pieces of legislation, we should later on have to regret that the Liberal government which was to solve and unite everything in Canada, was the greatest disrupting agent of our times.
Mr. Speaker, I am against Bill No. C-110, because there is enough patronage now in the province of Quebec without any need of more patronage here in Ottawa. We have enough trouble with this scholarship and bursary situation as it is without our being
Loans to Students
subjected to this new form of patronage which is now familiar to us in Quebec.
We know that those who need money most often get the smallest scholarships and have the greatest difficulty in obtaining them. In short, when students are on the right side, that is in favour of the party in office, it is easy for them to get those scholarships, but if a student happens to be poor and his family's political allegiance is not to the government in office, that is where the trouble starts.
I see other difficulties coming up when the time comes for a student loan and a father or a son has to see the bank manager. There again, there will be some sort of muzzle, since the bank manager will surely be aware of the father's political affiliation, and that is where you will have patronage. That is where pressure will be exerted and the student's father will be made to promise that, if he wants his son to have his scholarship for the next five years, he will have to change his political colour, mind his tongue and stop discussing, or simply refer to the supposedly good legislation passed by the government in office.
Many employees of the province of Quebec have already been gagged. Just go and talk, for instance, to people working on roads for the provincial government. There you will find persons with a chain around their necks and who cannot utter a word because, should they speak against the party in power, they would simply have to go back home.
Do not be surprised at this assertion, Mr. Speaker, because as a result of a survey among the street sweepers and those engaged in road maintenance in my parish, I was not able to find a single employee who was not a sympathizer of the Liberal party or who had not been recognized as such for a number of generations.
I realize that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) is applauding, but I must tell him that the same situation existed when Mr. Duplessis was in power, just as it exists today under Mr. Lesage.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is not true. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
For several years I held the post of private secretary to Hon. Antonio Barrette, the then minister of labour, and I must say to the hon. member that whatever his political affiliations, any citizen of Joliette could do any type of work for the Quebec government; only his ability mattered.

Loans to Students


Gilles Grégoire: It was just as bad before.


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm says it is not true, I do not want to say he is wrong. But, just the same I feel that when a Liberal was hired the mayor of the parish or the contractor had only to say, like Mr. Duplessis: You shut up, you.
Mr. Speaker, there is also patronage with regard to pensions, whether old age pensions, pensions to needy mothers or social assistance. That is why I fear that, under the proposed scheme, the granting of loans will be left to the discretion of bank managers, and will give rise to political patronage in such a way that our students will be gagged.
Mr. Speaker, those are the few remarks I wanted to make. I do not intend to discuss the situation any further. I just wanted to say that I am not in favour of this bill and that I will have to vote against it if it is presented in its present form.
In conclusion I should like to move an amendment. Consequently, seconded by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), I move:
That Bill C-110 be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house, the government should bring in new legislation with a view to giving the provinces the necessary fiscal revenues to permit them to furnish to the students needed scholarships grants.
Mr. Speaker, I am sending you copies of this amendment, in French and in English, so that the two great races may-


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


Pierre-André Boutin: Certainly.


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that the hon. member who has the floor supports provincial patronage, but that he is against federal patronage?


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, I have just stated that Bill No. C-110 is a way of practising patronage.
If I am against patronage at the provincial level, for highways, hospital insurance or loans to students, it stands to reason that I am against federal patronage.
I feel that there is already enough patronage in the postal service or in the agricultural field, for instance. As a matter of fact, one wonders what is wrong when all the money of Canadian taxpayers is given to one part of Canada, at the expense of the taxpayers of the other part.
That is why I am against Bill No. C-110, which is a form of federal patronage.


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member not feel that his amendment proposes the establishment of a provincial program and that it would amount to the same thing?


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, if the matter is simply one of patronage, I prefer that patronage should be left to the provincial government; I would rather have provincial than federal patronage.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow me a question?


Pierre-André Boutin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member mean that if there is something wrong in the province of Quebec, certain deficiencies, that the prestige of the province of Quebec will be heightened by disparaging that situation in this house?


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, for too long the Liberal and Conservative members from the province of Quebec have been keeping their mouths shut in Ottawa, and it is time to point out what is going on in the provincial and federal fields either in the House of Commons or in the Quebec legislature. This is not the time to keep on hiding those things when patronage is involved. It must be exposed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I will now read the amendment.
Moved by Mr. Boutin, seconded by Mr. Gregoire:
That Bill C-110 be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house, the government should bring in new legislation with a view to giving the provinces the necessary fiscal revenues to permit them to furnish to the students needed scholarships grants.
Before this motion is put to the house, I must say that the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) cannot second it, because he has already spoken during this debate.


Pierre-André Boutin: Then, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the name of the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Plourde) be substituted for that of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair would be glad to hear the comments the hon. members would like to make as to whether the proposed amendment is in order.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that this amendment is out of order.

It is somewhat similar to one that we have already dealt with, but in this case it proposes that the federal government provide funds for a specific purpose, incidentally not the purpose of this bill, which is dealing with student loans. It is proposed that we should embark upon a policy of scholarships, and it seems to me this is a matter involving financial policy that should be initiated by the government at the appropriate time.


Mr. Turner:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the amendment negatives the main motion and for that reason alone ought to be considered by Your Honour as out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, allow me to refer again to Beauchesne's citation No. 382 which also applies in this case. It is true that, under the proposed amendment, we are going against the principle of the bill, but, according to citation No. 382, page 277 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, we can move an amendment to or a motion against Bill No. C-110 now before us.
The argument put forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) is that this amendment is not relevant to the principle of the bill.
The bill deals with loans to students while the amendment deals with scholarships to students. But, if we take a second look at citation No. 382, we find that it deals with assistance to students, whether under the form of loans or scholarships.
Citation No. 382 states:

It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons lor not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or different from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill-

Then we wish to make a statement of principle adverse to the principle of Bill No. C-110. We want scholarships for students, instead of student loans. We want this to be done under the aegis of the provincial government, and not under the control of the federal government. This is therefore a resolution declaratory of a principle opposed or adverse to the principle or the provisions of Bill No. C-110.
Moreover, the amendment is not at all on the same plane as the one we proposed last week. In fact last week our amendment was to the effect that the Bank of Canada
Loans to Students
should allow the provinces to take their responsibilities in the field of education, whereas the amendment we put forward today calls for the federal government to hand over to the provinces sources of taxation large enough to allow them to provide students with the necessary scholarships.
The subject matter of the amendment we put forward today is therefore different from that of last week's amendment, since there is no mention of the Bank of Canada, but rather it proposes to use the moneys the federal government would return to the provinces. Therefore, I maintain that our amendment is altogether in accordance with citation No. 382.
Furthermore, the amendment is not, as stated by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner), a motion adverse to the provisions of a section of the bill, but rather to the principle of the bill itself, which is to facilitate the making of loans to students.
Since we are against the principle of the bill and, on the contrary, we want scholarships instead of student loans, I believe the amendment is quite in order.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I wish to speak on the point of order, to point out that the question raised by the amendment is substantially the question decided by the house last Thursday night and therefore, under our rules, is out of order. In support of this contention I would refer Your Honour to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 203(7):
Mr. Speaker Sproule on the 13th February, 1913, decided that a proposed amendment which was substantially the same motion as the member had moved on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, was not in order because "a motion must not raise a question substantially identical with one on which the house has given a decision in the same session."
Last Thursday night this house negatived very decisively a motion proposed by a member of the same group that the legislation should be referred back so as to expand the financial powers to the provinces.
The hon. member is raising the same question again in the most general terms and I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that since the house has already decided this question it should not be put again and that the amendment is out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, first I think one other correction has to be made. I believe the hon. member for Quebec West seconded the amendment of the hon. member for Roberval the other day, so if the amendment is found

Loans to Students
to be in order another seconder will have to be found for it. However, I think Your Honour will have to look very carefully at the wording of this amendment and that of the amendment which was put before the house on Thursday.
As the hon. member for Lapointe knows, and as the house knows, I am quite happy to argue as to the propriety of an amendment if it is in order, even when I am opposed to it in substance, but it seems to me there is a great deal of similarity between these two amendments. The one moved by the hon. member for Roberval last Thursday asked that the government present new legislation which would authorize the Bank of Canada to supply to the provincial governments the necessary credits to permit them to fulfil completely their responsibilities in the field of education. Now we are asked to support an amendment asking that the government should bring in new legislation with a view to giving the provinces the necessary fiscal revenues to permit them to furnish needed scholarship grants to students.
There are slight differences; the nuances do not compare exactly, but surely the principle is the same. We are being asked not to provide money for student scholarships directly out of the federal treasury but, instead, we are asked to provide the provinces with sufficient financial resources to enable them to fulfil their responsibilities in the field of education.
I submit that the two proposals are very similar. Indeed, if the amendment now proposed were in order, others, only very slightly different, could be produced, and so we could go on.
There is one other citation which might be looked at in this connection. It is citation 194(7) of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which reads:
A motion or amendment cannot be brought forward which is the same in substance as a question which has already been decided, because a proposition being once submitted and carried in the affirmative or negative cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the house.
I would point out that this citation does not merely speak of amendments which are precisely the same. It suggests that amendments cannot be brought in if they are the same in substance, and I suggest the amendment now proposed is the same in substance as the one we considered on Thursday last.
I was happy on Thursday to support the right of members of the Ralliement Creditiste to bring forward an amendment at the time they did, because I believed it was in order.

Your Honour gave the amendment the benefit of the doubt, and there was later an opportunity to vote on the matter. Having had that opportunity, I would hope the members of the Ralliement Creditiste would realize that they have had their chance and that their best course would be to withdraw this amendment if Your Honour feels it is not in order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a few words about citation 194.
It seems to me that if our amendment were the first amendment in this debate it would be in order, but according to the remarks made by the hon. members who preceded me and according to citation 194, our amendment would be out of order if it had more or less the same substance as the other amendment.
But, Mr. Speaker, there is all the difference in the world between these two amendments. In fact, the first amendment would allow for the passing of legislation to help students under the monetary system advocated by Social Credit, through the Bank of Canada, while the second amendment would provide for the passing of legislation to help the students under the present system, that is through taxation. That makes quite a difference.
With the first amendment a new monetary system, through the Bank of Canada, is suggested, while in the second amendment the credit now in existence and derived from taxes is used.
Hence I maintain that the two amendments are not substantially the same, but that they are completely different in concept, practice and application.
That is why I believe that our amendment is in order, according to citation 194.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before the Chair is required to made a decision as to the legality of the amendment perhaps we should first resolve the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with regard to the seconder. We cannot have a question before the house unless it has been duly moved and seconded, and there is apparently no seconder coming forward.


Gilles Grégoire: Would Your Honour tell me the number of the rule having to do with the need for a seconder?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is citation 165 (7). It is a well known rule governing our proceedings that we cannot have an amendment or motion before the house when the Speaker

is in the chair without a proposer and a seconder. No member who has taken part in the debate can speak twice in the debate and, of course, the moving or seconding of a motion is tantamount to taking part in a debate, which is the point drawn to our attention by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; and I believe it is well taken.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Plourde), the seconder of the motion, has not yet participated in the debate. Now, citation 165 specifies those who take part in the debate, where it is said;

But if the seconder should rise and say only a word or two, for instance, that he seconds the motion, he is precluded from again addressing the house.

But the hon. member for Quebec West, when he seconded the motion of the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), last Thursday, did not say a word. He did not even rise to say that he seconded the motion; he remained silent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I agree. If the hon. member for Quebec West has not taken part in the debate when he seconded the motion I would certainly go along with the proposition now put forward by the hon. member for Lapointe, namely that the hon. member for Quebec West should be allowed to second the motion proposed by the hon. member for Dorchester.
The motion put forward by the hon. member for Dorchester presents the Chair with a difficult situation, inasmuch as it resembles in many ways the amendment which was proposed previously. If it is substantially the same, then of course the rule applies and the matter has been disposed of. If it is substantially different, it may be that it does not fall under the terms of citation 382 to which the hon. member for Lapointe has referred.
Reading the amendment as I see it before me, it does not appear on the surface at least to disagree with the principle of the bill which is before the house. The hon. member for Lapointe has explained it in a way which would show it as being in contradiction to the main principle, but that is an interpretation placed on this amendment by the hon. member; it is not an interpretation which
Loans to Students
could be readily reached simply by reading the amendment.
I would be of the opinion that this proposed amendment does not contradict the motion before the house in the same way as the first amendment did. I would think it proposes a new principle, and without going into all the details I might refer hon. members to page 421 of May's sixteenth edition, which deals with the question of relevancy and which has been referred to on a number of occasions. Of course, if this is a new proposition it contradicts the principle of relevancy and is not acceptable. I would think the consequence of this amendment is really to negative the main motion. This is the point which has already been brought up by one of the hon. members who spoke in order to assist the Chair. The rule is set out in Beauchesne, citation 202(15), which I might read for the benefit of hon. members:
An amendment approving part of a motion and disapproving the remainder is out of order...An amendment was moved that the house welcomed certain terms of the agreement and condemned several features of it. The Speaker ruled it out because (a) the portion of the amendment which approved the agreement was useless as it suggested no change in the main motion, and also, (b), an amendment to disapprove what the main motion approves is nothing but an expanded negative.
In other words, according to the rules of the house, if a motion does nothing else except substantially negative the proposition before the house, the way to effect this is to vote against the motion. For these reasons -and I must say I have come to this conclusion after giving the matter considerable thought, because I feel this is a very serious matter and the amendment is an interesting one-and in view of the arguments that I have put forth for the consideration of the house, I must rule against the amendment and say that it is out of order.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, if there is anything I have learned in this house, it is patience; and I should like to acknowledge that the minister must be given credit for considerable patience, having sat in his seat and listened to every speech in this debate.


Mr. Monteith:: Why not?


Steven Otto: I would like to speak for a very short time on this bill because it expounds and has inherently in it, elements of reform thinking. It is a reform bill which we are being asked to pass. First, the minister has said that the purpose of this bill is that no student shall be denied a higher education

Loans to Students
merely because he cannot afford it or does not have the financial means. That principle has been spoken of many times in this house on this bill and I will not say anything further on it except that the bill does set the seal of approval of the house on that principle, namely the right to education or education as a right and not an inheritance. Going deeper, beyond that is the statement made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) when he said words to the effect that it is our duty to ensure university education to all those who have the intelligence to acquire it. Hon. members will notice, and I like to think he did this purposely, that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam did not say "intelligence and ambition" or "intelligence and drive".
Up to now most of us have considered or have thought of these two attributes of a personality as one thing, ambition and intelligence. These two things are absolutely separate. Many of us, and many others whom we know, have ambition, drive and intelligence, and somehow or other they will make their way to university or get their education. But there are many others who have the intelligence but do not have that drive, that spur driving into them, that dagger that digs into a person's soul and makes him go forward -and yet they are very intelligent. We are losing these people because we have not assured them the education that they could acquire. That is the second principle.
The third principle is by far the most important, and in this respect I am indebted to the right hon. gentleman, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). I see that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) is listening very carefully. The Leader of the Opposition said that university education is becoming such a vast and tremendous problem that it now requires national endeavour. I am very obligated to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, because a few weeks ago when I spoke on another bill in connection with education I said that education is now a matter of national concern. I am obliged for that correction, because "concern" is a rather passive thing; it shows interest, but endeavour shows an active interest. I hasten to assure the right hon. gentleman that most people in Canada will agree with him, that education is now a matter of national endeavour and that the only ones who so jealously guard provincial rights, my lord, are the politicians, not the people.


Paul Raymond Martineau: There are no lords in this house.


Steven Otto: As far as the people are concerned, they want to assure that every youth in Canada has the same and equal opportunity. This is impossible as long as a great part of the capital equipment provided for education is based on real estate assessment. If the assessment is high in places like Forest Hill village, Toronto, or Winnipeg in the area of Tuxedo, they have no trouble at all in providing the best schools, the best teachers and equipment. But in little places-and there are many of them in Quebec-where the real estate assessment is low, those children do not have the same opportunity. The people of Canada want every young person in the country to have the same opportunity. Therefore the only thing we can do is consider this to be a matter of national importance, national endeavour.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, could I address one question to the hon. member? I ask the hon. member whether he thinks that if the federal government gave the taxation revenue to the provinces to take care of education, we would have the same result; that is to say, if the provinces were permitted to give scholarships, and so on?


Steven Otto: Mr. Speaker, what I said was that it is a matter of national concern and it is up to this house, to this government, to ensure an equal privilege in this respect. As long as we can ensure an equal privilege and equal opportunity to every child in Canada, that is all that is required.
We have heard time and time again quotations from the British North America Act. We have listened to all the representations made with regard to the sanctity of the British North America Act. With great respect, I hold very little reverence for the British North America Act. It expounds no great principles.


Mr. Churchill:: Of course it does.


Steven Otto: It ensures no great rights. In very few words, it is a cold piece of fish, devised without even a thought that this nation would grow to be the tremendous one it has now become; devised, possibly, with a greater eye toward defence against some imaginary American conquest or invasion, rather than the realities of the situation. The people of Canada are not concerned with whose rights are whose, and the people of Canada do not elect members of the federal parliament and members of provincial par-

liaments so they can sit at a table to find out who is going to spend this money. They do not do that at all. They want a job done, and when a matter becomes one of national concern it is up to this house to look after it.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Steven Otto: Yes.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I would like to know whether in this view it is the duty of members of parliament to uphold the constitution.


Steven Otto: The constitution, Mr. Speaker, is something that is hard to define, but the constitution is not the British North America Act, in my view; an act devised, I might say also, against the better advice of Lord Durham who had put in a fairly good report at that time, in 1843. However, these are the three principles that we find inherent in this bill, whether we like it or not. And this is good. It is the only way we can do it at the present time, because of the restrictions of the British North America Act.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam mentioned many difficulties that could be encountered by young people applying for a loan.
I think most of us will agree with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) that there will be these cases where bankers may not be too willing to lend the money. After all, we have to consider that they are human beings; we are not dealing with angels. I do not think this is criticism, although it is important that we offer constructive criticism so that we will know what we are going to face when we come to it.
If I might go on a little further-and again I should like to assure the minister that what I say is not by way of criticism but in order that we might anticipate these troubles-the first thing which will happen will be that we will not be talking of a loan of $5,000 to a graduate but one more in the neighbourhood of $10,000. Because young men going to university do occasionally marry young ladies at university who bring with them a "dowry" consisting of a $5,000 debt. So we are really talking of $10,000 in such cases. I am reminded of the advice given by Polo-nius to Horatio in Hamlet, when he said: Neither a borrower nor a lender be:
For a loan oft loses both itself and friend, And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
That is advice which most of us should have taken at one time or another, but we
Loans to Students
should consider seriously whether we should endow our students with debt. As the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam knows, it is the intention of all of us eventually to ensure higher education for all who have the intelligence to acquire it. But we have the British North America Act to contend with. I heard the suggestion that it might be better to supply the funds to the Canadian National Railways than to endow more scholarships, but it is difficult to do this without funds. The way we have chosen to do it is by way of loans from banks.
I should like to provide the minister with just as ingenious a method of collecting the money, because we will not find very many friendly people willing to pay back this money. With all due respect to the minister, most young graduates after graduating start to set up a home. Their wages are not that high and a repayment of $800 to $1,000 a year is pretty stiff for them and they will not like us because of it. I can also imagine that many United States concerns will be rushing off to our universities around graduation time offering these young graduates a contract to work for them for five or ten years, and in return these firms will repay the obligation. That will be very enticing, especially when the payments are in U.S. funds. So what we are doing at the present time is leaving it open to the larger concerns to bond these people and tie them up. That is going to happen.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, the minister has said that because of these loans both students and country will be the richer. I agree with that, but does it matter to us whether these loans are paid back directly or indirectly, whether by cheque or by payments of income tax? I would offer for the consideration of the minister the suggestion that for a period of 10 years, because of the higher earnings of these students, an amount of $200 or $300 a year be credited them on the loan. Because had it not been for the extra education they received they would have earned only average salaries and paid average income tax; having acquired this education they will be paying more income tax because they can earn more. I think you will see, Mr. Speaker, that as they make more money from year to year they will be paying more by way of income tax, and we should credit the extra payments they are making to the retirement of their debts. They will not object to paying income tax and this method will entice them to stay in Canada rather than move to the United States or elsewhere.
56S8

Loans to Students
With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying that the principles inherent in this bill are very important. I should like to congratulate the minister on the principles of reform which are inherent in the bill, and I know his main interest is to assure every young Canadian of the opportunity to carry on his or her education.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the hon. member. What does he think of the opposition to this bill by the students of Quebec?


Steven Otto: I will say this, Mr. Speaker, that if the regulations were such that any student, without permission from any provincial authority, were able to apply for such a loan, then every student in Quebec would apply. It is not the students themselves who oppose it; they are incited by a group of people who are making these protestations.


Paul Raymond Martineau: How do you know?


Gilles Grégoire: May I direct a question to the hon. member. Does he mean that the presidents of the students associations do not have the confidence of their fellow students in the request they have made on this matter? Does the hon. member mean that the students do not follow their presidents in their protestations against this bill?


Steven Otto: I can assure the hon. member of that.


Gilles Grégoire: You are sure of that?


Steven Otto: Absolutely sure.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You know nothing about it.


Mr. Fred F. Stenson (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take up much time of the house today but I should like to congratulate the members who have already spoken in this debate, although I would not have supported the amendment of the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Boutin) had it been allowed. I do not feel it is necessary to apologize to the country for the time we are taking on this legislation, even when the majority of us are in favour of it. One matter I feel the debate has pointed up is that in every part of the country it is felt that the federal government does not contribute enough financially to education. I urge that these students loans for education presently before the house be speedily approved.
As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) stated last week, Canada's future strength and prosperity depend on our human resour-

ces. I am happy to know that the average student is going to be able to receive help. Up to now only the top students have been able to win scholarships, but under this new legislation the average university student will be able to get the financial help needed to complete his or her education. I do not feel that political patronage exists in Ontario in regard to students looking for bursaries.
As far as I know Peterborough has the newest university in Canada and it will be opening its doors in September. It is on the Trent canal system and is called Trent University. It will be making its mark on our country and will be a tremendous asset to my constituency as well as other areas across Canada. This is one of the reasons why I recommend the passage of this bill to make interest free loans available to students. This legislation should have been brought down earlier in the year. In fact it should have been introduced long before the flag debate was brought before this house so as to enable students to enrol at the usual time. I feel we have lost a year already with this legislation.
Another point I should like to bring up, Mr. Speaker, is that it is of the utmost importance to us to guarantee that our young people graduating from our universities and schools find attractive jobs in Canada so that we do not lose them to the country south of us.
We in Peterborough are proud of our new university, its board of governors and its president. We are proud that the citizens of my constituency have been able to raise $2 million. This money came from industry and its employees, businessmen and the farming community and it is proof of the faith we have in our young people.
I believe the government will have to give further financial help to these institutions. Established universities find it easier to expand because of endowments from ex-students and their families, but this is something on which a new institution cannot depend. The tremendous cost of universities today was outlined in the master plan set up by the president of Trent University in May of this year. The building program over the next 16 years will cost $70 million and the first phase of the plan, which will be completed in 1968, will cost $17 million. I might say that the government of Ontario has committed itself to a big part of this cost, and I should like to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) what assistance this government intends to give to new universities. As many speakers before

me have said, this student loans plan is only scratching the surface and the government must plan now for the future financial assistance of new universities.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
question?


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few comments I want to make on the bill. First of all I wish to register with the minister how very surprised I am to find him bringing in such a weak and anaemic answer to the problem of higher education in Canada. I think the minister is far too intelligent an individual to believe that this measure will really be a very helpful type of contribution, in spite of the many congratulatory speeches that have been made by members from the Toronto and York areas on the matter.
I want to point out first that the loan type of assistance to higher education is possibly the worst type of assistance you can give to people acquiring a higher education. The government of the province of Ontario already has a program of loans for higher education. In many ways the program is a little better than this proposal and in some ways it is perhaps not as good. In the case of Ontario, loans are limited to $500 and as in this instance there is no means test. The student is therefore limited to a maximum of $2,000 up to the time of graduation, but the interest rate is much cheaper, at 4 per cent, and the period of repayment does not commence until a year after graduation. I bring this out simply to point out that there are other loan schemes in existence and that the really significant thing about the Ontario loan scheme is that it has never been oversubscribed. It is a much more modest proposal than the present one, some $3 million, but even though its terms are more favourable the amount provided has never in the history of the scheme been all used.
I was talking the other day to officials of the department of education of Ontario and they were pointing out to me that although the loan provision has never been used to capacity, the bursary and scholarship segment of their program is starved to death for money, that this is where the big demand occurs in higher education, not in the loan field at all but in the field of bursaries and scholarships. This is where the government should be providing assistance. It is significant that in the bill no help is provided 20220-361
Loans to Students
in any way at all in the form of scholarships and bursaries and this in spite of the fact that this is the one field in which we know assistance is greatly needed and very much desired.


An hon. Member:: A Liberal promise.


Reid Scott: It should be pointed out, as it already has been many times in the debate, that this was the great glittering promise of the election campaign. We were told that the Liberals would introduce legislation to grant
10,000	scholarships, not loans but scholarships; but like the many other wonderful proposals this too has gone down the drain. When the minister speaks in closing the debate on second reading we hope he will tell us where the scholarships are and when we are going to see them. This measure is nothing but a sell-out and a very weak and anaemic answer to the problems of students in this country. Nowhere else have loan funds worked in the absence of a very extensive system of bursaries and scholarships.
The other very serious defect in the legislation is the fact that the government is not making it possible for the provinces to create loan funds. The bill before us is one under which the student, once he receives authorization, must then go to a chartered bank and try to find a bank manager who will lend him $1,000. Again, this is the cheapest and worst way of attacking the problem because you are exposing these students to the practices of the chartered banks. I ask hon. members to consider what will happen to the program if for any reason at all tighter money comes into play. The minister shakes his head but he has shaken his head with regard to many other proposals-


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I raised my head. I did not shake it.


Reid Scott: Whatever the minister did, all I want to point out is that this plan throws students on the mercies of the banks and any change in the policy of the central bank and the chartered banks will result in these loans not being available.


Maurice John Moreau: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question?


Reid Scott: Yes.


Maurice John Moreau: What possible objection does the hon. member envisage that a bank would have to lending students the money when the loan is guaranteed by the federal government?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The interest rate.

Loans to Students


Reid Scott: Two things. First of all, there is the interest rate. The minister told us it is expected that the interest rate will be about 5J per cent. Anybody who has anything to do with bank managers knows very well that they have a limited amount of money to make available for loans each year and they will not lend that money at 52 per cent when it can be lent to commercial customers of the bank at a rate which will earn the bank anywhere from 9 to 11 per cent. Unless the managers have an almost limitless amount of money to lend, and I do not think that will be so, the distribution of the available credit will be to the banks' commercial customers and the money will not be lent to some poor, struggling university student who happens to come along and want a loan at 5| per cent.
I think it is a gross fraud on the public to suggest that by making use of the commercial banks we will have even begun to meet the problem. It would even improve the legislation if the government would at least make cash available to the provinces so they could set up their own loan boards as has been done in some provinces, so that once the student met the qualifications set by the authorities he would know he had a loan and would not have to go shopping around to bank after bank to try to get some bank manager to lend him the money.
I do not want to repeat all of the other criticisms that have been made. It is significant that credit unions are not allowed to participate in this plan. It is significant that there is no provision in the bill for postgraduate work. Yet anyone in the field of education knows that this is one of the vital areas of higher education in Canada. There is a great need for more and more postgraduate work and training. There is nothing in the bill to cover that. There is some provision whereby students can go abroad, but what are you going to do on $1,000 if you want to go, say, to the United States for some sort of postgraduate training.
The criticisms that have been made are not only valid but they tear away the mask of pseudo-Liberalism that surrounds the government. This is another piece of half-baked, weak-kneed legislation that is presented to put up a big front, but the government is not really trying to tackle the problem at all. They are not even intending to put any real money into the scheme. The government is not going to put up any money. They will simply pay the interest rate. Even if the whole $40 million is lent the government will only be contributing something like $2,300,000

or $2,400,000 a year toward higher education in Canada. Again, this is a rather cheap answer to the problem of higher education.
I think one of the most significant speeches made during this debate was made by one of my colleagues the other day in which he pointed out that this government really has not sat down and looked at the problem of higher education at all. All of us who are interested in the field realize that there is not just a crisis in higher education coming in the next 10 or 15 years, there is a nightmare coming. I have a great many clippings here reporting the views of various people in the field of education. They point out the great need for university facilities; the fact that they can hardly accommodate the students who now wish to get a higher education; the lack of teachers, the lack of teacher training; the lack of postgraduate research training. All these things have been drawn to the government's attention in brief after brief. What do we get from them? We get nothing in that line at all, but merely a scheme to try to get more undergraduates into university. This again shows no sense of perspective, no sense of priorities at all.
We know the tremendous sums that are going to have to be expended in the field of education. I spoke last session of the problem of automation alone, and what it is going to do to change our economy. I referred to the massive sums of money which will require to be spent, the magnitude of which I do not believe we can even contemplate at the present time. In the changing world of tomorrow, these questions are going to have to be answered. We have received no indication from this government that they have any understanding of the problem at all. What we really need I suppose in Canada is a federal office of education. This government is in so many fields of education such as technical education, retraining programs, education of Indians, university grants, scholarships through the Canada Council, that what we really need is some method by which the government can begin to give coordination and leadership in the whole field of education. I do not believe you are going to do that until you are prepared to set up a federal office of education.
I know there are constitutional problems involved and I know that one of the provinces in particular objects very strongly to such a proposal being enacted. It is their right to object, and we respect their objections in that regard. However, this does not mean that the other provinces may not wish

Loans to Students
some form of co-operation in this field. It seems to me the time is fast approaching when, if we do not take some such strong action, we may be in difficulty. I had a great many more things I intended to say, but I know it is the general wish of this house that the bill be given second reading. In the spirit of co-operation our group is showing, I am limiting my observations but I wanted to draw my remarks to a conclusion by pointing out that this bill is a weak, anaemic, ineffective contribution toward providing higher education in Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the minister
speaks now, he will close the debate.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I had not anticipated to intervene at this stage of the discussion. However, certain remarks by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) this afternoon, and by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), leave me no choice, and I must ask for some explanations.
In the first place there was that letter sent to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and also, I think, to the Minister of Finance, by the students' association of the University of Montreal and of Laval University. That letter asked the government to suspend the discussion of this legislation until they had met with the students' associations of the province of Quebec in order to discuss with them the best action to take to assist education.
Several members on the government side have spoken on the significance of education, but that matter is not relevant at all to this debate. We all recognize the importance of education in the modern world, in which the youth of today will find tomorrow, their field of endeavour; we also recognize however the prime importance of some principles, one of those-I am quite sure the Minister of Finance will agree with me-being the integral upholding of the Canadian constitution in one of the most important fields.
Why has not the minister answered frankly, the question put to him this afternoon by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), by saying that "in the interest of all concerned, there should be a meeting to discuss this matter"? But here is what the minister said: Since the province of Quebec will not share in this plan, the students have no right to make any representations.
Well, Mr. Speaker-
20220-361i


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I should like the hon. gentleman to quote me correctly. I never said anything about the rights of students. I went out of my way to say I would be delighted to see them and talk over their problems with them at any time. What I did say was that I suspected they might feel somewhat differently about the proposal under discussion when they knew all the facts. I would be grateful if the hon. member would quote me correctly.


Paul Raymond Martineau: What a strange interpretation of co-operative federalism.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the Minister of Finance made that correction. His statement, this afternoon, was certainly ambiguous-


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, may I refer the hon. gentleman to Hansard?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, the minister should at least wait until I have completed my sentence; then, if he wants to rise on a question of privilege, he may do so.
But I was in the house this afternoon-


Maurice Lamontagne: So were we.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I heard the minister refer to the fact that the province of Quebec, according to the information he received from the premier of that province, intended to avail itself of the contracting out provision contained in the bill.
Well then, as the minister has no other comments to make about that, I say to him: It does not matter whether the province of Quebec participates in the plan or not, surely the students of the province of Quebec are entitled to express their views on such important legislation.
To take the opposite stand would be to negate the very spirit of federalism.
This afternoon, I also put a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau).
I think that question was quite relevant, as we had to decide which stand we, on this

Loans to Students
side of the house, should take concerning this legislation. I asked him whether he intended to recommend to his colleague, the Minister of Finance, or to the government, amendments to correct the flagrant violation of the civil code indicated in the legislation as it is before the house today. But the minister, instead of giving a straight forward reply, attempted to use that smokescreen concerning the confidential nature of exchanges between ministers.
I admit that what goes on within the cabinet is of a confidential nature, but, on the other hand, that should not prevent the minister from giving the house absolutely essential information so that we can adopt a position on the bill before us.
I would have thought that the Minister of Justice, leader of the province of Quebec Liberals, who sits in this house, would have liked, as the recognized defender of the constitution, to rise and give the house the unequivocal assurance that the constitution will not be infringed upon, and also that the civil code provisions concerning that matter of vital importance for the whole structure of the civil code of the province of Quebec will be respected.
We are witnessing, from the Minister of Justice-


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Paul Raymond Martineau: -from the administration and from the hon. members who sit on government benches a stubborn silence. I think that before the minister rises to close this debate, members of the government who represent the province of Quebec, including the Secretary of State, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Des-chatelets), have the duty to state their position on that matter.


Maurice Lamontagne: Does the hon. member allow a question?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Any question at all, Mr. Speaker.


Maurice Lamontagne: Would the hon. member tell us what the position of his government was when awarding university grants?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, the question of the Secretary of State shows a deplorable confusion in the workings of his mind. It will be readily admitted that, as far as the house is concerned, it has to consider the bill before us. It is therefore important and relevant to know whether the scheme is conformable to the Canadian constitution. The individual
IMr. Martineau.]
attacks of the Secretary of State, which are diversionary will certainly not stop us from going to the very core of the problem.


John Napier Turner: Would the hon. member allow another question?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Certainly.


John Napier Turner: Could the hon. member tell the house on what legal grounds his attitude is based?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary now asks me to expound my legal grounds. You do not need any jurisprudence to determine a matter when it is as clear as this one. You just have to read the very clear provisions of the civil code of the province of Quebec and of the British North America Act to realize that this provision indisputably violates them all.
I say that before this debate is concluded, it is the duty of the members opposite to make themselves heard.
The hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska (Mr. Pepin), parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, is a man who, in some circumstances, is known as a defender of the provincial autonomy and as a master in constitutional theory, did not hesitate a few months ago, more precisely in February last, to state that this legislation was very provoking for the province of Quebec and the upholders of provincial autonomy, as well as for the defenders of the Canadian constitution.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Raymond Martineau: But he maintains now the same silence, which is far from honouring these gentlemen sitting across the aisle who have been elected by the people of the province of Quebec.


Gilles Grégoire: Would the hon. member permit me another question as well?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Certainly.


Gilles Grégoire: The hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue is not surprised by the Quebec premier who stated that he would take legal proceedings against the federal government if it interfered in the field of education? Does he not find surprising and astonishing that present attitude of the premier of the province of Quebec, who has not said one word in connection with this debate?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I find this strange. I cannot explain such a stand,

unless there was an agreement between the federal cabinet and the government of the province of Quebec to connive at the violation, merely for overestimated partisan considerations. As a matter of fact, this silence is quite strange.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Paul Raymond Martineau: This afternoon, the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, who admitted himself that he was no expert on this matter, had no trouble at all to explain, in a clear and precise speech, the serious reasons which indicate how the constitution is being violated by this provision.
The hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) made a brilliant study which no other member on the other side of the house and no minister even cared to mention.
I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, if it is not obvious that this bill amounts to a glaring violation. All we need to do is sit back and read some of the provisions of the bill to realize that section 15 is not the only one violating articles of the civil code or the constitution. Section 13 contains some indications of very dangerous intentions, particularly the intention of conferring upon the governor in council powers permitting him to violate the constitution.
I notice that the Secretary of State is enjoying himself and that he finds this very funny-


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Paul Raymond Martineau: If it is a question of privilege, all right.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I was talking with my colleague, the Minister of Finance. I was listening to the hon. member's remarks precisely because they are so much in contradiction with what his own government did a few years ago. I do not find it funny at all.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that, when the Secretary of State opens his mouth wide and his countenance and eyes are shining, he does not laugh, he does not enjoy himself. If really he did not enjoy himself, he paid so little attention to my remarks that he gave the impression that he did not want to listen to them.
Nevertheless, as was pointed out, this same minister, an eminent professor who, prior to becoming member of the present government,
Loans to Students
busied himself with making speeches to the people in the province of Quebec explaining how the new administration-


Maurice Lamontagne: Order.


Paul Raymond Martineau: -how the new administration would respect the constitution. Then there was a change of attitude, as the author of Canadian federalism made himself known as a supporter of decentralization during the last election campaign; however, when he came into power, became once more the champion of the present centralization.


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


Paul Raymond Martineau: Yes.


Maurice John Moreau: Was the hon. member speaking for his party? In view of his biting attack on the constitutionality of the bill, is his party going to vote against it?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking me if I am speaking on behalf of my party. The answer is quite simple. I speak as a representative of the electors of the province of Quebec, and above all for the respect of the constitution and the rights which have been well established in this country for more than a century. That is why-


Maurice John Moreau: One may still wonder whether the hon. member and the Conservative party reflect the views of the Quebec electors.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I think that every one of us who has been elected to this house speaks as a representative of his constituents and defends the rights of every Canadian, and no one here can say otherwise. It is in that capacity that I wish to express my views on this most important matter.
As I was saying before this interruption- which amounted to nothing-this bill contains clear indications that it is violating the rights of the provinces, the constitution and the civil code. Many sections of the bill show such indications, for instance, section 13(a) provides that:
13. The governor in council may make regulations (a) prescribing the forms of agreements-
And, further on:
-certificates of eligibility-
Well, Mr. Speaker, is this not encroaching upon the field of education, a field which comes exclusively under the provinces, since,

Loans to Students
by this bill, the governor in council can determine the conditions of eligibility?
That is the eligibility to studies, and therefore the undeniable right of control of the federal government in the field of education; in other words, it is a back door invasion.


Gilles Grégoire: No, no, through the front door.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Paragraph (d) of the same
section also states:
-providing for the assignment or transfer by banks of agreements between borrowers and banks-
I ask you: Is this transfer of rights not another intrusion in the field of civil rights and property?
I am sure that the hon. member for Ber-thier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere who is a specialist in that field will agree with me on that point.
Mr. Speaker, we have in paragraph (g) rules prescribing the procedure to be followed in collecting the amounts of the loan outstanding.
In the province of Quebec we have a code of civil procedure. Now I am sure that the lawyers sitting on the government's side will agree that to prescribe procedures to be followed for the collection of these debts is an infringement on the civil code rights of the province of Quebec.
However, this centralizing government lacks co-ordination. This government, not wishing to go to the bottom of the problems, puts before us such projects.
Mr. Speaker, despite all this, and in the face of such manifest encroachments by way of precise provisions of the law, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), the big boss of the Liberals in the province of Quebec, the great leader and the recognized defender, appointed by these gentlemen on the other side, remains silent and covers his silence with excuses such as: We should not reveal to the house the arangements we are to make.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice tells us: We shall explain all this to you when we arrive to the particular section in this bill.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Would the hon. member allow me a question?
Following the remarks of the hon. member and those of the other Conservative members from the province of Quebec opposing the adoption of this bill, would the hon. member explain the attitude of the Conservative leader of the province of Quebec, the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), in

supporting this bill? Besides, he mentioned the fact here, in this house.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The hon. member for Three Rivers made a remarkable speech, in which he pointed out the shortcomings of this program and reserved the right to take whatever stand would be dictated to him by his conscience as a result of the steps taken by the government.
Mr. Speaker, those digressions will not prevent me from completing the examination of this program and from showing other places where the Quebec civil code is being violated as well as the prerogatives of the provinces in the field of education.
Further on, in clause 13 (n), we read as follows:
-prescribing the method of determining when a student is or ceases to be a full time student;
Where could we find a clearer case of an intrusion upon the rights and prerogatives of provinces as regards education. This indicates clearly the ridiculous position in which we will find ourselves if this bill is passed. The federal government or a federal agency will determine when a student qualifies as a full time or a part time student.
What is the sense of such provisions, particularly when we take into account the civil code, the constitution and-as pointed out by my colleagues-educational bylaws and the tremendous efforts made in the province of Quebec by the civil and religious authorities of that province who have set up for all Quebeckers an educational system which is really meeting the deep requirements of the province of Quebec and indirectly the greater requirements of Canada as a whole.
We have no intention at all to hinder education. On the contrary, we hope that in the very important field of education, fast progress will be made.
We are also for better understanding between the two main ethnic groups which make up our country. But how will this understanding be attained if the present government continues to act as it has done since it took office, if it continues to undermine the very foundation of the constitution, if it continues to uphold that untenable position as champions of constitutional transgression?
Mr. Speaker, those are the few remarks I wanted to make concerning this bill and if the Minister of Justice had had the courage to tell us this afternoon: Yes, we have had the opportunity to review this bill; yes, certain provisions of the bill encroach on the civil code of the province of Quebec and we

will amend them. In brief, if he had shown such courage, perhaps we, on this side of the house, might have adopted a different attitude towards this measure. But no. The government is self-satisfied, puffed up with arrogance and believes in its omnipotence. But it should not forget that public opinion as well as the conscience of the great majority of the people of Quebec and of Canada, are against this unjustified and useless intrusion upon a provincial field.
Such is, Mr. Speaker, this shocking situation; this government continues to interfere without reason in an exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Yet, the government would simply have to make some amendments to the bill so as to make it consistent with the standards we deem necessary to its passage. We would then be in favour of it.
But up to now we have had no indication of this good will on the part of the present government, and before the end of this debate I feel that members of the cabinet should justify their position.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State. I want to ask him if he will have the courage to speak about the measure under study, he who is the great champion of centralization?
Let the minister rise if he has the courage to do so. Be a man instead of a mouse.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Secretary of State to rise and state his opinion on this matter.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a few minutes to express some frustrations in connection with this bill. We do not admire it greatly, because we think it is inadequate, that it is going to pile up debts, almost making the federal government sort of a "beneficial finance company", for a lot of young people and interfere with their future. But the real frustration comes in this point. You ask Liberal members of parliament the reasons why this bill is so limited and inadequate, and they say quite candidly, "It is because it is so difficult, because of the Quebec situation, to really bring in scholarships and bursaries and loans all at one time; any kind of big bill, something imaginative or creative".
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) has told us that the economy is doing very well; everything is great; there is a wonderful future ahead. Despite this fact there are the limitations of this bill, the worry and concern about bringing in something really creative and imaginative, because of criticism
Loans to Students
from the province of Quebec. This criticism is such that we are given a bill that many of us feel is inadequate; but we are going to vote for it, and we think the majority of the people in English speaking Canada want this bill and will approve our voting for it. But 1 want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, on the other hand, what are we hearing from this group from Quebec in the Conservative party, from these people down here? This is the other side of the double frustration, that when the majority of the people in this country want something and the government does take this timid step they are being harpooned for invading provincial rights, despite the fact that the provincial government has been consulted on this; and we do not even believe the provincial government needed to be consulted. This legislation, as far as we are concerned, is on all fours with giving loans to fishermen and farmers and other people all across the country. It is financial, it is banking legislation. But the government has gone through the steps of making arrangements with the province of Quebec to discuss this matter, and despite this fact we get the petty, dirty, nasty little game being played in this chamber of members of the official opposition who come from the province of Quebec, such as represented by that last speech, who get up here and knife and knife and knife about the perversion of the constitution, and violating the constitution. Let us have a little bit of fairness from our friends from the province of Quebec.


Paul Raymond Martineau: On a question of privilege-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am rising on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member was carried away and stated that there were nasty, dirty tactics on the part of members of the official opposition, naming me. I say that it is not the prerogative or the privilege of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) or any other hon. member to pry into the intentions of any hon. member in this house. I think that, as he has the right to defend certain ideas which he holds, we in this house also have the right to defend certain ideas which we hold-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Raymond Martineau: -and, Mr. Speaker, I will be heard out on this question of privilege.

Loans to Students


Douglas Mason Fisher: I want to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If this is a question of privilege-


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.


Douglas Mason Fisher: -let him state his question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: So far as
the hon. member has gone, I think he is expressing a disagreement with the hon. member for Port Arthur. I think the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) is well aware that this does not constitute a question of privilege.


Paul Raymond Martineau: When one is attacked, and accused of dirty, nasty tactics, that does constitute a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, as the hon. member for Port Arthur has every right to express whatever ideas he may hold concerning this or any other question in this house-and I will defend his right to express those ideas-it also behooves us to express our ideas, and the hon. member for Port Arthur has not the right to make in this chamber a trial of intentions. If he stands for anything at all, he is going to get up and apologize and withdraw his remarks.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to do anything of the kind. It is my opinion, my personal opinion, that the kind of speech made by the hon. member consists of dirty, nasty tactics; and if I have to withdraw for saying that, as far as I am concerned I have wasted seven years here listening to parliamentary questions of privilege. It is my opinion, and I believe I have the right to state it. If the hon. member wants to get up and criticize my speech in the same way, he is welcome to it.
I want to bring a couple of things to the attention of the hon. member. What did he insinuate at the very start of his speech about the Minister of Finance? Then when the Minister of Finance tried to straighten him out, he got up and indicated that he was glad to accept the correction and said the Minister of Finance was correcting himself.
You talk to me about nasty tactics. If that wasn't a nasty tactic, I don't know what is. But I am not here to defend the Minister of Finance; I just want to put on record the frustrations of having a debate of this sort. The whip for the Conservative party and the whip for the Liberal party arranged for the university students to come here and meet a

bunch of us. There was a large group met. We were all impressed with the wish, the desire of these people, mostly representing English speaking students of Canada, to have this legislation and to have it quickly; and we appreciated it when the government brought it in, even though we think it is inadequate and there are things wrong with it.
Then we get it in here, and we have had speech after speech after speech. If you disagree with this bill on constitutional grounds, state your point and then vote against it. But the kind of warfare we are having here, and this kind of sniping at the Minister of Justice, is wrong. What has the Minister of Justice got to do with it? If you feel this bill is unconstitutional, say your piece and let us vote on it. If that is your view, vote against it; but let us have the vote on second reading now-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Mason Fisher: -instead of gumming up this legislation by this whole silly business-and it is a silly business-of playing the Quebec game of politics here. I would like to ask the hon. member where he was, in connection with the students of Quebec, when they were sitting down at the door of Premier Duplessis a few years ago. He was not standing up here in this house speaking for them. He is very willing to do so now, when they are complaining about this legislation. This game of playing the Quebec game of politics in here, in the face of legislation that I suggest at least 10 provinces-I say 10 provinces-in this country want or are willing to accept, is going a little bit too far.
I suggest that we let the minister make his speech to close the debate on second reading, and then get on with the business of this house. Surely hon. gentlemen have had the opportunity to express their doubts about the constitutional provisions. Now they can express their feelings and views by registering their vote against it. The rest of us want this bill. Let us have it.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I believe that the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) has just suggested, as it were, to impose closure on the members of the house who wish to speak.
Two members of our group want to speak on this measure and it is their right as well as the right of any other member of the house.

When the hon. member for Port Arthur wished to make speeches, we always let him go ahead, therefore I ask him now to grant to the members of our group who wish to speak on this subject the same leeway, and to show the same broadmindedness we showed him.


Marcel Lessard: May I ask the
hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) a question?
Would the hon. member for Port Arthur tell us whether he intends to ask the same thing of the members of his party with regard to the flag resolution?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise).


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, frankly I was very surprised by the attitude of the hon. member for Port Arthur.
In the two years I have been sitting in the house, I saw that hon. member make a few slips but, in general, he behaved like a gentleman. However, after the speech he has just made, I think I have changed my mind for a long time to come.
Mr. Speaker, I would not like to let the debate on Bill No. C-110 pass without making some remarks.
We have been hearing for a long time, Mr. Speaker, that the house will be asked to study a bill enabling all young Canadians to acquire whatever education and vocational training they desire. We were anxiously waiting for that moment which has now arrived. Unfortunately, this bill is far from being what Canadians had a right to expect, since it contains several pitfalls in which our youth will be trapped, sometimes with lifelong consequences, if this bill is adopted in its original form, that is without any amendment.
However, I wish to say right now that I am in favour of the principle of Bill No. C-110, in that it recognizes the necessity of universal education, and also because it states that our educational facilities must be put at the disposal of all those who wish to acquire the required training so as to play their role adequately later on.
Ever since unemployment has taken such alarming proportions in Canada, we have come to realize that most of those who are the more seriously affected are people with less education. We find that situation deplor-20220-362
Loans to Students
able and we regret that nothing serious has been done about it earlier.
Even though it is a little late, we admit that assistance should be provided as soon as possible to our young people so that they might receive a better education.
We Creditistes, freedom-loving people, we do not want this measure to be a means to catch young people and involve them in debt for the rest of their life.
Mr. Speaker, every year there is an education week in Canada. Every year the problem of education is looked into, solutions are sought; the need for education is felt and it is acknowledged that everyone is entitled to get an education.
I should like to draw the attention of the house to an editorial published in the newspaper L'Echo Abitibien of March 5, 1964, during the latest week of Canadian education; this editorial states:
Education week provides the opportunity to ponder on the fate of the child. In fact, he is the main character in what can be called the drama of life. It goes without saying, since the future lies in his hands, that the future world will depend of the education which he receives.
Therefore, if the child is the most important being, our main concerns must be centred around him to help him to attain his most perfect development. It is a moving and touching sight to see a child grow.
When he is still very young, one can see his personality emerge and with time passing by the adult of tomorrow slowly emerges. We all hope or should hope that the adult of tomorrow will be up to his heavy responsibilities of which he does not yet suspect the existence but which will be, owing to the force of circumstances, his lot in a not too distant future.
Here is where today's adult comes in. Everyone must give way to the child. Everyone must think of all that will allow the child to develop fully physically, morally and intellectually. All initiatives that tend toward that triple goal are in fact the only ones that really matter.
A lot of time can be spent talking about the number, diversity, quality and scope of those initiatives. Whether they concern the body, soul or mind, they are very useful, because they help train the men of tomorrow. Everyone must do his share in the field which suits him best and he wil certainly be rewarded a hundredfold. If each of us contributes to that great task which is to prepare the child to take over, he will surely have put into practice the theme of the week: Education, human contact.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether in bringing forward Bill No. C-110 the government takes into consideration the value of the child, of young men and young girls and what is expected from them in years to come.
With the ever spreading belief in all circles, that everybody is entitled to education, the Minister of Finance of the Liberal government

Loans to Students
introduced Bill No. C-110, an act to facilitate the making of loans to students.
When reading the bill, Mr. Speaker, I was reminded of the story of the little boy who came running home, all excited, shouting to his mother: "Quick, quick, my little brother is stuck in the mud." The mother hurried along and asked: "Did he sink in deeply?" And the little boy answered: "Up to his ankle." Then the mother said: "Now, there 'S no need to hurry or get excited, there is no danger, it is nothing serious." But the little boy replied: "He fell in head first."
This Bill No. C-110 will have exactly the same effect of sinking in the mud for the rest of their days all the students who will avail themselves of this legislation.
Our farmers have been pushed into debt for the rest of their life. The workers were indebted by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the rest of their days. As to small industries and small businessmen, they are also loaded with debts for a lifetime. The fishermen also will struggle with debts for the rest of their lives.
Now, our future professional people are also to be loaded with a debt for life. They were about the only ones who were not directly affected by this debt money system which has burdened us for years-a heritage of the old political parties, Grit or Tory.
By means of this bill our students are to be stuck head first in this mire of debts, grappling with chartered banks.
This bill is submitted to us in order to help the students. However, the students will soon find out that the bill is not so much to help them but rather those who control the nation's credit and money, that is the chartered banks.
The students themselves do not want such regimentation, such invasion of the educational field, by the federal government, and for very good reasons.
During Canadian education week, which I mentioned earlier, Mr. Maurice Huot, editorialist of Le Droit, wrote on March 4, 1964:
It has been repeated again and again, and not without reason, that greater learning will be needed to take one's place efficiently in tomorrow's, and even today's, society. Yet, as I say, education should not be confused with training. While dispensing practical knowledge, teachers must Impart the art of living within society, while respecting and serving others. That is education in its highest sense.
We must not only prepare our young people to earn a dollar in exchange for professional services, but also to become useful citizens, complete citizens in their immediate community.

The bill now before us will bring about precisely the opposite of what Maurice Huot, Le Droit's editorialist, was asking for, in that it will take our young people and turn them into sharks at the service of bankers who will suck the few dollars they will receive from society.
What will happen when the student has graduated, if he takes advantage of the legislation now proposed to us? He will have a debt of $5,000. Besides living and organizing his business office, he will have to repay that $5,000 debt plus the interest.
Who will have to pay for that? It will be the client, the consumer; always the consumer.
This bill will induce our graduates to become money collectors at the service of bankers.
More and more streams of protests are coming from the province of Quebec. I hope that the premier of the province of Quebec, Mr. Lesage, will not become an accomplice of the federal government to sell freedom of education to his Ottawa centralizing friends, as was done in the past by another Quebec premier, a premier who, during the last war, sold Quebec fiscal rights; and we all know the problems that followed in our province.
In the province of Quebec, people are now wondering what the premier and the provincial government are doing in view of the centralizing tendency of this bill by the federal Liberal government.
We have fought from the early days of the colony to maintain our rights, our faith, our language and our traditions. We always had to stand in the breach, prepared to drive back those who, through the years, attempted to take away from us what we held most dear.
If this bill is passed, we will see the central government enter a field which does not concern it at all. Yet, when we consider what is happening in this country at the present time, all that is lacking in Canada, all that we have to develop and that Canadians are asking for, and which concerns the federal government, we realize that ministers, and especially the Minister of Finance, would have much to do, particularly in the field of finance, without interfering with matters that do not concern them.
The minister who brought forth this bill certainly did not make a great effort. He was badly inspired or ill advised. I see that this Bill No. C-110 was prepared hastily during a discussion on the flag. The flag question was debated one, two or three days and, during

that time the bill was prepared. When they are exhausted they revert to the flag. The flag question is discussed in our spare time. It gives them time to prepare something else. If the minister had tried a little, he would easily have found a liberating legislation instead of legislation likely to get tomorrow's youth into debt.
For many years, and especially since 1962, there has been a real Creditiste group in the house.
We are suggesting to the government a way to free itself from the masters of finance, to free the country from debt and taxes which are a heavy burden on the people and prevent Canada from developing as it should. The government has always turned a deaf ear on our claims. Instead of considering their logic, it introduces legislation to be administered by a system which will get Canadians more and more into debt and prevent the country from developing as it should.
It is mostly those for whom this bill is intended who are against it. Last week the hon. member for Roberval received a protest telegram from the president of the students of the University of Montreal. I have here a letter dated July 15 last, that is last week, addressed to Mr. Gilles Gregoire, member for Lapointe, Ottawa. I should like to quote from this letter in order to show how much the students are against this bill as put forward today. I quote:
Dear Sir,
The Laval University students' union is strongly against Bill No. C-110 now being discussed by the House of Commons.
Any federal venture in the field of education is an offence against the constitution. How can you ask young people and especially separatists to respect confederation when federal ministers are making a mockery of it. The interest to be paid by the federal government on student loans constitutes a grant to students and, as such, is unconstitutional. Even the proposed compensation formula cannot satisfy us. Only the complete absence of the federal government will.
That compensation formula was arrived at because the total sum of the interest paid on $12 million in loans would amount to $720,000, which would represent for our province a recovery of 0.1 per cent of the federal tax. We agree that such a recovery would not constitute a very practical solution.
But the financial compensation suggested by the government frightens us. We know from experience that when it comes to federal scholarships to students, a compensation formula similar to that of loans, and will be used, then the amount will be much greater. Bill No. C-110 would constitute a precedent for the house and we do not accept that. The federal government has brought forward this plan because it knows very well that the Quebec government will have to refuse 20220-302 J
Loans to Students
that formula, because it knows that Quebec students will have to refuse it on principle, even though they are in great need of money. This would constitute execrable savings to the detriment of Quebeckers.
The arguments for Canadian unity appear to be hypocritical statements in view of a measure such as Bill No. C-110.
We want the federal government to withdraw from fields of taxation which do not come under its jurisdiction.
We want the federal government to respect the constitution, with or without co-operative federalism, or change it.
Michel Letellier,
President,
Paul Vezina,
Vice president for external affairs.
I have here another telegram dated July 16 and addressed to Mr. Gilles Gregoire, M.P., Ralliement Creditiste, Parliament buildings, Ottawa, which reads as follows:
Gilles Gregoire, M.P., Ralliement Creditiste, Parliament buildings, Ottawa.
Sir,
We are quite disappointed with the attitude taken by the government about the Bill No. C-110 concerning a student loan plan. We feel it is unthinkable that the federal government should be intruding in a field exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. As a citizen of Quebec, you cannot vote for that option policy in such circumstances. The true solution to the problem of general accessibility is free education. You know that this bill would make any planning difficult at the provincial level in the educational field. We feel that you must ask the government to return to the provinces the taxation fields which will enable them to settle the problems of students, as they wish, by keeping their exclusive jurisdiction in the educational field.
We believe that such an attitude on your part would permit you to work truly for the advancement of the student community.
Michel Vaillaneourt,
President, General association of students of the University of Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, this shows that the students of the province of Quebec particularly are against the intrusion of the federal government in provincial fields. We have a constitution that precludes the federal government from intruding in the field of education, in provincial jurisdictions.
Mr. Speaker, we want to have that respected; we ask the government to respect that.
That is why, for my part, I am against this bill in its present form. I am surprised to note the position taken by the Conservatives last week and today with regard to this bill.
Last week especially I was not too surprised at the fact that Conservative members from Quebec were against the bill. Of course the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bal-

Loans to Students
cer) came out practically in favour of the bill, but he spoke almost in a whisper, as if he were ill at ease.
However, the other members spoke against the principle of the bill. On the other hand, when the time came for them to take positive action so as to show how serious they were, all Conservative members voted against the amendment, the purpose of which was precisely to give the provinces the freedom of action to which they are entitled in the field of education.
Mr. Speaker, if the government wants to administer the affairs of the people properly, to respect provincial autonomy and the freedom of the citizens, to respect democracy as we are told, it has but one thing do to, and that is give instructions to the Bank of Canada to make available to the provinces the necessary capital, without interest, so as to permit them to administer their affairs in the best interests of their people and of the Canadian nation.


Mr. Gerard Girouard (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let the vote be taken on Bill No. C-110 without expressing briefly my personal feelings, those of my constituents and those of my province in this respect.
Opposite I see the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne). In my opinion, he must be happy since the debate on this bill allows us to witness the most crucial demonstration of what is known as co-operative federalism.
We had co-operative federalism concerning loans to municipalities and the pension plan. We spoke about co-operative federalism when several social security measures were discussed, for instance an increase in the allowances for 16 and 17 year olds. But today, Mr. Speaker, we see co-operative federalism and we speak about it in a field which touches the very heart of Quebeckers, that is education.
I know very well that in some jurisdictions jointly exercised with the provinces, it was possible for several premiers to gather around a table and discuss whether there was some way to reach a compromise for the greater advantage of all Canadians. I understand this very well in a field of joint jurisdiction, but if the federal government presents legislation concerning education directly, I wonder how, with the support of 45 or 50 members from the province of Quebec who enable it to govern the country, it can possibly expect all the members to approve it simply because the legislation benefits the students.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, thought for a while that the Quebec students would say: We were in need of this legislation.
I, too, in my youth, got an education and was short of money. If, at that time, somebody had told me: Here is $1,000 from the federal government, I seriously wonder if I would not have accepted it. The reaction of the Quebec university students taught me that nowadays, the young people say: Of course, we need money, but we shall get it where the government can give it to us according to the constitution.
I was listening the other day to one of my colleagues speak on the constitutional aspect of Bill No. C-110. He said: I cannot understand how a certain province-it was the province of Quebec-maintains that this bill violates the constitution. After all, the students will be able to choose the professor they want, even the university; they will be able to choose the bank they want and even to apply or not for a loan.
If you listen to that line of reasoning, you are inclined to say: That is true, we are making a fuss about nothing, we are frightening ourselves unduly for, after all, what can that take away from us?
At that time the practical point of view was being examined by one of my colleagues. On the other hand, if you keep up the same line of reasoning, you could tell yourself: When the federal government talked about increasing the allowance to young people 16 and 17 years old still going to school, what was it after all? Just an extension of social allowances to young people 16 and 17 years old. We will let the bill pass because after all it takes away none of Quebec's rights.
Today we are asked to approve legislation providing for student loans and some people will say: "What does it matter? After all, one will submit an application only if one wishes to do so, and one will attend the university of his choice and study under the teacher one wants. That will take nothing away from the provinces."
But, Mr. Speaker, what will stop the federal government if tomorrow it decides to start paying the teachers in the provinces? One could still say: "I can choose the teacher I want and the school board does not have to accept those grants. We will continue teaching languages, religion and traditions, so what is the difference?" Later on what would prevent the federal government from presenting a bill to build universities? Then, we could say: Who would stop the provinces from accepting it, since the provincial and

the university authorities would be able to select their professors and the subject matters they want to be taught? What does it matter? This means that after the four pieces of legislation submitted by the federal government are passed, the provinces would not need their department of education any longer.
I am not oblivious of the fact that we always look rather foolish when we object to the federal government infringing upon the provincial field. But co-operative federalism could not find a field that would hurt more the provinces generally, and Quebec in particular, than that of education.
Mind you, Mr. Speaker, I might have been prepared to support this measure if it had involved, once again, equalization. For example, in the field of social security, we, from the province of Quebec, have this to say: This field belongs to us, but we understand that the central government must be strong, that it has to draw upon the richer provinces' funds to help the poorer provinces. Up to a point we are prepared to accept that principle.
If this bill was, in effect, to say to the provincial authorities of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Newfoundland: Your universities are poor and we are going to ask the representatives from Ontario, British Columbia or Quebec to help your students pay their university fees, we would have said: This is contrary to the constitution, but we are going to discuss it, because the federal government has at least one reason namely, that the rich provinces should help the poor ones.
But as far as the bill before us is concerned, this matter is not even being considered, as we are going to grant exactly the same amount, per capita, to the university students. As a matter of fact, it means that should $800,000 be taken from the province of Quebec for education purposes, it is to be expected that $800,000 will go to Quebec. It is also to be expected that should $200,000 be taken from Newfoundland, an amount of $200,000 will be paid to Newfoundland.
All this makes me wonder where the government is going. They are going to take $10 from Quebec in order to lend $10 to that province. They are going to get $10 from Newfoundland so as to lend it to Newfoundland students. They are going to borrow $10 from Ontario so as to lend it afterwards to an Ontario student.
But what the deuce is the government doing there?
Loans to Students
It would be so easy for the Quebec provincial authorities to go and get $10 within the limits of the province and give that $10 back to the province of Quebec.
It would be easy for the Newfoundland government to go and get $10 within its boundaries and give that $10 back to the province, and the same can be said about Ontario. The government of that province could collect that amount of $10 and give it to Ontario students.
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised, I fail to see what the federal government is doing in a field which comes exclusively under the provincial jurisdiction, when it has decided to distribute these loans on a basis proportional to the population of the province and when we know very well that it is going to collect that money in the province concerned. I am wondering why we should talk of co-operative federalism in this case when it is not relevant at all? Why should we talk of equalization, which is not even mentioned here? It is simply a new intrusion of the federal government upon a field in which it has no concern.
And why do we have those intrusions? Simply because during an electoral campaign, when minds see things with excitement, it seems in order to say all over Canada: We will provide $1,000 student loans. Such a statement brings in votes. But when the time came to pass that legislation, it is realized that one has interfered where one had no right to interfere. And today, Bill No. C-110 is submitted to us.
I listened this afternoon to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) answering the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). He had this to say: In fact, Mr. Jean Lesage was present at the federal-provincial conference and it seems to me that he can speak for his province.
Mr. Speaker, I maintain that when constitutional rights are at stake, neither a premier, a provincial leader of the opposition, nor the prime minister, or the cabinet, or the federal government has the right to go against that constitution. In a democracy, under a free system, the only thing the people really control is their constitution.
It would be so easy for the 10 premiers to meet and say: "We are going to accept this measure."
From a political standpoint it is a very good thing for the government to grant subsidies and extend loans. It is even a very good thing for Mr. Jean Lesage to come to a federal-provincial conference and state: "All

Loans to Students
right, give it to all the other provinces; as for me, I will take my share and do whatever I want with it in my own province."
It is very good from a political standpoint. But neither Mr. Jean Lesage, Mr. Robarts, nor Mr. Roblin, in short no premier has the power to come to Ottawa for a federal-provincial conference and amend the constitution. Nobody has such a right. Only the people have this right, because the constitution belongs to them.
Mr. Speaker, at this stage of my remarks,
I am proud to say that I share the feelings of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) who stated, when he dealt with the matter of federal-provincial relations: "It is the priority rights which are important."
As far as I am concerned, and though it might upset some hon. members, I must say that I do not believe in the priority needs of the provinces. As a matter of fact, what are the priority needs of a province?
Each province thinks it has priority needs. For Quebec, it is education; for another province it may be mining, and for another again there is the labour problem. What is a priority need, if not what a province lacks?
Personally, I believe in priority rights, it is a principle which I shall defend to the last. And what are the priority rights of a province? They stem from what a few people decided, about a century ago, when they said: If we want a greater Canada, minorities must be protected. Now, if we want to protect the minorities, the federal government must have certain responsibilities, and so must the provincial governments. When these responsibilities were being apportioned, education went to the provinces, because it is the very basis of culture, the protector of language, creed and traditions. And, today, by very devious, very subtle means, the federal government introduced two bills concerning provincial rights and educational matters.
The first piece of legislation provided for school allowances for 16 and 17 years old students. There are those who might tell me: The provinces have, for a long time, accepted the principle of family allowances. That is true. But whether disguised or not, the principle of school allowances for young people 16 and 17 years old was not discussed when the provinces handed over their powers to the federal government. And, even if they had, Bill No. C-110 which is before us today goes even further. Loans will be made to students.
Mr. Speaker, if I were asked how I shall vote on this matter, I should hardly know
[Mr. Girouard.l
the answer. Because Mr. Lesage came to Ottawa and said: "Very well, grant these loans to students in other provinces, but give me the money and I shall dispose of it as I please."
At first sight it seemed all right to say that the federal government did not meddle with any of our prerogatives, that provinces were free to do as they pleased. But what was overlooked, what Mr. Lesage did not realize, is that he was at the same time agreeing to a breach of the constitution. He forgot that it was his responsibility, as premier of a province, to defend the rights of his province and to safeguard the constitution, even if he wanted all students in Canada to get subsidies or loans to continue their schooling.
A member of the Ralliement Creditiste said that those students would become sharks at the service of the bank, and that they would in turn eat up the poor people. Mr. Speaker, such an assertion is false, because when a student has completed his course and wishes to charge a rate which may seem extravagant to some people, he deserved it in full. I would not wish to put forward a personal example, but if the hon. member who preceded me would look at my life history, he would realize that our studies are dearly paid for, and earned the hard way, but that once we become professionals, we are not necessarily sharks at the service of financiers or bankers.
Mr. Speaker, I must stand against Bill No. C-110, even if that should displease several hon. members, because we did not object to school allowances for 16 and 17 year old people. In fact, the majority of hon. members do not seem to object to the granting of loans to students by the federal government. I would go as far as to say that nine provinces out of 10 would like the government to set up a department of education.
Well, if nine provinces out of 10 agreed to let the federal government establish a federal department of education, I would approve that attitude, because it would show definitely that a tenth province does not want it, a province which is different from the others, and to which a special status must be granted in order to keep it within confederation.
That is just about what the province of Quebec is claiming, because the province of Quebec has special things to preserve, such as its language, its faith and its traditions. As soon as our English speaking colleagues understand that there are two great nations living side by side in this country, the

English and the French nations, and that they cannot compromise on certain subjects, we will finally be able to establish a strong confederation.
Let us give special status to the province of Quebec and continue confederation. Then, things will be perfect and I will not accuse my provincial premier, Mr. Jean Lesage, of coming to Ottawa to become the accomplice of the Liberal government and sell rights belonging to his province under the constitution. I shall simply say that we have a special status.
If such legislation can be useful to the rest of Canada, I agree. This may appear contradictory to you, Mr. Speaker, but personally I am in favour of a strong central government. I want it to be strong, but in its own field, just like I want the provinces to be strong, but in their own field.
Some hon. members have asked me "When will that stop? When will the province of Quebec stop these recriminations? When will these representations stop?"
The answer is simple. I told them: "This will stop merely by complying with the constitution; if, for years, the federal government has unceasingly encroached upon provincial rights, it is still possible to settle the situation, by reverting to the constitution. If they do not want to go back to the constitution because it might displease the English speaking provinces or weaken them economically, let us then give a special status to the province of Quebec and, once again the case would be settled. We will still have a confederation, with a strong central government; we will have several provinces willing to surrender many of their rights to a central government, while the province of Quebec will have retained its exclusive powers over which it keeps a jealous watch.
This, Mr. Speaker, is my personal opinion.
I say once again that the members have to stand up in the house to remind the federal government that, even though social legislation and loans to students may be politically profitable, we happen to live in a confederation in which were admitted, in all good faith, as many people from Lower Canada as there were from Upper Canada because then, everyone hoped and believed that their respective rights would be protected, although I feel that the present government, with its co-operative federalism, is undermining the very foundation of our country for many years to come.


Mr. Chretien:: May I direct a question to the hon. member for Labelle?
Loans to Students


Gérard Girouard: I am listening.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Could the hon. member tell me whether his remarks represent the viewpoint of his party, and whether he has not noticed in the present legislation that there is a special status for the province of Quebec?


Gérard Girouard: The hon. member is asking me if what I have just said represents the opinion of my party. I shall be glad to answer that question and, at the same time, I could ask the hon. member whether the union jack represents his own personal views and the tri-leaf flag meets the wishes of certain members opposite. I would say to him that the opinion I expressed is not necessarily that of my party, but that, at the head of my party, we have a leader who knows that, as regards sentimental matters, we have a right to freedom of expression, to voice our opinions freely and we can vote according to the wish of our province and our constituency. I am proud to belong to a party which allows me to vote in the interest of my riding or my province, before voting in the interest of my party, as the hon. member in front of me is doing.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You did not answer my question. I asked you if a special status was provided for the province of Quebec in this legislation, something the former government never recognized in the house.


Gérard Girouard: I will say once again that the special status for the province of Quebec was obtained following a deal made after the federal-provincial conference. The day after that conference the leader of the hon. member told us that nothing had happened at the said conference. Yet three or four days later, after some secret negotiations, we were told: Everything is settled.
Everything had been settled, yes, but if the province of Quebec has a special status, that still does not give Ottawa the right to legislate in fields which concern the other provinces, and the hon. member is guilty of that as a member of this government.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You are a slave to your party.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: In reply to the question asked by the hon. member for St Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien), the hon member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard) told us what his views were about his new leader; did he always have the same views?


Gérard Girouard: I could speak on that for a long time-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.

Loans to Students


Gérard Girouard: I would be glad to answer, Mr. Speaker, extremely glad.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that we are straying far away from the subject.
Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill No. C-110, I should like to point out to hon. members that without the Creditistes in this house I wonder where the country would be, because the new measures introduced these last few years tend to centralize and to specialize everything at an alarming rate. What we want is to legislate in terms of human beings, while preserving their present and future freedom.
I shall vote against this bill, because I claim that education concerns the provinces primarily and we are in favour of the autonomy of the provinces.
Let us imagine, for instance, a young man of 18 who wants to complete his studies by means of a federal loan. What will he do at 23 when he finds himself with a $5,000 debt, with all the other debts he will have to incur at that age, namely those resulting from marriage, rent, furniture, car, etc.?
I say that instead of doing a service to the students, this is putting them in debt for their whole lifetime and may discourage them for several years.
If the government truly wishes to assist students, let it give scholarships and favour free education by allowing the Bank of Canada to grant interest free loans to the provinces in that connection. Thus, the problem would be solved once and for all.
The province of Quebec has promised free education, but since it is deep in debt it can hardly get any credit nowadays and delays the implementation of that promise.
If the central government determined once and for all the role of the Bank of Canada, interest free loans could be granted to the provinces and all the people of Canada would benefit from them.
Instead of supporting capitalists, we would work to give to the future generation a very serious token. We would thus train learned and educated men who would do credit to Canada and could begin their career free of debt. Thus, the governor of the Bank of Canada would not have to warn the people to live within their means and to tighten their purse strings, as did Mr. Coyne a few years ago.

Consumers are not to blame, but the gov-erment is. The pieces of legislation submitted to us would compel people to run into debt and become fettered. No, Mr. Speaker, we want to get rid of the fetters of federal legislation.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock? [Text]
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I believe the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Plourde) had the floor at six o'clock. Before he resumes his remarks perhaps I should give to the house a message which should have been conveyed at six o'clock. That is, pursuant to provisional standing order 3 9A, the questions to be raised at 10.30 this evening are as follows:
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) administration of justice; confining of juveniles in federal penitentiaries;

Second, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Drouin), Indian affairs, St. Gabriel, and the repaving of a road.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gordon for the second reading of Bill No. C-110, to facilitate the making of loans to students.
Lucien Plourde: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned at six o'clock, I was saying that instead of helping our students, our youth, the present government is rather trying by all available means to lull them with certain programs which will lead nowhere.
We have received protests from several universities of the province of Quebec, to the

effect that students are not willing to accept the federal government's proposition and that they even request the house to reject Bill No. C-110.
It is not that students would not need some money to complete their studies, but they are looking further ahead. They know that they are the ones who will, in the long run, have to foot the bill. Our present governments are mortgaging the future of our youth and the future of generations ahead.
Instead of settling problems, the government is putting off their settlement, without bringing forward any solutions which would allow it to meet its responsibilities. That is why we, in this corner of the house, are against those half measures which are invariably brought before us.
In conclusion, I will read a letter from the general student association of the University of Sherbrooke. We have also received such a letter from the student association of the University of Montreal and one from the association of the University of Quebec. I quote:
Sherbrooke, July 17, 1964.
We are anxious to join our colleagues of the Universities of Montreal and Quebec to show our disapproval of your bill concerning loans to students.
We object to this system for various reasons. First, there is a gross violation by the federal government of the provincial jurisdiction with regard to sections 92 and 93 of our Canadian constitution. Our second objection is that this project is but another alleged remedy to make university education available to all.
With this project, you are simply mortgaging the taxpayers of tomorrow. You hide behind a smokescreen the real problem, which is the setting up of free education, the only solution to a free access to university. Here, in Quebec, the government in office promised us free education and we want it to be put into effect as soon as possible. This is why your project cannot be accepted.
The only thing that would seem acceptable, would be a system of free scholarships. This would amount to the same thing as free education.
Yours sincerely,
And this letter is signed by Pierre Hogue, president.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I intend to detain the house only a few minutes, but I did want to deal with one or two aspects of this problem that have not been mentioned to date. Like my colleagues I support the purpose of the bill. However my colleagues have pointed out its shortcomings on several grounds. I am not going to repeat those at this time-I think they have been very well placed before the house-but
Loans to Students
I wish to point out one other shortcoming that I think has not been mentioned. It is that in obtaining a B.A. or B.Sc. a student would have accumulated quite a body of debt. Having to face the repayment of that debt, that student's or graduate's opportunities for postgraduate work might be denied or might be unduly postponed. I suggest that aspect of the question should receive some consideration.
However, Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with one or two of the broader aspects of education, shall I say the philosophy of education, in reply to the remarks of a few of our colleagues in the extreme, geographically located left wing of the chamber, but politically right wing of the chamber. I was very interested in the references they made on occasion. I hope they will take these remarks most kindly, because I think they are really a very nice group of people as individuals; it is only in their collective aspect that we oppose them. Several times these colleagues of ours in the Creditiste group referred to the influence of this bill on students in Quebec, as if it may influence them in the wrong direction or cause them to forget their loyalty to their French culture, and so on. I must point out to them that their minister of education was a Rhodes scholar, and Cecil Rhodes granted these scholarships to any man who would promote the welfare of the empire. The minister of education took advantage of one of those scholarships and went to Oxford. There he came under the influence of the Oxford University atmosphere, with all that that implies and means. Then, I am reliably informed, he wrote his thesis on "Federalism in the empire". Then he returned to Quebec, and I am quite sure the minister of education's attitude to life now completely belies the argument of the hon. gentlemen who suggest that if a student from Quebec accepts some funds as a result of the passage of this bill, he will be influenced, shall I say, to some extent in the wrong direction.
I want to deal with one or two other aspects of this matter. Some of my colleagues are inclined to think that I live emotionally in the Victorian period; that is, only for short periods. But anyway, in the Victorian period there were three fallacies accepted by many intelligent and well meaning reformers. I think the first was that progress was inevitable; the second was that education was a cure-all for the ills of mankind; and the third was that education was the antidote for barbarism. I want to deal with that topic for a few minutes. Since that romantic period, shall I say, we have experienced the greatest,



S716 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Loans to Students
officially sponsored barbarism in the history of the world, supported by some of the most highly trained people in the world at that time from the various universities of Europe. We must not forget-I will round out my argument later-that a very high percentage of the officers in Hitler's elite guard had a doctor's degree and quite a number of them had degrees in economics. I am not sure if it was in hydro economics, Mr. Speaker, but they had degrees in economics, philosophy, and so on. Also some of the very best minds of France supported the proposals for the downfall of French democracy prior to 1939; and I find from correspondence and discussions with people who have just returned from conversations with leading people in the United States that even in the United States today Senator Goldwater has a lot of support from persons who have had the greatest possible advantages as far as higher education is concerned.
I was talking to a graduate only this morning, a freshman from one of the eastern universities. I will not mention the name of the university because I do not want to embarrass the members from that province. The president gave an address to the freshmen students at the last opening of the school year, and that address revolved around two points. First, the great advantages and virtues of the city in which the university was situated; second, the value of a degree in dollars. The university president I was told actually had a chart on the wall of his office to show what a B.A. was worth, or a B.Sc., or an M.A., or an M.Sc., or a doctor of philosophy, and so on. But not one word was there in this address to these students with respect to making a contribution to Canadian national life.
I had another experience, Mr. Speaker. Some friends wrote to me from the district from which I come, and they told me that there were some students from the University of British Columbia carrying around a petition urging the government of British Columbia to grant more funds to the University of British Columbia for buildings, and they were asking people to sign this petition. It was a very good cause which we supported. But these people made a point about this. They arranged with several dozen others to ask the students the question: What is your purpose in obtaining a university education? In 90 per cent of the cases the answer was: To make more money. I just bring this to the attention of the house so that hon. members will realize that we have work to do in this connection.
As far as I can see there are three major objectives nowadays with regard to students. The first is the purely material one-to make more money. This is not their fault; it is ours because of the philosophy of life which has been adopted. That is the society in which we live. The second is to secure intellectual competence. Very often that competence is combined with an intellectual arrogance. That is where we get our administrators from, and some of them are in the civil service. These people are highly trained, yet divorced from an understanding of people. Then we get the third group-and I will not underestimate its numbers or influence-comprising those students who accept a university education as an opportunity to make a contribution to Canadian national life, welfare and progress. And that is the purpose and spirit of this bill.
Why is this understanding lacking today after years and years of bitter experiences in the recent history of the world which we are witnessing every day? You cannot pick up a paper these days, Mr. Speaker, without seeing some cause for friction, and in some cases for bloodshed, between various groups in the world. I submit the reasons are twofold. First of all the morals of the society in which we live, which are dog eat dog morals plastered over with a superficial layer of professed Christianity on the part of those who support the system. The second reason is that we have failed to stress the fact that education without moral perception is a hollow shell; there is no question about that. We can train engineers, economists, administrators, managers and so on; but unless that training is coupled with moral perception, as I said before, then in my opinion it is a hollow shell. That has been demonstrated repeatedly since the early days of this century.
I want to quote a passage or two to illustrate the shallowness and lack of understanding and knowledge on the part of many persons who are educated in one particular field but are without an over-all, total approach to life. I have before me the transcript of a radio broadcast given over CHQM of Vancouver on July 3, and it says this:
People who worry about Canada's image in other countries must have been horrified at a report from Seattle this week.
The report-carried by the Sun-outlined the results of a survey taken at a convention in Seattle to test the knowledge and opinion that American delegates had of Canada.
Very few of those questioned came even close to passing the test in a manner likely to please any red-blooded Canadian.
[Stage Direction]
Mind you, Mr. Speaker, this was a conference of educators in the United States, top people in that field.
The report said there was fairly general agreement that Canada was "up north" and a rather decent neighbour to the United States-but beyond that the lact of the most elementary knowledge abou Canada was depressing.
Such informal surveys have been taken before among Americans by Canadian newspapers, with somewhat similar results.
The astonishing thing about this survey, however, is that the people questioned could not be classed as average American citizens, who understandably are often preoccupied with their own overwhelming domestic affairs.
The objects of this survey were delegates to the convention of the U.S. national education association. They were teachers, members of a profession who should be more aware of the "outside" world than the results of the survey indicated.
And if they aren't all experts on international matters, it shouldn't be too much to expect them to at least have some basic knowledge about Canada -which, after all, is the United States' best trading customer, closest ally, and more intimate culturally and socially with the United States than any other nation.
The one thing Canadians have learned from this survey is this: If American teachers are so lacking in information about Canada, we can hardly expect the so-called "average" American to know much about us.
I mention that, Mr. Speaker, to indicate the ignorance which can exist among persons who, we presume, are highly trained and educated. And the same situation exists to some extent in Canada. I am not talking down to people. I do not profess to be an educated person. I can read and write and carry on in that way, and that is the reason I have been able to follow these matters. But people are interested in education; I can tell that from letters I receive and conversations I have with people who are interested in real education; an education for a total view of life with human overtones.
Now what do we need? In my opinion we need some leadership, Mr. Speaker. However before I deal with that I want to quote briefly an editorial which indicates this sort of lack of understanding of the need for this type of education. I want to quote from the Saturday, July 18 issue of the Globe and Mail, an editorial which starts off in this way:
When the Canadian home and school and parent-teachers federation held its annual meeting at Winnipeg last year, it had before it a proposal to mark Canada's 1967 centennial with an international conference of parents and teachers.
Mr. C. Max Bedford, national president, said the purpose of the 1967 meeting would be to promote international peace, understanding and co-operation. "This is a shrinking world, facing the possibility of nuclear annihilation, and we feel we have the moral responsibility to attempt it".
Loans to Students
The suggestion was approved with only three dissenting votes. The 1967 rally was given an official title, the world conference of parents and teachers. In January of this year, however, anticommunist pressures began to make themselves felt. The organizers of the conference started wondering out loud if they should invite, delegates from Russia, China, Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc.
This week as the Canadian home and school and PT federation held its annual meeting at Charlottetown, the anti-communist pressure emerged and identified itself as American. Officials of the national parent-teacher association in the United States said that if any communist countries were represented at the Ottawa conference, the United States would boycott it.
The U.S. delegate to the Charlottetown meeting. Mr. Ralph Frost of Knoxville, Tenn., said that communist representatives "would not be representing actual parent-teacher groups, but would be agents of totalitarian governments"...
In the end, the Canadian home and school officials yielded to U.S. fears and threats. Mr. Bedford said that the Ottawa conference would be held without any communist representation: a world conference with one third of the world excluded. Otherwise, he said, it would have to be scrapped completely.
I mention that, Mr. Speaker, to indicate the shallowness of mind of some people who are supposed to be interested in education. Our government officially is in favour of cultural contacts between these various countries and is in favour of trading with them. Yet a reputable organization in this country yields, shall I say, to the anti-intellectual approach of those people who do not want a world congress on this basis but want these other countries limited. Who could work more efficiently to promote understanding of our different educational systems than the educators in question and the parent-teachers association of Canada?
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, people are interested in education and they are interested in the bill now before us, even with all the imperfections that have been mentioned by our leader and other members of our group. But there must be leadership in this direction in Canada if we are going to get the value out of education that we hope to get. We need leadership from governments. We need better leadership from the universities and the leaders of our universities who in my opinion are not doing their share to direct attention to the type of education required to meet modern circumstances and conditions. There are still too many of our leading university people who are afraid to say what they think in case they offend the government and, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that happens in my own province of British Columbia. We need a national purpose and a national policy in Canada with respect to education. I do not
[Stage Direction]
Loans to Students
mean control of education by the federal government, but we need to coalesce our ideas and have some target to present to our young people in the form of a national purpose as the result of federal-provincial co-operation and university co-operation. We need a policy associated with that purpose.
We need to teach our young people the reason for education. The reason for education is not simply to make money, although higher standards of living naturally flow from education and are radiated to the other sections of the community. We need a philosophy in this country upon which to found a sound educational system. We need an understanding of history and our young people need to have an understanding of our democratic and parliamentary institutions. We need legislation as part of a national plan to this effect and not just a tidbit such as this bill, which is introduced as a bits and bobs piece of legislation. We do this in this direction. We will pass a Canada pension plan, we hope, in the near future. We pass other pieces of legislation. But it is all unrelated. What we should have is a national plan and a national target in all these respects.
I see you looking rather darkly at me, Mr. Speaker. I want to say in conclusion that we can easily train multitudes to be clever in one field, as administrators, as engineers and as scientists, as docile servants of a self-seeking society, or we can train human beings whose moral perception will cause them to make their contribution toward the building of a Canada for the full enjoyment of all Canadians in association with all people who have similar ideas. I have got this off my chest, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to sit down.
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on the bill but after some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge) concerning the left-wingers on the Liberal skating rink, as it might be called, I should like to say a few words with regard to the ideas he put forward, so that there will not be any misunderstanding as to our position in respect of the bill and why we introduced an amendment the other day to give more control to the provinces so that they would have a greater say in the educational system.
The hon. member for Kootenay West mentioned that our minister of education in Quebec received some of his education under a system similar to that incorporated in the bill. I must say that the minister of education
[Mr. Herridge.l
of Quebec is probably more socialist than some socialists themselves. If you want an example of that I would point out that he even established a trusteeship over the Jacques Cartier school board in Montreal, and I must say I do not agree with the basis on which he established it. Because he is the minister of education does not mean that most of the people in the province of Quebec agree with his political ideas.
We must remember one thing. The government serves or guides the nation. That is their role, but very often the nation has to serve as the government's fool's railing so that they do not turn aside from their course too often. I believe that at times the people have to have their say so that the government will open their eyes to the fact that they are straying pretty far. We got rid of state control when we got rid of imperialism in France and in England. Louis XIV said, "The state is I". That was rather far fetched, but I imagine he had strong control. This is exactly the trap that the people of Canada as well as those of other nations may fall into today. The people did not vote for kings, but they do not vote for bureaucrats either. When the state lines up people, everybody lines up one behind the other, but the fact is that the people want to have more say. They revolted against such control during the French revolution against the king and they will revolt against any sort of state control if it is carried to extremes.
I do not agree with the hon. member for Kootenay West when he says we should have more state control or that the federal government should have more to say with regard to the control and administration of education. This is one domaine, one field of activity that belongs to the provinces. First of all, the most important government you can have in a country is the family itself. That is the basic cell of any nation and if you rip open that basic cell you are ripping open the whole nation. You are actually taking away more and more by government legislation the powers of the mother and father over the family. It is not in the power of the government to do so either in this country or in any other.
The closest authority to the family and to the children themselves is found in the municipality and the school board. They have more to say and should have more to say about the educational system than the government of a province or even the federal government. Yet today the governments of some of the provinces, such as the province of Quebec, are trying to curtail more and more the hold

of the school boards over the educational system. In the province of Quebec they have even lost control of 70 per cent of their budgets and only control 30 per cent now. Yet the federal government wants to control another portion. This is not according to the basic principles of democracy under which we want the people to decide for themselves and not the state. The people may vote for a government. They vote for a man, yes, but they do not vote for bureaucrats. You do not vote for things that you do not control. With the bill now before us we are tending to take away from the people some of their say with regard to the education of their children.
This does not concern only the province of Quebec, but all the provinces of Canada. I say what is good for the other provinces is good for Quebec. But if you are going to give the provinces something, please leave them at least with the freedom and privilege to do as they please in the exercise of these rights and as they feel should be done for the benefit of all the people. The ones who are closest to the people are the ones who know their troubles. I can say right now that the federal government is going farther and farther away from the people. This is one field of activity into which the federal government should not poke its nose for fear it might mess it up, as they have messed up some other fields of activity.
If the federal government wants to be helpful in the educational field, they can give some guidance, yes, but they cannot impose their will. They can help the nation by helping the provinces first of all. The province has its own educational system. Let the provinces decide for themselves. They can decide this better than we can here. They know what is good for them. They have their own traditions, their own needs and their own educational systems. Let them decide for themselves. If we want to be helpful, we can give them some financial help, but let us not try to put a collar over the students. Let there be no control that way, because we are too far away from the people to start deciding what they should study in school.
We were not born yesterday. You can say that politics does not play a game like that. You might find some people gullible enough to believe that politicians do not play that game, but you will not find everyone in this country that gullible, that's for sure. This is one time the federal government might start respecting the provinces by leaving this educational field to the provinces. This is one thing the late John F. Kennedy said which
Loans to Students
might be applied here, if one broadens the sense of the remark. He said, do not ask what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country. I am speaking to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) at the moment and I say the best thing he can do for this country is to keep his nose out of this business and let the provinces solve their own problems. If the federal government wants to be charitable to the provinces, they will not try to solve their problems because they will only make them greater.
I agree that the province of Ontario has financial needs, as do the western provinces and the eastern provinces. I think the federal government has been digging into the pockets of the citizens of Canada because that is the only treasury they have. It is true the federal government can help financially by giving some money back to the provinces, but not by giving it to the people directly. I honestly believe that this is something entirely within the jurisdiction of the provinces and for that reason I cannot support this bill any more than my colleagues can. The provinces were given jurisdiction in this field a long time ago, so let us leave it with them.
I regret to say that sometimes the leader of the New Democratic party says we should bring jurisdiction back to Ottawa. When he was a member of a provincial government in 1944 he said jurisdiction should be left with Regina. He has been travelling back and forth. When he has been in Ottawa he wants jurisdiction in Ottawa; when he is in Regina he wants jurisdiction in Regina. This is understandable. This is his idea, and I respect it, but that does not mean that I accept. I believe this government is overstepping its rights and getting into something they have no business being in at all. The jurisdiction belongs with the provinces and we should leave it there.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Minister of Finance speaks now, he will close the debate.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if hon. members would permit me, before dealing with this debate, to try to clear up a mystery that has developed in the parliamentary restaurant concerning a missing cake? I understand it was the birthday of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Watson), and I am sure we all wish him well. A cake was produced and was delivered but because of some confusion in names the cake was de-

Loans to Students
livered to the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker), who was having a party. He ate it. I wish to assure the hon. member for Assiniboia that this was not a case of partisanship. We hope he will have his cake tomorrow. If another cake can be produced tomorrow, we will all help him eat it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to some very interesting speeches for several days. From the many things that so many hon. members have said, I have rather gathered the impression that the majority of the members of this house are planning to support this bill. I say this despite the number of people who have given the impression that they are going to oppose it. The spokesmen for several of the parties have said it is their intention to support this bill. However some of their supporters apparently have different views. This is a problem that some leaders in some parties are up against from time to time.
I feel it is fair to say that while most hon. members who have spoken have said that they will vote for the bill, they have complained that it does not go far enough or that it goes too far in one direction or another. I should like, in closing this debate, to refer to some of the reservations or hesitations that have been voiced.
Several hon. members who have spoken have expressed the view that the financial needs of the universities will not be assisted by this bill, in fact if anything that the bill will aggravate their financial problems. I should point out, of course, this bill is not, ana was not intended to be, a comprehensive measure dealing with the whole university eaucational problem. Its purpose is very simple, to relieve the immediate financial problems of university students, making it financially possible, in other words, by way of loans, for any boy or girl with the necessary qualifications to contribute to his or her education in the post-secondary school level. It has been suggested that the federal government should do more to meet the financial problems of the universities. Let me make it quite clear that I agree that the universities need more, much more, in the way of financial assistance. However, whether it should come directly from the federal government or whether it should come from the provinces which, under our constitution, are responsible for education, is a question of opinion.


Gilles Grégoire: No, a question of the constitution.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: With the greatest respect, on the basis of what has been said in this debate over the last few days I suggest it is a question of opinion.


Gilles Grégoire: No, no.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would go further and say this is not something we are likely to resolve in the course of this debate. In the meantime let me remind hon. members of what the federal government is doing at present for the universities, and I would like to make it perfectly clear that this is not a question of one party or another. What I am going to put on the record is, in the main, a list of programs introduced some time ago and endorsed, followed and adopted by both the principal parties in this country.


An hon. Member:: That does not make it right, though.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am not for a moment suggesting that majority opinion makes anything right but, by the same token, I certainly do not agree that minority opinion makes anything right either.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The majority has some rights, even in this country.


John George Diefenbaker: What is that?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: 
John George Diefenbaker: The minister said that the amount that was paid out in connection with vocational training in the last fiscal year was one hundred and some million dollars. What fiscal year does he have reference to?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The last fiscal year.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, what is that?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The last fiscal year?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Well, as my right hon. friend knows, the fiscal year ends in March.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister say those are the figures from March 1963 to March 1964?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: To the best of my knowledge.


John George Diefenbaker: You had better look them up again.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am very happy at any time to have advice or help from the right hon.
Loans to Students
Leader of the Opposition, particularly in financial and economic matters, because I must say he has got a great head for figures. If the figure I am talking about applies to the current fiscal year instead of the last one I shall be glad to make the correction tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: It applies to the last year we were in office.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Well, I think I might be permitted to let that pass. Lately the right hon. gentleman has been doing a lot of reminiscing about the days he was in office. He made two speeches on the subject in the last 10 days, and I am sure we will hear more of them and will be interested in what he has to say.


John George Diefenbaker: All I ask is that you give the facts. Don't quote statistics that are not correct.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I never thought the day would come when the right hon. gentleman would emphasize the need for giving the facts, but I am grateful to him for his remarks and perhaps we may hold him to them some day.


Mr. Nielsen:: What about "Troubled Canada"?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Read it again if you want to. I seem to have been diverted from what I was saying about the $265 million per annum which is being transferred from federal to provincial revenues. As I mentioned a few minutes ago, this is a very considerable sum of money and anyone who thinks about it and then suggests the present government is ignoring this extremely important and pressing problem, and suggests the federal government is doing nothing about it, is simply talking through his hat.
On their own, the universities have established a public commission under the very distinguished chairmanship of Dean Vincent Bladen of the University of Toronto, which soon will be holding meetings across Canada. This will help publicize the problems the universities are up against and I shall be surprised if, when it has finished its public hearings, it does not come up with recommendations as to how to deal best with these problems.
All of us know that in the years ahead we shall need more universities and far more university teachers. This is not a new problem. It has been known to everyone who has had an interest in universities and university education for nearly a decade and, if I may be permitted to say so, it was stressed in the

Loans to Students
report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects as far back as 1956. If hon. members will bear with me I should like to quote from what that commission had to say on this question in its first report of December 1956. I do so because of some of the things which have been said in the course of this debate. It says this:
If salary scales are increased substantially-
The report was talking about university teachers' salaries-
-and if the whole status of the university teaching profession in Canada is raised and improved, it should become increasingly easier to persuade young Canadians of high quality to enter the teaching profession. Furthermore, it should be possible for Canadian universities to attract to their ranks Canadians and others who are at present teaching in United States colleges and, in addition, a number of scientists and scholars from Europe and elsewhere. What is being suggested in essence is that a deliberate and sustained effort be made to raise the quality and standards of Canadian universities to among the highest prevailing anywhere in the world. It is perhaps not going too far to suggest that no other single course of action would be so likely to have such an important and fundamental effect upon the long term economic prospects for Canada.
In addition to the sums required for increased salaries, the existing universities and the new universities which will soon be needed will require substantial capital grants, if they are to take care of the very large increase in the anticipated enrolment. It is estimated that capital expenditures of about $1 billion will be required for these purposes over the period of the next 25 years.
It is of the greatest importance also that no Canadian boy or girl of ability should be denied a university education because he or she is unable to afford it. University costs are quite obviously going to increase considerably, and it would seem reasonable to expect that some part of this increase should be recovered through an increase in student fees. This should not be done, however, unless adequate provision is made through a combination of scholarships, bursaries and student loan funds to take care of those students who require financial assistance.
It is not the responsibility of this commission to recommend how the financial problems of the universities should be solved. It is our duty however, to point out most emphatically that it is vitally important to Canada's future for the status of our universities to be improved and strengthened and for their facilities to be increased.
As the author of those words-and I wrote them myself, if I remember correctly-may I say I think they are as true today as when they were written nearly eight years ago.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Where are the bursaries?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do not believe enough has been done to meet the problem which now confronts our universities. The result is that some qualified and deserving students could be denied a university education in Canada

because facilities are insufficient and I am sure all hon. members would agree with me that this would be a shame.


Douglas Mason Fisher: It is.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: While I am expressing some personal opinions may I add that despite what the royal commission had to say in 1956 about student fees, in my view, in my personal view, education at university level, like primary and secondary education, should be free for everyone who has the necessary qualifications.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I see my good friend the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) applauding and I hope he will not call me a pseudoLiberal again.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: All you have to do is put it into effect.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If there are to be fees, there should be scholarships and bursaries to meet them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Bring on the legislation.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do not expect this will happen overnight but I do believe it will come to pass, and I hope it will come to pass very soon.
This having been said, perhaps we should remind ourselves that what we are doing now is to consider legislation which is before us dealing with one aspect of this problem only, that is authorizing the banks to make loans to students under certain specified conditions.
I should like to turn to another subject which was raised first, I think, during the course of the debate by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) and then by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson). This was the question whether the amount of $40 million per annum plus an appropriate increase based on the increase in the 18-24 year age group would be sufficient to take care of all the applications for student loans which may be expected. Perhaps I did not give a sufficiently clear or comprehensive answer at the time to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and I should like to go into this now in a little more detail.
The estimates I am about to put on record, now, were arrived at after consultation with provincial and university authorities who have experience in these matters. First, in the academic year 1964, there will be about
221,000	students in universities, teachers col-

leges and vocational training institutions. It is estimated that one out of three of these students, that is, about 74,000, will receive loans which, according to estimates made by those who have been engaged in this field, would possibly average about $500. If these estimates are correct, this would amount to something less than $40 million and my advice is that these estimates are probably somewhat on the high side. It would be appreciated that these 74,000 students would include those in their first, second, third and fourth years of undergraduate work in addition to those carrying out graduate studies. It is assumed, that the university population will increase at about the rate of 10 per cent per annum. If this proves to be accurate then in the second year there should be around 81,000 students requiring loans. Those in their fourth year of undergraduate work will have graduated, but they will be replaced by students entering university for the first time. This means that an additional $40 million will be required for this purpose a year from now-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the hon. gentleman mean $40 million of additional money in the next academic year plus the money necessary to pay loans to students who are taking their second year at university?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, I mean that according to these calculations, a year from now about
81,000	students will need assistance in this way. I should make it clear that this is on a national basis including the province of Quebec which I intend to deal with later. The increase from 74,000 this year to 81,000 next year means that a year from now another $40 million will be needed in addition to the $40 million which will be provided this year. A second $40 million will be provided plus an amount to take care of the increase in the age group 18-24.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is the minister suggesting that 80,000 students will be covered by $40 million?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That is right.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: At an average of $500 apiece?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That is right.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They are not going to be very generous loans.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: As I said a moment ago, these estimates were prepared by people who have had a good many years of experience in
Loans to Students
this field. They felt that only about one in three of the students would need this kind of help or would want it, and they felt that on the average the loans would not amount to $1,000, which is the limit in any one year, but to an average of about $500. If we find that this is too little, then I will certainly have no hesitation, despite the length of the present debate, in coming back to the house for an increase in the provision. I must say, though, Mr. Speaker, that the people whom we have consulted in this field think that, if anything, the amounts we have provided will not be used up to the full. I must take their advice, because they are the best people, with the best experience, that we have been able to find.
I want to go on with these calculations to make sure that all hon. members at least know the basis upon which they are made. There would be some repayments commencing some 18 months or two years from now, but these would be relatively negligible to start with. However, they would tend to reduce to some extent the amount outstanding. Such reductions would be offset by the steady increase in the university population each year and the corresponding increase in the total amount required for loan purposes each year over and above the original amount of $40 million per annum. Taking everything into account, it is estimated that the total amount outstanding will increase at the rate of about $40 million plus per annum over the first five-year period. It is therefore estimated that some $200 million to perhaps $250 million might be outstanding five years from now. From then on the rate of increase might be expected to be somewhat higher as the total population in the university age group grows. Having reviewed these calculations once again over the week end in the light of the comments made by the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), I think they are probably as reasonable as it is possible to be until we have had some experience in this field ourselves.
I would like to turn to another series of questions, Mr. Speaker. A number of hon. members have criticized the bill on constitutional or legal grounds. I am grateful to them for their comments, and I am especially grateful to my friend the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) for the way in which he put his views before the house. The hon. member is a senior and respected member of the bar of Ontario who has had wide

Loans to Students
experience in matters of this kind, and his opinions not only deserve to be taken seriously, but I can assure him, Mr. Speaker, that they have been taken seriously by the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Taken seriously, but thrown out.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Well, I was just going to say that I am also very grateful to my parliamentary secretary, not only for the searching examination he has made, with the responsible officers of the Department of Justice, of the various points that have been raised, but also, if I may say so, for the very able and, to me, very convincing way in which he explained the government's position in the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edgar John Benson: You never said that about me.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) said I never said that about him; but the fact is that he never gave a legal opinion in the house, and I hope he does not start now. The hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Pennell) is also a distinguished member of the Ontario bar. I think I am particularly fortunate in having him to assist me. Not only is he able and industrious, but I am sure all hon. members *envy him his honeyed tongue.
I am not a lawyer and I can only offer a layman's opinion of the three points that have been raised. First of all, my parliamentary secretary has stated that the government would accept a change along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). As I understand it, this is a matter of drafting. I think the draftsmen feel quite confident that the present wording would cover the point raised by the hon. member for Yukon. However, I would not like there to be any doubts in his mind on this score, so when we reach that point at the committee stage, we will introduce an amendment which I think-which I hope; I should not say "I think"-will satisfy him.
I have no difficulty, as I have indicated, with the point raised by the hon. member for Greenwood. After very serious and careful consideration, I am advised that in the opinion of the law officers, and also of hon. members who are members of the legal profession, this proposal is unnecessary.
The third point that has been raised in this general area deals with the question of lend-

ing money to minors. I certainly shall not attempt to discuss the legal arguments that have been raised; but I would like to make two points. The first is that the bill is intended to provide loans to students to assist them with their university education or their vocational training. If money is to be lent to them rather than given to them in one way or another, there must be some provision to ensure that it is paid back. There are good precedents for this, as the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand explained the other night. As I understand it, it is a matter of banking law. This is the point that some hon. members today, and perhaps last week, have failed to deal with. I, as a layman, am prepared to agree that there is room for differences on many legal questions. Perhaps if there were not, we would not need so many lawyers. But the fact is that there is room for differences of opinion. I appreciate the opinions that have been offered by members of opposition parties, but I am sure they will not take offence if, after much additional discussion and consideration, I have decided to accept the advice and opinions of those whose job it is to advise the government in these matters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Even if they are wrong?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Well, I was just going to say that if their advice is wrong there will be an opportunity, no doubt, for the courts to rule upon it; and after all, this will keep a lot of very-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Careful. You are going to say something you should not say.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Well, it will keep a lot of people busy; I will leave it at that. In the meantime I hope we shall be able to get on with the business of making loans to students. Personally I am completely confident that practically all these loans will be repaid. We have heard a lot in this house today about protests from students in regard to this legislation; but believe me, Mr. Speaker, there are a whole lot of students right across the country who want to see this measure passed.


Gilles Grégoire: A lot of students would like to have it passed, but not with this principle.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The second point I wish to make in this connection is that some hon. members of certain opposition parties-not all -have argued that in some way the constitution is being trampled on and the rights of the provinces affronted. I must say that I find this line of argument quite uncon-

vincing and I will give my reasons. In the first place, officials of all provincial governments met with federal officials to discuss the form of the legislation, and as I said in answer to a question today I should like to acknowledge the very real assistance which those provincial officials gave to us in the formulation and drafting of this plan. I am assured that they found the bill quite satisfactory as far as they were concerned. I have the privilege of knowing some of these officials, and believe me they are just as jealous of the rights of the provinces as are a lot of other people. I might add that this matter was discussed at the last federal-provincial conference, and it was stated then with no equivocation that if any province felt it had a perfectly good scheme which was working well and did not wish to participate in this particular scheme, then that was all right as far as the federal government was concerned. As hon. members know there is a provision in the bill which provides that if any of the provinces wish to carry on with their own schemes and do not wish to participate in the federal scheme they should notify the federal government within 30 days, I think it is, of the passing of the act that they plan to continue their own scheme. In such case such provinces will receive compensation equal to the net cost to the federal government which would be incurred if the scheme had applied to such province.
As I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, the prime minister of Quebec has advised me that in the case of the province of Quebec that province will continue with its present scheme and take advantage of clause 12 of the bill, I think it is. I suppose that because I come from Ontario the hon. member for Lapointe might think I do not fully understand matters in Quebec. I certainly did not intend to be sharp or offhand with him during the question period today, but it has always been my understanding that the prime minister of Quebec was in a position to speak for the government of Quebec and for the very considerable majority of the people of Quebec. Until I am convinced to the contrary I think that is good enough for me.


Mr. Lambert:: Is the minister suggesting that members from the various provinces cannot speak for their own province as well, that they are subjugated or relegated behind the provincial premier?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Not only did I not suggest or think that for one moment, but I think all hon. members, particularly those from the
Loans to Students
province of Quebec in the party to which my hon. friend belongs, have made it very clear that they are quite competent to express views on this very important subject at some considerable length. While I am on this point -and I did not mean to bring this up-may I say I was interested to see that the leader of the Conservative party from Quebec had one point of view, which I thought he expressed very well, but that his followers do not apparently go along with him. However, that is their privilege.


Norman Platt Lambert: We have seen that in your own house too.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do not know whether the hon. member is talking about my house or my party. If he is talking about my house I do not know that I should engage in a personal discussion of that kind. These things happen in the best of families where there are differences of view, and I expect they always will.


Gilles Grégoire: May I put a question to the minister on that subject. Did he receive any communication from the president of the students association of Quebec in the province of Quebec, and did the minister agree to meet representatives of the students tomorrow?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: To be perfectly honest, I do not know. I left here at six o'clock; I did not get to my office till about a quarter to seven. I made it clear to my secretary earlier in the day that if anyone wanted to see me at any time I should be more than delighted to see them; and if this included the students from the province of Quebec they would be doubly welcome. I would be delighted to have the opportunity to explain to them not only the provisions of this bill and what it will mean to the students all over the country, but also the reasons why in their province their government has found it unnecessary to go along with this plan.
I think I have only one other point I wish to mention, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam questioned me about why under this bill the lending of money was restricted to the banks, and about whether or not it should be extended to include the credit unions and the caisse populaires. I should point out what our experience has been under other guaranteed loan arrangements. I think it is only the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act which recognizes credit unions as lenders, together with the chartered banks. The other acts, the Farm Improvement

Division
Loans Act and the Small Businesses Loans Act, recognize the banks only.
The reasons for including credit unions under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act were, first, that the credit unions wished to be included, and second, because of the relative importance of credit unions in the fisheries industry in regions where service by the chartered banks is limited. The Fisheries Improvement Loans Act came into force in 1955 and a total of $1,900,000 has been lent by all lenders from its inception up to March 31, 1964. Actual lending by the credit unions under the act has been negligible; loans made by credit unions have amounted to only 6 per cent of the total. Only three credit unions made loans under the act. One of these credit unions made one loan and another made five loans. A total of 59 loans was made by all credit unions in an amount of $117,470, all on the west coast. Perhaps I should also add that no loans have been made by any credit union since 1961. In these circumstances there did not seem to be a great deal of point in expanding this beyond the chartered banks. I have tried to answer some of the more important questions that have been raised and I will be glad to discuss the clauses when we are in committee.


Mr.   Depul@: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Mr. Gelber:: Mr. Chairman, on October 4, 1957, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics put a rocket into propulsion, Sputnik No. 1. A sophisticated mechanism put together by mathematics, physics, astronomy, chemistry and biology shocked the western world and brought to our attention that the universities have much to give to the development of

our society. This one event, more than any other in the last decade, has focused the attention of the western world on the problems of education. We suddenly realized that Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton-universities like McGill, Queen's, Montreal, British Columbia and Toronto have great things to give in the struggles of the west.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May I bring to the attention of hon. members of the committee that it is a bit noisy and very difficult for the Chair to follow the interesting remarks of the hon. member.


Marvin Gelber: I thank you, Mr. Chairman. In discussing the problems of training the young people of Canada we should look at certain important statistics. One half of the population is under 25 years of age; about 7.9 per cent is over 65; one half of the population is supporting the other half. According to present trends, by 1971 the percentage of persons in the 30 to 40 age group will have shrunk. Mr. Bascom St. John in a recent article in the Globe and Mail reported that the American council on education had shown there were 5 million unemployed but that 4 million job opportunities were not filled.
It is projected that within six years half the available population will be in technical and highly skilled occupations. The demand for unskilled workers will decrease and the demand for semi-professional and technical personnel will increase by 40 per cent, and for clerical sales employment by 26 per cent. Our society faces a most important social and economic revolution, being brought on through the processes of automation. Our system of production and distribution is being radically transformed.
There are three basic elements in automation: (1) controls like the simple thermostat in your home, which represent the selfregulating system and can make men superfluous; (2) the electronic computer which can add electric impulses and stores information. It has a capacity to perform logical decision making. The third unique factor in the automated economy is the automation assembly line.


Lucien Lamoureux: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but it is my duty to remind him that even though wide latitude is allowed on the first clause of the bill I do not think he can go on discussing education in general. I suggest to him that his remarks should be more precisely directed to the question of loans for students, which is the matter now
Loans to Students
before the committee. I would like him to bear that in mind in continuing his remarks.


Marvin Gelber: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am drawing a picture to show the need for highly trained, technical personnel and the importance of the universities in providing these personnel. The system of helping people to go to universities to get this training is very important.
I maintain we shall have to devote to education a larger proportion of our economic resources. We must take stock of what we are doing and consider the training which is to be given, in the light of the shortage of highly skilled workers in this country. We have spent a great deal of time in this house discussing the control of our industry. If we do not produce highly qualified people who are capable of managing our industry, but have to import them from other countries, this, too, will be a result of how we handle our affairs in the field of education. I believe the whole context of these discussions must be kept in mind when we are talking about financing a generation of Canadians so that they can be trained to fill this great need.
We are in danger of finding ourselves with a class of the functionally illiterate whose poverty is not hereditary because it is congenital, but hereditary due to social and economic factors. Our present system is likely to produce a class of poverty stricken people whose inheritance does not give them the chance to drag themselves out of their depressed state. I believe this bill is one more facet of a program which will help our people to improve the faculties which will fit them for the highly sophisticated economic society which we are developing.
In the over-all training of Canadians we are not doing a great deal. The government of Canada is carrying on joint programs with the provinces but the number of people involved in these programs is very small and the majority of these are in technical secondary schools. Again, more than half of the students in such schools are studying office routine, bookkeeping, and so on. The number engaged in technical training to meet the great and growing demands of our society for specialized skills is really very small.
Another problem is presented by school drop-outs. About one third of those entering elementary schools drop out before they reach grade eight. Another one third drop out before they have completed high school. The number of people who enter our educational system and who reap the full advan-

Loans to Students
tage of the opportunity provided for them is very few. I believe we must use the means we are discussing this evening, and further means, as well, to ensure that people who enter our educational system will emerge trained and able to take their places in society. A study was recently made by the Department of Labour showing the number of vacancies existing in Canada in the highly trained professions. It was found there were 32,785 in engineering; 14,516 in natural sciences and 1,841 in social sciences. The projected vacancies by 1967 show that positions available in engineering are likely to increase by 32 percent, in natural sciences by 31 per cent, and in the social sciences by 88 per cent.


Lucien Lamoureux: It is with great hesitation that I again call upon the hon. member who has the floor to limit his remarks to the question before the committee, which is the question of loans to students.


Marvin Gelber: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I feel that the urgent requirements of Canadian society and of the Canadian economy demand that both at the federal level of government and at the provincial level we should mobilize our resources toward the establishment of the most effective possible education program, and this bill now before us is one more means to assist students to enter universities and equip themselves for the many important tasks which face us as a nation in this day and age.
We must view the problem of education today as something which cannot be divorced from the development of our society in general. There are many revolutionary factors at work changing the economy and changing the social life of Canada in 1964. We need measures such as have been brought before us this evening, so as to enable our students to equip themselves to cope with these changes and take their places in the economic and social life of this country, not forgetting the point made by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), that it should be an education with a high moral purpose so that the direction of this country may be in democratic and liberal hands to give leadership toward the goals we all desire.


Mr. Paul:: Mr. Chairman, if I rise again in this debate, it is not in order to resort to some "dirty and nasty" tactics, as some hon. members said this afternoon, but, on the contrary to follow up the remarks of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), who stated in his speech that those who were opposed to this

legislation had advanced some arguments which did not convince him, or rather, which failed to make him understand our opposition to this bill.
May I say to the minister that listening to his remarks, I became more and more convinced that I should oppose the bill, because the arguments he himself advanced were wrong. He based his thesis on three main points:
First of all, with regard to the constitutional character of the legislation, his main argument was that provincial officials co-operated in the preparation of this bill.
That is a new constitutional theory. There is no more need of a supreme court, a higher court or a court of appeal, according to the Minister of Finance, as the officials representing the various provinces can just meet to study a bill. In that case, the advice or opinions they express, the decisions they take, become law and can turn anything unconstitutional into something fully constitutional. That was the most important argument of the Minister of Finance.
As his second argument, the minister said: This legislation is constitutional, because there is a section providing for replacement payments; there is a formula of compensation or option and therefore, this legislation is constitutional. Another very strong argument.
And the third argument is the ex cathedra argument, striking and overwhelmingly; Premier Lesage approved this legislation.
Because of a premier's opinion, we should once again proclaim as being constitutional something which is not constitutional. Besides, it is not surprising to see Hon. Jean Lesage support such a theory of co-operative federalism, because he himself bears the responsibility of having been in 1958 the legislator of the Liberal party program to assist universities.
But the minister's arguments cannot modify in the least the point of view that I had an opportunity to put forward during the debate on second reading of this bill; it cannot be changed either by the arguments put forward by the supporters of centralization. My hon. friends opposite, representing the province of Quebec, have once again voted in a way which does not tally with the fine theories of the last election campaigns. We, Quebec Conservatives, have voted in accordance with the policies we had indicated.
The supporters of this interference of the federal government in the field of education, under this legislation, take their stand on five main arguments.

In the first place, the ancillary theory, according to which the federal government, having exclusive jurisdiction on matters and subjects listed in section 91, is interfering in a field which is related to the main object which is at the basis of the legislation.
It is by virtue of this ancillary theory that we have the federal authority in matters of education and schooling among Indians, since the Indian problem comes under the federal government. So the privy council gave two main and necessary reasons for the application of the ancillary theory; but such is not the case in the consideration of the present legislation.
First of all as I said a while ago, the subject of the legislation should come exclusively under federal jurisdiction. Second, the privy council decided that it was necessary that this legislation be required.
I do not see, in the consideration of this legislation providing for the making of loans to students, that we are in a field coming, first of all, exclusively under the provisions of section 91.
Consequently, ancillary power cannot be put forward in this legislation, for, by virtue section 93, the provincial government alone has jurisdiction in matters of education.
We see the supporters of co-operative federalism, which is a centralizing measure in disguise, propound other arguments in favour of the adoption of this legislation. The main one is the financial inability of the provinces, or else, the urgency of the problem.
I do not feel that the Minister of Finance can seriously raise the argument of the needs of the provinces to justify the introduction of this legislation.
I beg the Minister of Finance to stop correcting his text for ten seconds at the most, and I shall venture to suggest some means to him for making this legislation constitutional.
Why should not the provinces instead of the banks, be the lending institutions?
Should the federal government allow the provinces, instead of the banks, to make loans to their students, the provinces, which are well aware of the educational needs of their population and have sole jurisdiction, by virtue of the constitution, to issue studies and capacity certificates, could, in turn, make interest free loans to students.
The law would be the same; the aim of this government would be the same; the result would be as efficient and the Canadian constitution would be respected.
Loans to Students
Why lend through banks? Why beat around the bush, when there is a very simple means?
Let the government amend its legislation so that the provinces will be the lending agencies instead of the banks; then the federal government will pay, apart from the taxes and revenues of the provinces, an amount of money which might be used according to the principles mentioned in this bill. Then nobody will be able to question the legality or constitutionality of this legislation. But no. Federal legislation in the field of education goes back to 1913, when the first legislation was imposed and adopted by the federal government following a recommendation by the royal commission on industrial and technical education.
If we read the conclusions of this report, on pages 11 and 12 of volume 1, we see the following recommendation:
Considering what the teaching of those various branches in primary schools will cost and remembering that such a school work was not considered as within the field of public education, at the time of confederation, when the provinces accepted the responsibility for legislation to maintain and control education within their boundaries, the commission recommends the setting up of a fund intended to subsidise provincial governments during a period of 10 years.
Subsequently a bill which authorized a subsidy of $350,000 per year to the provinces for a period of 10 years was passed. Although it was a rather high amount at the time, it was nevertheless the first intrusion by the federal government in the field of education.
And that is not all. At that time the promoters of centralization or federalism were proud of this result and said that a commission had just proclaimed a national need or necessity in order to justify a subsidy system.
Today, there are three theses by which it is endeavoured to explain and justify the intrusion of the federal government in the field of education.
First, there was that theory under which this ancillary power referred to previously can be connected with execution of one of the powers explicitly mentioned in section 91.
Second, this educational theory is explained by the activities of federal organizations such as the C.B.C. and the national film board.
And the third system is that of grants which, in 1913, resulted in the first intrusion of the federal government in the field of education. That intrusion was followed in 1940 by that of the Rowell-Sirois commission. At that time this commission recognized definitely the exclusive jurisdiction of

Loans to Students
the provinces in the field of education. Referring to certain conclusions of the report, we find that:
The instruction of the young during their formative years is a matter which the provinces must continue to control. A free hand in something so important to the social and cultural life of the people seems to us to be vital to any provincial autonomy worthy of the name, and it is obvious that any attempt to alter the existing arrangements would meet with powerful opposition and would provoke profound resentment.
Even at that time, the theory concerning federal grants to universities was taking form. It was in 1955 or 1956 that another commission, the Massey-Levesque commission, introduced the educational system which today enables our hon. friends opposite to bring forward this measure, under the pretext that it is along the same line of thought as the legislation passed to come to the aid of universities, and which came as a result of a recommendation of the Massey-Levesque commission, that is that the federal government should enter the field of education through grants to universities.
During the debate on second reading of the bill, we heard several members opposite suggest or point out that the measure brought forward by the Minister of Finance was similar in nature to the one introduced by the Conservative government, under the leadership of the present Leader of the Opposition. I submit that this is false, because when the Conservative government came into office, there was a crucial problem which brought the Quebec government and the federal government into conflict. At that time grants to universities were frozen, because the universities themselves were aware that education could not come under federal jurisdiction, except in extraordinary cases such as minorities provided in section 93.
Afterwards there was the Barrette, Sauve, Diefenbaker formula which allowed the adoption of a measure granting the province of Quebec a 1 per cent abatement while respecting the Canadian constitution. At that time, the Conservative government did not introduce centralizing legislation, because Mr. Fleming, the then minister of finance-and in that connection I quoted part of his comments when I spoke last Wednesday-stated that it was a temporary solution and that the Conservatives should correct a centralization advocated by the Liberals, as they are now doing.
Mr. Chairman, under the pretext of referring to this precedent, to the effect that the Conservatives have found a solution to this

constitutional problem, here is an attempt being made today to make us believe that the piece of legislation submitted by the present Minister of Finance is constitutional, because some officials have approved it; in the second place, because there are compensation payments; third, because the premier, Mr. Jean Lesage, seems to approve it.
I respectfully suggest that this argument does not change in any way the fundamentals, and I cannot understand, really, how it is that Liberal members from the province of Quebec-whether they are ministers or private members-in all conscientiousness, rose a few minutes ago and forgot that the autonomy of the province of Quebec is a vital question.
As long as public men who represent the interests of that province will fail to do their duty, we shall constantly have to face the centralization crisis now prevailing in the province of Quebec.


Gilles Grégoire: That is true.


Rémi Paul: Another theory designed to explain the interference of the federal government in the field of education is due to the report of the Massey-Levesque commission, because a distinction was at that time made between education and culture.
I have here a few notes on this subject; unfortunately, I do not wish to delay unduly the passage of this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Rémi Paul: I actually said "the passage of this bill". I see that those members from Quebec are anxious to pass this bill as soon as possible. They seem annoyed when we speak about the bill.
I wonder how the hon. member for Lon-gueuil (Mr. C6te) during the next election campaign, will defend the centralizing attitude he advocates tonight through his failure to understand? He does not understand that the present government-the government he supports, the political party he belongs to- advocates a unitary system instead of respecting the federalism of the Canadian constitution. There again, under the pretext that it is required by the common good, attempts will be made to justify the legislation being introduced.
But then, the Canadian constitution, the Quebec resolutions and the London resolutions do not even mention education and do not make any distinction between culture and education gained outside school; neither is there any mention of the new centralizing theory advocated by our friends opposite.

I cannot understand why some members are today adhering to such a harmful theory, because beyond federalism of the Canadian constitution, which is composed of 10 provinces, there is a federalism of cultures, of nations, that is the cultures of the French-Canadian and the English nations.
As long as we do not understand and respect this confederation, this federalism of Canadian cultures, we will not be able to achieve the true general unity for which all members have legitimate aspirations. Unfortunately, because of political interests, they do not have the courage to respect the Canadian constitution, to rise and vote against their own government when the Quebec autonomy is at stake.
Another reason why centralizing people are in favour of the theory advocated by the government and the Minister of Finance is the common good principle, which brings about a Unitarian system instead of complete respect of the Canadian constitution.
Those are the few remarks I wanted to add to what I had already said. I hope that clause 1 of the bill will allow the great jurists, my hon. friends from Quebec South (Mr. Cantin) and from Levis (Mr. Guay), as well as the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets), who are learned jurists, as I said, to refute the legal argument I have put forward tonight concerning the respect of the Canadian constitution.
But I fear that they remain seated according to the line of least resistance. Moreover, it is rather embarrassing to speak against one's convictions; but it is even more embarrassing to depend entirely upon a political party rather than upon one's fellow countrymen and fellow citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I shall have other suggestions to make in due course, when we look into the various clauses of this bill; I hope that the Minister of Finance will, for the time being, consider the possibility of amending this legislation so that the federal government gives up to the provinces more of their direct taxation fields or that the Minister of Finance convinces his cabinet colleagues to appoint the provinces as lending institutions instead of the banks.
Then there will be no doubt that the federal government, under this legislation, strives to respect our Canadian constitution and, according to our common hope, help the students in the whole of Canada, while respecting fully and completely the British North America Act.
Loans to Students


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Rémi Paul: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member suggested that the provinces be appointed as lending institutions. Would he favour the idea of the provinces getting credit from the Bank of Canada, instead of levying heavier taxes on the taxpayers?


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, I think that my hon. friend would be better advised to call on the hon. members opposite who, some time ago, advocated the debt free money policy.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak a second time on Bill No. C-110, an act to facilitate the making of loans to students.
There is one sure thing, it is that in the last few days, in spite of the wish of all hon. members to hurry as much as possible the business of the house, that bill has prompted several hon. members to make a speech, enabled journalists to write several articles and some citizens to protest against its passing, in addition to allowing the students of the province of Quebec to prove that they are serious when they talk about respecting the rights of the provinces within confederation.
Mr. Chairman, I was surprised a little earlier to hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) enumerate the fields of activity in which the federal government has co-operated in the last few years.
The minister spoke of the field of education and I was astonished to hear him speak with pride of the various steps taken by the federal government to assist education in Canada.
He mentioned the $2 per capita grants to university students and the income tax abatement equivalent to $2 per capita which was granted to Quebec. He referred to the scholarships awarded by the national research council and those given by the atomic energy control board which total approximately $1,250,000. He also spoke of the Canada council grants to universities and students. He mentioned the loans for the construction of student residences and the grants for technical and professional training. He also mentioned the sums of money the federal government had paid out to the provinces in the form of taxes. In any case, the amount was one of $500 million, if you add the figures mentioned by the Minister of Finance, an amount which would be paid by the federal government to the provinces or directly to the universities and students, in the field of education.
5732

Loans to Students
If we examine this list, it is easy to see that the door is now wide open. They started by opening it slowly, but now it is wide open. Not only is Ottawa making itself at home, but, as the Minister of Finance pointed out a few moments ago, it feels proud to be able to prove that the federal government has directly intruded upon the field of education. It is more than a stealthy entrance, it is now direct. Indeed, it is being officially announced, and the Minister of Finance is quoting figures and explaining what the federal government intends to do in the field of education.
But what surprised me most was how much the Minister of Finance seems happy and satisfied to be able to say: The premier of Quebec does not protest, the premier of Quebec seems to agree, the premier of Quebec approves of the legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that the Minister of Finance has begun to judge his man; he has begun to know the premier of Quebec. He has already seen Mr. Lesage come to Ottawa and, a few days before the general election of last April 8, state in no uncertain terms: We need 25 per cent of individual income taxes, 25 per cent of corporation income taxes and 100 per cent of succession duties. That was an ultimatum.
But the federal Minister of Finance succeeded in getting on the right side of the premier of Quebec because the latter had withdrawn his words. He retracted and he accepted the few crumbs the Minister of Finance offered him in return.
Fortified by that success, by the knowledge he had of the premier of Quebec, aware that the present premier of Quebec talks a lot but does very little-that is nothing at all-spends a lot but doesn't think much-I am speaking of the premier of Quebec-the Minister of Finance succeeded once again the same feat of strength by letting the premier of Quebec yap, then gradually silencing him and taming him like a gentle little lamb.
In fact, we remember that the day after the last federal-provincial conference Premier Lesage said: "If the federal government introduces its bill concerning loans to students, if it does anything whatsoever in the field of education, we will sue it."
The first time, it was an ultimatum: "Do it, or else... This was serious. It was the first time that a premier from the province of Quebec dared rise and speak his mind to the authorities in Ottawa. But Mr. Lesage gave ground that time.
[Mr. Grfgoire.l
Now, for the second time, he is backing down, unless he is perhaps holidaying somewhere, or is not aware of what is going on in Ottawa, ignorant of the fact that at present, the federal government is interfering more directly and more deeply in the educational field. So much so that he remains speechless, silent as the grave. He has given way a second time.
The Minister of Finance can rejoice. He has not succeeded in silencing the premier of the province of Quebec but he will let the crisis pass, aware of the fact that, later on, the Quebec premier will be again as gentle as a lamb.
However, the Minister of Finance should not think that because Premier Lesage says nothing the province of Quebec is in favour of the new legislation. Far from it.
The Quebec premier talks a lot but he seldom acts accordingly. He made fine pledges. He promised free education; in fact, that was a plank in his 1960 and 1962 platforms but he never carried out that promise. We never had free education and we are going to wait a long while before we get it.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, may I call it half past ten?

Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the acting house leader if we will have more of the same tomorrow?


Mr. MacNaughi:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will continue with the committee stage of the bill relating to student loans and when the committee stage is completed we will ask for third reading. Then we will consider second reading of the bill relating to fiscal arrangements with the provinces, and if the committee stage should be completed we will ask for third reading of that measure.


Gordon Minto Churchill: All of that in one day?


John Watson MacNaught: I hope so.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, on July 15 last, I asked the Minister of Justice what steps were going to be taken by the government to implement the report of the commission on juvenile delinquency. I have put three questions on the order paper with regard to this matter. I asked a question on June 18 to which the Minister of Justice graciously replied that we would look into the matter. On July 15 the Speaker considered this question should once again be put on the order paper.
My submission briefly is this, that in the last ten years we are putting twice as many children in the penitentiary-when I am talking about the penitentiary, I mean the penitentiary for adults-than we were before. I say immediately our treatment of those we classify as juvenile delinquents must be immediately overhauled. Since my time is limited, Mr. Speaker, I am going to take the liberty of reading this statement.
I have pressed reform on many occasions in the House of Commons, and in particular I spoke with regard to the matter in 1961, as recorded on page 5351 of Hansard for that date, and again on May 31, 1963 as recorded at page 518 of Hansard. It is shocking to learn and appreciate that children are still being incarcerated in the penitentiary. This fact is now confirmed by a committee on juvenile delinquency organized by the Department of Justice and chosen from their personnel. The personnel of the committee are, the commissioner of penitentiaries, Mr. Allen J. MacLeod, who heads the committee on juvenile delinquency-who says frankly that he is worried-Dr. L. P. Gendreau, penitentiary service psychiatrist; Inspector E. W. Willes, R.C.M.P., Ronald R. Price, a justice department lawyer and Miss J. L. Lynch, a member of the national parole board.
The committee on juvenile delinquency went across the country and examined the various situations in the various penitentiaries. It was organized and set up for the purpose of ascertaining the facts with regard to Canadian children incarcerated in Canadian penitentiaries, which means they are held in custody for more than a two-year term. The man behind the investigation was Allen J. MacLeod, one of the commissioners of the penitentiaries, and a very fine article was written on this subject by Bill Trent, Weekend Magazine staff writer. One of the reformers said:
20220-363J
20, 1964
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I was a juvenile delinquent myself. I was the leader of a small gang. And if it hadn't been for the cop on the beat-a wonderful guy who took an interest in us all-God knows where I'd be today.
My answer to that question is that he might have been in the penitentiary along with many young girls and boys. It is interesting to look at the facts. In 1952, there were 4,700 prisoners incarcerated in Canadian penitentiaries, and by 1962 there were 7,100 living under crowded and unusual conditions. The largest increase was amongst youngsters of 16 years and under. There were 32 admitted in 1952 and 84 in 1962. There are 1,091 inmates under 21 years now in our penitentiaries and one is 14 years of age.
The committee discovered some strange facts. Not so long ago a 12-year old boy found himself in the St. Vincent de Paul federal training centre, and everyone in the women's Kingston penitentiary recalls a tiny 14-year old girl who went behind the walls to serve a two year term for stealing a bicycle. In Dorchester penitentiary in New Brunswick, one of the boys was so small the guards were afraid he might squeeze out between the bars. I took the time to check up on this article that Trent wrote with one of the commissioners of the penitentiary and I found that these are facts. In 1962, we put three times as many children in jail as we did in 1952, and the trend continues. This was the reason the then minister of justice set up the committee.
This is a shocking thing. I see the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice is here this evening. It is a shocking thing for the people of Canada to learn that section 12 of the Criminal Code states:
No person shall be convicted of an olfence in respect of an act or omission on his part while he was under the age of seven years.
Provided a child of seven is sane and appreciates the nature and quality of his act, he can then be brought before a court, par-, ticularly in those provinces where the juvenile delinquents act does not apply, and be placed in a penitentiary with hardened criminals.
The definition of a crime is an act or omission prohibited under the penalty of the supreme power of the state, and any crime which calls for a penalty of more than two years under our Criminal Code, means the judge or magistrate may incarcerate a child, seven years or over, in a penitentiary-and they have been doing this very thing.
The only stipulation is that the child must be competent to know the nature and con-

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion sequence of his conduct and appreciate that his conduct is wrong. In 1959, there were 11,686 youngsters between seven and 15 years of age adjudged delinquent in Canada. Nineteen were seven years old. Ninety eight were eight years old.
One of the saddest stories is about an imprisoned 12 year old Quebec boy, who still remains anonymous, but who has gone down in penitentiary history as a classic case. He had all the cards stacked against him. He was the product of a shiftless father and a prostitute mother. One night he found his mother sleeping with the landlord. Furiously he picked up a can of tomatoes and hurled it at the man, striking him on the head. He was charged with assault. The judge, after considering the boy's record, sentenced him to two years in St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary. He was placed there among hundreds of hardened criminals. Later he was transferred to a federal training centre because the warden "choked up". The boy was found to be polite and co-operative and responded to sympathy. The guards chipped in and bought him a scooter, a toy construction set and a fleet of trucks. He was refused the right to play outside.
No one will deny we have not come a long way in reform, but it is not enough. The committee found 50 per cent to 75 per cent of the potential juvenile delinquents can be recognized in school, but teachers have nowhere to turn. I believe the term "juvenile delinquent" should be dropped. It means too many things. It means anything from riding a bicycle on a sidewalk to committing one of the most heinous crimes in the code.
The question is, are we going to amend the code? Second, are we going to set up institutions where these young boys and girls can be educated and given the love and care they need, but which has been denied them because of their parents? Above all, are they going to be placed in institutions where they can be rehabilitated?
I have two points I wish to make, Mr. Speaker. I say that section 12 of the Criminal Code should be amended immediately. No child of seven years of age should be convicted in the same manner as a mature man or woman. That age should be raised to 13 years.
My second point is that children who do find themselves in difficulties should be placed in a rehabilitation home where they can be

educated and rehabilitated. When a child is born he is as pure as a white sheet of paper. It is the environment in which he finds himself that causes the trouble. What happens to him is due to many environmental factors, and mostly parents.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any member of the house who will take issue with what the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) has said. The importance of the problem has been recognized both by the previous government and this one. The previous government established an expert committee to study juvenile delinquency and when the final report of the committee is received, which it is expected will be towards the end of this year, and its recommendations are made known with regard to the treatment of juvenile delinquency, all expedient action will be taken by this government to carry them into effect.
I would remind the house that already a substantial amount of work has been done towards establishing the kind of institution where training can be provided for young people under circumstances which should give them some opportunity of rehabilitating themselves in society, and when I say "institution" I do not mean the maximum security institution we commonly regard as covered by the term penitentiary.
Construction has already commenced on one of these institutions designed primarily for young offenders, at Cowansville, Quebec. Tenders will be called shortly for a second one at Springhill, Nova Scotia and in a matter of several months, possibly weeks, for a third at Warkworth, Ontario and-and I know this will be close to the heart of the hon. member-for a fourth at Drumheller, Alberta. I do not pretend that the establishment of institutions alone will achieve this particular end. We shall be relying on the committee to recommend changes in criminal procedure to take care of these young people. I shall be pleased to draw the attention of members of the committee to the recommendations the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) has made this evening, so that they may take them into consideration before making their final report.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.43 p.m.

Tuesday, July 21, 1964