1964-10-30

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the publication of a story by me in the Ottawa Citizen yesterday a few minutes before the report of the flag committee was tabled, and in view of what was said about that in the house yesterday, I respectfully request Your Honour to have this matter referred to the committee on privileges and elections.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra made a suggestion to the house, but it would require an order of the house to carry out that suggestion. Before any action is taken one way or the other I feel it my duty to make one or two points.
It is undoubtedly a very serious thing to attack the conduct of any member of the House of Commons, and in that respect a specific charge should always be made, not a general charge. I am confirmed in this opinion by an excellent ruling, it seems to me, given by Mr. Speaker Michener on June 19, 1959, which appears at pages 583 and 584 of the Journals. I should like to refer to two short sentences in that ruling. I read from page 583:
It has been strongly urged by some members that the house should not set in motion its power to try and to judge the conduct of a member unless such member is charged with a specific offence. It is urged further that not only must he be charged, but that he must be charged by a member of the House of Commons standing in his place.
These are the words of Mr. Speaker Michener:
In my view, simple justice requires that no honourable member should have to submit to investigation of his conduct by the house or a committee until he has been charged with an offence.
Later on the same page, 584, I read:
In the case before us no honourable member has taken the responsibility of making a specific charge against the honourable member for Peel.
The practice in the Canadian House of Commons, up to the present, has been to give notice of intention. Of course a true question of privilege can be raised at any time, but it should be raised immediately. It seems to me that the matter was referred to yesterday in fairly strong terms, and under the heading of "earliest opportunity" I think it conforms, in view of my statement that I was taken by surprise and would look into the matter.
The role of the Speaker is outlined in Beauchesne, citation 104, subsection 2. I must say that, accordingly, if the house wishes to refer this matter to the committee on privileges and elections, so be it. In my opinion it should not be concerned with the conduct of the member but should be more of an investigation into the matter. However, that is up to the house to decide. Since there is nothing before the Chair, I suggest that if it is the desire to look into this matter an order of the house should issue.
Is it the pleasure of the house to refer this matter to the committee on privileges and elections?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, if a motion were introduced to that effect, I would move an amendment to it. Unfortunately, there is none before the house.
If you simply ask that the matter be referred to the committee on privileges and elections, I would like to move an amendment; it would be my own suggestion regarding a motion designed to refer other related matters to the committee on privileges and elections.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is no motion before the house at the moment, so obviously there cannot be any amendment. If the hon. member wishes to do anything he will have to take the responsibility of moving his own motion.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: May I be permitted to say something, Mr. Speaker, concerning your reference to your

Tributes to Clerk Assistant surprise yesterday on the question of privilege?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not see how any purpose could be served by that. I considered it my duty this morning to point out these few facts, which are very important, namely that no general charge should be made. In the circumstances I propose to continue by calling for the presenting of reports by standing and special committees.



TRIBUTES TO CLERK ASSISTANT ON RETIREMENT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. 5. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the attention of the house to an event which has for all of us its element of sadness, as I am sure it has for the gentleman concerned, although perhaps there is also an element of release and anticipation. I refer to the fact that this is the last day our Clerk Assistant, Mr. Montgomery, will be in his chair in the House of Commons.
Mr. Montgomery joined the public service in 1912 and entered the service of the House of Commons in 1915. He is in his fiftieth year of service to the house. With his service to the house he has combined other forms of public service, community service, civil service, war charities and war activities, and for all this over so many years we owe him a debt of gratitude which I am sure we are all very proud and happy to acknowledge this morning. We thank him for what he has done in the public service of Canada, and we wish him many years of happiness and enjoyment ahead.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those times when there is unity in the House of Commons as we do an unusual honour to one who has devoted his life to the public service. The Prime Minister has spoken in detail of that service. All of us who have sat in this chamber know what Mr. Montgomery's contribution has meant. He has been kindly, courteous and always devoted to the welfare of those in this chamber. There will be universal regret that after a half century of service he is about to retire.
We have no means of showing our appreciation for those that serve us well. We have no decoration such as the Victorian Order in the United Kingdom, which permits the

sovereign on behalf of the nation to show the appreciation of the nation. We take this means of saying to Mr. Montgomery how deeply grateful we have been, and indeed are, to him and to all those who serve us in this chamber in the capacity of Clerk, Clerk Assistant and the other officials who give of their best to their country. Too often we do not pay tribute to civil servants who serve us so well. This is one occasion when, through Mr. Montgomery, we can pay our tribute not only to him in affection, but also to all those who serve in the civil service in devotion to their country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I think you and all hon. members will realize that had it not been for the top priority afforded the Prime Minister I should have risen in my place and spoken to a question of privilege on this day, which is a sad occasion for this House of Commons.
All of us are aware of the loyalty and ability Mr. Montgomery as Clerk Assistant has given to the House of Commons collectively and to members individually. In order to complete the record of Mr. Montgomery's services I should like to add to the words of the right hon. Prime Minister, and record in Hansard the fact that Mr. Montgomery, the Clerk Assistant of this house, has been a federal civil servant for fifty years and four months. Added to that record is the astounding fact that he has been an employee of the House of Commons for forty-nine years and three months, and for the past 13 years has been Clerk Assistant.
In addition to these services Mr. Montgomery has accepted other responsibilities from time to time. He has had a keen interest in and knowledge of the commonwealth parliamentary association. For the past 13 years he has been either assistant secretary or secretary of that association. I doubt whether there is any man in the commonwealth, except perhaps at the head office in London, who knows more of the details about that association and its work.
Although Mr. Montgomery today is resigning from his position as Clerk Assistant, we in the commonwealth parliamentary association are very pleased that at our last executive meeting he offered to continue his services and lend his knowledge to the work that association must do, commencing next month, in preparing for the commonwealth parliamentary association conference which will be held in

Canada in 1967. I am sure I express the appreciation and gratitude of all of us to Mr. Montgomery, who has informed the executive of the C.P.A. of his availability. That offer demonstrates just why we hold him in such aifection and believe that although retiring from one position, he will yet be available to serve Canada in years to come.
On behalf of this group, sir, I add our expression of good will and our wishes for his good health and his opportunity to serve Canada for many years ahead.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it is a genuine pleasure to be able to say a few words in support of the remarks made by the Prime Minister and representatives of the other parties with regard to our respected and beloved fellow worker in the House of Commons, Mr. Montgomery. In the few short years it has been my privilege to be a member of the house I have come to appreciate in a very special way his constant and continual friendly helpfulness. This applies not only to his official responsibilities, but has been carried over so many times beyond the normal call of duty to little things that he was under no obligation to do.
I think this is one of the reasons those of us who have come to know him on that basis refer to him affectionately as "Monty." We regard him as more than just a fellow worker and friend. We regard him as what he truly is, a devoted and dedicated public servant and citizen of Canada.
On behalf of myself personally as well as the other members of our group may I say that he is certainly worthy of all the kindly words that have been uttered, and the brevity of my remarks in no way reflects the depth of our appreciation for him. We appreciate the fact that he is going to continue to be with us. We join in the remarks that have just been made with regard to the tremendous contribution he has made to the commonwealth parliamentary association, and we are indeed pleased that in serving that important organization he will continue to be with us.


Mr. Real Caoueiie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we gladly endorse the words spoken by the Prime Minister regarding an exemplary official, Mr. Montgomery, who has always performed his duties with tact and complete devotion.
We, members of the Ralliement Creditiste, also wish to Mr. Montgomery many years of
House Leader Change Announced good health and happiness outside the House of Commons. We are sorry to see him go, but we extend to him our best wishes for the future.


Mr. Speaker:: There are a few occasions on which the Speaker is permitted to utter some pleasant words and this is one of them, inasmuch as the recipient of all these tributes cannot speak for himself, nor can the Clerk, the second clerk assistant or at this moment the Deputy Speaker or the deputy chairman of committees. Perhaps hon. members would allow me to say that since occupying this exalted and privileged position I have had the utmost loyalty from Mr. Montgomery, together with great efficiency of service and kindness. We regret that circumstances of health and one or two other reasons force him to take this decision, but we hope that his well earned leave and rest will be very pleasant and that he will enjoy many years of leisure and even co-operative effort in regard to certain government activities.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT HOUSE LEADERSHIP

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I should like to make an announcement which may be of interest to the house. Some weeks ago the Minister of Justice, the house leader on this side, indicated to me his desire to be relieved from the functions of house leader because of the responsibilities he was bearing as Minister of Justice and leader of the party in Quebec. He made known his desire in this matter in the House of Commons as well. At that time I asked him if he would remain in his position as house leader until the summer recess.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think it is fairly clear now that there is not going to be a summer recess, at least not this summer. I have therefore acceded to the request of the Minister of Justice to be relieved of his functions as house leader, and I have asked the President of the Privy Council to take on the functions of house leader for the remainder of this session.



NEWSPAPER SPECULATION AS TO EARLY ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. According to
9593	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry some newspaper headlines a general election could take place soon. Could the right hon. Prime Minister tell the house whether the government favours an early election?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should not believe all that he reads in the newspapers.



JUVENILE DELINQUENTS ACT


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-133, to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
He said: The Fauteux committee on judicial services recommended, among other things, that children or juveniles of the age of 16 years or less should not be confined in a penitentiary or other jail or lock-up where adults are also confined. This was brought forcibly to our attention when during a visit to St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary we met and spoke with a young lad of 15 years of age at that institution.
The purpose of this bill is to put into effect that particular recommendation of the Fauteux committee and, because the language of the act at the present time is not as precise as it could be, there are some changes proposed in the definition of "child" in order to make it clear that the purpose of the bill is to provide that no child of the age of 16 or under shall be confined in a penal institution where adults are also confined.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: In the absence of the Minister of Justice I direct this question to the Prime Minister. It has to do with a matter which was raised some days ago regarding Mr. Justice Landreville, who was granted leave of absence during the period in which this case was before the courts.
I have seen in the press that on Monday he intends to resume his judicial duties. Has the government made a decision that no commission shall be appointed to look into this question; and does not the Prime Minister feel that in all the circumstances, the evidence having been what it was, if a decision has


not been made on the question of a commission, leave of absence should be continued until a determination is made as to what the government will do in this connection?


Lester Bowles Pearson: My colleague the Minister of Justice, answering a similar question the other day, said he would be making a statement on this matter. I have nothing to add to that. When he has a statement ready it will be made to the house.


John George Diefenbaker: May I point out that the judge will resume his sittings on Monday, while this matter remains unsettled by the government; and the administration of justice naturally demands that whatever decision is made should be made before his lordship goes back on the bench.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Can the
Prime Minister give an indication of the reasons for the delay in appointing a commission of inquiry into the railway matter which developed last week?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The delay has certainly not been a long one, but I regret even a short delay. A commissioner was approached and we had hoped he would accept the appointment; he gave us some reason to believe it would be possible. We have now learned it will not be possible for him to do so, and we are making inquiries of another suitable commissioner. I hope we shall be able to make an announcement very shortly.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: In the light of press reports that the strong action taken by the Prime Minister of Great Britain with regard to the critical situation in Rhodesia has received strong support from the government of Canada and the governments of other commonwealth countries, could the Secretary of State for External Affairs give a report to the house on the latest developments in the policy of independence which is being pursued by the prime minister of Rhodesia?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secrelary of Slate for External Affairs):: The prime minister of Southern Rhodesia has announced that the referendum shortly to be held in Southern Rhodesia will not be regarded by his government as a mandate for a unilateral declaration of independence.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs?
Could he tell us what is the present situation of our troops in Cyprus and what our Canadians are achieving on that island?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian troops, which are part of the United Nations force, are still performing the duties which that force was asked to perform, that is, to maintain peace as it exists presently at Cyprus.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question?
Is the hon. minister aware that, or can we accept the truthfulness of a statement to the effect that soldiers from other countries lead the life of pashas in Cyprus while our Canadian soldiers live like pariahs?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept this statement which was mentioned in the house this morning.
I read an article which was written recently in a newspaper on that subject. We examined those insinuations, and we can assure the house that they are not well founded.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I would direct a question to the Prime Minister. Did the national conference of Canadian universities ask for any increase in the per capita amounts now paid to the various universities? In the light of the view he expressed, that education should be free, does the right hon. gentleman agree that the time has come for an increase in 20220-608
Inquiries of the Ministry these per capita payments, particularly because of the very great increase in the operating costs of universities since 1962, when the last increase was brought in, which had the effect of doubling the grant previously paid?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Whether or not the recent meeting of the universities council discussed this matter I am not sure, though I suspect it did. But no request for additional assistance has been received from that meeting which, as a matter of fact, closed only last night. I do not know whether such a request will be made.
With regard to the observation made by the right hon. gentleman, however, I would point out that the amount of direct assistance from the federal treasury to the universities of Canada this year reaches a figure of $224 million, which is much greater than has been the case in any year in the past.


Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: A supplementary question. In his speech to the association the Prime Minister underlined the laudable desirability of free higher education for young Canadians. Does this mean that the government is about to announce a federal university scholarship plan? My second question is this. Will the government soon announce its priorities in the field of social interests, inasmuch as we are also about to discuss a pension scheme and questions of importance relating to a national health plan?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As far as the first question is concerned, perhaps the hon. member did not read the text of what I said. While I personally approve of education being free for all Canadians who are able to qualify for it, I said this was an ideal which would not be possible of realization for some time. As a matter of fact, at the present time there are educational experts who would not consider that to top their list of priorities, though I still believe that is eventually the ideal that should be realized.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: So far as the second question is concerned, it is a much wider question of policy and priorities generally, and when a statement of that kind can be made it will be made in the house-and I hope before long- in connection with the present program of work. Perhaps we will be discussing that at the party leaders' meeting on Monday morning.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the answer of the Prime Minister indicates the death knell of the vaunted university scholarship plan.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that scheme is far from being dead.


John George Diefenbaker: I see; just dormant.


Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Do the government plan to contribute financially to the recently announced expansion of medical, dental and nursing training facilities in Ontario, and in particular will they consider contributing the 50 per cent recommended by the Hall commission report?



STUDENT LOANS-INQUIRY AS TO NUMBER PARTICIPATING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I wonder whether the Minister of Finance has any recent figures as to the number of students who have taken advantage of the student loans program.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have not an up to date assessment but a meeting has been called for about the middle of next month to discuss with provincial officials the effectiveness of the scheme and the way it is going. After that meeting has taken place I may have some figures, in which case I would be very glad to supply them.


George Robson Muir: A supplementary question. When the minister is making his statement to the house to the student loans program I wonder whether he would have those figures broken down by provinces.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would be very glad to do that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe). Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Could the Minister of Finance tell us whether his department has handed over to the province of Quebec the share that is due to that province under the student loans program?
Could he tell the amount the province of Quebec received under this program?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to do that. I would remind my hon. friend that the government of the province of Quebec is perfectly qualified and, believe me, it usually proceeds to look after the best interests of that province.


Gilles Grégoire: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
Does the Minister of Finance mean to imply that members from Quebec ought not to ask questions in the house and that it is neither in their interest nor in the interest of the population to ask questions?
If that is what the Minister of Finance means to imply, Mr. Speaker, this arrogance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understood the Minister of Finance to say the members from Quebec were extremely capable and efficient.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I agree with your statement, but that is not what the Minister of Finance said.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is no question of privilege here. There was no implication in the remarks of the minister; quite the contrary.


Gilles Grégoire: When you read Hansard tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, you will see that there were grounds for the question of privilege.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Whenever a Canadian student goes to the United States in order to carry on his schooling, can the students' assistance scheme be used in that case, so that the Canadian student attending an institution in the United States can take advantage of the loans guaranteed by the federal government?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if the university in question is designated by the province in question.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which was for the Minister of Labour but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary, who from his seat is always asking for a question. It is a matter of importance to the maritime members. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could advise the house whether the Minister of Labour has received a wire from the maritime motor transport association regarding Eill No. C-126, which asks that the matter be referred to the standing committee on industrial relations. If the minister has received this wire, what decision if any has been reached on it?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to receive the question on behalf of the Minister of Labour and to inform the hon. member that a number of telegrams have been received with respect to Bill No. C-126. All of them are being given active consideration. I shall bring this specific question to the minister's attention when he returns later today.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and because of the importance of this question to our security, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I ask whether the Prime Minister will have inquiries made to see whether one George Lincoln Rockwell, the president of the nazi party in the United States, was registered within the last week under his own name in the Hotel Georgia in the city of Vancouver, B.C.; and if so, whether he would also cause an inquiry to be made into the operations of the immigration branch to discover how it is that, to use Mr. Rockwell's own words in the program "This Hour has Seven Days", this creep was permitted to come into Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, he crept in.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be happy to make inquiries along the lines indicated, because he
20220-608J
Inquiries of the Ministry is not the kind of man we want in this country-even as a visitor.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. With regard to his reference to how Rockwell got into Canada, are we now to understand that Mr. Banks took the same route out?


An hon. Member:: He rode out in his Cadillac.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Skeena asked me a question about the conference on Indian affairs which is now taking place. I have had this question looked into, and am informed that several individuals objected to the holding of this conference without Indian representation and that a telegram was received from the president of the native brotherhood of British Columbia by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on October 28, the evening before the conference started. Mr. Williams, the president, in effect said that the conference was a step in the right direction, but that it would be wrong and undemocratic for any agreement to be reached between the federal and provincial governments without the British Columbia Indians participating. He said the Indians must be consulted and fully informed. That is also the position of the federal government.
The purpose of this conference is to discover-and this is its only purpose, or an important one-whether it is possible for the federal government to formulate programs with each of the provinces for submission to Indians and consideration by them. If it is found as a result of this conference that progress can be made in bringing services needed in Indian communities through provincial facilities, then the matter will be discussed with the Indians. The federal government has made clear, and I am glad to confirm this, that at each step the Indians must be consulted in advance of changes which affect them in any way.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I could ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that the province of Ontario

Inquiries of the Ministry brought to the conference, as one of its delegates, a native Indian person. Could not the federal government have done likewise and invited native people to attend the conference, even if they had to do it by way of attaching those native people to the federal government's delegation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the fact, but I do agree that if the circumstances make it possible to attach an Indian to a federal delegation at a conference of this kind, that would be a very proper course to follow.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO MEASURES TO BE CONSIDERED On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the right hon. gentleman to make any concrete proposals to the house with regard to the organization of parliamentary business over the next several weeks, which will enable the house to get on with important legislation such as the Canada pension plan before being forced to deal with his pet project, the flag?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is no doubt a matter that the party leaders and perhaps the house leaders will be discussing. Certainly we will be having a meeting, as I have said, on Monday, when the question of parliamentary business will be discussed.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. On several occasions over the past eight or ten weeks the minister indicated that by the end of this month he would be in a position to make a statement to the house with regard to war veterans allowances and other veterans pensions. Is he now in a position to make such a statement?


Hon. Reger Teillet (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite correct that during the last eight or ten weeks in answer to questions, including one from the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, I indicated that I hoped to be in a position to make a recom-
mendation by the end of this month. I am now in a position to inform the house that there will be a government announcement within the next two weeks with respect to these matters.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of the fact that the new Labour government in London has declared its intention to support communist China's admission to the United Nations at the December 1 meeting, can the minister assure us that Canada will not support the English government in this move?
Kon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I suggest the hon. member study the statement I made in this house on May 22 last.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should remind the Secretary of State for External Affairs that on May 22 there was no Labour government in London and Great Britain had not announced her intention of supporting communist China's admission to the United Nations.
Now that a Labour government is in office, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us whether he will support Great Britain in this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a statement.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean-Pierre Coie (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Inasmuch as the breakwater now being built near Champlain bridge will not be completed before the next spring break up, is the Minister of Transport considering the possibility of using icebreakers to keep the St. Lawrence river ice-free this coming winter,

so the islands where the world fair is to be located may be protected?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to look into that and answer on Monday.


Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister assure the house that there will be no extension of subsidies for winter navigation to provide extended icebreaker services at the expense of the ports of Saint John and Halifax?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty complicated question which I think I should consider very carefully over the week end, and I will give an answer to the hon. gentleman on Monday.



ONTARIO-LOCATION AND CAPACITY OF PROPOSED NUCLEAR PLANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fred F. Stenson (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry. I should like to ask the minister whether the capacity of the nuclear electric station to be built under a federal-Ontario agreement for Ontario hydro is being increased to two million kilowatts. I should also like to ask him whether a site for this station has yet been chosen.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: With respect to the last part of the question may I say Ontario hydro has submitted a proposed site to the atomic energy control board of Canada for approval. In response to the first part of the question, Ontario hydro is giving consideration to enlarging the capacity of the plant at a future date from one million to in excess of two million kilowatts.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources told us we would soon have a decision on the urgent matter of the Credit river conservation scheme in Toronto. In view of the urgency of this matter has a decision been reached and, if so, what is the nature of the decision? If no decision has been reached, when can we expect one?
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the inquiry of the hon. member was prompted by a story which appeared in the Globe and Mail two days ago, in which it was intimated that a favourable decision might be forthcoming in this matter.
We are still considering this proposal and may be for a short while yet, and I want to tell my hon. friend why. The benefit is almost 71 per cent applicable to recreation as against other uses, in other words the purposes of flood control, avoidance of possible flood damage, and so on. I am going to admit very frankly that this heavy proportion of recreational use applicable under the act is worrying my officials. It has been suggested, and it was suggested in the article, that there might be a division of responsibility among the first, second and third phases and the final phase, and we are looking into that matter now.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Baffle River-Cam-rose):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of international importance for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. First I should like to congratulate the minister on having been elected honorary president for Canada for the international co-operation year. In the light of his new interest in international cooperation I should like to ask him whether he has given consideration to the appointment of the hon. member for Red Deer, a man of wide African experience, as the Canadian adviser to the Zambian space program.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would treat this question as one of great seriousness coming as it does from such an erudite and scholarly student of international problems. I may say that I have not given consideration to this particular proposal, but I do recognize that the hon. member for Red Deer is perhaps one of those members of this house best qualified to speak with some authority on African affairs.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
VANCOUVER-POSSIBLE USE OF FORMER R.C.A.F. BASE On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry whether he is now
9604	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry in a position to advise, as was generally indicated would be the case, that a decision has been made by October 28 relative to the Kitsilano park property in British Columbia and the request on the part of the C.B.C. for part of that property. Will the minister say what is the present position in this connection?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the house will be aware that some time ago a delegation from the city of Vancouver came to Ottawa to discuss alternative proposals concerning the use by the C.B.C. of the property at Kitsilano. Discussion arose, and in particular it was suggested that the use of the building at Kitsilano by the C.B.C. would be acceptable to the city of Vancouver if it were for a temporary period. An examination is now being made to determine whether the limited period tentatively proposed by the city would in fact be economically practicable.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister and ask him what that period was.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, that period was 15 years.



CANADIAN COASTGUARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Associate Minister of National Defence. Is there a naval officer who has recently retired, or about to be retired, who is qualified as a planning officer for the coastguard college?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely this is a question requiring at least a little research, and I suggest that the hon. member put it on the order paper.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, we have been informed in the past by the minister that this research in relation to retiring officers prior to their normal retirement is continually going on, and I believe that any such officers retiring prematurely should be placed in these other positions.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is making a statement. There was no dispute about his question. It is a normal, average question which should be placed on the order paper.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, you referred to my question as an average question. That is exactly right. We have been informed that research in this regard is going on each and every day by departments of government. I am only asking whether there is any cooperation among the departments, and whether there is a naval officer qualified for the position to which I refer.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $740,710,974.77, being the aggregate of
(a)	two twelfths of that total of all of the items to be voted in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965, as reduced, except finance item 15, mines and technical surveys item 25, national research council item 10, and transport items 15 and 25 for which the proportion is one twelfth and atomic energy item 5, external affairs item 20, forestry item 25 and legislation item 20 for which no proportion is being released, $651,829,576.84;
(b)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of public works item 70 (schedule A), of the said main estimates, $666,666.67;
(c)	an additional one twelfth of the amount of fisheries items 5 and 10, legislation [DOT] item 5, mines and technical surveys item 70, post office item 1 and public works item 40 (schedule B), of the said main estimates, $20,263,800.00;
(d)	two twelfths of all of the items to be voted in the supplementary estimates (A), laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except national defence item 56a, and loans, investments and advances items L12a, L17a and L37a for which no proportion is being released, $20,612,522.50;
(e)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of transport item 103a (schedule C), of the said supplementary estimates (A), $872,966.67;
(f)	nine twelfths of the total of the items to be voted in the supplementary estimates (B), laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $46,215,108.75;
Ig) two twelfths of the amount of transport item 103b (schedule D), of the said supplementary estimates (B), $250,333.34;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965.
["I say, Mr. Speaker, that if in doing so the qualifications of senators need to be examined, if by subtracting that out of the anachronisms, we leave a residue of inadequacies, then it may be necessary to set some further qualifications for representation in this body, this sort of slow-down body, and on what might be accomplished.\nMay I call it six o'clock?"]
Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Chairman, during the last few days in committee of supply we have been talking about the C.B.C. Yesterday I attempted to discuss another problem, but I was ruled out of order. Today I wish to change the subject somewhat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am pleased to be met with such approval, and I hope that approval will remain throughout the remarks I intend to make. One of the most striking questions

which face this nation today is whether we are going to retain the kind of strong central government which the Fathers of Confederation planned when this country became a union of four nations, or four provinces, in 1867.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have hardly got started, but if you have a question I will try to answer it.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Am I to understand the hon. member is a supporter of the compact theory of confederation, which seemed to have been disposed of by the late Hon. Norman Rogers in the 1930's? Am I to further understand that the hon. member is suggesting that there were four nations which joined together in 1867? Is the hon. member not aware that the union between Ontario and Quebec preceded that event by some 25 years?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not intend to get into an argument about constitutional law with my good friend, but I am always very interested in his questions. I am sure if he listens to the address I have prepared he will understand what I feel should be taking place in reference to a strong central government in Ottawa. Perhaps I should answer his question in this way. I do not believe this nation can survive if we are to have ten balkan states. We cannot exist with the kind of loose network of federalism which has been perpetuated by this government.
The present government makes reference to co-operative federalism. I believe it was this party which actually coined that expression. Unfortunately coined words are used in different ways. This government is placing a different interpretation on that coined expression than was intended. The charge I make is that the Pearson government is Canada's assassin, and that you are all honorary pallbearers to this nation. I did not intend to get into that type of address immediately but did so because of the question the hon. member posed.
Canada is still a very young nation made up of people with many cultures and traditions. The population in western Canada, which is made up of people of many ethnic origins, feel very deeply about this fact. They realize that this nation was created by people who came to this land from all the countries of Europe and Asia with deep rooted hatred and prejudice toward one another. These prejudices, hatreds and animosities were the
Interim Supply
result of European wars fought by their fathers and grandfathers. One could perhaps say that in Europe the Germans hated the French, the British disliked them both, while the Russians disliked all three.
These people came to Canada in search of a new nation and a new destiny with these prejudices, animosities and hatreds buried in their hearts and bosoms. They found, whether they settled in villages, towns or on farms, and whatever avocations the neighbours over the back fences had chosen, be they German, English, French or of another ethnic origin, they were the same kind of people. These people realized that the neighbours had different cultures, traditions and backgrounds, but they had also come to Canada in search of a new destiny, and that they were all friends after all.
The most important thing we must keep in mind in dealing with a nation is that these prejudices and animosities were buried long ago. I believe Canada was the first country to legislate in respect of freedom of religion. I think Canada did so even before Great Britain and other countries, who are looked upon as the mothers of liberty and freedom.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Surely the hon. member is not going to take the position that the rules of law and tradition we inherited from the Anglo Saxon system are bad. I have always maintained that the rules of law we have in our democracy represent the kind of freedoms that all Canadians enjoy. We do enjoy these freedoms because of those rules of law. A very simple example can be found in the fact that our children can leave their homes, whether they be in Scarborough, Calgary or Montreal, travel to school and return home safely. That is the case not because of the efforts of any one province but because of the protection given to individuals by the rules of law against infringement by the state or other individuals.
Many people feel that Canada is a union of two nations. If they mean that this nation is a union of two great cultures and traditions I agree completely. If they mean that this nation is a union of two completely different states, then I cannot agree. It is now a union of ten provinces. Canada began as a union of four provinces, whether that union took place ten years or 25 years after a union between two provinces. The nation finally became a union of ten provinces.
That is the kind of country we have, but I say that if we are now to weaken the very fabric of confederation by taking away the

Interim Supply
powers of the strong, central federal government we will end up as 10 nations, 10 balkan-ized states, and the nation will finally dissolve.


An hon. Member:: You are exaggerating.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My friend says I am exaggerating. He would know something about exaggeration, because he is a master of exaggeration and imagination. I do not want to get into an argument with him and perhaps he might bear with me. I have listened to his views, and I have learned a lot from the hon. member. I admit that he takes a different position from mine. I was born and raised in another province with a different culture. We who were born and raised in western Canada have our culture, our traditions and our heritage. Are we not permitted to present our arguments with regard to confederation? Is this not one Canada? Is the argument to be all one sided, with only one doctrine preached and not both sides of the picture? How can we ever hold the country together in that way? If we all think alike there is no thinking. That is my answer to that hon. member.
Let us take a look at what has really gone on. I say and I really believe that the present government-this may be strong language- has been Canada's assassin and is now acting as honorary pallbearer at its funeral.


An hon. Member:: Oh, well-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Somebody says "oh, well". I want to say this afternoon-it is afternoon by now-that in the minds of the people of western Canada this government has been playing the grasshopper game. What do I mean by that? The two great players in this game are the present Prime Minister and Mr. Lesage. They are the players in the grasshopper game, and they hop in and hop out of certain federal economic programs.
We have some proven programs. We have the winter works program, the vocational training program, even unemployment insurance. Let us deal with unemployment insurance. When it was first brought before the House of Commons in the days of R. B. Bennett it was charged that the act was unconstitutional, but after an amendment to the constitution unemployment insurance finally became the law and applied to all Canadians.
I am going to have something to say about the British North America Act itself, but surely under confederation those things that apply to all Canadians and are common to all of us, those things which are not of local

concern to the province of Quebec or Alberta or Ontario, are national in scope. Sometimes we have had to get agreement on the part of the provinces because of the wording of the act, but I say that any federal government that makes deals with Mr. Lesage or any other premier to hop in and out of economic programs which have already been proven is an assassin of the country and is acting as honorary pallbearer at its funeral.


Mr. Pepin:: Those words will come back to you.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hear my friend saying something. The Liberals do not like what I am saying because they know it is true. I want to deal with my second point, the constitution itself. A question was put to the Prime Minister yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition, and the Prime Minister, I believe, answered that there was no change in the new formula for amendment of the constitution from that sponsored by Hon. Davie Fulton, the former minister of justice.
I say that is untrue. It is not intellectually correct and it is not legally correct. I see the Minister of Transport looking at me. I look upon him as one of the intellectuals of the house in this regard, and I think he will be able to look at the act and see that intellectually speaking what the Prime Minister said was not correct. I do not say any more than that. I do not think the Prime Minister deliberately got up and gave a false opinion. I do say you will find that intellectually there is a difference in the formula. That is my first charge.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman has put a question to me, and if he will give me the page I should like to answer it. Could the hon. gentleman give me the page in Hansard?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I may be thinking of another question, but that is the way it seemed to me yesterday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I listened to the Prime Minister, and I would rather read exactly what he said.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let us read what he said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If somebody can find the page faster than I can-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Anyway, let us have your interpretation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not want to give any interpretation. I want to read it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate wants to make a speech

when I am finished and contradict me, let him do so. He was going to ask a question. I do not think he has risen on a question of privilege. He has not addressed the Chair and I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that I have the floor and I have only 20 minutes left. I have a lot to say as far as the constitution is concerned, and I would appreciate it if the minister would resume his seat and allow me to proceed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have it right here and I can read it right away. I think I can satisfy the hon. gentleman completely.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Have you asked permission of the Chair to get on your feet?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought I had permission but, of course, if the hon. gentleman does not want me to-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister then be prepared to agree to the extension of my time by the amount of my time he is taking now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Delighted. I love to hear the hon. gentleman speak.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Fine.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Here is what the Prime Minister said, Mr. Chairman, as found on page 9547 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, in so far as the delegation of federal powers to the provinces is concerned there is no difference.
He was referring to the delegation of federal powers to the provinces. I believe there is a slight difference with regard to the delegation of provincial powers to this parliament but in so far as the delegation of federal powers is concerned, that is decentralization, the Prime Minister said yesterday that the formula was identical with the Fulton formula, and I believe that can be ascertained by any person competent to read.


John George Diefenbaker: Page the Winnipeg Free Press.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: For two reasons I am not going to be as nasty as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. First, he has been ill and has just returned to the House of Commons. Second, I have always looked upon those men who were members of the house before I arrived here as my seniors. Therefore I am not going to hand back that kind of sarcasm.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Interim Supply


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Hon. members can laugh. I see that one of the backbenchers on the other side has now moved up to the front bench but that is neither here nor there. You can laugh, but I say to the minister that when he implies I am not competent to read I will let the record speak for me. That is what the minister implied. I am not going to be sidetracked, but I will say in answer-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not imply that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -to the minister-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might be allowed to apologize to the hon. gentleman. I was not implying for one minute that he was not competent to read. I was just suggesting that perhaps he had not yet had the time to do so.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Again we have sarcasm and we have the boys who laugh at the sarcasm. I will answer in this vein. The other day I picked up an article which was very critical of myself and another member because we had said certain things in the house. I should like to say, and I hope the press is listening-I do not like saying this because many on the other side are my friends-that when we were on the government side of the house there was never anything to equal the howling and shouting of the backbenchers of the Liberal party at this time. You laugh, you scoff, you shout. If a member does work to prepare a speech he might as well pack it up, because he is howled and shouted down by the backbenchers in the Liberal party. I see one of the distinguished members of the Liberal party sitting back there, and I am sure he will agree with me that if you differ with what I say and have something to say yourself, you should have the decency and courtesy to get on your feet and argue like gentlemen rather than howling like wolves. I come back now to what the minister said.


An hon. Member:: Say something intelligent.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You say "is that intelligent". I am not going to be sidetracked. I ask the chairman to bring the committee to order. I intend to finish my remarks in spite of the howling and shouting in which members on the other side are now engaged.
This is my answer to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I have not checked this, but when this matter was first brought before the house it was my interpretation of the Prime Minister's language that he meant

Interim Supply
that in a day or two this matter would be debated and quickly approved because the 10 provincial premiers had approved it and the government had approved it.
But this is too serious a matter for that kind of treatment. That is why a member of the New Democratic party quite properly rose and said they were going to fight it. I would ask the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate to take a look at what the Winnipeg Free Press has had to say in this regard. He will find there an entirely different slant placed on the interpretation of the Fulton formula and the present Liberal government formula. I believe that in the guise of bringing the constitution home and in the guise of toadying to the separatists in the province of Quebec, the Liberal government was slipping a fast one over on the people of Canada.
Why do I say that? I say that because we all know, every political science student knows, that certain powers were delegated to Ottawa and certain powers were delegated to the provinces. I think it is fair to say that this division of powers was preserved under the Fulton formula, but what happens to them under the formula laid down by the Liberal party?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no difference in that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister says there is no difference. I would be interested in hearing him explain this; I should like to get him on the record. I have always thought the Winnipeg Free Press was a fairly reliable newspaper, even though I have not agreed with it because it seems to be pro Liberal and I am pro Conservative. In the days of Mr. Dafoe all of us in Canada, wherever we lived, realized it was a newspaper of national importance because of the way the editorials were written on those issues affecting the nation as a whole. I wonder if the minister has had occasion to read the issue of October 26, 1964, which carries the editorial headed "A Formula for Constitutional Chaos". The premier's draft of changes in the B.N.A. Act is also set out on the same page.
If I have time I will place some of this editorial on the record. The minister will find there exactly what I suggest our position is. I am going to repeat the charge I level at this government, and it is a serious charge. This is a very important issue. It is not something to be played with, because our whole country is at stake when we change the

constitution. It is through these powers that parliament operates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would allow me to ask him a question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if I can finish my remarks, please.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, of course; I would not think of intruding.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not want to be rude, but I have hurt my friend's feelings. If he will bear with me, I should like to hear what he has to say when I have completed my remarks. As I say, I should like to get him on record about this matter.
I should like to make my personal recommendation to the government right now. I hope the government will allow the top constitutional lawyers, the top political scientists of this country, to examine this proposal thoroughly. Let us have it out in the open. I have a deep suspicion-and I think this is why the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate keeps asking me questions-that under the guise of bringing home the constitution we are in danger of weakening the powers of the central government and dividing up this country into ten balkan states. You, sir, give in to the separatists of the province of Quebec.


An hon. Member:: Now you are starting to divide Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hear some of them shouting about the province of Quebec. I believe this, and I will say it not only in this house but elsewhere; I believe the people of Quebec want a strong country just as those in any other part of the nation do. It is time that we spoke up like leaders instead of trying to soft soap the whole problem we have in this country. You are never going to cure the patient by giving him these weak soda pills. If the patient has something wrong and he needs surgery, we have to use surgery. All you are doing is saying yes. In fact I often think of that song from the famous play "Oklahoma", "I'm just a girl who can't say no". Now, you never say no. You never measure up to your responsibilities.
There were certain powers delegated to the central government, and certain powers delegated to the provinces. This party has been on record for years in favour of bringing the constitution home so that Canada can attain full nationhood in every respect. I am in favour of it, and this party has been in favour of it. I believe everyone in Canada

is in favour of it. If under the guise of bringing home the constitution, because everybody is so happy to see it come home, we carve up and destroy this nation, then I say to the Liberal party that the responsibility rests on their shoulders. You are the assassins of this country.
When they talk about separatists they laugh. We do not even have to go to the province of Quebec to find separatists now. We have one man, a Liberal premier, who has said that if anything happens, if things go wrong, he will join with the United States. I am referring to Mr. Thatcher, the premier of Saskatchewan. This is his latest pronouncement made in Montreal. He was going down to Montreal to appease these people to whom this government will not say no and to whom this government should say no. If the government of Alberta, even though it is my home province, wanted to do something which was detrimental to this country I should hope this government would exercise the kind of responsibility it should exercise, and say no. I would hope that if I were the premier of that province and asked for something that would destroy Canada, this government would say no. The charge I make against you is that you are not statesmen, you are politicians. You never do anything that will prevent the Liberals from winning; let us destroy Canada. This is the charge I make.
I say this. You should pick out the ten top constitutional men or women-


Mr. Moreau:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, I am going to finish. This is the thing about which I have complained before. As soon as you get to some point that is important, they want to ask questions. These Liberal backbenchers are not allowed to speak for themselves, and any time you get up to say something that represents Canada as a whole you get nothing but interruptions, especially from the hon. member for York-Scarborough. If he wants to hold a meeting, let him go to Hull and hold a meeting; that is where meetings are held. We should have a committee composed of the top men and women in this country to examine what the Grits are doing. Let us place this matter carefully before a committee. Let us not rush into a situation that is going to result in this nation being carved up and those powers guaranteed under the B.N.A. Act being changed.
Interim Supply
What does the Winnipeg Free Press say might happen under this formula? I believe the man who wrote this article, Maurice Western, is one of our top students at the University of Saskatchewan. You should argue the merits of this question with Maurice Western. This is what the Winnipeg Free Press says-I see you are watching and listening, and I am pleased about this, because this is an important issue. A province may not agree with the appointment of judges by the federal government. Some people agree that today some of these appointments are not of the calibre they should be. Premier Manning might say "We have no Social Crediters on the bench," and indeed it may be difficult to find any in that province. Then what about trade? Are we going to build up tariffs across Alberta, across Quebec and across Ontario? If you continue to erode the powers of the central government you destroy this nation.
I say to you that if you are ready to implement what you say you are going to implement, then you are going to destroy this nation, and as a result of that I charge you with being Canada's assassin. You are the honorary pallbearers at the funeral. There are so few ministers on the front benches that there will be very few pallbearers at the funeral.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no one on the front benches on the hon. member's side.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I suppose you are right. The minister is getting a big laugh to acknowledge his remarks. I say this. You have the responsibility of government; you are the people who were going to govern with responsibility. I say that you have done everything but be responsible. You have been most irresponsible in carving up and destroying this nation.
Let us look at another picture. This is the second point I make. First, you have played the economic grasshopper game; then you have attempted to destroy the constitution of this nation. I want to come to something now to which everyone seems afraid to refer.
When the Queen came to Canada, what did the government do? What was the response from the government? I say you brought the crown, not the Queen-the Queen is a person but the crown is an integral part of parliament-into politics. If the Prime Minister of this country had had his way he would have had her unfurl a new flag, a flag which represented one of the most divisive issues in this country. He would have dragged the crown, an integral part of the parliamentary system of this country, down into the gutter of politics.

Interim Supply
If the Prime Minister were here he would be saying that I am dragging this matter into the gutter. Well, I want to say to him this; that there will be more of us sitting on the curb, dragging our feet in the gutter if he has his way, because he will be there too.
I protest on three points. One is the economic grasshopper game you are playing; the second is what you are doing to the constitution, and the third is what you are doing to the crown. You are responsible for carving up and disrupting the nation. I should like to hear from the minister. There are two ministers over there.


An hon. Member:: Three.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Three.


An hon. Member:: Four.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: All right, there are four. Anyhow, I will say this to the minister. I should like him to get up now and answer this question. Are you prepared to have your formula analysed carefully by top constitutional men, top political scientists, so that you know exactly what you are doing in bringing home the constitution?


An hon. Member:: I thought you knew.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Here is a fellow who says "I thought you knew". Let me answer that for a moment. I see the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice here, but I am not going to say anything to him. You know what I am thinking. You know what he said, but he never measures up. Be careful. I know exactly what you said to the committee, and you never measured up. I do not want to be interrupted by you because I may say something I shall regret.
I say this to the member behind you, the man who said "I thought you knew". Do you think there is anything wrong with the idea? What are you hiding? I think you will agree with me that the Prime Minister is not a constitutional man. There are very few who understand fully the conditions of the constitution. We have had the judicial committee of the privy council, we have had the Supreme Court of Canada interpret this act ever since confederation. When you compare it with the United States, they had a weak central government and strong state governments. The purpose of our confederation was to have a strong central government and weaker provincial governments. The courts have interpreted the constitution in Canada so as to erode somewhat the central government, but at least we have that interpreta-

tion; we know where we stand. But if we put into the hands of the provinces the right to change the powers given to the federal government we will destroy this country and create a new parliament; we will create a council almost equal to the council which used to sit around Khrushchev in this respect, that they were all powerful.
I think the provincial premiers have faced up to their responsibilities, but what you will have done is destroy this House of Commons and substitute provincial premiers to run this nation as ten balkan states. That is the charge I make. I say that in changing the constitution what you have done is this; you have given the provinces the right to change the powers given to the central government and delegate them to the provinces. That is the charge, and that is why it should be called "a formula for constitutional chaos".
You might say why did the provinces not raise their voice? Well, if the provinces come down for something and get something plus, through their premiers, are they going to say no? So this thing should be carefully gone into. If the government has any knowledge or understanding of the constitution why are they acting under the guise of bringing home the constitution, to destroy this nation? I say that some time should be spent on this, and it is surely a reasonable request. It should be examined carefully by a committee of this House of Commons, carefully selected, and then we will have the answers. But we will never get those answers from ministers who are hiding the facts and who since they took office have been Canada's assassins and pallbearers at Canada's funeral.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman challenged me, and I wanted to ask him a question. I have some doubts, I may say, whether it is in order in committee of supply to discuss a matter which is not before parliament and which has nothing to do with supply. But I suppose, since the hon. gentleman has been allowed to deal with this subject, I shall be allowed to clarify the issue.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is something which appertains to the whole nation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, it has nothing to do with any of the estimates which are now before the house. This is a project which has not been brought before the house and which the Prime Minister indicated yesterday will not be brought before the house for some considerable time. It ought to be debated when it is before the house and not before,

when, as the hon. gentleman himself admitted, the facts are not known. Certainly the authoritative interpretations he wanted are not known.
I do not think there is anybody in the government who would hesitate for one minute to ask all the legal and constitutional experts to examine this question as fully as they wish. Indeed, I am sure they will, because this is one of the most important matters which will ever come before the parliament of Canada-when it does come before the parliament of Canada.
But I intend to deal only with a simple question of fact. Before doing so, however, I should like to read part of part II of the document which I understand was tabled in the house while I was away and which is available to hon. members to read. It deals with the proposal to delegate to provincial legislatures the power to legislate with respect to certain matters which normally are under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of parliament.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Can I ask the minister one question? Are you dealing with the residuary powers only when you refer to those exclusively under federal jurisdiction?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course. All the powers that are in section 91.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman knows section 91, I hope. He is a member of the bar and I am only an unlearned layman, but I would assume he had read the constitution of Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Don't be sarcastic.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is so tempting that it is very hard not to be led astray, but I will try to resist his blandishments. As I say, there are two parts to this document, but I feel that far and away the more important part is the part which would enable provincial governments to delegate their powers to this parliament. I am sure most people would degard this as being the more important part. We all know there are certain provinces which would like to have parliament exercise powers and assume responsibilities which are given to them. And that part, the part providing for the delegation of power from a provincial legislature or legislatures to parliament, is only slightly altered from the Fulton formula, very slightly.
In so far as the words relating to the delegation of power from this parliament to the
Interim Supply
provinces is concerned there has been no change whatsoever; not even one comma has been changed, as I understand it, though I have not examined the punctuation. In other words, as far as the delegation of powers of the federal parliament to the provincial legislatures is concerned-and that is what the hon. member was talking about-the document which the ten provinces agreed to recommend to their legislatures and which this government agreed to recommend to this parliament is precisely the document which Mr. Fulton submitted, and precisely the document which was recommended to all the provinces by the Diefenbaker government. There has not been one change. It is precisely the same in every particular. It requires, before this delegation of powers can operate, that four provincial legislatures shall have agreed and that the parliament of Canada shall have agreed. Before there can be any delegation there must be agreement by four provincial legislatures and the parliament of Canada.
That was what Mr. Fulton recommended and that was what the Diefenbaker government, after that conference, asked all the provinces to approve. We had rather expected that they would not deny the parentage of their own child, because we were generous enough, honest enough and fair enough to give them full credit for it


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is what makes it so dangerous, when you do that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Now they are trying to suggest something else because they think they can get some kind of political advantage out of misrepresenting it. The right hon. gentleman said yesterday that it was not true, when any person who will take the trouble to read can see that the words are precisely the same; there is absolutely no difference whatever.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister permit a question now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would he mind answering a question at this point. I do not want to interrupt his speech, as mine was interrupted-


An hon. Member:: Yes, you do. You
wouldn't accept a question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: All I want to do-



[Stage Direction]
Interim Supply
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not mind the hon. gentleman interrupting me, but I do not like him debating with others.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister explain, as he sees it, how those powers delegated to the central government can be amended, under the formula he is talking about?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not even understand that question, and I think the hon. gentleman will realize why when he looks at Hansard. I would not like to be so rude as to say it does not make much sense.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will put this question to you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, the hon. gentleman won't. I will treat the hon. gentleman a little more politely than he treated some hon. gentlemen over here who wanted to ask him questions. When I have concluded I will be glad to answer a question from the hon. gentleman, but before I conclude I think it would be desirable to have this point made very clear. As I said before, if parliament and the ten provincial legislatures see fit to accept these recommendations, the power of delegation to provincial legislatures, the power for provincial legislatures to exercise legislative authority with respect to any matter mentioned in section 91, could only be exercised after four provincial legislatures and this parliament had all agreed to it, and only for so long as that agreement continued.
That is why I did not think Mr. Fulton's suggestion was any danger at all to the powers of the federal parliament. I do not think the right hon. gentleman, who prides himself on being a great lawyer, would ever have recommended it, as he did, to all the provinces if that had been the case. His government circulated it to all the provinces and begged them to accept it, and castigated the former government of Saskatchewan because they would not accept it. It was not that the former government of Saskatchewan objected to this part of it; the former government of Saskatchewan, as I understand it-and this was repeated by the hon. member for Greenwood the other day-and the New Democratic party were not objecting to this power of delegation at all; they were objecting to the inflexibility, as they put it, which provides that in a great many cases no powers can be transferred one way or the other without the approval of all ten provinces. They say that is too inflexible.
I do not happen to agree with them, but at least it is an honest point of view, put for-
ward honestly with reference to real facts and not to fictions.
It is astonishing that the right hon. gentleman, who himself sponsored this formula, goes on television-and even does this in the house-and misrepresents the facts about this matter. That is what he has done. This is the thing for which he took responsibility as head of the government of Canada, and when we put it forward in precisely the same terms he condemns our government for doing something that he did, that we approved of and agree should continue to be done.
Those are the facts. I do not think this is a proper place to discuss their interpretation. Of course if the right hon. gentleman thinks he made a grave mistake at that time and wants to change his mind, he can get up honestly and say "I made a fool of myself when I was prime minister. I was willing, when I was prime minister, to surrender these powers. Now I am not. I am sorry. I will put on sackcloth and ashes and admit that I made an awful fool of myself. But I am going to fight it now because it is being put forward by another government." If he wanted to do that, that would be honest; but he goes on television and says "This is different from what we did", when any person who will take the trouble to read can see there is not one syllable of difference. That is not what I would call political honesty.
Of course I am rather simple about these things; I do not have that power to make black appear white and white appear black which seems to be the outstanding quality of some other politicians in this country whose practices I have no desire to emulate. I rather prefer what was said by an honest and honourable gentleman who sat in this house as minister of justice for a number of years, though I did not agree with the government he belonged to and often disagreed with him.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They are always honest when they are not here, but dishonest when they are here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman can look through all the pages of Hansard and all the debates I had with Mr. Fulton-and there were a great many-when we were on opposite sides of the house, and nowhere will he find any occasion when either of us ever imputed any dishonest motive to the other.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes; but let him end up as leader and then see what you do with him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I can tell the hon. gentlemen opposite that if they ever hope to get Dack in office again they will have a great deal more chance with him as leader than with the kind of leadership they are getting now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Rheaume:: Tell us about your leadership.


John Whitney Pickersgill: All I want to do, sir-


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Where is the UN-man?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I apologize again for taking any time at all. I want to read from the Montreal Star of Thursday, October 15, a Canadian Press dispatch from Kamloops, British Columbia, dated October 15. It reads as follows:
E. Davie Fulton, former Conservative justice minister, said today he is "extremely pleased" with the federal-provincial agreement on a formula for amending Canada's constitution.
"I welcome the agreement on the constitution-amending formula as a major achievement of Canadians in gaining custody and control of our own constitution", Mr. Fulton said in a telephone interview from his home.
"The fact that it has taken such a short time to reach agreement since discussions were resumed is a conclusive indication that the formula we worked out in 1960 and 1961 was a satisfactory basis for action", said Mr. Fulton, now British Columbia Progressive Conservative leader.
I think all of us know that Mr. Fulton was a good lawyer and an honest man-


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: How would you recognize that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and we are not ashamed of the fact that we built on the foundation that he laid when he was minister. But we are astonished when that foundation is attacked by the man who was the head of the government when it was laid; the man who is now misrepresenting and denigrating the work that his own government did, and is repudiating one of the very few achievements he had when he was prime minister of this country.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, in one way I agree with what has been said by the last speaker and the speaker who preceded him; that is that the matter of very great importance has been introduced into this debate in connection with our discussion at this time of the interim supply motion. I have no hesitation in saying that in my opinion it is completely in order, and I follow without any hesitation the example of the Minister of Transport who also addressed himself to the matter.
Interim Supply
I think the subject is important because at some time in the not too distant future the proposed amendments to the British North America Act in the form of an address will be introduced, and it is most desirable that there should be the fullest exploration, discussion and debate of the matter not only in this house but in the country at large, so that when the government comes to take the responsibility for bringing these matters before parliament and seeking the approval of the United Kingdom parliament they may be assisted by what has been said here and will be said throughout the country.
For this to happen I think it is necessary to initiate the discussion now and, as I say, I have no hesitation in taking part in the debate at this time. And I hope others will do so. I also hope that ministers of the crown will take part in the debate and will make some defence of the proposals, if defences are available. Any time spent at this stage would, I am sure, be of the utmost benefit to the house and to the country.
I do not propose to involve myself-I do not think I need to-in the discussion as to whether the proposed amendments which have been tabled and of which we are in possession are the same as those which were labelled as the so-called Fulton formula. As far as I am concerned I do not think that matters. My own personal view is that there are many aspects of them which I do not like. I know nothing as to the details of the proposals made in 1961. If they had been produced in 1961 or in 1962 I would have been opposed to them then as I am opposed to them now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him a question. The hon. gentleman said "if they had been disclosed in 1961". I am sure the hon. gentleman has not forgotten that they were disclosed and published and circulated by the government which he supported at that time, and they were well known throughout the country.


Gerald William Baldwin: Let me put it this way. If they had been disclosed to the point of being introduced into the house and had been the subject of debate in which I could have participated, then I would have opposed them. As far as disclosure is concerned, the generality of the proposals might have been available, but I say quite categorically that if the details in the form they are now in had been before the house and available for debate, my position then would have been precisely the same as it is now; that the dangerous pitfalls

Interim Supply
which lie ahead for this country if they are adopted. These I propose to indicate.
There is no better way of disclosing these pitfalls than by making this point. It may well be that a strong decisive government such as existed in 1961, one not subject to the pressures of provincial governments or required, in order to preserve its political life, to take advantage of and yield to pressures from provincial governments, would not have found such proposals dangerous. But a weak, indecisive government not knowing which way it is going or where it is going, like the hero in Stephen Leacock's book "riding madly in all directions", would find them dangerous, and they will be very dangerous in the future. I do not think I am compelled to take any part in this argument; I simply say I am opposed to it and I intend to give a few of the reasons for taking this position at this time.
In introducing the subject let me say that I think there is a complete misstatement in the wording of the communique which accompanied the proposed changes. According to the communique of October 14, 1964:
The conference of the federal and provincial governments, meeting in Ottawa on October 14, unanimously agreed on a formula to repatriate the constitution of Canada.
And later:
As a result, our constitution will have become, for the first time in the history of Canada, truly and wholly Canadian.
What nonsense is this? Even if these changes are approved by the parliament of Canada in an address, and even if they are approved in their present form without the substitution of a comma or the addition of a period, they will still form part of an act of the United Kingdom. The constitution does not become repatriated; it is still an act of the parliament of the United Kingdom and subject to repeal or amendment not only in Canada but in the parliament of the United Kingdom. I do not think there is any question of that.
If this precise formula is adopted I envisage this situation. Let us say that six of the most populous and wealthy provinces-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I put another question to the hon. gentleman. He has raised a point of very great interest to me. He is suggesting that by accepting an address of this character and by adopting an act of this character the parliament of the United Kingdom would in words be divesting itself of legislative power. I assume that under the doctrine of the omnicompetence of parlia-

ment what they do they can undo. I suggest that under the doctrine of the omnicompetence of parliament that is quite true; but has the hon. gentleman addressed himself to the other and very interesting question, that once this address was passed and the power vested in the parliament of this country we would no longer, in our courts or anywhere else, pay the slightest attention to any further legislation of the United Kingdom parliament even if their parliament were silly enough to do what might theoretically be possible.


Gerald William Baldwin: I think the minister is assuming something which may not be correct. For example, once this address has been passed, let us assume that for some length of time no action is taken on it, even in Canada. In that case the courts of Canada will still be interpreting the constitution in the terms of a statute of the parliament of the United Kingdom, and I doubt very much whether the proposition suggested by the minister is a correct proposition at all. The constitution will continue to exist in Canada because it is a statute, and it is a statute of the United Kingdom.
However, that is not the point I am making. The point I am making is that the communique is completely erroneous in its assumption that there has been a repatriation of the constitution. There has not been a repatriation of the constitution. There has simply been in a limited way an extension to Canada of the right to amend the constitution under certain conditions.
May I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, just at the one o'clock adjournment I said that technically and theoretically even with this new proposed amendment we would still be in a position where the United Kingdom parliament could at any time amend or repeal the British North America Act, because to them it is just an act of parliament, although to us it is the constitution. Even in a practical sense that could be done, and I envisage a situation where the six most populous and wealthy provinces, along with the government of Canada, would be in favour of making a constitutional amendment. Under those circumstances the government of Canada would be strongly supported in this house, and would decide that it was in the best interests

of the country to go ahead with the amendment. This situation still exists that the United Kingdom parliament still has custody and control of the constitution.
I suggest to you that if that were the case and the proposed amendment was a very necessary and imperative one, there is no doubt in my mind that even though the four small and least wealthy provinces vetoed the amendment, approaches could be made to the United Kingdom parliament, in spite of the amendment now proposed, to make the change which was considered essential and necessary. The United Kingdom parliament would be placed in a most embarrassing and difficult position by being asked by the Canadian government, which had the overwhelming endorsation and support of the country and of the governments and legislatures of the six largest provinces, to change the constitution, in the face of a veto made possible by the new proposed change.
Mr. Chairman, I should like at this point to deal briefly with the question of delegation. I shall do so as quickly as possible within the short period of time I have at my disposal. I see great dangers inherent in this situation. Let us look very briefly at what is given and what is taken.
Under the proposal, matters falling within clauses 6, 10, 13 and 16 of section 92, which is the section giving jurisdiction to the provinces, would be subject to a delegation of powers. What are those powers? Subsection 13 deals with property and civil rights. If the federal parliament today legislates in matters within its jurisdiction, but trespasses on property and civil rights, it is notorious that it has the right to do so. Very little is entailed in this concession, and the same thing applies to subsection 16 dealing with generally all matters of a merely local or private nature.
Subsections 6 and 10 of section 92 deal with the establishment of reformatory prisons in the provinces, and local works and undertakings. There is a very minor concession in this regard. On the other hand every matter referred to in section 91 may be the subject of the delegation of authority from the federal government to the provincial governments. But not only those subjects under section 9 are affected, but any matter at all of which the federal government is now seized of jurisdiction under the B.N.A. Act may be the subject of delegation. I think all we need do is turn to that part of the proposed amendment subclause 3 of the proposed new section 94A which says:
Interim Supply
Notwithstanding anything in this or any other act, the legislature of a province may make laws in the province in relation to any matter coming within the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada.
Certainly there is no equality there. Any matter at all with which the federal government is now seized of jurisdiction may be the subject of delegation of authority. In exchange, the provinces have yielded up virtually nothing. This is a most inadequate, unfair and one-sided bargain.
It is my submission that while this might always not necessarily be dangerous, in a situation where we have a weak and indecisive federal government, such as we now have, which has showed itself prepared to concede and yield in almost every case to the provinces, there is a grave and dangerous situation likely to occur. We have been told this is all because of the desire of the federal government to co-operate. It may have been so in the beginning, but what once may have started out as a gentle zephyr of co-operation has now become a howling gale of appeasement and I see nothing to suggest it is going to be brought to a stop.
I have not got too much time but I do not want to leave that subject without pointing out this danger. In a country such as ours with wide disparities economically and geographically it is essential that we do what we can to hold people together, to try to keep within reasonable limits the social, cultural, economic and political levels of the people of all sections of this country. I know you cannot make them uniform, this is impossible. But you must have a situation where, when people move from Vancouver to Edmonton, to Winnipeg, to Toronto, to Montreal, to Halifax, to St. John's, there will be something of a sameness in those conditions which I have pointed out. The danger as I see it is in a weak federal government yielding consistently to pressure from the provinces and delegating authority to provinces to legislate in federal matters. I can see it might frequently happen that a situation could arise where the federal government might find itself in the position of having to make a decision that would be popular in some areas but would definitely be repugnant to other sections of the country, and the simplest and easiest political way to extricate oneself would be to say: We will delegate the authority to do this to the provinces that want it and we simply will not touch it in respect of the other provinces. You will get a situation where, with pyramiding of the use of delega-

Interim Supply
tion you will find differing conditions in one part of the country from the other
No country can exist under such a situation. Abraham Lincoln said it much better than I can when he said that a nation cannot live half slave and half free. What he meant by that was that the social and political conditions peculiar to slavery in one part of a country with the other areas where slavery is not allowed are not consistent with the maintenance of a national identity. If I may paraphrase that in a limited way, precisely the same situation appears here, and it is my submission that we will see a constantly increasing delegation of authority from the federal to the provincial governments resulting in a variation of conditions which is inconsistent with the maintenance of our nation.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, much of the blame has been placed at the door of one province, the province of Quebec, and I have no doubt that that province and its premier have been instrumental in pressing for these things. But I think some of the other provinces must take their share of the blame particularly when they realize, as I have said before, that they have been dealing with a weak and indecisive federal government willing to go to great lengths to make present promises without too much regard to the bitter fruits of those promises in the future.
I am one of those who have considerable sympathy with the vitality, lift and resurgence of the people of the province of Quebec and I hope they achieve their requirements with a fresh and vigorous approach which will advance the people of that province. But I would think that the responsible people of Quebec, who in my view are in the vast majority, would realize the dangers of pursuing a course which strengthens one or all of the provinces at the expense of the national government.
Under a federal system the central government must have the power, the strength and the responsibility to govern in the national interest and this must include without any impairment the right to decide fiscal and monetary policies, aspects of foreign exchange, external affairs, external and internal trade and commerce, immigration, national defence and so on. The federal government must have strength to initiate and continue programs and policies in those fields designed to lift up the people of the country within reasonable limits to the same level of economic, cultural and social well-being.
Surely it must be apparent to many of the provincial leaders that a weak central governor. Baldwin.]
ment from which has been stripped real authority and power cannot hope to fulfil these functions. They must realize that by continuing along this course they will surely find that the central government has been so stripped. I make this appeal because it seems that the federal government we now have is not prepared to recognize this and in my view this places some responsibility on the provinces to do so.
There are those who feel that maybe we would not lose much if this country did disintegrate, but I do not think so. I think the world has been a better place because we on the northern half of this continent have seen fit to bring into being a nation which may well be pursuing a course that will lead to the same result as in the case of the people in the southern half of the continent, but which is pursuing it along different roads. I think that if we continue, as we have been doing under this administration, to weaken the federal government and strengthen the provincial governments this experiment is bound to come to failure.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Chairman, I am not either a very loquacious or a very controversial person but I would not care to allow this opportunity to pass without saying a few words about what I consider the most important subject I have ever heard discussed in this chamber. It is something which in my opinion transcends all other matters to which we have been giving our attention, not only in this parliament but in many preceding ones.
My qualifications are not as good as those of the members who have preceded me. The hon. member for Bow River is a lawyer, the hon. member for Peace River is a lawyer, and the Minister of Transport almost became a lawyer. The closest I ever came to being a lawyer was to wonder one time whether I should go into law or theology, but for some strange reason I chose politics.
The question we are now discussing is a vital one and it is so serious as to cause us to wonder about the very future and form of the chamber in which we are speaking today. We see, as preceding members have said, the very fabric of our federation seriously and dangerously undermined at this particular time, and perhaps it would be well in these days of easy accommodation and diplomatic acquiescence to pause for a moment and look at the kind of political structure which is Canada's.

We call ourselves a federation. Indeed, some of the more precise political scientists say that our federal institution was created so strong that we are not in fact a federal state, because the constituent and component parts have much less power than in many federations and certainly nothing approaching co-equal powers. We know that our nation began as the result of many of our founding fathers desiring a unitary state. This they did not achieve. But they got something which they thought was close to it, and when over 100 years ago the agreement reached in our capital city of Charlottetown was presented to the then Canadian legislature the founding father number one, John A. Macdonald, described it in this manner:
We have strengthened the general government. We have given the general legislature all the great subjects of legislation. We have conferred on them, not only specifically and in detail, all the powers which are incident to sovereignty.
Then he went on to say that this was the great mistake made in the United States where powers had been conferred upon the states and only the residue given to the central authority. He ended with a sentence which I believe is more timely in 1964 than in 1865.
We thereby strengthen the central parliament and make the confederation one people and one government, instead of five peoples and five governments, with merely a point of authority connecting us to a limited and insufficient extent.
The figure 5 came, Mr. Chairman, because at that time he no doubt thought Prince Edward Island would be one of the original members of confederation. It took a little more effort to get Prince Edward Island in six years later. This strong society is revealed in our British North America Act, to which reference was made this morning. Under this act the dominion government was given not only all those powers enumerated in section 91, but all powers except those given to the local legislatures. A tremendous array of legislative powers were vested in the central government. Beyond that, the central government was given a special power which is rarely if ever given in a federation. To indicate the strength of our federation, it was given the power of disallowance. As if that were not enough to indicate that this was an unusually strong federation, it was followed up by a provision whereby the dominion parliament could legislate in exclusively provincial fields if necessary to remedy an injustice upon the people of any province. We know that remedial legislation was very much an issue around the turn of the century.
Interim Supply
We know, too, that in any federation there are counterpressures against the central government. Provincial rights is not a new cry. John A. Macdonald heard it before he was prime minister for very long. His political enemies used it against him. The leaders of the provinces used it against him and sought incessantly to chip away at the central authority which he considered necessary to build the country and to maintain the country. We know how frequently in those great days of stress and challenge it required a vigorous, aggressive dominion government to do the things that had to be done to make confederation a reality as well as a legality. I could cite the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway as one of those. Down through the years we often found that the provinces would be aided by the opposition group in the House of Commons. Macdonald was in for a generation, and in that time the Liberal party became a strong provincial rights party. This has often happened. John A. fought back. Without a fight the nation would have failed and would have dissolved into its original components, in all their weaknesses, inequality and diversity.
In that time it was found necessary, in order to preserve the nation, for the dominion government to disallow 66 provincial acts. As has been observed across the way, this was in the past. We find it impossible to divorce ourselves from the past. The dreams and intentions of the fathers failed of realization. The dominion government was inhibited and its effectiveness was attacked. Its resources were diminished. Then, as a result of a series of judicial interpretations and decisions, the cause of provincial rights was advanced at the expense of the dominion.
We are always aware that in a country like ours there is constant tension and conflict between the centripetal forces which move to the centre and the centrifugal forces which throw out to the extremities. This has been the warp and woof of our political history. The present era-I hope it will not really deserve the expression "era" because that generally implies a considerable length of time-the present phase of dominion-provincial relations is unique. I think one would look very carefully through the pages of Canadian history to find a situation similar to this one. In the first place, the rate of erosion of dominion powers is more rapid than ever before. The glacial attrition of earlier days has been replaced by a rapid stripping off, as if by the power and speed of an avalanche.

Interim Supply
Second-and this is most surprising and intriguing in constitutional history, but I think it is very worrisome and should be worrisome to all Canadian citizens-the dominion government appears not to be the champion of dominion rights, but the willing and seemingly eager agent of increasing provincial rights. In an excellent series of addresses delivered over the C.B.C.-and the Massey lectures justifies the C.B.C. for many other things-Professor Underhill, a former curator of Laurier house has said:
As things are, however, our national government in recent years has approached the ten lusty provincial governments, and especially that of Quebec, in an attitude of timorous politeness, as if apologizing for the fact of its own existence. And the Canadian people as a whole cannot apparently reach any agreement to entrust their fortunes to any one political party with a majority support. They watch apathetically while our unprotected federal quarterback, looking in vain for a pass receiver, is overrun by the big husky linemen of the provincial defensive team and thrown for another loss.
So says Professor Underhill, a man of eminent perception, learning and great objectivity. I was intrigued by a statement in a speech by the Minister of National Health and Welfare not long ago, delivered to the women's Canadian club in Quebec city on September 28. I always read her speeches with great care. I was intrigued by these few lines:
Although I hardly think the time has come yet for the federal government to abdicate all its parental responsibilities and head for pasture or pension, I do think it is time to turn over to them the far greater measure of responsibility that they have earned. The federal government has an obligation to do everything within its power to assist all the provinces in realizing their ambitions, and yet at the same time ensuring minimum national standards.
Now, I will be fair to the hon. lady, as I always try to be to both ladies and gentlemen. There are other portions of her address that do not follow that particular golden text, and I would not suggest that was the theme of her remarks. However, it is surprising to find even that statement from anyone charged with dominion responsibility as a minister of the crown.
In order to illustrate further the uniqueness of our present situation, the very source which once seemed to gang up on strong dominion authority, now defends that authority. The opposition in this House of Commons I would list first, and then, of all people, the premiers of the provinces. The premier of Saskatchewan is quoted as having said not

long ago after one dominion-provincial conference:
At one dominion-provincial conference after another the provinces, faced with increasing costs are making ever greater financial demands on Ottawa. And year by year, the federal authorities, for the sake of national unity, have been forced to give ground.
We believe the federal government must have adequate financial resources to cope with unemployment and economic recessions.
I wonder why he said that.
Above all, we believe that Canadians, regardless of where they were born or happen to live, should have certain minimum living standards and, as a matter of right, a basic standard of education, health and welfare services.
While I would not expect provincial premiers to be in the forefront in the struggle to uphold the strength and effectiveness of federal powers I welcome this contribution and completely agree with the dangers he points out and the course he suggests.
The official leader of the Conservative party in British Columbia, a man who was lauded, and rightly lauded, this morning described confederation as being-
-so designed that "in giving strength to the union-to the country-the parts would thereby make it so strong that all would derive strength from it. Strength to be given, strength to be received, strength to be shared, in a partnership within a union."
Then another strong provincial voice, the attorney general of Manitoba, Mr. McLean, the other day stressed the importance of a strong central government to the unity of Canada. He said:
The founders of our nation believed that the predominant power must lie in a central government.
Must we look to the provincial politicians to preserve the dominion structure? If we look elsewhere we do not find that effort.
I am interested to note that the press of Canada has become very concerned about this matter-the Winnipeg Free Press, the great metropolitan dailies of Toronto as well as many other newspapers. I just happened to notice an editorial in the Moncton Times which reads in part as follows:
The federal government is the string which prevents an object which is being whirled around in a circle from flying away. Only in this case the string has 10 major objects (the provinces) and two less large (the territories).
If this string is cut the threat of these pieces which comprise Canada flying away (Balkanization) becomes very real.
So perhaps the people of this country are not as apathetic as Professor Underhill thought. I am glad they are not, because in

the preservation of a strong dominion lies the future of our great country.
Are there dangers? Is this really a vital issue? Are we setting up paper tigers or straw men? I say there is grave danger. I was interested to read an address by a cabinet minister in the province of Quebec not long ago. It is quoted in the Gazette of October 24; the first paragraph of the report reads:
Revenue Minister Eric Kierans of Quebec says that federal ministries of industry, agriculture, fisheries and natural resources have become "superfluous" as far as Quebec province is concerned.
The headline above the article reporting this speech is "Minister Tells French Central Economy Now Passe". What does this mean? Do all these federal departments vanish from the province of Quebec if Mr. Kierans' suggestion is valid? Mr. Kierans is a very powerful and able man who obviously speaks with great authority not only in Quebec but beyond. What will happen to the operations of the dominion government if any province decides that it can "go it alone"? Will federal operations within the province be withdrawn? Do the employees of federal ministries working in the provinces go somewhere else? Does the Department of Agriculture, for example, become operative merely in nine of the provinces? If so, what would happen to its effectiveness? What would happen to the standardization of services? What will happen with regard to equality of opportunity as between one province and another? Perhaps Mr. Kierans is right and his province can cope with these matters, and cope with them better. Like my hon. friend from Peace River I would be the last to suggest that every opportunity should not be given to the people of Quebec to work out the changes in their society which they feel are necessary for their advancement at this time. But I am not sure the best method of dealing with this is within the rigid framework of dominion-provincial relations or that it is proper to justify the desire of one province by suggesting to all the other provinces that they should similarly move to take over responsibility because to do this, in my view, amounts to a massive attack upon the dominion structure, a great surrender of dominion efficiency.
Reference could be made to a subject which I believe is under discussion at this very moment at yet another dominion-provincial conference-the question of control of the Indians of Canada, a responsibility placed squarely upon the federal government. What
Interim Supply
is the next step to be? What about provincial banks, restraint of interprovincial trade, the wholesale opting out of joint sharing programs on the part of provinces which can operate on their own? It is a great mistake to discuss this vital question of dominion-provincial relations and focus one's attention only on the province of Quebec. It is not now, nor was it historically the only province to urge greater provincial rights.
Many of the great advances in social welfare and resource development which have brought benefit to all kinds of people in this country were initiated by the dominion government and carried out by co-operative effort between the dominion and the provincial governments. But can this sort of activity be carried on if there is a wholesale evacuation by a number of the provinces? What will be left to the authority of the central government?
I do not intend to discuss amending procedures because these were ably discussed by some of my colleagues this morning. Perhaps, in time, the development of legislation for social needs and the general development of our country may lead us to a situation where we should take a new look at the constitution and perhaps even consider a new constitution. We know the British North America Act is only part of our constitution. But it will be serious, it will be a tragedy, if in any effort to deal with contemporary problems we were to follow a general policy of acquiescing in the face of every provincial demand with the result that there is a complete dismantling of the central authority.
What was confederation all about? What did our predecessors have in mind in 1867? It was a merging together of peoples, a sharing of sacrifice, a sharing of poverty and a sharing of wealth. How many times have provinces less well endowed by nature with the resources for modern industrial wealth had to go to Ottawa for equalization payments, for assistance, for subsidies? Where will they go if, in the process of accommodation, of accelerating provincial rights, the national treasury is depleted and the cupboard make bare? It is not any wonder, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Thatcher of Saskatchewan should be concerned about this.
What about the provinces in the maritime area? Our forefathers made great sacrifices to enter confederation. Many people maintain that we were far better off before that, and indeed this produced our share of separatists. They were always of a law-abiding type, but they were separatists. We made our

Interim Supply
sacrifices; we pooled our resources in a confederation, one principal purpose of which was to bring about some sharing of the wealth of the whole land, some equitable division of the benefits of the whole country. The great force for equalization must be the central government, which is supported by all the people and which is the only source of leadership for all the people.
We live in a world when many other countries are looking to supranational associations; we talk about the world of the super state. We will be terribly out of tune if we in 1964 should move in the other direction toward decentralization and the exalting of the parts to the disadvantage of the whole. This is a fundamental matter, Mr. Chairman. We can only get strong national leadership if we have strong national leaders; and they can be strong only if they have strong institutions in which to operate.
It is one of the great misfortunes of our day-perhaps one could use a stronger word than "misfortunes"-that at a time when the dominion structure is buffeted more than ever before, when we need a strong government more than ever before, we have an administration noted for its appalling weakness. We find that from the dominion-provincial conferences the provinces always emerge the victors. Sometimes one wonders if those who represent the dominion conceive themselves as mere arbiters between principals, diplomatically negotiating differences; or whether they conceive themselves as the spokesmen, the principals in the negotiations for the senior level of government, for the government whose actions affect the lives of every single Canadian.
The dangers are numerous and widespread; the loss of revenues has been tremendous. We now see that while provincial areas of jurisdiction remain sacrosanct, dominion areas are being opened, great financial resources are being moved back to the provinces. Can one imagine what funds in ten years time, if the pension plan goes through, will be available-not to the dominion but to the provinces? We see the situation arise where the dominion government is becoming the mere collector, the agent collecting moneys from the people for the benefit of the provinces. Can we, out of this, develop a stronger country? Will we get, out of this, a common purpose? Will we overcome our differences and difficulties, if we have no common rallying point? And where else could that be but at the national level, in the national capital,
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
and from those charged with national responsibility to lead the whole country?
No one is suggesting, and it would be idiotic to suggest, that the provinces do not have legitimate needs and legitimate areas of operation; but we are living in an age where I submit the dominion authorities presently incumbent are engaging upon a course which is dismantling the dominion structure which they should be upholding. Many things have been charged to this government. They have made many mistakes; in fact, the multiplicity of their mistakes is not something new. Perhaps in this regard they are fortunate, because these mistakes come so often that no one gets really aroused about them for very long. But there is a big difference between the administrative blunders, bureaucratic flubs, alterations and changes which have characterized the government up to now, and the egregious error such as I am convinced they are making in not seeing the importance of sustaining the national institutions. It is their responsibility so to do. They can hardly expect those who operate on the provincial scene to do it for them; they can hardly expect the newspapers to do it for them; they can hardly expect the opposition to do it for them.
I would say that up to now they have been very fortunate in the assistance they have received from certain sources. I would say that if the present premier of Ontario were the kind of man that some of his predecessors were, Mr. Hepburn or Mr. Mowat, the fabric of confederation would not only be sagging, but it would be completely rent and dragging in the ground of a loose assocation of ten practically autonomous but terribly unequal states. Premier Robarts-and he has had other colleagues in this respect-has taken, albeit while a provincial premier and the spokesman of a province, a stand that shows a realization of the necessity of keeping this country strong and keeping it united. I think we can be very thankful that in Canada's most populous and largest province we have a man who, as the Halifax Chronicle-Herald said the other day, "didn't make a show of strength but had strength enough to show restraint".
I have noticed that Premier Robarts has been very concerned about what is going on and he is going to give leadership in this field; because he realizes that the people of Ontario are also people of Canada. While we all have provincial loyalties-and I come from a province where sentimentality is deep; we love our homeland-Canadians, I maintain,

are Canadians before they are provincials of any province, and I think look for national leadership. If by some strange development this government began to give that leadership, they would be given the kind of support that has been denied them ever since the people gave them that uncertain mandate in April, 1963. I appeal to them to do so; to remember the importance of a strong dominion; to fight for it and to preserve it.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, after listening to the remarks of the hon. member who just resumed his seat, according to whom a certain province would ask Ottawa to collect funds to give them back to it later, I must say that I do not share his opinion at all, and I shall tell you why.
More and more at the present time we hear about amendments to the Canadian constitution. These suggestions do not come from one province only but from the whole of Canada. The Ontario premier seems to recognize- and he is a Conservative-that our constitution must get a second sober thought.
Not very long ago Her Majesty the Queen was in Canada and she said, in Quebec city, that a protocol which dates back a hundred years is not adequate and does not meet present needs. This is not surprising. It must be noted that it is the Queen herself who declares that the constitution must be changed, and adapted to the needs of the times.
I do not accept either the statements made by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Mac-quarrie) who makes a distinction between one province and the nine others.
We have no objection to other provinces claiming for themselves what the province of Quebec is claiming. We have no objection to the province of Ontario fighting for the recognition of its rights, provided that all the provinces continue to exist and constitute a nation with two cultures, the French and the English.
This reminds me of an example: let us take a Canadian family, no matter whether it is French or English speaking. If my friend from Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) brought up a family, he must have found out that when a family includes five, seven or ten children, no two of them are alike, and each of those children, upon growing and reaching maturity, endeavours to become independent. In other words, at 21 years of age, upon reaching majority, he wants to fly on his own, according to his aspirations, his possibilities, his capacities and his abilities. As soon as one lives on his own, he wants
Interim Supply
to raise a family, establish a home, operate a business or a farm.
It is strange to note that among five brothers or sisters issued from the same family, none is willing to take orders from a sister or a brother; they all insist upon exercising their full independence. None the less, Mr. Chairman, come Easter, Christmas, another feast, or the mother's or father's birthday, for instance, the whole family will gather and get along very well. Every member of the family is happy to reunite, and then a brother tells how he is getting along in life, whether he is successful or not, and narrates his personal life.
We can see, Mr. Chairman, that there is unity among that family, but every member wishes to retain his independence.
In my opinion the same situation exists on the federal level; we have a country called Canada; it is composed of ten provinces which wish that their own particular ways, customs and traditions be respected.
No province is entitled to infringe upon the liberty of another province. The province of Quebec has no right to infringe upon the liberty of Ontario or of Prince Edward Island, just as Prince Edward Island or Ontario is not entitled to infringe upon the rights of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, we are no longer in 1867, but in 1964 and the Canadian constitution must be suited to 1964 requirements, granting as much independence as possible to every province. On many occasions we suggested in the house some amendments to the constitution: give the provinces more latitude, give them the required financial means not through taxation, but by using new sources of credit to provide for a normal development of the provinces.
A few days ago my colleague from Lapointe indicated with good reason that the Bank of Canada is now being used to help to stabilize the English pound. Why not use the Bank of Canada to stabilize the economy in this country, to abolish unemployment and get the economy really moving in Canada?
Mr. Chairman, there is nothing to prevent the government from using the Bank of Canada tor that purpose. But when the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) suggests that the provinces are asking Ottawa to collect money in the provinces to give it back to the provinces, it is not the case, that is not what is happening.
The provinces are asking Ottawa to withdraw from their own fiscal and taxation fields. In particular, that is what the province of' Quebec is asking for.

Interim Supply
We are not promoting any division or discord. We are simply asking to be understood as we understand others in Canada.
If the nine other provinces want to take part in a joint program with the federal government, want to be taxed provincially by the federal government and receive in turn federal equalization payments, they are quite free to do so. We will not encroach on the freedom of those provinces. But we want the province of Quebec to be respected by all the other provinces, for Quebec has every reason to ask for what it is now requesting.
Mr. Chairman, certainly there are matters that should remain under federal jurisdiction -we do not dispute that-defence, for instance, must remain a federal concern, as must transport and finance.
However, if those areas stay under federal jurisdiction the government must then- whether it be the present government or the next government, regardless of its political tag-establish branch offices of the Bank of Canada in each and every Canadian province, with specific instructions to make financially possible, in those provinces, what it is physically possible and desirable for them.
You will then see that there will be no need for any ARDA plan, any strait-jacket or socialist or communist-minded plans in an attempt to cast everybody in the same mould. At that time you will see the provinces blossom out, not only the province of Quebec, but also the others, because everyone of them without exception is faced not with a constitutional problem, not with a theoretical problem, but with a problem that goes to the core, if you will, in that they are all beset by the financial question.
When those poor provinces meet in Ottawa with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) or with the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) and all federal ministers, what is the subject of their discussions? Monetary matters? No, they discuss fiscal matters. Ottawa takes too big a share and does not leave us enough. Both levels of government argue about which of them is going to deprive individuals of part of the fruit of their labour, in one word, which of them is going to tax the people. That is what causes the imbroglios which occur at all federal-provincial conferences. The purely monetary question of Canadian credit, of bank credit is never discussed. They are content to play the fiscal game and to share the crumbs or the little money in circulation among the Canadian people.

Social Credit has been advocating a solution for a long time. I mentioned it the other day. There are those who find it ridiculous but these same people find rational the system with which we have to cope at present. The hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) and others speak of national disunity, etc.
I read today on page 5 of he Devoir that university students are meeting tonight at a dinner given in Toronto to study the evolution now taking place in English Canada. At the dinner tonight Mr. John Holmes will ask the following question: Is the commonwealth a factor of unification or of division?
Some suggest that the commonwealth constitutes an element of division while others say it is an element of unification. I personally think that each member nation of the commonwealth has the respect of the commonwealth as a whole and, therefore, that could constitute an element of union and not of division.
Certain countries, apart from Canada, for instance India, belong to the British commonwealth of nations, yet India is independent and amended its constitution several years ago; the same thing can be said of Ireland; in Africa, there are an increasing number of small countries remaining with the British commonwealth of nations while enjoying their full independence. Recently a small country, Zambia, obtained its independence or reached nationhood; in short, it became independent. In that country the first step taken, that is the selection of a flag, was not discussed as we see discussed here by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) and the Conservatives, the choice of a Canadian flag. Until recently, the union jack was the national flag of that country, but a distinctive flag was adopted, hoisted on public buildings and accepted as the distinctive national flag of that small country which has just reached its independence. The same thing happened in Jamaica. All those nations remain member countries of the British commonwealth of nations while remaining independent. They remain within the commonwealth because they feel they need to belong to an international organization which will help them and not oppress them.
Let Canada think along the same lines, let the federal members think in the same way, let us consider Canada as a sovereign state, part of the commonwealth, yes, but united and not divided, and where we would keep our own identity.
Yesterday I heard in an interview on the radio-"When I enter a social club, I do not

enter the club in my neighbour's shoes but in my own shoes." Then as a Canadian, as a French Canadian moreover, I think we can continue to be part of the commonwealth while keeping our own symbols, with our own Canadian organization, with the greatest respect for every other nation in the British commonwealth.
For that, of course, the constitution needs to be amended. I repeat once again that the Queen, very rightly and sensibly said in Quebec city that a protocol having existed for a century is not appropriate in 1964. There is nothing surprising about that.
Some members are trying here in the house to create the impression among the public that there really is a division between French Canadians and the rest of Canada. French Canadians, it has been said and I repeat it, ask not for special treatment. No, we merely ask permission to administer ourselves as we see fit in the province of Quebec without affecting the freedom of others, and without depriving others.
The province of Quebec has its own characteristics just like the province of Ontario has its own.
Let us respect each other; let us put a stop to untimely and unreasoned accusations against the province of Quebec saying, for instance, that the province of Quebec is overrun by separatists who want to break confederation at all cost.
I have evidence to that effect. A few weeks ago I received letters from English speaking people of the University of Toronto telling me that I had done wrong when I rose in this house to condemn certain disgraceful demonstrations which occurred in Quebec city on the occasion of the visit of Her Majesty the Queen. Those letters came from Irish people of the University of Toronto who blamed me and called me a coward because they say Canada has no business in the British empire.
If there are separatists in the province of Quebec, there are also some elsewhere in Canada. All those who attack the province of Quebec when the latter is asking that the constitution be amended to meet the needs of our time are separatist elements in Canada.
We want understanding, but real understanding. Real understanding is not a one way street. No one just asks for the co-operation of someone without being prepared to give the same co-operation. I think that every member of parliament, no matter his party, has a bounden responsibility, as a Canadian, 20220-609
Interim Supply
as a representative in the federal government, to see to it that such co-operation, collaboration and understanding start right here in parliament.
I can understand that some hon. members are trying to play politics; they are thinking of the next election, and that they do not care at all about the people they represent in this house.
Well, if we are simply here to play politics -I heard this morning the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) who delivered a speech as if an election were going to be held very shortly-but we will not follow that lead.
Each member believes that he is a statesman, and I will point out to the house the difference between a statesman and a politician. A statesman is the one who thinks and acts with future generations in mind, while the politician thinks and acts in terms of the next election. That is the difference between a politician and a statesman. If hon. members were more truly statesmen-


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Duplessis said that.


David Réal Caouette: -Mr. Chairman, we would achieve better results than those we have obtained since the beginning of this session.
Mr. Chairman, I shall not elaborate any further, but I ask all hon. members, whether they be Liberals, Conservatives or New Democrats, to face Canada's future squarely, to recognize that the provinces are entitled to recognition and respect, each and every one of them, and that no province has the right to encroach upon the rights and freedoms of another. Quebec will not trespass on the rights of any other province but, on the other hand, Quebec will fight against those who will attempt to infringe on its freedoms and its right to be itself within confederation.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, after listening to the in so many ways, excellent speech delivered by the leader of the Creditiste party I cannot help but agree with much of what he has said, and I am sure that many other members will also. Most of my remarks this afternoon will relate to the constitutional amendment procedures which are about to be brought before us. When the resolution is brought before the House of Commons it is my intention to speak in greater detail on this subject. However, I think it is very important that at this time many members of the house make what I would characterize as keynote speeches as

Interim Supply
we approach what will perhaps be one ol the more important debates in the history of the House of Commons, certainly one of the more important since I became a member of the house six years ago.
My remarks at this time will in no way be irresponsible because, together with other people, I have done my very best to examine the general outline and details of the constitutional amendment procedures. I am not going to say now that these provisions alone constitute the seed from which an associate state can very well grow. However, the approach of the present government to this matter, together with other things that are going on in Canada at the present time, lead many responsible Canadians and members of the House of Commons to believe that, wittingly or unwittingly, the actions of the present government are sowing the seed of the possibility of an associate state coming about.
Just a few days ago I read that a minister of the province of Quebec, Mr. Kierans, had travelled overseas and had listed a number of departments now administered by the federal government which he said Quebec did not need any more because they were superfluous. This speech has gone unanswered. I know he spoke in what he thought was a responsible way but the fact is that his remarks have gone unanswered. There is also the fact that we are soon to be confronted with the constitutional amendment procedures that the government has in mind, and while I do not make any accusations at the present time there is a rumour which many people firmly believe that Mr. Lesage wants a consulate established in Paris. Then we can also add the fact that in regard to federal-provincial relations the Prime Minister is not leading the federal cause but is negotiating it. He was good at that sort of thing for many years, but once you become Prime Minister it is your obligation at all times, no matter what the situation is with regard to federal-provincial relations, to outline the federal case, to lead the federal cause and not to negotiate the federal government out of the capacity to govern at all.
Quite frankly, sir, a year ago I did not think it was possible that as a member of the house I would be speaking in this tenor at all because I remember getting up time and time again and asking the Prime minister and other ministers, including the Minister of Natonal Health and Welfare who is in her seat now, whether they had consulted
[Mr. Grafftey.l
with the provinces. A year ago federal-provincial relations were in a terrible state because this was before the present government had coined the idea of co-operative federalism. A year ago federal-provincial relations and, in fact, the whole domestic economic program of the government were floundering because the government had failed to consult the provinces, especially in matters of conjoint jurisdiction.
I feel that as a responsible opposition we did a good job in bringing this situation to the attention of the government on many occasions, and as a Conservative I must recognize that, everything else being equal, I believe strongly in local autonomy. This is a part of Conservative principles. We believe that very often people at the local level know what is best for them and how best they should govern their affairs. I believe in this kind of decentralization. But, Mr. Chairman, in the old world and in the new it has been a consistent principle of Conservatives to fight extremes wherever we find them.
Last year we fought the extreme of an unwitting centralization superimposed upon the provinces by a cabinet largely made up of ex-senior bureaucrats who did not understand the real meaning of co-operative federalism. It is unbelievable to me that in less than a year this same government has unwittingly gone from one extreme of the swing of the pendulum to the other. So I believe it is now one of the challenges facing the opposition to save confederation, to save the federal government, just as it was a challenge to Macdonald, Cartier and the Conservative party almost 100 years ago to forge the bonds of confederation in the first place.


Mr. Gelber:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


William Heward Grafftey: Yes.


Marvin Gelber: I find it difficult to recognize the description of the hon. member for Queens, the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member now speaking of the present trend in federal-provincial relations. Would he tell us whether federal powers have been eroded over the last 30 years or are we merely adjusting from the centralization resulting from the war? Has there been an erosion of power in the last 30 years?


William Heward Grafftey: That is a very good question and I hope to answer it in a general and perhaps in a detailed way as I proceed with my speech.


Auguste Choquette: A good answer.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, if I have said a few partisan things up to this point I hope I can say what I am about to say in a bipartisan spirit. We in the House of Commons recognize, and I think are beginning to recognize more and more no matter to what party we belong, that parliament as an institution only works well when each of us has done all he can in a positive and dynamic spirit of good will to unite the country. No matter what party we support in the House of Commons, we are now beginning to recognize that parliament as an institution really works well only when we have done all we can to improve federal-provincial relations.
I would be the first to recognize that the present government has been faced with a very difficult situation. Things have been moving very quickly in terms of federal-provincial relations, in fact, in an almost abnormal way in the last three or four years, and adjustments have had to be made rather rapidly. Possibly hon. members who support the government will say that I am being partisan but I think we are faced with a very serious situation so far as the attitude of the government is concerned, in that the pendulum has swung from where it was a year ago, when the government would not consult at all with the provinces and its whole economic program was floundering, to the point where many serious-minded Canadians are wondering whether we will have any federal government left at all if the Prime Minister continues on the same course.
I believe that four basic things must be done and probably must be done even before we consider the constitutional amendment procedures soon to come before the house in all their detail. Along with many Canadians I believe that before or certainly by 1967 we must have a modern constitution suited to modern times. I am not going into the niceties of whether or not we should completely scrap the one we have now and draft a new one, or whether we should simply drastically amend the one we have. I am convinced of one thing, Mr. Chairman, and I think there is great support for this in every corner of this house, that much sooner than later we must have a modern constitution suited to modern times.
Second, I should like to dwell on a point that I realize is repetitive coming from me. I am more than ever convinced, as I see things going on that are going on, that one of the reasons for our present ills relating to federal-provincial relations is the lack of 20220-609i
Interim Supply
permanent consultative machinery between Ottawa and the provinces. Again, I suggest the immediate establishment of a federal-provincial permanent secretariat at the heads of the governments level, based on the ARDA approach. I am not really interested in whether or not it is done in exactly this way, but I am interested in the immediate establishment of federal-provincial permanent consultative machinery.
When this is done, then the federal and provincial governments can meet and immediately plan priorities in the social and economic fields. This is something that must be done immediately. There must be cooperation between the federal and provincial authorities in planning priorities in the social and economic fields. Then we could have meetings on the constitution at different times and in different parts of the country in order that long before 1967, I hope, we can come up with a modern constitution suited to modern times.
Some people feel that Conservatives have preconceived ideas about whether the federal government should be strong or the provincial government should be strong, or whether there should be centralization or decentralization. This is a purely hypothetical debate so far as Conservatives are concerned because we do not approach federal-provincial relations in any doctrinaire sense at all. Some people have said that back in 1867 Macdonald and Cartier were strong defenders of central government. Of course they were. In 1867 there was no whole, there were just the parts. It was the great challenge to Macdonald and Cartier to form the whole out of the parts and to defend it. As I have said before, Conservatives fight extremes wherever they find them. As the pendulum swings too far in any direction I think you will find the approach from our side of the house, and I am sure very often from the other side of the house, is based on principle and not a doctrine that will not change.
I should like to say this, in my closing keynote remarks. As I said, when we bring the constitutional amendment procedures before the House of Commons, I should like to talk in more detail on the various clauses. I say this, Mr. Chairman, that representing Brome-Missisquoi in the province of Quebec, a constituency which is 70 per cent French speaking, I declare now that I have never met one separatist in my constituency. I have never met one. I notice the hon. member for Verdun is paying special attention to this remark, and I should like to congratulate

Interim Supply
him upon the worth-while and laudable contribution he made to this debate a number of days ago. I know he is interested when I say, as an English speaking member from the province of Quebec representing a constituency which is 70 per cent French speaking, that I have never met one separatist. I believe the house should know that. The people I represent in the House of Commons want to remain in confederation, as do the majority of the people of the province of Quebec. The separatists do not stand for elective office, Mr. Chairman, because they know what the result would be in Quebec.
In Quebec today nearly 20 per cent of our urban families and over 85 per cent of our farmers are attempting to subsist-certainly not exist-on annual incomes of under $2,000. Great pockets of poverty exist. Since confederation, much has been improved. One of the primary roles of the federal government has been to attempt to guarantee minimum economic and social standards from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The people I represent, as do most Canadians, realize that when we are meeting the challenge today, when we are moving forward in social and economic spheres, we must have a strong federal government acting in a true spirit of co-operative federalism with strong provincial governments, both acting within their respective constitutional jurisdictions. I repeat, the federal government must remain strong.
This is one of the great debates of our time. I must say that the sooner we get to this debate the better. I hope there will be no other debate coming in between this debate and the one on the constitution which may tend to get us off on an unnecessary diversion. From 1867 up until today the two great languages, the two great cultures have lived side by side and now apply to the millions of Canadians who have since come to our shores from many lands. The melting pot theory cannot be superimposed on the Canadian mosaic. I believe, as I have always believed, that the people of the province of Quebec, in a special sense want a strong, united Canada, Mr. Chairman. The Conservative party, which in a spirit of optimism helped to build our confederation, is now called upon to defend the spirit of confederation. I should like to say to the leader of the Creditistes, and I do not say this in any electoral hustings sense, that this is the challenge in Canada. I ask the Prime Minister and Mr. Lesage to look at this challenge that is immediately in front of us. Here we are,
[Mr. Grafftey.l
the two founding races, living together in a positive spirit of good will.
In most organizations, it has been said that 90 per cent of events are caused by 10 per cent of the opportunities. The 90 per cent area is the area of problems, the headache area as it is sometimes called, and the 10 per cent area is the area of opportunity. In my view, in so far as these problems are concerned, we have devoted most of our energies to the 90 per cent problem area while the 10 per cent area of opportunity has been typically ignored. It seems to me that, in relation to national unity, in relation to questions of confederation, we have spent an inordinate amount of time on the 90 per cent problem area, while we have typically ignored the 10 per cent area of opportunity. Representing a constituency in which I have been able to witness at first hand how the two founding races live together in a dynamic and positive spirit of good will and national unity, I can only say that while mutual understanding, comprehension, and collaboration are good terms, simply by talking about these we are not being positive enough in emphasizing the dynamic, positive qualities which are contained in what I call "unity in diversity", which certainly can be applied to the Canadian scene.

Mr. Chairman, the Canadian constitution is the first one in the world to combine a federal system of government with a parliamentary system. I have always felt that a federal system of government should tend to combine a measure of unity with a measure of diversity.
In my opinion, Canada's unity has never been and will never be based on the melting-pot principle.

I should like to say I tried to get a logical and literal translation of "melting pot". The word is "creuset" but it just doesn't apply.

Everybody knows that we have a thin population scattered over a great expanse of territory. I believe that even when we have a much larger population and means of communication are faster, our attitude toward Canada and its population should still be inspired by the slogan "unity in diversity". Our federalism is based on a particular psychology found among the various groups and in the various provinces, a psychology which makes union desirable, but not unity of language, culture, religion and so on.

Mr. Chairman, this "unity in diversity" approach should always be looked upon as a positive and dynamic factor in our national structure. True, the diversity which is basic to our national life often raises numerous problems during the development stage of the nation. We are faced with some of those problems at present. I believe that, when we are content with paying lip service to the need for mutual respect and understanding, we are adopting a "live and let live" attitude which is far from being positive enough. Of course, co-operation and understanding are essential elements of the attitude we should take, but the sooner we concentrate on the positive advantages of our diversity, the less we shall hear about a confederation crisis. Then we shall start turning our eyes towards the outside world instead of merely looking at ourselves.

At this stage of our proceedings in this session of parliament I thought it was opportune for me to rise and put on record some general ideas relating to our constitution, some general ideas relating to our federal-provincial relations, some general ideas relating to what I consider to be the dynamic and positive aspects of unity in diversity, as one who speaks for a constituency in which the two great founding races, together with so many who have come to our shores from other countries during the past few decades, live together in this positive atmosphere. I thought this was a time for a general, keynote speech in this regard as we approach what I consider to be one of the most important debates, if not the most important debate, which has faced members of this parliament for a number of years.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I did not intend to speak twice today but I should like to answer certain arguments which were put forward by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I wish to refer particularly to the charge he made that the formula proposed today is no different from the formula presented by Mr. Fulton. I wish also to say a few words about the personal attack he made on our leader in this regard.
I realize it is not easy to discuss a complex legal problem of this kind in the house. It is not easy for anyone, and I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult for me. I do assert-and in this I support what was said by the hon. member for Queens, the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi-that we must
Interim Supply
have a strong central government in Canada if this country is to survive. What is the difference between these proposals? To answer that question I suggest we should take a look at the British North America Act for a few moments. I intend to refer to Dawson's book "The Government of Canada". All students of political science have studied this book and referred to it from time to time in their classes. It has been cited by the best constitutional lawyers. What are the powers of the central government as laid down originally by the Fathers of Confederation? Without going into too much legal phraseology, let us consider what those powers were. Then let us look at what the amendments had to say in 1949 and, lastly, at how the situation might be changed by the formula which apparently the present government intends to bring in.
I repeat my assertion that under the guise of bringing back the constitution we are whittling away the federal powers laid down by the British North America Act as drafted by the Fathers of Confederation who helped to bring it into law. What are these powers? They include: the public debt and property; the regulation of trade and commerce; the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation; the borrowing of money on the public credit; postal service; the census and statistics; militia, military and naval service, and defence; the fixing of and providing for the salaries and allowances of civil and other officers of the government of Canada; beacons, buoys, lighthouses, navigation and shipping; seacoast and inland fisheries; ferries between a province and any British or foreign country or between two provinces; currency and coinage; banking; incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money; savings banks; weights and measures; bills of exchange and promissory notes; interest; legal tender; bankruptcy and insolvency; patents of invention and discovery; copyrights; Indians and lands reserved for Indians; naturalization and aliens.
What happened on December 16, 1949, when the amendment was brought in? Briefly, this is what happened as I see it. The federal government was put in a position where it could itself amend the constitution by the process of petitioning the imperial parliament, subject to certain reservations. That is where the power remains. Basically, of course, the imperial parliament alone has the power to amend the British North America Act which is a creature of the imperial parliament. It is the only power that

Interim Supply
can do it. In actual fact, of course, no amendment would be made unless such a course were suggested by this House of Commons, or this parliament, to the imperial authority. I intend to refer at this point to the Winnipeg Free Press because I think that paper is on absolutely the right track in this regard. This is a difficult argument to present to parliament in the short time available to me, more particularly because of the kind of research which is needed.
I will digress for a moment. The research we need and the research the government needs should be carried out by ten or 12 top constitutional people in this country so as to make sure we are not making a mistake. I was happy to hear a previous speaker, a member who represents a constituency composed of French speaking Canadians to the extent of 75 per cent, tell us that what the people in the corner mean by central government and what I mean by central government may be two separate and different things. I was speaking to one of his friends in the corner-in fact to his leader; I am not giving away any confidences-and I am not sure we are so far apart. When we talk about what we mean by central government I do not mean the kind of central government we would have set up if we had had a legislative union. This would have meant that all the powers were given to a central government, which in turn delegated to the provinces whatever powers they possessed. Our confederation was the result of a compromise reached between John A. Macdonald, Cartier and others, in which the form of government and the powers of the dominion government were spelled out in a federal system. The federal residuary powers and the powers allotted to the provinces were spelled out, and where there was a conflict the residuary powers were placed in the hands of the federal central government. What is the difference? Mr. Fulton said:
In so far as there is now incorporated by clause 6 a new provision which limits the federal power of amending the constitution in those respects which are of exclusively federal concern, (which power was contained in section 91(1) B.N.A. Act), by attempting to define the limits of what is of exclusively federal concern, there is a new policy question for consideration: are the limits thus defined reasonable, or are they unduly restrictive? But this is a question which does not, it seems to me, affect the integrity of the remainder of the amending formula as contained in the 1961 proposal.
But this is the point I want to make, and it is a difficult point to get across. If in the new formula which this government appar-

ently has in mind and is contained in eitner the recent release or the document filed in the House of Commons, there is the kind of formula that by its interpretation confines the powers as laid down by section 91 of the British North America Act, then we are in fact limiting the powers of the central government as originally planned by the Fathers of Confederation.
Therein lies the difference between the Fulton formula and the formula before us today. When the Minister of Transport says that the Leader of the Opposition can make black white, or white black, and is misrepresenting the facts, I say with the greatest respect to his intellect, and without making any personal attack on him, that he does a great disservice to a man who has been in parliament since 1940, a man who has been a great leader of our party and one of the great, outstanding lawyers of our country and who pointed out on the occasion that has been referred to that there is a difference in the formulas.
I wish the Minister of Transport were in his place now to hear my answer to his remarks, but I know he is a good enough student that he will read it in Hansard, and if he wishes to answer me, he may do so. I know he will do so if he does not agree with me, because that is certainly his privilege as a member of this house and a minister.
I am calling it as I see it. I say, Mr. Chairman, that we are now, by the amendment, limiting the powers originally set up by section 91 of the British North America Act, and we are particularly limiting what was intended by the amendment of 1949. What did the amendment say? Let us look at it. I have read from page 609 those powers of the central government contained in section 91 of the British North America Act. This is what it says:
Section 91 of the British North America Act, 1867 is hereby amended by renumbering Class 1 thereof as Class 1A and by inserting therein immediately before that Class the following as Class 1:
"1. The amendment from time to time of the Constitution of Canada, except as regards matters coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces, or as regards rights or privileges by this or any other constitutional act granted or secured to the legislature or the government of a province, or to any class of persons with respect to schools or as regards the use of the English or the French language or as regards the requirements that there shall be a session of the Parliament of Canada at least one each year, and that no House of Commons shall continue for more than five years from the day of the return of the writs for choosing the house; provided, however, that a

House of Commons may in time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection be continued by the Parliament of Canada if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one third of the members of such house".
2. This act may be cited as The British North America (No. 2) Act, 1949, and shall be included among the acts which may be cited as The British North America Acts, 1867 to 1949.
Briefly, what does all that mean? It means, except those powers given to the provinces; except as to the English language; except as to the French language; except as to some of those other rights delegated to the provinces by the act itself, the federal parliament, by the proper methods, may petition the imperial parliament and they could amend and restrict or extend their own powers as defined. But under the new amending formula I say that the right of amending our own powers, the right of being master in our own household, has been assigned to the provinces. Therein lies the difference between the Fulton formula and the formula today. That is why I said this morning-and I want to repeat it-that if that formula goes through we will have carved up this country into ten Balkan states.
I listened with great interest to the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste and I am sure, after listening to his argument, that we are not far apart, even though we are many miles apart in a great country. It is a matter of definition; it is a matter of defining what we mean by "centralization". I say, Mr. Chairman, that this country cannot exist without a strong central government. When I refer to a strong central government, I do not mean a central government that erodes and usurps provincial rights; I mean a strong central government that has the power to control what those rights are under our constitution. The only protection we have are the rights spelled out in the constitution; we have those rights in law. What is the danger in the future? As one hon. member has said, we are today making history; we, in this institution, are as important as were the Fathers of Confederation; because it is not the government of today or the government of tomorrow, but it is our sons, daughters and grandchildren who will have to live with a constitution that may have whittled away and eroded the powers of the central government.
So when the Leader of the Opposition said there appears to be a difference between the Fulton formula and the formula today, and the Minister of Transport says on the other hand that the Leader of the Opposition has misrepresented the facts, I say that the Minister of Transport admitted he was not a
Interim Supply
constitutional lawyer and did not know too much about the British North America Act. I am not saying he was insincere in his remarks, but he failed to see the difference, and because of his failure to see that difference he accused the Leader of the Opposition of misrepresentation-


Miss LaMarsh:: And lying.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare say I have lied. Is that what the Minister of National Health and Welfare just said?


Mr. Churchill:: She won't answer.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would ask the minister whether she said that. That is what I heard.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I did not say you were lying.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Did you say the Leader of the Opposition lied? Mr. Chairman, if the minister said the Leader of the Opposition lied, or I lied, I would ask the minister to withdraw those words.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Withdraw.


The Chairman:: Order. I might say that the Chair did not hear the remark.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That does not matter.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, as a member of this house-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. If the minister says she made no such remark, there is no point raising a point of order.


Mr. Mackasey:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the remarks the minister made were to me, and about an entirely different topic.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, come on now.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Unfortunately for the hon. member for Bow River, we have not found anything he has yet said sufficiently interesting to pay attention to. I apologize for that, and-


Clifford Silas Smallwood: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, this is ridiculous, if it is the kind of behaviour going on in the House of Commons. The minister was not talking to the hon. member who has just spoken. She looked directly over to the hon. member who was speaking and said he lied. This is the kind of attitude adopted by hon. members opposite, and it is ridiculous in this House of Commons.

Interim Supply


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It is nice to see you back of the chamber for whom he has some affec-in the house after two months.	tion.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: We will deal with you on your pension plan.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to answer the hon. member for Verdun who said I have not said anything that is interesting; but I would like to suggest to him-and I do not say this sarcastically- with great respect, that I doubt he would understand the kind of constitutional point I am trying to get across at this moment; and I am not being an egotist when I say that. But if he would listen and pay a little more attention, he might learn something.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: On a point of order-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not intend to get into an argument with the hon. member, because he wants to build himself up in the newspapers.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member is rising on a point of order.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I confess that I am not a lawyer but I did understand the clarity and simplicity with which the Minister of Transport pointed out the real facts. This I understood very well. If some time the hon. member for Bow River shows that degree of maturity in the house, I am sure I will be able to understand all that he says.


Lucien Lamoureux: There is no point of order and I would ask the hon. member for Bow River to continue.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am not going to answer the hon. member, because it would be beneath my dignity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: But I am going to answer something for a few minutes.


Mr. Turner:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if I could suggest to the hon. member that it might also be beneath his dignity to impute motives to the hon. member for Verdun. After all, some of us did not expect he would be speaking in instalments today; and had the Minister of Transport expected a rebuttal to his speech of earlier today, he would have been in his seat. I would think perhaps the hon. member for Bow River would wish to continue without imputing motives to those on this side


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As far as I am concerned I did not impute motives. The minister of health called the Leader of the Opposition or myself-I heard it with my own ears and she looked right at me-a liar, or she said it was a lie, and it is that sort of thing which is ruining the dignity of parliament. However, I should like to answer the argument which has been put forward because I think it is only fair to answer it. I want to read something which might interest the Liberal government. I want to refer to "The Round Table", a quarterly review of British commonwealth affairs. I do not know whether the hon. member for Verdun will understand this, but this is what the writer says concerning the commonwealth:
Mr. Gordon-
I am not attacking Mr. Gordon but I must read everything; if I do not it will be said that I am talking out of context.
-the Minister of Finance has done something to redeem the calamitous errors of his first budget but is far from having won the complete confidence of the country, while Miss Judy LaMarsh, Minister of National Health and Welfare, has become notorious for her indiscreet utterances.
Then he goes on to say this, and this is one of the reasons I am concerned about the formula. Incidentally, these articles are written by the top people in the commonwealth.


John Napier Turner: To which article is my hon. friend referring?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If my hon. friend has read "The Round Table" he will know the writers of these articles are selected by a committee.


John Napier Turner: It is an unsigned article.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Of course it is. No article in the British commonwealth affairs review is signed.


John Napier Turner: Then you cannot read it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We are not like the hon. member known as Mr. "Leakman", who signs his stuff. The writer goes on:
On the eve of the Liberal convention-


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Even on the assumption that the main tenor of the hon. member's speech is relevant, although the Chair has tolerated this line of argument all day I hardly see how the present intervention is relevant even to an irrelevant speech.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am not going to get into an argument because the hon. member

may have an argument of his own to make in the future.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I doubt that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member is a good lawyer. If it is not relevant to discuss section 91 or the Fulton formula or the formula of the government, then I would ask him what is relevant here. This is what I was discussing before I was interrupted by the minister of health. I would ask hon. members opposite to read the article entitled "Futility in Parliament" and in particular what it says about their own members and their own government in this regard. That is all I am going to say about that.
Now I will go back to my original argument. I outlined a few moments ago the powers which are set out in section 91. I also pointed out that the amendment of 1949 gave parliament the right to petition to change its powers. Under the new formula that right to amend the powers of the central government which are set out in section 91- the residuary powers provided either by section 91 or section 92-have to a certain degree been given to the provinces. Therein lies the danger: The powers of the central government may be whittled down and lost.
Let us look at what the Winnipeg Free Press says about this in an article written by Maurice Western on the editorial page:
It would be pleasant if all Canadians could join in the heady self-congratulatory mood of the federal and provincial governments over the scheme they have announced for making the British North America Act a Canadian document. In the fortnight that has passed since the scheme was unveiled it has become clear that no one at either level of government has the slightest intention of telling the whole story. On the contrary some of the premiers seem not even to comprehend the real meaning of what they have done; others have tried to throw a smokescreen around the whole subject.
The hon. member for Queens talked this afternoon about the contribution which the premier of Ontario made, and I think he made a good contribution. He gave a warning to the country about the whittling away of the powers of the central government. Because without the central government there will be no provincial governments; Canada will consist of ten states.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Someone says "hear, hear". I think it must be Mr. Thatcher from Saskatchewan, but anyway that does not matter. The article continues:
What is the truth behind all this obfuscation? What has really happened is that the ten provinces and the federal government have connived to bring 20220-610
Interim Supply
about the most sweeping constitutional change in Canadian history, enormously enhancing provincial authority and introducing principles which could go a long way toward destroying the essential powers of the central government.
Those were my words this morning and they are the words of a competent newspaperman in this country and appear in a national newspaper. They are words of warning to Canadians that we as members of parliament may be endorsing a new and sweeping constitutional change.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Would the hon. member permit a question at this time?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Certainly.


George James McIlraith: Is he arguing that that undoubtedly responsible newspaperman is a better authority on constitutional law on this point than is Hon. Davie Fulton?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No. I want to read now what Mr. Fulton said to me about this. He agrees with the Winnipeg Free Press. I am glad the minister asked that question because Mr. Fulton says this:
In so far as-


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


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There you are. As soon as I make a point in answer to the minister a point of order is raised. Surely there is no point of order here. The minister has asked me a question and I want to refer to what has been said in this regard.


Lucien Lamoureux: A point of order when raised by an hon. member has to be submitted for the consideration of the Chair.


Gilles Grégoire: My point of order is completely in order and is meant only to facilitate the task of the hon. member for Bow River. May we know from what source he quotes Mr. Fulton, just to have it on the record? I do not want to insult the hon. member but I do want that on the record.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am reading from a brief from Mr. Fulton. I have been in communication with him; he is a friend of mine, a former minister of justice and he is a Conservative. Naturally I am interested in his comments. I have my ideas and he has his ideas. No one suggests that law is an exact science; we have only to read the many cases concerning the interpretation of statutes to determine that.
Now I want to answer the minister because he asked me a perfectly proper question. I am now reading what Mr. Fulton

Interim Supply
said to me and I should like to proceed. He said:
In so far as there is now incorporated by clause 6 a new provision which limits the federal power of amending the constitution in those respects which are of exclusively federal concern (which power was contained in section 91 (1) B.N.A. Act), by attempting to define the limits of what is of exclusively federal concern, there is a new policy question for consideration:-
That is the point I was trying to make when I first rose in my place this afternoon, that this new policy is placing a brand new interpretation on the meaning of the delegated powers and residuary powers contained in section 91. If you attempt to define the limits of those words you trim down the powers of the central government. If you enlarge the limits of those words you enlarge the powers of the central government. That is exactly the position that I understand he takes.
I was referring to what was said by the Winnipeg Free Press, and I want to finish this quotation because some good examples are given. Let me take one example. If you were going to form two or three new provinces in the Northwest Territories, then I would ask this question-I think I know the answer but I may not be right: Do we have to get the consent of the other provinces to do this? If, for example, we want to whittle away the power of the central government in connection with banking as outlined in section 91, can the provinces then force an amendment to that section? Could they force an amendment on things other than under section 91, which are exclusively reserved to the federal government? These are the difficult questions that must be answered, and this is the kind of control I am talking about. This is where the erosion could take place. Again I repeat that this is not an easy subject to understand, and I have given it a great deal of study.
Would the government in Ottawa turn down such a request from four of the populous provinces in respect of monetary policy, external affairs and tariffs? In other words, have four provinces, with a sufficient population, the power to assign from the federal government by a constitutional change such things as banking, trade, tariffs or the forming of provinces? Therein lies the danger of this legislation and that is why these matters must be aired. That is why I recommended that we should have a committee before which the top men in this country could appear and explain this whole subject to those members who do not understand it. If they are not made to understand what is being done, and
[Mr. Woolliams.l
made aware of the dangers which are inherent, it may well be that we are about to endorse something of grave danger to the very unity of this country.


An hon. Member:: This is just like the flag issue.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I heard someone say something about the flag question, but I am not going to get into that argument.
This is what Mr. Maurice Western had to say about this subject. I have said these things in a different way, but his statements give weight to my argument. Maurice Western wrote in an article which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on October 26, 1964, the following:
Despite soothing official assurances, the patriation agreement announced by the 11 premiers involves a drastic amendment of the constitution, leading Canadians into country unexplored during our century of existence as a nation. A prudent parliament will wish, no doubt, to examine the project with some care, weighing the risks and probabilities before passing the address which will carry us past the point of no return.
What is unfamiliar in the agreement is the principle of delegation, unknown to the constitution with which we have lived so long.
That delegation is, of course, spelled out by the law. The provinces have tried many times to erode federal powers. I recall when Mr. Aberhart first came into office. He wanted to take over the making of money, and he did issue some scrip. That legislation was declared unconstitutional. He tried to pass legislation in respect of the press, to make the situation more fair on the part of the press, but that act to control the press was declared unconstitutional.


An hon. Member:: He was right.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He may have been right; I am just telling you what happened in the courts.
The province of Saskatchewan attempted to legislate in respect of the banking industry in reference to the farm security act but if you read the famous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada you will find that that legislation was declared ultra vires.
I suggest that four provinces with a sufficient population might be able to erode the powers of the federal government spelled out and defined in section 91 of the B.N.A. Act. Where would this country then be?
I suggest to those who are the most extreme supporters and promoters of this philosophy of strong provincial government that they ask themselves this question. If we erode the powers of the central government will the

provincial governments remain provincial governments, or will they in tact be national governments having all their own rights to tax each other, set tariffs, create their own exchange, and have their own rights in respect of trade and various other fields? When that time comes we will be the assassins of confederation, not the ones who have endeavoured to carry on the aims and ambitions of the Fathers of Confederation in an attempt to hold this country together and to unite it as it has never before been united.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks about the amount of money we are being asked by the government to vote in order that it may carry on its program for the next two months. I think we must look at government spending very carefully before passing interim supply. I think we should look very carefully at the operations of the famous C.B.C. corporation.
We have heard a great deal about this corporation. There are some people in this country, including the hon. member for Bur-naby-Richmond, who feel the C.B.C. should be untouchable. I think it is time that the public was enlightened about what the C.B.C. is doing and how it is wasting their money. If the programs shown by the C.B.C. are of a type that should not be shown, we as members of parliament have the right to stand in this house and say so.
Mr. Chairman, on March 2, 1964, I rose in my place in this house and complained about the program "Quest". I have in my hand a file of letters I have received from people across Canada thanking me for the action I took on that occasion. I might say that it contains hundreds of letters. I received two letters expressing opposition to the action I took.
Of course, there are these so-called intellectuals and critics in this country, such as Frank Moritsugu of Toronto, and Mr. Frank Penn of the Ottawa Citizen, who suggest that I had no business condemning the C.B.C. For two days I tried to contact Mr. Penn to have a talk with him, but I was unable to locate him. These people are difficult to find, and I suspect they hide in their ivory towers writing articles about members of parliament.
The general public feels quite differently toward the extravagance of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I think this feeling has been expressed in an editorial which appeared in the Edmonton Journal in September, 1964. This editorial states in part as follows:
20220-6l0i
Interim Supply
Members of parliament will be derelict in their duty if they do not ask why it was necessary to spend $6,160,000 of the taxpayers' money merely for a site for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's new headquarters in Montreal.
I suggest that is typical of the way the C.B.C. is wasting the taxpayers' money.
Mr. Bushnell, a former top executive of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, when speaking in Toronto, charged that the C.B.C. has become extravagant. In 1963-64 the C.B.C. spent $115 million, of which $78 million came from public funds. This year this publicly owned corporation is going to spend more than $100 million of the taxpayers' money. It is time that we as members of parliament sat as members of a parliamentary committee to inquire into the extravagance of the C.B.C. I suggested as early as March, 1964, that a committee to perform this function be established. At that time we were assured by the Prime Minister that this committee would be set up.
Mr. Chairman, we are now being asked to donate over $100 million of the taxpayers' money to the C.B.C. in order that that corporation may spend that money wastefully in the construction of new buildings. At the present time there are buildings owned by the C.B.C. in Ottawa of an aggregate value of $3 million. I think we should look at the situation today, bearing in mind that many individuals are unemployed in this country and living in poverty. I suggest there are many programs carried by the C.B.C. which are not fit to be seen by television viewers.
Some people have stated that we should not criticize the producers and script writers of C.B.C. programs. Perhaps those individuals should take a trip to Toronto and visit the C.B.C. club there to see the kind of people who write these scripts. I had the opportunity of making such a visit.
I still maintain that the time has come for us to take a very close look at the operations of the C.B.C. It is time a committee was set up in this house to scrutinize the spending of this crown corporation. As a last resort I ask the Secretary of State, who is not in his place, or the Prime Minister, to give us some assurance that a parliamentary committee will be established to look into the affairs of this corporation so that we may at least attempt to save the taxpayers some money and stop the C.B.C. from exposing its viewers to programs which, in my opinion, are completely unfit.
This government is asking us to vote this money so that the government may carry on with its business. The government has been

Interim Supply
in power for over a year and has brought in no useful legislation. It has been hiding it in the cupboard. It has been playing with the flag, it has been playing with the pension plan, and all this time farm prices have been going down. What are they doing about it? Absolutely nothing. We see that today the price of cattle is as low as 15 cents a pound, a reduction of 10 cents from last year. Yet the Minister of Agriculture is not even around the house. This is a do-nothing government. They are just playing for time and engaging in tricks. They have even got magicians in the government who take something out of a hat one day and put it back the next day. This has been going on for nearly two years. It is about time we had some action from the government. Otherwise I think we should be tempted not to give them any more money to fiddle with.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr, Rheaume:: Mr. Chairman, I want to put a few remarks on the record at this time when the committee is discussing the whole matter of revision of our constitution.


Gilles Grégoire: Carried.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, would you ask the hon. member for Lapointe to come to order so I can do my thinking and speaking in some kind of orderly manner?


An hon. Member:: Can you not think otherwise?


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, in answer to that question, whether I cannot think otherwise, may I say I am not used to thinking in the midst of noise, chattering and jabbering.


Gilles Grégoire: Are you stating you are not used to thinking?


An hon. Member:: He is only going to read his speech anyway.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, once again I say that I intend to continue my speech. If these members on the Liberal back benches wish to make speeches I am sure you will recognize them, Mr. Chairman, if they will stand up and be identified.
The whole question of the revision of the constitution poses rather special problems for 50,000 of our northern people who happen to live in the Yukon and Northwest Territories because neither the Yukon nor the Northwest Territories is in confederation yet. As hon. members are probably aware, when the responsibilities and tax fields that were

to be divided were defined in the British North America Act only two spheres were envisaged, the federal sphere and the provincial sphere. The transitional stage of being a territory was meant to be precisely that, transitional, and I think it is most important that at this time when we are talking about repatriating the constitution the situation in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories should be reviewed rather carefully. It is even more important at this time, because neither of these territories was represented at the conference of attorneys general held recently to consider these matters.
I have listened attentively and quietly, Mr. Chairman, all afternoon to the remarks made by other members in the course of this debate and I would recommend to the hon. member for Lapointe that he should do the same. I too am concerned about the piecemeal dismemberment of this country at the hands of the Prime Minister and I do not hesitate to say that he must take full responsibility. He is supposed to be the leader of the government, although whether or not he is is something for him to worry about. But certainly we have seen the federal authority purposely weakened by his actions at a time when more than anything else we need a strong central government.
I know that the background of the Prime Minister is certainly an interesting and distinguished one in terms of his work at the United Nations. No one would question that the present Prime Minister was a great United Nations man, but although he may have been a great UN man he is certainly unable or unwilling to provide the kind of federal leadership that is required at the present time. This is the worst possible time for Canada to have a windsock prime minister. I am sure those of you who do any flying know what I mean when I refer to a windsock administration that turns in response to whichever way the breeze is blowing. This kind of approach to our problems is a source of real concern to me as the member for the Northwest Territories and to my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon, because if the Prime Minister insists on calling conference after conference at which the whole federal pie is put up for grabs, then those people who live in areas that are weaker in terms of their representation, either provincially or territorially, are going to be left with little more than crumbs.
There is another reason why I feel the situation within the two territories is serious. Right now neither the Yukon nor the North-

west Territories has full representation in parliament. If you will recall, Mr. Chairman, that parliament consists not only of the House of Commons but of the Queen and also the Senate, you will understand what I am driving at. At the present time neither the Yukon nor the Northwest Territories is represented in the Senate. There are no senators from either of these territories.
Some may automatically ask why we do not have such representation, or why we should have, in view of the sparse population of these areas. I am aware of the historical reasons for Prince Edward Island having four senators but I think it is fair to point out that at the present time more than 40,000 people live in the two northern territories. In my own constituency of the Northwest Territories we have over 26,000 people. Prince Edward Island, with a population of approximately 107,000, has four senators. As I say, I am aware of the historical reasons for this but I draw this matter to the attention of the committee, because in justice I think the two northern territories can insist on having representation in the Senate.
The previous administration made tremendous strides in opening up the Canadian north and embarked upon a program that concerned not only physical resource development, involving such things as airports, roads and railroads but which also gave the federal franchise to all residents of the Northwest Territories through the medium of the Nielsen bill, named after the hon. member for Yukon. This was part of a program to speed up the political development of Canada's far north, so that the logical step after the people were given elected representation in the House of Commons was to strengthen the local government and also to provide for the representation of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories in the other place.
The advantage of this sort of thing is surely obvious to anyone who will do a little thinking. It distresses me to see the Prime Minister deal away federal responsibilities in reaction to the slightest bit of pressure exerted upon him, but it is of particular concern because it tells those of us who live in the Canadian north that we may never get representation in the Senate.
The charge was made last week in Edmonton by the hon. member for Yukon and myself that for the past 18 months at any rate there has been a complete neglect of the affairs of the two northern territories, perhaps in retaliation for the northland having dared to send other than Liberal members to
Interim Supply
this house or perhaps because of the traditional approach of the Liberal party which has been to neglect, to deride and overlook the needs of the rural areas of this country, whether they be in the west, the maritimes or the Canadian northland. In the past 18 months, there has not been a single new project initiated by the federal government in either of the two northern territories. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was in Edmonton and he talked about the wonderful railway that was now pushing the frontier up to latitude 62. He described this railway as the greatest single development in the Canadian northwest, and said it would be of even greater importance in the years ahead as the tremendous Pine Point lead and zinc deposits were exploited.
Fortunately, the Leader of the Opposition arrived in Edmonton on the same evening. He was quick to point out, and this was not lost to westerners, that every Liberal member in the House of Commons voted against the Pine Point railway at the time the bill was up for second reading. Now they are taking credit for this railway and saying what a wonderful thing it is. I mention these things, Mr. Chairman, not to thresh old straw, if you will, but because it is more crucial than ever for these two territories to rather quickly get representation in the Senate. This is a time when the creation of two positions in the other place for people from the north would be of great help. It is a time, perhaps because our territories are evolving very slowly, when the Senate, which is less involved in the day to day speculation about a general election and certainly does not need to be alarmed by partisanship in any of its strange forms, would be able to provide the sort of advice and study so necessary on behalf of the two northern territories. Now, in all the hundreds of thousands of words that have been spoken in this House of Commons in the last year in relation to solving problems, I have not heard a single member of the government refer to the fact that no provision was made to provide the Yukon and Northwest Territories with Senate representation.
The question I want answered is why this has happened? Surely, at a time when we are sitting down talking about making essential revisions, overdue revisions of the British North America Act, this is the logical time to plan an article in the constitution whereby the northern 50 per cent of this country can be brought under the British North America Act in a more meaningful way, and given full

Interim Supply
representation in parliament. In late 1962 the hon. member for the Yukon was attempting to have this matter brought forward. At that time delay occurred because the development of political institutions in the Northwest Territories was proceeding apace. I do not believe anyone will quarrel with me seriously when I say it is more important for a resident of the northland to at least have the right to vote in federal elections, and it does not hurt to remind hon. members of this house that it was only in 1962 that every Canadian citizen over 21 years of age had the right to vote in federal elections. Prior to that time thousands of Canadians who were living in many parts of Canada's northland, whether they were Indian or Eskimo, were deprived of their vote. There was nothing in the election act that prevented them from voting, but they did not belong in any constituency. When the writs were issued and the lists were put up of the voters, tnere was nowhere they could vote.
There used to be a saying, when I was first knocking around the Northwest Territories, to the effect that if you wanted to lose your right to vote in Canada, all you had to do was to go to prison, go insane or go north. This situation was corrected. Not only were residents of the north given the federal franchise for the first time in June, 1962, but so were the Indian people. Prior to that time they did not have a franchise, because of their racial origin. When the accomplishments of the previous prime minister were being ridiculed and derided by the great exponent of political integrity, the Minister of Transport, to the jeers and catcalls of his loyal backbenchers, it was distressing to me to note that no one gave credit for this sort of thing. Yet, prior to the passage of the Canadian Bill of Rights and the implications that this had on the franchise in northern Canada, it was true that Canada had no right to hold up her head in the councils of the United Nations, at a time when many of her citizens were being deprived of the basic right to vote, solely because of their racial origin. I am speaking now of the Indian and Eskimo people. No one in this house knows what a tremendous step that was. If for nothing else, the previous prime minister deserves the commendation of Canadians and a place in history as the prime minister who, after 22 years of Liberal government, was the first to see that every Canadian citizen had the right to vote.
May I call it five o'clock?
Progress reported.
[Mr. Rheaume.l


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will proceed to private members' business, namely, public bills and private bills.


Mr. Knowles:: Since it is generally known what order we will be proceeding with, could we not arrive at it by unanimous consent rather than calling 20 or 22 items and having each one stand?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all the items but one be allowed to stand?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I raise the suggestion that I raised before, that after bills have been called on two or three occasions they should drop to the bottom of the list. Then you would not have to go through this procedure of calling bills day after day that have been on the order paper and retained their position for months.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that one particular item will be called, item No. 23?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
David Réal Caouette: the second reading of Bill No. C-76, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1960, with respect to representation of the provinces in the Senate and qualifications of senators.
He said:

Mr. Speaker, as all hon. members know, the object of this bill is to bring the Senate abreast with the times we live in. There is no question of abolishing the Senate but to bring it to proportions more appropriate to our times.
Bill No. C-76 reads as follows:
An act to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1960, with respect to representation of the provinces in the Senate and qualifications of senators.
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1.	Section 22 of the British North America Act, 1867, is amended by deleting the last paragraph thereto which at present reads as follows:
"In the case of Quebec, each of the twenty four senators representing that province shall be appointed for one of the twenty four electoral divisions of Lower Canada specified in schedule A to chapter one of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada."
Explanatory Note: "This paragraph, together with paragraph 6 of section 23, which it is also proposed

to delete, was inserted at the time of confederation to protect the English Protestant minority which was then located mainly in the eastern townships of the province of Quebec. Needless to say that no such provision has been inserted in the constitution to safeguard the French and Roman Catholic minorities of the other provinces.
However, as the population of the eastern townships is now mostly French Canadian, there is no need to perpetuate in the British North America Act such an obsolete provision.
Why should we keep in the statutes of the British North America Act a provision dating back to 1867, at a time when confederation comprised Upper and Lower Canada, while today our country includes ten provinces?
There is no such provision in any other Canadian province, except in the province of Quebec.
It seems to me that the federal parliament should remove that section which is altogether obsolete and outmoded.
Clause 2 of Bill C-76 reads as follows:
2.	Clause 23 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"23. The qualification of a senator shall be as follows:
(1)	He shall be of the full age of thirty years;
(2) He shall be a Canadian citizen;
(3) He shall be resident in the province for which he is appointed.
It seems to me that we have come to maturity and that we should repeal what is incorporated in clause 23 of the British North America Act, namely:
The qualifications of a senator shall be as follows:
(1)	He shall he at the full age of thirty years;
That qualification does not change.
(2)	He shall be either a natural-born subject of the Queen, or a subject of the Queen naturalized by an act of the parliament of Great Britain, or of the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or of the legislature of one of the provinces of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada, Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick, before the union, or of the parliament of Canada, after the union;
Since this is the parliament of Canada after the union, after confederation, it seems to me that we should revert to more equitable requirements, that is to be Canadian citizens, which implies the whole thing in itself and proves that we are masters of our destiny and that we can decide for ourselves.
The third paragraph of that clause 23 reads as follows:
(3)	He shall be legally or equitably seized as freehold for his own use and benefit-
In simple terms, he must be the owner of property worth $4,000 over and above all his debts, mortgages, liabilities, etc.
British North America Act
(4)	His real and personal property shall be together worth four thousand dollars over and above his debts and liabilities:
(5)	He shall be resident in the province for which he is appointed.
Now, I come to the sixth paragraph and that is the one we want to eliminate. It reads as follows:
In the case of Quebec he shall have his real property qualification in the electoral division for which he is appointed, or shall be resident in that division."
Here is the explanatory note on that matter:
The main reason for the proposed change is that now that Canada is no longer a colony, only a Canadian should be qualified to be a senator. It is further suggested that if it is true that it is most difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, a poor man should not be prevented from entering the democratic Senate in the Kingdom of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the abrogation of clause 23(6) is proposed for reasons indicated in clause 1 of the bill. We are also suggesting that clauses 26, 27 and 28 of the said act be repealed and section 4 states:
That this act may be cited as the British North America Act, 1964, and the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1960 and this act may be cited together as the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1964.
Clauses 26, 27 and 28 which at the present time read as follows:
26.	If at any time on the recommendation of the Governor General the Queen thinks fit to direct that three or six members be added to the Senate, the Governor General may by summons to three or six qualified persons (as the case may be), representing equally the three divisions of Canada, add to the Senate accordingly.
Clause 27 reads as follows:
27.	In the case of such addition being at any time made, the Governor General shall not summon any person to the Senate, except upon a further like direction by the Queen on the like recommendation, to represent one of the three divisions until such division is represented by twenty four Senators and no more.
Clause 28 reads:
28.	The number of senators shall not at any time exceed seventy eight.
Since we never had to apply those clauses, why not repeal them? In fact, those clauses have never been used and we, nevertheless, tolerate them as it is provided that the number of senators should never exceed 78. At present, we have more than 78, we have 104. Therefore, clause 28 is outmoded and obsolete.


Auguste Choquette: We have 102, but we are
entitled to 104.
9638	HOUSE OF
British North America Act


David Réal Caouette: I thank the hon. member for Lotbiniere for giving me this information.
I think that the attention of the house should be drawn especially to clause 23 where it is stated that a senator shall have the following qualifications:
(1)	He shall be of the full age of thirty years;
(2)	he shall be a Canadian citizen;
(3)	he shall be resident in the province for which he is appointed.
This means also that, in order to be called to the Senate, the qualification of Canadian citizen does not imply that one must be a partisan of the party in power, or of the opposition party, or a political organizer of any party. The qualification of Canadian citizen means that any Canadian citizen is eligible for appointment to the Senate.
Quite often, appointments were made on a purely political basis. Of course there were exceptions, and I will mention them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When?


David Réal Caouette: For instance, Senator J. Hackett, a Conservative member of parliament for many years, was appointed to the Senate by the then prime minister, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent. Mr. Hackett was a Conservative. We also had appointments-


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Frangois Pouliot.


David Réal Caouette: -which were not entirely of a political nature. I am thinking of businessmen like Senator Molson who was neither a known Liberal or Conservative, but whose appointment is a contribution to the Senate. We also have Senator McCutcheon, who somewhat entertains independent political views, though he is considered as a Tory.
My hon. friend from Lotbiniere referred to Senator Pouliot. I do not think that, strictly speaking, Senator Pouliot's appointment was a political one. As as matter of fact, 1 knew him personally from 1946 to 1949, when he sat as a Liberal member, and whenever he wanted to let the government in office have a piece of his mind, the senator did not hesitate. They called him the enfant terrible of the house, precisely because he did not always agree with the government of the day, that of Right Hon. Mackenzie King, and also because, in those days, he severely criticized the then minister of national defence, Mr. Ralston. If Senator Pouliot had been willing to accept the Liberal party's


discipline, he would have been appointed to a cabinet post long before that, for he was a very brilliant member, and this I admit, despite the fact that he was a Liberal member. For instance, when it was necessary to take a stand on the 1942 plebiscite, Senator Pouliot was one of those who crossed over to the other side of the House of Commons to protest against the fact that the Liberal government of the time was betraying the province of Quebec. This is all to his credit and we commend him for it. That is why I say that he was not appointed strictly as a Liberal member nor as a very influential member of the Liberal party.
On the other hand, others were appointed to the Senate after being defeated in an election and who were and still are active political organizers. Under the rules of the house, we have no right to attack a senator, but I know that in the case of Senators B our get and Flynn, who were defeated in their ridings and appointed to the Senate soon after, those appointments were solely and strictly political and reflect no credit on democracy. When the electorate turns down somebody, why should the government go counter to the popular will, so clearly expressed?
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the house, take exception to some of the Senate's activities and we object to bills coming from this august house called the Canadian Senate.
Mr. Speaker, there are four bills on today's order paper, on page 21, that is Bills S-32, S-6, S-13 and S-27 designated as follows:
1.	Bill S-32, an act to Incorporate World Mortgage Corporation.
2.	Bill S-6, an act to incorporate Bank of Western Canada.
3.	Bill S-13, an act to incorporate Laurentide Bank of Canada.
4.	Bill S-27, an act respecting The Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
We object to the passing of these bills and we have reasons for it. We are not blackmailing the Senate, but there is now before the Senate an application for another bank, the bank of British Columbia; it has been there for months, but the Senate does not pass this bill nor send it to this house.
We think that this is a flagrant piece of injustice as far as the Laurentide bank of Canada or the bank of western Canada are concerned because this bank has rights and is entitled to request this charter.


Mr. Lachance:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have found most interesting the speech made by the hon. member for Ville-neuve on the bill he introduced today, but I

do not believe that we should discuss, at this stage, various bills concerning banks or any other bill but the one before us at present.
I think the members might like to say a few words on this most interesting bill, and I do not believe we are ready to discuss all those other bills this evening.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I duly note the remarks of the hon. member who has just interrupted me. On the other hand, I should like to tell him that we are not discussing Bills Nos. S-32, S-6, S-13 and S-27.
I am talking about the Senate whose members must be of the full age of 30 years and be Canadian citizens, resident in the province for which they are appointed. I am also referring to the role the Senate can play when its members possess those qualifications. In fact, I hope that some day the hon. member attains those qualifications, not as a politician, but as a Canadian, in order to reach what is called the heaven of Canadian politics.
Mr. Speaker, we object to those bills because we believe that it is unfair to delay the passage in the house of certain bills or certain requests, while the same privilege is granted to other measures. That is the only reason. This is no blackmail, and we do not want to practise blackmail; however, we would like that the most elementary justice be meted to everyone.
And I am wondering why the upper house objects to sending here, in the House of Commons, the bill that has been submitted by the province of British Columbia.


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


David Réal Caouette: Yes.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Is the hon. member aware that at the third last meeting of the committee on banking and commerce of the other place, on the bill to which he is referring, the attorney general of British Columbia asked that the committee not proceed with the bill at that time and that they adjourn their hearings?


David Réal Caouette: I am aware of that but my hon. friend's statement is not right. He knows very well that the attorney general of British Columbia never asked that that bill be deferred to a later date. He wanted the bill to be accepted and passed right away, but somebody else objected to the passing of the bill on that occasion.
British North America Act


Stanley Ronald Basford: Then on a question of privilege-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I should point out to the house that the bill before the house at the moment deals with the representation of the provinces in the Senate, and the qualifications of senators. I am just trying to bring the house to order before the discussion goes too far afield. I would point out to the house that this does not give hon. members leeway to discuss the operations of the other chamber, and I would ask them to stay within the confines of the bill now before the house.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I shall follow your suggestion with pleasure, and point out that the principle of the bill, as I have just mentioned, does not change anything much in the B.N.A. Act or acts. I simply suggest that the situation with regard to the appointment of senators be up-dated, in the provinces and throughout Canada.
Such clauses as have no longer any value must be deleted. In short, what does the bill mean? That the qualifications of a senator shall be as follows;
1.	He shall be of the full age of 30 years.
2.	He shall be a Canadian citizen, without a long string of qualifications or epithets after his name, and no matter where he comes from.
3.	He shall be resident in the province for which he is appointed.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that hon. members, regardless of party affiliation, will not object to these three qualifications of a senator. We will thus have amended the B.N.A. Act or acts, in accordance with the spirit of 1964 and not of 1867.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of interest that I read the bill introduced by the hon. member who just returned to his seat. I also listened to his comments with no less interest. In my opinion, there are provisions in the proposed measure which deserve serious consideration. But I do not feel that, were they to be accepted, the amendments brought forward would entail any real change. What is being asked for, at the present time, is a major and substantial reform of the Senate.


Gilles Grégoire: Its abolition.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, as for its abolition, if the hon. member will bear with

British North America Act me, I shall deal with the matter later on. I agree with those who say that our constitution contains provisions which are obsolete and archaic. That is why, throughout the country, we hear about a reform in depth, if not a brand new constitution.
Last July I introduced a bill for the sole purpose of removing the obsolete provisions which are still in our constitution, that is clauses 55, 56 and 57, which provide that bills may be reserved to be given royal assent by the Queen of England personally; that has not been done for a great number of years now and dominion conferences had indeed suggested they should be dropped, since they serve no practical purpose.
I will now argue from analogy to deal with the provisions of the bill under consideration. In fact, the provisions which the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) would like to see removed are surely antiquated, as can be seen from the following subsection:
In the case of Quebec each of the 24 senators representing that province shall be appointed for one of the 24 electoral divisions of Lower Canada specified in schedule A to chapter 1 of the consolidated Statutes of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I will now deal with that provision for a moment. We must of course define territorial constituencies if we want to appoint senators to represent those constituencies.
If, in the eastern townships for instance, senators were appointed to represent constituencies of that area I would not object, especially since, in the explanatory notes of the bill introduced by the hon. member, we find this:
However, as the eastern townships are now predominantly French Canadian-
Mr. Speaker, since the population of the eastern townships is now mostly French Canadian, I see no objection to the appointment of senators from that area, because they would represent the French Canadian nation in the Canadian Senate. That is why I fail to see the point of lingering over the study of the proposed amendments.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, would the member permit a question?


Auguste Choquette: With pleasure, Mr. Speaker.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member aware of the fact that the act provides for 24 electoral divisions or senatorial districts in the province of Quebec and that it is the only place in Canada where those divisions exist? A similar situation cannot be found elsewhere. When such pro-


visions were enacted for the province of Quebec, they were intended to protect or to help the English minorities which were then living in the eastern townships of the province of Quebec. Since a similar situation cannot be found in any other province of Canada, we ask that the qualifications of a senator in our province be exactly the same as in all other provinces.


Auguste Choquette: This seems to be correct, Mr. Speaker, and, for all practical purposes, those who are called upon to represent the senatorial constituencies, whether their limits be marked or not, their number remains the same.
If the hon. member's purpose is to standardize the legislation in this field, I believe such purpose deserves consideration.
But, if I am not overly enthusiastic because the proposed amendments will not involve major consequences, this is because I would personally suggest-and I would not want to hurt the beliefs and the feelings of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin), who has perhaps not a particularly high opinion of this reality that the Senate represents-that the Senate should be precisely the image of the Canadian reality and institution designed to protect and promote the bicultural and bilingual character of Canada.


Gilles Grégoire: This is utopia.


Auguste Choquette: That place should precisely be the one where the binational character of our country should be asserted.
That is why I believe that should we reach such a reform, that is a thorough reform of the Senate, which appears to be a utopia, I would advocate a binational composition of the Senate, since the upper house exists precisely in order to protect minorities.
That clause which it is proposed to have repealed was aimed at protecting an English speaking minority living in a district of the province of Quebec.
Let us keep the spirit which existed in 1867, let us preserve the spirit which has prevailed and let us see to it that in the Senate reform which is proposed and which will be implemented some day-it must be ardently hoped -the bicultural character of our country is present in the Senate, since the Senate is designed to protect minorities.
A moment ago, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) asked me if I was in favour of the abolition of the Senate. I am not in favour of abolition under the present circumstances, and I think that is the policy

British North America Act
of those who sit on this side of the house. We seek to reform the Senate, not to do away with it.
If the abolition of the upper house is being considered nowadays, it is because the Senate is not performing adequately.


Gilles Grégoire: Quite true.


Auguste Choquette: In this day and age, Canada needs modern institutions. If public service is being increasingly sneered at, it is our duty to restore its dignity and to give it proper efficiency.
People are asking themselves whether the House of Commons and the Senate truly hold any power. If they have doubts about that, it is precisely because neither house has any real influence. We sometimes have the feeling that we are administered by a ghost government, and this has been going on for years, Mr. Speaker.
The best way to remove this unpleasant feeling would be to improve fully our institutions. If the Senate continues to languish as at present, if it continues to sleep, there is no doubt that a strong movement will advocate more efficiently than the hon. members opposite the abolishment of the Senate, and this is not advisable under the circumstances.
The hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska has made his comments on the sad state of the Senate. His comments were quite interesting, Mr. Speaker, but he is pessimistic about the reform of the Senate.
His pessimism may be justified-


Gilles Grégoire: Yes.


Auguste Choquette: The only way to amend the constitution of the Senate is to include in a political platform, as one of its essential items, the reform of the Senate.
What is being proposed on the order paper?
It is suggested to impose a compulsory retirement to the senators-nobody dares to go any further-but if such a reform can be effected, that would be fine.
This proposal has not yet been carried out, but it is merely suggested at present to set at 75 years the retirement age for senators.


Gilles Grégoire: That is too old.


Auguste Choquette: I feel that we should put forward more clearly and specifically to the voters the matter of the Senate reform, and any political party likely to come into power, and I automatically rule out our friends of the Ralliement Creditiste.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lotbiniere is
violating the most basic rights of democracy where the choice of governments should be left to the people and not solely to the hon. member for Lotbiniere.
I shall ask him to withdraw and to be more democratic by putting an end to his dictatorial manner in the House of Commons.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to cause you any trouble with this point of order. I do not want to deprive the people of the right to wipe off the Ralliement Creditiste from the electoral map in the next election. I speak for the future wish-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A few moments ago you called me to order because I was getting away from the subject of Bill No. C-76.
At this time the hon. member for Lotbiniere is trying to brag as regards the Ralliement Creditiste, which he will not bother at all in the province of Quebec; on the contrary, we will replace him in his constituency at the next election.
I would ask that you call him back to order so that he may confine himself to the subject of Bill No. C-76.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The point of order raised by the hon. member for Villeneuve I think is well taken. The hon. member for Lotbiniere has strayed away from the subject matter of the bill now before us. Perhaps I should point out to him that there is no mention in this bill of the retirement of the members of the other house. All that is mentioned in Bill C-76 is the qualifications of members of the other house, and their representation of different provinces. Perhaps the hon. member will confine himself to the bill.


Auguste Choquette: I abide by your ruling, Mr. Speaker. In trying to be witty I got away from the principle of the bill. Please forgive me.
Besides, Mr. Speaker, I very well understand the feeling of my good friends opposite, because in referring to the cordial words of the hon. member for Villeneuve, I have the impression that if we go by the provisions of this bill and by the spirit of his remarks, it is not impossible that one day the hon. member for Villeneuve might be called to the Senate. I would not object, Mr. Speaker-


David Réal Caouette: Order.
9642	HOUSE OF
British North America Act


Auguste Choquette: He spoke a while ago-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The bill we are discussing right now makes no mention of the appointment of the hon. member for Vil-leneuve to the Senate but simply of the qualifications required to be appointed a senator.
You have already called to order several times the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette). He is again wandering from the principle of the bill and I believe you will have to call him to order. If he fails to comply, I suggest that you should order him to leave the house.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, the standing orders of the house are for everybody, for me and for any other member, and I shall willingly comply with your ruling. However, may I be allowed to state that obviously some Creditistes would like to gain admission to the Senate, since they are precisely proposing the removal of the basic qualification of $4,000 provided in that section-


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


Auguste Choquette: -and it is clear that the reason why that party wants the removal of the property qualifications required to become a senator is that the members of their party aim at being appointed to the Senate-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not send them both to the Senate?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order, please. I am having some difficulty listening to two members at the same time.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere, even though you called him to order, is departing from your ruling. I think that it would be your duty to call him to order again more strongly than the first time.


Auguste Choquette: These points of order, Mr. Speaker, have taken a lot of my time.
In any event, I want to say this: Clause 2 of the bill under consideration lists three qualifications which a senator must have in order to be appointed under the new provisions.
In our modern times, if we really wanted to democratize the Senate, why would we not have people under 30 years appointed, that is if we actually intended to rejuvenate
[Mr. Caouette.l

the Senate? I ask this question without expressing any opinion on its merits.
If one wants to democratize and rejuvenate the Senate, it might be possible to delete that provision and amend it so that people under 30 years of age could be appointed.
He shall be a Canadian citizen. With that I agree. To be a Canadian citizen is important.


Gilles Grégoire: For Canadians.


Auguste Choquette: There is, in the citizenship act, and this should be pointed out to the hon. member for Villeneuve, a provision under which we are Canadian citizens and British subjects. Long live England. Long live the British people. I love them, I respect them, I admire them.
Today we have reached such a point of development and maturity that Canadian citizens, anyone of us from sea to sea, do not need to remain subject to another country, no matter how great, how noble or how powerful it may be. I say that honestly. I think that by Canadianizing all our institutions to the full, we are not offending the feelings of national unity which, I am sure, are shared by the majority of Canadian citizens.
Let us be truly and essentially Canadians everywhere, as regards facts and symbols.
Mr. Speaker, you saw how we respected the symbol of the British crown as represented by Her Majesty the Queen when she came to Canada. In the province of Quebec unfortunate incidents may have occurred, but such incidents were in no way a true reflection of the thinking in Quebec.
We respect the heads of state of all friendly countries. We particularly respect those of members of the commonwealth. But some day our constitutional evolution will be brought to completion, and to promote Canadianism is surely not to be against national unity. On the contrary, to see that this constitutional evolution reaches its ultimate goal shows a desire to do away with all ties of bondage or subjection to another country and thereby achieve true Canadianism. Such is the ideal of a young Canadian, and that is why I am happy about the new provision contained in my hon. friend's bill.
Let us be true Canadians, let us remain in the commonwealth with countries friendly to us, agreed. On the other hand, a minister is called honourable due to the fact that he is a member of the Canadian government but, in order to have the title of right honourable, a foreign government must confer it upon him, and this shows a certain subjection.

I say that it is in our interest to promote a Canadian ideal to the point where we shall no longer accept any sort of bondage.
One is not anti-British or anti-English because one hopes for such a thing. That is being pro Canadian. That is why I am happy about the provisions of Bill No. C-76. I am pro Canadian. I want us to fight for this ideal of Canadian unity and strength, which is the only dynamic means of discouraging any extremist movement at work in our country.
At times ideas like that may seem revolutionary to some people whose minds are receptive to such thoughts, but I feel that they do not reflect the true opinion of our young people who seek to assert themselves and who want the Senate to be truly Canadian. I am happy about that.
The Senate must be really Canadian; it must be reformed and it must protect our minorities. By transforming it into a binational institution, we will strengthen Canadian solidarity. I am not in favour of appointing senators according to their political affiliation. The hon. member for Villeneuve mentioned certain names and he was right. Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent wanted to appoint Rev. Georges Henri Levesque to the Senate, but the bishops were against it. Nevertheless, I am in favour of having clergymen appointed to the Senate.


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


Mr. Ian Watson (Chaleauguay-Huniingdon-Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the house are prepared to commend the purpose of the bill, which is to remove certain anomalies relating to the appointment of senators. The explanatory notes accompanying Bill No. C-76 set forth that a system of 24 electoral divisions, together with a property qualification of $4,000 worth of real estate in the electoral district for which the senator is appointed, was established for the province of Quebec and was designed to protect the English Protestant minority located for the most part in the eastern townships.
Although in 1867 the English Protestant minority was in the majority in 12 of the counties mentioned in schedule 2 of the British North America Act, I believe that by 1900 they retained a majority in only four of the counties. In practice, over the last 60 years the provisions which the bill seeks to eliminate have not been followed. In the province of Quebec senators have tended to be appointed from the districts of Montreal and Quebec, with little regard to the original intention of
British North America Act section 22, which was to assure appointment from each of the 24 divisions mentioned in schedule A of chapter 1 of the consolidated statutes of Canada.
Although this act providing for the protection of English Protestant privileges in the province of Quebec has in fact passed into our folklore, there are certain other Quebec English Protestant positions which have remained inflexible and stagnant, to the disadvantage of all Quebeckers and Canada as a whole. I refer specifically to one of our better known organizations in the province of Quebec, the Quebec Protestant board of education. Every society has its sacred cows and the English Protestants of Quebec certainly have theirs. Foremost among them is the Protestant board of education and its French teaching division.
The Quebec education act provides that the lieutenant governor in council may appoint by proclamation a Roman Catholic central board of examiners and a Protestant central board of examiners for the examination of candidates of each of the two religious beliefs for teachers' diplomas. This means in effect that each of the teaching professions in the Roman Catholic and Protestant systems is restricted to people of that particular faith, with the result that in the province of Quebec people who are called upon to teach the French language in English Protestant schools are for the most part English speaking and are all Protestant.
This has resulted, Mr. Speaker, in what I believe is one of the saddest situations that we face today in the province of Quebec, which is found in the fact that a considerable percentage of our English speaking population in the province of Quebec is not able to converse in French. All of these people who have been raised in the province of Quebec have studied French from grade 3 for five days a week in most cases. Yet by the time they finish high school 90 per cent of them at least are unable to converse in the French language. I submit this is the fault of the Protestant board of education and their inability to adjust to changing circumstances, and to make progress in the face of what has become a closed shop so far as the teachers are concerned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order; I hope the hon. member is going to indicate some relationship between his remarks and Bill No. C-76.


Mr. Watson (Chaleauguay-Huniingdon-La-prairie):: I will do this. The reason I have made these remarks is that the explanation

British North America Act the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) gave for his bill was related to the English Protestant minority in the province of Quebec. I do not believe my remarks are completely irrelevant when I refer to certain English Protestant positions. The explanatory notes to the bill indicate that one of its purposes is to remove this anachronistic Protestant privilege which seems to have been created by sections 22 and 23 of the British North America Act. I thought it was fitting that I should refer to certain English Protestant sacred cows.
I have one further point I should like to mention, Mr. Speaker, if you will bear with me for a moment. The Montreal Protestant school board recently was absolved, with no excuse, by a royal commission of the province of Quebec, of any ill doing-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order; I feel that I am unable to see the relationship between the remarks which the hon. gentleman is making and Bill No. C-76. It may be true that there is a very dim relationship here, but I would advise the hon. member to recall that the bill before us deals with representation in the Senate from the different provinces, and the qualifications of senators.


Ian Watson: We all agree that the Senate as a whole, and its framework, needs a complete re-examination. I feel the approach of the hon. member for Villeneuve is piecemeal. I am quite prepared to admit that perhaps his ideas are excellent and his objectives are excellent, but perhaps if we are going to consider the Senate we should consider not only these particular sections but all the sections of the British North America Act relative to the Senate.


Gilles Grégoire: Let us start with something.


Lawrence E. Watson: I feel that these clauses 22 and 23, together with several other clauses of the British North America Act, were established because they reflected the demographic makeup of Canada in 1867. I think that today, when we are talking about changes in our constitution, changes in our approach to our national life, we should look clearly at the changes in our demography since 1867. We now have well over a million French Canadians living outside the province of Quebec, and yet our constitution is based on the demographic set-up of French Canadians living in the province of Quebec. I feel that this is something all Canadians are going to have 'Mr. Watson (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie) .1

to consider and to which they will have to pay a lot more attention in the future, especially in the months ahead when we are considering the report of the commission on biculturalism and bilingualism.
Earlier I saw fit to mention the English Protestant sacred cows in the province of Quebec because the hon. member for Villeneuve refers to the English Protestant position in his explanatory note. I just want to close by making one final point, that the Quebec royal commission's failure to criticize the Montreal Protestant school board-


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


Ian Watson: -is one of the most disgraceful whitewashes a royal commission has ever given the activities of that body.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order; will the hon. gentleman resume his seat, please? I have asked the hon. gentleman to remain within the confines of the bill before us. I would hope he would continue to do so.


Lawrence E. Watson: I thank you for your patience, Mr. Speaker, and I will conclude my remarks.


Mr. J. E. Lloyd (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, in the three or four minutes that remain I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) for bringing to the attention of the house some of the anachronisms that exist under our constitution. I think I can best do so by referring to the contribution a distinguished Haligonian has recently made to the literature of Canada on the subject of a new constitution for a great country. His name, by the way, is J. H. Ahearn, and he is writing on peace, order and good government. He says that it is time this battered hulk of the British North America Act and its amendments were replaced by a clear constitution made in Canada. In other words, the fundamentals should be sought out and propounded in a document accessible to all, including the youth of the nation; it should be a comprehensible document expressed in dignified and understandable language, so that the people will have a charter that they can know, understand and cherish.
I wish to thank the hon. member for Villeneuve for drawing attention to this anachronism in this legal work, in its application to our time and place. He has done a service to the house. I agree however with my colleague who has stated that this is but a very

flimsy start. What we should do is address ourselves to an examination of what shall eventually be the reconfederation of Canada, to give Canadians a charter which is clear in its direction.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


John Edward Lloyd: I say, Mr. Speaker, that if in doing so the qualifications of senators need to be examined, if by subtracting that out of the anachronisms, we leave a residue of inadequacies, then it may be necessary to set some further qualifications for representation in this body, this sort of slow-down body, and on what might be accomplished.
May I call it six o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I had hoped that the new government house leader would be present
Business of the House now, so that I could offer him a kindly welcome to a position that is so dangerous, that of government house leader. He is the third government house leader in a year and a half, which establishes some sort of a precedent. May I ask the acting house leader what is the forecast of business for next week?


Mr. MacNaughi:: On Monday we will continue with the discussion of interim supply, and should it be secured on Monday, we will take up redistribution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I realize that everything that needs to be said was said this morning, but I wonder if we could not arrange, those of us who are here, for the last entry in today's Hansard to be a round of applause for Mr. Montgomery?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 2, 1964