1964-09-30

QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Choqueite: Does the government of Canada intend to open consulates at Bordeaux and Marseilles, France?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, the Canadian government has decided to open two consulates general in France, one in Bordeaux, in early December, and the other in Marseilles, next spring. Mr. Robert Choquette, at present associate commissioner of the centennial commission, will be consul general in Bordeaux and Mr. Eugene Bussiere, associate director of the Canada council, will be consul general in Marseilles.


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


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Indian Superintendent Fry visited the Indian community of Iskut, B.C., on January 5, 1963, March 13 to 16, 1963, June 21, 1963, June 3, 1964, June 10 and 11, 1964 and June 17, 1964. There is no detailed record of the meetings with native Indian people and other persons and the following is the only information available:
January 5, 1963: (a) By air. (b) One hour,
(c)	Yes, with various Indian people, (d) Yes, Father Doetzel. (e) By air.
March 13 to 16, 1963: (a) by car. (b) Three days, (c) Yes, met with every Indian person, both individually and in groups. In addition visits were made to every tent in the camp, (d) Yes, Father Doetzel. (e) By car.
June 21, 1963: (a) By air. (b) Three hours.
(c)	Yes, Mr. Fry talked with several Indian persons and held a band council meeting.
(d)	Yes, Father Doetzel. (e) By car.
June 3, 1964: (a) By air. (b) Six hours, (c) Yes, Mr. Fry met a group comprising the majority of the village. He also met many Indian persons individually and attended a nomination meeting, (d) Yes, Father Doetzel.
(e)	By air.
June 10 and 11, 1964: (a) By air. (b) One day. (c) Yes, every Indian person in the village. (d) Yes, Father Doetzel, Mr. Tom Black and the Indian affairs branch carpenter, (e) By air.
June 17, 1964: (a) By air. (b) Three hours, (c) Yes, specifically to attend band council meeting. The Telegraph Creek band council accompanied Mr. Fry on this occasion, (d) No. (e) By air.


FILM PRODUCTIONS, FILM BOARD AND C.B.C.
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How many English language motion pictures, complete with sound track, of half hour or hour long length, were contracted out for production last year by the C.B.C. to (a) the national film board, and (b) private Canadian film production companies?
2.	How many English language motion pictures, complete with sound track, of half hour and hour long length, were produced last year by the C.B.C. itself?
3.	How many French language motion pictures, complete with sound track, of half hour or hour long length, were contracted out for production last year by the C.B.C. to (a) the national film board, and (b) private Canadian film production companies?
4.	How many French language motion pictures, complete with sound track, of half hour and hour long length, were produced last year by the C.B.C. itself?
5.	What are the C.B.C.'s plans for expansion or contraction of their film making operations, in particular, does the C.B.C. intend to follow the recommendations of the Glassco commission and place a much larger proportion of their motion picture productions with the national film board and with private Canadian film production companies?

Questions


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1. (a) Half hour films, 28; one hour films, one. (b) Half hour films, 48; one hour films, 11.
2.	Half hour films, 115; one hour films, nine.
3.	(a) Half hour films, 40; one hour films, nil. (b) Half hour films, 169; one hour films, three.
4.	Half hour films, 34; one hour films, nil.
5.	At the present time the C.B.C. has no specific plans for significant changes in the size or production activity of its film-making operations, and the report and recommenda-
Location
Alma Alma Delisle Hebertville Lac Ste. Croix
Metabetchouan Peribonca
St. Gedeon (Station)
St. Gedeon
Ste. Monique [Text]


FEDERAL CIVIL SERVANTS, BRUCE COUNTY, ONT.
Mr. Loney: In the county of Bruce, what is the number of civil servants in the employ of the federal government?


Maurice Lamontagne: 229.


VISIT OF ROYAL COMMISSION MEMBERS TO NORTHERN QUEBEC
Mr. Coales: 1.	What is the purpose of the visit of Mr. Scott and Mr. Gagnon, members of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism to the eastern Arctic and northern Quebec?
2.	What aspects of bilingualism and biculturalism are they investigating?
3.	Has their enquiry any association with the attempt by Hon. Rene Levesque of the government of the province of Quebec to secure jurisdiction over these Eskimos?
4.	Are negotiations regarding the jurisdiction over the Eskimos of northern Quebec continuing between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Quebec?
[Mr. Dinsdale.j
tions of the royal commission on government organization are still under study by the corporation.


FEDERAL PUBLIC WORKS, LAKE ST. JOHN CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Lessard (Lake Si. John): What is the nature, the amount and the location of the works which the Department of Public Works intends to undertake during the year 196465 in the constituency of Lake St. John?


Hon. J. P. Deschalelels (Minister of Public Works):: Amount $15,000.
915.
4,500.
500.
Not yet estimated.
569.
5,900.
3,000.
Not yet estimated.
Not yet estimated.


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. The visit was organized to familiarize the commission with the Eskimo population in keeping with that part of the commission's terms of reference which states " . . . taking into account the contribution made by the other ethnic groups to the cultural enrichment of Canada and the measures that should be taken to safeguard that contribution".
2.	See answer to part 1.
3.	No.
4.	While there have been no recent negotiations between the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources or his officials and the government of Quebec concerning the Eskimos living in northern Quebec, it is anticipated that such negotiations will take place in the near future.


SUBMISSION OF CANADIAN FASTENERS INSTITUTE
Mr. Irvine: When does the government intend to announce a policy with regard to the submission of the Canadian fasteners institute of August 11, 1964?
Project
Post Office alterations Fencing
Fencing and retaining wall Interior and exterior painting Post Office building-subject to acquisition of suitable site Fencing
Breakwater wharf Wharf improvements
Post Office building-subject to acquisition of suitable site.
Post Office building-subject to acquisition of suitable site


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: The exemption from tax requested in this submission would require an amendment to the Excise Tax Act. If any changes in this act are considered advisable they will be announced to the house at the appropriate time.


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, P.E.I.
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	When was land acquired for the erection of a post office at North Rustico and Mount Stewart, Prince Edward Island?
2.	When is it intended to commence construction of these buildings?
3.	What are the proposed dimensions of said buildings?
4.	Will office space for any other department of government of Canada be provided?
5.	What is the completion date for these buildings?
6.	What were the reasons for the delay in these building projects?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. Land has not yet been acquired, but is presently in the process of acquisition.
2.	Construction is included in the 1964-65 winter works program, subject to acquisition of suitable sites.
3.	The proposed dimensions of the buildings are 24'x24'.
4.	No.
5.	Anticipated completion date is March 31, 1965.
6.	There is no delay. We had to await inclusion of these buildings within the funds available for the winter works program.


NUMBER OF CIVIL SERVANTS AND ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL
Mr. Mather: 1.	What is the total number of Canada's federal civil employees?
2.	What is the total number of army, navy, air force, and all other defence personnel?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Employees in federal departmental branches, services and corporations numbered 202,882 at the end of April, 1964, including the 46,872 members of the civil staff of the Department of National Defence.
2.	As of 31 August 1964 there were 118,513 in the armed forces and 47,075 civilians employed by the Department of National Defence.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY-CHANGE OF ROUTE IN NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Flemming (Victoria-: Carleton):
1.	Has the designated route of the trans-Canada highway in Victoria and Carleton counties, province of New Brunswick been changed and, if so (a) is
Questions
it contemplated that another bridge across the St. John river between Andover and Hartland, N.B. be constructed, of which the federal government will pay 90 per cent of the cost (b) where will such bridge be located, and what is the distance of such bridge from (i) the present trans-Canada highway bridge located approximately one mile north of Hartland (ii) the present Andover-Perth trans-Canada bridge?
2.	Has any recommendation been received from the government of New Brunswick for the abandonment of the present Perth-Andover bridge as a portion of the trans-Canada highway system?
3.	Has a decision been made to construct a trans-Canada highway bridge at or near either of the following locations (a) Kilburn (b) Florence-ville?
4.	What is the estimated cost of such bridge and will the federal government agree to pay 90 per cent of the cost?
5.	Has the government of New Brunswick recommended that the trans-Canada highway between Kilburn and Beechwood be abandoned?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. No request has been received to date from the province for approval of a specific change in the designated route in Victoria and Carleton counties. However, preliminary surveys by the province have been approved for the study of alternates to the designated route in this area.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	Estimates are not available for any bridges which may be required on the alternate routes being studied. If the designated route is changed to include a new bridge, the federal government will, under the terms of the present trans-Canada highway agreement with New Brunswick, contribute 90 per cent of the cost.
5.	No.


TAX ABATEMENT FOR POTASH FIRMS USING SOLUTION METHOD
Mr. Cantelon: Has the government received a request from the government of the province of Saskatchewan for the inclusion, in the three-year tax abatement arrangement, of firms recovering potash by water solution methods similar to that presently enjoyed by shaft mining firms and, if so, what action does the government intend to take with respect to the said request?


Lawrence T. Pennell: The government has received such a request. If any change should be decided upon it will be made known at the appropriate time.


INSPECTION OF SMALL CRAFT LAUNCHING RAMP, DYER'S BAY, ONT.
Mr. Loney: Did an official of the Department of Public Works inspect the small craft launching ramp at Dyer's

Questions
Bay, Ontario, during 1964, and, if so, what was the nature of his report?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: An inspection was made in the spring of 1964. No action recommended at that time. Further inspection to be made this fall.


GREAT LAKES WATER LEVELS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): 1. What has been the mean annual water level
in each of the great lakes in each of the last ten years?
2.	What has been the mean monthly water level in each of the great lakes in each of the last
12 months?
3.	Has there been a forecast of water levels for the near future and, if so, what is it?
4.	What is the estimated financial loss to (a) business (b) industry (c) government at all levels, and (d) private individuals, through the decrease in the great lakes water levels?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1.	Great lakes mean annual water level
(IGLD) for period 1954-1963
	Lake			Lake Erie	
Superior	Lake Michigan	Lake Huron	at Port	Lake Ontarioat Port	at Milwaukee,	at Goderich,	Colbourne,	at Kingston,Year	Arthur, Ont	Wis.	Ont.	Ont.	Ont.1954	600.51	579.49	579.46	571.40	245.511955	600.31	579.09	579.10	571.61	246.021956	600.23	578.19	578.16	570.80	245.291957	600.20	577.60	577.64	570.56	244.381958	600.17	576.92	577.05	569.83	243.701959	600.47	576.80	576.78	569.90	243.841960	600.55	578.33	578.28	570.66	244.601961	600.22	578.04	578.00	570.63	244.271962	600.18	577.55	577.49	569.98	244.361963	600.13	576.55	576.51	569.44	244.422.	Great lakes mean monthly water level	(IGLD) for period Sept. 1963 to Aug.	1964	Lake	Lake Erie	Superior	Lake Michigan	Lake Huron	at Port	Lake OntarioYear	at Port	at Milwaukee,	at Goderich,	Colbourne,	at Kingston,Monthly	Arthur, Ont	Wis.	Ont.	Ont.	Ont.1936 Sept.	600.64	576.87	576.64	569.21	244.81Oct.	600.54	576.47	576.41	569.00	244.13Nov.	600.27	576.04	576.22	569.08	243.61Dec.	600.06	575.80	575.92	568.93	243.341964 Jan.	599.86	575.51	575.56	568.71	242.88Feb.	599.67	575.42	575.49	568.61	242.35Mar.	599.48	575.52	575.39	568.91	242.35Apr.	599.52	575.66	575.39	569.35	243.13May	600.20	575.95	575.85	569.70	244.03June	600.57	576.02	575.91	569.65	244.45July	600.76	576.15	575.98	569.49	244.48Aug.	600.83	576.07	576.02	569.29	244.133.	Yes, the United States lake survey makes a monthly forecast of great lakes water levels. The latest forecast, that was made at the beginning of September, indicated that all of the great lakes would be declining in level during the coming months. For Superior, the [Mr. Loney.l
forecast was for below average levels through the next six months; for Michigan and Huron, record low levels through the next six months; for Erie, levels below those of last year for the next six months; and for Ontario, levels below normal for the next six months.

4.	While lower water levels in the great lakes have had repercussions which have translated themselves into hardships and financial losses, a considerable study would be required to estimate the extent of such losses with any accuracy. As has been announced, it is the intention of the government, acting jointly with the United States government, to ask the international joint commission to study measures which might increase the regulation of great lakes water levels. In the course of the commission's investigation detailed knowledge will be secured about the effects of low levels in the lakes.


C.B.C. COVERAGE OF CONFEDERATION SHIP
Mr. Bell: 1.	Was CBC-tv coverage provided for the confederation ship at Saint John, N.B., on September 5 and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Was national coverage provided for any other stops during the voyage and, if so, for what reason?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	No. Because on Tuesday, September 1, national television coverage was given to a re-enactment of the 1864 arrival of the Queen Victoria at Charlottetown, P.E.I., as part of the centennial ceremony in honour of the initial confederation conference.
2.	National coverage was provided from Charlottetown only.


REPAIR OF GOVERNMENT WHARVES, STOKES BAY, ONT.
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,973
Mr. Loney:: Is the Department of Public Works considering any construction, renovation or repair at the government wharves at Stokes Bay, Ontario?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The matter is under consideration for inclusion in the 1965-66 works program.


NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, POINT CLARK LIGHT, ONT.
Mr. Loney: Has the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources made any decision, to date, regarding the acquisition of the Point Clark light site for a national historic site?


Arthur Laing: No. The historic sites and monuments board of Canada has been asked to study this matter at its next meeting to be held this October. After the board has presented its recommendations on the historical and architectural signifi-20220-543J
Motions for Papers
cance of the Point Clark lighthouse, the minister will be in a position to reach the decision.


REQUEST FOR BREAKWATER REPAIRS, CAPSTICK, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Has representation been received by the Minister of Labour from the fishermen at Capstick, Victoria county, Nova Scotia, requesting that breakwater repairs be carried out immediately and, if so, what reply has been given?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Yes. Representations were received from a number of fishermen of Capstick, Nova Scotia, on September 17. They were informed that the matter had been referred to the Minister of Public Works for consideration.


BREAKWATER IMPROVEMENTS, CAPSTICK, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	What are the plans of the department concerned to provide breakwater repairs and improvements for the fishermen at Capstick, Victoria county, Nova Scotia.
2.	How soon will the repairs and improvements be carried out?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. No plans at the present time. The need is presently under consideration.
2. Not applicable.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that you call motion No. 165.


EDMONTON-MEETING RESPECTING DEBTS OF INDIAN BAND
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 165-Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the minutes that were recorded at Edmonton, Alberta at a meeting held on March 2, 1964, between the superintendent of the Indian agency and the Paul's band of Indians in which certain debts owed by them were discussed.
Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, this motion is acceptable on the understanding that the hon. member has in mind a meeting held on March 21, 1963. A copy of the minutes of that meeting will be produced subject to the consent of the Paul's band.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it
8582	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister say whether, in view of the fact there is apparently no authority for the acceptance of opting out by provinces in connection with federal programs, a constitutional amendment or a statute is going to be asked from parliament; whether a bill in that connection has been drafted and when may this legislation be expected to be before the house?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there will be legislation dealing with contracting out provisions brought before the house, I hope during the current session. We expect it will be during the current session although, of course, that will depend on the progress we make with regard to legislation which has greater priority.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether it will be an ordinary statute or a constitutional amendment?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to look into that, but the legislation I am talking about is ordinary legislation covering this circumstance.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister about two of the special committees which have been set up by the house but which have not been meeting. I am referring particularly to the committee on consumer credit which has not met since July 14, which I understand is now called for October 21, after an interval of over three months, at which 30 witnesses are to appear; and to the food and drug committee, which has not met since July 16 and has no date set, I am told, to meet again. These are important committees, and it seems to us that to refer


questions to committees is a good way to deal with business provided that the problems are not swept under the rug by the committees.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, one of these committees is a joint committee of the house and the Senate. I would be glad to take up with the chairmen of both committees the question of an early meeting.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked for some information about a meeting of the food and drugs committee. I am informed that the steering committee of the food and drugs committee met and agreed to recommence the sitting of the committee on November 3 in order to conclude the hearings on the safety of drugs. My hon. friend may not have heard of that decision because I am also informed that the N.D.P. member of the steering committee did not attend the meeting.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Does he consider that November 3 is a reasonable date for the resumption of a committee that has not met since July 16 to conduct a very important investigation referred to the committee by the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not determine the procedure of committees. I suggest to my hon. friend that if his party's representative had turned up at the steering committee meeting, he might have been able to arrange for an earlier committee meeting.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the report at noon today that the Cypriot foreign minister has signed a no strings attached military aid agreement with the Soviet union, could the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us whether Canada or the other countries contributing to the United Nations peace force were consulted or even informed of this very serious development by the Cypriot government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Cypriot government is, of course, a sovereign power and has the right, if not, in the circumstances, the justification, to enter into such arrangements with other countries. The full nature of the accord between Cyprus and the Soviet union is not clear. In addition to certain kinds of weapons which were promised for a date which is not clear, there is also a question of economic assistance. I would want to know more about the agreement.


Mr.   Nesbill@: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The main question I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs is, was Canada or other countries providing troops to United Nations forces informed or consulted in advance of this move?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: I think I have already answered that by the first part of my response, when I referred to the position of the government of Cyprus. Of course Canada knew, as did other countries, because this question has been widely discussed. I may say that only this morning the Prime Minister and I took occasion to point out to one of the parties that it would not be desirable to complicate arrangements of this sort.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monlmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Did he read the item published in the French edition of Maclean's magazine, which I mentioned last Monday, with regard to Canadian troops in Cyprus? Did he have the opportunity to check that article?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggested two days ago that I should read that article.
I have the article in question, but I did not yet have the opportunity to read it. However, I shall acquaint myself with it as soon as possible and reply afterwards to the hon. member's question.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Could the hon. minister tell us if "as soon as possible" will be after the next rotation of troops or at the beginning of the rotation?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can assure my hon. friend that it will be before December.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour.
Is he aware that the International Longshoremen's Association have arbitrarily, antidemocratically and illegally suspended until December 31, 1965, stevedores who wanted to change their allegiance to another union and that they will thus be losing the benefits they had accumulated under their pension plan?
What action does the minister intend to take to protect these Canadian stevedores from the dictatorship of the International Longshoremen's Association whose headquarters are not located in Montreal but in New York?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have made no investigation into the allegations made by my hon. friend. I will be glad to look into the matter, and if there is any authority under Canadian law to correct what he describes as injustices, action of that kind will be considered.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that the stevedores who have been thrown out of the International Longshoremen's Association and are deprived of the right to work in Montreal harbour are also being deprived of their unemployment insurance benefits? Is the minister aware of that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I presume that if any members of the I.L.A. were expelled they were expelled under provisions of the constitution of the particular union, and there is no authority under our law by which the internal operations of any union are regulated by the Department of Labour. I cannot see, however, how any such action taken by any union would affect the benefit rights of any worker under the unemployment insurance law, but I will be glad to investigate any particular case my hon. friend has in mind.

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: I should like, Mr. Speaker, to direct another supplementary question to the Minister of Labour.
Does he know that these longshoremen were not fired by their employers in Montreal, but that it is the I.L.A. which is keeping them from working until December 31?
Consequently, according to the minister should these longshoremen receive unemployment benefits when they are kept from working not by their employers but by the I.L.A.?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has introduced quite a series of circumstances into his question, and I should like to investigate those circumstances in order to determine the benefit rights of the particular workers under the law. I would hesitate to give an offhand opinion on this matter.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, about another supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has any further supplementaries perhaps he could put them on the order paper. This requires a detailed answer, and I do not see how the minister can be expected to answer on the spur of the moment.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, in all deference and with all due respect, I think that I should have the opportunity to ask the Minister of Labour some questions with regard to the situation now prevailing in Montreal.
I have only one other supplementary question to ask him so that he should know what detailed information to give the house. I do not want this information for myself, personally, but for all hon. members and the Canadian people as a whole, and more particularly the members of labour unions which are controlled and ruled by American unions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member put his last supplementary and we will finish with this matter.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, this is my supplementary question. Is the Minister of Labour aware that the stevedores of the port of Montreal who wanted to exert their


democratic rights and transfer to another union, have just been expelled from the international longshoremen's association, and by that very fact deprived of their right to work. Will the minister see to it that the law of this country is observed-rather than the law of the United States-our own law, which ensures freedom of union to all Canadian workers according to the standards set by our Canadian statutes?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that Canadian law with respect to the union rights of Canadian workers will be fully respected and fully observed.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister inform the house what is the situation with respect to the labour dispute on the D.E.W. line?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If I may answer this question, Mr. Speaker, there have been lengthy negotiations between the parties, and last week end the only remaining issue was the wage dispute. With the assistance of the Department of Labour this issue has been referred to an independent arbitrator. We have appointed Judge Anderson of Belleville to arbitrate this final outstanding issue, and he will be meeting the parties this Friday in the court house at Whitby.


Mr. Lamberi:: A related question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister of National Defence tell the house whether one of the proposals to deal with a possible strike was the flying in by the United States air force of American technicians to man the line if the Canadian workers walked off the sites?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minisier of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be helpful for me to disclose any of the considerations that were entertained with regard to the possibility of keeping the line in operation in the event a strike had occurred. As I indicated to the house, some preliminary thought was given to that situation in advance of any developments.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Will the minister agree that it is public and common knowledge, as clearly

indicated in the Winnipeg Free Press, that this was one oi the steps contemplated?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am not in a position to confirm the accuracy of all of the information which is made public through the news media.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Labour. Is it true that prior to the union agreeing to the appointment of an arbitrator whose decision will be final and binding, the union members working on the D.E.W. line were told that unless they agreed to this they would be replaced by United States air force personnel?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have no knowledge whatever, Mr. Speaker, that any such statement was made to the workers involved. My understanding is that the officers of the union itself had settled with the management all the other issues except this one, and both parties voluntarily agreed, in the absence of any intimidation, to submit this to the consideration of an arbitrator.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I ask a supplementary question. Would the minister please inform himself on this subject, as to whether or not there was such intimidation or threats or alternatives?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I can certainly assure the hon. member that no such intimidation was employed by the Department of Labour. I shall be glad to inquire whether any such statements were made by other persons. I have no knowledge of any statement being made by any person to that effect.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to ask the minister this question. If he finds that these allegations are true, will he protest on behalf of the government of Canada against the armed forces of the United States being used as strike breakers in Canada?



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Moreau (York-Scarborough):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I wonder if his attention has been drawn to a letter which appeared in at least two Toronto newspapers, one of
Inquiries of the Ministry which was the Globe and Mail of this morning, from Mr. Robin Ross, registrar of the University of Toronto. Does the minister not feel this was an effective answer to the rather speculative and unfortunate stories that were being bandied about-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Maurice John Moreau: -in connection with the student loan program?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I did see the letter, Mr. Speaker. Last week, after certain charges were made, my department got in touch with the authorities of the department of university affairs of Ontario, and I spoke to both the president and registrar of the University of Toronto. This letter makes it clear that, so far as the University of Toronto is concerned, they welcome the student loan plan and there is no evidence that has come to their notice of any abuses of the plan.
If I might I should like to take this opportunity to point out that under section 14 of the act there is provision for penalties against anybody abusing this plan. This section will be used if abuses come to light. However, the information I am getting from all over the country is that this plan is very successful.


Mr. Reg Cantelon (Kindersley):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance with respect to student loans. What steps is the minister taking to correct the inaccurate schedules of repayment outlined in the brochure, and what steps has he taken to resolve the ambiguity which these schedules have caused? The minister said on Friday he was willing to consider exempting medical students from interest repayments during their years of internship. Would he consider exempting law students during the year in which they are articled?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: In answer to the first part of the question, I would think the discussion which has taken place and which has been reported in the press will pretty well clear up this difficulty. As to the second part of the question, I do not believe there is any great feeling that lawyers or prospective lawyers need this kind of financial assistance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If they do, I will be glad to look into it.
8586	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



INQUIRY AS TO TRAINING OF CANADIAN TROOPS IN GUERRILLA WARFARE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the type of fighting going on in the troubled areas of the world today, can the minister inform the house whether the Department of National Defence is training any of our troops in guerrilla warfare?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, they are not trained in guerrilla warfare as such, but they are given a considerable amount of training which would enable them to give a good account of themselves if they were called upon to act in that kind of environment.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice?
Is the minister now in a position to answer the question I put to him on August 26 and 28, asking him whether he would deal with a brief presented to him by the national automobile products dealers association?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: This week, Mr. Speaker, I had an extremely interesting discussion with the national automotive association, grouping auto parts dealers in Canada and independent garage operators in Canada.
I must say that we discussed each and every one of the problems concerning them, particularly as regards the possible amendments to the administration of the Combines Investigation Act and I may say that a brief is already being prepared.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Can he can inform the house whether any negotiations are under way between anyone in the government of Canada


and anyone in the governments of the provinces with respect to the transfer to the provinces of any part of the federal jurisdiction over the Indian people of Canada?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in my absence yesterday, while I was detained in Quebec by illness, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked the right hon. Prime Minister various questions concerning Indians in Canada.
I must, first of all, give the hon. members the assurance that there is no question of transferring the jurisdiction over the Indian people from the federal to the provincial governments. We intend, as a government, to maintain all the rights granted to them under the constitution on Indian affairs in this country. On the other hand, everybody recognizes that the Indians, being citizens living in various provinces, should benefit like any other citizen from certain provincial services. We feel that the extension of those services to the Indian people in the various provinces does not prevent in any way the federal government from maintaining its jurisdiction.
That is why, following the federal-provincial conference held in December 1963, it was decided, in co-operation with the various provinces, to call a federal-provincial conference which would deal only with Indian affairs in order to bring about a change in methods and to apply other and more appropriate methods so that the Indians might benefit from those provincial services; that conference was scheduled for the end of May. In view of the scope of the matter to be discussed, it was decided to postpone the conference until the end of October; it will therefore take place October 29 and 30 next in Ottawa.
As it so happens we shall be discussing measures that would enable the provinces to extend a number of provincial services to the Indians, on condition the federal government grant compensation. The very important problem of consultation on Indian affairs has been raised. I can assure the two hon. members and the entire house, that the present government will not make any major decision during this parliament before consulting the Indians themselves, as they are the first concerned in all these measures and, all the more so, provincial authorities.
I therefore think these various answers are such that both hon. members will be satisfied.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister would now answer the question I put to him, namely whether there are any discussions or negotiations under way now between anyone in the federal government and anyone in any of the provincial governments with respect to the policy matters described by the hon. gentleman in his reply.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I answered this question by saying that negotiations are now taking place between the federal government and the provincial governments, merely in order to extend provincial services to the Indians. There is no question of abandonment of federal jurisdiction as regards Indian affairs.


Erik Nielsen: One further supplementary question. Has the federal government held out to any of the provincial governments or representatives thereof any financial transfer to them in consideration of which they would take over these responsibilities?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, we are now
discussing with the provinces compensation formulas for provincial services that would be extended to Indians. This is absolutely not a question of surrender of "jurisdiction" by the federal government. As hon. members know, such agreements exist in certain provinces, especially as far as education is concerned. Besides, that was the policy applied in the past by the Leader of the Opposition, and the present government is considering the extension of other services.


John George Diefenbaker: Since the hon. gentleman has chosen to include a little fiction in his answer, I might possibly ask him this. Has this question of the provinces taking over responsibility for the education of the Indians or providing social welfare assistance been considered by several of the provinces, and have several of the provinces turned down the suggestion made by the federal government; and this within the last few days? Second, when the minister talks about the Indians being consulted, what consultation has taken place with the Indians? Are their rights to be bartered away without their being consulted in advance?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to have an answer, and if the hon. gentleman needs assistance from the Minister of Trade and Commerce it indicates how little he knows about the question.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I wish to state once more what I said a while ago that the government by no means intends to abandon its responsibilities in any matter falling under its jurisdiction. But the federal government wishes to make agreements such as those which presently exist with the province of Ontario and other provinces in the area of education. Under such agreements the provinces would extend the facilities provided for the whole population, in return for the payment by the federal government of a certain normal compensation.
Conerning the second question, I will tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition that no important decision respecting Indian affairs will be taken before the Indians themselves are consulted and accept it.


John George Diefenbaker: That still does not answer the question. This dealing, or double dealing, has been going on for some time-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the right hon. Leader of the Opposition rephrase his question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: He had better rephrase it.


John George Diefenbaker: I suppose I should have said "This dealing between the federal and the provincial governments". Hon. gentlemen opposite have a fear of that expression "double dealing" which I never held. I want to find out the answer to this simple question. Have several provinces turned down the proposals made to them? Next, will the minister answer this. Have the Indians yet been consulted? Why does the government go ahead with this proposition without consultation in advance? That is what I want to know with regard to the Indians whose rights must be respected.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, no decision has yet been reached by the federal government. We simply engaged in preliminary talks before a conference which will be held at the end of October. This conference on Indian affairs will not be final, because no decision will be taken thereafter, by any
8588	HOUSE OF
Inquiries oj the Ministry government, and particularly by the federal government, before the Indians are consulted.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not seem to make myself clear. Have several provinces turned down the proposal? Will the hon. gentleman answer that question?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, it would be surprising if, before the federal-provincial conference to be held in late October I indicated which provinces will make a decision on a proposal they have not yet considered.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I have a supplementary question too, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious the minister is being somewhat coy about disclosing-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the series of questions we have had on this particular matter, would the hon. member make his question short and to the point?


Frank Howard: I thought I would be able to get away with at least as much as the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. In view of the fact that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is coy or evasive about answering questions-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Frank Howard: -will he tell the house whether native Indian people will have the opportunity to participate in the federal-provincial conference at the end of October?


René Tremblay: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. Consultations at all levels will be held with the Indians after this federal-provincial conference and therefore, before any decision is made by the federal government.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Since the minister stated that he does not wish to disclose-and I quite understand that -what suggestions or proposals the provinces intend to submit, could the minister tell the house what is the position of the federal government at present and what stand it proposes to take concerning the Indians during the forthcoming conference with the provinces?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I explained it to the house in reply to previous questions.


David Orlikow: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the minister whether any provinces have proposed to the federal government that the federal government turn over the responsibility for administering Indian affairs to the provinces.


René Tremblay: No, Mr. Speaker, not that I know of.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that rates under private medical programs such as M.M.S. in Manitoba and P.S.I. in Ontario are going up, will the government consider speeding up its proposed action on the Hall commission recommendation for a health charter for Canadians?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain that the increase in rates of the doctor-operated medical plans in the various provinces is a matter which directly concerns me in my responsibility as Minister of National Health and Welfare. However, I should like my hon. friend to be reassured that I will do everything I can to speed consideration within the government of the recommendations of the Hall commission.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke asked the Acting Minister of Transport a question which appears at page 8530 of Hansard. In the absence of the acting minister I would advise that inquiries have been made of Air Canada and the following reply has been provided. Air Canada's policy is to transship via Canadian Pacific Airlines all cargo destined for Japan, Hong Kong and other points in the Orient.



19B4 SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Legal and other services-
1. Administration including the office of the superintendent of bankruptcy, grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, gratuities to the widows or other dependents of judges who die while in office and authority to make recoverable advances for the administration of justice on behalf of the governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, $2,109,600.
The Chairman:: Shall vote No. 1 carry?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat here that if the estimates of my department are placed before the house today, it is because of my promise to allow hon. members to state their views on the way the Canadian constitution might be amended from now on, no longer by the United Kingdom parliament in London, but rather by the Canadian parliament itself, in other words, on the way to repatriate our constitution.
It has been agreed between the various parties, through all the house leaders, that there will be no general discussion today on item 1 of the estimates. The house will have the opportunity to discuss that in a fortnight.
How will it be possible to turn the document known so far as the British North America Act into a really Canadian document, by providing that the structures it sanctions might be amended exclusively in Canada? That is certainly the main legal question we are interested in as legislators.
The history of this undertaking includes already many episodes which have taken place during a long period. May I recall them briefly.
The first federal-provincial conference which discussed constitutional amendments was held in 1927. The then minister of justice, one of the great Canadians we have known, Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, championed the cause and held the firm belief that the Canadian authorities should have the power to amend the British North America Act. At that time however, the opinions were much divided as to whether it was appropriate that this power should be given to us.
In 1935, a special committee of this house considered the problem but could not reach a definite conclusion. The matter was placed
20220-544J
Supply-Justice
before a provincial conference during that same year, and in 1936, recommendations were prepared by officials. Once more, there was no agreement and it was impossible to act in a positive manner.
It was necessary to wait until after the war to resume the discussions. Following the amendments to the federative act in 1949, a constitutional conference with the premiers was called. A subcommittee of the attorneys general was set up. During two meetings they analysed all the aspects of the problem, but, once more, without reaching an agreement.
The attorneys general resumed the task in 1960 and 1961, in the course of four meetings. From these long consultations between the federal government and the various provincial governments emerged an amendment formula expressed in a bill. This bill was entitled: "An act for the amendment in Canada of the Canadian constitution". The bill was published in order that its principles might be discussed in all possible circles. However, last summer, after nearly three years, certain provinces were still reluctant about expressing a definite opinion concerning that formula, and others had expressed reservations.
Yet, one could see that everyone was truly desirous of reaching an agreement on an acceptable solution. That is why the prime ministers and premiers felt that they should go over the question once more during the federal-provincial conference held in Charlottetown early this month. The best way to report the results of the ensuing discussions is to read into the record the press release they issued following the Charlottetown conference.
I shall read from the official version in French but I have sent the official English version to the interpreters so that the text which will be read in either language will be exactly the same as the one which was approved by the prime ministers and premiers in Charlottetown.
The prime ministers and premiers affirmed their unanimous decision to conclude the repatriation of the BJST.A. Act without delay. To this end, they decided to complete a procedure for amending the constitution in Canada, based on the draft legislation proposed at the constitutional conference of 1961, which they accept in principle. An early meeting of the attorneys general of Canada and the provinces will be held to complete the amending formula devised by the 1961 conference, and to report to the prime ministers and premiers.

The attorneys general have thus been given terms of reference for a meeting which is to

Supply-Justice
take place in Ottawa on Monday and Tuesday next, and from which we hope to report to the premiers who will be meeting in the following week.
I do not think it would be appropriate for me at this time, in advance of the conference, to express my views as to how this long process of discussion and negotiation can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. I am most anxious to hear the views and recommendations of members in all parts of the house. This is a matter on which we are all agreed as to the objective. As long as we cannot amend our own constitution there is a very real sense in which we lack an essential pillar in the structure of our confederation. There is, we all recognize, a deformity to be remedied.
It is equally clear from the history of the matter that the remedy involves genuine difficulties. Any satisfactory constitution requires in its amending formula a careful balance between the virtue of security, of constitutional safeguards, and the necessity of some flexibility in order to adapt to changing requirements. A federal constitution, of course, must achieve this balance within the framework of federal-provincial jurisdictions which are fundamental to the structure of the constitution.
Our predecessors have struggled with this problem for many years. I believe they have gradually moved us to a position in which we can look forward now to an agreed solution which will make our constitution Canadian. I know that is the wish of everyone in this house, and I can assure the house that the government will listen attentively to all the advice offered to it for this purpose, which stands far above any partisanship.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Chairman, the minister has said that our predecessors had struggled over this question, and I would admit quite quickly to this committee that I am joining in the struggle. However, the minister avoided a favourite term of one of his colleagues, the minister of defence. He did not use the words "new hard facts", which is one of the favourite cliches of the Minister of National Defence. So because we have no new hard facts to add to a most interesting constitutional development historically it makes an intelligent exchange difficult.
In the Rowell-Sirois recommendations there is what might be called a statement of purpose, and I think this would be a good place to commence my remarks:
In the course of our work we have come to appreciate as never before the achievements of the
[Mr. Favreau.l
fathers of confederation.. .By their achievements they laid the foundation of national unity and of the federal system, both of which our instructions enjoin us to respect. It is our hope, and we venture to say our confident expectation, that they accomplished these great things without laying on future generations the dead hand of the past and that they transmitted to us a constitution capable of development not only through judicial interpretation but through amendment as well, to meet the new situations and problems which were bound to arise... Canadians are so proudly conscious of the national unity which they have achieved and so respectful of the federal system that has made this unity possible that there may be some danger of their thinking of national unity and of the federal system in the abstract as having some special merits which make them desirable in themselves. We have endeavoured to keep before us at all times the goal of human welfare which should determine the character of both political and economic systems.
It is interesting to go back to statements which have been made, even though it was just over a generation ago, and try to recall the mood of the country at the time.
I am grateful for a chance to participate in this discussion, and I am also conscious, as anyone who has taken a look at the frustration, shall I say, or at the problems which have faced others through the years must be, that we today are joining in quite a company of greats. I am not going to catalogue them; the minister has mentioned one or two, and they include some of the great parliamentarians of Canada as well as some learned in the academics.
I feel that as a preliminary comment I might put this oft times obscure subject into perspective, or at least into my perspective. First of all, the British North America Act is a Canadian document. It was conceived in Canada and received a great deal of its impetus from conferences which we had 100 years ago in Charlottetown and in Quebec; and we, of course, are taking part in these celebrations. The B.N.A. Act was not imposed on a long suffering colony by an imperial master.
We are busy celebrating the anniversary now, and as the minister says, we are still debating how to detach the act from the statute books of the United Kingdom. I think the minister and most hon. members would agree that we should not be lured by simple or overly simple shibboleths, that all will be well in Canada if only the constitution is returned home. I have read this oversimplification.
The plain fact is that in 1867 when the act passed through its various stages in the United Kingdom parliament hardly a word was changed in the draft act submitted by Canada. At no time in the intervening years

has that parliament objected to the policy involved or the subject matter of any amendment we have sought. Rather, plaintive cries have come out from the United Kingdom house suggesting to us that it is high time we performed our own amending functions. As a matter of fact, in reading the accounts of the passage of the British North America Act through parliament I came across a suggestion that several of the members were asleep. This fact, of course, would have no relevancy today. I also read that the subject succeeding the British North America Act in the United Kingdom house was on the taxing of dogs in the city of London.
I think it is safe to say that no one in this parliament, as the minister has said, objects to the plan to bring the constitution home. I hope it is safe to say that no one seriously thinks that merely by transferring the statute from one jurisdiction to another all our problems will be solved and we will usher in the promised land.
In passing it is interesting to recall that the move to call Canada the kingdom of Canada came particularly from the Quebec delegation. What a dangerous lapse into colonialism was avoided by the use of the word "dominion".
I have one or two questions I should like to pose to the minister. The opposition and the house is being asked to put forward views on a matter that really cannot be discussed constructively without a knowledge of the position of the government. The minister said that he wants to hear our views, but he will not give us his.
We have been told that section 91 is being examined. I want to ask, what is the government's stand on this section? Is the government prepared to surrender to the provinces powers allocated under that section to the federal parliament? If the government is not prepared to consider giving up powers, why is the section being examined? If the government is prepared to surrender certain powers, what powers does this include? I should like to know the government's position relative to section 91. I suggest that these are legitimate questions, without the answer to which parliament is placed in a very awkward position. I am aware of the communique from Charlottetown, but I am wondering what agreements were reached in Charlottetown in this connection.
Was it a condition of repatriation that section 91 should be looked into with a view to transferring certain powers from the
Supply-Justice
government of Canada to the provinces, and did the government of Canada agree to them? Is the government preparing to concede certain jurisdictional prerogatives, or to accept prior recommendations from the provinces on matters affecting immigration, tariffs and monetary policy, as indicated in certain press reports? In short, Mr. Chairman, I want to know what is the government's policy. Is the government accepting the so-called Fulton formula in its entirety? How is it that what was not acceptable when the formula was first advanced, is now accepted, and what if any are the conditions of such acceptance?
The main problem we face, of course, as the minister said, is to find a formula for amending the constitution when it finally finds domicile here in Canada. I should like to recall that of the dozen or so substantial amendments since 1867, nearly all have come about because of the growth of the country and did not involve any infringement, in the narrow sense of that term, on provincial rights.
Sometimes a loose formula was used for consulting the provinces before seeking amendment. In law I suggest there is nothing to prevent this parliament from seeking and obtaining "any amendment whatsoever in the B.N.A. Act", to quote a statement made by Premier Jean Lesage in 1949. The accuracy of that statement was conceded by the then prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, about that time. So this parliament could in law secure an amendment, or even repeal its sections guaranteeing the use of the French language, or provincial control of the schools. I am quick to admit that this is mere legal theory -in fact no government of Canada, I am glad to say, would dare abridge fundamental provincial rights in this regard. Most members would agree that this parliament should not possess the unilateral amending power it now has, but as a matter of political prudence it would not dare exercise.
The first task facing the meeting of the attorneys general is to agree on a definite and reasonable rule about consultations before seeking amendments that will become in every sense the Canadian constitution. As E. A. Driedger, the deputy minister of justice, said in the Canadian Bar Journal, volume 5, 1962:
Our constitution, as in the case of the United Kingdom, consists in part of written material and in part of conventions and customs. The written material consists-partly of our own statutes and. partly of United Kingdom statutes.

Supply-Justice
He then states:
The present situation may be represented by a circle divided into three segments. One segment represents the authority of the parliament of Canada to make constitutional laws. Another segment represents similar authority possessed by the legislatures of the provinces. The remaining segment represents the area of jurisdiction that is beyond the authority of parliament or the legislature; the sole power to make constitutional laws in this area rests with the parliament of the United Kingdom.
This is what we are trying to bring to an end. Then Mr. Driedger says:
In addition, the parliament of the United Kingdom has concurrent jurisdiction over the federal and provincial segments.
The problem of finding a suitable method of amending the constitution of Canada in Canada involves two things. First there must be transferred to appropriate legislative bodies in Canada jurisdiction over that segment of our circle that is now within the exclusive authority of the parliament of the United Kingdom. Second, we must remove from the parliament of the United Kingdom the jurisdiction it now has over this segment, and also the concurrent jurisdiction it now possesses over the areas included in the segments of our circle now falling within the jurisdiction of parliament or of the legislatures. At the same time, we must be careful to see that we do not now interfere with the powers that parliament and the legislatures have. We would not want, for example, an amending formula that would make it impossible for the provinces alone to amend their constitutions, a power they now possess under head (1) of section 92; nor would we want to take away from parliament the powers it now has under the various sections of the British North America Act that confer upon parliament power to amend the constitution of Canada in matters of purely federal concern. However, it should be pointed out-
This was made clear, I think, during the 1960 conferences.
-that there is some objection to the wide powers conferred on parliament by the new head (1) of section 91 and it is no doubt felt by some that if we do arrive at an acceptable amending formula there should be some change in the authority conferred by this provision.
In any discussion of such a subject it is important, I suggest, to distinguish between rights in a narrow or parochial or provincial sense and the basic rights of a culture or of a group. These latter rights, I suggest, include language, education and religion, to name but three. These are and must continue to be sacrosanct. The success of the early fathers of confederation, and I suggest they were successful, is, it seems to me, largely due to the fact that this difference was acknowledged both in the statute and, equally as important, in the mood and philosophy of the statesmen engaged in the task of making here in this land a viable nation.
If I may philosophize for a moment, I think this is the mood we have to have in Canada
[Mr. Fairweather.l
today, and if we have this mood nothing is impossible for us. Part of this mood was displayed recently in an extraordinary document. It is sometimes frustrating to think that some of the most interesting documents on the constitution and on the state of politics lately have originated not in this chamber but outside this chamber. I am going to recall the appeal for realism in politics published in May of this year in Cite Libre and the Forum. Among many other important things the authors say in considering the subject of federalism:
We believe in federalism as a political structure for Canada. However, we are not satisfied with the evolution of Canadian federalism in a number of areas. As this subject is being discussed ad nauseam nowadays, the mention of one typical area will be quite sufficient.
In those domains which the constitution has given to the jurisdiction of both Ottawa and the provinces, it is evident that plans must be developed jointly. Sharing could also be introduced, if necessary by constitutional amendment, in cases where the establishment of joint plans would permit the population to benefit from important external economies. But one thing is certain: the kind of haphazard political expediency which has inspired so many sharing schemes and federal subsidies for so long has got to stop.
Whatever may be the division of responsibilities between the provinces and the central authority, each must have a share of fiscal powers in proportion to the duties entrusted to it by the constitution.
I want to come for a minute to the so-called Fulton formula and in order to be accurate I shall list some of the main provisions quickly. One of the key provisions in the formula was that all 10 provinces must give their consent before the federal parliament could amend any section of the constitution dealing with basic provincial jurisdiction in the fields of education, language and property and civil rights. Another consideration was that sections dealing only with some provinces and not affecting others could be altered with the consent of the provinces concerned. The third proposal was that general amendments could be made with the approval of two thirds of the provinces provided those seven provinces represent at least half of the Canadian population. Parliament could enact laws in the jurisdiction of the provinces and vice versa provided there was agreement between both levels of government.
This brings to mind a topic that has been of close concern to me for some years. We must find a formula for a sensible delegation of legislation. The example I like to cite is one of very current concern in Canada. I do not think the chairman of the

Toronto stock exchange would go as far as I am going to go but I believe that the 10 provinces should delegate authority over the transfer of stocks and bonds and so on. In other words, this country should be given the opportunity federally to enact the equivalent of the securities and exchange commission of the United States. This is the type of thing I think we have to be prepared to do if we want the discussions with the attorneys general when they are held really to result in something that will make the country work better.
In he Devoir of recent date the great editor of that paper had something to say too about philosophy, and I think that in any consideration of constitutional matters it is worth while recalling his words to the house and putting them on the record. He said:
There is... room for explicit recognition of the special position Quebec-in so far as it is the primary outlet for the French element in Canada- should occupy in the Canadian political organization. But the viewpoint here remains Canadian. One accepts Canada not as a makeshift thing from which one must free oneself, but rather as a political reality that has real value and that one wants to improve. This way of seeing is not unitary but federalist in nature. For it, the federal system is the one that best fits our geographic, historical, economic and political circumstances. Without wanting to preserve this system at all costs, the man thinking this way repudiates the defeatist and sweeping interpretations proposed by certain people to cover the history of the last century.
This way of seeing things also takes into consideration the development that has taken place in Anglo-Canadian opinion during the last quarter century. Those who take this viewpoint believe it is possible and desirable to reform our federal system so that it will be efficient and acceptable for Canadians of both languages. They see this reform as the result of faithful conversations and agreements between the two groups. They'd like to achieve their objectives by way of objective dialogue rather than by means of the ultimatum. But they recognize, to begin with, that it is the Canadian order of things for which they are seeking a solution.
It would be presumptuous for me to say that I share this view. It is the view of one of the great moderates speaking in Canada today. But I accept wholeheartedly the premise and I think it should be said in this discussion involving the very heart of our country.
There is another suggestion I want to make, that when the attorneys general are meeting they consider a formula whereby the bill of rights of Canada, a very important document as it now stands, could become entrenched in the constitution. It should be incorporated into the constitution and it should be so entrenched that no change could be made without the consent of all the legislatures and the parlia-
Supply-Justice
ment of Canada. The bill of rights should contain the basic freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and association. It should also provide for freedom from discrimination on the grounds of race, colour or creed, freedom from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment and the guarantee of free elections within a stated period. I hope that when this is done, the day will come when concurrent legislation will be enacted in the ten provinces. Then this great formula will be very meaningful, in all the areas of our concern.
Technically and narrowly, Mr. Chairman, and I underline this, the easiest thing for a country would be to have one government or one superstate. However, we are not merely dealing with technicalities and a narrowly conceived formula. We are dealing with a way of life and all that that term implies in social, cultural and in the economic sense. It is for this reason the forthcoming conference which seeks to find this formula and not just bring a piece of paper back across the ocean-that can be done readily-must seek a formula in the same spirit as the men who got together in this country 100 years ago. I hope this does not sound maudlin, as I do not mean it to be. As I said earlier, if that is the type of spirit, and lacking ultimatums, lacking wildly extravagant charges and countercharges, lacking any blackmail or that type of thing, we can make this a viable land.
One of the great contemporary artists who has just completed his latest masterpiece, a new window for the United Nations, once said about his accepted task,
There is so much work to do to get any result. To take a stained glass window and give it life, you have to embrace it, warm it up; you can't deceive God...Well, let's work; let's work.
I think that Mr. Marc Chagall's statement has application in the months ahead. We here, in this type of debate, a non-partisan debate, have a hard and serious responsibility and I suggest that we work, we work.
Mr. B re win: I join with the hon. member for Royal, Mr. Chairman, in welcoming the opportunity afforded by this debate to discuss the vitally important issue of constitutional amendment. I agree with him that this issue, although it seems abstract to some people, vitally affects the human welfare of Canadians and may affect it for generations to come. We here in this party entirely agree with the objective stated by the Minister of Justice, the objective of repatriating the constitution of Canada and making it wholly Canadian. But this statement by itself solves

Supply-Justice
very little. If we adopt the wrong methods in repatriation, and I believe we are in danger of doing so, we may seriously jeopardize the welfare of Canada.
I understand from the statements made by the Prime Minister in this house from time to time, that in the discussions that are to take place next week with the attorneys general of the provinces, the Minister of Justice representing the federal government will, to use the words of the Prime Minister, begin where the last conference left off. I remind the committee that the last conference left off when proposals were made for a formula for amending the Canadian constitution in Canada by the then minister of justice, Hon. Mr. Fulton, on December 1, 1961. This formula became known as the Fulton formula, although of course one should point out the formula was put forward by the administration of that day and supported by them.
This formula was, in fact, incorporated in a draft bill. This bill by section 2 provides, and this is the core of the proposal, that no amendment could be made to the constitution of Canada which affected any provision relating to the powers of the legislatures of the provinces to make laws without the concurrence-mark this-of the legislatures of all the provinces. If it is a fact, Mr. Chairman, that the government of Canada proposes to reintroduce this formula at the forthcoming conference with the attorneys general, then I say to this committee it is necessary to sound a solemn warning, at least a warning as solemn as I can make it.
The carrying out of this proposal has been described by Professor Bora Laskin, an eminent constitutional expert, as an unmitigated constitutional disaster. I adopt his language. Another picturesque phrase has been used to describe this proposal. It has been said, and I think rightly said, it would confine Canada for all time in a constitutional strait-jacket. The burden of my remarks today will be to urge, with all the force I can, that it is the duty of the government of Canada, representing all the people of Canada, to avoid this unmitigated disaster and to avoid unflex-ible provisions for the amending of our constitution.
To many people, Mr. Chairman, constitutions are inclined to be dull, legal documents. But it should never be overlooked that they constitute the framework within which all the activities of government are obliged to operate. They are particularly important in a country such as Canada where we have a federal state and where it is necessary to pre-

serve a reasonable balance between adequate powers for the central government on the one hand, and adequate local autonomy to the provincial governments on the other. It is impossible for the wit of man to devise a distribution of powers and resources available to governments that will stand the test of time. As the first hundred years of Canada's history has clearly revealed, a series of problems have come within the purview of governmental action which were never even contemplated, and indeed could not have been contemplated at the time these constitutional provisions were made.
It is for this reason that an amending procedure in a constitution is absolutely essential, so that a constitution can be adapted to the changing needs of a growing society. We do not have a static society today. This was pointed out by Lord Sankey in a case in the judicial committee where he described the constitution of Canada as a growing tree and not a static document. He sought, by a judicial interpretation, in effect, to amend the British North America Act in the light of that view. But it is impossible to rely on a judicial interpretation as a means of amending the constitution.
A procedure of constitutional amendment which is absolutely rigid and is subject to the veto of small groups of people may condemn Canadian governments in the future to inaction and sterility in the face of serious problems. I remind the committee that in the last 30 years of our history it has been necessary to secure constitutional amendments to permit great social reforms and maintain reasonable standards of social security and a reasonable measure of equality across Canada. The British North America Act, for example, was amended in 1940 to add unemployment insurance to the list of items under section 91 that fall within the competence of this parliament. In 1951 the British North America Act was amended by adding section 94A which permitted the parliament of Canada to make laws in relation to old age pensions, although of course they had made some laws in that regard earlier. This provision confirmed that right. As this house very well knows, we have recently passed a resolution that seeks amendment of the British North America Act to permit the incorporation of survivor benefits in legislation with regard to contributory old age pensions. I should point out to the committee that none of these measures could have been considered or contemplated in 1867 when totally different social conditions prevailed. Yet had the formula which

is put forward, described as the Fulton formula, been in effect and incorporated into law, the result would have been that the legislature of any single province could have prevented effect being given to the general consensus of all the other provinces in Canada in favour of such a constitutional amendment.
Let us take an illustration. I have nothing against the province of Prince Edward Island or its legislature. I understand it is one of the most picturesque and delightful provinces in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Brewin:: Judging by its representatives in this house-and I know there is one applauding at least part of this speech-I believe the people of Prince Edward Island would be reasonable in their views about problems facing the people of Canada as a whole. But the fact of the matter is that in 1961 the total population amounted to 104,000 people, little more than one half of 1 per cent of the population of Canada. The total number of electors in the province is 57,000 out of a total number of Canadian electors of just over 10 million. The electors of the riding of York-Scarborough, in one municipal area of my province, number 162,000 or three times those of Prince Edward Island. The total population of York-Scarborough is 267,000 as compared with the figure of 104,000 which I have already given for Prince Edward Island. I am not trying to single out the province of Prince Edward Island. If I were discussing provinces which might present problems I certainly would not refer to Prince Edward Island. I am merely drawing attention to the complete absurdity of giving a veto over all constitutional amendments to the representatives of a province whose population is numerically less than that of some single constituencies in Canada. I think that even those with the greatest respect for provincial rights-and I myself have great respect for those rights-[DOT] would acknowledge that it would be an absolute absurdity for a single constituency such as York-Scarborough, for example, to be given the power, by its votes, to veto a constitutional amendment for which a consensus of support had been secured across Canada.
I wish to make it clear, however, and in this I follow the remarks of the hon. member for Royal, that there are certain sections of the British North America Act and certain rights which could and should be entrenched in the constitution in such a way that their
Supply-Justice
amendment except by the unanimous consent of the provinces would not be possible. These are matters which are truly fundamental to our whole confederation and with regard to which no change can reasonably be contemplated. I would mention, for example, section 51(a) which guarantees representation by provinces in this House of Commons; section 93 dealing with the right of provincial control over education; section 133 which deals with the right to use both the English and the French language in this parliament and in the courts. All these rights should be so entrenched that they could not be amended without the approval of the legislatures of all those provinces which might be affected.
To these rights should be added other fundamental rights which, unfortunately, are not embodied in our constitution and which I consider should be included before any process is finally accepted. I welcome and second the suggestion made by the hon. member for Royal that the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals, most of which are to be found in the present Canadian Bill of Rights should be incorporated in the fundamental document of our constitution. I am sure that if the Leader of the Opposition, one of the main proponents of the bill of rights, were in his place now he would acknowledge that they are not part of our constitution at the present time. The bill of rights is merely a statute of this parliament which can be amended by this parliament; it does not control the activities of the provinces in any way whatever. I therefore join in urging the Minister of Justice to include in the proposals to be made to the attorneys general of the provinces a proposal that incorporation of these fundamental rights in the constitution of Canada itself should take place.
But despite the fact that these fundamental provisions which I have enumerated-and there may be others to be added to them- should be entrenched in our constitution with a real degree of rigidity, there are many other provisions with respect to the distribution of powers between the provincial legislatures and the federal government which are of such a nature that they may well require amendment in the future, and these should be amendable by a consensus of the provinces and the federal parliament. For example, there is section 92(13) of the British North America Act which, as the committee knows, gives to the provincial legislatures legislative power over property and civil rights. In this phrase "property and

Supply-Justice
civil rights" there are no doubt included some purely local matters which particularly affect the local rights and cultures prevailing in individual provinces. But also included in this broad phrase "property and civil rights" are matters which from time to time require to be dealt with on the national level by the parliament of Canada if they are to be dealt with effectively at all. To give some illustrations, let me say there is a need for federal intervention so as to prevent fraudulent transactions in securities. Today the federal parliament has some dealing with this subject under the heading of the criminal law which falls within the federal power. There is also some provincial regulation. But there should be uniformity of legislation and administration across Canada in this regard. The hon. member for Royal has suggested this might well be done by delegation. I do not think we can rely on delegation. I believe an amendment is needed to deal with this problem.
Another aspect, one which is of urgent concern to farmers in particular, concerns the marketing of natural products. This, in some respects, is best suited to federal control especially with regard to commodities entering into export and import trade. Needed amendments in this field might well be prevented if there were a constitutional strait-jacket such as is involved in what I call the Fulton formula.
We are expecting almost momentarily to have revealed to us the long awaited national labour code. I would point out to the committee that this code will be a national labour code in name only; it will apply only to industries which fall under certain of the specific heads of federal jurisdiction set out in section 91. It does not apply to nationwide industries such as steel and packing houses, for example. At the moment provincial governments and their agencies are forced to try to cope on a provincial basis with problems which are national in scope.
Another important aspect of our affairs with regard to which amendments may be required in the future is lack of legislative power in respect to the implementation of international treaties. The federal power in this respect is seriously limited under the terms of our present constitution. Our successors

and perhaps some of us who are here today-may well find it necessary to amend the British North America Act so that Canada may have full power to carry out the international obligations it assumes.
These are merely illustrations of matters which might prove forever incapable of ade-

quate solution on a national scale if the inflexible form of amendment to the constitution is adopted. We all agree that the present provision for the amendment of the constitution is inadequate and out of date. We know that the only way to amend the constitution of Canada today, with the exception of certain matters covered by section 91(1) of the British North America Act, is by act of parliament of the United Kingdom. As long ago as 1926 the famous Balfour declaration was made after a conference, a commonwealth conference-I do not know whether they were called commonwealth conferences in those days. This declaration stated that the dominions were autonomous communities within the British empire equal in status and in no way subordinate to one another. We agree that since that day continuing reliance on the imperial parliament has been both anomalous and humiliating.
However, this form of amending process has at least one good thing to be said in its favour: It is flexible in its nature. It is a false and unwarranted doctrine that the British parliament would not act to amend the Canadian constitution without the consent of all the provinces. One just has to look at the recitals to the various amending acts to which the hon. member for Royal referred to see that in each case the act was passed by virtue of a resolution or request from the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada in parliament assembled. There are no references to seeking the consent of any of the provinces.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I say that a suggestion that the British parliament would not pass any amendment to the constitution sought by the parliament of Canada is entirely without warrant; but-and this is the point I wish to make as clearly as I can- there is a grave danger that in removing this anomaly we will jump out of the frying pan into the fire. There is no reason at all why we should impose upon ourselves-and that is what we would be doing-the fetters of an unduly rigid amending procedure. The Fulton formula, as I see it, proposes this and even goes so far as to suggest that after we have locked ourselves up in this way we should throw away the key.
It is proposed that the amending formula, once it becomes law, can itself only be amended with the consent of all the provinces. I suggest that this is the doctrine of provincial rights run riot and it can only serve to destroy any truly workable federalism. After 100 years of living with a flexible

constitution, albeit one amendable in another country, are we, in the name of deliverance from national bondage, to impose upon ourselves absolute rigidity in regard to constitutional amendment?
It is my view, and I believe it is shared by a great many Canadians, that the pendulum is swinging too far toward the assertion of provincial rights. It is perfectly true that under our federal system provincial rights are vitally important, and there may still be many fields in which decentralization is important and required. I have tried to make it perfectly clear that in our view these fundamental provincial rights and minority rights should be entrenched beyond the possibility of amendment without the unanimous concurrence of all the provinces. But the imposition of a veto for every province upon constitutional amendment of any significance whatever would be a damaging blow to a truly workable federalism and Canada's status as a nation.
There are two other main observations that I would like to make. I would like to know who are the government's advisers on this particular matter, because I think they have been receiving poor advice. Has the government consulted those people in our universities, for example, who have made a study of amending procedures in Canada and throughout the world? I do not propose to detain the committee by analysing the amending procedures of other countries. I merely assert- and this I believe is a fact-that the particular form of amendment proposed in the so-called Fulton formula is unprecedented anywhere in the world.
I have examined the amending formula in Australia, for example, where after an absolute majority in each of the federal houses it must be submitted to a vote of electors in each state. If in a majority of states-let us say, four out of six-a majority of the voting electors approve and if a majority of all the voting electors approve, then the amendment will take effect. But the point is that this is far less rigid than the formula proposed for Canada; it is far less exacting. But even so, it has been complained of by many constitutional experts as being unduly restrictive in practice in Australia. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we should have some witnesses from Australia to tell us how their amending formula is worked.
In the United States of America amendment may be proposed by a two thirds vote of both houses and ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the states or by conven-
Supply-Justice
tions in three fourths of the states. I have mentioned Professor Bora Laskin, an eminent constitutional expert. He made a proposal which I suggest should be very seriously considered by the government, namely that with the exception of the entrenched clauses of the British North America Act which I have already mentioned, a proposal for amendment should become effective when initiated by a two thirds vote in the parliament of Canada and by a vote of the legislature in not less than two thirds of the provinces, provided the population of the approving provinces exceeds 50 per cent of the population of Canada. Such a formula would provide reasonable flexibility and at the same time ensure that amendments could not be made unless the general consensus across Canada approved of them. I have looked at the constitutions of West Germany and India; they likewise provide for a consensus rather than a simple majority, and they do not give to the smaller units making up the federations the right to veto constitutional changes.
The point which I wish to stress is that before any formula for amendment is adopted, the advice of experts should be listened to. I call the attention of the government and the committee to a resolution that was passed by the association of law teachers in June, 1961, when they were considering the proposed conference of attorneys general to establish procedures for the amendment of the Canadian constitution. They urged that the conference should be requested to establish a procedure for public hearings, at which submissions and representations on an amending procedure might be offered, and which would provide for investigation and report on other federal amending systems. They pointed out in their brief that this was a matter of fundamental importance to all Canadians; and I suggest it deserves to be considered, not with a hasty, hole-in-the-corner approach but should be afforded the widest possible publicity and the widest possible consultation with qualified people.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I wish to urge upon the government their responsibility in this matter. Constitutional reform in a great country such as Canada is not a matter of expedient policy at the moment; it is not something routine. Once it is adopted it is extremely hard to get away from. At the last conference a proposal was put forward by the federal government of the day which I have suggested, and others with more authority than I have, have stated, to be an unmitigated constitutional disaster. It seems to me that

Supply-Justice
this formula is a basic surrender on the part of the government of Canada to some exaggerated views on provincial rights.
At the former conference the government of Saskatchewan, advised I believe by Professor Frank Scott, the former dean of the law school of McGill and one of the foremost constitutional experts in this country, opposed this formula. The government of Saskatchewan has changed, and my view is that the government of that province is not now so well advised as it was previously. I suggest that it is the duty of the parliament of Canada and the government of Canada to ensure that in our haste to repatriate the constitution and end the anomaly of its control outside Canada we do not make the grievous error of hamstringing future Canadians in respect of their constitution. I believe it is high time that the government of Canada started to stand up for the rights of Canada as a whole and sounded a less uncertain note in respect of excessive claims of provincial rights. I suggest that this conference would be a very good place to start doing that.
The government should repudiate the so-called Fulton formula and produce something much closer to what I describe as the Laskin formula, although I am quite sure that Professor Laskin would be the last to claim originality or finality in his suggestions. I therefore urge that at the forthcoming conference the Minister of Justice, representing the government of Canada, do a number of things. I will list them, Mr. Chairman. (1) He should propose to the attorneys general a modified formula which would provide for the entrenchment of basic minority rights but would enable amendment in respect of other matters on the basis of a general provincial consensus. I have explained more in detail what I mean by that. (2) He should propose to the attorneys general of the provinces that simultaneously with the repatriation of the constitution there should be the incorporation of a bill of rights in the constitution; and (3) that he should urge upon the conference the adoption of the proposal of the association of law teachers, namely that there be adequate consultation and public hearing before any formula be determined. Only thus, in my view, will we be able to use the words of what I hope will some day be the official national anthem of Canada. Only thus will we in Canada and this parliament be able to say that we have stood on guard for Canada.


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the hon. member a question. I wonder whether he would elucidate this point of view. Does he
IMr. Brewin.]
consider the B.N.A. Act is a pact between the two founding nations, or an act which issued from a parliament which did not exist then?


Francis Andrew Brewin: This is a matter very much debated, Mr. Chairman. I would say, legally speaking, that it is not a pact but an act of parliament. But certainly I concur in the view that it was an act which embodied the nature of a basic agreement between different parts of Canada and should be respected as such.


Georges-J. Valade: May I put another question. Does he not consider that the question of the future majority vote in the house is destroying precisely the spirit of the pact itself, which proves it was an act and not a pact? If you consider the argument of the majority vote, you are referring to the original pact as the act of a parliament which did not exist.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I do not think the hon. member followed my proposal too carefully. I suggested that in addition to the two thirds vote of the parliament of Canada there should be the approval of seven out of the ten provinces representing at least 50 per cent of the population of Canada as a whole. I would point out to the hon. member that with that protection there would be reasonable flexibility; at the same time there would not be complete rigidity when any single province, no matter how small, could frustrate the general consensus among the people of Canada. I also hope the hon. member recognizes the point I made, that those fundamental rights with regard to education, religion, language and so on would be entrenched so that they could not be affected unless each one of the provinces agreed.


Georges-J. Valade: That is the letter but not the spirit of confederation.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I am not able to make such a scholarly speech as the ones which we have just heard from the hon. members who preceded me and who are experienced jurists. However, I should like to say a few words, first in the name of my party, and then in my own name, as a citizen of the province of Quebec.
The position of our party concerning repatriation of the constitution is not yet quite definite, except that we are 100 per cent in favour of repatriation of this constitution and that we believe all the provinces are able, among themselves, to come to an understanding which will permit the realiza-

tion of this project in a friendly way and in a manner that can be accepted by the federal government.
Our party's attitude could be set out more specifically but, speaking as I do on behalf of our group, I shall limit myself to that statement of principle, because I am under the impression that we will have other opportunities this year to discuss this most important problem.
Mr. Chairman, a certain spirit was prevailing in Canada when, in 1867, a pact was signed by the various groups living in this country, but since we were not there, we do not know what that spirit was. However, anyone who does a little historical research will soon realize that it was some kind of spirit of compromise which was convenient for the parties concerned since, amongst other things, it enabled them to protect themselves against the immediate or remote possibility of invasion by the United States. The spirit which existed at that time must certainly have been such as I have just explained because, when things are considered logically, it is realized that, at the present time, Canada is a paradox, something irrational, anomalous and even absurd economically, socially and culturally. If Canada had wanted its own welfare, it could have made a decision at that time and I am convinced it would have decided to unite with our neighbours below the 45th parallel since, logically, it was an easy way to clear themselves of the prerogatives that had been granted their forefathers and which they had accepted. However, the citizens of the country decided otherwise. They decided to unite in a federation comprising various aspects which are considered more or less appropriate today.
If we listen to extremists, one side as well as the other, if we listen to those politicians who are interested in obtaining a vote rather than in settling a problem, it becomes obvious that the matter of repatriation of the constitution, just like the very existence of the confederation, is very complicated indeed. It should be divided into various points, but the participants always see it as a whole. Let me explain. The hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) asked if it was a pact between two nations, between two founding groups, or if it was instead a federal law governing a group of provinces. Well, in my humble opinion, what happened in those days does not matter. I feel that it would be in order to differentiate between the union of two nations and that of two ethnic groups, or of
Supply-Justice
two founding groups or groups of provinces, which form part of this confederation. We cannot confuse both; we cannot say that the two equal groups must be dealt with on an equal footing. In my opinion, this is impossible from a human, geographical and even logical point of view. It is absolutely impossible to reach an understanding on a level of equality, because we are not equal.
On this point I would like to take issue with the comments the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) made when he spoke about Prince Edward Island. It is impossible to ask here that Prince Edward Island be treated on an equal footing with the rest of Canada. However, since the union of those provinces is a pact, or should be a pact, when the constitution is repatriated, or when it must be repatriated, then the provinces or the signatories of the pact must put forward their requests.
In the case of the province of Quebec, in 1864 and after that until 1867, when a confederation with the rest of the country was contemplated, the Quebec citizens were very reluctant, because they saw practically no advantage.
However, since it was at the same time a political action, the political leaders of that time decided to suggest a compromise which would be acceptable to the citizens of the province of Quebec as well as to the rest of the country.
That is why at that time mention was made of equality of languages, provincial control over education as well as a few other prerogatives granted to the provinces. Those were prerequisite conditions on the part of Quebec for a partnership in confederation.
If one considers the problem facing Prince Edward Island, one realizes that it was similar, without being identical. Prince Edward Island knew that because of its geographical situation and small population, it would be absorbed by the rest of the country if some particular points did not favour in a certain way, and perhaps at the expense of other areas of the country, the citizens of Prince Edward Island. In fact, it is only with the assurance and guarantee that those specific points would be granted them by the central government that the citizens of Prince Edward Island accepted to sign the agreement which resulted in confederation.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that one should not be, as suggested by the hon. member for Greenwood, a die-hard democrat. Specious arguments, such as the ones he advanced about proportional representation, should not

Supply-Justice
be accepted, because the same vital interests are not at stake. The vital interests of a province, or even of a city such as the one represented by the hon. member, may extend to a metropolis, a region, but when a country as extensive as Canada is concerned, one should not, in my opinion, confine oneself to the purest form of democracy, but to a logical argumentation liable to satisfy most if not all parties concerned.
Mr. Chairman, some time ago my opinion was sought on the concept of two nations. Even today a party colleague asked me the same thing. A few months ago, at the request of a newspaper representative, I wrote a brief article on this subject. It goes without saying that this is my personal opinion which may be shared, but not necessarily, by others. This is what I stated at that time:
This opinion is held by those in the van and, according to the reaction of the Anglo-Saxon group, it might well be prevalent in a few years. Should it so happen, it would most surely meet with the approval of the majority of French speaking Quebeckers.
As for me, I feel that both nations should be fully recognized on the federal level. With regard to the relations which should exist between the various part of Canada now called "provinces", I feel our concept of the matter should change.
I could easily see, in order to foster economic integration, the forming of five zones which, for practical purposes, could replace the provinces. These new economic zones would be: the maritime provinces, Quebec, Ontario, the prairie provinces and the western provinces.
It is only under conditions of this type that the concept of two nations across Canada could really be considered as a possibility.
It must be obvious, Mr. Chairman, that I make a very clear distinction between the different objectives sought, at the present time, by the various provinces in confederation.
I can quite understand why all Liberal members are sometimes astonished by the attitude taken by the province of Quebec. As a matter of fact, we from the province of Quebec are astonished by the attitude taken, for instance, by Premier Lesage, which is contradictory to the lines he defended when he was in this house and when he was fighting for a political party rather than for an ideology. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I am convinced that today political interests have a more important bearing upon the opinions expressed by our leaders in Quebec than the specific interest of the province itself. At this moment it is great to be approved by certain newspapers, certain groups of intellectuals, certain pressure groups or even by extremists who are found mostly among teen-agers and students, who

are a political capital which must be tended to in view of an electoral campaign.


An hon. Member:: A federal election campaign?


Guy Marcoux: A provincial election campaign. However, when it comes to setting out clearly Quebec's needs and demands, it is often obvious that even politicians find it hard to explain them or at a loss to do so. That is why we, of the province of Quebec, sometimes witness reversals of opinion which can only be explained by a certain amount of political ambition.
These remarks are not intended as a criticism. It is just that the more experience I get about politics, the more I realize that one has to have a minimum of ambition to remain in politics. Be that as it may, when the problems involved are as consequential as the ones we are dealing with now, I feel that the people of Canada should at least be told about them so that they may form an opinion as to Quebec's demands.
Mr. Chairman, earlier the hon. member for Greenwood spoke about the unanimity of decisions as it is set forth in the so-called Fulton bill. I have here the Fulton bill which does not seem quite in agreement with the opinions expressed by the hon. member for Greenwood.
It is said in that bill, that under certain circumstances, in order to amend legislation existing at present in the provinces, or the legislation or privileges granted to those provinces by our constitution the agreement of all the provinces will be necessarily required.
Section 3 of part I provides that when a piece of legislation affects one province more than another, or affects only one group of provinces, excluding others, it cannot come into effect without the consent of the legislature of each province to which that provision applies.
In my opinion this is a very useful concession made to the provinces which would like to take advantage of it.
When he speaks of the majority of the provinces and of at least 50 per cent of the population, he is merely referring to section (5) of the same part 1 of the Fulton bill which states-I shall skip some of the details of the clause-that no law enacted under the present part shall be put into force without the co-operation of at least two thirds of the provincial legislatures, which represent at least 50 per cent of the Canadian population, according to the last general census.

Thus, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that these guarantees are sufficient to enable all the provinces, including Ontario, to sign a new confederation agreement or to agree to the constitution being repatriated.
When he speaks of the rights of the minorities I do not know to what rights he is referring. As far as I am concerned I have never recognized, and I still do not recognize, French Canada or French Canadians as being a minority.
At this point I should like to quote an opinion expressed by Mr. Eugene Forsey, who happens to be very friendly with the group of the hon. member for Greenwood. He said this:
The actual recognition of the French partner is the price we pay to preserve Canada and if the English majority is not willing to pay that price, it is because fundamentally it does not really want a united Canada.
Personally, Mr. Chairman, I endorse this statement of a prominent English speaking Canadian and I point out that as far as minorities are concerned, any minority might be mentioned except the French Canadians. French Canadians are not a minority group. As I said earlier, their group must be on the same footing as the other one on the federal and the cultural level, maybe not necessarily on the economic level, because this is a field that comes under provincial jurisdiction and does not concern the ethnic group itself.
But the ethnic group in itself is equal to any other group in Canada, it cannot be considered as a minority.
As I said a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, it seems that Quebec's position is somewhat contradictory. In certain cases, however, it should be recognized that its claims are well founded.
The French Canadian group should not be recognized as a minority, but it is. Let us say that there is a French group and an English group in Canada and let us consider both as such, irrespective of their number. One realizes that they form what could be called monolithic blocks. We have two groups with different aspirations, a different conception of problems, and the conclusions they draw from their arguments are also different. This means that of 19 million inhabitants, 14 million think the same way, consider problems from the same point of view, while on the other hand, 5 million consider problems from an entirely different point of view.
As it will always be the same thing and as the only protection that the French speaking people could have with regard to maintaining their way of thinking and the concepts they
Supply-Justice
consider in their best interest, this group wants a written guarantee in the constitution to the effect that the majority will never be able to impose any decision against the will of French Canadians.
This would explain the claims made from time to time by the representatives of the province of Quebec.
But there has been some proof, even quite recently, that it was quite easy to get around those claims in a dialogue with Quebec. When, as was stated just now, it was a matter of unemployment insurance, old age pensions, student loans, some agreement was always reached at the end of a discussion, which was perhaps not quite constitutional nor in keeping with the policy established in 1867, but which seemed satisfactory to everybody, to every province, to Quebec as well as to the federal government.
To my mind the decisions taken at that time tend to show that the province of Quebec has an open mind and is ready to co-operate. But this open mind wants, none the less, to maintain the standards for which it has fought over the years.
As I said, the reason why Quebec does not so much want concessions, but written terms incorporated in a statute, is simply the wish to have an additional guarantee and to be more particularly assured that, even if the good people of this parliament should disappear, whichever government be in power and whatever the scientific and ideological training of those who will succeed them, this guarantee will always have a place in a legal text accepted by the parties to the covenant.
Mr. Chairman, when a pact is signed by two parties and one decides to change some clauses of that pact, if it is intended that the pact be redrafted and that an agreement be possible, this agreement must necessarily exist between the two contracting parties.
If, in 1964, the province of Quebec entertains aspirations and demands different from those of 1867, it has the right to say so and refuse to sign a new contract as long as its demands are not met.
That is the reason why separatism exists at present. It is because the people of Quebec think that, if the other contracting party will not accede to the wishes of the French Canadian group, the latter will not sign or renew a confederation pact. Consequently, it will withdraw from confederation, or rather confederation will be formed without the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, I would not like to go any further today. I just wanted to try to explain

Supply-Justice
certain stands taken by the province of Quebec. I repeat, I am not speaking on behalf of my party but in my own name.
However, there is one thing which must not be forgotten and which I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, namely that Canada is in itself a paradox, if we consider it in the light of the presence of the United States. It is a complete paradox. While trade patterns are usually from north to south we have decided that they would be, in our case, from east to west; we have decided, with certain difficulties, to control a certain part of our economy; we are trying our utmost to live in a state of nearly continuous heroism simply because we want to maintain our own entity.
I think this is normal, and it is a very good thing for this country, Canada, to continue in the same direction. Otherwise, it would only have to lean toward the United States.
If this paradox is accepted, then the one concerning French presence within confederation must also be accepted, and you must accept that, while it will cost a little more, while there are a few more annoyances, while it is necessary in certain cases to make the debate a little heavier, we must continue to accept this paradox. It is the sine qua non condition for a persistent confederation, and I think that it will be one of the only reasons which will allow the celebration of the centennial of our Canadian confederation.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I should be vexed with myself if I did not join at this stage in the debate announced on Monday by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), when he stated, as reported on page 8524 of Hansard:
On Wednesday, in order to give members of this house an opportunity to express their views in respect of amendments to the constitution of Canada being made in Canada, I intend to have the estimates of the Department of Justice placed before the house, but only for that purpose.
He was referring in the end to the possibility of discussing the amending or repatriation of the constitution governing at present Canada as a whole.
While the Minister of Justice announced the business of the house last night, I studied a statement made by one of his good friends, Frangois Aquin of the "Federation liberale du Quebec''.


Mr. Boulanger:: An old acquaintance.


David Réal Caouette: An old acquaintance, as the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger), who is hiding behind the curtains says.

The Minister of Justice, and the other members, became acquainted yesterday with Mr. Aquin's statement to the effect that he considers co-operative federalism as a formula to amend the Canadian constitution, a mere electoral "gadget".
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Justice champions the cause of co-operative federalism in the province of Quebec. When he speaks on co-operative federalism to the workers in his constituency, the latter understands neither the "a", nor the "z", nor the "b" of it.


Mr. Gregoire:: That is true.


David Réal Caouette: That is true. What is cooperative federalism-


Mr. Chretien:: And Social Credit?


David Réal Caouette: I hear my hon. friend from St. Maurice-Lafleche say "Social Credit". If he learned about it perhaps he would be reasoning differently from the way he is now reasoning in the strait-jacket put on him by the Liberal party.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. What the member for Villeneuve has just said-


David Réal Caouette: Come now, there is no question of privilege.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Temple):: Order; the hon. member for Villeneuve has the floor.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I do not think we have to be taught any lesson by anyone opposite; on the other hand, I could teach them one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, for many months we have been hearing so much about co-operative federalism that people in the east or in the west do not understand anything about it. I would be remiss at this stage if I did not put on the record the exact meaning of co-operative federalism, according to my interpretation and according to people who understand something about it.
Co-operative federalism would consist of federal-provincial plans at all levels of administration, at all levels of the Canadian economic activity, which means a participation of the provincial and federal governments to all kinds of plans, in such fields as health, highways, the trans-Canada highway,

the seaway, etc. Everywhere the federal and the provincial government would be involved. As far as I am concerned that is the meaning of co-operative federalism.
That is why Mr. Aquin was perfectly right when he said that co-operative federalism was only an election gadget.
And as my good friend the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) just suggested, the minister of natural resources of the province of Quebec stated that co-operative federalism is the abortion of the French Canadian nation in Canada. I think that the Minister of Justice agrees with the minister of natural resources on that. It is a fact. This would be the abortion or simply the elimination of French Canadians in Canada.
As the hon. member for Quebec-Montmor-ency (Mr. Marcoux) just said, French Canadians of the province of Quebec are not asking anything from others. It is an actual fact and if our Anglo-Saxon friends are not aware of it, they will realize it by seeing us in action. They simply ask for the opportunity and the privilege to develop as they see fit. We are not asking the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice or any other minister to grant us favours at the expense of others. No. We are simply asking for the right to act according to our views, our culture, our possibilities, our ability, in order to develop our part of the country called the province of Quebec, and nothing else.
There are always some sly ones who travel through Canada saying that Quebec wants to take away this or that from other provinces, that Quebec claims too much, and this and that, when they do not know the first thing about Quebec. As for us, we know what Quebec is. I am the first one to say, not only to the other provinces, but to my own province of Quebec, that if it is true that economically speaking we are lagging behind the other Canadian provinces, the English speaking people in Toronto, Winnipeg or Vancouver are certainly not to blame, and it is rather the fault of French Canadians in Quebec who, instead of serving their Canadian homeland, have been promoting partisanship ever since confederation in 1867.


Frank Howard: Hail Duplessis.


David Réal Caouette: My hon. friend says "Hail Duplessis". What does he know about Duplessis? He has never met him in his life because Duplessis is dead. My hon. friend may die in the same way.
Supply-Justice


Frank Howard: I am sorry I met you.


David Réal Caouette: Listen to what I am saying and you will understand that the French Canadians in the province of Quebec are not asking you for any favours. We are just asking for justice for our province, as you are asking for justice for your province.


An hon. Member:: He is narrow-minded; never mind him.


Frank Howard: Do not get excited.


David Réal Caouette: Do not throw Duplessis into the picture; Duplessis is not here today.

Mr. Chairman, we have had enough of those ill-willed interjections neither intelligible nor intelligent, on the part of people who do not even understand what is going on in the province of Quebec as well as in the other provinces. I say to my hon. friend, who comes from British Columbia, that if there are people who have at heart the development of the province of Quebec, there are others also who care very much for the development of the province of British Columbia, in spite of the C.C.F. and socialism which prevent Social Crediters from working in this regard at the present time, but who nevertheless succeed in spite of all that.


Frank Howard: You had better get back to your text.


David Réal Caouette: Do not interrupt me, then, and I will get back. I do not need to have a text. I can tell you without a text exactly what I think of what you are saying just now.

For many years now, Mr. Chairman, we have been hearing about co-operative federalism from various members of the government. We also hear of the repatriation of the Canadian constitution. I wonder if the Minister of Justice knows where that constitution is hidden. Everybody has been searching for it during the last ten years but nobody can find it. Is it hidden on some shelves?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: It is under the table. [Translation]


Mr. Rheaume:: Yes, under the table.


David Réal Caouette: Is it in the London parliament? We do not know, and in this corner of the house we say: why rack your brains in trying to repatriate something which has never been accepted by the Canadian people?

Supply-Justice
Mr. Chairman, let us leave the constitution where it is. Do we need to go to London to know what we the elected members of parliament, the representatives of the people, must or can do here in Canada? Let us ignore the old constitution of 1864 or 1867.
I would like here to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice on this point. Let us leave that constitution to England and let us elaborate a new Canadian constitution, one that will take into account the current economic, political and social facts in Canada, the possibilities, the potential at all levels, in all respects, in this country.
But no, instead of adapting a truly Canadian constitution to the needs of the time, for a number of years it has been proposed to repatriate a constitution with which nobody is acquainted. This constitution, which, after all, is only an act of the British parliament, was never submitted to the approval of the Canadian people, and today, everybody agrees, Conservatives as well as Liberals, members of the New Democratic party, members of the Social Credit party and we the members of the Ralliement Creditistes, that this act has become obsolete and even prejudicial to the economic development of our country, to its sovereignty.
Mr. Chairman, under this ancient constitution, the intrusion of the federal government in the fields reserved to the provinces has become intolerable. For instance, in the field of education, we saw recently the government introduce legislation intended to help university students through loans of $1,000 per annum for a period of five years. The federal government is trying to invade the field of education.
Where highways are concerned, there is the trans-Canada highway. Where agriculture is concerned, the Minister of Agriculture plans federal grants to the provinces, whereas the provinces themselves should handle their program of grants to help agriculture. And in many other fields of our economy, of our economic activity, the federal government tries to interfere to assert its authority as we have seen recently. That is why I maintain that instead of manipulating, I repeat "manipulating", a constitution which is unfamiliar to us, which is in London, we should let London play around with the constitution of 1867 and work out our own constitution of 1964.
On the other hand there are people like the prime minister of Quebec, Mr. Lesage, who state, as he did in he Devoir of September 29 last, that, in brief, the two nations must be equal, and that the political frame-
[Mr. Caouette.l
work of Quebec should be provided with all the means required to develop the French Canadian nation. Not to the prejudice of the English Canadian nation, no, but to give to Quebec economical and political standards and provide it with all the necessary means to ensure the development of the French Canadian nation.
Today, right-thinking people throughout the country accept such a solution, but Mr. Lesage stated yesterday, September 29: "It is too early to discuss changes to be effected to our constitution", while his colleague, Mr. Rene Levesque said: "We are late", and his colleague, Mr. Aquin: "The Minister of Justice is presenting us with an electoral gadget" and Mr. Gerin-Lajoie maintains: "The time has come to amend the constitution."
Mr. Chairman, the premier of the province of Quebec stated yesterday: It is first of all a question of the French Canadians having a status equal in all respects to that of the English Canadians. Some people will surely object. I have met provincial premiers both in western Canada and eastern Canada who claimed: "Quebec is only one of the ten provinces." That is not the spirit of the confederation pact of 1867, which clearly set out the equality of the two groups who signed that pact the French and the English. In my opinion, French speaking Canadians have held up their end of the bargain. French should become a working language within the federal civil service and be taught everywhere one finds a French speaking minority. My English speaking friends must admit, regardless of party affiliation, that there are no such school, municipal or provincial problems in Quebec between the French and the English. In the province of Quebec, the English speaking people definitely form a minority, but they enjoy the same legislation, the same privileges and the same treatment granted to the clear majority of French Canadians. We have no trouble in Montreal, in Sherbrooke, in Quebec city nor in Rouyn-Noranda between both groups. English speaking Protestants and French speaking Roman Catholics get the same grants from the government. McGill University, proportionally, gets even more than Montreal university.
Mr. Chairman, there is no discrimination in the province of Quebec; why should there be elsewhere?
Why are attempts made elsewhere to disparage French Canadians from Quebec, when in Quebec, we do not discriminate against our English friends?

In my own constituency there is a large number of English speaking people. However, we do not quarrel and there is no discrimination against them. Why should it be otherwise in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and in the maritimes against French Canadian minorities?
When Mr. Lesage says: "To have French become a working language in the federal government and a language taught everywhere else where French minorities are found", he is voicing our hope.
In fact, for a long time now, three sessions, we have been claiming for the French minorities in the other provinces exactly the same treatment which is granted the English minority in Quebec.
According to Le Devoir of September 29, 1964, Mr. Lesage stated:
Second, French Canada demands a true decentralization of powers, of resources and of decision centres within the federal system: "Quebec, as I have often said (this is Mr. Lesage speaking), believes in the harmony created through consultation and discussion among equals, and not in the harmony which stems from uniformity imposed by an all-powerful central government.
No co-operative federalism, according to Mr. Lesage. I continue:
At the present time we believe that our political structures are sufficiently flexible, particularly if they are adapted to present circumstances, to enable all the means required for the development of the French Canadian nation concentrated within our borders to be centralized at the level of the Quebec government. These political structures, based on historic, geographic and economic facts, are sufficiently strong to ensure the continued existence of a country extending from sea to sea.
And Quebec will never avoid its obligations or the assistance it wants to give national understanding, to create a climate of national unity within the framework of our country, Canada. Quebec has never avoided its obligations.
Mr. Chairman, I have here the report of the Quebec economic advisory council. This report contains, not only concerning the province of Quebec but the whole country, a few directions concerning the Canadian constitution which, we hope, will be submitted to us as soon as the Minister of Justice will have conferred with provincial premiers or with representatives of provincial governments. In its report, the Quebec economic planning council expresses the following opinion:
The Quebec government has no control at present on certain important instruments of economic control.
(a)	Currency; to the extent that economic activity depends on the existence of a universally accepted medium, such activity is under the exclusive control of the federal government. Since the central govern-
Supply-Justice
ment has the authority to issue currency, (through the Bank of Canada, necessarily), or to control the variations of the money supply in circulation, it exerts a direct control on inflation (and on deflation at the same time) on the revalorization or the loss of value of currency itself.
The public or private debt of Quebec abroad, the long term commitments of Quebeckers to foreigners, may therefore change considerably, without the government of Quebec having anything to do with it.
We saw it illustrated when the authorities of the city of Montreal borrowed the amount of $60 million in the United States, in order to build a subway section. It is impossible to find the required financing within the limits of the province of Quebec, and then people come and tell us that this province is free.
I continue reading from the report:
(b)	Customs tariffs:	The government of the
province has no right to keep a market for any industry by means of customs tariffs. On the other hand, the economic entity, which the province represents, may be seriously affected by the right exercised in this case by the government of Canada, for instance, where high tariffs protect an important product which is manufactured in Canada but which is not or cannot, for some reason, be produced in Quebec.
(c)	Taxation: The constitution grants the province the right to collect only direct taxes. But this right also belongs to the government of Canada. The two governments share the tax potential with regard to their respective needs.
And that is where we can see the wonderful spectacle of double taxation in the province of Quebec.
And the report says further:
Historically speaking, the taxes collected by the Canadian government have increased much more rapidly than those collected by the government of Quebec, more particularly because of war, so that, at this time, the government of the province collects a minor part (16 per cent in 1962) of the total tax paid by individuals, and 22 per cent of corporation taxes, against 84 per cent and 78 per cent respectively collected by the government of Canada, excluding equalization payments. This distribution prevails, whereas taxes of all kinds have reached an unprecedented level, and its practical consequence is to freeze the freedom of the province of Quebec theoretically empowered to meet its needs directly. These needs exceed the revenues by far and are growing at a rate which increases steadily.
Mr. Chairman, as may be seen by reading the following article, the Creditistes are not the only ones to speak about credit control. In fact, the Quebec economic advisory council states in its report:
We are speaking here of the establishment of credit as an extension of the money instrument. To the degree where the economic activity depends on credit control by the Canadian banking system and to the extent where such a system is liable to

Supply-Justice
be controlled, such activity is influenced only by the action of the government of this country (Ottawa) on the banks.
Here, as in taxation matters, the views of the Canadian government are not necessarily attuned to the evolution of a given regional economic unit. Such consideration applies particularly to the province of Quebec, the rate of expansion of which should henceforth be accelerated in comparison to the rest of the country.
The government of the province of Quebec can, however, remedy its present lack of control on the economy by taking initiatives likely to help it or the province of Quebec develop.
Mr. Chairman, before concluding my remarks, and as I pointed out at the beginning, I should recall that the province of Quebec requests no favours from the others. But we, the members of the Creditistes, in the light of the social credit theory, have asked for a change, improvements or amendments to the constitution.
We proposed four points. First, that the control of credit be given to the province.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has run out. However, he may continue his remarks if the house agrees.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I need only two minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the house would agree to give a few minutes to the hon. member, so that he may conclude his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to my excellent friends for allowing me to conclude my remarks. Besides, I shall be very brief.
I want to mention what the Ralliement Creditiste suggested on January 26, 1964, in the light of the principles of the Social Credit.
First, give back to the provinces the control of credit. If it is called branches of the Bank of Canada in each province, we are in favour, but let the Bank of Canada help the provinces, or the province, to the extent of the development wanted by the province.
Credit should not be a hindrance to the economic development of a province, whether it is Quebec, Ontario or any other Canadian province.
Second, control of foreign and domestic trade, of imports and exports, namely what we sell to foreign countries in raw or manufactured materials.

Instead of selling the province of Quebec iron ore or instead of giving it to the Americans, as we are now doing, why not process that product in a new steel industry, in a secondary industry which would be set up in the province in order to sell finished products to the Americans, instead of selling them a raw material which they process and sell back to us as a finished product? Thus, American workers are benefiting from the natural resources of the province of Quebec and of Canada as a whole.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, we should control our imports and exports to know what goes out of the province and what comes in.
Third, the return of fiscal rights-I see the Minister of Justice is taking notes- of direct taxation which in any case belong to the provinces. Let us give unto the provinces that which belongs to them. We know, and the Minister of Justice is also aware of the fact, that it was the war which brought us to accept the federal government's intrusion into provincial fields of taxation. The rights the provinces granted the federal government should have been given back to them right after the war in 1945, or 20 years ago, but the federal government are still playing around in fields of taxation which normally, and according to the constitution, belong to the provinces.
Fourth, control over immigration. This does not mean that Quebec should stop Ukrainians, Poles, Italians or Irish immigrants from coming into the province, not at all, but the thing is to know who is going to come to our province.
Quebec has citizens of Polish origin, Ukrainian origin, indeed, people of all nationalities which are the pride of our province. However, it is painful for us to hear someone say to a Ukrainian at Wolfe's Cove, in Quebec city: "If you wish to earn a living in Canada, you must learn English instead of French."
Personally, I was glad to learn English and I readily advise those who do not know the language to learn it, but I would say to any foreigner who comes to Quebec: Start by learning French, since it is the language of the majority in this province. Afterwards you may learn English as a third language." That would make me happy.
I wish to know who comes into Quebec and who moves out. A number of French Canadians from the province of Quebec have left their homeland and gone to the United

States and thousands of French Canadians are going to that country in order to earn a living.
Why, Mr. Chairman, are our people leaving this country to go to the United States? Because they And it difficult to earn a decent and honourable living in the province of Quebec.
Let us begin by creating economic conditions that will enable the Canadian workers as a whole, the Quebec citizens as a whole to earn their living in their own province, in their own country, in Canada. Then, I feel that we will have been very useful to our Canadian people, of whatever origin they may be.
I am saying this, Mr. Chairman, merely to state our position as regards the repatriation of the Canadian constitution, that has been in the dark since 1867.
We are in 1964 and in three years we shall reach 1967. As I said at the outset of my remarks-and I call the attention of the Minister of Justice to that point-let us forget about the old constitution and let us work out a 1964 Canadian constitution that each and every Canadian, of English, French, Ukrainian, Polish or Italian origin, will find it possible to earn a living in his country and to make Canada one of the most prosperous countries in the whole world.


An hon. Member:: Carried.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I just heard someone say "Carried". I do not want to disappoint my own colleagues and members of my party; it was probably meant to be a joke. I simply wish to remind that today's debate is but the beginning of a general discussion on item 1 of the estimates of my department and that it will resume fully when the estimates will be again before the house, in a fortnight.
I wish to insist upon what I said earlier today; in view of the conference of attorneys general which will be held shortly, in view of the fact that I am president of that conference and also chief of the Canadian delegation, I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to take part in a discussion on this matter.
I wish to seize this opportunity to thank the hon. members who took part in today's debate. In clarifying and expressing the ideas which stem from their former research, they doubtless have given me and the cabinet some information which will help shape the policies of the government at the forthcoming conference.
Supply-Justice


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could ask the minister a question before he sits down. What procedure does the government intend to follow with reference to these discussions with the provinces regarding the repatriation of the constitution? The reason I ask the question is that there has been a growing tendency during both last session and this session for the federal and provincial government to reach certain agreements and then for the federal government to bring them back to parliament. Members of parliament thus find themselves very much in the position of rubber stamps. These agreements have already been made and we are told from time to time that they cannot be altered because they have already been agreed upon with the provinces, and that it is impossible to go back to the provinces and ask them to change their position.
I think the minister is to be commended for giving this committee the opportunity today to express the views of the different parties with respect to the amending procedure in connection with the constitution, but will there be any opportunity for this matter to come back so that we know what is the thinking of the federal government, and what proposals they intend to pursue with the provinces? Or rather, is it the minister's thought that this matter will not come back to parliament until after an agreement has been signed, sealed and delivered, parliament then having no opportunity to do other than to accept or to reject it? It seems to me that this is placing parliament in a fairly difficult position, and I am wondering whether the minister can tell us what procedure he intends to follow in pursuing this matter of the constitutional discussions with the provincial governments.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I think I have fairly well stated the position which, at least at the initial stage of the conference, the government intend to take by limiting myself to a reading of the official communique issued by the Prime Minister and the premiers at the last conference in Charlottetown. It is quite clear that at this stage all of the parties, including the federal government, have agreed that the Fulton formula, as it has been called, Mr..Fulton being chairman of the conference at the time, which was achieved as a result of very serious and lengthy negotiations between the delegates of the provincial governments and the federal government, be accepted in principle as the basis for the discussions.

Supply-Justice
It is a known fact that in 1961 at least three of the provinces, for different reasons, stated that they did not wish to agree to the formula as reflected in the draft act submitted to them by their respective attorneys general unless they had an occasion to discuss the possibility of certain clarifications being made in respect of paragraph 1, section 91 of the British North America Act. All I can say at the moment is this, that these conferences have shown in the past that they are meetings where in fact a series of earnest attempts have been made to negotiate a formula for the repatriation of the constitution and subsequent amendment, which would be acceptable to the provincial and federal governments.
The conference which is called for Monday has been called for the purpose of attempting to finalize, or "suggest" would perhaps be more precise, to these prime ministers and premiers who will be reunited in a subsequent conference, a formula which might be acceptable to their respective governments. In other words, it is not the purpose of the conference of the attorneys general to finalize a formula and come to an agreement which would be a fait accompli. Certainly I am not authorized in that regard. Our mandate, as reflected in the communique of the Charlottetown conference, is to discuss the formula and then report on our discussion to the conference of the prime ministers, which will be called I believe for October 13, after the Queen's visit.
The prime ministers' conference, of course, is under the responsibility of the Prime Minister of Canada, and under his chairmanship, and I would prefer that any technical aspects as to procedures to be followed be discussed by him and reported on to the members of this house by him. If I were to state a procedure prior to the conference which I am charged with chairing, I think I would be exceeding the limits of my own function as the Minister of Justice. My only authority is to find out what are the suggestions, to attempt to be instrumental in arriving at a formula which I hope the conference will be able to report to the conference of prime ministers.


Mr. Aiken:: I wonder whether I may be permitted to ask a further question, Mr. Chairman? This question was asked by the hon. member for Royal, but does the minister anticipate that this will accomplish anything beyond making the constitution a Canadian document? Is there any change in

substance in the B.N.A. Act to be discussed at this time?


Guy Favreau: As I stated a few minutes ago, certain provinces, particularly the province of Quebec, have stated that they wish to discuss possible modifications to section 91, paragraph 1 which, as you know, concerns the power of amending the constitution in Canada. That is the reason why certain governments would not accept the 1961 formula. I must say that this will be one of the factors involved in shaping the procedure of the conference. To date I have received no correspondence from the attorney general of any province concerning specific modifications which he has been requested to propose. I can visualize, therefore, that what will happen is what is common to this type of conference. Once the respective instructions given by the various provinces to their attorneys general have been set out at the opening of this conference, we will then know for sure what formula will be proposed. All of us in this house know that during these conferences various formulae are suggested at the commencement of the discussions, and then modified by the changing of a word or a principle. It is only after the conclusion of such a conference that we really are in a position to report on the collective position.
I should like to repeat, and I take responsibility for these remarks as being my own firm viewpoint, that it would be contrary to the best interests of such a conference, which was being carried out in earnest and with all frankness, that any of the parties should take a public firm position. It is my opinion that if the situation were otherwise it would be very difficult to have discussions which would proceed on a smooth basis and in a way likely to prove fruitful.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, may I ask one other question? As I understood the minister, the only question beyond the formula that might be considered would be a question in respect of section 91(1), which in itself relates to amending the constitution. Would the minister agree with me that this is one subject he has mentioned, and really does not have anything to do with changing of provincial and federal powers, but merely relates to amending the constitution itself? I understand the conference will only deal with a procedure to bring the constitution home and will not discuss any matters of substance as between the federal and provincial governments?


Guy Favreau: As my hon. friend knows in this respect, there are conflicting views as to whether or not section 91 (1) ought to be part of an amending formula, or whether or not it is part of an amending formula. I know these views have been well expressed in the past, but the hon. member will also remember that in 1961 Ontario and Quebec at least felt that this was part of an amending formula.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit me one question? May I ask the Minister of Justice if up to this point there have been any discussions, or whether it is planned to have any discussions, on the way in which the final act would be taken, provided agreement on a formula and agreement on repatriating the constitution are reached? If I may put my question in another form, is it planned that the final act giving us authority over our own affairs will be taken by the parliament of the United Kingdom or will it be effected by an enacting body in this country, or perchance both? I am not asking for a decision on the matter; I am asking whether this phase of the matter is being discussed.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I must be very frank and say that in view of the background of the conference I have not considered that this particular subject would be one to be discussed at the conference of the attorneys general, because my view is that the conference of attorneys general at least will be concerned exclusively with the contents of the amending formula and not so much with the procedure of repatriation. I know my hon. friend has very personal and firm views on the possibility, once an amending formula has been devised, of making some kind of declaration or taking some kind of legislative action in parliament to state that henceforth this is the constitution of Canada. If I were to state my own personal views at present on this point I would say that I think it would be preferable that that particular thing be done as the last and final amendment to the constitution by the United Kingdom parliament, the authority which originally enacted the constitution as a statute reflecting an agreement between the provinces, rather than doing it the other way. But I must say I am very ready to consider the matter and to raise the point at the con-
Supply-Justice
ference as it has been raised by my hon. friend. This once more goes to show how useful these discussions are.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, my short intervention this afternoon will not be made under any pretence of being an expert in constitutional law. While the discussion this afternoon has been inhibited from the point of view of a free exchange of ideas by the fact that the Minister of Justice indicated that he felt it would be rather difficult for him to disclose the bargaining position of the federal government at the forthcoming conference of attorneys general at this time, yet there have been indications of some ideas from the other side of the house. I do not think the debate has been as full as one would have hoped, and I think the minister will agree with me that if ideas have been advanced it has been a rather one-sided affair. After all, the present situation has prevented a free flow of ideas and to this extent the circumstances surrounding this afternoon's discussion are relevant.
With regard to what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, it seems to me that this is only one more indication that we are far from being out of the woods in this connection. I think the best that can be said of the Charlottetown conference is that there was agreement on the desirability of repatriating the Canadian constitution, provided an appropriate formula could be found, and I put it to hon. members that the forthcoming conference is designed precisely for that purpose. In other words, its purpose is to find a vehicle or formula whereby there will be complete agreement on the formula under which the constitution may be repatriated.
But there is a further stumbling block, and I use that term perhaps because of a deficiency of our language. However, one of the obstacles or stages in the repatriation of the constitution involves the precise point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as to what the method shall be as distinct from the formula, because there again there may be opportunity for disagreement. I hope not, but certainly we must not go into this matter starry-eyed and oblivious of certain of the pitfalls that surround such a difficult course of negotiations.
As I said, I feel that so far there has been a generally expressed desire to repatriate the constitution. There are two points of view. One is that we will get it home and then we will discuss the situation afterwards. In other words, it is said that the big objective is to

Supply-Justice
get the constitution back in Canada and then we will look around and see what changes have to be made. This course has certain inherent dangers in that if the formula for amendment is not worked out beforehand and the constitution is brought home to Canada we may find ourselves, as has been said rather frequently, in a strait-jacket with no possibility of movement. I think it is also conceivable that consent to import or repatriate the constitution may be made a bargaining point with regard to the price for certain changes advanced by certain of the provinces. I say certain of the provinces, but the federal government might also be in the same position.
After all, so far most of the emphasis has been placed on changes to be insisted upon by one segment of Canada, the province of Quebec. I deny that emphasis because I think the situation goes far beyond that. In the evolution of Canada to the mid-1960's I think we have failed to recognize that in far too many sectors of the country there has been an evolution into regional developments, and in my opinion it is a mere illusion to think that we will be able to fashion a project of law that will affect all regions equally. There are regional interests, and when one province insists it is not a province like the others I say yes, but so are others different too. This is becoming more and more so. I suggest to hon. members that this is occurring in the evolution or the growth of this nation. Our coasts run from between 400 or 500 and 5,000 miles. I must not forget my hon. friends from the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. I am sure they are going to have some pertinent questions to put to the minister as to where they are going to fit into this picture on the repatriation of the constitution. We must remember that we come from existing provinces, but these hon. members come from potential provinces and I think they have a right to be heard at this time. These regional changes must be taken into account. I think allowance must be made for them. Anyone who denies them, I think, has a rather parochial outlook in so far as the development of Canada is concerned.
Now, I do not want to go into any discussion of the merits, demerits or difficulties connected with any of the proposed formulas. Reference has been made to the so-called Fulton formula, which has certain proponents in this house as well as critics, such as the hon. member for Greenwood. However, I leave that to people who have made a deeper study of constitutional law.

However, there is one point in connection with the relationship between the federal government and the provinces, and between the provinces themselves, which should be discussed when these changes which must be made are discussed. I refer to trade barriers. I would put it to the minister that I think this is going to be part of the price of the conference, if not this one then the next one or possibly the third conference, before we are in a position to say that we have agreed. This is something which is becoming much more pronounced and is something which I consider to be, if not a breach of the letter, certainly a breach of the spirit of the constitution. As I have said, I refer to infringements on the free flow of trade between provinces. We have seen all sorts of incidents of this type, and they are always put on a special basis. There are always laudatory motives and good reasons such as the encouragement of industry.
I would put it to hon. members, however, that in so doing these provincial administrations-and this goes for municipal administrations as well-frankly are in breach of the spirit of the constitution in that they are imposing, perhaps not directly, but some of them almost directly, barriers to the free flow of trade between the provinces. I am not going to name names or I am not going to cite particular incidents because this would identify these so-called governments. There are practices such as allowing certain bonuses to tenderers if the products are made in certain provinces or if the tenderers are operating businesses within a province, and I think those practices are wrong from the national point of view. All you are doing is gouging out your neighbour's eyes, and hoping that you will profit thereby. I do not believe you are the gainer. You may be the temporary gainer, but if your neighbour loses his eye in the process what gain have you made, if both of you are united in a common cause for the development of this country? I cannot see it. These practices are being multiplied left, right and centre. I for one cannot see how by the manipulation of sales tax levels, credits and perhaps some other proposals for certain incentives under the corporate income tax within a province, we are going to benefit by trying to take away from one province for the benefit of another. Certainly, the robbing of one brother by another does not lead to any advantage.
I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, in allowing me this digression. I wanted to put this on the record because it has been

a very distressing development in our interprovincial and federal relationships over the past three years. If there are any changes to be made in the constitution, if there is a price to be paid for this repatriation, then I would suggest that one of the changes that might be made would be the reaffirmation of this freedom of interprovincial trade. There should not be tolerated any direct or indirect barriers to trade flowing within the country and we should do away with these narrow, regional interests which, frankly, lead only to divide our national purpose.


Mr. Chapdelaine:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to make a speech. I should simply like to put a question to the Minister of Justice. I would like to ask him whether it is the government's policy or whether he believes it would be easier to find an amending formula for the constitution after its repatriation, or if it would be just as easy to find such a formula after it is repatriated? Would it not be the first thing to do? First, repatriate the constitution and then try to find an amending formula?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, if you wish to have my personal opinion-and I know that some disagree-I think that in order to protect the guarantees throughout Canada, some provinces do not have the same protection nor the same guarantees which certain provinces demand. In my opinion, it would be advisable to devise a formula to amend and
Business of the House repatriate the constitution adopting such a formula at the same time.
I think that we must first of all find an amending formula, proceed to the repatriation of the constitution, and include the amending formula therein.

Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill:: I should like to ask the house leader the business for Thursday and Friday.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the business of the house for Thursday and Friday will be substantially what has been announced. There will be a slight modification which I am about to announce. We will begin with the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce. We would then take the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, then those of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, followed by those of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
If there is some possibility of making an arrangement through the house leaders we may begin tomorrow with the motion to refer the question of the water levels to the committee on forests and waters so that this committee may begin its work as early as possible. I repeat, this will depend on whether an arrangement can be made.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
8613
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, Oclober 1, 1964