1964-07-16

Hon. Harry W. Hays (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform hon. members that the Canadian wheat board is announcing in Winnipeg today that it has negotiated a contract for the sale of approximately 500,000 metric tons of wheat for shipment to Czechoslovakia. This sale, totalling approximately 18.4 million bushels, is for shipment during the period August to November, 1964.
This is the second sale made to Czechoslovakia under the provisions of the long term agreement signed on October 29, 1963. Of the 500,000 metric tons purchased, 230,000 tons represent the completion of the quantity that Czechoslovakia had agreed to buy during the first year of the agreement, and the balance of 270,000 tons applies against the second agreement year which commences October 30, 1964.
Payment for the wheat is to be made on the basis of 10 per cent at time of shipment with the balance to be paid in equal instalments, plus interest, at two, two and a half and three years respectively. These credit arrangements were authorized by the government of Canada under the provisions of the Export Credits Insurance Act.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In his absence perhaps I may direct it to the acting minister or the Minister of Agriculture. It relates to the grain sale which was announced today by the Minister of Agriculture. Could the house be informed whether it was made clear to those negotiating on behalf of Czechoslovakia what financial benefits could accrue both to Czechoslovakia and to western farmers by agreeing to the shipment of a considerable amount of this grain through the port of Churchill? If this was not made
clear to them, will the minister assure the house that it will be made clear to them in future.


Harry William Hays: I am sure this would have been done by the Canadian wheat board. The hon. member may like to know that last year we shipped a record amount of wheat through Churchill, and I suppose we may even exceed that record this year.


Robert Simpson: That is always good news; we have always broken records since 1957. I should like to have an assurance that in these negotiations the possible savings to both the purchaser and to the western farmers are made clearly known to the negotiators for the other country concerned.


Harry William Hays: I would be glad to direct this
request to the chairman of the wheat board. [Translation]


Mr. Real Caouelte (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question?
The Minister of Agriculture stated at the same time that Czechoslovakia would pay 10 per cent on shipment of the wheat. Could the minister tell us what rate of interest will apply to the balance Czechoslovakia is to pay Canada over a period of two and a half to three years?


Harry William Hays: I cannot state the exact amount of interest, but I would be glad to look into it and let the hon. member know.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister in connection with the international satellite communication system. What was the basis upon which Canada decided to make a contribution to this system; and is the minister in a position to give the reason why the

Inquiries of the Ministry United States defence department has withdrawn from the satellite communication consortia and what the effects of the withdrawal of the United States will be on probable costs?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Acting Prime Minister):: I will ask the Minister of Transport to answer that question.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I should not like, Mr. Speaker, to make a statement without very careful reference to the documents, but my impression is that it was not a sudden or precipitate withdrawal. The way in which the satellite communication system is being worked out is that it would provide for participation by any countries which wished to participate. I think hon. members will quickly appreciate that this might have certain consequences from the point of view of certain types of military communications. I do not think it was contemplated that even though the defence services of the United States or any other country did not participate directly in the satellite system itself, that would not mean that certain types of communications would not use that system in exactly the same way as the defence forces now use other communication systems than their own.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister has said it was not precipitate action on the part of the United States. However, the New York Times report indicates that this is another reversal of the Pentagon's on again-off again efforts in the development of a military communications satellite system.
I realize that it is difficult for the minister to answer without having the material before him, but I should like the minister to give the house a full answer in this regard and also to indicate what the expenditures will be on the part of Canada in this connection, as well as the reason Canada should be assuming a major responsibility in so far as the expenditure is concerned in this connection at a time when the United States, which is so necessarily interested in matters such as this, is withdrawing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the first place, sir, I do not think it would be appropriate for me, with or without notice, to comment on the policies of the government of the United States. We are answerable in parliament for what we do and not for what other countries do. The only aspect of United States policy that would be of concern to us would be if the United States government decided not to participate in this system. Which agency of

the United States government may participate is surely a matter for the United States.
I have no information that the United States government, which has a chosen agency which is partially privately owned and partially publicly owned, does not intend to participate as a major partner in this project. I am quite sure if there was any decision that the United States was not participating in that way, there would be no project at all and, therefore, there would be no problem of Canada's participation.
Assuming there has been no change so far as the United States government is concerned-I feel quite sure I would have heard about it more directly than through the New York Times if there had been-and assuming that negotiations are going to go on in Washington on the basis on which I understood they were going on, which involved no participation by the United States defence department at all, then the reason Canada is participating to the extent it is is that we believe this is a venture of great importance in the communications field. This was true of the telephone cable project in which we participated some years ago. We feel this is going to be a very important means of communication, and a profitable means of communication over a long period. Hon. members will have noted only yesterday the report of the C.O.T.C. which was gratifying in that it showed a large profit was being made on their operations.
Now, it is thought there is a very distinct probability that satellite communications will supplement to a very great extent cable telephonic communications, and that this, to a great degree at any rate, is the wave of the future in communications. We felt it was desirable that Canada should participate, for exactly the same reasons we are participating in the telephonic cables, and should have a sufficiently large interest in it to have a permanent say in its direction. We feel this will be the kind of investment that will pay dividends, and I do not mean just dividends in good will or anything of that sort but cash dividends in due course to the investors.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the minister for his explanation. Of course everybody is in agreement that Canada should participate in intercommunications. When we were in office we participated in the commonwealth telephone system, so it is not anything new. It was during our administration that it was started.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the right hon. gentleman does not want to misrepresent the facts. It was started by the St. Laurent government when I was a member of that government.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, they started a lot of things but did not go ahead, and this was one of those. Just a moment ago I was going to compliment the minister on the very good answer he gave, but now he has spoiled it all.
Does he say the United States defence department did not notify Canada as to its attitude in this regard? I must say I am surprised if there has been no communication.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said no such thing at all. I said it was my understanding even before we went to this conference that the United States defence department was not going to be participating in it. I believe that will be found to be the fact; but I think it is very wrong for members of the Canadian government to be interpreting the policies of the United States and the administration of the United States.
Since the right hon. gentleman has introduced the irrelevancy might I point out I was present at the cable laying at Clarenville, Newfoundland, as the representative of the government of Canada, and that was before the right hon. gentleman even became the leader of his party.



WEIGHTS AND MEASURES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce the following question. As 90 per cent of the world's population, including all of Europe, Russia, Japan, China and India, and all of South America, lives by the metric system, and as Canada stands alone among the remaining nations outside this system in not having made any preparation for such a necessary and inevitable change, would the acting minister be good enough to tell the house when the government is going to take its responsibility and set up a proper preparation for this event?


Mr. Speaker:: I think I get the gist of the question. This is a very interesting question but I think it would be even more interesting if we saw it in print. Would the hon. member put it on the order paper.
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



REMOVAL OF TAX ON BUILDING MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the unemployment rate in June of this year was only four tenths of one per cent below that of last year and only one half of one per cent below that of 1962-in fact, some 22,000 below that of last year-will the minister now consider taking the 11 per cent sales tax burden off the construction industry?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think we have dealt with that question on several occasions.


Michael Starr: I wonder whether the Minister of Finance has now changed his mind in view of the present unemployment situation.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has not changed his mind on this matter.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is it true that the R.C.M.P. has not yet supplied any information to the Ontario attorney general to assist him in preparing a court case in connection with the widespread distribution of hate literature, as was promised by the minister in this house about two months ago?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be discussing that matter with the authorities concerned on Monday, and I shall report to the house on it as early as possible.



REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION TO ABOLISH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

[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 Justice. A week ago last Wednesday I asked him whether the government would consider providing government time for Bill No. C-12, in the name of the hon. member for Danforth, or bring in its own bill to abolish capital punishment in Canada. The minister's reply was that he would

Inquiries of the Ministry take the question as notice and give it consideration. Is he yet prepared to give an answer to the house?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, that matter is still under consideration.



LEGISLATION RESPECTING DISSEMINATION OF &quot;HATE&quot; LITERATURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Justice say what has been done, since the last report he made to the house, by the committee set up or the designated group who were going to look into the whole question of hate literature and the degree to which, in their opinion, the present law is sufficient or whether changes are to be made? Have recommendations in that connection been made, and will they be brought in during the present session?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to report on that in detail for the moment, except to state that the matter is still being pursued actively, and that I hope I shall be in a position to make a report to the house as early as possible.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question. Has not the department of defence drafted suggested amendments to the criminal law of today to cover the situation created by illegal and unlawful propaganda being spread in this country against racial groups?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, with due deference to the right hon. gentleman I hardly think that last question can be deemed to be in order, because it deals with and concerns the responsibility of the Minister of Justice, or ministers and is a matter which, after all, will eventually have to be dealt with under the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. Any actual suggestions, excepting those made by people from outside, from within a department regarding any actual drafting is something which is in the nature of confidential information, and must remain the full responsibility eventually of the minister concerned.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I ask the minister this. Has he before him suggested amendments to deal with the hate literature which is being distributed, or is the matter still in that nebulous, uncertain state it was in four months ago?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, subject to what I have said the answer to the last question is yes. I do have alternative drafts before me; but I must be frank with the house and say that as yet I have failed to give my final agreement to any of them or to make a recommendation to the government.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour a question?
Could he tell the house whether it is a fact that the officials of his department met with a group of government members on July 13, as reported in the Quebec Le Soleil, in order to study the winter works incentive municipal program and, if so, could the minister tell us whether he intends to change the present program, as suggested in the formula brought forward by that group of members?


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



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister?
Has the minister received a telegram from the president of l'Association generale des etudiants de l'Universite de Montreal with regard to Bill No. C-110 concerning a student loans plan? Does the government intend to give serious consideration to the views and ideas expressed by the students of the province of Quebec?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I did not receive that telegram yet, but I will inquire immediately.



PRIVILEGE


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal priv-

5S41
ilege. I have been reliably informed, and have no reason to doubt, that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, either on his own initiative or on the initiative of a member of his staff, has had printed and framed at public expense for hanging in one or both of his offices-because two copies were framed-one sentence of a speech I made in this house on June 22 as reported at page 4564 of Hansard, when I said:
I like the type of man who will try to get into this country illegally.
While I have tried to keep under control any feelings I might have of pride and satisfaction at having words of mine grace the walls of the minister's office and publicized in this manner, I would like to think the minister would make sure that visitors to his office were supplied with copies of the full text of my speech. Thus the sentence to which the minister attaches such significance and has chosen to immortalize may be interpreted in its true light and with a sense of fair proportion.
May I, when I state this question of privilege, remind the house that in the early days of this country, before immigration procedures became formalized, many of our ancestors found haven and refuge here because of their daring and initiative. Then in a later period of our history I recall the Estonian refugees who landed in Saint John, New Brunswick, in the late 1940's after a hazardous journey across the north Atlantic in a sailboat. There are many such examples of courage and daring which were technically illegal but Canada, I submit, is a better place because these people are here. Also, Mr. Speaker, I have been reminded that the modern state of Israel owes a large portion of its population to such methods, and is proud of the fact.
I will be glad to arrange to send an adequate and generous supply of copies of my speech to the minister if he thinks it inappropriate to charge the public purse with copies for his own use.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minisier of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to give every possible publicity to the speech delivered in this house by the hon. member for Royal. I feel that most interesting suggestions were made to the minister of immigration by the hon. member and I should like to see his whole speech published, 20220-3511
Inquiries of the Ministry because I would be most pleased to distribute copies of it to all racial groups of Canada so that they might realize the significant contribution the hon. member for Royal wishes to make to the cause of immigration in Canada.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Will the minister undertake to do the same for other hon. members who have spoken in the house on the subject of immigration?



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS DISCUSSIONS WITH B.C. PREMIER DURING OTTAWA VISIT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, as the fishing season is in full swing I would like to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received any communication from the premier of British Columbia suggesting the questions he would like to discuss with him when the premier visits Ottawa? If so, is the minister in a position to inform the house of the questions which the premier suggested should be discussed?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard of any communications from the premier of British Columbia, so in reply I can only say that notwithstanding my hon. friend's bold assertion that this is a good fishing period, my hon. friend in this question has not succeeded in his fishing endeavour.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the charming head of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Could she tell the house whether, following the hope put in the anablast serum and the unfortunate results of the experience attempted on young Guynemer, the officials of her department intend to allow that biologist to carry on with his work in Canada?
Can the minister also tell us what stand the government intends to take with regard to the anablast serum?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minisier of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have explained once previously to the very charming member for Three Rivers that the gentleman in question was interviewed by my department before he was allowed to give the serum in question to the youngster who subsequently died. He has been in touch with the department, and he knows in some detail the responsibility which lies upon him to comply with the food and drug regulations before he might be permitted to manufacture the serum for use on other individuals. I am informed that the department holds itself ready to co-operate and to make clear to him what must be done; and also to make perfectly clear that like every other individual who wishes to manufacture drugs, he must comply with the food and drug regulations.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbilt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State, and I should also like to draw this question to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the Secretary of State recommend to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the disagreeable and indeed vicious personal attacks on United States presidential candidates by news commentators might in future be avoided? Most United States citizens believe that the C.B.C. is the official voice of Canada, and such commentaries are likely to be interpreted as a direct interference in United States elections, which could easily cause this country a great deal of damage in influential United States circles. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, what the feeling in Canada would be should the situation be reversed.


Mr. Nielsen:: It did.


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows I do not make recommendations to the C.B.C. with respect to programming. However, I would be very glad to transmit the views and concern of the hon. member to the management of the C.B.C.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: supplementary question. Does the minister know that comments on the B.B.C. can be

considered lurid compared to anything on the C.B.C.?



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received or knows of a telegram from the Fraserview veterans homeowners and tenants association taking strong objection to a refusal by himself to delay implementing a sales and rental program recently announced by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. If so, will the minister reconsider his decision not to delay the implementation of the new policy because of the importance of this matter to veterans and their dependants?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes, I did receive such a wire. With regard to the second part of the question, I am afraid I cannot offer my hon. friend any hope for further delay. This matter has been under careful study, been given careful consideration for the past several months by the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and by the directors of that corporation. Independent advice has been obtained, and it was carefully considered by the directors of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in June, just last month. I concur in the recommendations they have made, and I see no reason for further delay.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Agriculture but in view of his temporary absence from the house I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary or to the acting minister. In view of continuing reports that pressure is being brought to bear to have the board of grain commissioners transferred from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Trade and Commerce, is the minister considering yielding to this pressure?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I have a question for the Associate Minister of National Defence. Will the minister put members of parliament on an equality with the distinguished members of the press gallery by making available copies of the Suttie report on the reorganization of the militia, which were distributed to the press two days ago?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: As the hon. member knows, members of the special committee on defence have been given a copy of the report to which he refers. One hundred copies in English and 50 copies in French have now been made available to members of the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am asking that all members of the house may have the privilege of seeing this document and having a copy delivered to them.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I think copies are available to all members who are interested in this particular subject.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, it is not a question of who happens to be interested. Every member of the House of Commons is entitled to this report and to receive it at the same time as it is given public distribution.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Very well; I will see that that is done.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: supplementary question to the associate minister. In view of the fact that the militia has dropped out of the civil defence role, with the exception of 1,500 men, could the minister advise the house under what department or whose supervision this work of civil defence will fall, and where these recruits will come from?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, it is not true that the militia has dropped out of the civil defence role. As hon. members know, all men, whether they are in the regular forces or in the militia, have training in a civil defence capacity. What was said was that in the reorganization of the militia 1,500 militiamen would be specially earmarked for this type of role in order to back up the regular forces that are actually engaged in the survival role.
Inquiries of the Ministry
As my hon. friend may well appreciate, if there were a nuclear emergency then all the forces, whether they are regular or militia, would be engaged in the survival role, and these 1,500 men would have special training in order to be able to back up the regular forces in that role.



QUEBEC-PAYMENT OF MOVING COSTS OF RADAR STATION PERSONNEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise) asked me whether any action had been taken in order to reimburse for their moving expenses the families which have been forced to move on account of the closing of the radar station at Parent.
In answer I may tell him that there were 66 full time employees at the Parent air base at the time of its closing. Fifty two of them have now got other employment.
The Department of National Defence has secured from the treasury board a special authorization to reimburse the moving expenses up to $500 in the case of every surplus employee transferred to a position in the federal government somewhere else. However, this special authorization is restricted to employees coming under the Civil Service Act and who occupy a post above the normal admission level. Experience shows that most surplus employees who accept transfers involving a change of residence can take advantage of this special authorization.
In the case of Parent, three surplus employees were provided assistance for their moving costs.



REQUIREMENT RESPECTING BILINGUALISM IN CONSIDERING PROMOTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence based on sessional paper No. 93E which he tabled yesterday. I thought I had made my request clear, in that what I wished to have tabled was the order emanating from the minister's office or the office of the Minister of National Defence to the army with respect to the inclusion of bilingualism as a factor in the promotion of officers.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, the order was submitted to me for my signature some time ago, but in substance it is exactly the order that I tabled yesterday.


Erik Nielsen: Can the minister table the order, either from his office or the office of the Minister of National Defence, that went to the army and which resulted in the order signed by Major General Anderson, adjutant general, which in effect is sessional paper 93E?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Sessional paper 93E sets out that there is a bilingual program and that the purpose of the order is to assess the success of the bilingual program. Since this concerns a matter of government policy, can the minister give the house a clearer indication of what bilingual program is under way in the army that is not under way in the navy and air force?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, this would require a very lengthy answer and I would be happy to give it at some future time. I know the hon. member is aware that there are courses being given in French and English in the army and the other services and it is to these programs that the order refers.


Erik Nielsen: I wonder whether-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: Well, perhaps it might simplify things if I gave notice to debate the whole question at 10.30.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieite-L'Assomption-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do think that type of question should be on the order paper. I assume the hon. member for Yukon is giving notice.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence.
Does the government intend to set up a progressive system to promote the use of both official languages in the armed forces and, at the same time, to train ships' crews that would be entirely French speaking or English speaking, as is done in Belgium?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, efforts are already being made in the armed forces to promote bilingualism.
With regard to the second part of the question, the possibility of having naval units working in each of the two languages has not been considered yet.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Is it also the intention of the minister to put bilingual signs on all buildings and properties of the three armed services?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, where it would be logical to do so.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence.
Can he tell the house where, in Canada, it is illogical to use French on official buildings of the Department of National Defence?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, if we want to be practical and logical, it seems to me that, in an area like British Columbia, for example, where there are no French-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: -it is illogical to put up signs in any language other than in English.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Why does he not study his Canadian history a little, as well as the part played by the two great races and the two languages in this country, and see to it, in future, that some reasonable applications are found for those two languages, so both races in Canada may really feel at home?


Maurice Lamontagne: What did you people do?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You have to get a new minister.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I do not need my hon. friend's invitation to recognize Canada's two great races. I suggest the Liberal party, since it has been in office, has done more to promote unity between those two great races than any other party.


Mr. Girouard:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me we have had enough questions along this line, because we are getting into a debate, an argument. Surely we can get on with the business before the house.


Gérard Girouard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: No, I do not think we should have any more supplementaries on this emotional and contentious subject at this time. [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
The Associate Minister of National Defence has just stated that there are no French Canadians in British Columbia.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


David Réal Caouette: He stated textually that there are no French in British Columbia. Now, there are thousands in that province and the use of the French language deserves the same consideration in British Columbia as in Ontario or the province of Quebec.


Gérard Girouard: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The last question was not a question of privilege. It was a statement; it was argument. I allowed it in order to get this matter terminated and get on with the business before the house.


Gérard Girouard: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member surely realizes he cannot just jump on his feet and allege a question of privilege. If it is on the same subject surely we have had enough discussion along this line. [Translation]


Gérard Girouard: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I wish to tell the minister that there are places in the province of Quebec where any knowledge of the English language is unnecessary, because people speak only French.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is the type of incident that the Chair does its best to avoid. I cannot see how it helps the business of the house or the feeling in the house.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph Slogan (Springiield):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the charming and urbane Acting Prime Minister. Has the
Inquiries of the Ministry government given consideration to the convening of a federal-provincial conference on spending priorities as urgently suggested by Premier Roblin? If so, what steps have been taken?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Two or three times.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have answered at least once a question put to me by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and in one of my replies I indicated clearly that, if Premier Roblin was suggesting there should be a delay in the Canada pension plan program, that was not the position being taken by the government.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Girouard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, as leader of the house.
In the same spirit as the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel) who spoke yesterday about the continuous repetitions concerning the flag, I would like to know if it is true that up to now 15 Liberals have spoken on that issue against 19 Conservatives. If such is the case, does the leader of the house find the discrepancy extraordinary?


Guy Favreau: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the answer to that question can be readily found in Hansard.



REPORTED ERRORS IN GOVERNMENT TELEPHONE DIRECTORY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Perhaps my very important question of privilege will conclude the question period today, Mr. Speaker, and my inability to rise quickly in my place is related to my question of privilege. Following the contest that took place on the grounds of the parliament buildings last evening, I regret that a very doubtful report of the result was given to the Canadian public by the press gallery.']
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a substantial question of privilege that affects members of the house, the staff, the press and the general public. Since this government has been in power the government of Canada telephone directory has contained numerous errors which I think should be corrected because they cause confusion and inconvenience.
I will bring to the attention of the members of the house that I have just received the latest edition of this telephone directory

Inquiries of the Ministry and there is so much confusion, Mr. Speaker, that I find the Prime Minister's office telephone number listed on the cover as 232-4244, when actually it is 232-4211. I do ask that this be checked because there are numerous quite serious mistakes which could cause inconvenience and confusion.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he will have time next week to make the statement which he promised concerning the new agreement for the exchange of atomic information. Since he is about to relinquish tomorrow some of the heavy burdens of office which he has obviously relished, he may have time to deal with this matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall be glad to deal with it right now. The purpose of the agreement is to take advantage of the 1958 amendments to the United States atomic energy act. These amendments broadened the scope of the information which the United States agreed to transfer to its allies. In this instrument the United States has committed itself to the principle of continuing to exchange nuclear information with its allies for planning purposes.
As I mentioned the other day, this in no way relates to the dissemination of nuclear weapons. Paragraph 2 of article IV clearly specifies that no atomic weapons or components will be transferred under the agreement. There will also be no transfer of information about the manufacture of nuclear weapons.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a supplementary question. Is it not true that article III deals with the development of defence plans, the training of personnel and the employment of methods of defence against atomic weapons, as well as matters affecting the delivery systems of atomic weapons?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The agreement provides for giving to the NATO allies and parties to the agreement information of an atomic character, but it has nothing to do with nuclear weapons as such because the United States, under its laws, maintain control of these. This agreement concerns the
[Mr. Herridge.1
exchange of atomic information for the use of members in scientific purposes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask another supplementary question of the minister. What progress is he making in negotiating Canada out of a nuclear role?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is not a related question. It has been answered; I think it was answered last week.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Perhaps my very important question of privilege will conclude the question period today, Mr. Speaker, and my inability to rise quickly in my place is related to my question of privilege. Following the contest that took place on the grounds of the parliament buildings last evening, I regret that a very doubtful report of the result was given to the Canadian public by the press gallery.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: For the benefit of hon. members, Mr. Speaker, will the Acting Prime Minister say if he is in a position to tell the house whether the Prime Minister, on his return from the prime ministers' conference, will report tomorrow or on Monday? It is very important that members know. Monday would be most satisfactory if that is agreeable to the government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the right hon. gentleman for asking this question, because he will recall that two days ago I said the Prime Minister would be reporting on Friday. It is more likely than not that the Prime Minister will report on Monday. I cannot give a firm answer because when I was talking to the Prime Minister yesterday he indicated that he hoped to do it at the earliest possible moment, possibly Friday. The Prime Minister, however, is going to be arriving late tonight and I rather suspect that, for that reason, he may not be able to report until Monday. I am in the position of not being able to give a definite answer, which I am sure the right hon. gentleman will understand. If the Prime Minister can report tomorrow he will do so. If not, he will certainly do so on Monday. I shall be glad to try to advise my friend tonight about this. I hope that will be satisfactory.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Might it not be a good idea to advise the whole house tonight at 10.30?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We will try to do
that The Prime Minister arrives tonight at nine o'clock. I am sure parliament and the whole country will be glad to have him back.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, July 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gordon for the second reading of Bill No. C-110, to facilitate the making of loans to students.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is a little bit of confusion at this moment which I believe we can settle very quickly. Last night the hon. member for Roberval was speaking, and he started his last paragraph with the words "In conclusion". Subsequently the hon. member for Macleod rose and asked if he could call it six o'clock. At that time the Deputy Speaker and the Clerk at the table felt that the hon. member for Roberval had not finished. In the circumstances I think that the floor should be given to the hon. member for Roberval.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last night in the confusion and perhaps because of my inadequate knowledge of the standing orders, I thought I had to resume my seat at six o'clock, but someone else called it six o'clock, which I should have done myself.
I thank you for your fairness toward me, because I have something else to say before concluding my remarks on Bill No. C-110.
It must be realized that two very important and obvious points emerge from this bill. There is, first of all, the assistance to be given to students and, second, the granting of this aid with respect to the constitution.
All hon. members admit that our students need some assistance at the present time to pay their tuition fees. There is no doubt about that. It is admitted that they absolutely need some assistance. We have proof of this every day in the letters and telegrams from our constituents, asking us to pass legislation providing for some assistance to students throughout Canada.
On the other hand, this assistance must not be a burden. When we are anxious to help someone, we do it gratuitously. We do not put him under a yoke, as I said yesterday.
Loans to Students
If, in order to help someone, we must dedicate him, so to speak, to the service of the banks for ten, 15 or 20 years of his life, I maintain that we are helping him the wrong way. If, for instance, a man buys his son a car, knowing his son cannot drive, and he buys him one anyway and his son goes over a cliff, I feel that this father has acted foolishly and irresponsibly.
That is how the federal government intends to help students, by putting a rope around their necks.
My second point concerns respect for the constitution. If we must indeed help, we must do it within the constitution. All members of this house know that education comes exclusively under the jurisdiction of the provinces and that this is guaranteed by the constitution.
Yesterday I heard an hon. member claim that the rights of the province of Quebec were safeguarded, but I wonder to what degree, when the interests are to be paid by the federal government. The students are referred to the chartered banks, and if they agree to lend them money, the government guarantees to the chartered banks payment of interest for five years.
Now, I do not understand how the Liberal members can claim that the rights of the province of Quebec are safeguarded simply because the federal government pays the interest to the banks. It is precisely on this point that we object. Whether it is given directly or indirectly, the money is given anyway, and it will come out of the taxes levied in the province of Quebec. That is where we say that the federal government, through this legislation, is encroaching on the rights of the province of Quebec, as well as on the rights of the other provinces.
That is why, generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, we, in the Social Credit rally, want to introduce an amendment which will permit the government to respect the constitution and guarantee to the students the amounts of money they require to complete their education.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Plourde):
That the Bill C-110 be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house the government should consider the opportunity to present new legislation which would authorize the Bank of Canada to supply to the provinces the necessary credits to permit them to fulfil completely their responsibilities in the field of education.
Mr. Speaker, we have received several telegrams from members of the teaching

Loans to Students
profession in support of our amendment. The students of the province of Quebec realize also that they need assistance, but they feel it should not be forthcoming as provided in Bill No. C-110; they want the responsible government, that of Quebec in the circumstances, to help them without any strings attached. That is why they object to this legislation. I have here a telegram which was sent by Montreal university students to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), house leader of our party.
Mr. Gregoire, Ralliement Creditistes, M.P., Parliament Buildings, Ottawa.
Sir,
We are quite disappointed with the government's attitude with respect to Bill No. C-110 concerning a student loan program. In our opinion, it is inadmissible that the federal government should encroach on a field of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, you Quebec members cannot vote in favour of this optional policy. The true solution to the problem of general access to education is free tuition. As you know, passing Bill No. C-110 would make difficult any sort of education planning in the provinces. We feel that you must ask the government to return to the provinces their fields of taxation-
That is precisely the point I emphasized yesterday. The provinces should be given back, once and for all, their taxation rights. Then the federal government would not, like a collector, have to steal taxes in order to return to the provinces the amount it is willing to hand over.


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


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Albert Béchard: Could the hon. member tell us the date of the telegram and also let us know who signed it? Moreover, can he tell us the date of the meeting during which the university students came to that decision?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the telegram is dated July 16, and signed by the president of the general student association of the University of Montreal, Mr. Michel Vaillancourt.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, can the hon. member tell us whether a general assembly of the students of the University of Montreal was held since the bill was introduced in the house?


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member for Bonaventure mean that the president of the student body is not authorized to send telegrams on behalf of the association members?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member certainly knows that when telegrams are received, as in the case of the truckers' association the other day, nobody checks whether the organization concerned held a meeting. We take the word of the person who signed the telegram, particularly when it is the association's president. I think that the hon. member who just asked this question should be bright enough to understand this.


An hon. Member:: The telegram was probably sent by a member of the Social Credit.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: An hon. member just interjected the remark that it probably was sent by the Social Credit. For his information, I must tell him that the telegram was sent from the University of Montreal.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps at this point I should put the proposed amendment to the house.

Mr. Gauthier, seconded by Mr. Plourde, moved:
That the Bill C-110 be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house the government should consider the opportunity to present a new legislation which would authorize the Bank of Canada to supply to the provinces the necessary credits to permit them to fulfil completely their responsibilities in the field of education.
I must advise the house that I am not too sure the amendment is in order, and I would be ready to give a ruling, unless some hon. members wish to comment on the legality of the proposed amendment.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on that point, I would ask you to refer to Beauchesne's fourth edition, in English of course since we are still waiting for the French version, in particular to citation 382, page 277, which reads as follows:

It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution-

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, that is exactly what we are doing now by moving this amendment. We want to indicate that we

disagree with this bill. As stated in Beau-chesne's citation, we do not want the motion tor second reading of the bill now before us to be agreed to, and that is why our amendment states "that the bill be not now read a second time". In so doing, we adhere strictly to the principle stated in Beauches-ne's citation No. 382.
Our amendment is, in fact, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to the principle of the bill now under consideration. Instead of setting forth the principle stated in the legislation dealing with loans by the federal government, we are setting forth an adverse principle, one dealing with bursaries or assistance to students, through the provincial governments. This is in accordance with the provisions of citation No. 382, and I am of the opinion that it is the way suggested by Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms to have the house consider an amendment like the one now being submitted to the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if I may say a word on a point of order. May I indicate, first of all, that as I see it the passing of this amendment would mean the defeat of Bill No. C-110. We have indicated that we give the bill qualified support; in other words, we are prepared to vote for it and see it brought into law. Therefore-though I have not had a chance to consult my colleagues and see what views they may have-it would be my view to vote against this amendment if it were allowed.
However, it seems to me serious consideration should be given to the question Your Honour has raised. It appears to me that the amendment is in order. First of all, an amendment of this kind cannot quibble; it must imply opposition to the motion before us. The hon. members to my left do not quibble. They are opposed to the bill in its present form, so the amendment is in order on that score. In the second place, an amendment of this type must offer some principle adverse to or different from the principle, policy or provisions of the bill. Certainly this is what the proposed amendment does; it submits for our consideration something which is quite different from what the government proposes.
I do not have at hand examples of this kind of resolution-perhaps, if I had a minute, I could find them-but I know there have been many in the past. Amendments similar to the one now proposed have been ruled out because they were worded in such 20220-352J
Loans to Students
a way as to try to say yes and no at the same time, but this resolution makes no attempt to do that. It says "no" to the bill as it is and puts forward an alternative proposition.
Therefore, though I do not agree with the substance of the amendment, it seems to me that it is within the four corners of citation 382, and unless Your Honour has some better reasons for taking a contrary course I think it should be allowed as being in order.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to discuss the validity of the proposed amendment, because I am not in a position to determine the value of the arguments put forth in its favour.
However, I should like to deal briefly with the reasons given for introducing this amendment. First, I want to refer to an article written in Le Droit by Mr. Charpentier, who indicates that only the leader and the deputy leader of the Ralliement Creditiste-


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recognize that we are now discussing the validity of the amendment. Now, if the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency wants to speak against the amendment, he will have an opportunity to do so when we debate the matter before the vote.
The hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency will get his chance to speak to the amendment if he wishes, but, at the present time he is wandering from the question now before us, that is, whether or not the amendment is in order. Therefore, I think that you should ask the hon. member to follow the rules and to keep to the subject before us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Of course we are now on a point of order, and I presume that the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency should confine his remarks strictly to the question of whether or not the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Roberval is in order. I suggest that the hon. member confine his remarks to that particular point.


Guy Marcoux: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for accepting the opinion of the hon. member for Lapointe. I am sure that he was right.
My intended remarks were along the same line as those of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who gave several reasons indicating why he would be opposed to the amendment, while still contending that the amendment was in order.
I merely wanted to invoke similar arguments as those put forward by the hon.

Loans to Students
member for Winnipeg North Centre. But as I am most respectful of the rules of the house,
I will continue my observations at some other appropriate time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Serious arguments have been put forward to the effect that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Roberval was in order, and I thank the hon. members.
With leave of the house, I would like for the next few minutes to consider the various aspects of the proposed amendment, and in the meantime, I would call on the next speaker, the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt), to go ahead with his remarks, after which I think I will be in a position to make a ruling on the proposed amendment.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Loans to Students
own money and use interest tree money provided by the government. So you can see there are a lot of problems in determining who gets a loan and how it is to be administered.
I am glad to see that these loans provided by the bill will be available not only to university students but to students of technical, vocational and even normal schools. I think there will need to be some extremely intricate population studies in order to determine who should be trained, where the need lies for training, and also to ensure the direction of students into fields where the need is greatest. For example, I have in mind dentistry, medicine, engineering etc. In other words, students should not be left to their own understanding of the problems but should be given some guidance through these population studies.
In addition to making these loans to students the facilities which are to be built at universities are extremely important. If we are going to get several thousand additional students in our universities it is necessary to increase the facilities of those various institutions. Unlike the hon. member for Lapointe I hope all provinces will enter into this scheme wholeheartedly so that our children may have the benefit of being sent to a school in Quebec or to some other institution in another part of the country. Any program of loans which encourages students to train and prepare themselves is, of course, in the interests of Canada. I have long advocated a measure to provide loans to students because I fully appreciate what a help such a measure would have been to me during my undergraduate and graduate days.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. Before recognizing the next speaker, it would probably be in order for me to comply with the wish of the house and give a ruling as to whether the amendment or proposal moved a moment ago by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) is in order.
As I said a moment ago, I was far from sure that the amendment was in order. At first sight, the hon. member's proposal seemed a new proposal, different from the one which is before the house. On the other hand, following the argument raised by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), I admit that the amendment, if you can call it that, or the proposal is not adverse to the principle of the bill.
I feel I must give special attention to the arguments raised in favour of the legality

of that amendment by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and by the hon. member for Lapointe.
As there are serious doubts about the proposal or amendment, I think it would be in order for the Chair to give the benefit of the doubt to the hon. member who made that proposal, while pointing out to the hon. members and the house that the proposal is accepted because it does not extend the scope of the proposal now under consideration and that it must not be considered as permission to extend the limits of the debate, which of course will have to deal with the bill now before the house.


Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I feel it is my duty to take part in this debate as a representative from a region where is located the most flourishing university of the country and on the border of which is located a university recognized throughout Canada, that is the universities of Sherbrooke, and Bishop's at Lennoxville.
Another reason why I wish to speak on this issue is that I live in a province which is undergoing deep changes in all fields, but especially as far as education is concerned.
I should like to say that I am in favour of any form of assistance to students, even if that system should run students into debt, as the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) pointed out, because I feel it is better to be in debt at the end of one's studies than not to complete those studies.
I know what that means personally, because I had to get into debt to finish my studies. As everybody knows, that is a painful situation and it may be that the student who has to work because of his financial troubles will not benefit from his studies as much as he should. Our students must not, on account of a lack of funds, be placed in the situation where they will one day have to admit that they are not as competent as they would have been if they had had no worry besides their studies.
Even though it is incomplete and unconstitutional, as I will show later on, the proposal under consideration is worth while, and the government was well-intentioned in introducing this legislation.
As I said, I believe the bill is definitely incomplete, and particularly unconstitutional. I should like to go over it, step by step, starting with section 2 giving the definition of "bank":

"bank" means a bank to which the Bank Act applies.
Now, under the Bank Act, the caisses populaires will not be allowed to make loans to students under this legislation. Failure to authorize the caisses populaires to act as lending institutions under this act is a slight on the province of Quebec, for there are more than 1,300 branches of caisses populaires in the province of Quebec, all sound institutions which can, just as well as the banks, comply with the requirements of this bill.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, here is how section 2(e) defines "certificate of eligibility":
-a certificate in prescribed form issued or caused to be issued by an appropriate authority relating to a qualifying student-
I read the whole bill and I failed to find what is a "qualifying student", what are the requirements asked of a student to become eligible for those loans.
I think there should be a definition stipulating that any student who passes his examinations is eligible to apply for a loan. I think that should have been specified in the bill.
The bill provides that only full time university students may benefit from those loans.
There are in my riding, as in all university towns, a growing number of adults who wish to get a university education by taking evening courses, or who would like to go back for a year in order to get enough credits to obtain a B.A. or some other diploma they could show the boss and thereby get a promotion.
I feel it was a great mistake, in this bill, not to have adults also entitled to those loans so they could improve their education.
Now, there is another point I think was overlooked in the determination of the required qualifications to obtain such a loan.
I refer to a student who spends two years in the same grade. Under this legislation, would he be eligible for the same loan the second year? Must the amount of $5,000 be spread over five consecutive successful years in university, or will the student who has failed one year still be entitled to the loan for that year?
Nothing in the bill covers the case where a student, after completing his university studies and obtained the amount of $5,000, should decide to specialize. Will he have to pay back his loan immediately, that is, after a six-month period, when he may still find himself taking courses following a five year period, according to the requirements of his studies, his specialty or doctorate?
Loans to Students
In my opinion, this point should have been set out clearly in the bill.
Clause 9 also provides that:
The minister may pay to a bank a prescribed amount in respect of any sum collected by a bank on behalf of Her Majesty from a borrower after any payment is made by the minister to that bank pursuant to section 7. in respect of a guaranteed student loan made to that borrower.
I think that the amount in question should have been specified in this clause, and if the amounts claimed by the banks are too high and the government has to pay an unreasonable amount for the collection thereof, I feel that this will increase the rate of interest on each loan.
Now that I have raised some points and mentioned some deficiencies in this bill, I should like to deal with the constitutional part thereof.
I do not want to speak of federal intrusion in a provincial field because many others have dealt with that matter. As far as I am concerned, I do not think that the fact that student loans are provided by the federal government constitutes an intrusion in provincial affairs. In my opinion, this is strictly a business proposition and students are free to borrow or not to borrow the money, according to their own convictions. Besides, the sums to be borrowed under this legislation will not necessarily be used entirely to pay for their studies. The borrower is free to use his money as he sees fit.
I do not think that it is any intrusion in the field of education to offer money to someone with the idea that, later on the amount will be used to complete his studies, because the student can use the money for all sorts of things. In my opinion, this is purely and simply a business proposition.
But the constitutional aspect that I want to raise concerns section 15 of the bill, which says:
A guaranteed student loan made by a bank to a borrower not of full age, and interest thereon other than interest payable under section 6, is recoverable by a bank from the borrower as though the borrower had been of full age at the time the loan was made.
The point is, Mr. Speaker, that in the province of Quebec we have a civil code. We are governed by it and the legal capacity of people is determined by the civil code of the province of Quebec, while in the other provinces, the legal capacity is determined by the common law.
Under section 986 of the civil code of the province of Quebec, we see that:

Loans to Students
Those legally incapable of contracting are:
Minors, in the cases and according to the provisions contained in this code;
Then there is a list of other persons unable to enter into contracts.
Cases where minors can enter into contracts are listed in the following section which gives exceptions and details. Section 1005 states the following:
A minor who is a banker, trader or mechanic is not relievable for cause of lesion from contracts made for the purposes of his business or trade.
There is no mention of students in that section since it mentions only bankers, traders or mechanics. Consequently, the minors in question, under that act, are neither bankers, traders nor mechanics.
There is also section 1011 which could alleviate suspicions. It says that the money paid during the minority cannot be exacted, unless it is proved that what has been so paid has turned to their profit.
This section might justify section 15 of the bill, but I think that this case does not apply either, because this section provides mostly for the cases where under age students involved sell or buy something for a price and try to obtain repayment of the money they would have paid, when they would come of age or even before when they were unable to enter into a contract.
Even though this section could remove in the minister's mind the suspicions that the government certainly has about those loans- because if it had no suspicions with regard to minors, this section would have been unnecessary-even though this section could lead them to believe it would be legal, I think that the fact alone that the federal government attempts to legislate on the legal capacity of the Quebec people makes the whole measure, and not only section 15, unconstitutional.
Consequently, section 15 proposes an amendment to the civil code of the province of Quebec, that only the Quebec legislature is entitled to make under the constitution.
If we allow this bill to be passed in this house, it will be a dangerous precedent, because then, it will be possible federal legislation, to amend the civil code of the province of Quebec and to insert in it sections such as section 15 of the present bill.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow a question?


Gérard Chapdelaine: Certainly.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member aware of the fact that the

province of Quebec does not intend to take advantage of this legislation?


Gilles Grégoire: The bill does not say so.


Gérard Chapdelaine: That may be, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, I have the impression that during the last federal-provincial conference Quebec stated its intention of setting up its own student loan system, however, that is no excuse for us, Quebec members, to let the federal government enact legislation concerning the civil code of our province, even if Quebec does not intend to take advantage of such legislation.
Once this legislation is passed, it will amend our civil code, thus creating a precedent in the legal annals of this country.
I think this cannot be accepted by Quebec.


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


Gérard Chapdelaine: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member not think that this legislation, in its present wording, can also apply to other provinces, that is as far as other provinces are concerned, the matter comes under provincial jurisdiction, not exclusively in the case of the province of Quebec, since education comes under exclusive provincial jurisdiction? Besides, does the hon. member think that there can be encroachment by the federal government under the pretext that this might offer or constitute assistance for the other provinces?


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Speaker, the matter I am now discussing is simply the legality of section 15 of this bill.
I think that common law is constituted by federal and provincial legislation passed by the other provinces, except Quebec, and if this section is accepted by Quebec, it is also accepted by the other provinces, because they are governed by common law. In the province of Quebec, it is different. In fact, we are not governed by common law, but we have our own laws, our civil code. Therefore, we cannot accept to have this section included in legislation which could, in future, be accepted in the province of Quebec.
In my opinion, the only legal and constitutional way to draw up such a clause would be to add the following at the end: As if the latter had been of age at the time the loan was granted, except in the province of Quebec where the legal capacity of citizens is determined by the civil code of the province of Quebec.

Then, if the province of Quebec wishes to establish its own system of loans to students, it could legislate and amend the civil code by stipulating in its bill: For the purposes of loans to students in the province of Quebec, those under age will be considered as being of age at the time of the loan.
But at the present time, a federal piece of legislation changes the legal capacity of those under age in Quebec and I feel that it is entirely unconstitutional and that the principle is unacceptable to the citizens of Quebec.
Those are, Mr. Speaker, the few remarks which I wanted to make about the bill under consideration. Before moving passage of this bill, I believe that the Minister of Finance, in consultation with the Minister of Justice, should find another formula to amend that clause. He should ask the advice of experts or others. In any case, the present provisions of section 15 are unacceptable and I do not think that a single Quebec citizen could vote in favour of that clause, because it would be to vote in favour of a very dangerous precedent.
Even in the good faith of students or of those covered by that bill can be accepted beforehand, I feel that we cannot, on that matter of principle, support such a bill, because it affects directly what, to my mind, is the most sacred right of the Quebec citizens, the right to draw up their own civil legislation.


Mr. H. C. Harley (Halion):: I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate today and speak in support of the student loans bill for post-secondary school students. I wish to take a few minutes of the time of the house to make a suggestion which I hope the government will take into consideration in the near future. I am sure most members are aware that at the present time the armed services recruit people in their last years of higher education, then pay for their final years of schooling. In return the students serve either three, four or five years in the armed services.
I should like to suggest to the government that they consider this method of repayment of the loan instead of cash. We could possibly call it a time repayment. The recipient of the student loan would donate, if you want to use that word, his services for a period of time in his chosen profession to the government of Canada. This time would be in proportion to the investment that Canada had made in his career. During his period of serv-
Loans to Students
ice he could be sent anywhere overseas-I am thinking particularly of the backward countries of Asia and Africa-where his ability, skills and training would help others to help themselves. It would be the primary occupation of this person to teach these backward people so that they in turn could pass on this information-to others of their own race and their own land.
In this way, Mr. Speaker, we could help the underdeveloped and poorly educated peoples to progress with their own educational systems. This would then become part of Canada's external aid program. Canada would be doing this as part of a long range aid program to these countries, and at the same time would benefit her own Canadian citizens by providing them with needed help for their education via this student loans measure.
Once the person had served his time, whatever time was decided upon, he would then be free to undertake any employment he wished in any place. It is a well known fact, Mr. Speaker, that many of our Canadian people who are highly trained and educated migrate to the United States. This is one export, that of Canadian skills and brains, that we should endeavour to decrease. I feel the system I have suggested would encourage Canadians, after this period of service was up, to remain in this country and use their skills and their knowledge for the benefit of Canadians as a whole. If thought desirable, a further clause could be added to the bill requiring Canadian residence for a specific period of time as a condition of the granting of such loan.
So far as the amendment is concerned and the feeling of some members that this is unconstitutional, I am not a constitutional expert but I should like to point out that this bill does not create a precedent in the matter of federal aid for education. I would point members to the fact that after world war II thousands of veterans received their education under the auspices of the Department of Veterans Affairs. That department paid their fees, gave them a book allowance, and paid them a monthly allowance while they attended university. Many thousands of veterans used this federal aid to obtain their education and are now using their skills and their training to the benefit of Canada and Canadians. Without this aid that was provided by the federal government, many of these students would not have had the opportunity to continue their studies.
I promised the house I would only take a few minutes of its time, Mr. Speaker. In sum-

Loans to Students
mary I would just like to say that the suggestion I have made to the government that the money be repaid by donating their time, in lieu of money, to Canada's external aid program would benefit many different people and many different areas. First, the student would receive his education under the auspices of the student loans act. Second, Canada's external aid program would be increased and we would offer greater aid to the backward countries. Third, Canada would have a continuing supply of well trained and educated men and women.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to say a few words on this legislation, and like the hon. member who has just sat down I am utterly sincere when I say "a few words." I was impressed with his suggestion and I think it should receive favourable consideration.
I am going to be brief because essentially I agree with this legislation. Sometimes it is said that parliamentarians take an awful long time to say yes, but that is the essence of the parliamentary system. As I say, I am going to be brief because I am one of those who believe the House of Commons should not be sitting in July and August. If we have come to the stage that it takes the House of Commons ten months to transact the people's business, all I can say is that I have never been able to see anything sacrosanct about the months of July and August and why these should be included among those ten months devoted to our work in Ottawa. Also, since we are talking about youth it would be a good thing to allow some of us young if not young looking members to spend some time with the members of our families, and it is not easy to do that labouring in heat oppressed Ottawa.
I shall not, like some members, give a catalogue of universities. Much of my life has been spent in universities. I recall a former professor who used to say in high dudgeon when he was dissatisfied with administration policy, "I have been kicked out of better universities than this." I have never had that actually happen to me, but over the years I have come to know something about the tremendous needs of universities and I do have the honour to represent a constituency which has two fine educational institutions whose problems are similar, if not identical, to those facing every institution of higher learning in the country. St. Dunstan's University is an institution which for over a century has
[Mr. Harley.l
served the whole of Prince Edward Island, with students coming to it from beyond the province and indeed beyond the country. Prince of Wales college is a junior college maintained by the provincial government.
I am in agreement with those who have said heretofore that while this is important it is not sufficient, and in my opinion it is not so important as some of the other youth plans of the government. The youth plans which the Liberal party had when it was seeking to be the government were certainly impressive, and if I may give the government a bit of political advice-and I should not do this as a member of the opposition-one of the problems it is facing today is that our young people are becoming a bit disillusioned and disturbed by the non-fulfilment of some of the government's promises. The scholarship plan was an important one.
It has already been laid on the record and the story well told that universities today face great problems in the provision of buildings and facilities. I would not say that there were not some potential university students in the country who cannot finance their education, but I think all educators know this problem is not nearly as grievous as it once was. I would not suggest either that it is a good thing for young people to struggle and strive to take on all sorts of extra moonlighting jobs in order to complete their university training. Perhaps for a Calvinist I am a little weak-kneed in stating this point, but even though I did do it myself I would not prescribe it as a recipe for all aspiring students. Therefore I commend the government for what has been done. But the government must do more.
We have been talking about priority legislation. Sometimes we wonder whether this is more important than that, whether something is so important that we must do it before we can have an adjournment, and whether something else may be delayed. Let us not delude ourselves. There is nothing as important as the very subject with which we are coping today. Someone has said that references to the future of our country and its human potential are cliches. Of course they are but none the less true. We may want vast public works; we may want a lot of things, but if we do not have a highly trained group of young people to cope with the complexities of modern life in this highly advanced country, then we will have failed.
I know there are problems of jurisdiction. I know that education is, if I may say so, the sacred right of the provinces. I know too

that in education, as in many other problems, the resources of some of our provinces are not sufficient to meet the needs. So what do we do under those circumstances?
In a publication which recently came to me, "Financing Higher Education in Canada" published by the Canadian universities foundation, I note that in the years 1958 to 1963 federal government support to universities totalled $245 million. We cannot say that the federal government is not involved in education. Many examples of this have been cited. Nor can we ever expect this country, composed as it is of provinces of such varying resources, so unequal in wealth, will ever see a situation where the demands upon the federal government through whatever agencies may be involved will not become greater and greater rather than diminish.
This is not the place to enter into the kind of argument which the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) made yesterday, although I believe it is a tremendously important field to which Canadians, and certainly Canadian legislators, must soon direct themselves. As a great Canadian scholar said the other day, so often we find that those in the dominion field of government approach the provinces with such timorous politeness, and it seems that very little is left on the dominion side of things.
As I was thinking of the importance of this subject, Mr. Speaker, hoping that I might join my voice with those of my colleagues who have supported the government, and not ignoring the very valid criticisms which have come from all parties in the house, my mind went back to a very important little story that I read some time ago about that wonderful part of the United States, Vermont, which, at its best, is very much like the maritime provinces. Dorothy Canfield Fisher in her book the "Vermont Tradition" tells a story which strikes me as being most germane to our discussion. In her home town there was a great problem about highways and an urgently pressing problem about a bridge, and in mountain communities bridges are tremendously important.
So this little town meeting, this very gem of democracy, was faced with this problem. But they were also faced with the problem of educating their local youth.
In a mountain town with flash floods roaring over the banks of its watercourses after hard rains, bridges have an imperious priority. Our bridges needed reinforcement, not only from recurring high water, but against the great tonnage of modern traffic. It would be dangerous not to rebuild them. It would take all the resources of a
Loans to Students
poor mountain town to keep our bridges in repair. To add to that expense the enormous cost of a new school-insane.
The tangible needs of the body and the impalpable needs of the mind and spirit stood up to see which was the stronger. The material needs outshouted the ideal. They sounded real and actual. The little flickering flame of responsibility for the future of the town's children died down to a faint glimmer in the hearts of the men and women whose votes would in a few moments make the decision.
Then up sprang Patrick Thompson, the son of an immigrant, and he said:
"We are being told that our town cannot afford to keep its bridges safe and also to provide for its children a preparation for life that will give them a fair chance alongside other American children.
That's what we are being told. Not one of us here really believes it. We just can't think what to say back. But suppose it were true-Then I say, if we have to choose, 'Let the bridges fall down.' What kind of a town would we rather have, 50 years from now-a place where nitwit folks go back and forth over good bridges? Or a town with brainy, well-educated people capable of holding their own in the modem way of life? You know which of those two is really wanted by every one of us here. I say, 'Let the bridges fall down.' "
That is also my scales of priorities. I support the government in this step and I hope it will be one of many which will follow, longer, more venturesome and more helpful in this important field of education.


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: This is the third day we have spent on this debate. I do not think we should apologize for that, because we are dealing with a subject which is of great importance. The subject is worthy of our time. I wish I could say the bill presently before us is worth the time we are giving it.
Inevitably, when the needs of higher education in Canada are discussed, one of the central points at issue, and one to which reference has been made frequently in the last three days, concerns the role of the federal government in the field of education having regard to the provisions of section 93 of the British North America Act, and I shall have something to say about that later.
I have followed the whole of this debate closely-I might say that I have been waiting for my own turn to speak-and I have not missed one of the speeches made in the last three days. During that time it has occurred to me-and this may be of interest-that though we have five parties represented in this house at the present time we really ought to have six. It is apparent from the speeches of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) the hon.

Loans to Students
member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanau-diere (Mr. Paul) and some others that their opinions are completely at odds with those of their party on this question. I have watched these differences develop on the question of federal-provincial finances. Then there were serious divergencies of view on the flag issue. These disagreements came up again when the administration of the Eskimos was under discussion. They are becoming so sharp and so frequent that I suggest there is room for six parties.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: We are not slaves in our party.


An hon. Member:: Stick to the bill.


Robert William Prittie: I want to congratulate some of the backbench Liberal members-the younger members of that party-on the good work they have done in praising this bill before the house. I know it falls so far short of their expectations and of their promises during the election campaign that privately they must be very disappointed. Despite this they have done an excellent job of concealing their disappointment and praising the bill.
But to get to the bill itself. A number of speakers have referred to the plan for student veterans which was adopted after the second world war. That plan was administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs and I think it was the best student aid plan we have ever had in Canada. I emphasize the fact that it was a federal plan and that as far as I know there were no objections to it from any part of the country. It provided for the payment both of tuition fees and of a living allowance. As I say, it was a good plan though not an ideal plan. At the time of its introduction, the minister of veterans affairs said there had to be an element of struggle; the student should not be given too much money. And there certainly was an element of struggle. Many of us who received our education under that plan had to do a great deal of outside work in order to make ends meet. I agree with the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau). I do not think this element of struggle is desirable. I believe students attending universities and other institutions of higher learning should attend classes, read in libraries and take part in discussion groups. I do not think they should spend their time working in service stations, digging ditches, cutting lumber and so on. These activities are supposed to be valuable in character building, but I have my doubts about it.


Mr. Fisher:: I bet the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) did that.


Mr. Rapp:: Do not disturb him.


Robert William Prittie: It seems to me that it is only in times of emergency that we do things really well. In 1939 we took a sluggish, feeble economy and built it into an efficient economic machine. In the years immediately after the war we introduced a plan for the education of veterans of which thousands of Canadians, some young and some not so young, were able to take advantage. I wonder where we would be today in the staffing of our professions if that plan had not been undertaken. There must be thousands of teachers, doctors, scientists, lawyers and accountants who, but for this scheme, would have been unable to receive an education qualifying them for those positions. Now, only a relatively few years later, the plan has virtually come to an end and we are back to the old way of doing things.
This situation means that students of high ability do not as a rule encounter much difficulty. They are equipped intellectually to benefit from all the best scholarships. Again, students who come from high income homes do not have very much trouble. But the vast majority of Canadian students are in neither of these categories; they are the ordinary people who staff our offices and classrooms, go into general medical practices and fill our professions, and for many of them getting through university represents a difficult struggle.
There are certain things which I think we should do on a national basis. Certain things are already done on a national basis, and they are done quite well. Unemployment insurance is handled on a national basis and I do not think anyone now would want it to be otherwise. Hospital planning is a subject of fairly successful joint federal-provincial arrangements. Family allowances are handled on a national basis and the proposed pension plan will be handled in this way except for some compromise about the allocation of funds which, I think, is unfortunate. We should consider doing other things on a national basis. We always run into a constitutional problem whenever education is discussed in this parliament. I do not know of any country which is so cursed with constitutional problems and arguments as is Canada. I know as well as anyone else that section 93 does give jurisdiction in this field to the provinces and I will express my own personal views at this point because I think

my party, along with others, still believes in the principle of section 93. I am not advocating that all levels of education should be under the jurisdiction of the federal government. But I do think the level of higher or post-secondary education as mentioned in the bill could well be a federal responsibility. I say this because in the first place I believe most Canadians will accept it. Many spokesmen, particularly from Quebec, might tell me differently. They may be right; I am not sure. But I am quite sure of my opinion that in the English speaking provinces the majority would not object and might even favour federal jurisdiction over higher or university education, and perhaps over technical and vocational education as well. In the second place, the provinces do not do a particularly good job in this field. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) put it bluntly yesterday. He said it was a big flop as far as the provinces are concerned and he quoted figures to show how poorly they supported university financing. I think the federal authority could do a better job.
Again, students travel widely among the provinces in the course of getting their education. Certain universities specialize in particular fields and I see nothing wrong about the movement which takes place both at graduate and undergraduate level. In addition, the federal government is already involved in the field of education at the present time. In the public accounts committee the other day the staff of treasury board presented us with a list of federal subsidies. It is entitled "Provision in estimates for grants, subsidies and special payments" and I shall refer only to those which deal with education. Under the heading of education and research, for the fiscal year 1964-65 the total amount of money to be expended by the federal government is $156,288,800. This is down, unfortunately, from 1963-64, when the figure was $204,948,290. The federal government now makes available, in direct grants to universities, $27,226,000; and grants to universities for research amount to $25,195,000. For other types of research the amount is $3,038,500; for scholarships, fellowships, etc., the amount is $74,700; and for vocational training and other types of training in that field the figure is $100,754,600. So the government is well into this field.
I realize that this question of federal participation in education is a touchy one and we hear many speeches against it; but I think that during this debate is the time for this view to be expressed, because many Cana-
Loans to Students
dians hold this view. Quite frankly, for the benefit of the hon. member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) and some others, in this field I am a centralizer and I would like to see established a federal office of education.
A number of people have said recently that we should examine the priorities of this country. I believe the suggestion came from the premier of Manitoba-the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) mentioned it the other day, and the Toronto Globe and Mail mentioned it this morning in their editorial-that there are many demands at the present time for higher education, pensions, medical care programs resulting from the recent report of the Hall commission, and that we should have a conference to examine which of these subjects should have priority. The suggestion implied there is that we cannot afford all these things. I should like to dispute that particular implication. Canada certainly can afford these things. I was recently checking over the budgets of the past ten years-that is for the years between 1954 and 1963-and I noted that, in round figures, during that period this country spent approximately $15 billion on the Department of National Defence budget. That is $15 billion in a ten year period-and that is a conservative estimate; the actual figures are higher. Of that $15 billion, $470 million were spent for the development of the CF-104 aircraft, and it was scrapped. There was some value out of that program because some people received wages and salaries cheques out of it, but it did not have very much more value. Approximately $40 million was spent on the development of the army vehicle called the Bobcat, and that was scrapped. Again, the only benefit to the country was derived from the wages certain people received. There was no lasting benefit.
I suggest that this country, which can spend $15 billion in a ten year period on defence of very doubtful value, can afford a program of higher education and provide assistance to students in regard to the tuition fees they are paying; we can afford to provide a living allowance; we can afford a medical care program. We in Canada can afford these things if we want to; and if we continue not doing these things, it must be an indication that we do not want to do them.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, in considering this bill respecting loans to students, and in listening to some speeches from other Quebec members in the

Loans to Students
house, I can only stop and think that the part played here by a member from the province of Quebec is far from being a sinecure, and that it becomes more and more difficult to take a decision in the present context. This is due, partly to the fact-and other members will agree with me-that the text of the constitution has been appreciably influenced by the presence of a concentration of French Canadians in Quebec. As a matter of fact, I doubt very much if the British North America Act would have been written in the same way, had it not been for the existence of the French fact in Quebec.
In the beginning of confederation it did not appear that there was overlapping in jurisdiction, but as Canada's progress developed and as a result of the two world wars, the British North America Act has become for some people a kind of barrier that hindered Canada's progress. That is when we saw, in almost every field, the central government skirt around this barrier in order to solve some problems. However, the provinces did just as much in the field of indirect taxation rights.
It was normal that following this change of attitude, the Quebec members became not only the law makers, but also the watchdogs of the constitution in the house, in the same way that it is normal for the members for Yukon and the Northwest Territories to champion the interests of the population of those areas.
Decentralization is more and more to the fore, and whenever the word "decentralization" is mentioned we obviously come up against certain political and economic theories. But I am sure that if we wish Canada to remain a federation, and if we want all the provinces to remain within such a federation, this is the course we must take. Besides, it has been proven that excessive centralization becomes ineffective.
Does this mean that in order to govern, the provinces must adhere to such a principle of decentralization in their education system? Not at all, Mr. Speaker; on the contrary, in the province of Quebec, for instance, the whole of the educational system is being more and more centralized. Results have shown that centralization to a certain extent may be good, but how hard it can be sometimes to reach a happy medium.
I remember an editorial by Andre Lauren-deau, in Le Devoir, which gives us a good idea of the changes going on in the province of Quebec. I quote:

Toward the end of the nineteenth century, when the authorities of the province of Quebec decided to vote $100,000 for the teaching of sciences in our universities, McGill took its share and took to sciences; Laval University saw fit to draw up a brief showing the dangers resulting from the intrusion of the state into the educational field and did not take up the teaching of sciences.
Today, in 1964, education in the province of Quebec is controlled by a minister of education. There is no more talk of the danger resulting from the intrusion of the state into the educational field. The importance of the school boards is gradually decreasing. Many of them were merged and must be grouped in regional schools to provide high school teaching. Why should we have this centralization of powers? Because only the government could finance an educational system that would be open to all Quebeckers.
Since the provinces really look after education, there is no doubt that the federal government will be less and less justified in interfering and, as a matter of fact, it will intervene less and less. Some provinces had no student loans plans, others already had such a plan, but there is no doubt that those loans were insufficient, judging from the enthusiasm which this legislation stirred up among the people.
Mr. Speaker, if today the government controls education in Quebec, it is because the government finances it.
If today Quebec fears the presence of the federal government in the field of education, it is for the same reasons. It is because it fears the federal government will succeed in controlling education in the Quebec territory.
Let us be quite frank about it, when you pay for something, you hope in return to control what you pay for.
On the other hand, if this causes no constitutional problems outside Quebec, has the province of Quebec the right to deprive the rest of Canada by sabotaging legislation which could be profitable? I think this would be ridiculous. The provinces which do not want the plan proposed by the central government should not be penalized because they refuse to adhere to it. On the contrary, after the usual consultations, a formula should be devised which would allow a province wishing to look after this herself to receive its share of the fund which the central government puts at the disposal of the country. That is what the present government did as regards municipal loans and that is what we are doing with student loans.



IS, 1964

[Stage Direction]
I do not think, constitutionally, Ottawa could be accused of using its credit power to put at the disposal of the provinces the funds they need to fulfil their constitutional obligations.
We have done so in the case of youth allowances by allowing the province of Quebec a further abatement of 3 per cent personal income tax.
In the present case, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), on behalf of the federal government, agrees to make available to the provinces which will not adhere to the plan, the equivalent of the expenditures involved for the administration of the present act by the provinces.
In other words, the guarantee of the loans and the repayment of interests will be assumed by the federal government, but all decisions as well as control and administration will be left to the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, some members, including myself, would have preferred this legislation to be introduced in the framework of a redistribution of income between the central government and the provinces.
Today some hon. members would prefer that the central government should not interfere in this field already occupied by the provinces or the majority of them; nevertheless, nobody can say that the central government has not given the provinces complete freedom to adhere or not to this system, without, for that matter, being penalized.
By choosing this solution the province of Quebec, far from quitting confederation, as some have alleged, on the contrary, is enabled to remain within confederation and to benefit therefrom, while keeping the special status conferred upon her by the constitution.
This new formula, apparently acceptable to the majority, needs no doubt to be improved to allow the initiative for some future projects to be taken here by the provinces as much as by the federal government; otherwise, this formula will before long become another cause for dissatisfaction.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanau-diere (Mr. Paul) shouted the word "scandal" and I only said "Oh, oh", he remarked before the house that the member for Longueuil should have spent some months at a university. I may reply to the hon. member that being one of ten children, I might perhaps have had an opportunity to attend university if the present legislation concerning students' loans had been in effect when I was of school age. But no, I had to go to
Loans to Students
work when I was 15 and take evening classes in order to complete my education and so that my brothers could attend university.
Such cases are found every day in our country and that is why I tell those who are against the bill for certain principles, that the human factor must also be kept in mind when we are legislating.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I say that no one will deny that the people concerned, that is the young ones, who are trying in every possible way and who sometimes have to overcome great difficulties in order to get an education, are grateful for this initiative and I do not think we can oppose it. So long as there is one Canadian who does not have the financial means to complete his education, the governments will fall short of their responsibility.
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweafher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, in his epilogue to a recent book called "Paths of American Thought", Arthur N. Schlesinger, Jr. quotes Professor J. K. Galbraith as having readily observed that a dollar or a rupee invested in the intellectual improvement of human beings will likely bring a greater increase in national income than a dollar or a rupee devoted to railways, dams, machine tools or other tangible capital goods. It seems to me that this statement is a reasonable context in which to discuss this bill for a minute or two. As I have observed from listening to the speeches of other hon. members in the house, it is a bill which will induce support from most. But I want to suggest-and I am sure the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) recognizes this fact -that this bill by no means solves the problems of higher education in Canada, and I am sure the minister or the government do not expect this to be the case.
I agree with the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) that I do not think we have any apology to make for the time we take over the bill. It has certainly been refreshing to me to hear that occasionally this house can discuss an issue in which in some cases fairly strong different points of view are expressed, and yet we can keep pretty close to the main philosophy behind the proposed measure. As some of us are interested in the image of parliament, I should like to say I think this improves our image and I should like to congratulate at least those who have participated in the debate up to now.

Loans to Students
By coincidence, while we have been here in Ottawa discussing the student loan legislation the Canadian college of teachers has been meeting at Lac Beauport, Quebec-and they have been luckier there than we have been here, perhaps. I think one of the speeches reported in the Montreal Star of July 14 is pertinent. The speech was made by Dr. Floyd G. Robinson, director of the Canadian council for research in education. On the 13th of July he called Canada "the intellectual beggar among the educationally advanced countries of the world". In his speech he went on to say:
-part of the solution to the void in research must come from increased centralization of educational matters. "Educational leadership in Canada will require that we cure our schizophrenic ambivalence on the matter of federal and provincial responsibilities in education.. .When functions which are properly central are decentralized, the result can only be confusion, inefficiency and a pretence of independence based upon a peculiar assumption that a decision made in ignorance is an independent decision."
But Dr. Robinson hastened to add that he was "not advocating a federal system of education, but only that we do not sacrifice the possibilities of genuine Canadian leadership in education to an outdated theory of educational organization."
He decried the fact that Canada spent less than one tenth of 1 per cent of its total educational budget for research.
I think that is an apt statement and it is interesting to me that it comes during the time we are discussing this bill.
One or two points have been made about the bill itself that I should like to emphasize. I think it was the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner) who hoped that the minister through the regulations would ensure that the policy of mobility of students is kept intact. "Intact" is a bad word to use when I have just referred to mobility, but in any event the principle of mobility of students should be remembered and encouraged. I underline this point as a member of parliament from the maritime provinces. If we can claim nothing else for the maritimes, I think we can claim to have contributed over the years to the higher education of a good many people in this country holding positions of leadership in many fields.


Robert William Prittie: Most of the judges of British Columbia.


Mr. Fairweather:: Somebody says "most of the judges of British Columbia", and there are many other people, including the recently appointed deputy to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I do not want to catalogue these achievements. My modesty would

prevent that. But we in the maritimes have always felt that our educational institutions have been very much enriched because of the number of students from other parts of Canada who have been able to come to the maritimes to get their higher education, and we hope that policy will be continued under this legislation.
The other point made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George that I thought worthy of note was that some formula must be worked out to take care of part time students, and that on the basis of the experience that will evolve from this legislation we must make provision eventually for night students and so on. Perhaps the minister has that in mind now. I should like to emphasize that point. There are a great many people who are getting their education at night in many of our institutions of higher learning.


Mr. Moreau:: Would the hon. member permit a question on this very point? Would he not agree that the object of this legislation would be to get part time students to return to a full time students role?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I think that is a reasonable suggestion, but there are some who cannot do so because of their family or personal situations. I do not think $1,000 will permit a man with a family to leave his daily vocation and go to university, but I think the point is well worth considering.
I want to emphasize one other point that was made very forcibly by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). I suspect that by now the justice department or the advisers to the minister have reached some solution, or I assume they have, because in my modest opinion clauses 2 (b) and 2 (k) of the bill are completely ultra vires and their passage would seriously affect the usefulness of the legislation. I know I cannot ask the minister questions at this stage but I hope we will hear soon from the treasury benches of a satisfactory amendment to these now quite inoperative provisions.
As the hon. member for Greenwood has pointed out, section 65 of the British North America Act sets out the responsibilities of the lieutenant governor in council quite clearly and, if I may put it this way, to my knowledge there is really only one person, using the word "person" in a general sense, concerning whom this parliament cannot legislate or delegate legislation to, and that is the lieutenant governor in council. I must say I am surprised that the bill has reached this stage in this form. I hope we can be reassured

on this matter soon. I would hope that nobody would challenge the constitutionality of the legislation because all that would do would be to delay the attainment of a desirable objective; but I cannot understand how the bill reached this stage in the unconstitutional form in which it now appears before us.
Because this is a debating forum and we are expected to learn from those who have intimate knowledge on various matters, I should like some guidance on clause 15 of the bill and why the government feels that clause 15 is constitutional. I presume they are going to rely on the banking provisions in section 91 of the B.N.A. Act, but I should like to be instructed how this jibes with the property and civil rights aspect, which is a provincial responsibility under the act. In any event, I will be glad to hear their views. If clause 15 raises a debatable point, and I concede it is debatable, I do not think for one minute that clauses 2 (b) and 2 (k) are debatable at all. Some work has to be done on them and an amendment proposed, or else the act will be in serious constitutional trouble.
There have been a few radical suggestions made and I suppose a backbench Tory can make a radical suggestion. I think it should be mandatory for the bank to make the loan, once a certificate of eligibility has been granted. I do not think the giving or denying of a loan can be properly left to bank managers, particularly in view of the fact that this statute will apply to people who have been in Canada only a short time as well as people who are citizens. I would hate to think that the fate of the borrower would always be in the hands of the bank manager. As somebody has said, there is no safer or better investment for a bank than a loan guaranteed as to principal and interest by the government of Canada, and which also is insured. Once a certificate of eligibility has been granted the choice of a bank should be left to the student, but after that point the bank should make the loan.
Otherwise there are going to be different classes of students, and the student who comes to this country from another country and stays here for a year, who has not in any way really established his credit under the magic formula that banks use for granting credit, is going to be in a less favourable position than one who has been in the community for generations or whose family has.
I, too, have been intrigued with the arguments concerning the constitutional position vis-a-vis the whole philosophy behind the bill. I am intrigued by this business of hav-
Loans to Students
ing one minute a bogeyman brought out about the constitution and the next minute having, with all respect to the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie), this false altar of centralization brought out. I like to go between these two, being a reasonably minded Conservative. I cannot understand for one minute how a loan granted by a bank which allows a student to pursue higher education in the university of his choice, in the language of his choice, if you like in the culture of his choice, and the discipline of his choice, can be considered to be an infringement of section 93 of the British North America Act. In my opinion, this bill reinforces the very independence that those who espouse another culture in this country are quite rightly trying to keep inviolate. The government is not telling them what they are going to study, how they are going to study or where they are going to study. All the government is doing is providing the money, by way of these loans, so that this can be done. With the greatest of respect to some of my own colleagues and to others who have pulled out the drums on this issue, I cannot see how it applies.
I believe some day we will have to-


Rémi Paul: A special province.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I recognize that-well, I am not going to start a debate here with my friend. I should like to remind the minister, if he needs reminding, of the submission made to him by the Canadian universities foundation in December, 1963, which was partly a resubmission of a brief this foundation submitted to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in May, 1963. I know this point has been made by others, but I think it is worth emphasizing. In the brief to the Prime Minister of Canada in May, 1963, the foundation says:
-we pointed out that the total requirement of capital for universities and colleges, and for the creation of research facilities in university-affiliated teaching hospitals, for the three years 196364 to 1965-66, would be approximately $800 million. Estimates indicate that at the present rate of spending for these purposes, the governments of the provinces might be expected to contribute something less than $300 million towards this total and that $100 million might be expected as gifts and donations from corporations and individuals. If it may be assumed that the additional loan funds needed for university residential accommodation (about $100 million during that period) will be available from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the remaining need still totals more than $300 million for the three year period.

Loans to Students
The final paragraph of the part I propose quoting that has application to this part of my remarks is as follows:
In that brief we suggested that the government of Canada establish a fund of $300 million for matching capital grants to universities and colleges. We wish to confirm the need and state that the urgency has now been compounded.
Well, if the need was compounded in December, 1963, by the inexorable laws of compounding it must be even worse today. This was emphasized again in the 1963-64 report of the Canada Council. In their introductory remarks the Canada Council gives a very useful recent history of the crisis conditions through which universities have been passing in the last few years. I quote from page 36:
Most of the older faculties have expanded at a remarkable rate and new colleges and faculties have sprung up everywhere, filling old gaps in our educational establishment and meeting the demands of the newer disciplines. The rapid growth of our institutions, however, has brought many problems in its train. First, there is the difficulty of recruiting the many teachers so urgently required to meet the increasing demand. And there is, of course, the special problem of finding experts in some of the newer disciplines, who will be able to give form and leadership to departments and institutes that the country has begun to need.
We have the Canadian universities foundation, we have the Canada Council, and if we need any more witnesses we have the Canadian school trustees association. In their brief presented to the royal commission on taxation they have a proposal. I am not going to go through the figures because we have had them, but I think one of the proposals is of interest. They recommended that there be a division of responsibility for financing-I think the word "financing" should be underlined before we run into the constitutional wall-education among the three levels of government. Local governments would be responsible for elementary education; provincial governments for secondary education and the federal government for higher education and vocational education. I believe this suggestion is at least worthy of thought. I think probably in the final analysis it is a little too neat.
However I believe the proposal to have higher education a federal responsibility is one that is compelling to me. This is the last thing I want to say, that in a very interesting speech given on November 28, 1963, Dean J. F. McCreary, dean of the faculty of medicine of the University of British Columbia, spoke of the urgent need from the point of view of graduate schools for capital, particularly in view of the fact this problem is going

to be accentuated if the recommendations of the royal commission on health services is implemented.
If I may sum up, I should like to say I will vote for this bill. I will vote for it in the knowledge it really does not meet the Liberal party platform, but that does not disturb me because very little legislation we have had so far does meet it. Second, we must remind ourselves when we boastfully congratulate ourselves about this wonderful legislation that it really does not meet the needs of higher education one bit. I hope that clause 2(b) and (k), which in my opinion are now quite badly drafted and in fact are unconstitutional, will be subject to the proper amendment.


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



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-34, to incorporate Nova Scotia Savings and Loan Company.-Mr. Regan.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-28, respecting The Quebec Board of Trade-Mr. Cantin-Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-Preamble.
Guy Marcoux: Mr. Chairman, as I had to
leave the sitting when this bill was submitted to the committee on banking and commerce, I had delegated the representation I might make to the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Frenette).
Later on I was told that it was believed in certain quarters that the members of the Quebec board of trade had succeeded in suppressing my arguments against this organization calling itself the board of trade of metropolitan Quebec.
That is why I feel, more particularly because various chambers of commerce gave me very definite instructions that I should give some explanations and justify my intended opposition to the bill.
We have now before us a bill which was amended by the committee on banking and commerce, so that the arguments which might be made for the term "metropolitan" are perhaps not exactly the same as those

which might be advanced against the Quebec and district o f Quebec board of trade using the new term of "district of Quebec".
Though I do not want to read them out, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say that I received letters and telegrams from the chambers of commerce of the Quebec-Montmorency and Quebec-Charlevoix areas, from Antoine Hamel, director of the Charlesbourg chamber of commerce, from Louis Warren, secretary, from Marcel Pageau, president of the chamber of commerce of Loretteville, from Camille Theberge, president of the chamber of commerce of Courville, from the chamber of commerce of Beauport, and from Robert Legare, president of the chamber of commerce of the county of Portneuf.
Mr. Chairman, before this bill was referred to the committee on banking and commerce, all those chambers of commerce were against the board of trade of the city of Quebec, whose territory, field of activity and headquarters have always been limited to the city of Quebec, using the expression "metropolitan Quebec", which, according to the dictionary, could apply to an extension of jurisdiction on the part of the board of trade of Quebec.
When you consider that metropolitan Quebec extends on the south shore to Levis, Lauzon, St. Romuald, etc., as well as, on the north shore, to various parishes or to the municipalities of Charlevoix, Quebec, Montmorency and the county of Portneuf, you realize that it amounts to quite a large extension of jurisdiction.
Despite this change in name, the board of trade says it has no intention of extending its jurisdiction over those various localities. It simply wants to enjoy the prestige of an enlarged board, covering a whole metropolitan area.
I feel that the arguments in favour of that change, if they do not hide anything special, are not worth much, because Quebec can be considered as the name of the province of Quebec, of the city of Quebec and also of the Quebec area.
I would like to point out something else, Mr. Chairman, while I think about it. The report and the minutes of proceedings of the committee on banking and commerce, which should contain the evidence given before that committee, have not yet been published. Usually, the English version is distributed immediately and the French version is available six or ten days later, and sometimes still later.
We do not even have the report of this committee available at present, so that it is
Private Bills
difficult to refer to it, especially when I did not attend the sittings, so as to know what arguments were put forward in favour of this bill.
On the other hand, I obtained the minutes of the Senate committee on banking and commerce where Mr. Renault St-Laurent, barrister, appearing on behalf of the Quebec board of trade, had put forward several arguments in favour of the change in name. He pointed out, among other things that at least 5,000 persons write every year to the Quebec board of trade, which shows that this organization covers a much greater territory than that of Quebec city.
If the Quebec board of trade is so important and has so much influence, I fail to see why it seeks to have its name changed even if the latter makes no mention of metropolitan Quebec. According to Mr. Renault St-Laurent, barrister, it is merely to give legal recognition to a long standing situation and he gave several examples. He said that it was the Quebec board of trade which brought about the establishment of several companies, not only in the city of Quebec itself, but in the area also. I agree with him on that. He further stated that many of the board's members-in fact, a large number of them-come from outside Quebec city. I have no quarrel with that either, but it proves nothing.
I belong to the Montreal medical association and I am quite willing to pay my membership fee, because I feel it is advantageous for me to belong to that association. However, that does not mean I would be ready to give the Montreal medical association the right to represent the interests of Quebec doctors.
That is why the arguments invoked are very weak in my opinion, the more so since it is claimed:

They have made several studies of reports on the port of Quebec. They have a jurisdiction over the office of the port warden which they have exercised practically since the port warden was appointed by Ottawa and they are responsible for recommending the person who is to be appointed port warden and any assistants.

Then, it seems that the board of trade has great influence in the Quebec harbour.
I should like to take this opportunity to say that the Quebec harbour, which should be a metropolitan harbour including much more than the city of Quebec, denies to every individual who does not live in the city

Private Bills
oi Quebec the right to be employed as longshoreman, because of the international longshoremen's association, local 1739. This is a very serious situation. I have pointed out that fact on a few occasions to the Minister of Labour, but he told me that he had no authority over a local union.
As I was saying, Quebec harbour should be considered as part of an area much larger than Quebec city. The minister added that the union was not allowed to accept members not residing in Quebec city. It is a fact that in an answer given by a union official mentioned the "city card". He said that an individual must have his "city card", in other words, be a resident of Quebec city. He also said that, if Montreal did not find it advisable to eliminate this requirement, he did not see why Quebec should.
Therefore, I believe this is a discriminatory requirement which the board of trade should have considered long ago, but which it apparently forgot.
It seems that this board of trade, like most of the others, is more interested in the large companies who are members paying membership fees and that the interests of those companies strangely converge towards the interests of the board of trade.
I heard that, following a meeting which took place when the committee on banking and commerce was sitting, every party was apparently satisfied with the amendment made. Therefore, I shall not be more demanding than the companies themselves. I will not go farther than those company officials agreed to go.
I simply want to protest, and I have supporting evidence, against the fact that the Quebec board of trade is enlarging upon its jurisdiction. Besides, I wonder why they want to have an enlarged jurisdiction, when it is only a question of promoting the interests of the city and district.
They go even further. In clause 3 of the bill, it is said:
-and of the province of Quebec and Canada in general-
Then, obviously, one cannot object to that. If that is the kind of jurisdiction they want, there is no objection. However, they go a little further. In clause 3 (c), the corporation wishes and shall be empowered to:
-to organize, if necessary, a stock exchange and to promote the centralization of the grain, produce, provision and other trades in the city and metropolitan area of Quebec.
[Mr. Marcoux.j
Paragraph (e) also states:
-to adjust, settle and determine disputes, controversies and misunderstandings arising between persons engaged in the same trade or business, or which may be submitted to arbitration as hereinafter provided:
This has already started. The board of trade, at the request or probably with the co-operation of the city of Quebec, decided to study the problem of closing hours for businesses in the Quebec area. One knows that the city of Quebec has very strict and very rigid regulations about closing hours. Many industries which come to the Quebec area or district, or to metropolitan Quebec, decide to open stores in areas where they do not have to abide by closing hours imposed by the city of Quebec.
Under the pretext that these stores are prejudicial to the city of Quebec, the new stores are to be prevented from opening at hours allowed in various municipalities. Of course, it is impossible to obtain unanimous consent.
I know that in my own city, like in many others, the boards of trade as well as the municipalities themselves are against such a move. The board of trade of Quebec district, which was previously the board of trade of metropolitan Quebec, wants to submit a study showing that all municipalities around Quebec including Levis, Lauzon and St. Romuald should be subject to identical closing hours.
You can see, Mr. Chairman, that this could be detrimental to the municipalities adjoining Quebec city. It may be that the city of Quebec was ill-administered for a number of years, but it is not up to the adjoining municipalities to replenish the municipality of Quebec if the latter was unable to attract industries in its area, within its own territory.
If the other municipalities have succeeded in attracting industries in their area-even though it would be on account of the Quebec board of trade-I fail to see why the local boards of trade would be prevented from expressing their opinion, for instance about closing time or about something else.
In my own constituency, there is, for instance, the problem related to sand bars on the Beaupre shore. Many municipalities all along this shore, and their boards of trade, are very much interested in that problem. I feel that the wish expressed by these boards of trade may not be the same as that expressed by the Quebec board of trade.
If these boards of trade ever make any representations to the government for the settlement of this question and in favour of

the municipalities ol the Beaupre coast, the city of Quebec, through the Quebec district board of trade, may make representations to the contrary, not only to the government but also to the various local boards of trade to determine the limits of the area.
Moreover, Mr. Chairman, as I was saying a while ago, the boards of trade federation of the counties of Charlevoix, Quebec, Montmorency and Portneuf represent a greater number of people than those served by the Quebec board of trade.
It is said that the Quebec board of trade does not want to encroach upon the powers of the local chambers of commerce and that it will let the latter look after the local problems. This is precisely another point which will make this difficult, for who will decide whether a problem is local, metropolitan, regional or a district problem. That question is hard to settle. It could be settled under the Quebec and Quebec district board of trade charter which perhaps will create some difficulties to local chambers of commerce. I wish to put on record that the president of the Quebec board of trade, Mr. Louis Dus-seault, and also, Mr. Talbot, of the same body, assured me that the Quebec board of trade will in no way deal with problems pertaining to local boards and to the district board, such as the board of trades federation of the Quebec area.
In that case, Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, the suggestions made by the various representatives who appeared before the committee on banking and commerce must be accepted. I should like to put on record, however, that if at any time the Quebec board of trade and the Quebec district board of trade attempt to infringe upon rights not belonging to them, when it is understood, of course, that it is not a matter of jurisdiction, but only a matter of trade and industrial promotion, so that local boards can say: Here, we see in Hansard of the House of Commons a promise made by Mr. Louis Dusseault, Mr. Talbot and others that this board of trade will not encroach on the rights of local boards. Then, it may give them a place to meet where they can really prepare an opposition to some possible intrusion by the Quebec board of trade.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, I am going to support the bill any way, on division, but I want to say that personally, I object, and for various reasons, and I could go into every detail of the many reasons which militate against the fact that the house accepted
Private Bills
the name "Quebec district board of trade", while it is the Quebec city board of trade. And we specially protest against their method of going ahead which mostly looked like a hiding game when they said they wanted benefits they already had. I always wondered why they wanted benefits they already had, while things could be left as they were.
That explains my stand, but I do not want to delay the business of the house any longer.


Mr. Canfin:: Mr. Chairman, to begin with I want to congratulate the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency for having refrained from submitting amendments to the bill. It is unfortunate that he could not sit on the committee which studied and debated this bill. He had good reasons for being absent because he was on duty somewhere else. Otherwise, he would have realized that the local chambers of commerce and the board of trade of Quebec agreed on a change of name. The main reason for that compromise, is that the name of the Montreal chamber of commerce was la chambre de commerce du district de Montreal and that of Quebec will be called la chambre de commerce du district de Quebec.
I do not think the board of trade in Montreal or Quebec city violates any of the rights and powers of the local board of trade in the neighbouring cities.
A board of trade is not so much a territorial entity but an objective everyone must strive to attain. Therefore the question of territory is irrelevant in an act dealing with boards of trade.
I thank the hon. member for his action. I am sure the Quebec board of trade will read his remarks with interest.

Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 10 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time; now?


Guy Marcoux: On division.


Jean-Charles Cantin: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

Private Bills THE ROYAL ASSENT


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, July 16, 1964
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Roland A. Ritchie, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 16th July, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General PRIVATE BILLS



BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-27, respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada-Mr. Brown-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Number of directors.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 1 carry?


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Chairman, this bill gives authority to the Bell Telephone Company to augment its board of directors. Before the bill passes I have a few remarks I should like to make.
A telephone company of necessity operates in certain areas of the country a monopolistic business. This is a necessity with which I think no one would quarrel. It would obviously be completely impracticable to try and run competitive telephone companies over the same area. On the other hand monopolies are not looked on with favour in our form of competitive society.
Under these circumstances, where a company is operating a business which must be run in a monopolistic fashion there are generally three options which are open to deal with such a problem. In the first instance, the service could be provided by a government department. As an example, we have our postal service supplied by a department of the federal government. It could be operated as a crown corporation. Or it can be operated as a closely regulated private company. Personally, in this instance I favour a crown corporation, but I do not intend to argue the merits or demerits of this particular point.
It seems to me that if we are going to have a private company operating in a monopolistic fashion, it must be regulated, and it must

be properly regulated. It must be regulated so that the shareholders, who in this instance are widely scattered and come from all walks of life in the country, have their interests protected. But in addition to the shareholders, the users of the service, the subscribers, the people who pay the telephone bills, must have their interests protected too. To me this is the paramount consideration. There was a statement made in the house when dealing with the administration of justice to the effect that not only must justice be done but it must appear to be done. I think the same principle is applicable in dealing with the problem of a company such as the Bell Telephone Company. When we think of the rates which you, Mr. Chairman, myself and others across the country pay for our telephone service, not only must the rates be fair but they must also appear to be fair.
Evidence was taken in regard to this bill before the standing committe on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and I have before me the minutes of proceedings and evidence, volume 4, of the sitting which was held on July 7, 1964. During the course of those hearings a number of questions and problems were raised which in turn raised doubts in my mind about the fairness of the rate structure and the operations of the company. I am not going to go into all of them, and I should like to make it completely clear that I am not saying or suggesting that there are inequities in the way in which the company is operating. What I am saying however is that doubts are raised in my mind in connection with some aspects of the operation of the company, and I think in view of the nature of their business these doubts should be cleared up.
As we do not have too much time, the doubts I want to deal with fall into only two areas. The first area relates to the question of rates charged by the telephone company. There were several facts brought out in the evidence. At page 427 of the proceedings the hon. member for Three Rivers, the former minister of transport, brought out the fact that those who are serviced by the Bell Telephone Company in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario pay more than those serviced by nationalized companies in western provinces such as Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta.
It was stated by the president of the company that the cost to subscribers in large metropolitan areas was of necessity higher than the cost to those in smaller communities.

The reason was said to be that an individual subscriber in a community where there were more connections, could make more calls on a local basis, and would thus pay more for his calls as costs were higher. This may well be the fact, but as an engineer with a little background in manufacturing it has always been to me a principle that as volume increases cost reduces, and there are some economies of scale. Now, it may be that the argument presented by the president of the company is perfectly valid, I do not know, but it has raised a doubt in my mind.
At page 430 of the evidence, when reference was made to long distance rates, the president of the company stated that long distance charges in Canada were higher than those in the United States. The reason given was that the lines are strung over great areas of less densely populated country, and therefore the cost per subscriber for long distance calls was higher. A little further on, at page 433, the hon. member for Three Rivers, who as former minister of transport I think should be aware of these circumstances, said that long distance charges in the prairie provinces by those companies operated by the provinces are lower than charges in Ontario and Quebec. Now, surely we have fewer people in the prairies than we have in Ontario and Quebec, so this appears to be the exact opposite of the argument advanced by the president of the company in stating the reason for the charges being higher in Canada than in the United States. Again, there may be adequate explanation for this problem, I do not know; but it raises doubts in my mind.
The second area I should like to deal with which also causes doubts in my mind is the situation with respect to Northern Electric, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bell Telephone Company. Northern Electric gained a charter under a section of their act of incorporation which, as reported at page 417 of the committee report, reads as follows:
The company shall also have power to enter into any arrangement with any person or company possessing, as proprietor, any line of telegraphic or telephonic communication, or any power or right to use communication by means of the telephone upon such terms-
And so on and so forth. In effect then, Bell have been able to acquire Northern Electric under its charter because Northern operated,
I gather, approximately four miles of telephone line.
Northern Electric has since that date been expanded to a manufacturing giant, a company which is doing some $300 million worth
Private Bills
of business a year. Half of this business is sales of manufactured products to the Bell Telephone Company itself. The other half is outside, what I call commercial sales to the trade generally. I have absolutely no argument against Bell doing as much manufacturing as it wants to. It has its own "make or buy" decisions to reach based on economic considerations, which should properly be the responsibility of the management of that company. It is their job to ensure the lowest cost possible, and this sort of "make or buy" consideration is entirely a managerial responsibility. But it seems to me to be a perversion of the original intention of the legislation for Bell to take a company with four miles of telephone line and use that as the basis for acquiring it, and then to swing that company into a manufacturing enterprise doing $150 million worth of business each year on an open and competitive basis outside the field of telephone communication in this country. I am not questioning the legality of this operation; it is probably perfectly legal, but it does appear to me to be a perversion of the original intent of the legislation.
Apparently in investigating the rate structure of the Bell Telephone Company the board of transport commissioners investigated to some degree the relationship between Bell and Northern. Again, if I may refer to the evidence in the committee, page 426, it is stated by Mr. Scrivener of the company that the Northern Electric Company reports to the board of transport commissioners and he then outlines the basis on which they provide information, in these words:
It has been based on financial considerations such as an examination of the records, the profits and the non-profits, during these applications. You will see it in the report of the Bell. Bell reports continuously to the board of transport commissioners, but Northern does not.
The question that is raised in my mind is. in what detail does Northern report to the board of transport commissioners? Northern has an annual report and I have a copy of that annual report here. The annual report indicates the profitability of Northern but it does not in any way indicate a breakdown between the business Northern does with Bell Telephone and the business Northern does in the open, competitive, commercial market. Does the board of transport commissioners, when it is examining rate applications by Bell Telephone, examine the relationship of these two parts of the business that Northern is doing? I do not know whether it does, but

Private Bills
I think we should have some satisfaction on this point because to me the danger exists that an unfair situation could be created.
Again I want to emphasize the fact that I am not saying this situation does exist. I think we should be sure it does not, but I have had nothing to indicate that we are sure on that point. The danger lies in the fact that $150 million of the Bell Telephone Company's material supply comes form Northern. On the basis of the cost of this material Bell makes application for the telephone rates that you and I and every telephone subscriber have to pay. I do not say this happens but it is possible that Northern could sell its commercial products on the outside market at low prices to drive out competition, penetrate the market totally and possibly eliminate competition ultimately and could subsidize that operation by charging higher prices to the Bell Telephone Company. These prices would then be paid in effect through the telephone rates set by the board of transport commissioners as the result of Bell's rate applications and would be paid by you and I and every other telephone subscriber. In effect we would then be subsidizing Northern in their attempt to drive out competition in a certain segment of the market.
I do not say this is happening but if it did happen it is something that would be seriously wrong, and I think it is important enough that we should be absolutely sure that this does not and cannot occur. There is no guarantee that it does but again there is no guarantee that it does not.
In the evidence there were indications that there were cross-checks with the prices to outside purchasers on the basis of which Northern sold to Bell. Knowing the nature of the business I would doubt that purchasers other than Bell who buy telephone equipment from Northern would have any other sources to which they could go for their equipment. Therefore I wonder whether this is really an effective cross-check against the prices at which Bell buys its equipment from Northern. Again I do not know.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I know. I will prove it.


David George Hahn: We as members of parliament have allowed a monopoly to exist in this country and it may be that this monopoly in this situation is to the advantage of all concerned. But it is important to me that we make sure it is. The setting of the rates of the company and the rates that we pay must not only be fair, as I said earlier, but they

must also appear to be fair. There must be no doubt about that.
I am not satisfied with the regulation of the Bell Telephone Company and particularly that the relationship between Bell and Northern is sufficiently rigid to ensure that this is the case. I do not like the interlock between these two companies. I think that at the least the accounting of Northern should be so segregated that one could see what is being charged on this outside commercial business and what is being charged on the business transacted with Bell. As a further step I should like to see, if possible, the two divisions of Northern completely segregated and divorced.
It seems to me we should do one thing if we are going to allow the present situation to continue. I think that we who have allowed this monopolistic situation to exist have a responsibility to make sure that it exists in the interests of all. I should like to see legislation passed which would cause the Bell Telephone Company to come regularly before a committee of parliament where various questions and doubts such as I have raised could be examined, and could be examined in depth.
We as parliamentarians have allowed this situation, which may be beneficial, to exist. I believe we have a responsibility as members of parliament to make sure that it exists in the best interests of all concerned. I think the company would probably welcome the opportunity to come before such a committee. There may be nothing in the doubts I have expressed. The situation may be in the best interests of all concerned. I think the company would welcome the opportunity to explain the situation and to make it clear so that people like myself would not raise these unanswered questions.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I have strong reservations to make about this bill. In my opinion, it would be important for the government to form a committee of both houses, not only to review the charter of the company, but also to call witnesses: The private telephone companies, including the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
As I have already said, Mr. Chairman, the Bell Telephone Company of Canada is, among companies of this type, the most powerful in the world. About 65 per cent of the equipment intended for this company is bought from the Northern Electric, which company is itself controlled by the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.

Mr. Chairman, I have here the names of ten directors of Northern Electric Company. I note that the president of Northern Electric is at the same time director of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
Mr. Johnson, director of Northern Electric, is at the same time director of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada; Mr. Lank Herbert, who is director of the Northern Electric, is, at the same time, director of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada; Mr. Alex Lester, director of Northern Electric, is, at the same time, vice president of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
Mr. Chairman, 65 per cent of all purchases of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, as far as material is concerned, are made from its own company. It is the largest "family compact" now existing in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I have the list of directors of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. I would be very happy to have the unanimous consent of the house to table this list of directors of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada as well as of many other companies that these people control. You will see then, Mr. Chairman, the family compact that exists.


Lucien Lamoureux: If he so wishes, the hon. member may table the list of names he referred to, so that hon. members may refer to it. But it is not an official paper and unfortunately it cannot be tabled formally.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, this will take some time but I am going to read it:
1.	Mr. Eadie, Thomas W., chairman, director of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, director of the Bank of Montreal, director of the Royal Trust Company, director of Northern Electric Company Limited.
2.	Mr. Vincent, Marcel, president and chief executive officer.
3.	Mr. Ralph, Edward A., executive vice president, director of Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Co. Ltd.
4.	Lt. Col. Amyot, Louis J. A., director of the Bell Telephone Co. of Canada, president of Dominion Corset Co. Ltd., president of the National Battlefields Commission, vice president of the General Trust of Canada, director of Donohue Brothers Ltd., director of la Banque d'economie de Quebec, director of Amyot Foundation for the chair in chemistry of Laval University, national director of the St. John Ambulance Association, member advisory council, Canadian Red Cross Society, Quebec division.
5.	Mr. Borden, director of the Bell Telephone Co. of Canada, chairman of Brazilian
16. 1964	5571
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Traction, Light & Power Co. Ltd., chairman of the Canadian Board of Norwich Union Life Insurance Society, chairman of the Norwich Fire Insurance Society, director of Rio Algom Mines Ltd., director of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, director of the Canadian Fund Inc., director of Canadian Investment Fund Ltd., director of the International Business Machines Co. Ltd., director of Massey-Ferguson Ltd., director of the British Newfoundland Corporation Ltd., member advisory board, Industrial Estates Ltd., vice chairman, board of governors, University of Toronto.
6.	Mr. Cockshutt, C. Gordon, director of the Bell Telephone Co. of Canada, president of Cockshutt Securities Ltd., director of Dominion Tar & Chemical Co. Ltd., director of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, director, Canada Permanent Trust Corp., director, Dominion Life Assurance Co., director of Gore Mutual Insurance Co., director of the Guarantee Co. of North America, director of Harding Carpets Ltd., director of Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., director of Newlands & Co. Ltd., director of Newlands-Harding Yarns Ltd., director of Stauffer-Dobbie Ltd., director of York Mending Wool Co. Ltd., director of Dobbie Industries Ltd., director of Hardee Farms International Ltd.
7.	Mr. Marcel Faribault, director of the Bell Telephone Co. of Canada, is the president and general manager of the General Trust of Canada.
This is to show you, Mr. Chairman, that I am objective in my remarks.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order; since the house may have only a few minutes more to sit, shall I rise and report progress?
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the provisions of standing order 39A, it is my duty to inform the house that the questions to be raised at 10.30 are as follows:
The hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir), defence production, contract to Quebec firm for destroyer conversion; the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), national defence, requirements respecting bilingualism in considering promotions.

Loans to Students THE ROYAL ASSENT
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house vent up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act respecting the territorial sea and fishing zones of Canada.
An act to amend the National Defence Act.
An act to provide for the payment of youth allowances.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1965.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gordon for the second reading of Bill No. C-110, to facilitate the making of loans to students, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Gauthier.
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, the house has been studying in the last few days Bill No. C-110 dealing with loans to students.
This afternoon the hon. member for Rober-val (Mr. Gauthier) moved an amendment.
When introducing that bill, the government undoubtedly had good intentions because for us and all the people of Canada, education is a very important matter since it concerns primarily a very high percentage of our young people, the future leaders of Canada. That is why the government is introducing that bill dealing with education, to enable students to continue their studies, in short to be better prepared to face life and its needs.

On the other hand, what strikes me most, a matter to which several members have drawn my attention, is that the government is intruding in a field which has nothing to do with the federal government.
It is not the first time that we in Quebec have heard about education. A few years ago the Quebec Liberals told us that our educational system was not perfect under the previous administration and that they wanted to amend it; they then promised free education.
A few years ago we were promised free education in the province of Quebec and now the federal government is discussing student loans.
On the one hand, the Liberals promise free schooling and here in Ottawa, future students, the future elite of the province of Quebec or Canada, are allowed to go into debt.
Free schooling was said to be a sheet anchor for our young people. It is realized today that it was a real deception and a measure is now being introduced in order to grant loans to Canadian students, including those of the province of Quebec, as a solution to their problems.
But if we look at what happened in other fields, for instance, when the federal government and the provincial governments have in the past made different types of loans available to the various social classes, one finds that those loans did not produce the expected results or achieve their purpose.
For instance, we remember quite well what happened as a result of the passing of measures on agricultural loans, industrial loans, loans to small industrial enterprises; today, we find that those measures have not solved the problems faced by the farmers or the manufacturers.
As far as free education is concerned, we were told that we would have nothing to pay. Today we realize that text books are more expensive than before, that the construction of our schools costs more than ever and that our school taxes are higher than ever, that the provincial sales taxes-which are mentioned in this bill have increased as well as school deficits.
What do we see in the meantime? The parents' autonomy does not exist any more, it disappeared a long time ago. We also see that the autonomy of the school boards does not exist any more; they are almost completely under the control of the provincial government.
What do we see now? The autonomy of the province of Quebec is threatened in a field

which comes under its own and exclusive jurisdiction.
Some hon. members in this house went so far as to advocate a federal department of education. Well, if that principle of centralization is so good, why not advocate also an international department of education under the United Nations? If we want to be ridiculous, we might as well go the whole way.
Would it be possible for Canada to have the same system of education as certain member countries of the United Nations? Absolutely not, and I think all hon. members will agree with me on that point.
We do not deny the other provinces the right to have their own system of education, their own culture and their own language. In return, we want our rights to be respected in the province of Quebec. The British North America Act-forgive me, Mr. Speaker, but we are still British-respects provincial rights and that is why we, in Quebec, are against not the principle of this bill but against this intrusion of the federal government in a field which does not come under its jurisdiction but under that of the provinces.
A measure for free schooling in our province was submitted to us as a last hope, as regards the education problem. It has proven a failure. We have before us today, in Ottawa, legislation on loans to students; a few years hence, we will realize that it has not given the anticipated results.
In favour of whom do we want to get our students into debt? In favour of the banks, which are the sole and actual beneficiaries under this bill-get our students into debt in favour of the banks.
Up to now we have got everybody into debt. Where are the social classes that are not in debt?
The farmers are in debt, the workers are in debt, our industries are in debt and so are our school boards. We find that our provincial governments are in debt; we also see that our federal government is in the same situation and is getting deeper into debt to put others into debt. Everyone is in debt, and now we want our students to go into debt.
With regard to this bill, a member pointed out this afternoon, that only banks can loan money to students; no other serious and responsible organization in Canada can lend money to our students.
We had our industries incur debts in favour of the banks, we had our industrial resources encumbered in favour of our banks, and today, the intention is to involve in debt 20220-353J
Loans to Students
our future natural resources for the benefit of the banks, and no other solution is being found to the present system.
The present bill is greeted with enthusiasm. How ridiculous.
As for us, we do not want debts. Students have already too many debts, their parents nave already too many debts; what the Canadian people need is an income system. Instead of making loans available to students, as is being done at the present time, why not make available to the students, during the holiday period, jobs which would make it possible for them to earn some money during the ten or 12 weeks of the summer holidays, or at least for eight or nine weeks of work?
Why should not the federal government organize some system to make employment available to the students, making it possible for them to earn $100 a week? Then they would earn during the holiday period the equivalent of the amount of $1,000 involved in the debt we want them to get into. They could this way earn money while acquiring an education, and they could then pay for their studies. But no, today, instead of offering employment to students in order that they may pay for their studies, they are allowed to study and to run into debt and, in the meantime, we also get the country into debt.
During their schooling they could work and contribute to the wealth of Canada. During their holidays they could produce something instead of doing nothing. They could also work their way through school.
We have no other system than to push them into debt. Get into debt students, farmers, industrialists, municipalities, school boards. It sounds like the system advocated by finance companies. "Travel now, pay later"; buy today, pay later; buy your house today; pay later; buy your farm today, pay later; buy your furniture today, pay later. "Consolidate your debts, re-finance them and pay later". In Bill No. C-110, our young people are being told: "study now and pay later."
Students are not begging for charity or privileges. Why not offer them jobs, giving them an opportunity to work during their holidays, instead of offering them as the only solution, debts and a mortgaged future.
Mr. Speaker, what amazes me most, is that when the problem is to develop Canada or give Canadians or our students a few amenities in peacetime, there is no money; we

Loans to Students
get debts and obligations; we have unemployment and insecurity. But come war or war preparation, everything becomes available. Why not make the same benefits available to our students.
I have here a pamphlet dealing with Canadian military colleges. Here is what it says concerning the military training of our youth. It is a lot more interesting than Bill No. C-110 I would even suggest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) to get acquainted with that pamphlet designed for the army, air force and navy trainees, and to redraft his bill accordingly. First, the large headline:
Enthralling life for young Canadians.
It is a lot more enthralling than what is offered our youth. It is so enthralling to enroll in the air force. Here is what is says.
1.	First class aeronautical training.
2.	Very good pay.
Not a word about debts. They are paid; there is no signing of promissory notes.
3.	Opportunity to increase your knowledge through numerous courses offered by the air force.
It is all about air force; there is no mention
of interest.
4.	Opportunity to travel in Canada and abroad.
5.	Thirty days annual leave with pay.
6! Free medical and dental care.
It is free, Mr. Minister.
7.	Work with a team sharing the same ideal.
This is interesting.
8.	Security ensured by generous retirement plans.
There is no mention of debts. Nothing is
said of a debt plan. And that is not all.
9.	Attractive and comfortable rooms for single people.
Nothing is said of married people.
10.	Organized recreation for everyone.
11.	Agreeable working conditions.
12.	Training for administrative and executive duties.
And that is not all they offer our youth headed for the air force, the army or the navy. But it is much better than what is offered by Bill No. C-110. Further, it says:
General courses leading to a diploma in arts, science and engineering are supplemented by military instruction and studies, including summer training in Canada or abroad. Tuition fees are paid by the government and cadet officers are also supplied with the required uniforms and receive pay and allowances, besides being entitled to annual leave and other privileges.
Here, one finds the amount of pay given to young students of the air force, army and navy, not for peace but for war:

Pay (aU cadet officers), $63 a month.
Living allowance, $65 a month.
And if the student does flying time:
$75 a month.
The above figures do not comprise medical and dental care, which are free, nor clothing or other benefits. The cadet officers have 30 days of annual leave with pay (to which travelling time is added), which is generally awarded after the summer training period. Christmas leave is also provided.
I wanted to point out the merits of a military educational system with regard to the air force, the army and the navy.
What a difference from the terms of Bill No. C-110, which is offered to all our young people in Canada. All we have to offer are debts and loans.
When shall we rid ourselves of that system?
I listened to hon. members, whether Conservative or Liberal, and I found that whenever there was a question of taxes or loans, they were all in agreement.
Mr. Speaker, the weather is upon us; each summer, the flies appear with the heat. What do the farmers do? They get an insect killer, which is called d.d.t., to kill those flies.
As far as I am concerned, I say that the two old line parties represented in this chamber, the Liberals and the Conservatives, use exactly the same remedies, the same pattern to destroy our social classes: the d.d.t. system. In fact, since confederation, Canada never has had anything else than debts, deficits and taxes. That is, sirs, your d.d.t. financial system. Today, there is nothing else to offer our various social classes.
This afternoon the hon. member for Rob-erval proposed an amendment to the bill under consideration. Why? To allow students to achieve the same results, without incurring debts and mortgaging their future as their parents are presently doing.
We want the federal government to respect the British North America Act. The separatist movement in the province of Quebec is criticized, the French Canadians who want to safeguard the province's autonomy are blamed. But the federal ministers should start by respecting the British North America Act, which gave the provinces jurisdiction over education, instead of interfering in a field which comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Roberval would enable the Bank of Canada to loan the provinces, without interest,

the money they need to do what they want in the field of education.
The British North America Act gave the provinces jurisdiction in the field of education but, on the other hand, jurisdiction in the field of finance was given to the federal government. The provinces were entrusted with responsibility in the field of education, but the means to carry out that responsibility were given to the central government.
Now, since finance and money come under the federal government and since education is a provincial responsibility, Ottawa should, through the Bank of Canada, put the required funds at the disposal of the provinces, so that the latter may look after educational needs as they see fit. If that were the case, we would hear less about separatism because provincial and minority rights would be respected. It is only on that condition that the Canadian confederation will be strong; otherwise, we will inevitably end up on the road on which Bill No. C-110 is but a milestone.
This separatism wave will unfortunately get worse in Quebec, not because of the separatists themselves, but because of those who are sitting on the government benches. [Text]
Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, my intervention will unfortunately be technical in nature but, fortunately, brief in character. The time has come when I feel that some observations ought to be made on the very difficult constitutional and legal aspects of the debate before the house. But before I do so may I be allowed to interpose a welcome to the principles of the bill. There is a rule that says that something is always lost in translation, but it seems to me that the very instructive and illuminating introductory explanation by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) proved to be the exception to the rule.
I confidently believe that any measure which has as its fundamental purpose to widen the opportunities for education will receive a sympathetic treatment at the hands of this house. Its aim is to wipe out the inequalities imposed by economic handicaps.
It may interest the house to know that in the recent report of the Robbins commission in Great Britain they found that they had to change their views regarding the relationship between heredity and intelligence. They found that the children of the lower class people did just as well as children of upper and middle class groups. May I suggest that a great
Loans to Students
resource of untapped ability in this nation will be found in the working class and lower income groups. I speak with some experience, Mr. Speaker, and, with deep feeling on this matter when I say that no young persons should have to be deprived of, or delayed the opportunity for, education at a university, and it is bitter tea to swallow when you have to undergo that experience. It is a trite observation to say that this nation must make the fullest possible use of its capital resources and in intelligence.
I now pass by natural transition to the
very difficult constitutional points that probe deeply into the fabric of this bill. I know that a large number of the members of this house are not lawyers, and I suppose they will thank me for that testimonial. But none the less I believe there is a legitimate curiosity about these very fundamental legal problems.
I turn at once to deal in particular with the criticism contained in the speech of the hon. and learned member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), to which the house listened with unbroken attention. If I understood him correctly, and I think I did, his argument was put in this way. He stated that the purport of this bill was to delegate the power of the parliament of Canada, a sovereign authority, to the lieutenant governor in council, who in turn would make a very important decision by designating persons or agencies who would select the student as qualifying and the institutions designated under the act.
The hon. and learned member went on to draw our attention to the case of the attorney general of Nova Scotia v. attorney general of Canada, which is reported in Supreme Court Reports, 1951. That case held that it was unconstitutional for the parliament of Canada to delegate its power to a provincial legislature.
It should be noted Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member then made a distinction and pointed out that the Nova Scotia case was different from the case now engaging the attention of the house because in the Nova Scotia case the delegation of power was from the parliament of Canada to the provincial legislature, while the purport of this bill delegates power from parliament to the lieutenant governor in council.
I do not think I do an injustice to the very forceful argument of the hon. member for Greenwood when I say that he did not cite any case that turned directly on the point, so far as the lieutenant governor in council

Loans to Students
is concerned. He bridged that difference, may I say, by stating that in his opinion the principle was applicable in both cases. It is at this point that I must part company, with great reluctance, from the hon. member. I might say that the answer to his argument is found in his own distinction. The bill now before the house is a delegation not from the parliament of Canada to the provincial legislature, but a delegation from parliament to the lieutenant governor in council. In any event-and this is a fundamental point-the bill does not purport to delegate any legislative authority but only delegate administrative authority, which the lieutenant governor in council can carry out without the consent of the provincial legislature.
May I put it another way, Mr. Speaker. The bill is not purporting to take any lawmaking powers away from the parliament of Canada to give to the lieutenant governor in council, because the parliament of Canada has already exercised its law-making powers which are contained in the bill itself. All we are doing is permitting the lieutenant governor in council to make an administrative act which, as I say, in no way affects the law-making power which remains with parliament.
Perhaps I may be allowed to cite an illustration in support of the contention I now put forward. If the house would bear with me I should like to invite its attention to the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation Act, section 10, which act is to be found in Statutes of Canada, 1962-63, chapter 12. Section 10 says, quoting the material words:
The corporation shall.. .submit for the approval of the governor in council and the lieutenant governor in council its over-all plan-
This is an illustration of the parliament of Canada delegating authority to the lieutenant governor in council to approve a certain plan. May I say-I do not say this in any arrogant or offensive manner-that in this case the lieutenant governor in council was that of the province of Quebec. Without trying to make a political point, Mr. Speaker, being secure in the knowledge that a large number of members across the floor of the house will support the bill, may I say that perhaps they will secure further comfort from the knowledge that the legislation to which I have just referred was introduced, and properly introduced, by the previous administration.
But my illustrations do not stop there. I would ask the house to apply its mind to the Criminal Code, sections 523, 524, 526 and

527, in all of which sections, power of the parliament was delegated to the lieutenant governor in council to carry out administrative acts regarding people declared insane and held in detention.
I could, Mr. Speaker, refer to section 13 of the Prisons and Reformatories Act, which deals with powers conferred by parliament on the lieutenant governor to make regulations to prevent escape from jail. Section 20 of the Juvenile Delinquents Act deals with powers conferred by parliament on the lieutenant governor in council to approve an industrial school to which children who are judged to be juvenile delinquents may be committed.
I do not wish to pretend by the fact that I have cited a number of similar illustrations that I have entirely removed the arguments of my hon. friend from Greenwood. I have a profound respect for him. I knew him at the bar and his reputation preceded him into this house. Whenever he makes an assertion on constitutional law it ought to be listened to with attention. But may I also say that those of us who are concerned with the bill have made an honest and sincere effort to see that it stays within proper limits. We have given sustained consideration to the matter and I would ask the house, particularly the hon. member for Greenwood, to whom I make a personal appeal although he is not present, to accept the opinion that the bill does not contravene and is within the rule of constitutional purity and substance.
I should not ignore the fact that the learned member proposed an alternative method and in my very humble opinion that alternative was valid and did not affect the fabric of the bill. But I am sure he will understand our position. We have given this matter a great deal of attention, have turned it over in our minds a great number of times, and we have reached the conscientious and honest opinion that the bill does not in any way infringe on the rights of the provinces, or is unconstitutional.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member leaves this subject, which he has discussed in a manner which is very interesting to all of us, will he permit a question? Does he recall that in another debate this session-it happened to be the debate on the electoral boundaries bill-the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) said that the members of the government had racked their brains to try to find some way in which to appoint provincial people to do a certain job?

I do not want to get into the redistribution argument, but I ana sure the hon. member will recall that in that situation the government apparently felt that the federal government could not delegate a function to provincial persons, that it had to remain with persons who were responsible to the federal government. How does the hon. member get around that argument which was used in this very session by a member of the cabinet?


Mr. Pennell:: May I say to the hon. member that every case must turn on its own facts and must be dealt with accordingly. We move from field to field. I cannot make a definite general statement that will cover all powers of the federal government as related to those of the provincial governments. I am dealing here with one specific bill and I can only assume, knowing the usual searching examination that the Minister of Transport makes of all matters delegated to him, that he must have given the correct answer.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Give us an instance.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I address just one question to the hon. member. Can he quote a word or phrase from the B.N.A. Act which permits the federal government to interfere in education?


Lawrence T. Pennell: May I say, and I say this with great respect to the hon. member, that he misapprehends the whole purpose of the bill, because we are not dealing with education, as I trust I will demonstrate to the satisfaction of the house in a few moments. I am now going to deal with that body of opinion expressed by some hon. members who took exception to the bill, but who I believe labour under a misapprehension. I do not say this in any arrogant manner. With great respect, in my view they are labouring under the misapprehension that this is a matter of education. It is my respectful submission that we are now dealing with a matter that comes properly under section 91(1) and section 91(15) of the British North America Act.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Section 93?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I can see that a very precipitate and inadequate examination of the bill may tend to lead to the conclusion that we are dealing with the matter of education and property and civil rights. Let me say that there is nothing manifest in the bill that shows any intent to truncate or deprive the provinces of their real and special responsibilities in the field of education.
Loans to Students


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On division.


Lawrence T. Pennell: May I say I know that the minds of a number of members are exercised about clause 15 of the bill, but in my respectful submission this comes under section 91 (15) of the British North America Act. I do not undermine my own position when I say that if you view this bill from different angles it takes on different forms, but if you hold it up to the light of examination and intensive study it will become clear and ought to lead inevitably and conclusively to the finding that this is a matter within section 91(15) of the B.N.A. Act.
Let me say to my hon. friend across the floor that those who have contended otherwise have not brought any cases forward to support their position. 1 now invite the attention of hon. members first of all to the definition of banking. I am now dealing with the question of loans to infants under clause 15.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask a question?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Later.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I will be pleased to answer questions subsequently.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask a question before you finish the subject?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Don't embarrass the hon. member.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Under the leading case of Tenant v. Union Bank of Canada, 1894 Appeal Cases, 31, a privy council decision, it was laid down that "banking is an expression wide enough to embrace every transaction coming within the legitimate business of a banker".
I say it is within the concept of banking to make loans, and if the bank makes loans surely it should have the right to recover the money due to it. Forgetting the question of law altogether, in my respectful submission it would be contrary to common sense to call something a loan if the man who paid out the money did not have the right to attempt to recover.
Therefore I submit that this question of loans properly comes under the category of banking as defined in section 91 (15) of the B.N.A. Act. I would also direct the attention of the house to the leading case of attorney general of Canada v. attorney general of Quebec, a 1947 judgment, also by the privy council, in which it was held that a depositor had a right to recover his deposit from the bank and that this was a matter of

Loans to Students
banking and not a contractual matter relating to property and civil rights. I notice that the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) shakes his head, but all I can do is give the authority. The privy council decision in the case of attorney general of Canada and attorney general of Quebec.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask a question?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I should like to move on now to look at section 95 of the Bank Act, and I might say that this section has never been challenged to my knowledge. Section 95 (1) reads as follows:
The bank may.. .without the authority, aid, assistance or intervention of any other person or official being required,
(a)	receive deposits from any person whomsoever, whatever his age, status or condition in life, and whether such person is qualified by law to enter into ordinary contracts or not.
This section implies a right in the depositor to claim payment from the bank and it sets up a bank-customer relationship in which each party has equal rights. Therefore I submit that clause 15 is properly included as a part of banking.


Gilles Grégoire: You are far away from the question.


Lawrence T. Pennell: My hon. friend says I am far away from the question, but I would point out that there is nothing novel in this question of dealing with infants, which seems to exercise the minds of those who are opposing the bill. I would ask them now to look at the Financial Administration Act passed in 1953. I am now referring to chapter 116 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, section 56. Perhaps the hon. member would care to listen. It reads as follows:
The governor In council may make such regulations. ..
(b)	(ii) prescribing the conditions upon which the transfer, transmission, exchange and redemption of securities registered in the names of infants, minors or other persons not of full capacity to enter into ordinary contracts, may be made.
So, I would say, Mr. Speaker, that we are not embarking into a novel field. We are properly exercising the rights given to this parliament under the British North America Act.
Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I ought to make a reference to the point raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). While within our own minds we are satisfied that the bill as it stands would cover the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, none the less if it is not grossly impertinent on my part, I am prepared to recommend to my minister

when we get into the committee that he give the consideration and study to the amendment that I respectfully think it deserves. I trust that my remarks have not been too tedious to those who do not have a professional interest in the law. I am unwilling to inflict my opinions on the house any further. May I say in conclusion that whatever may be the imperfections of this bill, and I make no admissions on that score, in my humble opinion it has the makings of a valuable and useful act of parliament.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I address a question to the hon. member? Is the hon. member ready to support the idea of having a federal minister of education?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am not ready for that. No one will find a stronger defender of the rights of the provinces in the field of education than I am.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What does the hon. member think of the ideas of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto)? You have a split in your party.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask a question of the hon. member in French?

The hon. member mentioned the case of those who are under age and who deposit money in the bank. Is the member aware of a section of the Quebec civil code which states that when a person under age, without the consent of his father, tutor or mother, as the case may be, enters into a contract, the person under age cannot be forced, under the law, to make restitution, in a case like this, should the contract mean a loss to him; in other words, if a person under age borrows $1,000, the terms of the contract will not be against him but rather in his favour, and he will not have to reimburse his creditor.


Lawrence T. Pennell: May I say that not only do I understand there is such a regulation in the civil code of Quebec, but I understand also that the same broad principle applies in Ontario. I made my submission to the house partially aware of this regulation. It is my honest, sincere belief that we are not truncating or depriving the province of its powers in the field of education or civil and property rights.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I am
very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to follow the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. He knows that I have a very high regard for his

opinions on this matter, which we have discussed intimately in different quarters. In the final portion of his remarks he referred to this bill as a valuable and useful one for parliament to pass. I readily agree with this statement. I am one of those who believe that this legislation, in consideration of all the problems that will develop, will be a very useful piece of legislation.
I am also one of those who believe that this legislation has been brought forward much too late. I regret that some of the statements made during the course of this debate have been somewhat contrary to what has actually happened during the course of this parliament. I should like to say initially, Mr. Speaker, that the point that aroused my interest in the bill was the intervention on July 14 of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso). I asked the hon. member a question at the conclusion of his remarks, and I should like to repeat a portion of that question in order to clarify my position this evening. I quote from page 5477 of Hansard:
Will the hon. member permit a question? Does he not agree that had it not been for the efforts of the Canadian students union itself, goodness knows when we would have had this legislation?
I shall not quote the other portion of the question because that is the important part. The hon. member for Hamilton West said he was happy I had asked him the question. Then, he said:
He should look at the position of his own side. He says, now: We are willing to co-operate: put the legislation before us. But it is interesting to note that the opposition has only adopted this attitude after pressure by the students, by he universities and in the press.
In my opinion, this is an extremely important inference. My predecessor on the floor this evening said he was making his contribution on a non-political basis, and 1 made it very clear at that time my presentation to the government, in order to impress them with the importance of this legislation, had been on a non-political basis as well. I assure you this evening that was the case, and it remains so this evening.
I should like to refer to some of the remarks made earlier in the debate by the same hon. member for Hamilton West. At page 5474 of Hansard he refers to the words of Mr. James G. Mitchell, president of the students council of the University of Waterloo and James D. Kraemer, chairman of the board of external relations of that university.
Loans to Students
This is what those men said in a letter to the hon. member:
The Ontario legislature did not adequately meet the needs of her expanding universities and as a result there has been a widespread increase in tuition fees (a situation common throughout Canada). The increase in fees (which in our case amounts to more than $75) coupled with the growing scarcity of summer employment once again threatened to make "university" a "privilege of the wealthy".
Earlier in their letter they say:
Our earnest hope is that the members of parliament will effectively expedite this priority legislation-
Then there is an interruption, and I continue to quote from the letter:
-which awaits the house, in order that a system of federal loans for students will be in effect for September, 1964.
How ridiculous can a person be? I watched the activities of the hon. member for Hamilton West very carefully. I regret very much that he is not in the house this evening, nor has he been in the house all day today, nor was he at the meeting of university students held in room 112 north in this building when they made their presentation, nor do I find one instance of the hon. member putting that presentation before the government or requesting that this legislation be brought forward. This angers me more than a little, because he accused the opposition of not intervening until the Canadian students union made a presentation to the government.
Let me illustrate how untrue that statement is. I go back to Hansard, page 2599, April 27, 1964, to a contribution in which a request was made of the government by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. MacRae) that this legislation be brought forward. Goodness knows, I do not have all these references. Then, at page 3166 of Hansard for May 12, 1964, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam (Mr. Douglas) made a similar request. Then on the same day a further request from the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan); again on page 3398, May 20, by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), and a similar request on page 3399 by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Grdgoire). Then in volume 4, at page 4093, June 9, there is the hon. member for Victoria, Ont. (Mr. Lamb); page 4094, June 9, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam; page 4150, June 10, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and page 4223, June 17 by a supporter of the government party, one of the Hamilton members. I do not have his constituency but I would ask you to make note

Loans to Students
of that. Then at page 4442, June 18, there is the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr); page 4496, June 19, the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Muir); page 4547, June 22, the hon. member for Hamilton South (Mr. Howe); page 4698, June 25, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I think it is valuable that we have them all, certainly all I have found.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Put all on the record.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is right, Stanley. Then on page 5139, July 7, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre again, and on page 5150, July 7, which happens to be myself, Mr. Speaker, and I will stop there; but there were other requests.
Let it not be said by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso) that we boarded the gravy train when the Canadian students union arrived. I am afraid the government did not become alive to the situation until that date.
Again my predecessor in speaking, the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Pennell), said that he was a learned member of the law profession and might be in a minority in this house. Sometimes I think there are too many of them here, Mr. Speaker, but I still tell you I have a very high regard for that member, and regardless of the constitutional arguments or involvements I am prepared to support every inch of this legislation, including the resultant problems that will be created.
When I say the resultant problems I refer to some of the references that have been made. I think of facility; I think of faculty as well as of the student. It does not matter too much to me in which order we take them. If this legislation creates the next problem, then I say well and good, because if there is one thing we need in this country right now it is a look at the educational system to improve it and to create greater opportunity.
It is a peculiar thing, when we look at the expenditures of the government and the manner in which they are made, the first thing supporters of the government say is, what did you do when your government was in office? That kind of thinking in this particular case, as in others, must be forgotten and I say to you, Mr. Speaker, if we look into the future we have to think of the tax dollars we are going to spend.
In this connection I am thinking of the unemployment insurance fund and am suggesting that we take a look at the drop-outs in secondary school and high school. Maybe

we can do something in this area because to my way of thinking there is no sense in educating students through grades 11 and 12, particularly in the province of Ontario, and have them drop out only to see a diminishing supply of money in the unemployment insurance fund. That is poor business. We should think far enough on into the future about the way we are going to spend our tax dollars, and maybe we shall have to revise our entire thinking.
I think of the whiz kids the Minister of Finance brought in to assist him with his first budget. Maybe three or four of those unemployed people could have spent that money much more realistically than the whiz kids spent it. When you draw the common denominator of people who apply for unemployment insurance, as the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand has said, if we use the thinking power of these people we will be able to understand better their problems. All the brains of the country are not in parliament. As a matter of fact, it was not too long ago I thought most of the brains were outside parliament; but when we consider where the money is going to be best spent we should have a look at the whole picture.
Maybe we should bring in some of the presidents of our universities so that we can more readily understand exactly what the requirements are. Even though we have very valuable and high minded contributions during the course of this debate we will not find the solution to all the problems that exist. One criticism of this legislation which I heard was that put forward by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam in regard to the bank loan situation that has existed thus far concerning students.
It just so happens that this afternoon I had the president of the Waterloo Lutheran University in my office and he discussed this with me. He assured me that never once did they have a problem with a student who had a reasonable standing, in securing a loan. I asked him, "Will this legislation serve a very useful purpose in your institution?" and his reply was, "Yes, to a degree it will assist us in that our own bursary program will not have to be so great."
Without offering it as a vital criticism of this legislation, the question is, why was it not brought forward as it was promised? I do not ask this to indicate that I am opposed to it. I am not, as I have said; but when the Liberal party promises scholarships in an election campaign and turns around and converts them into a loan program, surely to

goodness the people of Canada will wake up and have a look at what they are doing with the country and how they are putting their program forward. Is it truthful? I am not saying it is untruthful, but I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the house, is it truthful if you are going to give scholarships and you turn around and make them loans?
The president of this university said to me this afternoon the one thing they were always careful of was the debt position into which a student placed himself. I replied, "Surely, when a student is going on for a professional career a debt of $3,000 or $4,000 is not too much to him". He replied that there are so many complications for a student going through university today. Some come in as married people; some of them are married immediately they graduate. "Now," he said, "it may be a minority of the group, but it creates a situation which must be looked at responsibly."
I have had some of the members of this house say to me that the provincial programs are inadequate. I do not know whether I am prepared to say they are inadequate. I have here before me the program as outlined by the department of education of the province of Ontario entitled "Ontario Student Aid Loans, 1964-65." It is a complete outline of that program. I am not prepared to read it out fully and put it on the record, but it does not look too bad to me in relation to what the president of this university had to say to me today. It does give the student who is eligible, who has the desire, and has the capability, the opportunity of going further along, with the money he might borrow from a chartered bank.
Contrary to what the hon. member for Hamilton West had to say, I deny that everything is political expediency. He seems to think no one has his eyes open until such time as legislation is brought forward or some pressure group comes into the picture. There is another thing I should like to point out in this regard. It was very interesting to me to note what happened the day we met the students union. I did not identify myself by name or by party and I stated at that meeting that my contribution, or questions, or presentation was on a non-political basis, whereupon all the Liberal members immediately howled me down. Of course we know what this is: It is the usual practice. But I think, now that the situation is somewhat different, and even at the cost of that trifling and usual Liberal embarrassment I stand here and say 20220-354J
Loans to Students
I intend to support this legislation; I think it is good and I hope it goes through at the earliest possible date.
Some time ago, as I was about to say to you, Mr. Speaker, early in May, being concerned that the legislation was not coming forward quickly enough-and I hope the excerpts I read to you and the house are sufficient to prove that at least we were sincere in what we were doing-I wrote to the minister of education in the province of Ontario, and he had this to say to me:
You will notice that loans of $500 are available to Ontario residents taking courses in the institutions as listed for the current year. The appropriation for this fund is $3 million and we anticipate that all of it will be used.
Therefore I suggest again to the house that this is a valuable piece of legislation and I hope it is consummated in time for all the students who require it to make use of it.
With regard now to the student who puts himself in a debt position, I should like to say that I have before me a prospectus for the United States economy as put forward by a firm known as Vince, Saunders and Company, Inc., of Boston, Massachusetts. It is interesting to note that these statistics, which are dated June 15, 1964, indicate that by 1975 the gross national product of the United States will increase by more than 50 per cent to a record of $1 trillion per year. It is also estimated that there will be an increase of 40 per cent in today's average income and that the average family income in the United States will be $8,724 by 1975. There are a number of other statistics which I shall not bother to place on record, but I believe that this, together with the other quotations I have given, indicates that we must proceed, and proceed quickly in the direction we are now taking.
We all know, and it has been stated in the course of this debate, what the government has contributed to the universities on a per capita basis, and I hope-I do not know whether this has been mentioned; if not, I put it forward for what it is worth-that these contributions are made on a per capita basis of the student population of the universities rather than on the basis of the populations of the provinces of Canada concerned.
Some institutions are of course more progressive than others. We heard yesterday and last evening of the tremendous growth which will be experienced here in the capital city and I am sure a similar growth, if not a greater growth, will take place in the industrial centres of this country such as Mont-

Loans to Students
real, Toronto, and so on. These areas surely can no longer be segregated on a provincial basis. In such cases, let us relate our contribution directly to the institution so as to enable them to do the job with which they have been entrusted. Let us not restrict them in any way. This would take care of universities in the maritime area where, as I understand it from the debate, they have a tremendous number of students attending from other parts of Canada. Then the other provinces can take advantage accordingly, and in this way there will be the proper distribution of the funds which are necessary.
I listened with great interest to some of the high minded speeches which have come from the government side of the house. I hesitate to say this again, because one becomes tarnished with a political approach in this house and outside. This is used for the purpose of showing something other than the sincerity with which a point is put forward. This evening I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house, that some time ago I was involved in the possibility of the opening of a university at the Edgar radar site in Ontario, half way between Orillia and Barrie. I was intimately concerned with the progress of this particular proposal. The government came forward with suggestions. Members were working. Defeated candidates were working-and that is the important part of the question. Then all of a sudden there was a change. The government was not so vitally interested. They are now. And who pulled the rug from under the government? Their own defeated Liberal members. Yes, that is quite so.
I understand, some time in the future there is to be a university at Barrie, and I congratulate the people who are to take part in the establishment of that university. But if the government had had their sights set precisely in the first instance there would be an institution of learning at Edgar and maybe some time in the future they will regret not having established it. Let us not be so high minded about a piece of legislation here in the house in one instance and then play around with politics outside as seems to be a characteristic of this government-and it is regrettable that it must occur.


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


Eric Alfred Winkler: With pleasure.


Maurice John Moreau: I am not trying in any way to get into the debate. I should like to know whether the hon. member agrees with me

that jurisdiction for setting up universities and their sites lies with the provinces.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I agree very much with the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau) but he must recognize that there is a tremendous capital plant in Edgar which somebody is going to get for peanuts, the way the Department of Defence Production is giving assets away; and if they had given it to the people of that area it would be properly used.


Maurice John Moreau: Would it not be correct to assume that this site has been offered to the provincial government, for them to make use of it?


Eric Alfred Winkler: If the hon. member will attach a price tag to it I would probably agree with him. It is offered on the one hand on a political basis for a very small figure, but when the provincial authority becomes involved the fee becomes a lot higher-and I know the details of what I am speaking about.
Somebody back there has said: "One of the members of the Interprovincial hotel committee". That is one thing I hold directly against the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso). When a meeting was held down here and he accused me of playing politics with this issue, we on this side, attended that meeting here, not in the Interprovincial hotel in Hull.
No doubt there will be a number of questions asked during the clause by clause study of this bill. But I want to reiterate that the contribution made the other evening angered me no end. I refer to the remarks made with regard to the promotion of this legislation. I say again, Mr. Speaker, in a little more controlled way, that had it not been for the government's-and may be just the Prime Minister's-desire to proceed with his own method of handling legislation-and I refer to the flag resolution-we would have had this bill before the house when it should have been before us, in time for the majority of students to take advantage of it. There are some universities now that have their doors closed to applicants. This must be understood across the country. Nevertheless, I will vote for this bill; I will stand behind it-and when any other legislation with regard to facilities, plant or the engaging of staff- that is, the university faculties-is introduced by the government, I will stand behind such legislation as well.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to say a few

words in support of this bill and in opposition of the amendment to it. I think that the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler), before criticizing in any way the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso), should spend some time correcting his own colleagues who feel that this bill is unconstitutional and who do not seem prepared to support it. I say this in a rather non-political sense-I hope, in a more non-political sense than the hon. member-because I am quite pleased to note that he himself supports this legislation. If he wants to find very good authority from a leader of his own party on the attitude to take toward this matter, I have a quotation for him which reads as follows:
The challenge of adventure into new fields of social welfare must not find us discouraged by the difficulties adherent in the British North America Act. We must go forth into new horizons of social justice.. .The state must guarantee and underwrite equal access to security, to education, to nutrition and to health for all.
These words were spoken by the then member for Lake Centre, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) during the debate on the family allowance bill in 1944, and can be found in volume VI of Hansard for that year at page 5460. I hope, therefore, the members of the official opposition who support this bill will bring this quotation to the attention of their colleagues who do not seem to share their views.
The University of Windsor, the Windsor teachers' college and the western Ontario institute of technology are all found in the riding of Essex West, and of course this helps indicate the basis for my interest in this bill.
The University of Windsor in the last few years has had a spectacular growth and development, much of which has come about under the inspired leadership of the Reverend Father E. C. Lebel. Father Lebel recently retired as president of the University of Windsor but will be continuing his work in the field of higher education as principal of St. Mark's college of the University of British Columbia. I know I speak for all the people of Windsor in adding further words of tribute to the many already expressed for his splendid service to the university and our community. The period of Father Lebel's work in Windsor reflects what has happened to higher education in Canada over the past several decades. When he came to Assumption college, a precursor of the university in 1941, to head its English department, three buildings were sufficient to provide both for housing and classrooms for some 100 college students and those of an affiliated high school. When he
Loans to Students
completed his last days as president at the end of June of this year the University of Windsor had grown to include some 11 buildings and some 3,965 students of which 1,816 were full time.
Yet the University of Windsor and the other universities in our country still have much to do to meet the demands that are being placed upon them. We are privileged in Windsor to have as Father Lebel's successor Dr. John Francis Leddy, former vice president of the University of Saskatchewan. Jerry Hames of the Windsor Star recently interviewed Dr. Leddy, and in a report in the Windsor Star of July 3, 1964, said that Dr. Leddy "showed concern for the large numbers of students who have attained university entrance standards, yet find themselves through either lack of accommodation or financial need unable to enrol in university".
Mr. Hames went on to quote Dr. Leddy as saying "there are more capable students who find themselves outside university than those who are actually enrolled in the university courses throughout Canada. It weighs very heavily upon me". Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that should weigh very heavily upon all Canadians, not only because of the injustice this situation has meant to the individuals concerned who up till now have not been able to obtain the higher education of which they are capable, but also because of the loss it has meant to our country of badly needed skills. I know that the majority of Canadians in all parts of our country will therefore welcome this legislation, which I think will do much to deal with the problem of financial need that has kept many young people from our universities and other institutions of higher learning.
I must say that in presenting this important legislation-and I say this in the same non-partisan, non-political sense as the hon. member for Grey-Bruce-within only a year and several months after taking office, this government has done something which the previous Conservative government was unable to do in six years of office, during four of which they had the biggest majority in Canadian history.
I think we should again take the opportunity to make absolutely clear that at least as far as I am aware this Canada student loan plan is definitely not being put forward in substitution for or in place of the 10,000 scholarships program which formed part of the platform on which we campaigned and gained office in 1963.


An hon. Member:: Where are they?

Loans to Students


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I might add, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Hamilton West has no need to stand in this house during the question period or otherwise to avow his support of this program, because it formed part of the program on which he went to the people of his riding and in which he defeated a former Conservative cabinet minister.
The student loan fund and the university scholarships program were both part of our program for creating greater opportunities for our youth, of which the extension of family allowances formed another important part. We have already implemented one such program, the youth allowances, which I am very happy to support and which has the effect of extending the family allowance program. In presenting to parliament this measure with regard to student loans we are now proceeding with a further stage and I am personally confident that this government will seek an early and appropriate opportunity to present to parliament the program for the 10,000 scholarships as a further stage of our program for creating greater opportunity for our youth.
Opposition speakers have suggested that the making available of student loans will increase the strain on the capacity of our universities. However, it should not be forgotten that a study published in February of this year by the Canadian universities foundation stated, "In spite of a general continued increase in university enrolment, the situation in the fall of 1963 shows that there are still places in university for those who meet the minimum requirements". Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the obvious desperate need for more buildings there is room at this time for those who can take advantage of this student loan fund.
Every once in a while we still hear people say that any student who wants to go out and do so can earn all the money needed for tuition fees, room and board and other expenses. Research shows that this is simply not the case. According to the recent Canadian union of students-Loyola university-survey on student summer employment, 82 per cent of students work in the summer months but only slightly more than 50 per cent earn between $300 and $1,000; yet the average undergraduate costs run between $1,196 and $1,550.
The possibility of students being able to earn the money needed for their education from part time work is getting smaller and smaller. Many of the part time, summer jobs available to students at one time simply do

not exist any more due to changes in technology. It is also clear that existing bursary and scholarship programs available through the provinces or through private sources are simply not sufficient to meet the need. If this were not so, Mr. Speaker, over half of those capable of higher education would not be outside our universities. This is further demonstrated by an interesting table showing student retention from secondary school to university which is to be found in the 1963-64 Canada Year Book. This table shows that of those entering grade 2 only about 15 per cent enter the senior school leaving year, and about 9 per cent enter university. And of those, only about 5 per cent graduate from university with a first degree.
For anyone to talk at this time, for example, of tightening admission standards to hold down the number of those seeking entrance to university is to urge a cruel and unrealistic solution and one which is dangerous to the future of this country. This country has so great a need for the skills which can come from higher education that it simply cannot afford to permit anyone capable of benefiting from higher education to be deprived of it for financial reasons. Canada can no longer leave the filling of this need largely to chance in the manner followed up to now-the chance which gave a student prosperous parents, or which brought him a good summer or part time job, or even the chance which gave him the stamina to follow his studies and to work at the same time.
Conditions in the world and in this country now are such that it is as much in the interests of the Canadian community to enable the young person to obtain a university education as it was, and still is, to provide him with a primary and secondary education. About 100 years ago systems of primary and secondary education available to all and supported by the community were created because they benefited the entire community. Secondary education and even primary education at that time was sufficient to enable most of the people to fill most of the jobs available and to carry out their duties as citizens. But today our world has changed to such a degree that merely to meet the same requirements of having a population able to carry out needed tasks and duties as citizens, the community must also be willing to assume the cost of making available higher education. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is no logical reason today why the community through one of its governmental manifestations or another should

pay the cost of primary and secondary schooling but stay away from university training and education at a similar level.
We have to eliminate the idea that still lingers that in providing aid to those seeking university training we are bestowing some type of favour mainly for the private benefit of the student. It is true that university graduates earn higher incomes, but these incomes arising out of the greater productivity which is brought about by their higher degree of skill will not only benefit the community but will enable us to bear the cost not only of comprehensive social welfare programs but also the aid to higher education itself.
Most important of all, measures of the nature of the student loan fund will help make sure that Canada has the skills it must have to move ahead in today's highly competitive trading world. Without these skills our products will not be able to compete with those of other nations with ever-advancing technology. The maintenance and development of our standard of living depends on this parliament passing measures of the type we are debating. We must look upon the cost of this student loan fund and other measures which will follow as a form of investment in what is surely our most valuable resource-our young people, and the return on this investment will far exceed the expense.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, this student loan fund is not of itself the complete answer to the needs involved in paying the cost of higher education both to the competent student and to the university he attends. But it is a significant and an important step forward toward the goal of ensuring that no one who has the desire and the ability will be deprived of higher education for financial reasons in Canada. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase the words of Dr. Leddy, president of the University of Windsor, this problem must continue to weigh heavily upon all of us until this vital goal is reached.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to congratulate the minister upon bringing in this legislation, timid though it is. I wonder what happened, however, to those 10,000 scholarships.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Just wait.


Philip Bernard Rynard: The golden fleece which floated in and disappeared. And I wonder what hap-
Loans to Students
pened to those headlines in the Toronto Star for May 1, 1962-"10,000 Scholarships for University Students". This is a poor substitute but it is a help.
Canada today badly needs university graduates. This principle we must accept. We have the second highest standard of living in the world, Mr. Speaker, and we boast about this. But when we compare our labour force, our university labour force, with that of the United States, for example, ours is 2 per cent while theirs is 6 per cent. In other words, Mr. Speaker, they have three times the number of university students per capita that we have. Further, let me say that in the scientific and technological fields we occupy somewhere between tenth and twelfth place in the countries of the world. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we have been living off our natural resources and failing to develop the
greatest natural resource that we have____the
brains of this country. We employ less than half per capita the scientists employed by the United States. I also want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that Russia has boasted that in the year 1970 she will have twice the number of scientists that the United States has. Therefore I ask is it any wonder, when you look at this score, with the United States with three times the number of scientists that we have on its labour force, that we today have our industry largely controlled outside of this country? We owe our position today, as I have stated, to our good fortune in being blessed with some of the greatest natural resources that any country in the world can have, those natural resources which we have been exporting and not developing in our own country. We now need to develop the brains and the ability to handle, process and sell our manufactured goods in the markets of the world.
This year we had just over 180,000 students registered at universities. If my figures are correct, we had 142,000 university students taking full time courses and something like 45,000 were doing part time and postgraduate work. At our normal rate we will have doubled this in ten years. But this is not good enough. We are way behind other countries, as I have shown, and we will have to triple and quadruple the number of university students that we turn out, for our own survival. Out of every 100 children entering public school, 65 enter high school and eight of those enter university, six graduate with a degree. This waste of our greatest natural resource, Mr. Speaker, must stop. It is not

Loam to Students
good enough, in plain economics, for this situation to continue. Roughly speaking, a university graduate earns a salary of over $6,000 a year. A high school graduate earns over $4,000 and a public school student just over $3,000.
As a natural resource the normal working span averages about 40 years. If we take this figure and multiply it by $3,000 we come up with a figure of $120,000. If we take the average yearly salary of the high school graduate and multiply it by 40 we arrive at the figure of $160,000. But when we go to the university field what do we find? We find an asset of just under a quarter of a million dollars. Some people say that we cannot afford to spend more money in this field but I say, Mr. Speaker, that we are in the position that we cannot afford not to do so.
I will go further and say that this, our greatest resource, give us greater economic stability, and over and above that there is the fact that the government will take in a lot of money in income taxes that will be paid on the higher incomes of those in the higher brackets. We are going to need this money in view of the high expenditures we have undertaken.
Over and above the value of higher education to society, higher education increases the earning power of the individual and it also increases the contribution of the individual to society whether in the engineering field, some other scientific field, teaching or whatever the vocation may be. Their increased earning power will be of benefit to the state because a great proportion of the incomes of people earning higher salaries is funnelled off and comes back to the government in income taxes. Thus the government is very interested in having these young men complete their education as quickly as possible. It is a good idea for them, because of the contribution the individual will make to whatever field he enters and because of the income taxes he will pay to the government.
The minister states that under the legislation students will be picked by the provinces and that every student who has shown the ability to take the course he plans on taking can receive a guaranteed and insured loan. I am wondering whether all pass students should not be accepted in our universities. In my day students were accepted on the basis of a pass mark from high school. We were accepted on the recommendation of our minister and our high school principal, plus the pass mark. The thing that was most important in those days was dedication to

whatever course you wanted to pursue. I recall many such people and the great contribution they have made to the life of Canada.
To substantiate what I have been saying I should like to put on the record an editorial from the Toronto Daily Star of November 29 last which reads in part as follows:
The estimate of 90,000 claimants for college places in this province by 1970 is projected on a basis of 60 per cent standing on matriculation, as now-not 50 per cent. Unless university authorities move more determinedly than they have been doing, the only answer may be to raise admission requirements still further. If this happens, perhaps even some of our student critics would be nonplussed, were they trying to enter then.
They write as if would be entrants with anything less than 60 per cent were some sort of scum that would contaminate the intellectual climate of a university. They seem to forget that for 100 years (up to about 1955) universities admitted all comers who had 50 per cent standing on matriculation papers. Yet they maintained respectable academic reputations, and there was intellectual curiosity on the campus and mental stimulation in the classes.
Many students who squeezed in with standings in the low 50's went on to graduate and achieve great things in professional and civil life. Some professorial heads of departments in the University of Toronto now-
I want hon. members to listen to this.
-would never have been allowed into university by today's 60 per cent barriers and other exclusive regulations. The present head of one college was permitted to enter university even though he did not pass the required matriculation papers.
It's academic arrogance to deride 50 percenters as if they were mental slobs. The majority of school pupils never reach grade 13; those who do and obtain between 50 and 60 per cent on matric exams are better than average in ability. The opportunity for a college education is denied them at peril to the progress of our society.
I remember a brilliant university graduate whom I had for a teacher. He was the worst teacher I ever had, although he had the highest academic awards of any of my teachers. I also remember another chap who did a great deal for me. I owe a great deal to him. I was complimenting him one day in my own way on what a great teacher he was and he confided in me that he had a difficult time trying to get through school. It had taught him a great lesson because he could understand people and he could understand how difficult it was sometimes to grasp a point.
I want to go further and say that high school is often not a good mirror of what abilities a student may possess, because later on he may turn out to be quite brilliant. There are many classical examples, some of which were mentioned in the house the other day. Canada needs all the increased earning power she can get. She must not waste her

greatest resource. A large number of Canadian boys and girls are capable of university education or vocational or technical training. To educate them we need more universities more equipment and more teachers.
I want to present some figures pertaining to the medical field because there is a real bottleneck there. First of all, we require five more medical schools in Canada to accommodate the students we need in medicine. Today we are short of doctors. Over the years this country has been graduating an insufficient number of medical men. I have only to cite figures for the last 10 years which show that in that period around 800 doctors per year have graduated from our 12 medical schools and during that same period some 600 immigrant doctors per year entered this country. That is the situation today and it has been the situation over the last 10 years, except the supply of immigrant doctors is drying up.
Over those years we should have been gradually building medical schools. I do not intend to blame anyone now because hindsight is a fine thing. But I go back more than 10 years and I remember a former prime minister of this country, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, speaking in the city of Kingston at Queen's University. At that time he said that grants were going to be given to the universities, without any strings attached to them. If my memory serves me correctly, that was in 1948. The government of that day should have known and did know that we were going to run into this problem. I say this the people will be the sufferers if we cannot provide the necessary medical care.
I believe the doctors are doing everything they can to give this service but we are faced with a tough problem in trying to get the medical schools constructed that we should have. Unfortunately it is also harder to get medical students than it was in 1947 and 1948. I remember then that medical schools were turning away 1,400 to 1,500 applicants a year because they could not accept them. Medical students or students who might consider medicine are taking a second look at the situation and are entering the fields of science where the rewards are probably a little richer. They are also a little perturbed about what might happen under medical care plans.
It takes seven to ten years to graduate a doctor, and this is after you have the buildings, the staff and the equipment. However
Loans to Students
our task is to provide the funds. Probably the per capita grant should be stepped up as well. In six years, Mr. Speaker, we doubled the per capita and I am wondering if it should not be doubled again. Classrooms must be built and equipped; teachers must be provided. The fees in universities range from $200 to $800 in medicine, and perhaps higher in some science courses.
According to the Hall report-listen to this, Mr. Speaker-we will need 7,100 more doctors than we have today, 42,000 nurses, 2,130 more dentists and five new medical schools, by 1973. This is less than ten years away. In other words, in 1973 we will be short of the number of doctors required by over 6,000. This is something of which we should have been well aware because we knew the population figures and the rate of increase. We were getting over 40 per cent of the number of doctors we were turning out by means of immigration. Two of the medical schools recommended will likely be built in the province of Ontario, one at McMaster and one at Sunnybrook.
I suggest to the minister that provision be made so that this $1,000 loan about which we are talking-I hope the minister is listening. I see he is in a discussion now, but I hope he will listen to this observation that a medical student goes to school more months per year than any other student. The fees for medical students, dentistry students and science students are higher than those of any other student, yet there is no provision for this in the bill. I ask the minister to take some provision because a medical student only has three months in which to earn money for his tuition.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I should like to ask the hon. member a question. I think there is a lot in what he says, and I quite agree that the average medical student has to work very hard. I wonder if the hon. member would agree with me that the rewards perhaps are higher in financial terms, and in other terms, in medicine than in any of the other professions according to the statistics we have all been reading recently?


Philip Bernard Rynard: I appreciate that question, and the minister is right. The only thing he did not mention is that he will drain most of it off in income taxes.
Then I should like to go on to say that the medical course is a long one. This loan scheme is set up on a four year basis, but the medical course runs for six years. I ask the minister to take this into consideration,

Loans to Students
in view of the fact that we are going to be thousands and thousands of doctors short in the days ahead. It may be that the life of some member of the house or someone else's life may depend upon the availability of a doctor. Unfortunately we have seen too many instances in which a doctor-this is not the fault of the doctors-has been called to attend a heart case or an emergency case and no doctor has been available.
Let us take a serious view of this problem. I would say to the university authorities, for goodness sakes let us use these medical schools all year round. These expensive buildings have been paid for by the taxpayers and they are left unoccupied. We did this in 1940 to 1945 and we graduated doctors in about four years. I hope the minister can make some provision that will enable the universities to move in this direction. I appreciate the difficulty. However many of these university professors, sometimes living in these big cities, do not always understand that there are districts to which it is difficult to get doctors to go. We are all Canadians. I know in my own town of Orillia, and I apologize for mentioning this personally, the doctors are working very hard. They try to cover all cases of sickness. However, here we are short of doctors and the medical schools are operating on a seasonal basis. This has been going on for ten years.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is simply not right. It is not good enough. I will say this, too, that all of our university buildings so far as possible should be used on a 12 month basis. We have capital invested in them, we are paying for them. The university people say to you, we have not got the personnel. Where in the world did we get the personnel from 1940 to 1945? We got them then and we could get them again. Canada has resources. Canadians have initiative. Let us do it. The cost of new buildings goes up and up. It is estimated that within the last ten years university costs have quadrupled.
This bill is a move in the right direction. I know that we can expect more from the minister. I am sure he realizes the position in which we are. It is a very serious position, particularly in the field of medicine and dentistry. I am wondering if we can afford to have any more places vacant during summer holidays. Let us provide more buildings, more equipment and more teachers. Let us start today. Let us review our whole economic structure. Let us review it, and let us see what the priorities are. Let us get going. By 1980, according to present estimates, we will
[Mr. Rynard.l
have over 100,000 young people attending universities in Canada. Let us be ready to cash in on these resources.


Maurice John Moreau: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question? I did not want to interrupt during his speech. In view of the fact that the radar base at Edgar is in his riding, can he tell us if he has made any representations to the provincial government to have a university establish there?


Philip Bernard Rynard: This is a very easy question to answer. I made representation after representation to this government to establish a grant of $1.2 million to Edgar university so we would have it going.


Maurice John Moreau: What about the provincial government?


Philip Bernard Rynard: That is all right; the federal government gives the grant to the provincial government. The hon. member may recall the vocational and technical schools that were built at a cost of over $2 million in east Simcoe, by grants to the provinces.


David Orlikow: Like other members of this group who have already spoken, I intend to vote for this measure, although I do so with a great deal of hesitation and reservation. I disagree with my seatmate who said yesterday that half a loaf was better than none. This is not even half a loaf. This is a few crumbs compared to what is needed, and a few crumbs compared to what was promised by. the government when they were in opposition. This is so typical of the Liberals. When they were in opposition promises were easy, but when they are in office what they do is very small.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford) sought yesterday to create the impression that the government, as a result of this program, would be paying out some $40 million a year. Of course this is nonsense because the $40 million a year will be paid by the students. The maximum this government will pay will be about $2 million a year, and when you look at the needs you see how little this means.
What disturbs me is not that this is the only bill the government is bringing forth. What disturbs me is not just that the promises made before the election, for 10,000 scholarships of $1,000 each, have been forgotten. As a matter of fact, those promises were not made just before the election. A year ago, or little more than a year ago, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources was making

speeches saying the government was going to go ahead with this program. On May 2, 1963, the Toronto Star, which is certainly no opponent of the government, had an editorial headed "Over the Hump" and I just want to quote the first paragraph from it:
The Liberal government is losing no time in honouring one of its most important campaign promises-a system of national scholarships for university students.
Where is this system of national scholarships? It is gone with the wind, and I guess we will not get it back until there is another election in which the Liberals have to seek fresh votes again. That is typical of this government.
A country cannot progress in this day and age if it does not meet the educational requirements of modern technology and automation. We have to look at the whole picture of universities, yet if one reads the minister's speech it appears he never even listened, let alone understood, the representations made to the government by the Canadian universities foundation, the Canadian association of university teachers or any of the other organizations interested in education.
Highly qualified and most expensively educated people are leaving Canada at an ever increasing rate. One can ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) how many bushels of wheat left Canada last year, and he can tell you to the exact bushel. If we ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) how many head of cattle were shipped to the United States last year he can give us the exact number; but if we ask the government how many doctors, physicists, engineers and professors went to the United States, the government has to go to the Americans and ask them-which it did.
In the last three years this country has lost over 1,000 physicians to the United States, over 2,500 engineers, 96 physicists, 122 geologists and geophysicists, and 192 professors in the social sciences. We can go on down the list as provided to us by the Americans; but the question is, what does this cost? What will it cost us to replace these people? To replace those I have mentioned it will cost $62| million, according to calculations made by the dominion bureau of statistics. This grant in aid to the United States of $20 million annually is much too much for the Canadian people to be making.
Before we get on with this kind of program, before we really get on with helping the universities, we ought to give some real consideration to what is needed. The govern-
Loans to Students
ment has always refused to do this. It has taken the easy political way-what will be popular with the young people, what will be popular with the electors, what will be cheap, yet something which will look good and won't cost too much money, such as this loans program.
I recognize the fact that under the constitution education is a responsibility of the provinces. Each province has done a tremendous job, increasing the amount of money and effort devoted to education since the end of world war II. In the field of public education the provinces have done an excellent job. They have done a commendable job in the field of university education, but for a long time it has been obvious that the provinces by themselves simply cannot meet the needs of the universities.
The federal governments, Liberal and Conservative, have recognized their responsibilities to the universities and given support to them by per capita grants, by tax abatements to the province of Quebec, by grants for research to scholars in universities, by grants through the Canada Council, and the national research council, which have made grants for some types of buildings. We have also had loans for students' residences, but the support to date has been completely inadequate to meet the needs of universities.
A way must be found, and I believe it can be found in co-operation and in consultation with provinces and the universities, whereby the money can be realized in ways which are not objectionable to any province in the country. Our goal should be, through co-operation between the federal government and the provincial governments and private industry, to provide adequate financial support to enable the universities to fulfil their responsibilities and to provide the trained people we are going to need in the next 10 or 15 years.
To do this we have got to have, not the kind of haphazard program which is being proposed today but a comprehensive program designed to meet the needs of the universities and the students. What we have not had yet from government is a systematic approach of support for the universities. What we ought to have is a conference between the federal government, the provincial governments and the universities to evaluate what is required and to set goals for the next five or ten years, and to try to agree on how these goals can be achieved. A conference should be called immediately by the federal government,

Loans to Students
with the provinces and the universities, in which these goals could be worked out.
Present federal grants to universities, based on provincial population, are completely unrelated to needs and, Mr. Speaker, I say this, coming from a province which is not one of the poorest, that the universities in low income provinces, particularly in the Atlantic provinces, have been the most handicapped by the present grant structure, which has not given any consideration to their inferior financial resources compared with other provinces. This is a deficiency which should be corrected at once if these provinces are to meet the requirements of their universities and students.
I do not believe in second class citizens. I do not believe that the students in the Atlantic provinces should be second class students, but that is what they are and that is what they will be until the government evolves a program designed to meet the needs of those provinces. If it is not done, the Atlantic provinces universities are going to have more difficulty than they have already had in keeping their staff and in recruiting the kind of staff which is necessary.
I wonder if the Minister of Finance paid any attention to the representations made to him by the Canadian universities foundation. If he did, it certainly was not apparent in the speech he made when introducing this bill, or in any other speech he has made since he came to this house. In December of 1962 the Canadian universities foundation presented a brief to the Minister of Finance in which they made very clear what the needs of the universities were for the next two years. For buildings and research facilities alone for the next three years the Canadian universities will need $800 million. They have calculated they are going to get from the provinces and from private industry something in the neighbourhood of $500 million. In other words they are $300 million short for the next three years with regard to buildings and research facilities alone. They proposed to the minister that the government of Canada establish a fund of $300 million for matching capital grants to universities and colleges. We have not heard a word about this proposal and there has been no indication from the government whether or not they intend to consider it. There has been no indication whether they intend to meet, if not the whole request, then part of it. All we have had, as I have said earlier, is this cheap proposal for student loans which
[Mr. Orlikow.l
will really do nothing to meet the basic needs of our universities.
Universities operating costs are rising at the rate of more than 15 per cent a year because of the increase in the number of full time students, the increase in the number of staff required and the growing cost of maintenance. The Canadian universities foundation recommended that the per capita grants to universities be increased to $2.60 from its present rate, just to meet the needs as they were calculated when the present per capita grants were established. Nothing has been heard from the government with regard to this proposal.
The Canadian association of university teachers in a submission to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) of January, 1964 pointed out that the present full time enrolment at the universities, which was 114,000 in 1960-61, would rise to 312,000 by 1970-71. This would mean that the universities will require 23,000 new university teachers by that time. The annual rate of recruiting recently has amounted only to 1,300 new university teachers a year. By 1970 we shall need 3,500 a year and there is no indication when or how we shall get them, because this particular program will really do nothing to provide for what is probably the most important need in our universities, that is, graduate students; there is nothing in this program to encourage graduate students to continue their studies in Canada, or even to come back to Canada if they go to the United States as so many of them have done. Representatives of the universities have pointed out to the government that no university in Canada at the present time possesses a library which meets the needs of graduate scholarship or research programs. Yet there has been no proposal by the government to meet this need. We have heard from others in this debate about the need for research. I wonder if the Minister of Finance has had a chance to see the report prepared for the national research council by a committee headed by Dr. Spinks, president of the University of Saskatchewan in which the need for increased aid to scientific research in the universities was dealt with. In a speech which Dr. Spinks made to the royal society at Charlottetown in June of this year he pointed out that the amount for scientific research which the national research council gave to the universities in the year
1963-64 was $9.2 million. The committee recommends that next year this should be

increased to $19.6 million and that by 1968-69 it should go up to $52.9 million. There is no indication that the government is prepared to move on this recommendation.
So far, all we have been offered is this student loans program which is a very small part of what is needed. Dr. Spinks pointed out that while scientific research in the universities has grown it has not kept pace with the need. I should like to quote a couple of paragraphs from his speech. He said:
It Is Imperative that Canadian scientists be provided with a few major installations. While it is not contemplated that every university should be equipped with very expensive installations in the various disciplines, it is essential that a limited number of such facilities be available in the country to serve university science.
It is of the utmost importance that the recommended minimum support be provided. In the past few years, during which the developments in world science have been spectacular, the first class research ability of Canadian scientists has been seriously handicapped by lack of modern research equipment, and Canadian science has been steadily losing ground. Canada's scientific competence, which is essential to the realization of our national aspirations, is declining seriously through lack of tools.
I could read into the record what experts appointed by responsible agencies of the government itself have recommended. But the minister ought to know these things and we certainly should have had from him by now some idea of what priorities, what plans, the government has in this field. Yet up to now we have been told virtually nothing. In December of 1963 an influential group of medical researchers and doctors made representations to the minister on this subject and I should like to read a couple of paragraphs from the representations they made:
It has been clearly evident during the last decade that the support which is available for medical and biological research in Canada in the universities falls far short of that necessary to maintain the highest standards of scientific accomplishment. Although the medical research council of Canada, and other granting bodies in Canada, have steadily increased their budgets in the last few years, the sums available have not kept pace with the increasing costs of research, and with the requirements of an expanding number of research workers. As a consequence of this situation many of the most gifted young investigators, unable to find the means to carry out their research in Canada, have to find their opportunities for work elsewhere, mainly in the United States. This loss is felt not only in the organization of existing research groups but also in the education of future scientists, who are deprived of the contact with many of the best creative minds of Canada. It can be foreseen that the continuous process of depletion of the nation's talented personnel will have an adverse effect on the quality of research training and of teaching provided in the coming
Loans to Students
years when an expansion of the size of universities will be necessitated by the increased influx of students.
It seems to me that if we pass this bill- and I presume we will, because the overwhelming majority of members have indicated their intention to support it-we shall have made only a minor beginning in our efforts to overcome these difficulties, and a minimum beginning in the implementation of the promises made by this government to the people of Canada. I hope the promises made with regard to university education by this government when it was in opposition will not take as long to come to fruition as the promises made during the Liberal convention of 1919 which elected Mr. Mackenzie King to be leader of the party. The people of Canada have heard a great many promises made by the Liberals in years gone by, and I hope and expect they will keep a close watch on the government to see that it carries out the promises which were made in the field of education a great deal quicker than is indicated by this legislation.


Joseph Slogan: Like many who have spoken before me I would like to say that I will support this measure to extend interest free loans to university students. I am happy that the government has finally seen fit to bring in this legislation, after so much urging on the part of the opposition. I hope it might be passed in sufficient time to make this assistance available to university students this fall.
Like many in this house who have very modest backgrounds, I had to depend in my university days on scholarships and bursaries. I can appreciate the sacrifices made by my parents to give me an education, something which they themselves did not have the privilege of acquiring. As one who was one of the first from my district to gain a university education, I appreciate the hardships which have kept many of our brighter young people from acquiring a higher education. Thus, this measure of loans is welcomed. It will assist substantially thousands of young people to carry out their university education uninterrupted.
Education today is a key that opens many doors. It moulds personality; it makes for opportunity; it erases prejudice and broadens our horizons. But just opening doors to universities does not solve all the problems which an individual must meet. They say you can lead a boy to college but you cannot

Loans to Students
make him think. The placing of certain minimum standards of qualifications in the act 1 think are justified.
The former government recognized the needs of universities and, as has already been stated in this house, we doubled the per capita grants to universities, made available long term, low interest loans for the construction of student residences, provided for certain income tax deductions of university tuition fees and various other things that could be mentioned. I think the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) elaborated on the financial assistance that is being given to education and research this year, and I am not going to enumerate this assistance. But I did jot down the amounts and I think they total something like $156 million. That is certainly a substantial amount of federal money to be going toward education.
I think it is readily recognized that the costs of education have skyrocketed. One has only to look at one's real estate tax these days to realize the extremely heavy burden borne by municipal taxpayers to meet the costs of education at the elementary and secondary levels. In my own province of Manitoba there has been a resolution in education by the establishment of larger school divisions and the provision of school transportation, with the attendant added expense on roads. The small, eight grade, one-room schoolhouse is now disappearing along with unqualified teachers. Educational opportunities in rural areas are being equalized. All this is for the good of our young people and our country. Therefore, the heavy burden of local taxes has not been complained about as much as some people would expect, because I believe the taxpayers see it as their duty to provide these opportunities for our young people. We hope the young people will justify our faith in them.
With the onslaught on our universities now by the new generation, provincial government coffers are becoming strained. Therefore there is adequate justification for municipalities appealing to the provinces for higher grants, and in turn the provinces are calling for more federal participation. Thus, I think this measure and the measures already mentioned of assistance to education are well justified. I do not for one moment underestimate the need or impact of federal help to higher education; but I do question, as I have in the past, the approach of the federal government to these provincial and fundamental educational problems.

In the first place, I think our action in again entering the field of provincial jurisdiction emphasizes the need for reassessment of our position vis-a-vis the provinces. One of the fundamental laws of democracy should be, I think, that the government that spends the money should levy the taxes. This comes back to the suggestion I made in the budget debate, that it is imperative to hold a constitutional conference to do two things; one is to reallocate jurisdiction among the three levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal; and second, to reallocate taxing powers to be commensurate with the jurisdiction of each level of government. In other words, give the respective governments the tax base to meet their needs. Following this, an agreement on priorities of spending must be had.
This has already been proposed by Premier Roblin and I know it has won the support of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) as reported in the Gazette editorial of yesterday. I think the system of priorities is very urgent and this is one of the reasons I asked the question of the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Martin) today. However, from his answer I cannot see that this government is going to take any action in that direction, and I am sorry this is the case.
I think we have to be realistic. We have to realize that there is only one source of revenue for governments, and that is ultimately the taxpayer. I think we have to recognize, too, that the taxpayer has a limit to his resources and only so much money can be extratced from him. Realizing this, the various levels of government must plan ahead on a schedule of priorities in at least the three or four major spending fields, such as education and health and welfare, where jurisdictions overlap.
I think if we did this we would be heading for that Canada charter of which I spoke in the budget debate. To paraphrase the late President Kennedy's words, "The constitution would make us not rivals for power, but partners for progress".
To reach such an agreement will mean co-operation and compromise, but the results of success will ensure the future of Canada in the twentieth century. Failure to establish these priorities will, I think, face us with catastrophe and a breakup of confederation. The success or failure, of course, of this conference will depend in large measure on the province of Quebec. I believe that the province of Quebec must display a more positive attitude to remove the label, "They don't

know what they want and are willing to fight for it". But money itself will not solve all the problems of education. I have some personal views and opinions on education, and I must stress that these opinions are my own. My feeling is that our educational system is outmoded, archaic and ineffectual. I feel it has failed to keep in step with the general advance in technology and the times.
There are several factors in our educational system which I criticize. One is the failure of the educational system to recognize the influence of mass media communication on the maturing process of children. As our society has become more complex, more years have been added on to educational courses. At the same time, I observe that our children are maturing much faster. The result has been that our young people are ready for marriage at an earlier age, but for practical reasons their educational pursuits place obstacles in their path. As a result, we have a higher percentage of students marrying before they graduate, some of whom fail to complete their education for the reason of the added economic burdens after marriage. I think these scholarships and bursaries might do something to alleviate this position. Second, we must recognize the change in the moral behaviour of our young people in the teen age group. Some of this breakdown has to do with the educational system, and I do not need to elaborate on that aspect. First, I think the educational system has failed to ofEer the moral leadership that should be expected in our schools. In this respect the school curriculum has fallen behind in social adaptation.
Associated with the curriculum is the method of teaching. Here we have failed to keep up with technological progress. As one who carried on some mental testing programs during my university years, I found a close relationship between a child's mental age and his success in his grade, more so perhaps than between his physical age and success. Instead of placing students together on the basis of their chronological age, perhaps a grading on the basis of their mental age would be more suitable and enable a class to advance more evenly.
I think a great deal of research should be carried on into the capacities of children to absorb knowledge at the various ages, and a great deal of research must be carried on regarding the best methods of projecting that knowledge so that it is most easily absorbed. Closed circuit television, audio visual aids, etc., are essential. What will this mean?
Loans to Students
A scientifically construed curriculum scientifically projected means the faster absorption of knowledge with a consequent shortening of the educational period. This revamping of the curriculum and methods of teaching should take place from the earliest grades.
At the university level basic facts must be recognized. Crowding of our universities does not allow us the luxury of allowing our university buildings to lie idle for several months of the year. The hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) has already made out a concrete and well presented case for the need to utilize university facilities, buildings, etc., the whole year round.
The increase in bursaries, scholarships and loans should enable students to attend classes with the exception of only minimal holidays during the year. This should allow for the shortening of many professional and university courses, such as medicine, dentistry, and those courses which now take a substantial time out of a student's life.
At the same time, we must recognize that with the rapidly increasing university population it is becoming more and more difficult for these young people to find summer jobs. In keeping with my earlier plea, I say let us plan to allow our young people out of university sooner so that they can marry and take their place as more useful citizens in our society.
In conclusion, let me repeat some of my earlier observations. I welcome this measure and the other measures the federal government has undertaken to ease the strain of educational costs on the provinces. Coming back to my earlier thesis on the reallocation of jurisdiction, may I say this. If the strains of education tend to continue at crisis proportions within the provinces it may be wise for the provinces to ask the federal government to assume jurisdiction over university education. This is something which I think we should not ask for, but I think that if it is offered to us we should not shirk our responsibility towards it. I say this because I think there is a great deal to be said for more uniformity of education, which would take place at the federal level. Especially in the technical and professional fields many provinces have been unable to offer training facilities. Taking over the higher education field would mean more equality of opportunity for students to gain entrance, because at the present time, especially in many professional colleges, preference is given to the local students. There would be more uniformity in training across Canada, and larger institutions

Loans to Students
would allow for better facilities and staff which I think make for a better education for our professional people. Thus we would be enabled to establish a higher quality of education and larger establishments of learning, and supply them with the staff and facilities which are needed. This is just a suggestion of my own, but I know it is shared by many in this house.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in order that I might not be accused of holding up this legislation I am willing to sit down so that a vote might be taken on the amendment.


Mr.  A. B. Pallerson@Fraser Valley: Mr. Speaker, I think this is just the third speaker from this group in the three days of debate but it is not my intention tonight to speak on the bill itself. I only desire to make a very brief reference to the amendment. The leader of our party, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), has already indicated that we intend to support Bill No. C-110, although there are a number of very obvious weaknesses in it. I am sure we all agree that the need for such legislation exists, so therefore we are prepared to support it. However, the amendment now before us is that Bill No. C-110 be not now read a second time, and for the reasons which are given.
We agree in principle with the objectives to which this proposal is directed, but we are opposed to the delay which the adoption of the amendment would occasion. Because of that fact it is not our intention to support the amendment which is currently before us.
I had intended to call attention to a number of statements made by the leader of our party but I do not propose to do that at this time. However in speaking briefly on this amendment I want to emphasize that we believe that the facilities of the Bank of Canada should be used for this purpose.. This was stressed by the hon. member for Red Deer and also by the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Cote). We support that proposal but we also, realize that if this amendment were to carry it would delay implementation of the legislation and deprive many young people of the opportunity of securing loans which are needed for this coming school year. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, because of that consideration we are going to vote against the amendment, but we will of course support the legislation.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I see that it is pretty

near 10.30 p.m. and since my remarks would take me beyond regulation time, I wish to propose the adjournment of the debate. As a matter of fact, I beg to remind you that it is now 10.30.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the house would agree to sit a few minutes more-if we could thus dispose of this amendment-in order to listen to the hon. member for Pontiac-Temis-camingue whose speeches are always interesting.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I cannot accept the suggestion just made by the Minister of Justice.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair must call it 10.30 unless we have unanimous consent to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If we have unanimous agreement I am prepared to submit the question.


Paul Raymond Martineau: This being the case, Mr. Speaker, I shall accept what looks to be the unanimous opinion of the house and my comments will be quite brief.
I did not propose to speak at this stage of our discussion, but since it appears that the intention is to end this evening the debate on the amendment, I must express certain views and explain why we, on this side of the house, or at least the Conservative members from Quebec, have to oppose the amendment brought forward by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier).
It is a well known fact that we, on this side of the house, are not very happy with the provisions of the bill, and for very good reasons, which have been eloquently, masterfully, clearly and fully stated by members as competent as my colleague from Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul), as well as by our provincial leader, the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) and many others who have dealt with this bill.
It is quite clear that this bill violates the spirit of the constitution, because it affects the clear and exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces in the educational field.

But this bill has a more serious defect which appears when reading clause 15, among others. Indeed, the bill, and more particularly that clause, is contrary to the whole economy of common, or civil, law in the province of Quebec, attacking its very roots. According to the provisions of the civil code concerning the minority, it is anticonstitutional.
The federal government impinges upon one of the main provisions of the civil code of the province of Quebec.
I say that no federal legislation whose purpose is to provide for capacity to enter into a contract, as clause 15 of this bill provides, can possibly be constitutional.
When we examine the various clauses of this bill in committee, we, on this side of the house, will oppose those specific provisions. We, therefore, implore the Minister of Justice, who is an expert on constitutional law, immediately to consider some called for amendments to the bill.
However, we are interested at the present time in knowing whether the amendment put forward by the member for Roberval is acceptable. I submit that we should oppose it since it is precisely contrary to the theories which the people at the extreme left of the house try to put into circulation.
Mr. Speaker, let us examine this bill somewhat. I have not got it before me, but I know it proposes a six month's hoist in order to allow the government to pass legislation required to allow the Bank of Canada to pay to the provinces the money they need to discharge their responsibilities in the field of education.
Mr. Speaker, let us consider somewhat the implications of this amendment; it tends to reduce the provinces to the rank of vassals. They are to be servants in the pay of the federal government.
As a matter of fact, through this amendment, the provinces become beggars before the central power, for the money required to discharge their obligations under the constitution, whereas you know very well that according to the British North American Act, according to our constitutional history, the provinces are sovereign in the fields bestowed upon them by the constitution and under the British North America Act.
And here, instead of taking the necessary measures to recognize this legitimate sovereignty of the provinces in the fields under their jurisdiction, we would substitute a retrograde, centralizing, incomprehensible attitude, and, above all, an attitude which is
Loans to Students
contrary to the theory often times expressed in this house by those who have precisely proposed this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment in question definitely contravenes the functions of the Bank of Canada. Let us rather assume our responsibilities and ask the federal government to withdraw further from certain taxation fields, so that the provinces be allowed to levy the funds they need to fulfil their responsibilities, especially in the field of education.
I do not understand how the hon. member for Lapointe, for instance, supports such a proposal. Indeed, Mr. Speaker-


Gilles Grégoire: May I put a question?


Paul Raymond Martineau: When I have concluded my remarks.


Gilles Grégoire: I can see that you understand nothing at all about that. You do not know much about the banking system. It is easy to see when a person knows nothing about that.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I think I have the floor, Mr. Speaker. I shall be glad to answer all the hon. member's questions in a few moments.
In my opinion, the hon. member for Lapointe is the one who did not examine thoroughly the proposal he is now so strongly advocating and I feel his stand shows what an opportunist he can be. It especially indicates that the hon. member for Lapointe never really understood the cause he claims to stand for.
Sheer nonsense, that is what it amounts to. Just imagine, for a moment, how ridiculous a situation can be where you have the hon. member for Lapointe who, after having proposed to this house that the province of Quebec be granted the rank of an associate state, comes and tells us today: We, in the province of Quebec, are no longer capable of raising the funds we need to legislate according to the constitution and we shall come to Ottawa to beg for the required money. If the Bank of Canada is good enough to give us what we ask for, then we can take our responsibilities.
Well, it is obvious that this amendment has been put forward without having been considered seriously: it is outdated, ridiculous, contradictory in its conclusions and contrary to any sound constitutional principle. That is why, in spite of all the flaws contained in the bill, with which we shall deal on another occasion, we will oppose the amendment.

Division


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the amendment. I think I have a right to do that. We have been listening to the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue-
If no one has called it 10.30 yet, I would like to speak on the amendment. Could you not refrain from calling it 10.30, Mr. Speaker, so that I may speak on this amendment-


An hon. Member:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.

If any one of the members wants to call it 10.30, of course we will not be in a position to continue. We are continuing after 10.30 only because we have the unanimous agreement of all members to continue this procedure. If an individual member wishes at this time to call it 10.30, we will adjourn this debate.


Mr. Barnett:: Was it not implicit, in the unanimous consent that the house continue to sit for a few minutes, that there would be the vote taken as soon as the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) had concluded his remarks?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we are all set to vote. A little later on, we shall have an opportunity to reply to the silly remarks of the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Some hon. Members:: Question. [Translation]


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it half past ten?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask about the business for tomorrow and Monday.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, at the opening of the sitting tomorrow the Prime Minister will report on the conference of commonwealth prime ministers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Guy Favreau: The remainder of the day
will be taken up with estimates. We will begin with the estimates of the Post Office Department; the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources will follow, with the Department of Public Works after that, if there is time left in the day. On Monday we will take the second reading and the committee stage of the student loans bill, which will be followed by the-


Mr. Bigg:: Recess.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Guy Favreau: I hope it will be only a dinner recess. This will be followed by the second reading and committee stage of the measure respecting federal-provincial fiscal arrangements.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I think it would simplify matters if I raised a series of questions with respect to sessional paper 93e relating to the so-called bilingual order that was issued to the army, and by the army, and tabled during the orders of the day. In reading the order carefully there are several questions which arise. For instance, section 1 of the order sets forth the following:
For the purpose of this instruction the expression "bilingual" will be taken to mean the ability to use the English and the French language.
Not only this section but other sections of the order raise in my mind the question as to what force will be given to promotional factors if staff officers, as the order describes them, are able to speak other languages which are required of them in the course of
16, 1964
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion their duties. For example, I know there is a service course in the Russian language as well as in other languages, and these additional qualifications must surely have a bearing on the promotional aspirations of staff officers.
Another question which arises in my mind is, what service commitments, as the expression is in the order, require that both the English and the French languages be spoken? I know of only two service commitments, although there may be more, where a language other than French or English is required to be spoken; but it would be interesting to learn how extensive a requirement exists in the army as opposed to the navy and air force, where both French and English have to be spoken.
This expression is used in section 2 of the order; and in section 3, the one which disturbs me most, appears this sentence:
All ranks must be made aware of the fact that these symbols-
-that is, referring to the symbol which is attached to an officer's name if he speaks both languages either moderately or fluently well-
-are of real significance, and that the possession of them would be a factor in determining suitability for employment and hence career advancement.
Does that mean that we are going to reach the stage where staff officers must be bilingual before they are employed, and must be fluently or moderately bilingual before they are eligible for promotion? Or does it mean that an officer of the rank of lieutenant who is French speaking will remain in that rank until he learns English? Does it mean that an officer of the rank of lieutenant who is English speaking will remain in that rank until he learns to speak French? I am sure that members of the forces, and especially the army, will be interested to learn the answer to this question.
Again it is set forth in this order, although I cannot lay my finger at the moment on the particular section, that the result of these tests which are going to be conducted once a year will be included in the annual report. In the air force the nomenclature of this report is R.2/11. I do not know what it is in the army; but what significance has the inclusion in the report of the testing results with respect to future promotion of army personnel?
Then the overriding question is: Why is such an instruction not applicable to all three
5598	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion armed forces equally? Why is it exclusive to the army? Are there commitments in the army which require bilingual staff officers, whereas there are no such requirements in the navy and air force? I think that is a question which should be answered.
I also think we should know who are going to be the members of the board. If the order has been in existence since November of last year and testing is done in January of each year, there must already be in existence a board. Who are the two permanent members of this board? Is this board one that travels throughout Canada and to overseas posts, for instance, where staff officers are on staff for the purpose of administering these tests? I should like to know what the percentages are in this regard. How many English speaking officers have learned to speak French to date, and has it had a bearing on promotion; and how many French speaking officers have learned to speak English? What will be the balance in the future? Are we going to have officers primarily of French speaking origin commanding other ranks primarily of English speaking origin, and vice-versa? This will affect the whole morale structure in the army, as I am sure it would in the other two services. The minister will realize this.
Certainly in my background of service life I know how it would affect me if I were still a member of the air force and if this sort of order were introduced. The morale of the forces in the other ranks will be very definitely affected since this directive is aimed at staff officers and it is aimed at command. It is not aimed at the lower ranks and other ranks in the forces.
You might come up with a predominance of officers from one particular province commanding other ranks from another province. I think this sort of thing should be explained and the minds of army personnel of all ranks, and of all ranks in the other two services, set at ease because there are several questions that I think will be arising in their minds. The minister has very kindly told me that the terms of the order which issued from the minister's office are substantially-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member as his time has expired.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I will be able to answer in three minutes all the questions the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has asked. Perhaps I

might start off with a question he did not ask concerning the terms of reference. He asked me earlier today to table the instructions that were issued to the forces and I can say that what I could have tabled is exactly the same order, except for my signature of approval on it. This was really the authority to go ahead with this particular order.
The way this came about was that in discussions with the chief of the general staff it was felt that we wanted to find out what the proficiency in languages was among the members of our forces, and particularly in the army. The whole instruction has to do with being able to test proficiency in bilingualism and to arrive at some form of standards whereby we would be able to detect in the records of different members of the forces just how proficient they may be in languages.
As the hon. member knows, we have schools and programs for teaching English and French. For instance, at the Citadel we have four month programs under which the French are instructed in English and vice-versa. We also have a program of exchange of officers between the Royal 22nd Regiment and other regiments in order to be able to facilitate bilingualism. But we wanted to have a means of finding out just how proficient they were.
The reason for doing this is that there is a requirement in the army more particularly than in the other two services for bilingual officers. This is obvious, I think, from the commitments we have had to carry out in the Congo and Indochina, and there are several French speaking countries in Africa which have asked for French speaking officers and soldiers. The matter of submitting to tests for language proficiency is on a voluntary basis. However, it is true that once there is a marking of B, or B bracketed, as the hon. member has read in the instruction, this does mean something and it will be considered in promotions to certain positions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; the hon.
minister's time has expired.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I posed a question to the Minister of Defence Production as follows:
May I ask the minister, is it correct that a $31 million conversion contract for the destroyer

Skeena has been designated to the Davie Shipbuilding Company of Lauzon, Quebec?
According to Mr. Speaker, this question should have been put on the order paper. I felt otherwise. I felt it was really urgent to the people concerned. I tried to point out to Mr. Speaker that it should be allowed on this occasion because it was so serious. The reasons I gave were, the high employment rate on the west coast as a result of the large wheat sale, and the grain handling involved- I will come to that a little later. Then I pointed out that the Quebec yards have already received recently several large shipbuilding contracts; that cut-backs in defence contracts have resulted in substantial layoffs in many areas of my province of Nova Scotia and our shipyards have suffered greatly from cancellation of the general purpose frigate program.
I was not successful in putting my original question, but had I been I would have liked to pose a supplementary to the minister in this manner. In view of the fact that four of the five conversion contracts have been designated to west coast shipyards and the fifth to a Quebec shipyard, would the minister assure the house that the remaining two jobs would be designated for shipyards in the Atlantic provinces? As I understand it, seven ships in all are going to have conversion jobs, or I should say the balance of five. I understand that two, the Assiniboia and the St. Laurent have been converted on the west coast. The Saguenay and the Ottawa are now undergoing conversion in Pacific coast yards.
It has been suggested in a newspaper item within the last few days that the Margaree is scheduled also to go to Pacific coast yards. What prompted my question was a newspaper item that the Skeena was probably going to the Davie Shipbuilding yard in Quebec. This would leave one, the Fraser, which as I understand it, has not been allocated anywhere as yet.
I should like to point out to the minister how important these contracts are to the shipyards and to our economy on the east coast at the moment. We have not had any of these jobs to do. As I have just pointed out, the other yards have been quite busy.
We should like to get a share of the work that is going. These cutbacks have been most serious, not only in this field about which I am talking at the moment, but we have had cut-backs at H.M.C.S. Cornwallis; cut-backs at Fairey Aviation Limited, Dartmouth; cutbacks at Enamel and Heating at Amherst; cut-backs at Enamel and Heating, Charlotte-
16, 1964	5599
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion town and in my own constituency lay-offs are occurring weekly at Point Edward naval base, and apparently this base will close completely before this government is finished; cut-backs at the Beaverbank radar base in Nova Scotia; cut-backs at the Greenwood air base. Then, of course, there has been the general frigate program cancellation. The result of a lot of these naval cut-backs, for instance, has been a lack of work for the North Sydney and Marine Railway and the Sydney Engineering and Drydock. They have not been able to get any refit contracts.
Then, I should like to refer to a few of the headlines that have appeared only today in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. We see headlines like these, "Plane Phase-Out Ends Defence Job for P.E.I."; another one reads, "No Hope for Defence Work". This relates to information given in reply to a question by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) by the defence production minister. Another headline reads, "Neptune Refits Dropped; Bitter Blow for Fairey". I quote part of the article:
Fairey Canada Ltd., the Dartmouth aviation company has suffered what one employee called "another bitter blow".
Since this government has taken office, Mr. Speaker, we have suffered a series of cutbacks, lay-offs, obliterations, annihilations, abortive methods, cancellations, postponements, and slashes in defence spending, particularly in the last number of months. Where is it going to stop? It is a very serious situation economically, and we must have something to replace this lack of employment.
According to a Canadian Press item appearing in the Cape Breton Post on July 10, there is a report of a meeting of the Halifax-Dart-mouth and district labour council in which it is stated that one delegate said at this meeting:
"If Drury and Hellyer have their way there will be no defence contracts left in Nova Scotia."
Is it any wonder that a statement of that nature has been made? I understand strong protests have been sent to the minister and I would hope he would try to assist in this situation. I would plead with him and the government to get cracking and do something on behalf of the Halifax shipyards and the Saint John drydock, so that one of these remaining conversion jobs may be directed to each of these yards, through negotiations or whatever means are necessary.
When he replies I hope the minister will be able to give us some encouragement because the cancellation of any of these projects
5600	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion means so much to the economy of the Atlantic provinces. I would ask him to again seek the co-operation of his colleagues in the cabinet in having one of these destroyer escort conversion jobs placed at the Halifax shipyards and the Saint John drydock.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has dwelt at some length on the cut-backs in contracts in respect of defence operations. I have tried to make clear, inside the house and outside it, the nature of the reduction in the work load in respect of aircraft. This is the direct and inevitable consequence of technical change in the air industry and among aircraft users in Canada. This is not part of a deliberate policy to reduce; it is a consequence of technological change; and the simple fact is that aircraft are becoming fewer in the numbers required to do a major over-all job. They are becoming more efficient individually and more costly, and as a consequence fewer are required and fewer can be afforded. Because there will be fewer aircraft in the total pool there will be fewer to be overhauled and repaired.
While the government, and particularly myself, have every sympathy with those aircraft repair firms, and especially their employees, who are suffering as a consequence of this, the government, and in particular the

Department of Defence Production, have been at pains to endeavour to find alternative types of work for these aircraft plants, principally through the production sharing program with the United States, and I would point out that such contracts are obtained in a price competition with United States firms and call for efficiency, energy and capability on the part of the firms seeking replacement contracts.
There is no serious possibility of hoping that the Royal Canadian Air Force will substantially increase the number of aircraft in its inventory in order to meet particular needs of aircraft firms which have not as much overhaul and repair business as they have had in previous years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The minister's time has expired-


Robert Muir: On a point of order, the minister has replied to aircraft production but has not replied on the basic matter I raised, dealing with destroyer escort jobs.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would suggest to the hon. member that he ask another question and have another opportunity of discussing it on the adjournment debate.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 11.17 p.m.
[Answer to question No. 1,123 referred to on page 5495 of July 15 issue.]
Answer: 1. Last May 14, a communication received from the ambassador of Denmark indicated his government's concern about the possible sale, on the British market, of Canadian butter which has been in storage since 1960-61. (a) The ambassador pointed out that butter production in Europe was on the increase and expressed the view that exports of Canadian butter to traditional markets below market price should be avoided, (b) The Canadian reply pointed to a shortage, on the British market, of butter which the traditional purveyors could not meet in the required amounts and within the time limits provided. Butter imports in Great Britain
are subject to quotas, and the British government issued additional permits for import from North America only under the threat of increased prices; such permits were meant to supplement rather than to displace purchases from other supplying countries. Under the circumstances, the sale of Canadian butter was not likely to be prejudicial to the commercial interests of those other countries.
2.	No. See answer to part 1 above.
3.	There is no special agreement in this regard between Canada and Denmark, but the government of Canada has given assurances, on the international level, that in disposing of its farm surpluses, it would avoid any prejudice to the commercial interests of other supplying countries.



END OF VOLUME V