1964-07-22

TELEVISION


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on community antenna television broadcasting. In a statement on December 31, 1963, the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State indicated that for some time the problem of the effect of community antenna television on national broadcasting policy had been of concern to the government.
In order to give the government an opportunity to consider the problem it was announced on December 31 that until further notice no new licences or amendments to existing licences would be approved for CATV installations to receive and disseminate programs emanating from broadcasting stations outside Canada. It was also decided that no new or amended licences would be granted to any applicant in any case where more than 25 per cent of the ownership of the installation was held by persons who are not citizens of Canada, in the same way as licences for television broadcasting are limited by the Broadcasting Act. This ownership requirement was confirmed by an interim ministerial order issued by the Minister of Transport on February 21, 1964.
The government asked the board of broadcast governors, in consultation with the technical experts of the Department of Transport, to inquire into and recommend any legislative action which might be required to ensure that, so far as the constitutional jurisdiction of parliament would permit, the use of community antenna television for the dissemination of television programs was subject to similar regulation under parallel conditions to that applied to broadcasting.
The report was received by the government on March 9, 1964 and was tabled in the house. Since that date the government has received representations from the national community antenna television association of Canada and given prolonged study to the problems involved.
The government has two main concerns. One is to see that CATV installations in Canada do not come under the ownership and control of persons and corporations which are not Canadian. The other is to see that CATV installations designed to receive broadcasts emanating from outside the area reached by any local Canadian television station, and particularly from outside Canada, are unlikely to make the operation of any existing television station uneconomic or to inhibit the provision of alternate Canadian television service in the area concerned.
So far as ownership is concerned, it has been found that the interim ministerial order of February 21 does not ensure an effective degree of Canadian ownership and control of CATV installations. It is proposed therefore to amend the order of the Minister of Transport so as to ensure effective Canadian ownership and control of new CATV installations. A draft of the proposed amending order is being tabled now. It will come into effect on August 1, and will apply only to new installations or to changes proposed for the first time after today in the ownership of existing installations. Applications already before the department will be considered on their individual merits as was the case before December 31, 1963.
The so-called freeze will be lifted immediately and the Minister of Transport will deal with pending applications after informal consultation with the board of broadcast governors on the possible effect on television broadcasting in the area concerned. Since there is some doubt as to the power of the board of broadcast governors to hold hearings, the government proposes to ask parliament, through approval of an item in the next supplementary estimates of the Department of Transport, to clothe the board with the necessary authority to hold such hearings pending a more formal amendment of the Broadcasting Act or the Radio Act. Meanwhile the Minister of Transport will, in the exercise of his powers under the Radio Act, content himself with informal consultation with the board of broadcast governors.
In announcing the lifting of the so-called freeze the government wishes to emphasize that it has no desire to regulate CATV for

Community Antennae Broadcasting the sake of regulation, but merely to the minimum extent deemed necessary to maintain the Canadian identity and character of broadcasting to the greatest extent practicable, in accord with the consistent position taken by all governments and parliaments since the Aird report of 1929.
Now, sir, I have for tabling what the government proposes as an item in the next supplementary estimates and what I propose to make as a ministerial order with regard to ownership. Possibly it would be very boring if I were to read these documents, and it might be convenient for hon. members either to have them printed as an appendix to Hansard or perhaps, in these very unusual circumstances, they might just follow my statement and be deemed to have been read, so they would all be in one place in Hansard-


Mr. Diefenbaker:: That would be a good suggestion, to have them follow.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree to the procedure suggested by the minister?


Mr. Douglas:: Which one?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Leader of the Opposition suggested that it might be preferable to have the two documents follow immediately after what I have said.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The documents referred to above are as follows:]
Proposed Order by Minister of Transport Schedule
1.	The general radio regulations, part II are amended by adding thereto immediately after section 67 thereof the following section: "68. (1) Notwithstanding section 4, a licence to establish and operate a station performing a commercial broadcasting receiving service may be issued only to a person who is (a) a Canadian citizen; or (b) a corporation incorporated under the laws of Canada or any province, the chairman or other presiding officer and at least two thirds of the directors of which are Canadian citizens and at least three fourths of the issued shares of which (having voting rights under all circumstances) are owned and controlled by (i) Canadian citizens, or (ii) a corporation in which Canadian citizens own and control three fourths of the issued shares of capital stock thereof (having voting rights under all circumstances).


(2)	Notwithstanding subsection (1), a licence to establish and operate a station performing a commercial broadcasting receiving service may be issued to a person to whom a similar licence was issued for that station between April 1 and August 1, 1964, to any person in respect of whom authority to issue a similar licence for that station was given between those dates, or to any person whose application for such a licence was received prior to July 23, 1964.
(3)	A licence issued under subsection (2) is subject to the condition that any transfer of shares of capital stock of the corporation (having voting rights under all circumstances) shall be to a person who is a person described in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1).
Proposed item re CATV receiving stations to be included in supplementary estimates
Radio Act and regulations:
Administration, operation and maintenance including, in the case of a licence to establish and operate a new station performing a commercial broadcasting receiving service, or the amendment of a licence to establish and operate a station performing a commercial broadcasting receiving service to authorize the licensed station to receive signals from broadcasting stations other than those specified in such licence, authority to specify in any such licence any broadcasting station, from which the licensed station may receive signals, where the Minister of Transport is satisfied, having regard to any recommendation which may be made by the board of broadcast governors in that behalf after public notice and hearing given and held in the same manner as in the case of an application under the Radio Act for the issue of a licence to establish a broadcasting station, that the specification therein of that broadcasting station is unlikely to result in the operation of any existing television broadcasting station in Canada serving the area served or to be served by the licensed station becoming uneconomic or to inhibit the establishment of alternate television broadcasting facilities in Canada serving that area-further amount required, $1.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house and all hon. members will appreciate having this statement from the Minister of Transport concerning the CATV operators throughout Canada. We are pleased to know that the freeze has been lifted. I am sure this will be well

received by those in the industry because it has created a great hardship on this industry since December 31, 1963, when this freeze was placed on the operators of CATV outlets.
The minister states that he is primarily concerned with the ownership of these operations, and I do not think we have any complaints in this regard. With respect to the other matter concerning the regulations relating to CATV, it remains to be seen what the Department of Transport will do in this connection. I understood the minister to say that interviews will be afforded these people in the industry, so we will just have to wait and see what is the outcome of these hearings which the minister proposes. But we are certainly pleased that this freeze has been lifted, and we will await further developments.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, the weakness in the government policy that has just been announced is that it is impossible to go back and clear up the situation where CATV systems are already in existence, and affecting the existing stations. They are in existence and are providing a service, particularly on United States channels. With the introduction of this new policy it seems to me that this kind of development would block them off from other areas of the country. It is obvious that this is an inequity in that parts of the country which might have looked forward to the kind of service which, for example, Port Arthur has but which Sault Ste. Marie or Wawa has not, will be inhibited by this new policy. It is obvious that in this policy the minister has steered away from giving any firm indication of the government's reaction to the kind of regulation and control in this area that the board of broadcast governors set out in its last annual report it would wish.
I appreciate the reasons for this. We are in a kind of interim period until the matter is resolved. I suppose the solution which has been offered through this item in the supplementary estimates will look after the question of the hearings and the advice which will be sent forward from the board of broadcast governors to the Department of Transport radio department. But I suggest it does almost nothing to indicate whether the board is eventually going to have these powers, or whether the government feels that it should take care of the interests of the existing stations which are now transmitting and which are affected by CATV stations.
We welcome the announcement with regard to the ownership provision. It has been quite apparent that the major worry of many
Community Antennae Broadcasting of us about this CATV set-up becoming a network is that it is actually attracting and has attracted Famous Players Corporation, which is again a United States owned organization. We hope that this ownership organization will steer off expansion in that direction.
We welcome the fact that the freeze has ended. I suggest that this announcement by the government does not end the CATV problem, but that it will be with us for quite a number of years; and I think it will give rise to a great deal of bitterness of debate in this house and in parliamentary caucuses.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the announcement which has been made today. There has been a great deal of uncertainty in the minds of those interested in this particular matter throughout the past several months.
The question was raised as to whether there was any legal authority for intervention in this way, in imposing the freeze and then for the long delay occasioned since that time in order that it might be considered. All these things have created a great deal of uncertainty and dissatisfaction in the industry, but now that the minister has announced the freeze is being lifted it will alleviate the situation to a certain extent.
There has been a great fear in the minds of many residents of Canada that they were going to be deprived of services and privileges that those who live along the United States border are presently enjoying with the many channels available to them, while those living in areas further away from it are limited to one or two. The minister has announced that consideration will be given to the applications already made, and we hope that consideration will be favourable.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, it is with satisfaction that we heard the statement just made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill).
We are happy to learn that the freeze has been lifted and also that the people concerned will be consulted and given a hearing. This should reduce the tension.



EDUCATION


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, if I have the leave

Questions
of the house I would like to table a telegram from Premier Lesage relating to Bill No. C-110, which was requested by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) on Tuesday.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
^PURCHASE OF FLAGS
['1. One.\n2.\tR. N. Handy, $9,000.\n3.\tOnly one at any one time.']
Mr. Davis:: 1. The government cannot anticipate the decision of parliament on the motion proposed by the Prime Minister on May 28 by making arrangements concerning purchases for the purposes proposed in this question.
The answer to part 2 is found in part 1.



Mr. Crouse: Will the Minister of Fisheries give consideration to the payment of the same percentage of subsidy on wooden fishing trawlers 75 feet in length and over, as is presently paid on steel fishing trawlers?
Answer: The department has just recently issued new regulations (P.C. 1964-855) covering the administration and rates of assistance provided by the department for the construction of fishing vessels under 100 gross tons in the five Atlantic provinces. This action was taken after long and detailed discussions with the governments of the provinces concerned.
The assistance at the rate of 50 per cent of the approved cost of steel trawlers over 100 gross tons to be used in the Atlantic provinces is authorized by P.C. 1963-215 and is administered by the Canadian maritime commission, which is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport.


INDUSTRIES UNDER TAX INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Mr. Stenson: 1.	Of the eight Industries of which the government is aware, which are in commercial production and have signified their intention of taking advantage of the tax incentives set up for industry

in designated areas (a) what are the names of the industries (b) in what provinces are they located (c) how many people will each industry employ?
2.	If any such industries are in Ontario, in what cities are they located?


Mr. Drury:: 1. (a) It would not be in the public interest to disclose the names of those firms which have indicated on a confidential basis that they intend to take advantage of the tax incentives available to new enterprises in designated areas. When certificates under section 71A of the Income Tax Act have been issued, there would be no objection to publishing the names of those firms who have received such certificates.
(b)	The government is now aware of nine industries which are in commercial production and have signified their intention of taking advantage of the designated areas' tax incentives. The firms in question are located, by province, as follows: Ontario 3, Quebec 3, New Brunswick 1, and Nova Scotia 2.
(c)	The firms in question have estimated that they will be employing the following numbers of people: 125, 15, 930, 2, 25, 60, 14, 80 and 14 for a combined total of 1,265.
2.	Cornwall and Brantford.


NATIONAL INDIAN COUNCIL
Mr. Howard: 1.	Has any money been granted, given, or loaned to the national Indian council and, if so, how much and whether granted, given or loaned, and from what source and by what authority?
2.	Has any commitment or promise been made that additional money up to $300,000 would be granted, given or loaned to the said council and, if so, how much, and whether to be granted, given or loaned, from what source and by what authority?
3.	If any such money has been granted, given or loaned, what in detail, is it to be used for, and has the council given any accounting for that expenditure and, if so, what are the details of that accounting?
4.	If any such money is to be granted, given or loaned in the future, what in detail, is it to be used for and will the council be required to account for such money?
5.	Are Wilfred Pelletier, William Wuttunee and "Duke" Redbird, or any of them, receiving a salary and/or expenses from the national Indian council and, if so, how much and for what purposes and is this salary paid out of any money granted, given or loaned to the said council?
6.	Does the government have any knowledge of the membership of the national indian council and the extent to which the council is, or is not, representative of Indian people in Canada?
7.	Have any government funds been used to distribute to Indians, particularly in Alberta, to promote attendance at meetings of the national Indian council and, if so, who distributed the said money, by what authority and what was the source of the funds?
8.	Has William Wuttunee had any meetings with any members of cabinet and, if so, with respect

to each such meeting, upon what dates, for what length of time, with which members of cabinet, for what purpose, and was any official or representative of the Liberal party in attendance?
9.	Is the government aware of a resolution passed at the national Indian council meeting in Winnipeg on June 4 to the effect that costs incurred in the preparation of evidences and presentation of briefs before the proposed Indian claims commission, be borne by the crown and that "in the event of success in prosecuting any claim, such barristers and solicitors shall, in addition to the remuneration herein before provided, be paid 5 per cent out of all sums recovered pursuant to proceedings taken under the Indian Claims Act by the claimant upon receipt of such sum or sums" and, if so, what action is contemplated with respect thereto?


Mr. Lamontagne:: In so far as the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is concerned:
1.	Yes. By authority of treasury board minute 624754 of April 23, 1964, the department was authorized to engage the national Indian council to organize and conduct a national Indian conference primarily to review the proposed Bill C-130, and such other matters as the extension of provincial services to Indians and amendments to the Indian Act. The cost is not to exceed $9,000 and is chargeable to vote 15-Indian conferences. Leadership training courses and seminars.
2.	No. However, the national Indian council was promised a $3,000 grant from the Canadian citizenship branch as part of its program to promote cultural activities among ethnic groups.
3.	See answer to (1) above. The national Indian council is required to maintain a record of disbursements and submit a financial report on the completion of the conference. The funds are provided to assist the national Indian council to pay the travelling expenses of delegates and other conference expenses.
4.	See answer to 2 and 3 above.
5.	Information not available.
6.	Figures relating to membership in the national Indian council are not available. However, the department has been informed that Indians of all provinces except Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island as well as the Yukon and Northwest Territories are represented.
7.	See answer to 1.
8.	The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration received Mr. William Wuttunee on February 22, 1964, when the welfare of Indians was discussed. No official or representative of the Liberal party was in attendance.
Questions
Hon. Guy Favreau, when minister of citizenship and immigration had two meetings with Mr. William Wuttunee. He does not recollect the dates of these meetings. They may have lasted between 15 and 20 minutes. Their purpose was to discuss the Indian claims commission matter and more generally the welfare and future of Canadian Indians. Since his appointment as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Mr. Favreau had the occasion to see Mr. Wuttunee informally twice. At no occasion was any representative of the Liberal party in attendance.
9.	No.
In so far as the centennial commission is concerned:
1.	Yes, a grant in the amount of $9,000 from the centennial commission. The authority was section 93(b)-1964-7/206 February 13, 1964.
2.	No.
3.	To organize and implement a travel and exchange program during 1964. A full audit will be made at the termination of the project.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	Information not available pending completing of audit at end of project.
6.	Answer being supplied by Indian affairs branch.
7.	Not applicable to the centennial commission.
8.	Not applicable to the centennial commission.
9.	Not applicable to the centennial commission.


EDMONTON
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Has an agreement been concluded with the province ol Alberta concerning the property known as government house, Edmonton, with respect to domiciliary care patients of the Department of Veterans Affairs and, if so, what are the terms of such an agreement?
2.	What consideration has been given to provisions for future patient load on either the chronic or domiciliary care basis with respect to the Edmonton area?


Mr. Teillei:: 1. Proposals have been made and correspondence exchanged between representatives of the federal government and of the government of Alberta, but no formal agreement has yet been signed.
2.	Proposals have also been made with regard to the general problems raised in this question, and these proposals have been under consideration for some time.

Questions


INDIAN CHILDREN IN FOSTER HOMES
Mr. Enns: 1.	Are Indian children in Winnipeg and vicinity, who are in need of foster homes, placed directly in homes by the Department of National Health and Welfare medical services directorate?
2.	Are such foster homes licensed in accordance with local child care standards?
3.	Are these placements supervised and, if so, by what agency?
4.	Since such placements are made in an area covered by the charter of the Winnipeg children's aid society, is that agency consulted when Indian children require placement?


Miss LaMarsh:: 1. Indian children in Winnipeg are, for medical reasons (out-patient care, awaiting hospital admission, medical review following hospital discharge) placed directly in homes by officers of the medical services directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
2.	Some of the homes, so used, are licensed by the city of Winnipeg as boarding homes for children. However the city health regulations do not require licensing of homes caring for less than three children at a time. It is not departmental practise to place more than two children in any one home at any one time.
3.	The placements and homes are supervised by officers of the Department of National Health and Welfare and, since the children are in the city for medical reasons, these officers are in almost constant contact with the children and their temporary homes.
4.	No. The Department of National Health and Welfare understands that the children's aid society of greater Winnipeg is not able to cope with the backlog of requests for placement they already have, and do not wish to add temporary medical placements of Indian children to their lists. In fact the society has advised the department that their foster home resources are insufficient to provide placement services on a continuing basis and that their receiving home has not sufficient accommodation to provide such a service.


*USE OF FORMER R.C.A.F. STATION CRUMLIN, ONT.
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Are the buildings belonging to the Department of National Defence and occupied by the R.C.A.F. situated at Crumlin, Ontario, and being formerly part of No. 4 air observer school, to be declared surplus and available for sale and, if so, on what date?
2.	Will consideration be given to using the above property and buildings in connection with the Canadian vocational training program of the city of London?


Mr. Cardin:: 1. Two of the three buildings owned by the Department of National De-

fence at Crumlin will be reported to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as being surplus to D.N.D. requirements approximately 1 August, 1964.
2. Decision in regard to the future use of these buildings will be made subsequent to being reported to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.


DEFENCE EQUIPMENT REMOVED FROM SERVICE
Mr. Coales: 1.	What is the number and kind of operational
(a)	ships (b) aircraft (c) armoured vehicles removed from service in the past 12 months?
2.	What is the number and kind in each of the above cases proposed to be removed from service in the next 12 months?
Answer: 1. (a) Six tribal class destroyers (three in reserve); ten coastal minesweepers; one cape class repair ship. During the same period two new destroyer escorts and one fleet replenishment ship have been added to the fleet.
(b)	Two Comet jet transport aircraft; six Lancasters employed in photo reconnaissance and rescue roles; five Dakotas employed in the search and rescue role; 85 Sabre 6 aircraft, 75 of which were employed in interceptor roles and 10 with the Golden Hawk acrobatic team; 14 CF-100 aircraft, employed in the operational training role; four Neptune aircraft, employed in the maritime patrol role; two North Star aircraft, employed in the search and rescue role; one L 19A observation aircraft; one L 182D observation aircraft; three CH 112 observation aircraft. During the same period four Caribou, 56 CF-104, three Dakota aircraft, three CH113 and four CH-882 ASW helicopters were introduced into operational service.
(c)	Nil.
2. It is not customary to list detailed equipment changes until policy programs are announced in the usual manner.


REQUEST FOR COAT OF ARMS FOR MASSEY FAMILY
Mr. Coales: 1.	Did the government receive an application from Right Hon. Vincent Massey during 1962 or 1963 to be granted a coat of arms, with the crown thereon, for the use of Mr. Massey and his descendants to indicate that a member of the family had been the Queen's representative in Canada?
2.	If so, did the Prime Minister or the government of Canada submit such request to Her Majesty?
3.	Has the government received a reply to the said submission and, if so, what was the date and nature of such reply?


John (Jack) Davis: 1, 2 and 3. Mr. Massey's personal arms were granted by the College of

Arms in 1952. In 1961 the master of Massey College, University of Toronto, asked the College of Arms whether it would be possible to have some device added to Mr. Massey's personal arms which would allude to Mr. Massey's service to the crown as governor general of Canada. Mr. Massey's arms, thus modified, would serve as the arms and common seal of Massey College. The Garter King of Arms suggested that the logical course would be to seek an honourable augmentation of the arms of Mr. Massey himself, which might then be repeated in the college arms. Accordingly the master of Massey College made a request to the Governor General, who in turn consulted the ministry. On July 9, 1963, the Prime Minister advised the Governor General that the government concurred in the augmentation of Mr. Massey's arms in the manner proposed by the Garter King of Arms, namely that the augmentation should consist of "a canton azure charged with the crest of Canada a lion passant guardant or imperially crowned proper and holding in the dexter paw a maple leaf gules charged on the shield of Mr. Massey's arms in dexter chief". The warrant augmenting Mr. Massey's arms was signed by Her Majesty the Queen in October 1963 and countersigned by the Secretary of State of Canada in November 1963.
An augmentation of arms is a grant by the sovereign of an addition to a family coat of arms to mark some honourable achievement, the addition often being some part of the royal arms or badges.


ROYAL CANADIAN MINT EXPANSION
Mr. Martineau: 1.	Is the government considering expanding the facilities of the Royal Canadian Mint?
2.	Will the expansion mean an enlargement of the present Mint building or will a new building to house the mint be erected on a new site?
3.	When will this expansion take place?

Answer: 1. Yes.
2.	Probably a new building on a new site.
3.	As soon as it is possible to complete the preparations and find room for this in the program of government expenditures.


VANCOUVER
Mr. Basford: What is the total federal contribution under the winter works program towards the cost of construction of the Burrard street civic marina being constructed by the board of parks and public recreation of the city of Vancouver?
20220-368i
Questions


Mr. MacEachen:: Under the municipal winter works incentive program of 1963-64 a project was authorized in respect to construction of a civic marina at the south end of Burrard bridge in Vancouver, B.C., the federal government share of payroll costs being estimated at $56,000. Interim claims amounting to $16,664.11 have been received and payment has gone forward to the province. Final claims have not as yet been submitted by the province.


INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT ASSISTANCE TO PROVINCES
Mr. Stenson: 1.	Does the federal Department of Industry work with the provincial departments of industry and, if so, what assistance is given the provincial departments of industry not including designated areas?
2.	Does the federal Department of Industry aid municipalities, other than those in designated areas, having industrial commissioners and, if so, what type of aid is given?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. The Department of Industry works with provincial departments in a number of fields in addition to those pertaining to designated areas. For example, various provincial departments have requested assistance in obtaining information on a variety of technical and industrial matters. The Department of Industry has been able, in most instances, to obtain and supply the information requested. In other cases, provincial departments have asked for assistance in dealing with specific industrial problems. The department has made staff available to co-operate with the provinces in attempting to find solutions to these problems. In other cases, provincial departments have asked for assistance from the department in appraising new production opportunities relating to local industries. This help has been forthcoming. A number of industry seminars have been jointly sponsored by provincial authorities and the Department of Industry with a view to fostering greater efficiency in industry.
2. As a rule, the Department of Industry does not work directly with municipalities or industrial commissioners. Direct liaison with municipal agencies respecting industrial development matters is usually the responsibility of provincial governments. However, if a municipal body requests specific information of a type which is normally available to other business groups in Canada, we will certainly assist them.

Questions


APPLICATION FOR USE OF ANABLAST SERUM
Mr. Herridge: 1.	Did a Mr. Gaston Naessens visit the director of the food and drug directorate on June 29 with respect to an application for the use of anablast in the treatment of disease?
2.	What were the conditions he was informed he must comply with in order to obtain legal sanction for the use of anablast?
3.	What procedure was he advised to follow to comply with the directorate's requirements?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. Yes.
2.	Mr. Naessens was informed that before anablast could be distributed in Canada, he must meet the requirements of the regulations under the Food and Drug Act relating to new drugs. He was also informed that, as the product is one which comes within the requirements of part I, section 12 of the act, it would be subject to licence.
3.	Mr. Naessens was advised that the first step to be taken was to file with the food and drug directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare a pre-clinical submission as described in section C.08.005 (1) (a) (i to viii) of the food and drug regulations.


* IMPORTS OF MANUFACTURED GOODS
Mr. Rynard: 1.	In manufactured imports, what is the annual value of goods not manufactured in Canada and the various items imported?
2.	What is the annual value of manufactured imports already manufactured in similar kind in Canada?


Mr. Pepin:: 1 and 2. Imports and manufactured goods are not classified according to whether the goods are or are not of a class or kind made in Canada, and information of this nature is not available on most customs documents relating to manufactured imports. It is therefore not possible to provide the information requested.


*COST OF DAWSON CITY FESTIVAL
Mr. Cote (Longueuil): 1.	What was the total cost to the taxpayers of the 1962 Dawson city festival?
2.	Has the present government repaid any deficit or loan guarantee following commitments made by the previous government and, if so (a) what was the amount (b) what specific items were included in expenditures paid for by the federal government?


Mr. Turner:: 1. $431,454.99 as shown in answer to question No. 733 on April 22, 1964 (Hansard, page 2452.)

2. (a) Provision for such repayment is contained in vote 106e, supplementary estimates "E", 1963-64 in the total amount of $225,000 and it is expected that disbursements will shortly be made from this vote.
(b) Precise details cannot be provided since claims have not yet been verified for payment. It is expected that expenditures of the following order will be involved:
(i)	for the redemption, with interest, of commercial bank loans made after consultation with the previous government to the Dawson city festival foundation, $152,000;
(ii)	to meet in full verified trade accounts, $28,000;
(iii)	to meet in part other claims against the Dawson city festival foundation, $45,000.


CONFERENCE ON SECOND TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Mrs. Jones: 1.	Will the Minister of Public Works reconsider his earlier refusal to convene promised dominion-provincial discussions relative to a second trans-Canada highway?
2.	Has the city of Saskatoon made any request to the federal government regarding this proposal?


Mr. Deschateleis:: 1. Since my statement to the house on April 28, circumstances have not changed and consequently I am not considering a conference at this time.
2. No.


INTEREST RATES ON LOANS TO SMALL BUSINESSES
Mrs. Jones: Will the government give consideration to lowering the present interest rate on loans to small businesses through the industrial development bank with a view to encouraging the expansion of small businesses and boosting the economy of the country?


Mr. Pennell:: The interest rate on industrial development bank loans is set by the board of directors of the bank. A factor in the determination of lending rates has been the view that the industrial development bank should be self supporting.
The annual volume of loans made was about $30 million in 1959 and in 1963 was about $80 million. During the first six months of 1964 lending was 9 per cent greater than during the same period in 1963.


ST. SYLVESTRE RADAR STATION    DISPOSITION OF EQUIPMENT AND BUILDINGS
Mr. Choquetle: With reference to the installation (equipment and buildings) located at the radar station at St.

Sylvestre, Lotbinifere county, what portion does the government intend (a) to leave on the site
(b)	to dispose of through the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation (c) to move elsewhere for use at other military bases?

Answer: (a) All buildings, including permanent married quarters and some movable equipment, will be left on site.
(b)	All property and equipment remaining on the site as of September 1, 1964, is to be disposed of through Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.
(c)	The principal items to be moved elsewhere for use at other military bases include 25 transportable homes, fire alarm system and fire alarm boxes, firefighting vehicles, refrigerators, diesel power plant, air conditioning equipment, radar and electronics gear, some of the appliances from married quarters and mess furnishings. Instructions have not yet been received as to the disposition of certain items of equipment which belong to the U.S.A.F.


SAFETY CAMPAIGN RESPECTING FARM EQUIPMENT ACCIDENTS
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to the avoidance of farm equipment accidents through the mobilization of an intensive and continuous safety campaign among farmers and farm equipment manufacturers?


Maurice Lamontagne: The Department of Agriculture is aware that:
A farm safety planning conference was held in Ottawa on April 14, 1964, under the auspices of the national safety league of Canada. As an outgrowth of that, the president of the league announced on May 26 that steps are to be taken this summer to assemble a steering committee representing farm organizations, safety groups and business and industry to review the action required to formulate an imaginative, workable farm safety program and to establish a farm safety division of the national safety league.
The Department of National Health and Welfare expects to participate, together with the Department of Agriculture, in a national farm safety conference, now in the planning stages under the aegis of the national safety league. The conference will bring together representatives of farm organizations and farm people, farm implement manufacturers, chemical manufacturers, agriculture specialists, food processors and distributors, federal
Questions
and provincial departments of agriculture, and educators.
It is anticipated that from this conference, to be held early in 1965, will emerge a national safety program.


DEPRESSED AREAS, ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Orlikow: Are any of the following classified by the government as depressed areas: Halifax, St. John's, Newfoundland, North Sydney, Port aux Basques?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There are no areas in Canada classified as depressed areas. Some 35 areas were designated last year as designated development areas, thereby qualifying for special measures of federal assistance for industrial development. Included among those designated were Corner Brook and Sydney Mines. Port aux Basques is in the Corner Brook area, and North Sydney is in the Sydney Mines area.


WINTER HOUSE BUILDING APPLICATIONS, NORTHERN CANADA
Mr. Rheaume: 1.	How many applications were received from home builders under the provisions of the winter house building incentive program, in each of the following settlements in the Northwest Territories (a) Hay River (b) Fort Smith (c) Yellowknife (d) Fort Simpson (e) Inuvik (f) all other locations?
2.	For each of the above communities how many applications were approved, and have all such payments been made?
3.	What were the major reasons for rejections of applications under this program in the Northwest Territories?
4.	In view of the past year's experience, does the government propose to extend the period during which houses can be built in northerly areas such as the Yukon and Northwest Territories or relax any of the other requirements in such areas in order to render this program effective?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. (a) 22; (b) nil; (c) nil;
(d)	nil; (e) 5; (f) nil.
2.	Of the 27 applications received from home builders in the Northwest Territories only five houses built in Hay River qualified for the incentive payment and cheques have been issued.
3.	The major reason why houses in the Northwest Territories failed to qualify under the winter house building incentive program was that the dwelling units were not completed within the period of the program.
4.	The detailed provisions of the winter house building incentive program for next winter are at present under consideration.

Questions


BEAVER BANK, N.S.-USE OF RADAR STATION
Mr. Kennedy: What progress Is being made in the utilization of housing and community services vacated by R.C.A.F. radar personnel at Beaver Bank, N.S.?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In anticipation of the R.C.A.F. vacating the radar facility at Beaver Bank, N.S. by September 1, 1964, and with no other military requirement for the facility foreseen at this time, alternate uses for the buildings and services are now being investigated by the government. The area development agency is in communication with the municipality of the county of Halifax and with the Nova Scotia department of trade and industry in regard to the potential of the base as an industrial location. The government is not aware of any possibility in this connection at present.
letters and petitions supporting red ensign


Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the total number of signatures affixed to letters and petitions received since April 22, 1963, by the various government departments, other than the Secretary of State, urging the retention of the red ensign as Canada's national flag?
, 2. What is the total number of signatures affixed to letters and petitions received by all government departments since April 22, 1963, urging that a national plebiscite or referendum be held before a decision is made on a new flag design for Canada?


Mr. Stewart:: 1. 6,792.
2.	971.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to my starred question No. 1,517 the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State informed me that 971 names had been affixed to letters and petitions received by the government since April 22 urging a national plebiscite or referendum. In view of the fact that I personally delivered a petition containing almost 18,000 names to the Prime Minister's office, I would ask the parliamentary secretary to recheck the figures in this regard.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I shall be happy to do so.


CANADIAN ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR TARIFF CUTS
Mr. Horner (Acadia): 1. Has the Department of Trade and Commerce established a list of those Canadian goods or items [Mr. MacEachen.l
that will be recommended to the GATT meetings as those which the government is willing to make across the board tariff cuts on, of up to 50 per cent?
2.	How was this list or is this list to be drawn up?
3.	To what degree does the department negotiate, discuss or advise those Canadian companies whose goods appear on the list and what part do they play?


Mr. Sharp:: 1. No.
2.	The content of the Canadian offer list is still under consideration.
3.	The Canadian committee on customs tariffs and trade was set up to receive briefs from and conduct hearings with companies whose interest may be affected by the trade negotiations.


PRISON CONSTRUCTION, LENNOX-ADDINGTON COUNTY, ONT.
Mr. Alkenbrack: 1.	When will construction begin on the new prison to be built on the lands acquired by the government situated on the first and second concessions of the township of Ernestown in the county of Lennox-Addington as announced March 19 last?
2.	When work begins will the government direct that all contractors engage labour personnel from the county of Lennox and the unemployment insurance commission office at Napanee, wherever possible?


Mr. McWilliam:: 1. It is anticipated that the proposed special detention institution at Mill-haven in the county of Lennox-Addington will begin early in 1965.
2.	A clause in the contract documents will state the following:
-the contractor will employ labour from the locality where the work is being executed to the extent to which it is available and shall use the offices of the national employment service in the recruitment of workers wherever practicable.
cost of living index 1962-64


Mr. Alkenbrack: What is the cost of living index as published by the dominion bureau of statistics for each consecutive month from June, 1962 to June, 1964?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The consumer price index for Canada (1949 = 100) as published by the dominion bureau of statistics, monthly from June 1962 to June 1964 is:
1962	1963	1964January	132.0	134.2February	132.1	134.5March	132.1	134.6April	132.3	135.0May	132.3	135.0June	130.5	132.8	135.3July	131.0	133.5	August	131.4	133.9September	131.0	133.4October	131.5	133.6November	131.9	134.0December	131.9	134.2Year:	130.7	133.0tobacco	IMPORTS,	1963


Mr. Pigeon: 1.	How many pounds of cigarette tobacco did Canada import in 1963 and what amount of money did this represent?
2.	How many pounds of cigar tobacco did Canada import in 1963 and what amount of money did this represent?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. Cigarette tobacco is not separately classified in import statistics. Flue cured tobacco is the main type of tobacco used in the manufacture of cigarettes in Canada, but no imports of flue cured tobacco were recorded in 1963 statistics.
2.	Imports of cigar leaf tobacco in 1963 totalled 1,975,000 pounds valued at $3,628,000. [Text]


BREAKWATER IMPROVEMENTS, MCBETH POINT, MAN.
Mr. Stefanson: 1.	Is the government now in a position to indicate what improvements to the breakwater facilities at McBeth point on lake Winnipeg, Manitoba are planned and when will this be undertaken?
2.	What is the estimated cost and when will this work be carried out?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. The extent and cost of any harbour improvements at McBeth point are dependant on requirements of local fish processing industry and their combined harbour requirements are not as yet confirmed.
2. Sufficient information is not available at this time to consider plans or schedule any harbour improvement works at McBeth point.


TENDERS FOR MOBILE BUILDINGS, ST. SYLVESTRE, QUE.
Mr. Choquetle: With reference to the contract awarded in October 1961, by Defence Construction (1951) Limited to a contractor operating under the firm name of Nadeau & Fr^res, for the construction of foundations and the provision of facilities for the 25 mobile dwellings at the radar station at St. Sylves-tre, county of Lotbini&re (a) were public tenders called (b) what was the name of each tenderer (c) what was the amount of each tender?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: (a) Public tenders have not been called, but six (6) companies have been asked to tender.
Orders for Returns
(b) and (c) Nadeau & Freres is the only firm which has tendered and the amount of the tender was $127,135.75.


EXECUTIVE ASSISTANTS, OFFICE OF REVENUE MINISTER
Mr. Nugent: 1.	How many executive assistants are there in the office of the Minister of National Revenue?
2.	What are their names and salaries?
3.	How many executive assistants were there in this department during the years 1957 to 1962 inclusive?


Mr. Benson:: 1. One.
2.	R. N. Handy, $9,000.
3.	Only one at any one time.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Balcer: For the financial years 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63, what was. in detail, the percentage
of indirect tax revenues levied by the federal government in the province of Quebec and the percentage of revenues other than from direct and indirect taxes obtained in the said province?


FEDERAL RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES, QUEBEC
Mr. Balcer: 1.	Taking into account, as between Ottawa and Quebec, all the revenue received by Ottawa (including direct taxes, indirect taxes and other revenue) and all expenditures incurred in Quebec's behalf (including conditional and unconditional grants to institutions and to individuals and expenditures incurred for public works and other purposes and by crown corporations in that province), for the financial years 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63, how much more, or less, does the federal government spend than It collects In the said province?
2.	What are the comparative figures for each of the remaining provinces in Canada?


FEDERAL PETROLEUM PURCHASES IN SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Knowles: What was the total amount of purchases of petroleum products made by all departments of the federal government in the province of Saskatchewan during the fiscal years ending in 1956, 1957, 1963, and 1964, from each of the following (a) Federated Co-operatives (b) Imperial Oil Limited
(c)	British American Oil Company Limited (d) Royalite Oil Limited?
Return tabled.



IMPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,45 7-Mr. Rynard:
What is the value of the following imported into Canada annually from other countries: field crops
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers
(including cereal grains), feed grains, other grains, vegetables and fruits, beef, lamb and pork, dairy products?
Return tabled.

Mr. Howard: In each Indian community of the Indian agencies of Queen Charlotte, Skeena, Terrace, Babine, Burns Lake, Stuart Lake, Fort St. John, and Yukon, how many Indian day school teachers were (a) qualified teachers (give ratings or classifications) (b) unqualified teachers (c) recalled from retirement in order to teach (d) recent arrivals from the British Isles (e) recent arrivals from Europe (f) without previous teaching experience, for the school terms of 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63 and 196364?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, motion No. 141 is acceptable. Motions 142 and 145 are acceptable subject to the usual reservations concerning the consent of the province or provinces involved. Motion 144 is acceptable, subject to the usual reservations concerning privileged documents. I ask that motions 133, 134 and 135 be allowed to stand. Will Your Honour please call motion No. 143?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether we are drifting into a somewhat different system here. Although the parliamentary secretary has indicated the motions which the government is prepared to accept and the motions which he should like to stand, should not the house formally adopt these motions and stand the others rather than just go on the word of the parliamentary secretary?


Mr. Speaker:: Well, it does seem to the Chair that this notice is distributed to the Speaker, to the whips, to the Clerk Assistant, to the Journals office and even to the press, so ample notice is given of the intention of the parliamentary secretary. However, if there is any objection we can certainly change the procedure.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is not a question of notice of intention respecting what is being done. Surely we must follow this with an order of the house concerning these items generally which are in front of us. It seems to me that this does not happen on the statement of a member from the government side.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, the Chair will certainly look into it. I suggest that in the future the
[Mr. Rynard.l
Chair should say "Shall motions numbers so and so carry?", and then we have the approval or objection of the house. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
COMPLAINTS RESPECTING "DO NOT SHIP" LIST Motion No. 141-Mr. Orlikow:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all letters and documents sent to the Minister of Labour and his replies, if any, by any seamen complaining that they are still on the do not ship list compiled by the seafarers' international union.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 142-Mr. Douglas:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Minister of Agricuture and the governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba regarding federal assistance for the drought stricken areas of these provinces since May 22, 1964.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 144-Mr. Diefenbaker:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all letters and telegrams received by the Prime Minister, the ministers and/or the Departments of Defence Production, Industry, Northern Affairs and National Resources and Post Office and copies of the replies thereto since the 1st day of June, 1964, in regard to the disposal of the Kitsilano reserve property in Vancouver.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 145-Mr. Barnett:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged, since April 1, 1964, between the premier of British Columbia and the Prime Minister of Canada with reference to any proposed extensions of alterations to trans-Canada highway agreements.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 143-Mr. Rapp:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all letters, telegrams and replies thereto which have passed between the Minister and/or the Department of Agriculture since the 20th of June, 1964, and (a) the government of

Saskatchewan (b) the government of Manitoba, concerning assistance to drought areas with particular reference to provision of fodder or pasturage for livestock.
John B. Stewart: Although motion No. 143 is somewhat different in its terms from motion No. 142, the correspondence that would be required to satisfy motion No. 143 is the same as that required to satisfy motion No. 142. Since the material sought by the hon. member will now be available to him as a result of the passage today of motion No. 142, I suggest that the hon. member now withdraw motion No. 143.


Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that motion No. 142 deals more or less in generalities while my motion, as you can see, in the last two lines specifically deals with fodder or pasturage for livestock. I should like to have this motion stand if it is at all possible.


John B. Stewart: The material is exactly the same, and the material will be available as a result of the passage of motion No. 142.


Reynold Rapp: I will accept it on the same basis.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. When can the house expect the minister to announce his new national air policy, which he forecast a few days after taking office?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very happy to say, sir, that I did not set myself any deadline. I intend to announce it just as soon as it is formulated and agreed to by the government.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouelie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is he listening to me at the moment?
Inquiries of the Ministry In view of the fact that the premier stated that the province of Quebec would not take part in the student loan program now before this house, will the federal government still guarantee the loans granted in Quebec?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: As I understand it, in this particular case there will be nothing to guarantee.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. It may be considered as supplementary to my first question, as the answer he gave a few moments ago was not so satisfactory.
If the province of Quebec introduced its own student loan program, would the federal government guarantee loans granted to students in the province of Quebec to the chartered banks or other credit institutions which are accepted by the federal government?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, we seem to be getting on to the next item of business before the house; but I can assure my hon. friend that the government will do its very best to keep within its constitutional powers.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. On the constitutional problem-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It does seem to me that this question could be asked very shortly. There is so little time left that I wonder whether the hon. member would defer his questions to the debate proper.


David Réal Caouette: I will keep them very short, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to know whether, in the event of the province of Quebec adopting a similar program, the Canadian government would guarantee the loans to students? [Text]


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That is not provided for in the bill that is before the house, Mr. Speaker.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  A. B. Pallerson@Fraser Valley: I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State

Inquiries of the Ministry for External Affairs. In view of the fact that United Nations forces were forbidden to follow a Greek Cypriot military convoy, an importation that directly ignored U Thant's appeal of last Thursday, can the minister tell us whether the United Nations plans to take any action to guarantee that total freedom of movement on the island which the force is supposed to have?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Under the terms of reference already tabled in this house, freedom of movement has been given to the United Nations forces. The incident to which the hon. member directs our attention is a violation of those terms, and the appropriate protest has been made by the United Nations authorities.


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Public Works. Could he tell me whether he received a delegation interested in the proposed deepening of the Mille lies and Riviere des Prairies, and whether he has any comment to make?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and I trust that hon. members will allow me to welcome on their behalf more than 30 distinguished mayors from municipalities on Jesus island, as well as a member of the Montreal executive council.
We acquainted them with the preliminary studies for the proposed deepening of the Mille lies and Riviere des Prairies. I must inform the hon. member that before a decision is made, however, consultations will have to be held with the Quebec government and the municipalities concerned.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question. Could the Minister of Public Works assure the house that this project will materialize within two years?

Yes, or no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair would appreciate it if members would


address their questions to the Chair. When several members are trying to get the floor at the same time, taking the law into their own hands, it becomes extremely difficult.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Before six years.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We agree that you let any member ask a supplementary question. Then, why, when the hon. member for Joli-ette-L'Assomption-Montcalm rises to ask a supplementary question do you call him to order, to give another member the opportunity to ask a question?
It seems to me that when rules apply to the whole membership of the house they should apply to each and every member as well.
In my opinion, the hon. member for Joli-ette-L'Assomption-Montcalm had the right to ask his supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: The explanation is quite simple. Some hon. members are good enough to send me notice of their intention to ask oral questions, which is of material assistance to the Chair.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I wanted to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I understand that other members have questions to ask. However, supplementary questions are usually tolerated. Therefore, why, in this case, is the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm not allowed to ask his supplementary question?
That is what I would like to know.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I do appreciate this demonstration, and I think I understand it, but another hon. member has the floor.


Mr. Vincent Drouin (Argenieuil-Deux-Mon-lagnes):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question arising out of the question put by the hon. member for Mercier to the Minister of Public Works. I should also like to take this opportunity of welcoming the delegation of mayors of the municipalities of Jesus island and district; I am particularly happy to do so since some of them are from my constituency.


Some hon. Members:: No, no, no.


Vincent Drouin: Could the Minister of Public Works tell us the estimated cost of the project with regard to the deepening of Mille lies and Riviere des Prairies?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I must assume that this is a question requiring quite a detailed answer. Unless the minister has the exact figure on the tip of his tongue and can give it to the house quickly, it is really a question for the order paper.


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister of Public Works would be prepared to give the house some particulars in reply to my question.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister regarding a statement attributed the Minister of National Health and Welfare following her meeting with the provincial ministers of health, in which she is reported as saying she plans to lay before the provinces early next year a proposal for a medical care insurance program. I want to ask the Prime Minister if this means the government has now formally accepted the basic principles of the Hall commission report and proposes to give some leadership to the provinces regarding their implementation.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Well, I would not go that far. It means we hope to have proposals ready for submission to the provinces early next year, taking into consideration, naturally, the recommendations of the commission.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is it intended to hold this conference with the provinces within the six months period which the royal commission has suggested?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That will depend on the reaction of the provinces. There has been preliminary discussion with them, and we hope to hold this conference as soon as we can get general agreement on a date.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Does the Prime Minister's statement that proposals will be made in this regard mean that the government has decided to enter upon a program of medicare within the foreseeable future, that is within the next eight or nine months?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This government has been for some time committed to the principle, and it hopes to submit proposals based on this principle to the provinces, following which we hope to be able to get agreement with the provinces on concrete measures.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In the light of that answer, has the Prime Minister given further consideration to the statement made by the premier of Manitoba that there should be a full federal-provincial conference on the assessment of priorities in the fields of education, social welfare and health?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That was a major subject of discussion at the last federal-provincial conference, and I have no doubt it will be discussed at the next one. There is a very important question of priorities involved in these matters.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: What financial contribution does the federal government intend to make to the provinces in reference to this program in question?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would think the question was a little premature.


Mr. Graffley:: Maybe the conference is, too.


REPORT ON MEETING OF HEALTH MINISTERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Eloise Jones (Saskatoon):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the hon. lady yet prepared to make a statement on the conference with provincial representatives on the Hall report?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I wish to offer the hon. lady my good wishes on the occasion of what I think is her second question asked in the house. Hon. members did ask yesterday that immediately on the conclusion of this meeting I should give a report, and I should like to advise the house as follows.
The report of the royal commission on health services, volume I, was discussed in a preliminary way. However, this is a very complex document with important program
5814	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry and financial implications. As it was only-received one month ago, it was considered by all to be impractical to discuss the document in detail. All governments will be examining it intensively and I indicated, as did the Prime Minister earlier this afternoon, that our own analysis should be completed in time to present the general position of the federal government to a federal-provincial conference by the end of this year or early next year.
The hospital insurance arrangements were also discussed and there was general acceptance of the principle of the integration of mental hospitals and tuberculosis sanatoria into the general hospital system. However, I did point out that the financial implications would need to be reviewed within the framework of the proposed study of the tax structure. In the meantime I urged the provinces to go ahead with the functional integration of these hospitals into the general hospital pattern. A special federal-provincial committee will be set up immediately to work out uniform criteria for the inclusion of mental care under the principles which apply to the hospital insurance program.
The federal government also agreed to establish arrangements for the continuing study of factors in the hospital system affecting hospital costs, and the provincial ministers agreed to co-operate and participate in these arrangements.
The general health grants received strong support and it was recommended that they continue without significant change in the basic pattern. Certain internal changes were proposed, such as the consolidation of research under the public health research grant and the streamlining of administration. These are matters which I propose to proceed with.
The provincial ministers expressed concern over the continuation of the hospital construction grant and I asked them to provide detailed information with regard to the need for new construction and renovation in each of the particular provinces. There was also discussion on the program "Smoking and Health" and the proposed conference on mental retardation in October.
I believe I can assure the house that the meeting was worth while, as it took place in a climate of mutual trust and co-operation, and provided an excellent opportunity to discuss matters of mutual interest. It appeared to all those present that it was another successful exercise in co-operative federalism.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order. We all welcome the statement make by the


minister, but surely statements of this sort ought to be made on motions, particularly on Wednesdays, when only half an hour is allowed for the question period. It seems to me this rule ought to be enforced.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, now that the conference has finished, can the minister tell us when we can look for the publication of the white paper?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am afraid my hon. friend did not listen to what I said. I have just reported on a meeting of the federal and provincial ministers of health. I think he has that meeting confused with one that is starting tomorrow of technical people of the welfare departments, which will be dealing with pensions.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare following her report on the health minister's conference in the capital. In the course of her report she detailed the subjects which were considered. Inasmuch as I believe that there was a lack of leadership on behalf of the federal government, would the minister say today whether she is prepared to start on the two basic points; one, hospital care for mentally ill and tubercular patients, and the other equalized capital costs for hospital construction?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had dealt with both these matters. At the request and on the initiative of the federal government the provinces agreed to something which they had not agreed to up to this time, namely to integrate mental and t.b. patients into their programs, which it was felt by the federal government, and agreed to by the provinces, would increase the standard of care and facilities available to patients of that type.
With respect to hospital construction grants, I have made no secret in several reports I have made that some of the provinces were desirous of having the federal government increase its contribution. On the other hand, others were just as firm in their request that there be no increase because they felt that there would be created additional pressure on the provincial treasuries to match the federal government grant. The consensus was that this was not a top priority matter in the field of health. There was not a great deal of discussion even though it was repeatedly returned to.

As was announced a month or so ago in this chamber, after the metropolitan Toronto and township of Scarborough councils made a specific request for increased grants the federal government indicated that it would not increase the grant now being paid across Canada for hospital construction.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister is aware that this year for the first time in the history of Ontario there will be 40 qualified medical people leaving the province, mostly because of a lack of facilities and also, of course, to look for greater opportunities.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: A supplementary question. Could I ask the minister of health whether the federal government offered or agree to allow the provinces to collect their share of hospitalization costs in any way they chose, including co-insurance, without being penalized by the federal government cost sharing formula?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, the question of co-insurance was not raised at this conference. As my hon. friend knows, it was recently dealt with between the Prime Minister and the premier of Alberta without the context of this meeting. The ministers of health do not normally deal with questions of finance; that is the responsibility of the premier and the provincial treasurers. At this level it is usually dealt with by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.


Hon. J. W. Monieilh (Perth):: A supplementary question. We all agree that the care of the mentally ill is of prime importance. However, in view of the fact that it is estimated that the federal government's share would run in the neigbourhood of $53 million a year, has the minister had any intimation from the Minister of Finance as to when she might be able to institute this agreement?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would repeat the question I asked the minister yesterday. Was there any reference to the recommendations of the Hall commission that the provinces be entrusted with the administration of health services for Indians and Eskimos?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, yesterday my hon. friend asked me that question, although I did not hear it at the time. This item was not on the agenda and was not raised by anyone.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: A supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will she consider, in view of the answer she gave to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, that in future conferences of the nature of that which has just been concluded, northern representation will be had so this type of problem will be considered instead of being forgotten?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate my hon. friend's concern that when the provinces meet with the federal government there is no direct representation from the territories. However, at present it seems to be considered both by the government of the territories and the federal government when setting up such a meeting that it is preferable to have direct representation from the department of northern affairs on behalf of the commissioners of the territories. It may be that this will not continue to be the case, but as a result of the representations which my hon. friend has made and questions asked in the last few days in the house I have asked that this procedure be followed respecting the meeting of officials regarding the pension plans in order that there is someone there to directly represent the territories.


Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, was the minister of northern affairs present at the conference to speak up for the people of the north, in view of what the minister has said?


CANADIAN CENTENNIAL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Regina City inquired whether representations had been received from the premier of Saskatchewan on provincial plans related to the confederation memorial program. Such representations have been received, and I have said to Mr. Thatcher that under the circumstances I felt obliged to consult the national committee on the centennial, which is composed of myself, as chairman, and the ten provincial ministers responsible for centennial celebrations. I wrote to the provincial ministers on July 14, and when I have received their views I will give a final reply to the Saskatchewan government.


Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State

Inquiries of the Ministry whether he could tell us what were the representations received from the premier of Saskatchewan.


Maurice Lamontagne: I would be glad to table the correspondence, Mr. Speaker, if it is the wish of the hon. member.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I would request that the correspondence be tabled, Mr. Speaker.


Maurice Lamontagne: I am sure the premier of Saskatchewan will not have any objection to that.


ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES PROPOSED TRIP BY ROYAL COMMISSION TO INTERVIEW TROOPS ABROAD
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Lamontagne: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Mar-tineau) asked me if the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism intended to go to Europe to meet members of the armed forces.
Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Pontiac-Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works.
Can the minister tell us whether he intends to meet in the near future the municipal authorities of the national capital area, in order to discuss with them the eventual establishment of a public transit authority within the limits of the national capital area?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, since my estimates have been submitted to the house a few weeks ago and that we will soon resume their study, I think that it would be advisable to put off until then the answer on a quite complicated question which it would be impossible for me to summarize in a few minutes.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question.
Would he take advantage of the presence of a great number of mayors from Quebec municipalities to announce that he agrees to their request to abolish the 11 per cent tax?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes or no?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, my question was to be directed to the Minister of Justice. Perhaps in his absence, as it is important to the administration of justice in Canada, I could direct it to the Prime Minister. Has not the recognizance bond re Banks' appeal been breached, in view of the fact that he has ignored another court order and evaded a warrant for his arrest?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: I do not have the answer with me, Mr. Speaker. I will have to take this question as notice and bring it to the minister's attention.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is the minister able to report to the house on whether Banks has escaped to the United States to avoid Canadian justice?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I will take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Public Works or possibly to the Minister of Transport. As a result of the report yesterday of the danger to shipping

because of the low water levels in the St. Lawrence and the great lakes, is there any immediate plan of action contemplated to avert a further lowering of these levels?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the most careful attention is being given to the proper regulation of the flow out of lake Ontario, which is, as the hon. gentleman of course knows, thoroughly controlled at the present time. There is no control of the flow out of lake Huron at the present time, and I am sure the hon. gentleman knows this matter is under the most careful model study, which was referred to in the house some time ago.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the distinguished Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of Canada having already spent $6 million for the doubtful Cyprus adventure, before it gets any deeper, would the minister tell the house whether the government intends to have additional grants for dairy farmers, who are now on the brink of bankruptcy, voted first?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member knows the answer to this question.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes or no?



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked a question regarding the use of professional strikebreakers from the United States in connection with a strike of the international typographical union now taking place in Toronto. I am informed by the publishers of the newspapers in question that they have not employed any professional strikebreakers in connection with this strike.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister taking steps to inquire from government sources whether any such strikebreakers got into the country? I may tell him that I am asking the unions also to make such a check.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, inquiries are being made in that direction, but I thought I had better report to the house at once the information which I had received from the publishers.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he would consider referring the main estimates of some of the departments to the standing committee on estimates so they could be studied and thereby facilitated in their passage.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to look into that, Mr. Speaker.



AMENDMENT OF YUKON QUARTZ MINING ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of northern affairs. Now that Crest Exploration Company has decided to continue development of its iron ore deposit in the subArctic one step further by attacking the difficult problem of transportation, could the minister inform the house when the amendments to the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, which have been pending for some time, will be introduced in order to facilitate this development in every way possible?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we intend before introducing the amendments here to give a further opportunity for representations by interested parties in the Yukon; but we would hope that this will be soon, and we hope it is this fall.



IMPROVED ACCOMMODATION FOR PARLIAMENTARY PRESS GALLERY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the

Inquiries of the Ministry Secretary of State. My question is based on my concern for the welfare and working conditions of the gentlemen and others who are commonly known as members of the fourth estate. Has the Secretary of State received any communication from publishers across Canada with respect to leasing premises such as the building which the C.B.C. formerly occupied on Wellington street, or other government property, so as to improve the accommodations provided for these very necessary people?


Maurice Lamontagne: No, Mr. Speaker.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry. In view of conflicting reports from government sources on the one hand and from Fairey Aviation on the other regarding the suggested phaseout of the Neptune aircraft program, would the minister make a definite statement and clear up this matter?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not know from where these conflicting reports may have arisen, but I can assure the hon. member that to my knowledge there are no plans to phase out the Neptune; and any reports to the effect that it is proposed that the Neptune program be phased out are quite unwarranted.



REQUEST FOR PROVISION OF TENDER FORMS IN FRENCH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, yesterday the hon. member for Villeneuve asked me when the Department of Defence Production would be in a position to provide French language tender forms. Bilingual tender forms have been on order from the printer for some time and are now in process of being printed. I should like to assure him that in the Montreal and Quebec regional offices these new bilingual forms will be in use within the next week. Bilingual forms will be available for use by the Department of Defence Production across the whole of Canada shortly thereafter.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, July 21, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-110, to facilitate the making of loans to students [DOT]-Mr. Gordon-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 2-Definitions.
Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, when we rose last evening we were discussing the proposed amendment to clause 2(b) of the bill, and I think it might be of some assistance to the committee if I made a statement about this, which would help to put the structure of the bill into somewhat better perspective.
The discussion in connection with the amendment turns on the simple question, should the government of any province, that is the lieutenant governor in council, designate the provincial body or bodies which will lay down the provincial ground rules concerning universities and students, or should the federal government take the responsibility for designating the provincial body or bodies on the advice of the province. The government proposes the first of these two alternatives. Some members of the opposition parties have suggested the second, and I think it is not an oversimplification to say that the arguments used last night on both sides of the chamber were largely legal in nature.
An hon. member of the legal profession says that makes them all the stronger. I do not question that. All I am doing is making a statement. So far as the legal question is concerned I merely wish to restate today what I said last night, namely that I am prepared to take the responsibility, on behalf of the government, on the basis of the legal advice received from the government's advisers, that clause 2(b) is completely legal and in accord with precedent.
Moreover, I should like to emphasize we are quite satisfied that the functions that would devolve upon the provinces, that is upon the various lieutenant governors in council pursuant to clause 2(b), can be carried out by them without requiring further legislative action on the part of the provincial legislatures. Naturally if any of the provincial governments wish to obtain enabling legislation or believe this is necessary, then that is their privilege.
I listened to the debate last night, and yesterday afternoon, and the night before, and some periods before that, with very

great interest; and I must say I am impressed by the complexity and sophistication of the arguments advanced on both sides of the chamber concerning these legal and constitutional questions. As a layman I should like to speak for a few minutes in a non-legal vein and talk about the basic purposes which are germane not only to the specific clause now under discussion but to the bill as a whole as well, because I think the two are directly related.
In plain language this bill is designed to mobilize, on federal initiative and based on federal legislative powers, a large volume of financial resources to enable students to complete their higher education. It hopes and expects-and there is no reason to believe these hopes will be disappointed-that this will be done in collaboration with the provinces, and that the basic decisions outside of the strictly financial sphere will be made by the appropriate provincial bodies and not by the federal government.
Consequently this clause of the bill, along with various other clauses, makes it clear that the provinces, that is the lieutenant governors in council, will make the basic judgments as to which students, and which institutions and academic courses chosen by the students, are appropriate for financial assistance under the umbrella of this federal statute. It seems to me that a full appreciation of this point is crucial to a full understanding and appreciation of the legislation that is now before us.
Bill C-110 has been described as banking legislation, and rightly so. As we proceed with the further examination of the bill we will see that it is quite specific and quite authoritative on all essential points of a financial or banking nature, that is on all points relating to the granting of loans, the payment of interest and the repayment of loans.	.
The bill does not deal at all-and this is a very fundamental point, Mr. Chairman- with matters that might be construed to relate to the education of those who will benefit from the legislation. These are matters which we feel should be decided by the provinces, or by the authorities designated by the provinces. Hon. members will find that this view and intention is borne out in clause 13, dealing with the regulations. When we come to the paragraphs of clause 13 it will be found that virtually all of them relate strictly to matters of concern to the federal government and the banks.
Loans to Students
As I mentioned briefly last night, most provinces already possess the machinery to administer student assistance schemes, and when I say "most" I think it is true that all of them do, with the exception of Newfoundland. The men and women administering these schemes are not only administrators with a deep understanding of the problems of students, but also with a wealth of experience in administering student assistance programs effectively and justly. It is these same people whom we hope the provinces will designate to issue the certificates of eligibility to students; and these certificates, of course, will constitute the principal requirement so far as individual students are concerned.
These people who now operate existing provincial loan schemes are the people who will bring to bear their experience and judgment in issuing such certificates. And these are the bodies who, in most instances, we expect will be consulted by the provinces when the provinces have to establish the criteria to be used in the issuance of such certificates of eligibility. We have had discussions with representatives from the provinces who are already active in this field of student loans, and this government has full confidence in the sincerity and the desire of these people to make their administrative decisions under the proposed federal scheme in a rational and just manner.
So I say, in view of the existence of this provincial machinery, and in view of the willingness of sincere and experienced educators in the various provinces to participate in the implementation of the Canada student loan act, it would be a pity, I think, quite apart from other considerations, if the federal government were to imply or to suggest in clause 2 (b) or in clause 2 (k)-which I hope we will come to in a few minutes-that the federal administration will have the prime responsibility for making decisions affecting academic or educational matters relative to the granting of student loans. The government has no intention of acting in this matter or of allowing it to be inferred that it will act in this matter.
In drafting the bill it was deliberately provided that the provinces will determine all those detailed matters relating to scholastic standards, types of courses and institutions and eligibility for loans, and clause 2 (b) carries out this intention. That is why clause 2 (b) declares that the "appropriate authority" for a province, which, among other things, will be the agency which is to issue certificates

Loans to Students
oi eligibility, is to be designated by the lieutenant governor in council.
As one hon. member opposite pointed out last night-I think it was the hon. member tor Burnaby-Coquitlam-clause 2 (b) is permissive in character. There is no mystery about this. Of course it is permissive. Indeed, in the light of what I have just said it is quite clear that it must be permissive. But that also means that if a province does not wish to designate an agency to issue certificates of eligibility, no certificates will be issued to students in that province, with the result that no loans can be made. This is a matter for each province to decide upon.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is a lot of power to give the provinces.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: My hon. friend says that this is a lot of power to give them. With great respect, I suggest that they have this power in any event under the constitution, and it is not intended to interfere with their powers in this respect in any way.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not want to get into an argument with the minister, but surely he is not saying that under the constitution the provinces have the power to stop the federal government making loans to citizens of their respective provinces?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, but I am suggesting that under the plan of the bill some authority must be set up to decide which courses will apply, which educational institutions will qualify and to that extent which students should be granted loans, and in that context it is the intention of the bill to ask the provinces to accept that responsibility.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: How can the minister reconcile that with clause 13 (n) which provides that the governor in council may make regulations prescribing the method of determining when a student is or ceases to be a full time student?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: As far as that particular clause is concerned, that would indicate when he ceases to be a student for the purposes of this act and when he ceases to be eligible for a loan.
I should explain that as far as the role to be played by provincial agencies is concerned this has been clearly understood and appreciated by the provincial representatives who came to Ottawa a few weeks ago to help us with their comments and suggestions in the formulation of this legislation.
To sum up, I think all I need say is that I hope very sincerely that the members of

the committee will find it possible to proceed with the consideration of the various clauses of the bill on the basis of a clear understanding of the basic purposes and procedures as I have just described them and as envisaged in the bill. I feel that the proposed amendment to clause 2 (b) is contrary to the basic purpose of the bill and I should like to appeal to hon. members to accept my assurance and the assurance of the government that this clause as now drafted is, in the opinion of the government and in the opinion of those whose responsibility it is to advise the government, perfectly proper as it stands and that it is the right way to proceed. I suggest it is a thoroughly workable way of ensuring the full and active collaboration of the provinces. I suggest that, if it is agreeable to the committee, we should not go over all the ground that we have covered already but that we should vote on the amendment now before the committee.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, before debate ends on this clause I should like to make a few remarks which will be very brief and general but which I believe relate definitely to the clause under consideration.


The Chairman:: The hon. member realizes, I am sure, that we are on an amendment to clause 2 (b).


William Heward Grafftey: Yes. I, like the minister and other members of the house, have listened to the debate on the amendment and it has pointed up two things very definitely. Time and time again we on this side of the house have pleaded for a conference with the provincial authorities to be called immediately in order to modernize the constitution. Second, we on this side of the house have emphasized time and time again the immediate necessity for improving the permanent consultation procedure between the federal government and the provinces. What better or more specific case could be made for the necessity and desirability of these two things being done than the debate we have had on this bill since yesterday afternoon?
In 1867 the fathers of confederation did not interpret the constitution in a rigid form, and I am not suggesting that the immediate calling of a conference to modernize the constitution should put us into a rigid position. But surely the government must realize that in the last few months it has brought legislation to the floor of the house which has resulted in our becoming involved in debates of this nature time and time again. I am not saying we have wasted the time of the people or the time of

members of parliament, but surely the present debate is only one of many we have had in recent months which have emphasized the real and specific necessity for calling a conference to modernize our constitution, not in a rigid but in a continuing way.
Second, I have repeatedly pointed out to the house the immediate necessity for improving the permanent consultative machinery between the provinces and the federal government. In the debate on this subclause many members have risen to emphasize the problem we have had in understanding exactly what has gone on so far as the provinces are concerned. The minister said last night that the government has not really consulted with the provinces since the debate on the bill started in the house because it was impossible to do so. I realize that it is impossible under present conditions, when the minister must be in the house. Frankly however, because of the lack of permanent consultative machinery the members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition are often in the dark in relation to what has been agreed upon by the provinces.
I want to emphasize that in making this kind of plea I am not taking a strong centralist stand and I am not taking a strong stand for provincial rights. I am just asking the government to realize the facts of life at this particular time. Surely this debate today, touching upon federal-provincial relations, underlines again and again the necessity for the modernization of our constitution and the improvement of some permanent consultative machinery.
Here is a case in point. A few minutes ago the minister said, and quite rightly, that he has to take a strong federal stand. I suggest to the minister it is going to become increasingly easy in the future for him to take a strong federal stand, once the constitution is modernized and once the consultative machinery is improved. The minister has said that the government of which he is a member considers this to be banking legislation. On the other hand, Mr. Lesage says that in principle the province of Quebec is opting out of this legislation because his government considers this legislation touches upon the jurisdiction of the provinces in the field of education. This is the type of problem with which we are faced. I suggest that if the government adopts the suggestions put forward by Her Majesty's loyal opposition, we will not get into these confusing debates, and clauses such as this would pass more quickly.
Loans to Students


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In respect of the remarks made by the hon. member who just sat down, may I point out that the debate on this subject has indicated that consultation between the federal government and the provinces has been excellent. If there has been any misunderstanding on this question it has been on the part of the members of the official opposition. Consultations and agreements were established and there is every indication here that there is very active and very effective co-operative federalism.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order; the comments by the hon. members in the last few minutes have been straying away from the subject matter before the committee. As hon. members know, we should restrict ourselves strictly to the question before the committee. The subject matter is limited and I suggest therefore that hon. members confine their remarks to the amendment and the subject matter of this clause.


William Heward Grafftey: Just before I terminate my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member who has just spoken. I should like to say also that I realize consultations with the provinces must, in a practical way, be held in camera and behind closed doors if they are going to be meaningful. The same situation applies to international conferences. However I would say that some of the results of these consultations should be publicly known. For instance, we in the opposition, at least I as an individual member and I have been following the consultation procedures in detail, do not know what kind of agreement was made between the government and the provinces relating to the problem with which we are dealing now, namely the delegation of power from the federal authority to the lieutenant governor in council. It is a very serious problem. Perhaps if these consultations were public and this aspect of the agreement were known by members of parliament, we would be a little quicker in passing these clauses.
I think the hon. member who has just spoken must realize that we, in the opposition, have a responsibility to scrutinize this sort of thing. The hon. member, as a supporter of the government, may know what agreements were reached, but this is not necessarily true of all members of the house.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I should like to comment on the minister's statement to this extent, Mr. Chairman, that while I do not believe there is any question as to the basic purpose of

Loans to Students
the legislation in the minds of the opposition, it is the method the government is adopting in trying to achieve that objective to which objection is taken. I am sure that, even commenting on what was said last night, you could not get beyond the legal deficiencies by any form of agreement, formal or informal, that is not embodied in the legislation. This is what we are after and I submit to the minister we have justifiable arguments that this particular clause is deficient in accomplishing the purpose of the legislation. It is in that spirit we in the official opposition will support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Greenwood.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, I just want to add a few remarks. I am not going to repeat anything I have said so far. Today the Minister of Finance indicated in the statement he read to the house that he does not understand the point of the amendment. The point of the amendment was at no stage directed towards the principle of the bill. We do not disagree with that. We have criticisms of it but we accept it. The whole purpose of the amendment was to remove the obvious and real technical defects. It is admittedly technical. But we in this house have a duty to see that there be no technical defects in the legislation that we pass. I say to the minister that I very deeply regret he and his government have continued to refuse to accept the amendment, which in no way changes the principle he discussed and which we thoroughly accept. This amendment would clear up a very real question.
So far as I am concerned, he said he takes his responsibility for saying that we will proceed without making an amendment, and I will take my responsibility for saying, as one member of this house, that I will not see legislation passed here which has unnecessary deficiencies and constitutional defects which may rob its effectiveness.


Mr. Otto:: I have nothing against the hon. member for Greenwood's amendment. However, I would prefer if he left out the last part of it. I do believe he will acknowledge that sometimes he has a habit of wrapping himself with the cloak of counsel, judge and jury, all at the one time. He is saying that this measure will be thrown out. I wonder how he is so sure, and how sure any of us are.
What I want to get at is this, and I have said it on many occasions: I think we should jealously guard our duty to legislate and the administration should not usurp our job. At

the same time we should not usurp the job of the administration. The minister has pointed out that he has had advice from the Minister of Justice, from his staff and from his very able parliamentary secretary. Why should we question their views? The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has said it is the duty of this committee to ensure that every "t" is crossed and every "i" is dotted. He has not said that in the event we do this and the measure is still found unconstitutional he is going to take the blame for it. The blame will still fall on the minister. If the minister is going to be blamed, then he should be the one who should have the right to get his advice independently. We are here to legislate, not to dot i's and cross t's. We should leave it to the minister and his staff. If he is wrong, then as the queen of hearts said, "Off with his head". However, up until that time, we should give him our trust and we should let him do the job as he thinks best.


An hon. Member:: God has spoken.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not subscribe to the views expressed by the hon. member for York East. Our job here as legislators is to examine carefully the bills that are presented to us and endeavour to correct any deficiencies in them, to dot the i's and cross the t's if necessary. I have seen this happen year after year. Bills are very often improved by the activities of the House of Commons in committee. I rise to express my agreement with the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Greenwood and to express my astonishment at the inflexibility of the government with regard to it. The government, of course, wishes as I suppose does everybody else, with a few exceptions, to get this bill through parliament and on to the statute books. Why it should have spent two hours last night and another hour today defending its position on this one matter strikes me as very odd indeed when acceptance of the amendment last night would have meant the completion of this part of the bill and saved a good two and a half hours of debate. Instead, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Justice and the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance spent all that time advancing weak arguments against the amendment.
The Minister of Finance tries to divert attention from the amendment to the main purpose of the bill, with which we are in agreement, and ends by saying that he wishes us to accept his assurance and the assurance of the government that this procedure now recommended has been carefully considered and

that it will be an acceptable procedure. We have not that confidence in the Minister of Finance or in the government which will permit us to be lulled into inactivity by such blandishments. Simply to get up and say: "Please believe that we intend to do every-ing that is right and that we have had ample advice on this", is not enough in this chamber. There are plenty of people here who understand these matters just as well as the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice last night used similar phrases. He said-and here are his words as they appear on page 5789:
The matter has been fully studied and under my responsibility as the Minister of Justice for this country and as the legal adviser of the crown I have accepted the advice of the legal advisers in my department, which I fully share.
The legal advisers in the minister's department are very able men. I would not detract from their ability and I would not detract from the ability of the Minister of Justice. But they are only a handful of people, and there are others who can apply their minds to this problem equally well. From the experience I have had in the past, the legal advisers to the Department of Justice have sometimes found it necessary to revise their opinions and reconsider a matter; the drafters of legislation have time and again in the past drafted and redrafted clauses in bills before they ever reached the House of Commons. So, despite the fact that the Minister of Justice has stated that this matter has been studied very fully by his legal advisers, we are not precluded from suggesting that the hon. gentleman may be wrong. Indeed the Minister of Justice in his own words, as reported on page 5789, says precisely that. He says: "I might be wrong on this." If the hon. gentleman is prepared to admit that he may be wrong, why can he not accept the proposed amendment, which cannot be wrong?


An hon. Member:: Why?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is within the constitution and it puts the responsibility right where it belongs, that is, on the government of this country, and the recommendations can come from the lieutenant governors in the provinces.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? I ask him, with respect, why was the same objection not raised when he was a member of the previous administration and the government put forward the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation Act to be found in the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1962-63.
Loans to Students
Section 10 of that measure provides that the corporation shall submit for the approval of the lieutenant governor in council its overall plan for the exhibition. We are confronted now with precisely the same situation. On that occasion the hon. gentleman was content to accept the advice of responsible officials in the Department of Justice.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I well remember when that bill was presented to the house how quickly it was put through and how inactive the opposition was at that time. If it was wrong then, it should have been pointed out on that occasion. The bill to which the hon. member refers was one of the bills which went through this house in a hurry and perhaps it deserved much more careful study.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: However, I may say I do not think that example is applicable to the present situation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he remember that he was leader of the house at that time, and that he made a very special plea to us in the opposition to put the bill through because of the extreme urgency of the matter?


An hon. Member:: Yes, and you were out of the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Minister of Transport may have been out of the house, but Hon. Mr. Chevrier, who was the very agreeable house leader for the Liberals, was present and I think it was at his suggestion, because the bill affected the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec, that we put it through. However the proposed amendment would remove any doubt which might exist in anyone's mind, and since the Minister of Justice has suggested he might be wrong in his opinion, and since we think he is wrong, why should there be so much difficulty about accepting this amendment?
There is only one other thing I wish to add. It is this: Is the government attempting to evade a responsibility which it should properly carry? What is behind this? What did the Minister of Justice mean by saying that the matter had been discussed with the provinces? Why did he say, as reported at page 5793-and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam drew attention to this:
As between two schemes or two ways of devising a clause, one of which would not remove any ticklish feeling on the part of certain persons or officials or provinces, if both are constitutional and within the powers of parliament, let us choose

Loans to Students
the one that will be more satisfactory to all concerned and will remove any ticklish feelings.


An hon. Member:: Who is tickling whom?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes. Who is tickling whom, says an hon. member behind me. Who is being appeased by this? Let the government explain the situation. Let them come clean with the committee. Unless there is something behind this, an attempt to evade federal responsibility or the appeasement of some official or person, the government should surely accept the simple amendment which has been proposed. Then let us do as the Minister of Finance has suggested. Let us get on with the bill. There are other sections which have been badly drafted and we wish to draw attention to these, as well.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wish to say a few words on this amendment before a vote is taken. I think there is no point in labouring the subject at great length. We have made our position clear to the government. I had hoped the government and the Minister of Justice would have changed their minds, having had an opportunity to study the terms of the proposed amendment.
The point I wish to make is that we are not at variance with the Minister of Finance in what he is trying to do, but we take exception to the method he is adopting to bring about that end. We agree with the minister that the handling of student loans, the screening of applicants, the determination of what are educational institutions for the purposes of the act, can much better be done by the provincial authorities than by the federal government. This is why I suggested on second reading that it would be better if the federal government would agree to turn the actual funds over each year to the provincial student loans committees and let them handle the program. They have the machinery to do so, and the great advantage would be that those who were screening the applicants would be concerned mainly with getting them to university, not screening them, as bank managers are bound to do, on the basis of how the funds at the disposal of the bank can best be used.
But if the minister is not prepared to turn the actual funds over to the provincial governments to be administered by student loan committees, it seems to me that he has two alternatives. The one which this amendment proposes is very simple; that is, that the governor general in council should appoint these eligibility authorities, and they would accept the nominations of the provinces and

appoint the bodies that are already in existence in the provinces. But the appointments would be made by the governor general in council; they would be responsible to the governor general in council; they could be removed by the governor general in council, and they would be subject to regulation by the governor general in council.
There can be no argument about that being a sound proposition and the proper way in which to proceed. Instead, the government has taken what I think is a hybrid approach to the whole problem. It is going to be half and half; it is going to be banking legislation as far as the federal government is concerned, as far as guaranteeing the loans by the banks is concerned; but it is going to be provincial legislation in the matter of making the loans to the students and screening the applicants. Here we are going to have lieutenant governors in council, not just-as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance said-submitting to the governor general in council a schedule, or agenda or program for approval, but doing much more. We are giving to the lieutenant governor in council the power to appoint a body, with very wide discretionary powers, as one will find by reading clause (e) and the other clauses of the bill. The lieutenant governor in council has these wide discretionary powers that are not subject to control except in the matter of the form of the eligibility certificate. All the other provisions or regulations contained in clause 13 apply to the relationship with the banks.
The framework within which this eligibility authority will operate is not drafted and set out in the bill. The determination of what is a needy student, what is a student who can make good use of the money, what is a conscientious student, and all the criteria that are established is going to fall upon a committee over which the federal government has no control, a committee appointed by the lieutenant governor in council. These are very wide powers to give to a lieutenant governor in council. We are simply protesting this fact and saying, first, that it is a dangerous precedent to establish; and second, that the validity of this legislation could be called into question as a result of this provision.
We have made our protest. If the government, in spite of that protest, wants to blunder ahead and force this bill through, then I presume they can do so. The minister has never explained what objection there would be to the amendment and why it would not be just as satisfactory, and certainly

constitutionally much sounder, to have the governor general in council appoint these eligibility authorities. Then of course they could appoint whatever people the provinces recommended or whatever committees the provinces have already established. That would be simple. It seems to me it would be clear, beyond peradventure, if that procedure were followed. But if the minister does not want to accept the amendment, I would suggest that we take the vote and let us get on with the bill; because, while we do not consider that the legislation is of tremendous value, for those for whom it will have some value the sooner they get the advantages of it, the better. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, as far as we are concerned we will not belabour the matter any further and will give the committee a chance to vote on our amendment.


Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Chairman, all I want to say is that I think we have witnessed in this chamber the greatest display of hair-splitting that has been seen in a long time in this institution, if I may call it an institution. I want to comment on the remarks of the hon. member for Greenwood when he said we are here to see that legislation is perfect or, in other words, that everything will be exact. I say we are here to call attention to any defects any of us think are in any of the acts; but certainly the responsibility lies with the government which governs our country. Certainly they have the responsibility, and it is up to the government to take that responsibility.
In connection with the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam about the borrowers, I cannot see where any borrower is going to be in any different position under the legislation, with or without the amendment. I do not think there is going to be any change, in regard to any student who borrows one dollar, whether or not we include this amendment. But I do say-and this is where I might agree with the proposer of the amendment-that from a practical point of view it seems to me that the governor general in council should not be bypassed. I believe that, not from a constitutional point of view but from a practical point of view, reference should be made to the governor general in council rather than the lieutenant governor in council. Then when we come back to parliament after having seen this program in operation we can ask the people who sit on the treasury benches to account for this measure and they will not be able to tell us, "Well, this is between parliament and another body,
Loans to Students
another legislature somewhere else". This is the only concern I have regarding the measure in its present form.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Brewin) negatived: Yeas, 37; nays, 56.


Lucien Lamoureux: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. MacNaughi:: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the government I wish to propose an amendment to paragraph (c) of clause 2. I move:
That Bill C-110, an act to facilitate the making of loans to students, be amended by striking out paragraph (c) of clause 2 and substituting therefor the following:
(c) "bank'' means
(i)	a bank to which the Bank Act applies, or
(ii)	a credit union, caisse populaire or other co-operative credit society, that is designated by the minister on the application of that society as a bank for the purposes of this act:


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it my understanding that the hon. member for Three Rivers will withdraw his amendment to allow the proposed government amendment to be considered?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, my understanding yesterday was that the amendment I proposed would be held over until we had disposed of subclause (2). It was to be redrafted with minor changes, but it was not my understanding that the amendment would be moved by the government. However, I have no objection if that is the case.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I think we are all agreed on the substance of the amendment, which is to the effect that credit unions, caisses populaires and co-operative credit societies should have the same right to be given guarantees on loans they make to students as the chartered banks. However, I wonder whether the minister would make some explanation with regard to a phrase which disturbs me a little. The amendment refers to:
-credit union, caisse populaire or other cooperative credit society that is designated by the minister on the application of that society as a bank for the purposes of this act.
What I want to ask the minister is whether this in his opinion means the mere formal application; that any credit union incorporated under an act the legislature of a province will automatically be designated by him,

Loans to Students
or is this right of designation to be used virtually to screen out most of the credit unions and co-operative credit societies?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: This wording was taken from the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act; I think it is almost word for word. The reason for the designation is to take care of the situation, a hypothetical situation if you will, in which a small so-called credit union might be formed for this particular purpose, which might not have sufficient resources behind it. As far as I am concerned I can assure my hon. friend that if any established credit union, caisse populaire, or other credit society wishes to be designated under the provisions of this subclause it certainly will be; but this protection was advised by the draftsmen.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The other way it could be done, Mr. Chairman, would be to have said that these co-operative lending institutions would be eligible to come under the act, provided they were incorporated under the laws of the province in which they were located. Because the kind of institution the minister mentions, like a small credit union with inadequate resources, would not be licensed under the laws of most provinces. However on the minister's assurance that this will be more or less a formal routine designation on application, I am quite prepared to go along with it.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would be glad to give that assurance.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph (c) agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall paragraph (d) carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall paragraph (e) carry?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, on this particular point I should like to have some indication from the minister of the words "to be in need of a student loan", which are to be found in subparagraph (ii). I am concerned as to the criterion which the appropriate authority may use to determine what is the need for a student loan; what degree of uniformity and application there may be across the country. As I indicated in the debate yesterday, there can be great disparity in the application of this need as between provinces. Certainly under clause 13 the regulations go as to form; they do not go into

determination of what is need. I think we must get some assurance of uniform application.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: As I indicated a few minutes ago, Mr. Chairman, not only can I not give any such assurance but the whole structure and purpose of the bill is to leave those questions to the provincial authorities which will be administering these loans or issuing the certificates. As I said earlier, these bodies are in existence now. They have had a good deal of experience of this matter. There will be a quota for each province, so I do not think they will be extravagant in the way they exercise their authority in this regard.
I know of no effective way in which the federal government could act to ensure uniform criteria for need. As I said earlier, I think we will be relying on the experience, interest and good faith of the people who will be dealing with the students. They will be people who have dealt with them and are dealing with them now. I am quite certain that if in any one province it should happen that the authorized body was too tough with the students-I do not expect that would happen; after all, why should it?-the quotas are large enough so that the student could apply in another province if he wished to. After all, a man is resident anywhere in Canada wherever he happens to be, as I understand the law. But on the specific question put by the hon. member, I want to make it perfectly clear again that the structure of this bill is to leave questions of need, the kind of educational course, the kind of educational institution and that sort of question to the provincial body.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I hope I am not looking at this with an over jaundiced eye, but I can readily see where the designated authority could be in a position of not having to lend its own money in this particular instance. Let us assume that a student loan body in a province is lending provincial money, and as a result they are going to scrutinize the applications very carefully, particularly if they are made on the basis of need. In certain instances they might examine almost to the extent of finding out whether the parents have gold teeth, when the application is on the basis of need. Usually it is because the funds are more limited. I can readily see that a designated authority may say: "All right, we are going to save the province money; we will just shift this student over to the federal government". The purpose of the minister is to lend money to more

students; to make funds available to all students. If all that results is the transference of students from a provincial loan fund to this federal student loans scheme, nothing is being gained.
It is for this reason I rather suspect the minister is moving out into some shoals. After all, the bank manager in the usual course will be worried about the credit and other aspects of a loan. He is not concerned about the need for money, because he has a certificate. Somebody else has told him this student is in need of a loan of, say, $900. The appropriate body may say, "This young man said he needed $900." If this is a certificate of need, then I beg to differ with the minister.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I recognize that if we are going to leave this to the provincial bodies we cannot have uniformity across the country, but the certifying authorities have to have some framework within which to operate. There is nothing in clause 13 giving the governor in council power to make regulations to provide that framework. Will this be done by the lieutenant governors in council through provincial regulations, or does a certifying authority have to work out its own framework and modus operandi?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: As I said, there are now provincial boards doing this, and have been doing it for some years. They are restricted in the amount of money available to them and there is no question in my mind that these people will do their best to see that loans are granted to students who need the money. With reference to the question of who needs the money, I think it was the hon. member for Edmonton West last night who was preaching the virtues of hardship and difficulty, and the fact that you got more out of education if you really had to struggle and sweat for it. He may be right, but the purpose of this bill is to make sure that if a student needs more money to get higher education at a university or in a vocational school, funds will be available to him to accomplish that end.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What the minister is really saying is that these certifying authorities will in all probability operate under the same regulations and terms of reference which they are operating under now.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That is right.


Reynold Rapp: Does the term "specified educational institution" cover an institution outside Canada?
Loans to Students


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes.


Mr. Barnett:: What information can the minister give us with respect to the ceiling on loans of $1,000 a year? I had an inquiry recently from a third year medical student who outlined his requirements for the coming year at between $1,600 and $1,700. As a result of discussions with the provincial authorities, does the minister envisage that provincial loan funds can be used as supplementary funds on top of the $1,000 proposed in this legislation?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, it is the understanding and my hope that the provincial loan funds will be kept in existence and will be used to supplement this sort of basic assistance under the federal plan.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: With regard to specified institutions, will schools of nursing be included in the scope of the bill?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: This, of course, is one of the things that will be up to the provinces to decide. As I said yesterday in answer to a question by the hon. member for York-Hum-ber, it seems to me nursing is a very important and essential profession and certainly it is the sort of thing this bill is intended to cover.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I was very interested in what the minister said a while ago, that the purpose of the bill is to give aid to whoever needed it for his or her education. If my understanding is correct this legislation does not apply to the province of Quebec. If that is so, I ask the minister if any representations from the federal members for the province of Quebec have led him to take that course of not including or making these loans available to the province of Quebec?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If I understand the hon. member correctly he wants to know what is the position of those members on this side of the chamber who come from the province of Quebec. I think I can assure him they are all strong supporters of the government in wishing to see this measure passed. So far as the question of making these loans available to students in Quebec is concerned, I have indicated that the government of the province has stated it would prefer to take advantage of clause 12 to handle its own plan itself, independently of the federal government. But if the government of the province of Quebec should find at any time that this plan had advantages and that it seemed attractive, the government of Quebec would

Loans to Students
be very welcome to change its mind and come in under this plan.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I thank the minister tor the explanation he has given me, but he has not succeeded in explaining how some members of the committee are in favour of one particular measure and on the other hand they do not take the necessary steps so that their compatriots can take advantage of it.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I cannot answer that question, except to remark that I have noticed some members of the party opposite have taken a view different from other members. I suppose it is a matter of individual choice.


Mr. Priiiie:: If a student from one of the other provinces wishes to attend an educational institution in Quebec to whom does he apply for a loan? Would he apply in his own province? Further, would McGill University be certified as an institution in Alberta or British Columbia?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: In that case he would apply in the province from which he was departing. I would point out that under the Quebec scheme their loan plans apply to Quebec students who wish to take their courses anywhere in Canada.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: In answer to the question by the hon. member for St. Hyacin-the-Bagot about the position of Liberal members of the committee from Quebec, I tell him we take our own responsibility.
When a vote comes we do not have to hide behind the curtain.


Lucien Lamoureux: Paragraph (g).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have one question on paragraph (g). Would the minister kindly explain why the loan year is fixed from the 1st of July to the 30th of June in any calendar year? If this is primarily aimed at university education, it has been my experience that the academic year normally terminates about the 15th of May and starts about the 15th of September at the earliest. It may be that the true explanation is that in order to cover educational institutions other than universities it has been found preferable to use this term. I do not believe these loans may be used outside of the country, but if one were to attend the University of Oxford I could see it, because the school year terminates about the end of June.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: This is the point, Mr. Chairman. The end of the academic year varies from one institution to another. These loans

do apply to students who wish to attend a university in another country, including Oxford, I would presume. I think the hon. member has answered his own question.


Lucien Lamoureux: Paragraph (h)? Carried. Paragraph (i)? Carried. Paragraph (j)?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I should like to ask a question for purposes of clarification. How long a period of post-student residence is required? What about the student who proceeds to postgraduate studies abroad? Let us say the student is the son of immigrant parents and he is in Canada for a period of four years while he takes an honours course, and then he is going to take a postgraduate course. He has had to sign a declaration that he intends to reside in Canada after he ceases to be a full time student. Is he still deemed to be a full time student if he goes on to a postgraduate course at some university outside the country where he may hold a fellowship or may be a research scholar? I realize these are very fine points but I assure the minister that as soon as the bill has been passed some postgraduate students are going to write to various members of parliament and put forward just this complicated type of question.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If I may say so, I think the question is a very good one. As the hon. member suggests, the purpose of the clause is to make sure that children of new immigrants, which children have not yet acquired Canadian citizenship, are entitled to come in under the legislation. I am sure all hon. members will agree with that in principle. In the specific case to which my hon. friend refers the student in question, after four years or any other period here, would be entitled to go on and do postgraduate work in another country, as long as he indicated that it was his intention to come back here and reside in Canada.
I hope a lot of people will do this because it would be a good thing for them to do. I think one is entitled to ask: How do we know he is coming back? I believe there are two safeguards. First of all, I suggest that the great majority of people who take advantage of the scheme will live up to their obligations. Second, there is a limit to the amount of money that any individual can borrow.
Apart from that, it was my view when the legislation was being considered that if we tried to put too many strings on it we would put fences around people who proposed to benefit from an extra year or two of post-

graduate education anywhere in the world. This was something we wished to try to avoid.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask a question with regard to the declaration of intention to reside in Canada. Suppose the person is not the child of immigrants but has come to Canada to study for a year and wants to remain, and then wants to return to his home country. Is there a limitation on this intention to reside? How long does the person have to reside in Canada? Is it the intention that he should become a Canadian citizen or that he should spend a year or two years here?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do not think anybody who received a loan under this plan and who signed a certificate saying it was his intention to reside in Canada would feel he was living up to his obligation if he only stayed here for a couple of weeks after he graduated from university, and then left. On the other hand, I do not think anybody would wish to bind a student, who honestly intended to reside in Canada after his education was completed, to stay here for all time. There must be a certain amount of give and take.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have a question which may be partly frivolous. Suppose a student has declared he intends to reside in Canada after having come here as a non-immigrant, but the immigration department does not approve of his intention to reside in Canada. Would he still qualify for a loan? There are many such cases of people who come here as students and then decide they would like to stay here. They are perfectly prepared to declare that they intend to stay here, but the immigration department frowns on this intention and will not permit them to stay.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do not look upon that question as a frivolous one because I think there may be cases like this. Depending on the individuals and the circumstances, perhaps the immigration department might be so impressed with these students that they would feel they should be encouraged to stay. I do not know. There will not be very many such cases in the total and I fancy they will be taken care of in the ordinary way by the bodies that are set up to look into such matters.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I think the hon. member for Greenwood has raised a very pertinent question. An increasing number of foreign students are coming to this country and we would like to attract them to our universities in increasing numbers. A condition of their 20220-369J
Loans to Students
admission to Canada, particularly from certain countries, is that they shall leave this country immediately upon completion of their studies. I think the minister is going to have to talk to his colleague, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, in this regard. We know that in so many instances they may come here to comply with the first year residence qualification that we require, and thereafter their funds get lower and lower. They are the ones who are taking jobs. All one has to do to see this is to visit some of the university towns. It is these people who are really in need of financial assistance. Yet I think something could be worked out for them in co-operation with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I should perhaps explain that most of these students, especially the ones from Africa, come under various sponsored plans. There are a lot of other arrangements that take care of most of them. The reason the one year residence provision was inserted was that we really had in mind students from across the line who may come up here with this inducement.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, there are two points that bother me about this bill that I can argue from this particular clause. I do not believe there will be any difficulty within the provincial framework in students applying for loans for the normal university or advanced institutes, like the Nova Scotia technical institute or the Ryerson institute. However, I have the gravest doubts about how willing some of the provincial authorities may be, unless there is very strong encouragement, almost a memorandum of suggestion from the federal government, to permit students to take advantage of these loans to study outside the province. There is a certain selfishness involved in that many of the provinces, particularly Ontario, are putting a fair amount of money into the establishment of new universities. Many of these new universities are very anxious to expand their enrolment.
I would presume that the basic attitude on this bill is that if any young person in Ontario who is qualified to attend the university wants to go to McGill, say, rather than Trent or the Lakehead college or the University of Toronto, then there should be no impediment at all in his way to getting a loan to do that. It is for this reason I would like to hear more from the minister than he has told us about the kind of understanding or undertaking he has on these questions.

Loans to Students
The second point that bothers me was touched upon by the hon. member for York-Humber when he spoke on an earlier clause concerning specified educational institutions. It comes down to this: I should like to know why that phrase "post-secondary school level" could not have been spelled out more completely. I should like to give the minister two examples of citizens in my constituency who have encountered difficulty. One man discovered himself replaced as a clerical worker by a machine that Abitibi introduced into the clerical procedures.
He was a man in his thirties, and he wanted to go to normal school. He discovered that the national employment service was quite prepared to send him to various courses, but he could not get any support from the national employment service to permit him to complete his grade 13 which he needed in order to get into normal school. He did discover that there were some places in Canada that would be ready to take him in a university, on the first year level, with the qualifications he had, which were really an incomplete grade 12.
I know another young man who is about 24, married, with several children and he has discovered he has no occupational future in his particular line. He is trying to study at night in order to complete his senior matriculation to gain entrance into a university. Now, when you do not really spell it out but you just say "post-secondary school level", it seems to me this is going to lead to a certain amount of heartbreak in the future, as there are more and more older people trying to get back into the educational system in order to improve their qualifications.
This is the most hopeful thing in connection with this bill. It is not so much going to help the average young student, but so many of these people in their twenties and thirties who want to get back into the educational system in order to improve their qualifications, who have families to support and so on, to whom the loan is going to be particularly important. They cannot qualify under the normal arrangements. They do not go through the normal stream. In Ontario, now, we have four different streams going through the secondary schools. I do not want to go into the Robarts plan; but the minister knows what they are. It seems to me it is going to be manifestly unfair if this legislation aids people in the A stream who are going to enter university, because surely we cannot stop even at the next stream. It seems to me we have to be very liberal in the

interpretation of this phrase "post-secondary school level".
I want to say to the minister, and I am afraid it has been repeated here very often by our learned and humble legal friends, that the courts do not look at what politicians say in the House of Commons. I am also willing to make the point that provincial administrators who look at this bill will not pay too much attention to what we have said in this house. I should like to argue that the minister should give some more information as to the kind of understanding that he has had or that he is going to undertake to get from the provincial authorities.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: In reply to the first point, Mr. Chairman, about students from one province who want to go to university in another, I may say that it was a new thought to me that Ontario universities, for example, were seriously beating the bushes for students.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I just want to say if the minister does not know they beat the bushes for students he has not been around the universities very much. You ask any graduate and you will find that McMaster and Queen's are awarding doctorates, and have for years, upon a selected basis in order to get recruiting going.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I was associated with the board at Toronto university, and it seemed to me that they were doing just the opposite. However if they are beating the bushes for students, and if as a result of this bill prospective students are going to be able to get into university, I am pleased to hear it. My fear, and I think the fear of a good many other people, has been that there were not going to be enough university facilities to meet the demand.
However if a student in Ontario is not granted a certificate for a loan to go to the University of Manitoba, for example, all he has to do is apply to the loan board in Manitoba. There is no reason why he cannot do that.


Douglas Mason Fisher: It may be a little difficult.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: There is a difficult situation if he wants to go to McGill, as my hon. friend suggested, because Quebec will not be in the scheme and there will not be anybody to apply to.
In so far as post-secondary school level is concerned, or how you define it, I certainly agree with the hon. member for Port Arthur in the hope that a very liberal interpretation

of this is given by the authorities, the provincial bodies. It is certainly not intended to be restrictive. On the other hand, as we all know the criteria are different in the different provinces; in some provinces it is grade 12; in others it is grade 13, and there are some others where a student can enter a university with only a partial grade 12. If they are accepted, I cannot believe that they would not be entitled to a loan in that particular province. They may not be granted it in Ontario, but they could certainly apply in another province and receive it.
In so far as the four streams in Ontario high schools are concerned, it is certainly not intended that these loans should be restricted to those who go through the A stream, or whatever it is, the one that leads to an academic career.
It is certainly intended that this loan scheme should be available to the kind of people to whom the hon. member referred. We came to the conclusion that it was not a practical thing to try to spell out these criteria in detail. But if it is discovered from experience that people are being discriminated against or being left out, then I would have no hesitation in bringing in an appropriate amendment.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I thank the minister for the strength of his last assurance. I want to add one or two other examples. I encounter a great many young people who are interested in going to the United States for courses of one year. Quite often they are not required to have anything superior in terms of qualifications. I think of a very well known school which is always advertised in the pulp magazines, or used to be-the Coyne school of electricity. I can also think of a number of diesel schools in the United States which have courses of longer than 26 weeks. I had a woman approach me not long ago, a hairdresser, and she wanted to take a long course in the United States to become what she called a beautician. It seems to me there is going to be a shadow. I do not know whether it is the purpose of this particular bill but I suggest that in the face of such a variety of opportunity, such a variety of attitudes, such searching for some kind of opportunity, we should not tend to be mesmerized by the more formal kinds of education offered by universities and institutes.
The last point I wish to make is something quite specific. It deals with the question of schools of chiropractic. In Ontario, chiropractors have been trying for some time to obtain recognition through a bill brought
Loans to Students
before the provincial legislature. To my knowledge, they have not made a great deal of progress in this direction, though in others they have. I have received a wire from the Ontario chiropractors asking me if I would make the point in this chamber that chiropractic should be one of the post-secondary school fields of education which would be recognized. I realize now, looking at the legislation, that this would be a decision for the provincial government to make. But I should like the minister to make a comment as to whether he feels this important kind of health training should be open for students to take advantage of through loans.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I quite agree with that. In the course of this debate it has been said on many occasions that it may be far more important for many people to be trained in some vocation, some technical skill, rather than struggle to get perhaps a relatively inadequate B.A. The bill is certainly intended to cover those people. I agree with the hon. member that once you start to define who shall come under this scheme and who shall not, a considerable difficulty arises. I think the bodies which will be responsible for deciding, for instance, whether a course in some highly advertised business college or other in the United States should qualify for a loan under this act, will be under some obligation to decide whether that particular course is really worth the money or whether people are just going to be sucked in to pay fees and come out of it without very much benefit.
On the last point, another hon. member has spoken to me about chiropractors, and again all I can say is that I hope these provisions will be interpreted as generously as possible.


Mr. Walker:: May I ask the hon. member for Port Arthur a question? Was his reference to hairdressing inspired by a glance at the noble heads of the hon. member for Edmonton West and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre?


Douglas Mason Fisher: No, it was not. I would also like to tell the hon. member that I, myself, am not inspired by the Beatles.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: I should like to direct my comments to the provision requiring residence of one year. I feel that one year is not sufficient time for a person to reside in Canada before he can take advantage of this far reaching and generous legislation to assist in providing higher education. Provision is also made that an applicant must declare he in-

Loans to Students
tends to reside in Canada. It seems to me that present residence in Canada is the very best guarantee of future intention. If a student is living in Canada and is a Canadian citizen, and if he has lived in Canada for two or three years, he is much more likely to continue living in Canada after he graduates than if he had been a resident of Canada for one year only; and I should like to suggest to the minister that he give this particular item further consideration and consider making the period of residence two or three years rather than one year.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I appreciate the hon. member's remarks and the point he has made. I think that what we were afraid of when the bill was being drafted was that some bright child of a new immigrant, the sort of child who perhaps could benefit as much as anybody from higher education, would be prevented from obtaining it. We did not want to put a residence clause in here which would be so long as to make it impossible perhaps for some bright student of a new immigrant to qualify.
I think in practice there will be some other checks. In the first place, I doubt very much whether loans will be granted unless the provincial authorities are satisfied that those who apply really mean to take advantage of further education, and in this particular case that they intend to remain in Canada.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: In that regard it seems to me that the provincial authorities will be expected to follow quite closely the provisions laid down in this bill. While naturally they will be expected to use discretion, if the bill says one year, then of course they would grant a certificate of eligibility on that basis. If it says two years or three years, it would be that much more of a brake on possible abuses of the legislation. This is very sweeping legislation and I think we had better go carefully first of all. Then if we find it is possible to ease the restrictions, that could be done in future. But it is much more difficult to impose additional restrictions. I certainly would like to see this particular provision extended to two or three years rather than one, because I believe it is rather dangerous.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: As I have said, we were influenced or impressed by the help and advice we got from the provincial officials who have been working in this field. They felt this was a reasonable check.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest to the minister that a number of problems will arise in connection with this

provision. It seems to me that in the provinces at the present time most of the people who decide upon scholarships and loans to students are concerned mainly with people in universities; they are dealing with students who are going to take academic courses. From the minister's remarks I gather that these loans are to cover other than what I will call academic courses. For example, a person who may wish to take a diesel mechanic's course for ten months at an approved institution could obtain such a loan.
I think a great many problems in deciding who shall receive loans will arise in this field because I do not think the people in the provinces have any experience in dealing with people other than those who wish to take academic courses. There may well be many applications received from people who wish to take various types of trade training, and some of the difficulty will come in deciding what is an approved institution for this type of training. With regard to universities there will be no problem, and for organized technical schools there will be no problem; but I think that specialized trade schools under special auspices will present a problem.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall we proceed to paragraph (k)?


Gordon Minto Churchill: With regard to paragraph (k), Mr. Chairman, does "outside a province" mean anywhere in the world?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make some brief remarks in connection with paragraph (k). Exactly the same situation exists in respect to this paragraph as the committee discussed at some length in regard to (b), namely the objection that it is an unconstitutional delegation to the lieutenant governor in council. This is a purely technical objection, as I pointed out before. I did prepare an amendment to paragraph (k) in the same terms as the one with which the committee has already dealt in regard to paragraph (b); but it does seem to me that if the cogent, and indeed completely compelling, arguments that were made in respect of (b) fell on deaf ears on the ministerial side of the house, as it were, no matter how compelling and how eloquent anything we were to say on (k) might be, we would probably have the same result- we would hear the same solid arguments from this side, the same replies from the other side, and would have the same eventual

result. It might not be mathematically the same, but it would produce a confirmation of this legislation.
For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to move an amendment but I merely interject, for the purpose of the record, that this paragraph happens to be, in my view, defective for the reasons that we discussed before.


Mr. Paul:: Mr. Chairman, last Monday evening, during consideration of section 1 in committee, I took the liberty of suggesting to the Minister of Finance that he might consider the possibility, for the federal government to provide loans through the provinces.
If I remember well, I stated then that the purpose of the legislation would be achieved just the same. The minister must surely have taken my proposal under advisement because, at the time, he gave me a kindly smile and nodded his head approvingly; consequently, I wonder if he could report to the house the decision he has taken in that connection.
Mr. Chairman, I want a reply from the minister, not just a nod of the head.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I can assure my hon. friend that I gave very deep study and consideration to his remarks, but I found myself, at the end, still unconvinced.


Rémi Paul: Am I to understand that you are a student minister?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall we proceed to paragraph CD?


Mr. Gregcire:: Answer.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What reasons do you have?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall we proceed to paragraph (e)?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What good reasons have you to be against the suggestion made by the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 2 carry?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I believe the minister has an amendment to clause 2. The Solicitor General indicated yesterday, as reported at page 5782 of Hansard, that such an amendment would be forthcoming.
Loans to Students


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Solicitor General I move:
That Bill C-110, an act to facilitate the making of loans to students, be amended by renumbering clause 2 as subclause (1) of clause 2 and by adding, immediately after subclause (1) of clause 2, the following subclause:
(2) In its application to the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, the expression "lieutenant governor in council" in this act means the commissioner of the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories, as the case may be.
The committee will recall that this amendment was proposed, discussed, and I think agreed, at an earlier session of the committee.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, we did agree as a committee that the amendment would be introduced at this stage, but there was no agreement as to the substance of the amendment itself. It is to that matter that I wish to address my remarks. I made some, what I thought to be rather heroic efforts to have introduced the amendment that I knew was being proposed by the government, after having listened to the Solicitor General yesterday and after having read what he said in Hansard. But I do not believe the amendment goes far enough, and it is going to take me a few minutes to explain why.
Fundamentally the reason is that which was given by the hon. member for Greenwood when first proposing his amendment. It strikes at the constitutional machinery which has been set up for the government of the Yukon Territory in particular. The Northwest Territories, of course, have a different form of government and the form the amendment is now in would be acceptable, I believe, in so far as the Northwest Territories are concerned. As the minister knows, in the Northwest Territories there is a council of nine, four of whom are elected and five of whom are appointed. These appointees are selected and the appointments made by the governor in council, usually a function which is discharged by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In the Yukon Territory, however, there is a wholly-elected council of seven, and the commissioner in all his functions of a legislative character acts only under and with the consent of that elected body.
In order that members might understand the substance of a subamendment which I am now forced to put before the committee, since my negotiations with the minister and other members on the government side have proven to be unfruitful, I will have to refer to the federal legislation which set up the

Loans to Students
office of the commissioner in the Yukon and the functions of the council in the Yukon.
I propose to put before the committee an amendment which will suggest that instead of the power residing only in the commissioner of the territory to appoint appropriate authorities, that power should reside in the commissioner acting either by and with the consent of, or in consultation with the advisory committee on finance, a body which was set up by amendment to the Yukon Act in 1960.
The powers of the commissioner and of the council are set out in the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952-53. Those powers are broad enough to allow the commissioner and council to legislate on the same classes of subject matter as come within the purview and power of the legislatures of the provinces, with three exceptions. Those exceptions are: (1) natural resources, which come under the direct jurisdiction of the federal government; (2) the administration of justice, which comes under the direct administration of the federal government, the Minister of Justice being the Attorney General for the Yukon; and (3) that all money bills before they are introduced in the legislature of the Yukon must be introduced by the commissioner. In other words, a private member of the council of the Yukon cannot introduce a money bill. However before any moneys are expended from the consolidated revenue fund of the Yukon, before any civil servant is paid and before any contract is paid, the council must vote and approve the estimates in the same way and to the same extent that this committee of the whole must vote and approve every estimate of federal expenditure.
I realize that the provisions of this bill do not call for any direct expenditures by the provincial legislatures; but I believe I will find agreement when I suggest that the appropriate authority, once it has been set up by the lieutenant governor in council of a province and once it grants a certificate of eligibility to a student in need, is in effect authorizing the expenditure of $1,000 of federal funds.
It may be argued that the bank is the final arbiter here, since it may accept or reject an application by any student for a loan. But I suggest that this is a very shallow argument since the bank loan is guaranteed; and while the bank is going to exercise the prudence of ordinary business in granting or rejecting any loan, nonetheless it is going to be a telling factor that the loan is guaranteed by the federal government, and there will be very few loans, if any, which will be turned

down by the bank once an appropriate authority has granted that certificate of eligibility to a student.
The provisions of the Yukon Act to which I would like to refer the committee commence, for my purposes, at section 3, and I am going to read it into the record, because when hon. members of the committee have been sitting as a committee, as well as when they have been sitting in the house, they have heard me repeatedly direct questions to the government members on the treasury benches inferring that there is a lack of consultation with the governments of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories when it comes to joint programs of a federal-provincial nature. Just this morning, while I know the minister of health is very concerned over the matter, we had yet another example of a piece of legislation which is supposed to operate on a joint basis, but where there had been absolutely no consultation with the governments of the two territories concerned.
Section 3 of the Yukon Act sets forth that-
-the governor in council may appoint for the territory a chief executive officer to be styled and known as the commissioner of the Yukon Territory.
In effect, while that power resides in the governor in council, again in practice it is the function of the minister of northern affairs to make that appointment and get the approval of his colleagues in the cabinet.
Section 4 sets out that-
-the commissioner shall administer the government of the territory under instructions from time to time given him by the governor in council or the minister.
In effect, the distinction which arises here between the government in the Yukon and that in a province is that the lieutenant governor in council in a province performs the executive function of government, whereas in the Yukon that executive function of government is performed by the commissioner on instructions from time to time given by the minister. In practice I know that a good deal of the time the commissioner exercises his own discretion in the hope that he will not embarrass whoever might be the minister of the day. But the power resides here and it is not uncommon to find the minister of northern affairs issuing directives to the commissioner to carry out that executive function of government.
You can see, Mr. Chairman, the situation which arises here with respect to this bill. The power existing for the appropriate authority to be appointed by the minister of

northern affairs; that is what it boils down to. The minister of northern affairs, by virtue of the powers given him under section 4 of the Yukon Act, can say to the commissioner, if the amendment in its restricted form is accepted by the committee, "This is going to be the appropriate authority", and the commissioner has no alternative but to follow the instructions of the minister in that regard.
This is precisely what the argument was all about on clause 2(b) of the bill, where all opposition parties have just finished voting to have the power of appointing these appropriate authorities reside in the governor in council. Here you are left with the situation where, if the amendment is accepted in its restricted form as put forward by the Minister of Industry on behalf of the Solicitor General, that is precisely what would happen: The governor in council, through the minister of northern affairs, is going to have the power under this bill to appoint the appropriate authority.
What strikes me as anomalous here is that the government-and the committee has decided rightly so-has decided to reside the power for the appointment of appropriate authorities in the lieutenant governors in council; in effect in the provincial cabinets. They are cabinets which are comprised of elected representatives of the people in those provinces. In order gradually to implement a plan for the growth of an autonomous and fully responsible form of government in the Yukon, an amendment was passed to the Yukon Act during the term of office of the previous government, which amendment will be found in the Yukon Act in the statutes of Canada, 1960. By that amendment an advisory committee on finance was set up. That is a committee which is chosen from among the elected representatives of the council and a committee with which the commissioner must consult when preparing his estimates for the expenditures for the forthcoming year. That amendment was passed with a view to providing the first stepping stone toward a fully responsible system of government in the Yukon, and toward commencing a gradual extraction of the complete and absolute powers of the commissioner and the minister from the bureaucracy-to use the term in a mild manner-and place it where it belongs, in the hands of the elected representatives of the people in the Yukon.
The principle of the amendment is a good one and I am sure the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources will agree 20220-370
Loans to Students
with that. I am very happy to see him and his parliamentary secretary in their seats this afternoon listening to these submissions. They show an interest which the people of the Yukon expect and appreciate.
The legislative powers of the governor in council in the Yukon Territory are set forth in section 16 of the Yukon Act. If the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance has studied section 16 of that act he knows it is almost on all fours with section 92 of the B.N.A. Act, and I shall select just at random a few of the subsections to substantiate further the point I am trying to make. Section 16 (a) gives the commissioner in council exclusive authority to legislate with respect to the-
-direct taxation within the territory in order to raise a revenue for territorial, municipal or local purposes.
That is the same wording as in the B.N.A. Act. Section 16 (b) gives the commissioner in council the power to set up a territorial civil service, which has been done and which has been operating for some years. Section 16 (r) gives the commissioner in council exclusive jurisdiction to legislate with respect to educational matters within the Yukon. More important than those I have just mentioned is section 16 (w) which sets forth that the commissioner in council has the exclusive authority to legislate with respect to-
-the expenditure of territorial funds and such portion of any moneys appropriated by parliament for the territory as the commissioner is authorized to expend by and with the advice of the council.
Here again you find a direct control of expenditures of a territorial and of a federal nature where it is so authorized by the elected representatives of the people. This is as it should be; this is right and proper. Yet the amendment in its existing restrictive form would now derogate from all of the progress made in this direction and place the power in the hands of one man, the commissioner, to designate the appropriate authority which in effect, by issuing the certificate of eligibility, is approving a loan of $1,000; and there is some $800,000 to be granted to the two territories under the provisions of this bill.
I would like to make a further point in this regard. The lieutenant governor of a province in the selection of the appropriate authorities in his province is I am sure going to pay very particular attention to the composition of any committees or boards set up as the appropriate authorities in the province. The cabinets of the provincial governments are

Loans to Students
going to have regard not only to geographical and other local factors but I am sure will have regard to religious factors, particularly in those provinces where there are separate school systems.
In the Yukon Territory there is a separate schools system. I am not suggesting for a moment that this will be the result-and it certainly will not be the result with the present incumbent of the office of commissioner in the Yukon, because he is one of the best commissioners the Yukon has ever enjoyed- but there could creep in an element of bias. If the commissioner wanted to, he could set up an appropriate authority which would be devoid of any representation by one particular religion or another. For instance, with the separate schools situation a commissioner could set up an appropriate authority without any Roman Catholic representation on that authority. On the other hand, if he happened to be a Roman Catholic commissioner he could set up an appropriate authority without any Protestant representation.
It is wrong to vest such power in the hands of one man. It is right that the elected representatives of the people, who are a cross section of all religious and ethnic groups, should share that power with the executive arm of government, and that is precisely the reason provincial cabinets are set up, and precisely the reason the government is placing this power in the hands of the lieutenant governors in council. I am sure the government would not have brought a bill before the committee which would have suggested that the power to appoint these appropriate authorities should be vested in the premier of a province or in any other one man. I believe the minister and the government would not want any doubt to arise with respect to the administration of the provisions of this act in complete impartiality, and I am sure if there is no harm in the principle I now espouse, that the minister, as he has previously indicated to me, would want to co-operate with the feelings, desires and wishes of the people of the Yukon and to allow them some say, through their elected representatives, as to the composition of the appropriate authority because after all, the students who will be benefitting in the Yukon, as elsewhere, from the provisions of this bill will come from every walk of life, will be of every religious and every ethnic group, and the broader representation you have in the composition of the appropriate authority the more insurance you have as to administrative impartiality.

Quite apart from the religious and other feelings of any particular commissioner at any particular time you will be constantly confronted with the situation, with power vested in one man whereby, even if the minister were to be so enlightened as to say to the commissioner that he wanted no part in making the decision as to who the appropriate authority was going to be, the minister could say to the commissioner, "These people are going to be your appropriate authority, and nobody else."
I am not suggesting for a moment that he is going to do that, but I am sure it will be agreed that he has that power; and it can be carried to the further logical and legal conclusion that the cabinet has that power. We in the Yukon Territory do not want in such cases to have that type of interference, and I suggest to the minister, and to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, that there can be no harm whatever in the minister's representative, the commissioner, at least going as far as to consult with the elected representatives of the people. Even if the commissioner is not obliged, by virtue of the amendment which I will be proposing, to obtain the consent of the council or of the advisory committee, at least he should be obliged to consult with them.
That does not detract from the power which resides in him, and in the minister ultimately, of making the decision regardless of the recommendation of the council or advisory committee. In 1960 that advisory committee was set up for the specific purpose of getting away from that autocratic and bureaucratic approach, and we are destroying the very intention of parliament by ignoring it now.
Therefore I would suggest, instead of the amendment that has been proposed in its restrictive form by the Minister of Industry, on behalf of the Solicitor General, that the following wording should be adopted:
That Bill C-110, an act to facilitate the making of loans to students, be amended by renumbering clause 2 as subclause (1) of clause 2 and by adding, immediately after subclause (1) of clause 2, the following subclause:
(2) In the application of this act to the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, the expression "lieutenant governor in council" used in this act shall mean
(a)	in the case of the Yukon Territory, the commissioner of the Yukon Territory acting with the advice and consent of the advisory committee on finance;
(b)	in the case of the Northwest Territories, the commissioner of the Northwest Territories.
I think I should explain the reason for there being a difference between the two

territories in this regard. I have already explained that there exists a wholly elected council in the Yukon and I have already explained that by the act of 1960 amending the Yukon Act an advisory committee on finance was set up in the Yukon, a committee for the express purpose of reviewing the fiscal expenditures by the commissioner, reviewing his estimates and assisting him in the preparation of his estimates, a committee with which by the amendment of 1960 the commissioner is bound and obliged to consult. In the Northwest Territories where you have a preponderance of federally appointed members there is no such advisory committee, because it follows from the very construction of the Northwest Territories council that if it wishes the federal government can make all the decision anyway. But the very construction of the Northwest Territories council gives some indication of the desire of the federal government to hear the views of the elected representatives, because at least four of those on the Northwest Territories council are elected from among the people there. So 1 put forward this subamendment, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca.
While the amendment is being distributed I might say that in paragraph (a) I have used words indicating that in the case of the Yukon Territory the expression "lieutenant governor in council" shall mean the commissioner of the Yukon Territory acting with the advice and consent of the advisory committee on finance, but as a happy compromise I would be willing to go so far as to suggest, if the government wishes to consider the altered wording favourably, that the words "in consultation with" be substituted for the words "with the advice and consent of". If the government does not want to go so far as to make the appointment of the appropriate authority the responsibility of the commissioner acting with the advice and consent of the advisory committee on finance, then at least the government should have no objection to the commissioner acting in consultation with the advisory committee composed of elected representatives of the people of the Yukon. Surely no harm could be done if the government were to accept that much. Surely no harm can be done if the commissioner consults with three of the elected representatives of the people of the Yukon before setting up this body, because if they go that far they are not impairing at all the powers of the commissioner since the commissioner, if he wishes to do so after consultation, can 20220-370J	.
Loans to Students
completely disregard the advice he has received from the advisory committee with whom he has consulted.
I suggest it is consistent with democratic principles that the people of the Yukon Territory should be consulted in this and in other matters through their elected representatives and that it is wrong and invidious to continue a system of centralizing power in the hands of one man, no matter how enlightened that one person may be, when an alternative is open to the government which will ensure the right of the people of the Yukon to express their views on this type of matter and on other matters affecting their welfare.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. In order to try to clarify matters perhaps we should first put the amendment proposed by the minister.


Erik Nielsen: The subamendment.


Lucien Lamoureux: The amendment has not been put yet. It has been moved by Mr. Drury:
That Bill C-110, an act to facilitate the making of loans to students, be amended by renumbering clause 2 as subclause (1) of clause 2 and by adding, immediately after subclause (1) of clause 2, the following subclause:
(2) In its application to the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, the expression "lieutenant governor in council" in this act means the commissioner of the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories, as the case may be.
Perhaps I might be allowed to suggest to the hon. member that what he is submitting as a subamendment cannot be a subamendment unless it is slightly rephrased, and with his permission I might redraft it by adding a few words. The subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Yukon would read as follows:
That the amendment be amended by deleting therefrom all the words after the words "in this act" in line 4 of subclause 2 of the amendment and by substituting therefor the following:
"shall mean
(a)	in the case of the Yukon Territory, the commissioner of the Yukon Territory acting with the advice and consent of the advisory committee on finance;
(b)	in the case of the Northwest Territories, the commissioner of the Northwest Territories."
The question is on the subamendment.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply briefly to the hon. member for Yukon and, with the greatest respect to the argument he has just made, urge the committee to reject the subamendment for these reasons. As I understand the division of powers set forth in the Yukon Act, administrative and executive power is exercised by the com-

Loans to Students
missioner who is responsible eventually to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, whereas legislative power is exercised by the commissioner in council, that is to say, the commissioner on the advice and with the consent of the elected council of the Yukon Territory.
In Bill No. C-110 now before the house the powers exercised by the lieutenant governor in council are administrative only and thus the equivalent, both within the meaning of the Yukon Act and within the meaning of the Northwest Territories Act, would be the commissioner acting alone subject to his eventual responsibility to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
What the subamendment advanced by the hon. member for Yukon is in effect doing is mingling the legislative and executive powers as set forth in the Yukon Act and in effect constituting an amendment to the Yukon Act. I suggest to him that before such a measure could be adopted by the committee and eventually by the house it would have to have some mark of consent and approbation by the people of the Yukon as expressed by their own territorial representatives. If the balance as between executive and legislative power in the Yukon was to be changed by reason of this legislation, one would have thought that the people of the Yukon, expressing their opinion through their elected representatives, would have made some submission to this house. That has not been done.
The second reason why I would urge the committee to reject the subamendment is that it would have the commissioner acting with the advice and consent of the advisory committee on finance.
Now, the hon. member for Yukon, it is true, suggested a happy compromise, and I use his words. He said he would be willing to have the commissioner for the Yukon act in consultation with the advisory committee on finance. He pointed out that the advisory committee on finance was set up under the 1960 amendment to the Yukon Act. The form of consultation set forth in subsection (3) of section 12 is as follows:
The commissioner shall consult with the committee in the preparation of the estimates of the expenditures and appropriations required to defray the charges and expenses of the public services of the territory for each fiscal year.
In other words, this advisory committee on finance is a committee which the commissioner must consult on the matter of estimates and future expenditures. Despite the arguments adduced by the hon. member for Yukon, there is nothing in this bill giving
[Mr. Turner. 1
the lieutenant governor in council, and thereby the commissioner for the Yukon or the commissioner for the Northwest Territories, any discretion over expenditures or estimates. Clause 2(b) refers merely to the designation of the appropriate authority and clauses 10 and 11 have to do with the issuance of certificates and the eligibility of students.
Now, once the certificate has been issued, once the appropriate authority has been selected, then the expenditure of money is made through a bank, subject to a guarantee by the federal government. The advisory committee to the commissioner for the Yukon, therefore, would be acting beyond its functions because it would not be dealing with expenditures or estimates as contemplated under the amendment to the Yukon Act. In effect, what the hon. member for Yukon is asking us to do by this amendment is to change the functions of the advisory committee on finance from one of consultation on estimates and expenditures into one of acting as a joint authority with the commissioner over education.
Surely this would constitute an indirect type of legislation over education. The hon. member for the Yukon himself has said that the Yukon Act, section 16(r), stated that the commissioner and council may legislate for education in the territory. At the same time he asks us, by reason of this amendment, to enact such a legislative provision to change the function of the advisory committee on finance into an advisory committee on education.
I would submit finally that the committee, within the terms of the amendment to the Yukon Act of 1960, is an advisory committee on finance and, as presently constituted, would not have the power to act in accordance with the additional power the hon. member for Yukon would give it by way of his subamendment. I emphasize very strongly that what he says by way of a base for his argument indicates he is looking forward to a greater degree of responsible government for the Yukon and looking forward eventually to the day, as we all are, when the territory will have provincial status. However, this type of redressing of the balance between the executive and legislative power that would give final and full control within section 92 of the British North America Act to the Yukon as a province, surely would have to be done by way of amendment to the Yukon Act instead of by way of a rider to this type of legislation now before the committee. I feel that the commissioner in any event, when faced with this legislation,

if and when adopted by this committee, would want to consult with the people of the Yukon and the terms of the subamendment would unduly restrict him as to those with whom he should consult.
The hon. member for the Yukon mentioned the problem of religious affiliation. If we were to accept his argument, and if the advisory committee were to be consulted by the commissioner, then the advisory committee on finance itself would have to be based on religious affiliation. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the committee to reject the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Yukon.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is indeed unfortunate the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George was not here last night to address his eloquence on this particular score to the minister and his parliamentary secretary because this view he has just been putting forward with respect to giving the commissioner authority supports the view put forward by the hon. member for Greenwood. I think it reinforces the view the hon. member put forward to the house last night.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Erik Nielsen: I want to say to those opposite who are shouting "Question" that I appeal to them to try to understand the form of government which is 4,000 miles away from them. I appeal to them to read the provisions of the Yukon Act and understand them. I am yery happy to see the Prime Minister in his seat now because I believe that he would like to see the principles of democracy carried as far as possible, consistent with the proper discharge of federal responsibility.
I am sorry he was not here to listen to the full argument I presented in speaking to the subamendment.
The parliamentary secretary to the minister of northern affairs has said that before accepting the subamendment I have proposed we should ascertain the views and wishes of the people of the Yukon Territory through their council. In other words, if you apply that argument to the provinces, then surely we should be consulting the people of the provinces through their elected representatives to ascertain what their wishes are before designating the lieutenant governor in council as the appropriate authority for the provinces.


John Napier Turner: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The difference there, surely, is that the people of the Yukon would be deciding on a change in their form of government, but
Loans to Students
no province is being asked to do that under this bill.


Erik Nielsen: The subamendment I have proposed in no way alters the form of government of the Yukon Territory. All I have suggested in the subamendment is that the commissioner, in whom the amendment proposes shall reside the power of appointing an appropriate authority shall, before he makes that appointment, consult with the advisory committee on finance or, if you wish, consult with the council elected, the representatives of the people. This is all the subamendment suggests. I think it is wrong to continue allowing the power to reside in the hands of one appointed executive when it need not be continued. I think that the parliamentary secretary, in his attempt to rebut the arguments which I have made-and while I will give him full marks for effort, it did not come close to dealing with the substance of it-has missed entirely the point that I made that the commissioner, by section 4 of the Yukon Act, must administer the territory from time to time on the instructions of the minister of northern affairs.
In reality, you have a situation where the minister of northern affairs has the power to instruct the commissioner as to what is going to be done to constitute the appropriate authority. The minister of northern affairs has authority to say to the commissioner, "You will be the appropriate authority". He has authority to say, "Mr. Commissioner, you and your council will be the appropriate authority", or he has power to say, "You are not going to make any decision on this until it is approved by me". I am not for a moment suggesting the minister of northern affairs would do that. I am suggesting that that situation is wrong and that the people who are most concerned are the parents of students in the Yukon, just as they are in the provinces, and the people of the Yukon themselves.
Surely, there can be nothing wrong with requiring the commissioner, before he makes a decision as to who is going to constitute the appropriate authority, to consult with all or some of the elected representatives of the people in the territorial council. What is so hideous about such a suggestion? Surely, the whole purpose of a democracy is to hear the views of the people instead of the views of the bureaucracy-again, I use the word in a mild sense. Is not this the idea of democracy, that instead of having the administration make all the decisions, those decisions should be subject to some sort of review by

Loans to Students
the elected people of this country? What is wrong with having the commissioner consult with the elected representatives of the people? Surely there can be nothing unacceptable about such a suggestion.
As I have said, I am prepared to accept an alteration of the subamendment I put forward, though I think some members of the territorial council would not be too happy with this suggestion, neither would a good many people who live in the northwest. But if the government does not wish to accept the phrase "acting with the advice and consent of the committee", then in order to introduce this principle of consultation with the elected council, I would agree that the words might be substituted by a requirement that the commissioner should at least consult with the advisory committee.
The parliamentary secretary says that to accept such an amendment as I have proposed would be to usurp the functions of the amendment of 1960 which set up the committee, but in saying that he is away off base. The whole intention behind passing that amendment in 1960 was to take a first step towards eventual fully responsible government in the territories. It would not be a usurpation of the powers granted to that committee which, in effect, are no powers at all-all it has is the power to require to be consulted in the preparation of estimates. It would be no usurpation of the functions of that committee to be used as a sounding board of the opinions of the elected representatives of the people of the Yukon and that is all I am suggesting here.
If the government does not wish to accept the words "advice and consent", then at least let them accept the words "in consultation with." I would point this out to the minister, that even if the advisory committee were to say "We want a, b, and c, appointed to the proper authority" the minister could still say "Well, I do not want to accept your advice and I shall appoint x, y, and z". All I am requesting is that the commissioner should consult with the representatives of the people of the Yukon through their council, and surely that is not too much to expect.
I am grateful to the minister and to his advisers for bringing in the amendment in its existing form because it shows a certain co-operation which I am sure I appreciate and the people I represent appreciate. I am sure my arguments have gotten through to the Minister of Finance even if they have not gotten through to the parliamentary secretary to the minister of northern affairs. It is not

a question here of relying on technical arguments: It is a fundamental and basic matter. All the people of the Yukon want is the right to be consulted.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wish to support briefly the argument put forward by the hon. member for Yukon. He will be a future minister of the crown, I am sure of that.
May I say again that for the second time today I am surprised, as I was last night, at the inflexibility of the government. A very co-operative suggestion was made from this side of the house. A deficiency in the bill was pointed out yesterday and an attempt was made to correct it by including the commissioners for the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. My hon. friend asked that there be an addition providing for consultation between the commissioner for the Yukon and the advisory council. Surely, it is the Minister of Finance, the Solicitor General and the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance who should have the say as to whether this is acceptable or not, rather than have an intervention from the parliamentary secretary to the minister of northern affairs.
Unless the government is not really intent on having this bill placed on the statute books, why do they not show some co-operation on their side? All we are trying to do is assist in the drafting of this legislation. The proposition advanced by my hon. friend from Yukon is eminently sound and sensible. Its intention is to extend the democratic process in the Yukon. Everybody knows that because of the population of that region and the population of the Northwest Territories, this bill cannot have very far reaching effects there. But in view of the importance of this legislation, the simple improvement suggested by my hon. friend should be accepted and I should like to hear from the Minister of Finance with regard to it.
I hope he will not get up and say that, having consulted with the parliamentary secretary to the minister of northern affairs he wants to give us an assurance that his advice has been sound and that everything is going to be all right with the bill.
Let the Minister of Finance take the responsibility. Here is the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Yukon. The Minister of Finance is the responsible minister and there should not be interference from other quarters in his party-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr, Churchill:: He has now inferred that there is a threat that the bill will not go through.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Last night we heard two and a half hours of argument by the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Justice and the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance because they would not accept a sensible suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Greenwood. Now we have heard an intervention from the parliamentary secretary to the minister of northern affairs rejecting a sound and sensible proposition put forward by the hon. member for Yukon. I ask the Minister of Finance: What does he want done with this bill? Does he want it to go through, or does he want it to remain unenacted?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would be glad to answer that question. I think the people of Canada want this bill to go through.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The other night, the hon. member for Yukon made the point that he wanted to see a reference made to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories in the clause. I told him I would give the matter careful consideration, which I did. I was advised that technically it was not necessary. Nevertheless, because I could see no harm in making such a reference, I undertook that we would make a reference to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has made a lot of assertions. He is entitled to make assertions. He is entitled to say that in his view the proposal made by the hon. member for Yukon is essential, necessary, good, proper, and all the other adjectives he can think of. But with great respect I suggest that I do have a responsibility, and as far as the government is concerned we think the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Yukon goes farther in this connection in the context of the student loans bill than we are prepared to accept. And that is that. I presume that we are entitled to at least reach our own conclusions and not be told that unless we accept an amendment of this kind, this bill will not go through.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, this is where the Minister of Finance gets himself into trouble.
Loans to Students


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He has now inferred that there is a threat that the bill will not go through.


An hon. Member:: That is what you said.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I asked him the simple question: Does he want the bill to go through, or does he want his own people, by their talking, to prevent its going through?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I hear an interjection by one of the members from Newfoundland. I am entitled to speak in this house as well as anyone else, and I will not take instructions with regard to sitting down or not speaking. Or was the interjection made by the hon. member from New Brunswick? Yes, it was.
This is the type of inference from the Minister of Finance that causes trouble. We have been inclined to co-operate on this matter. I was asking for co-operation from the government side. But no; they are inflexible; they do bad drafting of their bills and then they take a fixed position and refuse to budge. Surely in response to the very sensible and reasonable argument put forward by the hon. member for Yukon, even this government might have yielded a little ground.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gilles Grégoire: Just a few words, Mr. Chairman. Since we are perhaps one of the most eager groups as regards the respect of the rights and privileges of every class in the country, I make it a point to rise in support of the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).
In essence, the purpose of the hon. member's amendment is merely to the effect that the expression "lieutenant governor in council", in this act shall mean the commissioner of the territory-


Mr. Bigg:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman; I think it is unnecessary for the hon. member for Lapointe to second this motion. It has already been done in a formal manner by myself.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I did not say that I wanted to second the motion, but to

Loans to Students
support the subamendment, which is not quite the same thing. Probably, the hon. member did not understand the term which I used, because I did say that I wanted to support the subamendment.
Under the amendment submitted by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), it is proposed that the term "lieutenant governor in council" in this act means the commissioner of the Yukon Territory. Now, the commissioner is selected and appointed by the governor in council, that is the federal government, and in the electoral district of Yukon, a council is elected by the citizens of Yukon. Consequently, I wonder why a council is elected in that district if the members of that council are not even consulted when decisions are made in a field as important as education.
That is why I find quite reasonable the last suggestion made by the hon. member for Yukon to the effect that the commissioner for the Yukon Territory should be mentioned after consultation with the elected representatives of the Yukon.
If laws are enacted to elect commissioners or representatives, then they must serve some purpose; they should not merely be straw men or honorary figures. And if there is a field where they must be consulted, it is surely the educational field.
I think that the last suggestion of the hon. member for Yukon is a reasonable one, but it could be slightly changed. It would then read as follows:
In this act, lieutenant governor in council means the commissioner of the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories after consultation with the elected representatives of the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories, as the case may be.
I believe that is pretty much what the hon. member for Yukon wishes, and I feel that such a change would satisfy him as far as his constituents and those of the Northwest Territories are concerned.
I wonder why the Minister of Finance would refuse to have the commissioner consult the elected representatives of those two territories. That seems quite normal to me and I fail to see why anyone could object to the commissioner's seeking the advice of the elected representatives of the people.
In my opinion, we are not going far enough. In fact, I feel that by doing this, we are laughing at democracy since the elected representatives are not consulted.
I am surprised that the government refuses to accept the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Yukon, since in his last proposal the hon. member was ready to accept
tMr. Gregoire.l
that this be done not necessarily with the approval of the elected representatives but at least after consultation.
I think that the last wording suggested by the hon. member for Yukon should be accepted.
As for us, who are jealous of the respect owed those who have a mandate from the people, jealous of the rights of democracy, the rights of the people who live in a democratic country, we can assure the house that we support wholeheartedly the last wording of the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I consider this point-


An hon. Member:: A filibuster.


Erik Nielsen: It is not a filibuster at all, as an hon. gentleman who sits on the other side of the chamber has just said. If hon. members opposite consider that it is filibustering to raise points in the interests of the people one is sent here to represent, particularly when one is from an area which has been consistently neglected with regard to consultation in matters such as this, I think they have a poor view of the democratic system. I could understand the government's taking the position that they are taking, if we were invading a specific field of absolute federal responsibility. I could understand the government's taking the position that they are taking, if this matter concerned the administration of natural resources, or if it concerned the administration of justice, or if it concerned the expenditure of federal funds -any of those three matters which do not fall within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the council. But I cannot understand the government not agreeing to go along at least to the extent which I have suggested, namely of requiring the commissioner to consult with the elected representatives of the people of the Yukon on a matter such as education, over which they have exclusive legislative jurisdiction in the Yukon.
The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has sat in his place throughout this discussion and has heard the full submission I made, and that of his parliamentary secretary. I know that the matter of the particular wording of the amendment is one concerning law; but I am sure he understands and appreciates the fundamental principle involved here. I personally would be disappointed if he did not rise and say to

this committee that what we are endeavouring to do, in so tar as the people of the Yukon are concerned, is a desirable step indeed. I think it would be disappointing indeed if he did not rise and say that the department of northern affairs is in existence merely to organize itself out of existence as soon as the Yukon and Northwest Territories reach the stage where they no longer need federal paternalism. I think it would be disappointing indeed if the minister did not rise and say to the committee that at least he is in personal agreement with the principle that, on an important matter such as this, involving the education of the youth in the Yukon, it is desirable and proper to require that the commissioner-his appointee, his instructee- should be required at least to consult with and obtain the views of the elected representatives on the legislative council of the Yukon before a decision is made as to the appointment of the appropriate authority.
I feel the matter is vital. I know that the people of the Yukon, who have very decided views on this-and after all they are Canadians too-would expect to hear from the minister in this regard and also expect to have their interests not only represented and expressed by me in this committee, but also by the minister. In this regard the arguments of the parliamentary secretary to the minister of northern affairs have indeed been disappointing, not only to me but also to the folks back home. I wonder whether the minister would at least rise and support me in this measure which affects the future of the people in the Yukon.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have refrained from taking part in this discussion because I am extremely anxious, as are most members, to see this legislation pass because of the late date at which it was brought in and the necessity for the students to have the legislation made available to them. But I am constrained to rise and express astonishment that the government has not given some better reason than anything which has been so far advanced for rejecting the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Yukon.
Only last Friday the Prime Minister returned from the commonwealth conference to tell us very proudly that the prime ministers attending the conference had signed a public declaration in favour of equality of opportunity and non-discrimination amongst peoples in the commonwealth irrespective of race, colour or creed. Now we are talking of a piece of legislation which affects not people in a
Loans to Students
backward colony of Africa but Canadian citizens living in Canada. Here is the government refusing to say that in setting up the certifying authority the commissioner, who is a government appointee, shall not be required to consult with the elected representatives of the people in the Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: At least consult.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: At least consult. There may be some good reason for not accepting the subamendment, but I certainly have not heard one. If the government is merely going to take the position that any legislation they have drafted is sacrosanct and cannot be altered, irrespective of the logic of any alternative proposal put forward, then we are just wasting our time in going over the legislation. I hope the government will either give a better reason for rejecting the subamendment, or accept it or some modification of it.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Chairman, whether in parliamentary procedure I was strictly correct to second the subamendment of the hon. member for Yukon is a debatable point, but what is not debatable is this: The only reason why the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory do not have full provincial status at the moment is because of economy. We cannot afford to set up governments in those localities because of the excessive expense. However this should not deny the people from those territories their democratic right to be heard; and there is no reason at all why a commissioner or any other member of the Canadian community should take upon himself or have thrust upon him responsibility which should rest with the people.
The hon. member for Yukon has made out avery strong case and the argument of the parliamentary secretary to the minister of northern affairs is, I suppose, one of those technical arguments which we run into all the time. It is one of the reasons that lawyers get blamed for holding up parliament.
I want to make an appeal in no uncertain terms. When a reasonable request like this is made of the government it should take notice of it instead of sitting there in holy-righteousness and telling us that we are filibustering. No threats of any kind as to-whether or not we get a summer recess or have an election-and I would welcome one because the government has been there too long; it is the same old gang-are going to scare us. If the government refuses to listen to arguments like this, then what will they listen to? This is a clear case of the demo-

Loans to Students
cratic rights of the people up north, and I do not think the Minister of Finance can slough off his responsibility on to the minister of northern affairs. Let us have cabinet solidarity by all means, but let us not shift responsibility. It is up to him to defend this inadequate bill.
Last night I had to get to my feet and talk about looking after the youth of our country. I defy any hon. member to tell me exactly who will benefit under this bill, or whether anyone will. Who are the people who will decide who are going to benefit? The Minister of Finance does not know, although he is full of pious wishes. The will of the people is demonstrated by one-man boards which are set up across Canada by this government to decide which student will benefit from our taxes and generosity. We have had this type of evasion for far too long. The minister of northern affairs will not get up because of cabinet solidarity again. He will not get up because he has been told to sit in his seat. He has been invited to stand up and speak, because he is an important official with regard to the rights of the people in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. As the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said, these people are denied the normal rights of other Canadians. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to stand up in the hall of Westminster and talk of equal representation and rights for Rhodesia. What about equal rights for the Yukon and Northwest Territories, Mr. Chairman?
The reason I am speaking is that my constituency borders on the Northwest Territories and anything vital to them is vital to us. Athabasca is the roadway to the north, and any time their rights are denied we feel that some of our rights are also denied. Without a proper, broadminded approach to the development of the north it is going to be a long time before either the Yukon or the Northwest Territories have the people, the industry or the income to grow into the sort of province we want to see. If the Liberals
no longer believe in parliamentary evolution and the growing up of communities, I suggest that they keep silent not only in international circles but also here. And if they are incapable of giving the leadership which is required and are unwilling to give the leadership which is required, I suggest that they stand up and say "Take over". Because we will give that leadership. We have been sincere in our vision of the north. The bureau of statistics illustrate this in black and white, and show that in the last seven years there has been more hope in the north country and proper attention paid to its affairs than we have had since confederation. If this is vision I am glad to be part of it; and I am willing to take my small share of that responsibility and show that this vision is one which is worthy of us all.
May I call it six o'clock?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I wonder whether the members of the committee would be willing to sit for another five minutes so that we might have a vote and dispose of this clause.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, it would be better to give all night to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) so he could seek advice of his pillow, and I am convinced that he will accept tomorrow the sound arguments which were brought up today by members of the committee.

Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
acting house leader if that certain bill will be continued tomorrow?


John Watson MacNaught: Tomorrow we shall go on with the committee stage of the bill we are discussing now.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 23, 1964