1964-07-15

AGRICULTURE


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I announced plans for a coast to coast tour by the house committee on agriculture. We have worked out a tentative itinerary which will take the committee into every province over a two week period. We had hoped to be able to organize this tour for early August, but I wish to inform the house now that this has not been possible, for several reasons. In the first place, we have been unable to charter a suitable aircraft during August for the two week period we estimate the tour will take. Another obstacle to having the tour during August is the problem of booking accommodation for such a large group at the height of the tourist season. We also thought committee members might find the weather rather unpleasantly hot for the kind of intensive itinerary, including long bus rides through the countryside, at this time of year. For all these reasons we have decided to postpone the tour for a few weeks.
A suitable aircraft is available for late September and early October, and we now expect to take the committee on this tour of the country at that time to see our farm problems as they really are, the better, we hope, to deal with them in parliament in the future.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Caoueile: 1.	According to government actuaries, how many persons in Canada will have reached 65 years of age by January 1. 1965?
2.	How many will have reached 70 years of age?
3.	What amount would the government have to pay, on that same date, in order to give everyone a pension of $100 a month (a) at age 65 (b) at age 70?
4.	What amount would the government have to pay, starting on January 1, 1965, in order to give everyone a pension of $150 a month (a) at age 65 (b) at age 70?
5.	By what percentage would income tax and corporation taxes have to be increased in order to cover these expenditures each year?
6.	What amount of income tax would a person earning $5,000 a year, married and with two children have to pay in order to cover expenditures under parts 3 and 4 above?

Answer: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Based on a set of projections of the 1961 census population developed last year in connection with actuarial studies on the Canada pension plan, as described in the actuarial report dated August 30, 1963, and tabled in parliament on October 15, 1963, the chief actuary of the department of insurance has estimated that on January 1, 1965, there would be in Canada 1,469,000 persons aged 65 or over and 960,000 persons aged 70 or over. He has also estimated that, for the calendar year 1965, it would cost $1,822 million to pay $100 per month to persons aged 65 or over in that year, $1,190 million to pay $100 per month to persons aged 70 or over, $2,733 million to pay $150 per month to persons aged 65 or over and $1,785 million to pay $150 per month to persons aged 70 or over. These costs, based on the aforementioned set of population projections, were adjusted to take account of past and anticipated future experience under the old age security program.
5.	In order to raise an amount of revenue equal to the amount by which the above estimated costs exceed the expenditures forecast for the present old age security pensions the budgetary revenue from income tax on individuals and corporations combined would have to be increased by approximately the following percentages:
For pensions of $100 per month payable at age 65, 27 per cent; for pensions of $100 per month payable at age 70, 9 per cent; for pensions of $150 per month payable at age 65, 53 per cent; for pensions of $150 per month payable at age 70, 26 per cent.
Increases of this magnitude in present rates of tax would in some cases be impractical. For example, if the present top rate of personal income tax, which is 80 per cent before provincial abatement, were increased by 27 per cent it would become 101.6 per cent. If the present corporation income tax rate of 47 per cent before provincial abatement were

Questions
increased by 27 per cent it would become 59.7 per cent and if increased by 53 per cent it would become 71.9 per cent.
6.	If the personal income tax payable by a married taxpayer with income of $5,000, who had two dependant children qualified for family allowance (which is $237.79 at current rates after deducting a provincial abatement at 21 per cent) were increased by the percentages shown above the additional amounts of tax payable would be as follows:
Increases of 27 per cent, $64; increase of 9 per cent, $21; increase of 53 per cent, $126; increase of 26 per cent, $62.
However, because it would be impractical to increase the tax of all individuals by 53 per cent or even by 27 per cent, the amount of tax paid by individuals with lower or medium incomes would have to be increased by more than the percentages shown above in order to produce the revenue proposed. As a result the taxpayer described in this question would have to pay larger amounts of additional tax than shown above. An increase of 27 per cent or even 9 per cent would have a very appreciable effect on the tax of all individuals.


CYCLICAL REVIEW OF CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES
Mr. Nugent: 1.	When is it expected that the next cyclical review of civil service salaries in each of the groups will be completed (a) by the civil service commission (b) by the government?
2.	In respect of each group, what will be the operative date of salary adjustment?


Mr. Mcllraith:: 1. The second cyclical review of civil service salaries is now under way and final decision in respect of each of the groups has, or will be, taken as follows:
Group "A", professional and related classes -review completed and salary revisions approved on March 20 and April 9, 1964.
Group "B", administration and clerical classes. Group "C", hospital classes. Group "D", postal, customs, immigration, maintenance and service classes.
In each case the commission's submission is expected to reach the treasury board not later than seven months after the effective date of the increase. In the case of the "B" group, the treasury board has approved the extension of the time limitation to July 15, 1964, for the civil service commission to submit its recommendations. Once the commission's recommendations have been received, decisions are taken by the treasury board

as soon as possible, subject to the requirement to consult with staff associations. Past experience indicates that there is an interval of eight to nine months between the effective date of the increase and the date of announcement.
2.	Group "A", July 1, 1963; Group "B", October 1, 1963; Group "C", January 1, 1964; Group "D", October 1, 1964.


SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR GROUP A&quot; CIVIL SERVANTS
Mr. Nugent: 1.	On what date did the civil service commission make its last recommendations for salary adjustments for civil servants in group "A"?
2.	On what date did the government take action in respect thereto?
3.	Did the government accept all recommendations of the civil service commission and. if not. in what particulars, in detail, did the government refuse to accept the recommendations of the civil service commission: and, in each case, what was the specific reason for such refusal?


George James McIlraith: 1. Civil service commission recommendations for classes in the "A" group were received on March 5, March 19, and April 6, 1964.
2.	Revised rates were approved by the treasury board on March 20 and April 9, 1964.
3.	The treasury board, acting on behalf of the governor in council, has the responsibility in accordance with section 11 of the Civil Service Act, to establish rates of pay after considering the recommendations which the civil service commission is required, by section 10 of the same act, to make. In discharging this responsibility, the board exercises its own judgment, based on the facts and considerations which in its opinion are relevant. This may, and in fact, does result at times in the establishment of rates for certain classes which differ from those recommended by the commission.


CRITERIA FOR CIVIL SERVICE SALARY ADJUSTMENTS
Mr. Nugent: X. Have the civil service commission and the treasury board established common criteria or formulae for the determination of the basis of recommendations for the adjustment of salaries of civil servants and, if so, what are such criteria or formulae?
2.	If not, in what particulars do the criteria or formulae applied by the civil service commission and the treasury board differ and for what reasons?
3.	What attitude has each of the staff associations communicated to the government as its official position (a) in respect of criteria or formulae adopted by the civil service commission but not approved by treasury board (b) in respect of

criteria or formulae used by treasury board without prior recommendation from the civil service commission (c) in respect of such criteria or formulae as may be agreed upon between the two bodies?


George James McIlraith: 1 and 2. The general criteria established for the commission are set forth in section 10 of the Civil Service Act, and the recommendations submitted by the commission are based on the commission's best judgment as to how these criteria should be applied. No similar criteria are prescribed in the act for the treasury board, acting on behalf of the governor in council; however, in considering the recommendations made by the commission the board takes full account of the criteria set out in section 10 of the act, and also of the policy statements made by successive governments in recent years in which the principles governing wage policies for the public service have been enunciated.
3.	The government is not in a position to speak on behalf of the staff associations as to their official positions with respect to the matters referred to in this question. The views of the staff associations on a wide variety of formulae and methods of statistical measurement are communicated to the government, not only through formal correspondence with respect to individual questions at issue, but also through the consultations which take place, pursuant to section 7 of the Civil Service Act, on each occasion when salary revisions for groups "A", "B", "C" and "D" are being considered.


ADOPTION' OF CYCLICAL REVIEW OF CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES
Mr. Nugent: 1.	When was the system of cyclical review of civil service salaries adopted?
2.	Do Her Majesty's present ministers support and uphold this system of salary review instituted by Her Majesty's former ministers?


George James McIlraith: 1. The system of cyclical pay reviews was announced in December, 1961. The first cycle started on July 1, 1961, the date of revision for group "A" classes.
2.	The present government is following the system of cyclical pay review announced in December, 1961, pending the completion of development and enactment of collective bargaining in the public service as announced by the Prime Minister.
Questions


DANISH PROTESTS REGARDING BUTTER SALES TO U.K.
Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	Have any officials of the department of external affairs of Denmark protested to the government regarding Canada's plan to sell surplus butter to England on the grounds that such a measure would disturb the market and, if so (a) what was the nature of the protests (b) what was the federal government's reply to such protests?
2.	Has Denmark made any concrete proposal to the government of Canada to the effect that the latter should endeavour to sell their surplus on other than traditional markets rather than in western Europe and, if so, what proposals were made and what was the Canadian government's reply?
3.	Is there any agreement at the present time between Canada and Denmark regarding markets for butter and, if so, what is the agreement?
(The answer to question No. 1,123 appears on page 5600.)


* C.B.C. FILM &quot;THE GOOD LIFE&quot;
Mr. Fisher: 1.	What was the chronology, with an explanation for each step, in the C.B.C.'s dealings with the production by R. Kelly entitled "The Good Life" from its genesis to the decision not to present it to television audiences?
2.	What was the cost of the production?
3.	Where is the film held at the present time?
4.	Is any consideration being given to releasing this film as a documentary for the use of film societies?


Mr. Stewart:: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that it has not been customary to require crown corporations to disclose information which is basically related to the corporation's administration and management. The C.B.C. is engaged in a competitive business and has customarily been left free to conduct its day to day business without being obliged to make public details of its production operations.


* TELEVISION FILM &quot;MR. PEARSON&quot;    RIGHT TO MAKE CHANGES
Mr. Fairweather: Was an agreement made or an undertaking in writing given on March 31, 1964, between the C.B.C. and Mr. Richard Ballentine regarding the film "Mr. Pearson", whereby the Prime Minister was given the right to make certain changes in the said film?


John B. Stewart: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that a memorandum of settlement was concluded on March 31, 1964, between the C.B.C. and Intervideo Productions Limited with respect to a television film "Mr. Pearson". This agreement recognized the understanding upon which the

Questions
Prime Minister consented to participate in the making of the program, as set out by Mr. R. Ballentine's letter to the Prime Minister and later modified by Mr. R. Haggan's letter of January 28, 1964.


* SCREENINGS OP FILM &quot;MR. PEARSON&quot;
Mr. Fairweaiher: 1.	How many screenings of the film, "Mr. Pearson", were made (a) in Ottawa (b) in Toronto, before the decision was made by the C.B.C. not to have it used over the facilities of the C.B.C.?
2.	How many of said screenings were attended by (a) the Prime Minister (b) the Minister of Trade and Commerce (c) the Minister of Finance
(d)	the Secretary of State for External Affairs
(e)	the Minister of Labour?
3.	What members of the Prime Minister's official staff were present at each of said screenings?
4.	How many officials of the C.B.C. were present at each of said screenings?
5.	How many persons other than those abovenamed were present at each of said screenings?


John B. Stewart: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the completed film "Mr. Pearson" was screened on May 5 by a group of senior C.B.C. officials in Toronto and Ottawa. It was following this screening that the decision was made by the C.B.C. not to broadcast it. None of the persons referred to in parts 2, 3 and 5 of the question was present at this screening.
The C.B.C. further advises that in addition to the foregoing there were several screenings over a period of months at the production level in the process of developing the completed film that could be used as a television presentation.
As to the attendance at these earlier screenings of persons referred to in parts 2, 3 and 5 of the question the corporation notes that the matter has already been dealt with in the comments of the Prime Minister of June 24 to the house.


MEALS ON C.N.R. &quot;OCEAN LIMITED&quot;
Mr. MacQuarrie: 1.	What meals on the "Ocean Limited" are available to Montreal to Moncton sleeping car passengers under the red, white and blue passenger fare plan?
2.	Prior to June 14, for how many days were such passengers entitled to breakfast only?
3.	What reduction was made in the price of tickets for such passengers?


Mr. Pickersgill:: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
1.	Sleeping car passengers travelling on the "Ocean Limited" from Montreal to Moncton are entitled to two meals, namely dinner and breakfast.

2.	Prior to June 14, sleeping car passengers travelling on the "Ocean Limited" from Montreal to Moncton were entitled to two meals, namely breakfast and lunch.
3.	Not applicable.


C.N.R. STATION, MONCTON, N.B.
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What is the total floor space in the C.N.R. depot at Moncton, New Brunswick?
2.	What is the total floor space of public waiting rooms in this station?
3.	What is the seating capacity in such waiting rooms?
4.	What was the floor space and the seating capacity of the former station building?
5.	What is the floor space and the seating capacity of the lunch counter of the present station building?
6.	What was the floor space and the seating capacity of the lunch counter of the former station building?
7.	How many trains make stopovers at Moncton?
8.	Has there been an increase in passenger travel on trains passing through or originating from Moncton since 1961, and, if so, what is the rate of increase since 1961?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	9,852 square feet.
2.	3,173 square feet.
3.	134 seats.
4.	3,283 square feet and 100 seats.
5.	338 square feet. There are no seats.
6.	472 square feet. There were no seats.
7.	Ten passenger trains either originate or terminate at Moncton daily. Also, there are four through passenger trains each weekday, and three times weekly there are two additional originating and terminating passenger trains.
8.	As a result of the red, white and blue fare plan, there has been an increase in the number of passengers travelling within the maritime provinces. However, the number of persons passing through or originating from Moncton since 1961 is not readily available.


SPARE BRIDGE TENDER, GRAND NARROWS, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Who has filled the position of spare bridge tender at the C.N.R. bridge, Grand Narrows, N.S.?
2.	What are the qualifications for such a position and was veteran's preference taken into consideration?
3.	If this position has not yet been filled, how and when will the appointment be made and wilt veterans preference be taken into consideration?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows.;

1,	2 and 3. The position is vacant and the filling thereof will be pursuant to the provisions of the agreement with the brotherhood of maintenance of way employees.


RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INCREASED RESEARCH EXPENDITURES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Is the government giving consideration to the recommendations made by the universities to the national research council committee headed by Dr. J. W. T. Spinks to the effect that government support for research done in Canadian universities be increased from $11.1 million allocated for the year 1963-64 to $38.5 million for the year 1964-65 and to $54.84 million for the year 1968-69?
2.	Is the government giving consideration to the recommendation of the study committee appointed by the N.R.C. to investigate the problem of government aid to university research which recommended that the grants given by N.R.C. to aid research in universities be increased from $9.2 million in 1963-64 to $19.6 million in 1964-65, $27.9 million in 1965-66 and to $52.9 million in 1968-69?


Mr. Drury:: In so far as the Minister of Industry and national research council are concerned:
1.	See answer to 2.
2.	Yes. The estimates submitted by universities, referred to in part 1 of the question, will be considered in the context of the recommendations of the study committee of the national research council, which took account of these estimates in preparing its report.


* RADAR STATION, ST. SYLVESTRE, QUE.
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	In what year was the radar station at St. Sylvestre, in the constituency of Lotbintere built, and how much did it cost to build?
2.	How many persons were employed at this radar station in 1960-61-62?
3.	In these same years, what was the total of salaries paid?
4.	When did the government decide to terminate the operation of this station?


Mr. Cardin:: 1. The radar station at St. Sylvestre was built in 1951 and 1954 under the 1951 Pine Tree agreement. The United States paid all capital expenditures for construction and materials, except for military quarters and other facilities not covered by regulations concerning the United States aviation for that type of bases. Total capital expenditures amounted to approximately $13,200,000.
Questions
2 and 3.
Average number of employees Salaries
1960-	61	378	$1,600,0001961-	62	382	1,700,0001962-	63	362	1,600,0004.	The government announced the closing of the station on March 9, 1964.


*C.B.C.-TIME ALLOTMENT TO FLAG ISSUE
Mr. Coates: 1.	How much time has been allotted to the flag issue by the C.B.C. on both radio and television since January 1, 1964?
2.	How much of this time was made available to independent commentators on this subject?
3.	How much of the time allotted to independent commentators was used in support of the red ensign and how much in support of a new flag design?
4.	How much of this time was made available on the English radio and television network and on the French radio and television network?


John B. Stewart: The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has informed me as follows:
1 and 2. The C.B.C. has not allotted any specific amount of time to the flag issue. It has dealt with it in its news bulletins in accordance with its normal news policy of reporting developments as they occur and in accordance with normal standards of newsworthiness. The issue has also been dealt with extensively by a number of independent commentators with different viewpoints in such programs as Preview Commentary, Commentaires, Capital Report, Viewpoint, Tour des Capitales, Trans Canada Matinee, Aujourd'hui, etc. There have also been a number of special programs such as Newsmagazine, Inquiry, Camera '64, Actualites Politiques.
3.	No specific time was allotted; but a wide variety of points of view was expressed by a number of different independent commentators; and C.B.C. news reported different viewpoints as they were expressed in parliament or in other forms of public statement.
4.	See 1 and 2.


NEW C.B.C. FILM ON PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Coales: Is the C.B.C. presently planning to produce a new program featuring Prime Minister Pearson?


Mr. Lamonlagne:: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the answer is no.

Questions


DEFENCE PRODUCTION CONTRACTS, ENAMEL AND HEATING CO.
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What contracts does the enamel and heating plant at Charlottetown currently hold from the Department of Defence Production?
2.	How many aircraft are to be sent to this plant for repair and refit during the balance of the year 1964?
3.	What new work Is the department planning to send to this Important establishment?
4.	When did the department first send aircraft to this plant?
5.	How many aircraft have been repaired and/or refitted at Charlottetown since that date?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. None. The company holds one subcontract from Canadair Limited for the reconditioning of 12 Sabre (F86) aircraft.
2.	None. All Sabre aircraft scheduled by D.N.D. for reconditioning are now in work at the Charlottetown plant.
3.	At the present time the requirements of the Department of National Defence do not include any further repair and overhaul or CAIR work on the F86 program. This plant was set up to handle the repair and overhaul of the F86 aircraft and, since the F86 is being phased out of the R.C.A.F. inventory, the F86 repair and overhaul work will be completed in July of this year.
4.	March 1961.
5.	34 Sabre aircraft; 6 of which are still in work; 4 Lancaster aircraft; 2 of which were not repaired or refitted but were reduced to spares.


ENROLMENTS IN ARMED SERVICES
Mr. Coates: How many recruits have been enrolled in the three armed services for the months of January to May inclusive, of this year?
Answer:
Jan.	Feb.	Mar.	Apr.	May728	754	696	697	780


HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS AND BRIDGE REPAIRS, PICTOU, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What were the names of the tenderers and the amounts of the various tenders for harbour improvements and repairs to pier "A" at Pictou, Nova Scotia?
2.	To whom will the contract be awarded?


Mr. Deschatelets:: 1. Colin R. MacDonald Ltd., Antigonish, N.S., $18,616; R. A. Douglas Ltd., New Glasgow, N.S., $22,542.40; Joseph Almon, New Glasgow, N.S., $23,096.50.

2. Colin R. MacDonald Ltd. has been awarded the contract.


STUDY OF INFLATION
Mr. Wahn: 1.	What has been the percentage rate of inflation in Canada for each year from 1946 to date?
2.	Is the government making or having made any specific study as to whether there are any methods whereby inflation can be controlled or eliminated without increasing unemployment?
3.	If no such study is being made, does the government propose to initiate such a study?


Mr. Pennell:: 1. There is no agreed definition of inflation, amongst economic experts, and there is no single statistical series that could measure it. Different indices of price movements have moved differently at different times, depending upon price and economic developments at home and abroad. The various price indices are published by the bureau of statistics.
2 and 3. Various departments and agencies as part of their normal responsibilities study possible means of alleviating unemployment while maintaining reasonable stability of prices, and the government from time to time directs them to consider particular measures to be placed before parliament.


C.B.C. FILMS ON PARTY LEADERS
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given by the C.B.C. to making a film recording of the national leaders of other than Liberal and Conservative parties?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that there are no present plans for such filmings.
^LABOUR CONGRESS NOMINATION FOR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION


Mr. Nugent: 1.	Did the Canadian Labour Congress recently recommend for appointment to a vacancy on the unemployment insurance commission, Neil Reimer and, if so, on what date?
2.	On what date did this vacancy occur?
3.	Has the Canadian Labour Congress more recently put forward as its recommendation, Tom Ward, a C.L.C. employee or official and, if so, on what date?


Mr. Byrne:: 1, 2 and 3. A communication was received from the Canadian Labour Congress on June 16, recommending the names of Mr. C. Reimer, Edmonton, Alberta and Mr. T. B. Ward, Ottawa, to fill a vacancy on the unemployment insurance commission, which occurred on April 30, 1964.


IS, 1964 AERIAL MAGNETOMETER SURVEY
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Is an aerial magnetometer survey underway In Canada?
2.	When was the program launched?
3.	What provinces are participating?
4.	How much of the survey has been carried out in each of these provinces?
5.	What area will be covered in the (a) Yukon Territory (b) Northwest Territories?
6.	What is the total cost of the project to the federal treasury?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1. Yes.
2.	It was started on a small scale in 1947 by the geological survey of Canada using one aircraft until 1962 when the mines departments of all the provinces were invited to participate on a 50-50 cost sharing basis, at which time the rate of surveying was increased by a factor of about 10, with all the work being contracted out to private companies.
3.	Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. The provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and part of Newfoundland had been surveyed by the geological survey prior to the cost sharing agreement with the participating provinces. Because of the rugged terrain, British Columbia is not generally amenable to the standard techniques applied in the rest of the country although some of the flatter portions of the province have been surveyed on a cost sharing arrangement with the B.C. department of mines and petroleum resources.
4.	Out of an approximate total of one million square miles, the provincial and territorial breakdown is approximately as follows: Yukon Territory, 33,000 square miles; District of Mackenzie, 152,000 square miles; District of Keewatin, 30,000 square miles; District of Franklin, 30,000 square miles; British Columbia, 27,000 square miles; Alberta, 71,000 square miles; Saskatchewan,
90.000	square miles; Manitoba, 140,000 square miles; Ontario, 191,000 square miles; Quebec,
167.000	square miles; New Brunswick, 24,000 square miles; Nova Scotia, 21,068 (whole province) square miles; Prince Edward Island, 2,148 (whole province) square miles; Newfoundland, 19,000 square miles. Total 997,216 square miles.
5.	Three year contracts are being planned for 1965, 1966 and 1967 in: (a) the Yukon,
38.000	square miles; (b) District of Mackenzie,
38.000	square miles; District of Keewatin,
27.000	square miles; District of Franklin,
35.000	square miles.
Questions
About 15,000 square miles of Hudson bay are being planned for 1965 to be flown by the geological survey. When the project is completed in 1974, all the Yukon and Northwest Territories which can be surveyed will have been surveyed.
6.	The total cost of the project to the federal treasury has to date been approximately $4,437,000.
It is expected that the total cost to the federal treasury when the project is completed in 1974 will have been about $12 million.


SHIPS ORDERED BY NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION CO.
Mr. Nugent: 1.	Does Northern Transportation Company have under order now or under construction a ship designed to do the job for which their L.S.M. was purchased or for a similar type of operation?
2.	Does Northern Transportation Company have an order now or under construction any ships, barges or tugs and, if so, for what purpose is each planned to be used, in what area will they be licensed to operate and when is it anticipated that they will be put into use?
Answer: 1. No; but invitations have gone out for tenders on a vessel designed to operate in Arctic waters, commencing during the 1965 navigation season; propulsion machinery and other equipment from the L.S.M. previously purchased will be incorporated in the new vessel.
2. Northern Transportation does not have on order, or under construction, nor does it contemplate the construction of any ships, barges or tugs other than as indicated in 1 above.


TENDERS FOR FENCE DISPOSAL, SUNNYVALE, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What were the names of the tenderers and the amounts of the various tenders on the tender call for Crown Assets Disposal Corporation on 1,000 feet of fence at Sunnyvale, near Liverpool, Nova Scotia?
2.	What person or company was the successful tenderer?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Cecil Breen, Westville, N.S., $1,810; Antigonish Columbus Club, Anti-gonish, $995; Clyde L. Baltzer Ltd., Annapolis Royal, N.S., $459; Silver's Garage Limited, Bridgewater, N.S., $410; B. Garson & Son, Yarmouth Ltd., Yarmouth, N.S., $401.25; Sackville Downs Ltd., Halifax, N.S., $300; Fred Nickerson, Villagedale, Shelburne Co. N.S., $300; Zion United Church Cemeteries, Liverpool, N.S., $300; J.V. Scobey, Liverpool,

Questions
N.S., $275; Pentecostal Holiness Church, Halifax, N.S., $200; MacArthur Demolition, Lewisville, N.B., $110.
2. Cecil Breen, Westville, N.S.


PENITENTIARY SITE, NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY, ONT.
Mr. Webb: With respect to the federal penitentiary to be constructed in Northumberland county, Ontario
(a)	has a site been purchased by the government and, if so, what are the particulars of the location, acreage and purchase price (b) who was the owner from whom the property was purchased by the government (c) if a site has not yet been purchased, are negotiations in progress with the owner of any site in which the government is interested and, if so, what is his name and what are the particulars requested in (a) above with respect to this site?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: (a) A site has been purchased for a federal penitentiary in Northumberland county, Ontario. It is located approximately four miles east of the village of Warkworth and is in the northeasterly part of the township only a few miles west of the westerly shore of Percy reach and approximately one mile east of No. 30 provincial highway. It fronts on the county road between concessions 9 and 10 and contains 197.79 acres including a 6.69 acre unopened road allowance. The property was purchased for $55,000.
(b)	The property was purchased from Mr. Owen C. Clark on January 6, 1964.
(c)	Not applicable.


VISIT TO CUBA BY UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
Mrs. Jones: 1.	Have passports been issued to a group of young Canadians to enable each of them to spend the summer in Cuba?
2.	If so, how many (a) English speaking, and
(b)	French speaking, university students have been granted such passports?
3.	Is the sponsor of the project the fair play for Cuba committee?
4.	Has the government any knowledge of the purpose of such project and, if so, is it to enable the students chosen to see and evaluate at first hand the communist Cuban experiment?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: 1. Canada has no regulations prohibiting the travel of Canadians to Cuba or to any other country, and Canadian passports are valid for all countries. Canadian passport application forms do not require applicants to specify the country or countries to which they intend to travel.

2.	For the reason stated in the previous answer with regard to passport application forms, this information is not available in the passport records.
3.	Yes.
4.	The fair play for Cuba committee has indicated in certain public announcements that such is a purpose of the project.


C.B.C. SITE IN VANCOUVER
Mr. Prillie: Has the council of the city of Vancouver, with a view to attracting the C.B.C. to the downtown area, offered the C.B.C. a site free of charge as they have offered to a professional hockey organization of Toronto?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the answer is no.


*ST. SYLVESTRE RADAR STATION    DISCUSSIONS WITH QUEBEC SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Choquetle: With reference to the radar station at St. Sylvestre, Lotbiniere county (a) has the government had discussions with the minister and officers of the family and social welfare department of Quebec (b) what was the nature of the discussions and what conclusion, if any, was reached?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: (a) Yes.
(b) The discussions have had to do with the announced closing of the station and the possibilities of using it as a provincial rehabilitation centre. The government is not aware of any final decision in this regard on the part of the government of the province of Quebec.


*ST. SYLVESTRE RADAR STATION    DISCUSSIONS WITH QUEBEC HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Mr. Choqueiie: With reference to the radar station at St. Sylvestre, Lotbiniere county (a) has the government had discussions with the minister and officers of the department of health of Quebec (b) what was the nature of the discussions and what conclusion, if any, was reached?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: (a) No.
(b) Not applicable.


*ST. SYLVESTRE RADAR STATION    USE BY INDUSTRY
Mr. Choqueiie: 1.	Has the government made any particular effort to get industrialists interested in the site of the radar station at St. Sylvestre, Lotbiniere county?
2.	Does the government see any possibility of establishing a profitable industry in the above-mentioned location?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. The area development agency has carried out a study to determine whether


IS, 1964
[Stage Direction]
there might be any alternative uses for the radar station at St. Sylvestre for industrial purposes. The study was undertaken in cooperation with the government of the province of Quebec and with municipal authorities. The government has not, as yet been successful in interesting industrialists in the site.
2. Any such possibility is not foreseen at present.
^RENTAL OF STONE CRUSHER, ST. LEONARD, QUE.
Mr. Ricard: Has the Minister of Defence Production signed a contract with Payette Construction Limited, of St. Leonard, Quebec, for the rental of a portable stone crusher and, if so (a) what is the amount of the contract (b) in what construction project will the machine be used?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes. As a result of competitive tender call, on June 3, 1964, contract MON4-1079/1 for the hiring of a portable stone crusher plant was awarded to Payette Construction Limited, 8435 Langelier, St. Leonard, P.Q. by the Montreal regional office, Department of Defence Production, (a) Payment is to be made on the basis of $0.78 per cubic yard of crushed gravel produced. The contract has a financial limitation of $10,000. (b) The gravel is required for road repairs at Bouchard military camp, Ste. Therese de Blainville, P.Q.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a question of privilege. One of the questions which the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State asked to stand was question No. 1,265, which has been on the order paper since June 10, a matter of 35 days. In view of the nature of the question it seems to me it is one to which an appropriate official could find an answer within a matter of hours. The question is:
Are there in effect any regulations or orders in council, published or unpublished, respecting wiretapping of telephone or telegraph communications and, if so, what are the numbers and dates thereof?
I wonder if the answer to that question could not be brought down very soon?


John B. Stewart: I shall ascertain if it will be possible to answer the question shortly.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to the failure of the C.B.C. to provide an answer for starred question No. 1,296. I
Motions for Papers
want to bring to the attention of my colleagues in the house at least two points because I think the refusal of the C.B.C. should be considered in this house, and I want the minister to look into it.
First I suggest that the information we have been given in connection with the Pearson film includes such things as the costs and the release of the production to film societies and so on. In other words, it seems to me that in the Pearson film the C.B.C. has already breached the very rules it has drawn up against giving out any information on the second question.
The second point is that in the public accounts committee the Auditor General has drawn to our attention in the reports for two year samples of C.B.C. programs that have not been run, and giving the costs; and from the president of the C.B.C. we have had an explanation in that committee as to what happened with these particular programs. It seems just flying in the face of whatever privileges we may have as members of parliament that if when we wait two or three years we can get this information through the Auditor General, and through the president of the C.B.C. appearing before that committee, but we cannot have the information as the result of a direct question placed on the order paper.
For that reason I would like to ask the minister who reports to this house for the C.B.C. to consult with the C.B.C. and ask them if they would not look at this whole question again; I do not mean this single question, but the whole privilege that I believe is involved.


Maurice Lamontagne: I will look into it, Mr. Speaker.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, motion No. 140 is accepted. I ask that motions Nos. 133, 134 and 135 stand. Will Your Honour please call motion No. 139?


FLAG LETTER FROM MRS. J. LEVERIDGE
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 140-Mr. Millar:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of a letter from Mrs. J. Leveridge, R.R. No. 2, Brighton, Ontario to the Prime Minister regarding the three maple leaf flag and the copy of the reply thereto.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 139-Mr. Laprise:
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, or other correspondence exchanged between the Secretary of State for External Affairs or any official of his department and the government of Cyprus or its representatives, concerning the offer of financial help made by the Canadian government during the years 1963 and 1964.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to be good enough to withdraw this motion, because there is no correspondence.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, as can be seen on page 4839 of Hansard, answer has been given by the minister to the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) who had directed the following question to him:
Since it is rumoured that Canada will renew its participation to the United Nations force in Cyprus, which will entail a supplementary expenditure of about $2 million, would the minister consider suggesting to the United Nations that this huge amount be distributed so as to help the economic conditions of the Cypriots instead of imposing this force upon them, because I believe this would pave the way for an agreement between the two communities in Cyprus.
To this, the minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, before the United Nations force was set up, the Canadian government had made the same suggestion as advanced by the hon. member; unfortunately, it was a long range proposal and it was not considered acceptable in February.
How can the minister explain that proposals have been made without there being any correspondence with the Cypriot government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between the government of Canada and those of other countries and also the United Nations. The motion asks for the production of letters exchanged between us and the government of Cyprus, and there have not been any.
[Text]	-


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand the motion is now withdrawn?


Gérard Laprise: Yes.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I direct my inquiry to the Secretary of State. It arises out of the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in which it is stated that a public inquiry is most advisable at this time concerning the affairs of the C.B.C. The suggestion is that it would make possible the orderly and efficient development of the national services if they were given on a charter basis.
The question often arises whether or not parliament is efficient and whether its members have sufficient to do. Does not this report indicate that the request on the part of the opposition for a parliamentary committee on the C.B.C. is justified, and would the minister not consider recommending the setting up of such a committee? With many members available for the purpose, and knowledgeable on the subject, and parliament being responsible for the financing of the corporation, does the hon. gentleman not think it is a parliamentary inquiry which should be initiated in this connection?


Maurice Lamontagne: The house will recall that at the end of May I announced the establishment of a committee to study broadcasting in Canada and to review the present legislation. I think the matters raised in this report produced by the C.B.C. should first be reviewed and carefully studied by this committee. Later, as I have already said here, when this committee reports and makes recommendations to the government we shall introduce legislation in this house, and at the time this legislation is considered there will be a parliamentary committee.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister's answer mean that he does not think members of parliament, with the wide knowledge they have, are able to give full consideration to these matters, particularly when parliament is asked to put up some $80 million in this connection? Why should parliament be evaded in this way?


Maurice Lamontagne: Parliament will certainly not be evaded. It will have full opportunity to consider any change in the legislation and any change in the structure of the C.B.C.


PROVISION OF CAPITAL FUND FOR EXTENSION OF SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Secretary of State a question dealing with the C.B.C. report. I want to ask him whether he has brought before his colleagues for consideration the proposal of the C.B.C. that a $15 million capital fund would enable it at one stride to cover all those Canadians who at the present time do not have television and radio service.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, this problem as well as other related problems is now being studied by the advisory committee on broadcasting and we hope to be able, as I said, to bring forward legislation next year to cover this aspect of C.B.C. financing as well as others.


VANCOUVER-POSSIBLE USE OF FORMER R.C.A.F. BASE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would direct a question to the Minister of Industry and ask him whether he has been advised that the city council of Vancouver yesterday passed a resolution to the effect that the authorities in Ottawa be asked for a 60 day deferment of any decision on the Kitsilano R.C.A.F. site, and that in the meantime the council investigate the possibility of locating the C.B.C. on another adequate site. Has he received such a resolution which has been passed by the city of Vancouver council, and if so will that request receive favourable consideration?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I have not received a copy of the resolution but I do have a wire which is addressed to me, as well as to a number of other members of the government, in substantially the same terms as those read out by the Leader of the Opposition. The request of the city of Vancouver, which is seeking to implement a suggestion made some time ago by the Postmaster General to the city council, will get favourable consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: Does that mean favourable consideration, and not that an abrupt decision will be made later this week without regard to the wishes of the council of the city of Vancouver?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I said that the request for a reasonable deferment would get favourable consideration.
Inquiries of the Ministry AIR TRANSPORT


REQUEST FOR REPORT ON CRASH OF T.C.A. PLANE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport; I wish to assure him it has nothing to do with the Jet Star. I wonder if he could tell me if the inquiry into the DC-8 crash at Ste. Therese has now been completed and when we can expect the findings to be made public.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman has asked a question about a very grave matter about which there is a great deal of concern. He was good enough to give me notice in ample time for me to prepare a reply. I do not usually read a reply, but in view of the gravity of the circumstances and their tragic nature I would not wish to use any words which had not been carefully considered. Perhaps the house would permit me to read the answer instead of speaking extemporaneously.
The transport department's investigation of the T.C.A. DC-8 crash at Ste. Thdrese, Quebec last November is expected to be completed by mid-September. The investigators have recovered 105,000 pounds or 76 per cent of the aircraft structure, all of which has been minutely examined by technical specialists. Significant items have also been studied and dissected in laboratories together with scrap sized pieces of metal which it would be impracticable to retrieve but from which samples have been taken. An estimated 90 per cent of the structure can now be accounted for.
The investigation, which I am told is the largest in Canadian aviation history, has been carried out by six working groups under the general direction of the chief of accident investigation division of the Department of Transport. Each group is headed by a government employee either of the Department of Transport, the national research council or the R.C.A.F., and consists of experts drawn from the government, T.C.A., United Aircraft Corporation, Canadair and the Canadian air line pilots association. The investigation team is concerned only with the determination of facts, and it is not their responsibility to allocate blame.
At the moment reports from the laboratories and specialists are being analysed. When this is completed the findings will come to me as Minister of Transport. I will have the responsibility to decide whether a

Inquiries of the Ministry board of inquiry is to be convened at which the findings of the investigators would be presented at a public hearing. If such a board is convened it will consist of persons who are not employed in the Department of Transport or T.C.A.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister could give us an approximate figure of the expenses which have so far been incurred in this inquiry.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should not like to give a figure off the top of my head but I am afraid it is pretty large.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marecux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Postmaster General. Is the minister aware of the fact that next fall's "national housing parade" will be seriously jeopardized if C.M.H.C. does not change its lending policy concerning builders?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. The matter is under active study and I hope to be able to make a definite announcement before the end of next week.


REPORTED ADVERSE EFFECT OF CONSTRUCTION BONUS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of a memorandum on the winter house building incentive program sent to the minister by the Montreal construction association, which states among other things that "the program did not stimulate housing demand above normal levels on an annual basis", is the minister giving any consideration to discontinuing this program?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, naturally I do not accept as fact the allegations made in the memorandum, because I think the experience is exactly the opposite. Not only did the program shift construction from the high seasonal period of

activity in the summer to the winter months, but in our view it also had a total effect on housing demand. There is no intention of discontinuing the program, although 1 assured the officers of the Montreal builders association yesterday that every consideration would be given to their point of view with regard to the effect of the program on the building industry but that we intended to continue the program.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. How does the minister substantiate his answer in view of the d.b.s. labour statistics release today which states that "the increase in construction employment between May and June was below average for the time of year"?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I conceded that particular point because this was one of the objectives of the winter house building program. There has been some decrease in house building activity at this particular time of the year, which we expected when the program was initiated.


EDUCATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the government received a letter of protest from Quebec's university student associations concerning the legislation introduced to facilitate student loans?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have received no such letter myself, but I will find out.


U.S. CONSIDERATION OF COUNTERVAILING DUTIES ON AUTOMOBILES AND PARTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Industry and ask whether he has received any word yet as to a decision by the United States government on the Canada remission tariff plan. This matter has been studied by the United States treasury department and by the commissioner of

customs in that country. Has the minister received any word yet on their decision in respect to this Canadian plan?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in respect to the inquiry being conducted by the commissioner of customs in the United States, the last date for submitting briefs for consideration by the commissioner is August 3. Consequently the commissioner will not be in a position before August 3 even to consider the brief which has been submitted. Therefore, manifestly one cannot expect a decision until some time after that date.


Michael Starr: My supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I realize is hypothetical; none the less I wish to press it, and it is this. If the United States government finds that this is what they term a bounty under their law, what would be the position of the Canadian government at that time?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should give a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Mariineau (Pontiac-Temiscamin-gue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Could he tell the house whether the government is considering revising the Immigration Act and the procedures of admission into the country, in order to implement, as far as Canada is concerned, the wishes expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in London regarding equality of races within the commonwealth?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the present Immigration Act makes no discrimination against any race. The only criteria on which selection of immigrants is based are the degree of education and possession of a trade. I do not think there is any need to amend the Immigration Act to remove any discrimination.
As for amending some other provisions of the Immigration Act, I hope to put amendments before the house any day now.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell us whether the officials of his department have made any
Inquiries of the Ministry progress with the revision of procedures of admission into this country, as promised by the minister some months ago?


René Tremblay: Yes, Mr. Speaker, every day we endeavour to improve our immigrant admission procedures.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS DISCUSSIONS WITH B.C. PREMIER DURING OTTAWA VISIT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has he made arrangements to discuss the co-operative development of the Fraser river between the federal and provincial governments with Premier Bennett when he visits Ottawa in the near future in connection with the British Columbia bank?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no communication from the premier of British Columbia to me along this line.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question for the Minister of Public Works. Has he been asked by the premier of British Columbia to discuss the question of the extension of the trans-Canada highway to the northern end of Vancouver island when the premier visits Ottawa?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I will have to inquire, Mr. Speaker. I cannot recall whether I have received any letters in this respect.


DEFENCE PRODUCTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question for the minister of Defence Production and Industry. May I ask the minister, is it correct that a $3i million conversion contract for the destroyer Skeena has been designated to the Davie Shipbuilding Company of Lauzon, Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question, although very important, surely could be put on the order paper.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Muir: With all due respect to you, sir, I should like to raise a point of order in view of the fact that a few moments ago a rather facetious question was posed by a member of the Liberal party to the Minister of Justice. If Your Honour would bear with me I would like to point out why this question is of the utmost importance.
No. 1. Because of the high employment rate on the west coast as a result of the large wheat sales and grain handling involved.
No. 2. Quebec yards have already recently received several large shipbuilding contracts.
No. 3. Cut-backs in defence contracts have resulted in substantial lay-offs in many areas of my province.
No. 4. -


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this demonstrates very clearly that the question should be put on the order paper.


Robert Muir: I should like to debate this question at the first opportunity, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. On June 18 last I raised this question with the Minister of Justice following a question I put on the order paper. In raising the question, it is no criticism of his department or of the minister. However, I would bring to his attention the fact that Mr. J. C. A. LaFerriere, director of inmate training, says we are now putting twice as many children in the penitentiaries each year as we did ten years ago. This is contained in the report of the committee of 1962 on juvenile delinquency. In view of this fact, is there any thought of amending the Criminal Code in reference to putting in jail children over the age of seven; and is there any movement or plan to segregate juveniles from mature people in our penitentiaries?


Mr. Speaker:: This surely is a question for the order paper also.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then, Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, I serve notice that I would like to debate this question at 10.30. It is an important question, and the minister said he would answer it.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence.
Is it his intention to establish a complete four year course at the College Militaire Royal de St. Jean at an early date?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, this question is still under study.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. I am surprised at that delay, but since during the last election campaign the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) made a formal promise in this connection, how does he explain such a delay?



REQUIREMENTS RESPECTING BILINGUALISM IN CONSIDERING PROMOTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my
question is to the Associate Minister of National Defence. He said yesterday that he would study carefully in Hansard the question I put to him at that time. I wonder whether he can reply now.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the hon. member for Yukon asked a series of questions based, as he said on press and radio reports with regard to an order issued by the Canadian army concerning bilingual requirements in the promotion of officers. I gave an answer to one of his questions, but told the hon. member that I would prefer to read his subsequent inquiries in Hansard before attempting to give a detailed reply.
The report appearing in various news media has caused some concern, and I should like at this time not only to reply to those questions left unanswered but also to elaborate on the answer I did give.
First of all, contrary to the impression one might obtain from reading press reports, the order in question is not new. It was in fact issued in December of last year, and related to the commitments of the Canadian army both overseas and for training army personnel in Canada requiring bilingual service officers and men.

In so far as promotion is concerned, the order states that bilingualism would be one of many factors to be considered in career advancement. In that regard I should like to clarify the statement which I am reported to have made in Hansard yesterday. What I thought I had said, and what I should have said, was that bilingualism would be a requirement in certain promotions. Officers and men will continue to be promoted without such a requirement depending upon the positions to be filled; but where a knowledge of both languages is required, then those who have qualified will have an additional credit. In other words it will obviously be a determining factor where positions demand a bilingual capability, but the extent to which this factor would enhance careers in the army generally will depend on many other factors besides the bilingual one.


Erik Nielsen: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. First, I wonder whether the minister would be kind enough to table a copy of the order to which he referred, perhaps tomorrow. Can he say whether the order to which he referred as being directed to the army also applies to the navy and the air force; and could the minister also inform the house whether that order or any similar order has any bearing in determining which of the 16,000 personnel are to be released over the next few months?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The order in question affects merely the army. As hon. members can well imagine, there is a greater requirement for bilingual officers in the army than there is in either the navy or the air force. However, I personally would like to see this type of order in both the other two services.
As far as the other part of the question is concerned, the matter of tabling the order, I have no objection to having it tabled immediately.


Erik Nielsen: There was the other part of the question. Can the minister inform the house whether this order or any similar order has any bearing in determining which of the 16,000 armed forces personnel have been and are to be released


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, it has not, Mr. Speaker.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State, following a promise made by his party during the last electoral campaign.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Does the minister intend to amend the Civil Service Act to provide for a bonus for bilingual employees, as promised by his party during the last election campaign? Yes or no?

Yes or no? It is easy.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, the government has asked an inter-departmental committee to consider the different aspects of bilingualism within the civil service and, as yet, we have received no report.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. How come that in spite of the 60 days of action of the Liberal government during which all problems were to be settled, there is all this delay? Is it done on purpose by the government?


Maurice Lamontagne: I can assure my hon. friend that it will not take six years.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I have a supplementary question for the Associate Minister of National Defence, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the minister whether the order to which he refers has reference only to the two official languages of Canada, or is it of any benefit to a member of the armed forces to be bilingual with regard to one of Canada's official languages plus a foreign language?


Robert Muir: How about Gaelic?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I would hardly think it could be claimed that there are foreign languages in Canada, but the order refers to the two official languages.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence gives courses in foreign languages. There are some appointments with regard to which knowledge of a foreign language is listed as a requirement, or at least of very great benefit in the case of such persons as military attaches.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: If anyone has knowledge of a language other than French or English I would expect that his second language could possibly be used in other areas of the world, and would also be considered a factor in promotion.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the minister that I hope Gaelic will be considered

Inquiries of the Ministry to be an asset in the services. May I ask him if the present Minister of National Defence is bilingual?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes, he is.



FLAG DEBATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, as leader of the house. Can he inform the house if the government, or himself, as regards the flag debate, has considered the possibility of having amendments made to the standing orders of the house in order to allow the members who so desire, to file their speeches with the Clerk of the house, and that these speeches be taken as read, as it is done in Washington, thus avoiding lengthy debates and continuous repetitions that only delay the vote?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Move to the United States.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, this question can be interesting, and it could be deferred to the special committee on procedure.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Would the minister make representations to that committee in order that this suggestion might be considered and applied also to other debates in the house?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Go to the United States.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, did the minister give a serious answer? Does he intend such a ridiculous proposition to be considered in a parliamentary system carried on in the British tradition?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, what I said exactly was that this was not a question for the house leader or the Minister of Justice, but a question rather for consideration by the special committee on procedure. Whether the committee would report favourably or unfavourably is something which would be left to the total freedom of consideration and report of that committee.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Does the leader

of the house think we have the right to form an opinion in this house, regardless of what the Leader of the Opposition thinks about it?



REQUEST FOR FRENCH TRANSLATION OF REPORTS ISSUED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, relating to the bilingualism spirit which now prevails.
Last Friday the Minister of Agriculture tabled the eastern Canada farm survey for 1963. Could the minister tell us whether it is his intention to table the French version of this survey or, if there is no French version, whether he intends to have the report translated so that it can be made available to hon. members and organizations interested in the agricultural situation in eastern Canada?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, we will be glad to consider this. I think it probably should be in both languages, because it certainly is of a great deal of interest to many people in Quebec. I realize this.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker I should like to put a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce?
Still in that bilingualism spirit, could the minister tell us whether the French version of the Canada Year Book, the English version of which has been at the disposal of the public for some months already, will soon be ready?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I will make inquiries. We are proceeding with this as rapidly as possible. We have our difficulties because so much government work is now being published in both languages.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I hesitate to ask

it lest I should disturb his comparative peace today. In his capacity as Acting Prime Minister, or as Secretary of State for External Affairs has he had any communication with the Prime Minister regarding the possibility of Ottawa becoming the headquarters for a commonwealth secretariat?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been discussed but there is no decision, of course, because the question is now in the exploratory stage.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Under the rules given to the Chair by the house we have half an hour for questions today. We started at 2.27 and it is now after 2.59, which is a few minutes over the 30 minutes allowed.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, July 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gordon for the second reading of Bill No. C-110, to facilitate the making of loans to students.
Mr. Remi Paul (Berthier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere):: Mr. Speaker, during the short time I spoke last night, I pointed out that federal-provincial relations today have reached a climax, since they tend more and more towards the establishment of a Unitarian system rather than a federal one. So much so that the bill now before us constitutes a federal government intrusion in a field which, under section 93 of the British North America Act, is assigned exclusively to the provinces.
I also reminded the house that several judgments of the privy council had established that provinces could not do indirectly what they were not allowed to do directly. One can find in Hansard certain cases related to the study of this matter of constitutional jurisdiction.
I pointed out also that the co-operative federalism advocated by our hon. friends opposite is a disguised, hypocritical, camouflaged and diplomatic method of centralization, such as we knew it under the governments of prime ministers King and St. Laurent.
Loans to Students
I pointed out that the bill under consideration is an interference of the federal government in the field of education.
Allow me to refer to a speech made before the house in 1958 by Hon. Donald Fleming, the then minister of finance, at a time when the matter of grants to universities was discussed. As reported at page 4726 of Hansard, he stated:
We recognize and we respect the provinces' absolute jurisdiction in the field of education. The increased grants proposed by the government are merely a necessary aid to universities, without government infringement upon a single provincial responsibility. As long as this government is in power, it will never encroach upon education, which is a provincial matter.
My argument is based on this statement of the former minister of finance.
It is also based on a very important statement made by the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin) in March last, in Toronto. Here is what the parliamentary secretary of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce said, according to the report of the newspaper La Presse of Thursday, March 19, 1964, which I quote:
As soon as they were announced, the federal loans to students were condemned by the provincial government and the Quebec students themselves. That was to be expected, for which autonomist can interpret such distribution of funds for education purposes otherwise than as a flagrant interference in a provincial field?
Up to this week, however, no Liberal member, as far as we know, had publicly objected to such action.
It was Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin, Drummond-Artha-baska, assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who took action in this respect in Toronto on Monday night.
And I quote:
"The provinces, he said, would discharge this responsibility more efficiently." Yet, Ottawa might, he thinks, facilitate the development of universities by resorting to loans from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and continue to distribute postgraduate fellowships through the Canada council and the national research council. But when it comes to loans and scholarships to students in general, that is a "real provocation".
I wonder whether the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska will repeat the same ideas and argue in the same way when we discuss this legislation. I understand that the hon. member may have had some serious reasons for being absent yesterday, but we find that today he is still absent.
The author of the article, Mr. Larochelle, says further:
Mr. Pepin considers all this as many others do (the English language dailies, for instance, among which the Montreal Gazette of February 24, 1964),

Loans to Students
but to proclaim it and sound the alarm as a government member, that is quite another thing.
And Mr. Larochelle adds:
Well done, Mr. Pepin. You might give some of your courage to your colleagues on the treasury benches.
The door is now open to you members from Quebec, who, like myself, come from the most autonomist province.
I do not see many who have the courage to denounce that centralizing legislation which this government has introduced. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, nobody need be shocked if I attack a measure which I consider to be anticonstitutional, since the students themselves, through the students' association of Quebec, recently expressed their views most vigorously and, in spite of their needs, in spite of the aid which student loans would represent, had the courage to sacrifice this mess of pot-age offered to them, because it was an intrusion into the field which the province of Quebec considers most sacred, that is the educational field.
Indeed-and this is a strange coincidence -a well known columnist, Mr. Paul Sauriol, just wrote in Le Devoir, which is generally quite sympathetic to our friends opposite, an editorial published today about the problem of student loans and co-operative federalism.
It is unfortunate that the Quebec leader, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), should be referred to in this article, because these are not necessarily his views, especially on this matter of federal intrusion into the field of civil rights, as I intend to point out to him shortly. Mr. Sauriol, referring to the recent break between the two Quebec Liberal organizations in the federal and provincial fields, quoted a statement made by the Minister of Justice at the convention held recently in Quebec city:
In a sound provincial system, both levels of government fully respect the jurisdiction and responsibilities of either one.
What a wonderful theory. What a poor showing.
That is a clear and unqualified text on the requirements of federalism. In the Canadian constitution, education comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces: however, Mr. Favreau, as a minister in the Pearson government, proposes and commends those federal loans to students, which are an invasion of provincial jurisdiction.
Today, prominent jurists of the province of Quebec who sit on the other side-I can see my hon. friend from Argenteuil-Deux-Mon-tagnes (Mr. Drouin) and the member for St.

Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner)-will analyse very carefully, I hope, the point concerning the constitutionality of this bill.
I proceed with Mr. Sauriol's article:
That is a clear and unqualified text on the requirements of federalism. But, in the Canadian constitution, education comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces; however, Mr. Favreau, as minister in the Pearson government, proposes and commends those federal loans to students, which are an invasion of provincial jurisdiction. According to Mr. Favreau's own definition, it can be said that the confederation is sick.
-That is what is called respecting the rights of the provinces.
The journalist comments upon a statement made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne), and Mr. Sauriol continues:
That system remains unacceptable because the central government is taking the initiative in matters which fall exclusively under provincial jurisdiction, collecting and using taxes in that way for provincial purposes, imposing controls and the terms of its program even to the provinces which would like to be kept out of it.
I know that my friends opposite will refer to that provision of the bill, in section 12 and the following clauses, which concerns alternative payments, but I do not believe that some of my friends opposite will favour such an evident breach of the Canadian constitution. I have a right to wonder, as they should themselves, why there is in Quebec a nationalism crisis?
We do not have to look further than the disrespect of the British North America Act. If the federal government had respected the text and the spirit of the confederation, the province of Quebec would not be facing that surge of nationalism which becomes necessary, under certain circumstances, to hold in check the centralizing efforts of bureaucrats who exercised their evil and autocratic influence in 1951, under the St. Laurent and King administrations. Some of them are now sitting on cabinet benches and they have only one objective, push down the throat of the nation a unitary system, at the expense of federalism which is so necessary to the development of the rights, the prerogatives and the very existence of the province of Quebec.


Gérald Laniel: Ask Mr. Diefenbaker.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wishes to ask a question, I suggest he should rise and do so.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanau-diere tell us whether he is giving his personal

opinion, that of his party or that of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker)?


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, I am giving my personal opinion, and for the information of the hon. member for Beauhamois-Salaberry, I must say that as a member from the province of Quebec, it is my sacred responsibility to defend the education system which was the very source of our progress, of our development in the province of Quebec, and my hon. friend has no right to be a traitor to the con-federative act.
The hon. member may very well preach in favour of compulsory military enrolment, but that will not bring salvation to the province of Quebec which intends to go on living and developing under our system of confederation, provided, as I said earlier, that the spirit as well as the letter of the confederation pact is adhered to.	.
Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, Bill No. C-110 constitutes a glaring intrusion by the federal government into an exclusively provincial field. Moreover, it constitutes an encroachment upon the most elementary principle of Quebec's civil code. I again ask the great legal minds sitting on the government side to assist me in considering section 15 of the bill before us, which reads as follows:
A guaranteed student loan made by a bank to a borrower not of full age, and interest thereon other than interest payable under section 6, is recoverable by a bank from the borrower as though the borrower had been of full age at the time the loan was made.
Shame, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Oh, oh.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, I hear the hon. member for Longueuil say: Oh, oh. It would have been better for him to spend a few months at the university in order to acquire a few legal notions, for he would have known that civil law comes exclusively under the provinces, that the question of majority is a civil law matter into which the federal government has no right to intervene, as it is now doing.
I would suggest that the hon. member for Longueuil ask his colleagues, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Drouin), the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner), the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cardin) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) whether the question of majority comes under the civil code of the province of Quebec, especially sections 242 and following.
Loans to Students
This piece of federal legislation clearly goes against the provisions of the civil code. I am not familiar with the civil law of the other provinces, but I am speaking here as a Quebec member. What will happen when a minor is taken to court under this bill? The only way to get out of the lawsuit will be to have it thrown out of court on a technicality as provided in the code of civil procedure of the province of Quebec.
At that time, what should be the decision of the court? What legal obligation will this legislation impose on the counsel? The latter will have first of all to plead the unconstitutionality of this legislation, since civil law is the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. And I challenge anybody among the members opposite to contradict the fact that the question of majority is one of civil right exclusively reserved to the provinces, as clearly and specifically established by section 242 and the following sections in the civil code of the province of Quebec, and accordingly, in the rules of procedure that may be found in section 164 and following of the code of civil procedure of the province of Quebec?
Mr. Speaker, other questions are also at stake. Let us therefore read the other sections of this bill. Let us see what is said in paragraph (a) of section 13:
The governor In council may make regulations (a) prescribing the forms of agreements-
The federal government will now interfere in a civil action taken by a citizen of another province. Another intrusion of the federal government in the field of civil liability. The governor in council will interfere to amend the provisions of the civil code concerning the amendment of an agreement between a borrower, on one hand, and a bank, on the other.
You might state that, in that instance, there is a federal legal provision, since the federal Bank Act is involved. I admit this point, but, then, we are concerned with an action of mixed character, from a legal point of view, an action of joint jurisdiction. What steps will the minister take concerning the wording of the bill, which once again, infringes on the civil code of the province of Quebec?
Paragraph d) of clause 13 reads as follows:
The governor in council may make regulations providing for the assignment or transfer-
This is another measure of civil law which can be found in section 1155 and the following sections of the code of civil law of the province of Quebec, while the question of subrogation is a matter of civil law in which

Loans to Students
the federal government cannot interfere. It is another interference of the federal government in a field of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
There are other measures which affect civil law, property rights. And now the federal government interferes in another provincial field, by virtue of provisions of paragraph (k), section 13, which reads as follows:
The governor in council may make regulations prescribing the maximum number of academic years-
Here is another direct and baneful interference of the federal government, which is to decide on the number of years during which a citizen of a province-and I speak of the province of Quebec-will have to go to school or college in order to be granted a certificate or a diploma. This is the exclusive jurisdiction of the minister of education in the province of Quebec and the federal government has no right to interfere in that field. I would like to hear some adverse comments from the legal minds.
Another matter, Mr. Speaker. Paragraph (n) of section 13 provides that:
The governor in council may make regulations prescribing the method of determining when the student is or ceases to be a full time student.
If this is not complete interference of the federal government in the field of education -and I am speaking of the province of Quebec-what is it?
This legislation is further proof of the fact that we have another centralizing government in office but that was a characteristic attitude of all the Liberal administrations we have had in Canada since the second world war and especially since 1939.
That is not all. Paragraph (p) of section 13 provides:
The governor in council may make regulations prescribing any other matter or thing that under this act is to be prescribed or prescribed by the regulations.
That leaves the door wide open for the worst abuses and intrusions on the part of the federal government concerning the regulations adopted by the various provincial departments of education.
I see my hon. friend, the member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) shaking his head in denial. But let him stand up and ask a legal question. We are not going to turn this into a political problem, because unfortunately we have too often been slaves to a political party. That is why today we must set aside partisanship when the respect of the Canadian constitution is at stake, a constitution

which allows for the development and overlapping of two cultures, two races, two languages willing to work for the greatness and prosperity of Canada as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, there are other means of helping students. The provinces have also imperious needs in view of their present development, which is really going at a dizzy speed in Quebec, and I am proud to point it out.
But will this measure solve the educational problem in the province of Quebec? With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it will not, and I say that the federal government should, while complying with the constitution, make more generous concessions to the provinces, under the form of unconditional equalization payments. Provincial authorities could then enact legislation concerning education and pass measures which would meet the true regional needs of the various categories of students in the province of Quebec.
According to our hon. friends, there would be an escape clause in this bill. I admit that the option formula could be of some use in the present circumstances. I appreciate the fact that clause 12 of the bill provides for alternative payments, but it is precisely to this principle that I, as many others, am opposed. There is, of course, this way out which makes it possible to vote in favour of this bill, because it provides for alternative payments to the provinces.
But time has come to put a stop to the federal intrusion in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
In 1958-59, under the Conservative administration, we solved a disputable question, the one concerning university grants. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition pointed out the outstanding work accomplished to that effect by the late premier of the province of Quebec, Mr. Paul Sauve.
But we have not solved this problem; we have solved it only on a temporary basis, in spite of one concession which I would not call pernicious, but generous; indeed, as I said a while ago and as is specifically defined in the British North America Act, education is under the exclusive control of the provinces, the federal government's interference being justified only in cases where the minority rights would be at stake.
It is a pity that the federal government, of whatever political colour, did not act more often to enforce the rights of the minorities in provinces other than the province of Quebec, so that these minorities would get

lair treatment similar to that given the English minority in the province of Quebec. The federal government's intervention would have been justified in such a case, and it might have prevented this nationalism crisis which affects the whole of Canada today. This would have been the only possible condition for the federal government intervening in the education field, and not the introduction of this legislation which is bringing up again the matter of the minorities' privileges and rights.
No, Mr. Speaker. Since the last war we have been witnessing a continual intrusion in the provincial fields on the part of the federal government. On a pretext of war urgency, provinces have been asked to yield their rights. They agreed to do so because those rights were to be returned to them as soon as the war would be over, but since then, the federal government has refused to reconvey those rights to the provinces.
That is why we are forced to consider all sorts of compromise, liable to sharpen the nationalistic requirements of those who have had enough of being dealt with unfairly by the federal government, whatever party is in office.
Mr. Speaker, the principle of responsibilitysharing is not admissible and unfortunately, I cannot support the argument that a department of education should be established in Ottawa at the present time. I am against this principle because education comes within the provincial jurisdiction. I am not any more in favour of setting up a committee on education. The present government has enough responsibilities as it is. It must solve the unemployment problem, that of the constant rise of the cost of living, the various economic problems, not to mention eastern agriculture.
Why should they now want to legislate in a field which does not concern them?
I would say to my Liberal friends, look after your own problems. You have plenty. And if you really want to promote education in Canada, be more generous to the provinces, so they can carry out the education programs they have laid out.
I respect and share the opinion of my English speaking colleagues who, in the circumstances, can easily vote for this bill, because the nine other provinces do not have the education system ours has. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, those nine other provinces have the same culture, the same language, the same religion, while the language, culture and history of the province of Quebec are different.
Loans to Students
We speak of respect for the constitution. When the fathers of confederation accepted the constitution in 1867, it was because they saw in it an opportunity to survive. Prior to that, there had been a separate system, which had not given good results and had not settled the problem of the two great races then facing one another. The Union Act was followed by the British North America Act, which the people of Quebec generously supported because they thought-as they still do-that it was their last hope. Indeed, the British North America Act does contain legislative provisions for the respect of the rights of minorities, of whatever race they may be.
Personally, Mr. Speaker, I will vote against that bill. It does not matter if I am the only one of my party to do so. I respect the ideas of my Conservative colleagues and I understand that they may vote in favour of that legislation, on account of the provisions for substitution payments. But basically this legislation is an intrusion into the educational field, and as long as this government does not respect education and educational freedom in the province of Quebec, I will consider it my duty to object to any legislation which it will introduce.


Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, after having heard the firm speech of the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) who is an eminent expert in constitutional law, I find it extremely difficult to speak in favour of the bill concerning student loans.
However, I will try to bring to the debate the contribution of the head of a family whose three children are attending university. I met him yesterday morning and asked him what he thought of the joint statement made by university student groups. He replied: "Those children are unaware of the problems of the head of a family who is racking his brains to pay the university studies of his children."
Then, of course, a father does not see the problem in the same light as an expert in constitutional law. The hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) is, however, fully justified when he insists on the rights of Quebec in that field, and I heartily approve him.
I also know, however, that certain pedagogues disagree somewhat on educational matters with experts in constitutional law.
For instance, I remember reading not so long ago a speech delivered by Mr. Treffie Boulanger, of Montreal, one of the most

Loans to Students
prominent pedagogues of the province of Quebec, where he advocated the establishment of a federal department of education, precisely for the following reason: "Because, he said, there are over 1.5 million French Canadians in other provinces, and such a department would help them to preserve their language." This is one of the major problems in Canada and it might be one of the basic reasons put forward by those who advocate the secession of Quebec, because they see that their fellow citizens in the other provinces are losing what they are the most attached to, namely their language and often their faith.
But today, as a member of the federal parliament, I must also think, without forgetting my Quebec fellow citizens, about that million and a half of my compatriots whom I visited on some occasions in the various provinces of Canada, and whom I want to support and assist.
I know that this legislation will certainly help them to become Canadians on an equal footing with our English speaking compatriots. I feel that those compatriots have the right to go to the university and to improve their minds, and this legislation will certainly benefit them. That is why if, in theory, I have reasons to be against that kind of violation of the constitutional rights of Quebec, all the same in practice I am in favour of this legislation which will enable thousands of my compatriots in other provinces-and I mean French speaking and English speaking Canadians-to continue their studies at the university.
About that matter, in particular, I would like to read to the house a statement made by Hon. Mr. Lesage. According to the Quebec city newspaper L'Evenement, he said to the Prime Minister of Canada and the provincial premiers:
-the only way to solve the problem was for the federal government to give hack to Quebec fiscal compensation which will equal the amounts spent to reimburse the interest on student loans made by banks and other institutions, taking into account the relative proportion of the Quebec population.
In my opinion, the letter and the spirit of the legislation seem to be consistent with that statement at the present time.
Now, I should like to deal with a point which was raised yesterday by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) and stressed by other speakers who preceded me, but I want nevertheless to refer thereto, because it is a statement that surprised me enormously,

coming from a financial expert. I heard the Minister of Finance say that banks lend only the money of their depositors.
I think that he made a slip, because certainly he would not have made such a statement. In my opinion, he is a very responsible man who is quite familiar with the chartered banks act. At all events, may I quote from page 1088 of the Canada Year Book for 1962, which says:
-the central bank can determine within broad limits the total amount of chartered banks assets and deposits-
This is the important point.
-but leaves the allocation of bank credit and other forms of credit to the private sector of the economy.
What does that mean? It means that any allocation of credit in Canada is made through chartered banks. On the other hand, I might also quote, for instance, one of the great economists that several members of the house certainly know, namely Mr. Paul Samuelson who, in his book entitled "Economics", says on page 204:
Credit establishments or commercial banks are the only organizations able to supply bank money or script money that can conveniently be used as payment instruments. Such is their main role and function.
And on 221, the same great economist, Mr. Samuelson, goes on to say:
The bankers say: We can only invest the money that our clients leave with us. We create nothing. We only put to work the savings of the community.
Mr. Samuelson declares that the bankers who support this argument are completely in error.
I think that Mr. Samuelson uses the words "are completely in error" because he is very polite, for there are other words to say that.
Perhaps, I could quote a hundred other utterances to prove to the Minister of Finance that bank credit is really created by the chartered banks, and that they do not simply loan their clients' savings. I could also quote economists, bankers, professors, financial analysts from various countries of the world to support this argument.
Of course, it is unthinkable that such a statement should have been made by the minister, but, as I have said a while ago, it is surely a slip of the tongue.
I noticed that in his opening remarks the minister congratulated certain organizations which have already granted loans to students throughout Canada. Here I want to point out that he may not be aware of what we succeeded in doing in the province of Quebec.

I would like to mention before all hon. members the wonderful work done by the St. Jean Baptiste society of Quebec which created, almost 15 years ago, what is called the student loan of honour. Several million dollars have already been loaned to students by that organization in the last 15 years. It all started in Montreal and then spread throughout the province of Quebec. I, myself, was the founder and administrator of one of those student loan funds, and I am very glad to take this opportunity to commend the St. Jean Baptiste society of the province of Quebec for their wonderful work in that field, which permitted thousands of students to continue their university studies.
Neither should we forget the work done by the Artisans society which also created special loan funds for students, and those loans of honour are without interest. That is much better than what we proposed to do under this bill. Loans without any interest at all. Students repay only the amounts loaned on their honour and, up to now, results have been wonderful, since there have been practically no losses.
I should also like to take this opportunity to mention the work done by the l'Assomp-tion society in Moncton, New Brunswick, which, through the modest contribution received, made it possible to educate, in Acadia, a whole elite perhaps which was able to take advantage of scholarships given to students in this area of our country.
Another thing I note here is that obviously, in this bill, the minister, just as in the case of several other bills, will once more take money out of the national treasury or the consolidated revenue fund. It is wonderful, I think, to have this inexhaustible source where we can always get capital. It seems that it is always there. However, the taxpayers should not forget that they are the ones who are constantly called upon to replenish the federal treasury, because it is fed through the most odious means possible, that is tax increases.
There are other solutions and we have advocated them in this house on many occasions. The Minister of Finance, who is an extremely intelligent man, is familiar with those proposals, because the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson)) has asked him questions which have remained unanswered until now. For instance, he pointed out that certain financing operations are carried out through the Bank of Canada at present. Since 20220-350
Loans to Students
that seems quite certain, I wish to congratulate the minister for having taken the initiative of allowing the Bank of Canada to finance certain government expenditures or outlays.
I should like to quote also a prominent economist, Mr. Samuelson, who said that certain American economists are asking for what we, in this group have been advocating for 30 or 40 years, as can be seen on page 211 of his book entitled "Economics":
A substantial group of American economists are advocating nowadays a radical reform of the banking system which would bring back a system of 100 per cent liquid cover on all deposits at call. That would be the only honest system in which banks would not be creating new money for their profitable purposes, usurping at the same time the royal prerogatives reserved to the government under the constitution. Finally, that would be the only neutral system, in that the banks would not create money during boom periods, thus adding fuel to the fire of inflation and would not reduce the offer of money during panic or depression periods, thus increasing deflation, bankruptcies and unemployment.
I know that since we gave so many explanations, several hon. members sitting on the government side are in favour of taking over of the royal prerogatives by the federal government, and that is becoming increasingly necessary and urgent. I think that before long the government will recover the royal prerogatives which should never have been conceded in any way to chartered banks.
Mr. Speaker, those are the few observations I had to make on this bill which I think will relieve many family heads who are faced with the nightmare that is for them the financing of their son's education.
Now, this new legislation will enable our children to achieve a higher education.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my good friend the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Cote) opened his remarks by saying that he was going to speak from the practical knowledge of a good friend of his who was the father of three students within the age group that might benefit by this legislation, and he contrasted himself in this respect with the hon. member for Ber-thier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) because he said that this hon. member had spoken as an expert on constitutional law. I am torn between the two roles, Mr. Speaker. I have three children of the age of university students, who may be in serious need; I do not know. The regulations have not been published yet, so I am not sure how needy you

Loans to Students
have to be. I do not intend to speak on that point of view, however practical it may be, but rather as one who has had some experience of constitutional law and is much concerned by what I believe to be very grave defects that may destroy the effectiveness of this particular legislation.
I do not propose to repeat the qualified approval of this bill that was expressed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) and by the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mr. Webster). I agree with what they said, and I adopt what the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway said, that the bill merits support on the theory that half a loaf is better than no bread. But as I have said, I fear that the effectiveness of this bill is seriously jeopardized by certain technical and constitutional defects. The matter has already been referred to in the house by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan). Since they referred to this matter I have had the opportunity to give consideration to the constitutional problem involved in the bill as it is at present drafted, and I would like to give a warning to the government and to this house that I think there is a very great doubt whether the bill as at present drafted may not totally fail because of technical and constitutional defects.
I am not dealing with the argument that has been presented, that because the bill deals with education, the provisions of section 93 of the British North America Act bring its subject matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures. On that matter I may say that I found the arguments of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner) quite convincing and I do not propose to add to them or to discuss the matter further. But the real difficulty lies in the fact that the key provisions of this bill delegate to the lieutenant governors in council of the various provinces, under clause 2(b) and (k), the duty to designate appropriate authorities to issue certificates of eligibility for loans under the act and also to designate institutions of learning that are qualified to give courses in respect of which loans are to be made available.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the key questions of what students are qualified by need and by satisfactory scholastic standing and what institutions of learning fall within the purview of the legislation are to be determined, not by this legislation itself but by

such persons as are authorized by the provincial cabinets, the lieutenant governors in council.
Let me make it abundantly clear that I am not objecting to the substance of this division of responsibility. What I question is the legal power of this parliament to delegate such power to the lieutenant governors in council in the absence of provincial legislation vesting that power in the lieutenant governors in council. I will spare the house a lecture on the constitutional and legal questions involved. I have been counsel in some of the leading cases on this subject and I have a nodding acquaintance with the technical problems involved. It will perhaps suffice, in order that this matter may be fully looked into, to say that the Supreme Court of Canada decided in the Nova Scotia interdelegation case in 1951- anyone interested can find it in the 1951 Supreme Court Reports-that interdelegation between the dominion parliament and the provincial legislatures was unconstitutional. I agree that this case is not the same as the present case, in that here we have, not an attempt to delegate from the parliament of Canada to the legislatures of the provinces, but an attempt to delegate from the parliament of Canada to the provincial executives. But I think the same principle is applicable to both cases.
It is a well recognized fact that parliament can delegate powers to a subordinate agency, but the lieutenant governor in council is in no sense a subordinate agency of this parliament. His duties are defined by the British North America Act itself. I see the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Pennell) making notes. He might be interested to know, that the duties of the lieutenant governor in council are defined in section 65 of the British North America Act. It would, as I say, be possible to delegate to a subordinate agency, but by no argument can the lieutenant governor in council, under the powers granted to him by the British North America Act which are quite independent of the powers of parliament, be considered a subordinate agency.
Another thing that I recognize as possible is for the parliament of Canada to delegate authority to a provincial board or body upon which power has been conferred by provincial statute. Once again I refer my hon. friend, who I think is particularly interested, to the Prince Edward Island potato reference case found in 1952 Supreme Court Reports, where it was made clear that this parliament had the right to give to a marketing board set up

and authorized to receive powers by provincial legislation the power to administer federal legislation. That power is all right, but so far as I know no provincial statute is in existence authorizing the lieutenant governors in council to receive or exercise the powers and duties imposed upon them by the legislation we are now considering.
I have no doubt that the governments of the provinces would be very happy to invite the legislatures of their respective provinces, if they are going to avail themselves of this scheme, to pass the necessary enabling legislation, but that hardly seems practicable at the present time. I have no doubt that the minister and the house are anxious that clear and full authority should be given so that this scheme can go into effect in the next scholastic year. I do not suppose that the legislatures of the provinces are going to be in session before that time. Therefore they will not be able to confer this power, and without it I repeat that there is very grave doubt whether this parliament can impose a duty upon the lieutenant governors in council which has not been imposed by the legislatures of the provinces themselves.
I suggest that a solution might be to amend the present provisions of the bill and confer the power to designate authorized institutions of learning on the governor in council, upon nomination or recommendation of the lieutenant governors in council. In that case the actual appointment would be made by an agency subordinate to this parliament. I do not speak disrespectfully of the governor general in council when I say that agency is subordinate to this parliament. That I think is well recognized. While the actual appointment would be made by them the real choice, the decision, would be made by the provincial authorities, and the rights of the provinces with regard to education would be preserved and recognized in this way.
I hope the government will give serious consideration to the suggestion I have made. Personally I do not believe that the unsupported statement that the Department of Justice thinks it is all right is good enough authority for this house. This is not the occasion for me to express my views about the Department of Justice. I will have occasion to do that, I hope, before too long and my views may not be too kindly. However that may be, I say that this house deserves something more than an unsupported statement by the Department of Justice, if it is to be brought forward as justifying this particular legislation.
20220-350i
Loans to Students
I say to the house that it would be a tragedy -worse than a tragedy, criminal negligence- if by reason of some technical or constitutional defect students who are anticipating these loans were deprived of the loans. I am not saying that this technicality cannot be overcome. I believe it can be; but I do say if it is not, if doubt is left on this score and as a result some students do not receive loans, it will be a tragedy and an unnecessary deception and arousing of expectations of the young people we are all, I am sure, seeking to aid by this legislation.
The government may well be able to bring forward a convincing argument to offset the opinion I have expressed. I claim no more infallibility than the Department of Justice, or perhaps much less. But I should like to see their answer to my opinion and if it is a convincing one perhaps we can proceed and deal with this legislation as it is. On the other hand, if the government is not assured that the difficulties I have raised are without substance, then I suggest it has a duty to consider seriously the amendment I have suggested and either bring it forward itself, or we will bring forward an amendment and the government can adopt it.
I should like to point out that our objective in bringing up this matter is not to slow down or discredit the legislation. It is exactly the contrary. We have stated that we think there are shortcomings in the legislation, but we are most anxious that the proposals of aid should be as effective as they possibly can be. It is usual, I have no doubt, for the government to look upon suggestions of this sort from members of the opposition with scepticism and a degree of suspicion, but I want to assure them that while, as I say, they may find the answer to the problem, they should give rather serious consideration to it in order that the students of this country shall not be deceived by the defects for which this parliament and this government would be responsible.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he prepared to wait until the debate has progressed further? In the meantime, we will give very serious consideration to the proposal he has put forward. There might be further constitutional points raised and I ask the member if he would be content if we were to reply later in the debate?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am quite satisfied to do that. The reason I made the suggestion, and the reason I intervened fairly early in the debate,

Loans to Students
was for the very purpose the parliamentary secretary suggests, that there may be consideration given to the point, so that it may be dealt with. I am quite satisfied that that be done, and to learn that we shall hear at some time from the parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: The University of British Columbia lies within my constituency of Vancouver Quadra. Last fall 13,600 students registered there for the winter session. This is in addition to any who may have registered during the year for night sessions or summer sessions. This figure represents approximately 10 per cent of the winter enrolments of all Canadian students in this single institution. It is second only to the University of Toronto in the enrolment of English speaking students in Canada. The report of the president, Dr. John B. MacDonald for 1962-63 shows that 9,000 of these students come from homes in the lower Fraser valley and Howe sound sections of the greater Vancouver area. A minimum of 4,600 students therefore come from the outside area and must find accommodation at or near the university. Of course some students from the perimeter of the greater metropolitan area prefer to live on or near the campus, so it is safe to say about 5,000 or more students at the University of British Columbia must find board and room either on the campus or in private homes nearby.
It is anticipated the enrolment in British Columbia beyond grade 12 will more than double during the period of the sixties and will be 37,000 by 1971-72. While Victoria University and the junior colleges of the province will take an increasing number of students, the trend is toward 10,000 students rooming and boarding in the University of British Columbia area in my constituency by the end of the decade. It is for these reasons I want to speak today in this debate.
For the most part, these students come from modest circumstances. Some indeed are poor. They must find every dollar of their university education. Some fall out for a year to earn enough money to continue their education, and some of these never make it back. Some are under great pressure at home to abandon their studies in order to contribute to the meagre earnings of their families. These stories are common on every large campus throughout Canada.
The calendar of the University of British Columbia for the 1963-64 session gives us the basic figures for fees, room and board. From these we can construct the cost of going
[Mr. Brewin.l
to university. The University of British Columbia compares with the level of other major campuses throughout Canada. The university has accommodation on campus for 1,256 male and 750 female students, or approximately 2,000. By doubling up, I think this is increased to about 2,500 students. They occupy quarters ranging from ancient and leaky army huts to fine new brick dormitory buildings with adjacent common rooms and cafeterias. They pay from $472.50 to $630 a session, which is approximately eight months, for board and lodging at the university. Off campus prices for board and room in the neighbouring community are approximately the same, ranging from $65 to $80 per month. Student fees vary with the courses from $346 for arts and science students up to $551 for medical students. In addition, each student pays a $24 alma mater fee and other small club fees. Books and equipment vary with the course and sometimes can be purchased second hand. But a sum of $50 is about rock bottom for books, with applied science and medical students paying two or three times as much each year.
Now, add these all together and we have board and lodging from $472.50 to $630; fees, including the alma mater society from $370 to $575; and books from $50 to $150, with totals ranging from $892.50 to $1,355. Add to this a sum for clothing, medical insurance, sports equipment, transportation and miscellaneous expenses and you will see that the most frugal student in the cheapest course, eating porridge for breakfast and beans for dinner, could hardly get by on $1,200 a session, while $1,800 would cover no more than the essentials for a medical student. To a student earning his or her own way, this means that $1,200 to $1,800 hard cash must be found each year for a minimum of four years. A working student must, therefore, save money at the rate of $300 per month or better in the summer months, often while living away from home, in order to return to university in the fall. In fact, this is an almost impossible assignment. Most students have some assistance from their parents or from bursary, scholarship or loan fund. Were it not for these, they would not be at university.
In 1959, a scholarship plan was introduced in British Columbia by the provincial government. It undertook to pay half the fees of the students with first class honours and one third of the fees of the top 2,000 students with second class honours. The province also

authorized the University of British Columbia to borrow up to $2 million for a student loan fund. Special student funds were also set up to encourage teacher training. The total of provincial assistance was $360,554, exclusive of the university loan fund. It gave assistance to 2,972 students.
On the basis of total student enrolment this represented assistance at the rate of $22.91 per student in British Columbia. On that basis in the same year Newfoundland aided total students at the rate of $109.90. Alberta was next with $107.89 and Quebec with $105.90. Ontario was a poor show at $69.76, but still three times better than British Columbia. We stood in eighth place in that year, 1959. In all the comparative statistics which the Canadian universities foundation presents on this subject, three provinces lead all others by a mile in their efforts to aid students. They are Quebec, Newfoundland and Alberta.
If I may sum up, the province of British Columbia has aided about one quarter of its university students in recent years through scholarships and bursaries, or what are sometimes called money for marks programs. The average assistance per student under these provincial grants is about $126. Spread over the eight months of the university year, this amounts to about 50 cents a day for the bright student who is able to qualify, and that is not enough money to buy a pizza.
While the provinces have been increasing the amount of assistance they have given to students in recent years, it is still small potatoes and few to the hill. British Columbia which I cite because it is my home province, is no better or worse than other provinces. Support for universities and university students is not the favourite cause of provincial politicians. In British Columbia if you stand still they'll pave you; move and they'll award you a construction contract; study and they'll raise your fees.
We should clearly understand that Canadian university students are appealing to us for federal help because their provincial governments are only moderately interested in their welfare. However well the provinces may have met the challenge of educating Canadians through primary and secondary schools, they are a flop by North American standards in providing university education.
As proof of what I say, the Canadian universities foundation has provided me with
Loans to Students
some significant figures. In the state of Washington expenditure on higher education is 1.43 per cent of all personal income. In British Columbia it is 0.20 per cent, or one fifth of 1 per cent. In New York state 1.26 per cent of personal income is spent on higher education while in Ontario the figure is 0.17 per cent, or one seventh as much. Maine spends 1.21 per cent of personal income while New Brunswick spends 0.11 per cent, or one eleventh as much.
In his book, "Higher Education in British Columbia", written in the fall of 1962, President MacDonald of U.B.C. refers to our failure to keep pace in the field of higher education in a different way:
The number of students registered in British Columbia in 1961-62 was 14,710 or 17.7 per cent of the college age population, that is the age group 18-21. This figure compares with 12.3 per cent in Canada as a whole and 39.5 per cent in the United States.
While we in British Columbia may take a small comfort in beating the Canadian average, we as a nation can take no pride at all in the fact that Americans send proportionately three times as many students to colleges and universities. Let it continue and we must become the intellectual inferiors of Americans. We are heading for Lower Slobovia.
Dr. MacDonald goes on to say:
Professional people account for only 6.2 per cent of the Canadian labour force; the proportion in the United States is three times as high, that is 18.6 per cent. In proportion to the size of its population, Canada employs approximately half the number of scientists and engineers employed by the United States.. .Throughout Canada only one half of the matriculants with 70 per cent or better go to university ...Of 100 pupils entering grade II only nine ultimately enter university and onlv 6 graduate.
Dr. MacDonald then compares United States education achievement with Russia, and notes that by the end of the decade they will have twice as many engineers as the United States. If we fall behind the United States and Russia, do we fall behind any other countries? To find this out I obtained some tables of figures from the Canadian universities foundation published by UNESCO, on education at the third level, that is institutions which require completion of a secondary school education for admittance.
These international statistics show Canada in tenth place in the late 1950's in the production of graduates from scientific and technical facilities. Here is a table showing

Loans to Students
the number of scientific and technical graduates for the top dozen countries:
U.S.S.R.	114,600
United States	96,509
India	70,842
Japan	27,412
West Germany	15,555
United Kingdom	10,879
Poland	10,006
Philippines	6,492
Czechoslovakia	5,774
Canada	5,609
Italy	5,202
Comparisons in this field are difficult to make and we may argue, perhaps with some validity, that our graduates are better educated, than, let us say, the 6,492 scientific graduates from the Philippines. Let us make another comparison. Norway, Sweden and Belgium are a group of countries comparable to Canada in size and culture and free of the enormous involvement in the nuclear and aerospace industries which distorts comparisons with the United States and Russia.
These little countries have approximately 20 million total population. They enrolled about 82,000 university students compared with 106,000 for Canada in 1960. They had 13,160 students in engineering compared with 15,190 in Canada, and they graduated 4,043 scientific students against 5,609 for Canada. Our standards, then, seem comparable to and perhaps even better than European standards in these respects. But these are qualitative comparisons. We need some qualitative ones if we are to assess our true position.
While we need a steady flow of bachelor graduates from our universities to staff the industrial and highly technical economy in which we live, we must also have a steady flow of master and doctoral graduates, men and women with two or three degrees to teach the oncoming students and to advance our knowledge and technology.
In the United States in 1961-62, there were 420,000 graduated with a first degree, 85,000 graduated with a second or master degree, and 12,000 graduated with a doctorate degree. My figures come from a report by the United States department of health, education and welfare. In Canada in the same year we graduated 23,000 with a first degree, 2,800 with a second degree and only 321 with a third degree, according to Canadian univer-ties foundation figures. On this basis the United States graduates 18 times as many bachelor degrees, 30 times as many master degrees and 38 times as many doctor degrees.

Put another way, the United States is producing senior scholars and scientists at a rate comparable to four times our own.
One measure of the effectiveness of a nation's scientists in fields of peaceful research is the number of Nobel prizes its scientists have won. I have taken the figures from Whitaker's Almanack for 1964 and they do not include the literature and peace awards, but only those for physics, chemistry, physiology and medicine. Since these awards began in 1901 the United States has won 50, Germany 42, The United Kingdom 42, France 16, Netherlands 11, Sweden 8, Russia 7, Austria 7, Switzerland 7, Denmark 5, Italy 4, Hungary 3, China 2, Belgium 2 and Canada 2, who were Dr. Banting and Dr. MacLeod. The latter was dean of medicine at Toronto, under whom Banting worked.
Although he was born and educated in Scotland and returned there, his award is credited to Canada. Ten other nations drew one each of the Nobel awards in science. Thus, were it not for the fortuitous presence in Canada of Dr. MacLeod we would be at the bottom of this most distinguished roster of scientific achievement.
Whatever advantage we may once have held over other nations in the field of education, we are losing it now. We are losing it quantitatively and qualitatively. We no longer produce the numbers of science graduates, doctors and research fellows to remain competitive for very long in the world of modern technology.
United States achievement in higher education has been paid for at the state level at rates far in excess of anything we are prepared to pay at provincial levels in Canada. This means we must inevitably concede intellectual superiority of the Americans if we choose not to pay for education.
Whatever we do here at the federal level to help students through university must be matched by equivalent effort at the provincial level to improve and enlarge their universities. In support of Dr. MacDonald's stirring campaign to awaken our province to the needs and goals of higher education, University of British Columbia students covered the whole province in their "Back Mac" campaign and petitioned the B.C. government with 232,000 signatures. Many people thought "Mac" went too far. He was overdoing his zeal for an educated people.

If I were to dig into the records of other provinces, I would find the same story: overcrowded universities, not enough regional colleges, shortages in faculty and staff, inadequate equipment for teaching and research, underdeveloped postgraduate schools, insufficient funds to support our most brilliant and productive scholars. This student loan program parallels a similar program in the United States called the national defence student loan program. While it is a very general program providing $1,000 a year for five years to any needy student, it has one unique feature. Ten per cent of the value of the loan and accrued interest are cancelled for each year of full time public school teaching service rendered by a student borrower, up to 50 per cent of the value of the loan. The reason of course is to encourage a continuing supply of teachers throughout the nation.
The American preoccupation with universal education of a high level has been a major characteristic of that people throughout their history and the prime factor in their success. Thomas Jefferson said: "By far the most important bill in our whole code is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people", and he meant it. Benjamin Franklin setting out his rules for success, Lincoln in his log cabin studying by candlelight, Kennedy going down to Harvard to raid the faculty for brain-trusters-all these leaders believed fervently in the power of education to lift the welfare of the people and to increase the power of the nation, and the people in turn believed them and provided for the fullest education of their children. It has made them a great people.
I hope that in this bill we have at last caught a glimpse of that spirit. Samuel Johnson said: "Much can be done with a Scotchman if you get him young enough." I believe this is true of Canadians.


Erik Nielsen: May I at the
outset say that I am in wholehearted agreement with the purpose this bill is trying to achieve. As I said last Monday when speaking on the federal-provincial fiscal bill for which the Minister of Finance is also responsible, any measure which will contribute to placing the student population of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories on a par with their brothers to the south is welcome indeed.
I may say I am happy to see the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) in his place because I intend to raise one or two points which throw some
Loans to Students
doubt on the applicability of this bill to the student population in the north. In this connection I was much impressed by the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), since his approach in a general sense can be equated with the criticisms I have to offer in a specific sense.
Before I deal specifically with the points I have to make, may I observe that on Monday I spoke at some length with respect to the consultation, or rather the lack of consultation between federal authorities and territorial authorities both in the Yukon and in the Northwest Territories, particularly with regard to this type of program. The very next day the minister, when he introduced this measure, said as reported on page 5443 of Hansard:
Accordingly it is our expectation that students seeking loans under the Canada plan will, in each province, file applications through familiar and established channels.
He said, too, that he had invited the help of the provinces, and later that he had ascertained that all the provinces with one exception had come to agreement with him with respect to the provisions of the bill. I wonder what consultation the minister had with education authorities in the Yukon or in the Northwest Territories. I wonder how many explanations were made to those authorities by the government, as they were undoubtedly made to the governments of each of the ten provinces. I wonder if it is the minister's intention to ascertain specifically the views which pertain in those two territories. I notice that the Yukon and the Northwest Territories are lumped together in the calculation which was made when the minister presented this bill. That calculation appears on page 5446 of yesterday's Hansard and shows the amount as being $.08 million. It would be of assistance in my opinion if the minister were to break down this figure so as to show exactly the figure arrived at with respect to each of the territories.
The situation with regard to legislation in the territories is similar to that which arises from the operation of sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act. There are constitutional divisions of function between the federal parliament and the legislative assemblies, or councils, if you will, of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. This division of powers is laid down in the Yukon Act, as I am sure the minister knows, and section 16 (r) of that act gives to the legislative council of the territory-a wholly elected council-exclusive jurisdiction to

Loans to Students
legislate with respect to matters pertaining to education in the territory. If we examine the bill before the house it will be seen that its provisions refer to the provinces. Reference is made to the lieutenant governors in council of the individual provinces. Reference is made to specified additional expenditures in the provinces, and the bill refers also to provincial allocations, appropriate authorities in the provinces, and so on.
In my view there is a serious defect in this measure which may prevent its application to the two territories with which I am concerned, particularly to the Yukon. Since the Yukon legislative council has exclusive jurisdiction in matters pertaining to education and since the minister, in the quotation to which I referred in his speech yesterday, calculated an allocation of a portion of the $40 million which will be required for the first year's operation of this plan as far as the Yukon is concerned, it would seem that it is the government's intention that the student loan fund provisions should apply to students in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories as well as in the ten provinces of Canada. I presume that is the intention of the legislation. If the bill is examined in detail it will be seen that reference is made in clause 2(b) to the appropriate authority. It is stipulated that the appropriate authority for a province means-
-such person, body or authority as may be designated by the lieutenant governor in council of that province as the appropriate authority for that province for the purposes of this act.
I realize that the usual argument might be advanced here that a "province" is defined in the Interpretation Act, and therefore it is applicable to the territory. For the purpose of the record I think I might read that definition from the Interpretation Act. Section 35(24) of the Interpretation Act sets forth that-
-"province" includes the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory;
To my mind, however, there is a distinction between "legislature, legislative council or legislative assembly" as defined in section 35(13) of the Interpretation Act, and "executive council", which phrase is used in section 35(15) of the Interpretation Act. The bill places certain delegated authority in the hands of the lieutenant governor of a province. The Yukon has no lieutenant governor, so we go to the Interpretation Act and find

that "lieutenant governor in council" is defined by subsection (15) of section 35 as-
-the lieutenant governor, or person administering the government of the province indicated by the act, for the time being acting by and with the advice of, or by and with the advice and consent of, or in conjunction with the executive council of such province.
I may be wrong when I come to the conclusion that "executive council" means, in effect, the cabinet of a province. The Yukon has no cabinet because it has not developed to that stage of responsible government. So that when we attempt to conclude that the phrase "lieutenant governor in council" as used in Bill No. C-110, the measure before us, is the same thing as saying "the person responsible in the Yukon Territory for the administration and government of the territory", to paraphrase, we find we are unable to do so because of the existence of the phrase "executive council" in section 35(15) of the Interpretation Act. Because it would mean that the minister of northern affairs or his delegate, the commissioner of the Yukon, will have to act by and with the advice of, or by and with the advice and consent of, or in conjunction with the executive council. In fact, the only legislative authority that is passed to the Yukon Territory by the Yukon Act is the power of the elected council exclusively to pass laws with respect to education by the well understood device of the commissioner acting by and with the advice and consent of the legislative council of the territory.
My point here is that by using the phrase "lieutenant governor in council" in this bill, the bill excludes the operation of its provisions with respect to the Yukon Territory. I think this is a serious defect. I think that if the bill is to apply to the Yukon-and particularly the Yukon, because I have studied the situation there, whereas I have not particularly studied that of the Northwest Territories-then it must be clearly spelled out. As I have said, we have no lieutenant governor in council in the Yukon, and I submit we cannot by any stretch of the imagination apply the provisions of the Interpretation Act to cure it.
Another serious defect in the bill results from the fact that there are no institutions of higher learning in the Yukon Territory or in the Northwest Territories. The maximum degree to which education can be taken in the Yukon is up to grade 13. Many of our students on leaving high school with senior matriculation attend the University of Alaska.

Yet I am in some doubt whether the provisions of the measure before us include the University of Alaska, in one of the states of the United States of America. For instance in clause 2(k) "specified educational institution" is defined as meaning-
-an institution of learning, whether within or outside a province-
If those words "outside a province" can extend to mean "outside of Canada", then my point may be groundless. But I have some fears that the intention of the bill does not go that far.
Again in clause 10 of the bill, where it speaks of "a certificate of eligibility", the bill sets forth that-
-the appropriate authority for a province may issue or cause to be issued a certificate of eligibility to a qualifying student for an academic year.
It is my submission that, based on the constitutional defects which I submit exist, it may well be that in this case we arrive at the anomalous situation where the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) must issue or cause to be issued a certificate of eligibility under clause 10 of the bill. Since there is no lieutenant governor in council in the Yukon, and since the provisions of the Interpretation Act do not apply, in my submission, in this instance because of the use of that phrase we must fall back on the minister of the federal government who is responsible for administering the affairs of the Yukon Territory, and I am sure that is not what is intended by the provisions of the bill.
Even if you arrive at that conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it would seem that the minister is precluded from acting. Indeed, I would submit the bill would go so far as to preclude his delegate, the commissioner of the Yukon, from acting under the provisions of the bill by the very terms of section 16(r) of the Yukon Act, which resides the exclusive jurisdiction to legislate on matters pertaining to education in the commissioner in council of the Yukon Territory. So whichever way you turn and look at this problem, you come back to the fact that the wholly elected legislative body in the Yukon has exclusive jurisdiction; and yet the use of the phrase "lieutenant governor in council" in the bill before us would purport to expand jurisdiction which does not exist so far as the Yukon is concerned.
When the minister replies to the remarks which have been made I would be grateful if he would clarify the points which I raise here and would reassure me that he has received advice that there is no constitutional
Loans to Students
problem in so far as the applicability of the provisions of this bill are concerned with respect to the Yukon and Northwest Territories. I should like to say that the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume) would have been here to speak on the measure himself had he not been called away to visit personally the Pine Point mine. He has now embarked on this rather long journey.
I think a worth-while point to be made here is that the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) who immediately preceded me in the debate, mentioned that British Columbia, Quebec and I believe Newfoundland had the most advanced provisions in all of Canada with regard to assisting students through institutions of higher learning. However the minister of northern affairs knows, if the Minister of Finance does not, that in the Northwest Territories there have been in existence for some time provisions whereby a student upon leaving secondary school can obtain a loan of up to $1,500 throughout the term of his or her attendance at university; and, subject only to the provision that such student in receipt of such loan shall return to the Northwest Territories and reside there for four years, the loan becomes an outright grant. It seems that this perhaps would have been a desirable objective in legislation of this kind, although I can just imagine the enormous cost that it would result in. But this legislation in the Northwest Territories is very far reaching indeed because it provides for a workable plan which stimulates an interest in obtaining higher education among the students in the Northwest Territories, and in addition provides an incentive to qualified university graduates to return to the Northwest Territories and assist in creating there a highly educated and permanent population.
One speaks of the drain of brainpower to the United States. Would not some sort of incentive-this, after all, is a federal creation in so far as the Northwest Territories are concerned; certainly the great proportion of the money to support the scheme comes from the federal treasury-if provided in a bill such as this, help to prevent that drain of brainpower? The loan of $1,500 per year for any student in the Northwest Territories wishing to attend university becomes an outright grant if the student, after graduating, returns to the territories and lives there for at least four years. A similar plan has existed for many years in the armed forces.

Loans to Students
With those constitutional arguments and with the request to the minister to reassure me that my fears in this respect are unfounded, I do not intend to pursue the matter further. I would request that he put the points I have made to him to the law officers of his department or to the law officers of the Department of Justice, so they may assess them and assure the educational authorities and the legislative assembly in the Yukon, and the people of the territories generally, that the bill before us applies in the same manner and to the same extent to the territories as it does to the other ten provinces of Canada.


Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, most speakers in this debate have mentioned that they have within their riding a university. I am not in a position to claim that honour, not having any university located in my riding; but I think I can with some accuracy describe my riding as something of a bedroom for the University of British Columbia, in that a great many of the students there do live in my riding, particularly those students who are married, with children, and are going back to school later in life. These people, who are living in my riding in converted basement suites and upstairs rooms, will probably get the greatest benefit from this bill of any class of university student.
Perhaps one of the greatest upheavals, or greatest developments in education in Canada occurred after the second world war with the enactment by a former Liberal government of the veterans charter. Under the veterans charter thousands and thousands of returned veterans who had been deprived of the chance to continue their education by the depression and the oncoming of war were given the opportunity of entering civilian life by going back to school and university. I am sure there are many members in this house today who took advantage of the provisions of the veterans charter. We all know doctors, lawyers, accountants and school teachers who became such because of the veterans charter.
Today we are dealing with a new generation, one which fortunately, I am sure we all believe, has not had to put on the uniform of our country and go to war in defence of Canada; but a generation which nevertheless, in the interests of themselves and in the interests of the nation, needs to have the fullest opportunity of acquiring the best possible education they can get. In Canada we we have long recognized the value of free public education, and in fact required by law
[ Mr. Nielsen.]
that everyone who is capable must be educated to a certain level. It seems to me tragic and illogical that at the very age when continued education and training would be of the greatest benefit, not only to the individual but to the nation, we abandon the concept of free education. Surely it is self-evident to everyone that to leave untrained and unlearned a mind that is capable of training, capable of learning, is the greatest possible waste that we can imagine. And there is waste. Of the over one million people in Canada between 18 and 25 years of age, as the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) pointed out the other day, it is estimated by educational authorities that approximately one fifth are capable of going to university and acquiring or absorbing a university education. However, at the present time approximately only 11 per cent of that group are registered in Canadian universities. Therefore the talents of at least half of our most capable young people are not being fully utilized or developed.
The bill that we have before us today provides, as hon. members know, that in the first year $40 million in loans shall be made available to students in amounts of not more than $1,000. These loans shall be interest free until seven months following graduation, or when the student is no longer a full time student, and are to be repayable on a five to ten year basis.1 This was described by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) the other day as falling far short of what we had said we would do in the last election campaign. This, to me, is only the first step in what we intend to do and want to do in the field of education. It might fall far short at the moment of what we said we would do. I do know however that it goes $40 million beyond what his party did for five years while they formed the government.
This bill is assured, surely, of easy passage through this house. This easy passage has been assisted by the work of the officers of the Canadian union of students who, I think, have become familiar figures around parliament hill during the last few months in talking up the case for university loans. I was happy to make the acquaintance of their former president, David Jenkins and their executive assistant Paul Williamson. All I can say is that the students of Canada are well served by the officers of the Canadian union of students. While I was a student I often mildly objected to the fees we had to pay to what was then the national federation

of Canadian university students, which is now the Canadian union of students. As a member of parliament I now see the value [DOT]of those fees that students pay to their national association.
Because of the easy passage that I think this bill will receive, I do not want to fill the record with a great many figures; but I would like to put one or two on the record, simply to show the need and value of this type of loan program. It has already been said in this debate that the average undergraduate costs per year in Canada run between $1,196 and $1,550, with an average of somewhere around $1,400 per year for a student to go to university. While we in Canada have the phenomenon, which is not common in many other countries, of students working during the summer, the dominion bureau of statistics latest survey shows that the average annual summer savings of students is $507. It is therefore quite obvious that a student has to make up this large gap in order to afford his university education either from a scholarship or loan program, and by assistance from parents or family.
It is obvious to me from these figures that if we are going to provide to all Canadians the opportunity of acquiring a university education, we need this program very badly. If we are going to have equality of opportunity, we cannot leave it any longer simply to students to rely for a substantial part of their income upon their families and parents. If we are going to leave it as it was, many people in Canada are going to be deprived of an education and the opportunity to realize their talents to the full.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) mentioned yesterday-it seems that his speech writer and I read the same material-a survey made by the University of Toronto advisory committee on ex-service students entitled "The Veteran at Varsity", which survey shows that of the normal student population 20 per cent came from the homes of industrial workers, but in the veterans group after the war this figure rose to 32 per cent. In other words the veterans charter program brought about a 12 per cent increase in the number of students from that group of the population whose sons and daughters normally do not attend university. The loan program we are enacting today will have the very same effect as the veterans charter program did in encouraging the sons and daughters of industrial workers to go to university and complete their education.
Loans to Students
People generally often think of the doctor's son and the lawyer's son going to university, but if we are going to realize the talents of Canadians fully, if we are going to have full equality of opportunity we have got to start thinking of the carpenter's son and the plumber's son going to university. I suggest that this program will make this possible, as was demonstrated by the University of Toronto survey with regard to the veterans charter program. That program was implemented by a grateful nation in recognition of the service of those young people who went to war for Canada. I hope that this loan program is simply the first step in the implementation of a civilians charter, as the act of a wise and prudent nation realizing that it is in our own best national interest to see that everyone who is capable of acquiring training and knowledge has the fullest opportunity of doing so.
There is one important aspect of the bill to which I should like to make specific reference. You will note that in the bill there are no residence requirements, except for the fact that the student must be a Canadian citizen or be resident in Canada for one year with the intention of residing in Canada after he ceases to be a full time student.
I am sure there are probably smallminded people who think that there should be some provincial residence requirement and that if, for example, someone is going to borrow money in British Columbia from the provincial allotment of some $3 million he should be a resident of British Columbia. I could not disagree more with this sentiment. I would suggest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) that in drawing the regulations pursuant to the act he specifically forbid the implementation by provincial authorities of any provincial residential requirement.
I suggest that university education must be looked at nationally and there is no room for narrow provincialism in this field. In this regard a former president of the University of British Columbia, Dr. Norman A. M. Mackenzie, had this to say, and I want to put this quotation on record because I think it is a valuable one:
The work of the universities does not end at the provincial boundaries either in its scope or significance. In each of the larger universities in Canada there are students from all the provinces. In some cases the students from other parts of Canada constitute as much as one third of the total enrolment. Similarly, the graduates of the universities are distributed over the entire country. Anywhere from one fifth to more than one half of the graduates of particular institutions live and work in provinces other than the one in which they received

Loans to Students
their education. University graduates are one of the most mobile elements in the working population and comprise a source of skilled and educated personnel which is available to the nation as a whole. It is well known that the university trained personnel which are needed by governments and by national businesses of all kinds are recruited from every part of the country.
Therefore I repeat to the Minister of Finance that in the regulations under this legislation the provinces must be forbidden from setting up any provincial residence requirement. If we are going to utilize our facilities in Canada, students, as former president Mackenzie said, must be free to move about the country and acquire the best possible education. It is silly to think that in Canada we can build in each province first class institutions of higher learning in every conceivable subject and technique. Students from British Columbia, for example, must be free to go to Montreal for advanced medical training. I would hope there would be students from other parts of Canada who would want to come to British Columbia to study certain specialized fields there.
One of the first acts of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) was to assure the construction of a veterinary college in western Canada to serve the four western provinces. Students from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia must be free to move about and able to apply for loans in order to go to that veterinary college.
I listened with great interest yesterday to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and some of the objections he raised to the bill. I realize that the leader of the New Democratic party is always in a difficult position when the government brings in good legislation. He wants to agree with it but he always has to find something wrong with it. He raised yesterday what I suggest is a red herring in saying that under the provisions of this legislation students would have to go to the banks in order to obtain a loan. This is simply an example of the leader of the New Democratic party desperately searching in an effort to find something wrong with the bill.
As the Minister of Finance pointed out at the time, he felt that the banks would want to establish commercial contact with students and would be anxious to comply with and participate under the provisions of the loan legislation. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam scoffed at this suggestion, but I suggest that the point made by the Minister of Finance was well taken. Surely the interest
[Mr. Basford.l
of the banks in establishing commercial relations with students is demonstrated by the fact that they try very hard to open branches on the university campuses across Canada. I know that at the university I attended they rented space on the campus direct from the university, and they were forever soliciting us to open accounts there in order to establish commercial contact with us.
Surely the interest of the banks is demonstrated by the fact that they advertise very widely in university newspapers and other publications by means of advertisements written in language to appeal to university students so they can get them as customers.
It seems to me there is another point the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam missed in dragging this red herring into the debate on the bill. In the budget speech on March 16 the Minister of Finance made it very clear that the provisions of the proposed student loan legislation would be such as to establish a system under which students would get loans from the banks which would be guaranteed by the government. I should like to repeat what the minister said at that time, as found on page 982 of Hansard:
I believe these loans to university students can be provided most conveniently and efficiently through the chartered banks with their widespread facilities all across the country. We want to enlist the co-operation not only of the banks but through them of the university authorities in order to ensure that all loans are made to full time students capable of proceeding to a degree and in need of financial assistance to carry on their studies. The government is prepared to guarantee these student loans; there are good precedents for such an approach in our other legislation. No interest would be payable by the student during his years of study.
I am sure that the Canadian union of university students, the organization that looks after the interests of Canada's university students, read the budget speech on March 16, are aware of that paragraph and have had notice of the fact for some months that this was the intention of the legislation.
They have not made a complaint. In fact, as all hon. members know, only a few weeks ago a few of us organized a meeting in the building here at which students could present their views to us. They made no objection to the fact that this legislation used the chartered banks as lending institutions. If they have no objection, I think that the objections of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) are really unfounded and, as I suggest, simply a red herring used by a man who wants to find some objection to what is good legislation.

I listened yesterday also with great interest to the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) that this bill is unconstitutional. I simply want to say that I am unimpressed by these arguments. The people of my province want to see provided for their children the best possible educational opportunities, and to do this they are going to need help from the government of Canada and from the parliament of Canada. I personally, and I speak as an individual, am looking to this parliament to provide British Columbians and Canadians generally with the fullest opportunity for graduate and postgraduate schooling.
In order to do this, we must have a strong central government. I am becoming alarmed at the constant attempts we see here to whittle away the power of the central parliament. We are strong Canadians in British Columbia and being Canadians to us means being able to look to Ottawa, to a strong central government, to help us with our problems of education, of welfare and of development. We are not interested in a central government that can only raise taxes and run the post office or contribute to the United Nations. I do not want to see a central government that is solely the tax collector for ten provincial premiers, as seemed to be the suggestion of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam yesterday, when he suggested that this legislation was wrong, that we should have ten provincial scholarship committees. I realize the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has had years of service as a provincial premier and cannot forget this when he gets into the national parliament. If the forces within Canada are such as to succeed in leaving the central government weak and emasculated, then I suggest that an ever increasing number of people in my province are going to begin questioning their relationship with that weak central government.
The adequate provision of undergraduate and postgraduate opportunities in Canada is of national concern, requiring direct national action. The parliament of Canada must have the ability and the willingness to deal with education as a national affair. This bill is a good beginning. But if we are going to develop as a strong nation, we must provide everyone capable of acquiring an education with a maximum amount of facilities and opportunities. In order to provide proper educational opportunities for Canadians, the government of Canada and this parliament
Loans to Students
are going to have to involve themselves directly in the years ahead in providing facilities for that education.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have examined the bill now before us with great care and I question its constitutionality. In my opinion, it is unacceptable, unless major amendments are brought to it.
There are so many ways in which the federal government could help education without having to intrude either directly or indirectly in a matter under provincial jurisdiction.
I feel that the bill, in its present form, is but a sly and underhanded way for the federal government to intrude in the field of education, even if it does provide an option formula for the province of Quebec. As a matter of fact, experience shows that when the federal government enters a field under provincial jurisdiction, things are finished and done with, because it never withdraws.
Instead, I would suggest to the federal government that it should mind its own business and look after it, and that it should try to solve the economic problems now facing the country, especially the low level of income of farmers in eastern Canada and British Columbia and the unemployment we now have.
Mr. Speaker, show me one word, one sentence in the British North America Act which allows Ottawa to intrude into the field of education, either directly or indirectly. Section 93 is abundantly clear, as the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinongd-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) explained perfectly.
Moreover, section 11 in Bill No. C-110 constitutes, in my opinion, a direct intrusion into the field of education, which is exclusively assigned to the provinces. In other words, the federal government is giving instructions to the provinces. In fact, here is what is stipulated in section 11 (1):
The appropriate authority for a province shall not issue or cause to be issued any certificate of eligibility in a loan year-
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether this is not an order given to the provinces, whether it is not a direct intrusion into education, a field under provincial jurisdiction? In other words, the federal government is imposing conditions to the provinces.

Loans to Students
Mr. Gerard Filion, of the daily newspaper Le Devoir, wrote on April 18, 1962:
A good point in favour of the Conservative party is its tax sharing policy. The provinces are rightly unsatisfied, but nevertheless, they have gained some ground during the past five years.
And Mr. Filion went on:
Under the logic of events and on the strength of precedents, the Liberal party is slowly but deliberately driving its wedge. A Liberal government in Ottawa would surely increase the intrusion of the central government in the educational field.
Mr. Speaker, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the Secretary of State (Mr. La-montagne) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) want by all possible means to take under their control education, which is a provincial responsibility.
According to the Joliette Journal of March 13, 1963, the present Prime Minister stated in Manitoba:
It is necessary to increase assistance to all programs of higher education.
And the newspaper Le Devoir of February 10, 1964 published the following report from Sudbury:
Miss Pauline Jewett, Liberal member for Northumberland, suggested before some 350 teachers of the Ontario federation of high schools, the establishment of a federal department of education.
I would refer hon. members to page 5154 of Hansard, where, with regard to point of privilege I had just raised in the house the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) is shown to have stated:
It is just on that point I would like to disagree. It is a curious thing that in this country with 19 million population we do not have in our federal government a minister of education or a department of education. We have one Minister of Agriculture, with another coming up, but no minister of education. It is not only curious but tragic.
If a man does not get a sound education, let us say in one of the maritime provinces, and becomes unemployable, who is going to be responsible for the maintenance of him and his family?
And the hon. member for York East, who is sitting on the government side, added:
I support this bill very strongly but it seems a devious way, an indirect way to accomplish what we know should be done, and that is for the federal government to be concerned with educational matters. I strongly suggest that all of us, and the government in particular, pay great attention in the contemplated amendments to the British North America Act to work out a scheme by which education will be a national concern and become the business of this government.

At this point, the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said:
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house listened with attention and interest to the remarks of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto). I am led to believe that he frequently is placed in a position of flying kites for the government, and I am waiting for further support on the other side of the house for this proposition that denies every principle of confederation, that an amendment be made to the British North America Act to provide for the control of education by the federal parliament.
I wonder what is the opinion of the other government members, especially those of the province of Quebec, following the statement made by the hon. member for York East. What is the opinion of the Minister of Justice concerning the eventuality of a federal department of education, as advocated by the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett), as well as the hon. member for York East?
We would be very happy to know about it. This bill, unless it is amended so as to make it conformable to provincial jurisdiction in educational matters, seems to me a first step by the government to establish a department of education with a view to taking over provincial responsibilities.
Hon. Donald Fleming, who was minister of finance said on September 6, 1958, as shown on page 4726 of Hansard:
-that this government will always scrupulously respect the terms of the Canadian constitution. It is plainly recognized that education is a field of jurisdiction exclusively assigned to the provinces...
And he went on to say:
As long as this government is in office there will never be any attempt made to trespass on that jurisdiction exclusively vested in the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, some opposition to this bill has been voiced. University students of the province of Quebec, student associations of the province of Quebec have made known their formal rejection of the federal offer of an interest free loan fund for needy students. Those are Quebec universities.
During an interview, Mr. Dave Jenkins, president of the Canadian union of students, stated that the federal government owes $10 million to students in view of its electoral promise, but that this amount could be reimbursed under the form of fiscal deductions allowed to students, students' parents and industries which grant scholarships. According to the president, direct loans to students from the central government are perhaps unconstitutional, because education falls under provincial jurisdiction.

Without infringing upon the provincial jurisdiction in the field of education, the federal government could assist the students by increasing, for instance, the number of positions available within the various departments in Ottawa, so that the students who have summer holidays may earn some money to pay a part of their studies. Those positions could also be distributed in proportion to the number of French speaking students from Quebec, so that they may have their fair share, just like English speaking students.
I am in a position to note the attitude of the Quebec government. We hear no protest from it, and yet, according to he Devoir of February 20, 1964, at the time, Messrs. Le-sage and Gerin-Lajoie were against a federal assistance program for students, because it was an infringement of the provincial field. Why this silence now?
Even on the government side, there is no unanimity; there are conflicting opinions. Is there any need to recall the statement made by the hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska (Mr. Pepin), parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
The provinces would be in a better position to carry out this task. However, Ottawa could promote the extension of universities by means of C.M.H.C. loans.
The hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska was speaking according to his conscience and I must commend him for it. I wonder whether the Minister of Justice agrees with the views expressed by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska and whether he does not feel that this bill infringes, directly or indirectly, upon the provincial field?
I know that many members of the house, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, prefer to submit to party policy. They would rather sacrifice the legitimate yearnings of the provinces to please their party, but they should have the courage to rise against a bill which affects the jurisdiction of the provinces.
That is the kind of co-operative federalism we have at the present time. It is a new form of centralization to hide the interference by the federal government and enable it to progress by infiltration into the fields which belong to the provinces.
May I advise you, Mr. Speaker, to read the book by Mr. Lamontagne on Canadian federalism. As early as 1944, this theorist explained how federalism should operate in Canada.
Loans to Students
In fact, he wrote:
It is therefore the participation of the government in the main functions of the state which must become the general rule (P. 248).
He also wrote this:
The joint participation of all levels of governments in the functions of the state is perfectly consistent with the Canadian constitution (P. 249). The theory of separation of the functions leads either to the splitting up of federalism, by promoting separatism or legislative union, or to the coexistence of isolated governments within the
The joint participation of all levels of government from carrying out properly its responsibilities (P. 246).
That should be told to the voters, because this text is fraught with consequences. I continue:
The doctrine which gives a definition of federalism as being a form of political unification where sovereignty is divided between several governments having their own exclusive fields of jurisdiction is therefore unacceptable. That definition might satisfy the minds looking above all for clearcut formulas. It may have tallied with a factual situation in the past, but it can no longer fit the present realities. (P. 246)
And he added:
Separation of government functions laid down as a general principle is inconsistent with the social and economic situation or with an efficient political regime.
That is what we have at the present time. I understand that the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) engineered the scheme, that he acted as a go-between, sent to the government of Quebec to have them accept this biU.
I wonder if it is true that the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) has been the genius who forced the province of Quebec to accept this bill.
Mr. Speaker, it will be noted that since coming into power, the Pearson government has given a perfect illustration of its thinking on co-operative federalism. It does not violate the constitution unilaterally; it proposes to the provinces to assist them in fulfilling their obligations (loans to municipalities, interest free loans to students) or it solicits their acceptance of a bill in a field of concurrent jurisdiction (pension fund).
But everyone knows what happens gradually to co-operation between unequal partners. The central government already has such powers and revenues that co-operation will shortly develop into an implicit centralization system: Ottawa will initiate, legislate and establish new institutions; the provinces will be entrusted with the execution and the distribution of funds.

Loans to Students
Twenty years, ten years of co-operative federalism and the provinces will, in fact, only be administrative and managing agencies.
That is why I contend that co-operative federalism is but another disguised formula for centralization, where the provinces would only be Ottawa subsidiaries whose functions would only be to apply the decisions made in Ottawa.
However, as a result of the federal-provincial conference which took place between the Canadian provinces and the central government, there was agreement on this particular point, namely that the matter of education came under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, that it was the most urgent problem and that it should have priority in our present economic situation. It is recognized that the provinces have the priority in that field and must have the taxation powers they need to meet their obligations.
I wonder why the Quebec government has remained silent about that bill and I find its attitude very surprising.
Last night 1 listened to the speech made by the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien). As reported on page 5482 of Hansard, he said:
-the Minister of Finance prepared a bill in accordance with the two following principles which are of the utmost importance:
(a) education comes under the provinces while credit is a matter of federal jurisdiction;
And yet credit is a field of joint jurisdiction, it comes under both the federal and provincial governments. If the hon. member wanted to talk about the provinces' taxation sources when he mentioned credit, he will admit that the provinces have the priority in the field of taxation.
The province of Quebec is well organized today as far as scholarships are concerned. The St. Jean Baptiste society has more than $1.5 million in funds and through the students' honour loan has organized subscription drives to enable students to get scholarships. Loans are made also by the Artisans society and the province of Quebec itself has an excellent system of scholarships. The banks, the credit unions as well as the private sector make loans to students. There is also the provincial arts council. In short, there are in Quebec more than 50 organizations which make loans to students to enable them to continue their studies.

I am afraid that by infringing too much upon that field which does not come under its jurisdiction, the federal government will be the cause of certain abuses.
Mr. Speaker, if the government and the Minister of Finance were so anxious to assist education they could have done it much more simply. They did not have to introduce such a complicated bill which will require the establishment of a group of civil servants whose function it will be to inspect the provinces' bookkeeping in order to ensure compliance with the federal statute.
Since all the provinces have established a system of scholarships within their jurisdiction, the minister could have said for instance: "Starting tomorrow, the central government will pay directly to the provincial treasury the interest on loans granted by each province."
The provinces have the necessary funds to grant loans and the federal government could have assumed the interest costs by reimbursing the provincial ministers of finance for such expenses. Had he done so, there would have been no violation of provincial jurisdiction and the provinces would have been satisfied. Everybody would have been happy, including the students.
I am not surprised to see that Mr. Lesage neither protests nor says anything about this. In fact, an editorial which came to my attention reads as follows:
The reason is that Mr. Jean Lesage is the originator of that scheme which was adopted by the Liberal party in 1958. Mr. Lesage has the dubious honour of having been the first Liberal to advocate the main plank of the platform which carried Mr. Lester B. Pearson to office.
"Free education at all levels".
Mr. Lesage was at that time federal member for Montmagny-L'Islet; he had been previously Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
Mr. Lesage was the first person to ask the Liberal party, at this convention, to introduce a bill enabling the federal government to find its way into the education field, which belongs exclusively to the provinces.
May I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to pay a tribute to the Barrette government who, during the short time they were in power, adopted seven or eight important pieces of legislation to assist and stimulate education in the province of Quebec.
I do not agree with certain members who pass judgment on everything that was done in the educational field in the province of Quebec, before 1960.

Indeed, the province of Quebec has weak spots like all other provinces. Under its educational system before 1960 the province of Quebec has provided the church and the state with valuable men, men who have been sitting here as members of the federal government.
I do not think it logical for certain members to criticize what has been done in the educational field in the province of Quebec and to show such confidence in the new system. The new educational system in Quebec will certainly have some flaws; at the present time, the taxpayers are already complaining loudly.
May I be allowed, in concluding, to point out the financial needs of education in the province of Quebec.
Education has priority for all Canada, and Quebec is no exception. From now until 1967 we will have to find $500 million if we want to remain in the world competition for education, the goal being set for the year 1970.
I have a report here on a study prepared by the planning office of the department of education entitled: "Financial Needs of Education in Quebec, 1964-67". It comprises 81 pages of text where, through vital statistics and financial projections, an attempt is made to establish, first of all, the probable cost of education during the next three years, and to study the means that could be used to meet those costs or to reduce them.
Let me quote a few passages of this brief which is very revealing:
Overwhelming forecasts. This study contains Important findings to the effect that:
1.	From the year 1956-57 to the year 1966-67, the total cost of education in the province will increase fourfold, from $286 million to $1,203 million.
2.	In 1966-67, if education had to be satisfied with present sources of revenue and at present rates, there would be a shortage of $245 million to meet the expenditures anticipated.
This applies only to the province of Quebec.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, it is so important for the federal government to make sacrifices and return to the provinces part of their taxing power. That would not mean that we would forget the poorer provinces, and I am sure that the rich provinces of Canada would agree that the federal government should give a certain amount to the other provinces, in order to make up for their financial deficiency.
Again, I quote:
3.	Those increases are due not only to the inevitable increase in the number of students, but also to the increase of the average cost per student. On the other hand, this rise is due to two main factors:
Loans to Students
(a)	More and more students take courses which are costly to establish-we will deal with this matter in a moment-
(b)	For the same program, the unit costs are increasing and will continue to increase because salaries are improving-
Other facts are also worth mentioning. It states, for instance, that school boards will show deficits of $66 million this year. It also points out that, as far as school boards are concerned, the average cost per student increased last year, compared to the previous year, by $38 and that three quarters of that increase, or $27, are due to salary increases granted to the teaching staff. Finally, it states that the average cost per student will amount, this year, to $362 in educational institutions, to $461 in private institutions, to $1,031 in technical and trade schools and to $1,839 in universities.
Finally, it should be mentioned that the financial conditions revealed by this departmental survey are not favourable, since they are making our school system lag and, in many places, necessary solutions are more difficult to apply; let us remember the conclusion arrived at by the organization for economic co-operation and development: A real revolution in education is shaping up in the world under the combined pressure of economic expansion and the yearning for knowledge. It will reach its climax in 1970, when the whole world will be getting an education.
Then, Mr. Speaker, there are statistics concerning the rising cost of education in Quebec and the increasing number of students, but I will not impose on the house by reading them into the record.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, the people of Quebec are concerned when they see the federal government trying more and more to enter and control every field, even where it has no jurisdiction, because when the federal government sets foot in a field, it never gets out but stays there. We are therefore afraid, in the province of Quebec, that this intrusion in the educational field, which, anyhow, did not start today, will result in the creation of a federal department of education.
In some provinces, the French minorities have been fighting for years to obtain recognition of their school rights. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we do not want the majority of this country, which has neither our culture nor our language, to impose its views upon us in the educational field.
The people of the province of Quebec, therefore, want the directives in the educational field to come from the French speaking majority, and not from the English speaking majority. That is the problem. And that is why we have confederation. The province of Quebec has a very different concept of those issues.
There would be a way to correct the situation, but the government makes it more complicated, embittered and creates separatism in the province of Quebec, particularly

Loans to Students
by having no regard lor its rights. If the other provinces are ready to give up their rights, it is up to them. But the people of Quebec are justified in opposing that.
If we want to have a strong confederation and stop separatism, let us return to the provinces, and particularly Quebec, their taxation powers, so that they can develop according to their mentality and conscience.
Mr. Speaker, this government through its constant encroachments on fields that are none of its business, is one of the main causes of the separatist wave that we have in Canada.
As I said earlier, if it is in the interest of English provinces to understand that, it is also in the interest of the federal government to understand that question. If Quebec is strong, Canada will also be strong. And if Quebec is strong, it will hold out better against the American domination. In Quebec we do not want American domination. In English provinces, 80 per cent of television programs originate from the United States and invade Canadian homes. It is impossible for us to accept that. Of course, it is possible, but we prefer to listen to C.B.C. programs, because they are broadcast in our own language.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Speaker, might I ask a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see what objection the hon. member can bring forward-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand the hon. member for York-Humber wanted to ask a question, if the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm would be good enough to answer it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Surely, let the hon. member put his question.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Would the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm permit a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I heard him state just now that Quebec does not want United States domination. What objections were raised in Quebec when General Motors announced their tremendous new plant at St. Therese?


Gilles Grégoire: We did object.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, it is easy for me to answer this question. Not only the province of Quebec, but all the other Canadian provinces suffer from foreign control, since practically 65 per cent of all investments in Canada come from outside. From the standpoint of the economy we are unfortunately an American subsidiary at the present time, and the danger is there.
I wonder what the Minister of Finance does to encourage and help Canadians to regain control of their economy. Our natural resources are developed by foreigners. I am not against foreign capital but foreigners should understand that there should be Canadians on the board of directors.
I would not want the Cuban experience and that of other South American countries to be repeated here in Canada.
With regard to the bill, Mr. Speaker, I am personally against it, in its present form, and I urge the Minister of Finance to amend it and fill in the gaps.
The hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere and other members proved to the house that this bill constitutes an intrusion into an exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
If the government refuses to accept the amendments which will be moved, or does not itself amend the bill, I will not be able to support it, because Quebeckers, and especially the population of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, share my opinion.


Mr. Choquetie:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a question of privilege, because of the general content of the hon. member's speech.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: There is no question of privilege.


Auguste Choquette: The hon. member for
Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, claiming to be the spokesman of the population of Quebec, says that this province is very concerned about the intrusion of the federal government into fields where it is not concerned.


Gilles Grégoire: Order.


Auguste Choquette: My question of privilege is this. The province of Quebec is not at all concerned about an intrusion which does not exist. Indeed, there is no intrusion in provincial fields by virtue of this bill.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-110 is intended to help students of slender means. I admit that the purpose of the



IS, 1964 S533

[Stage Direction]
bill is most commendable, but I think that the ways are much less so. If it had not been for those special circumstances, this bill would even be a step toward an improvement in the condition most students had to face for so long.
Those who come from modest families, who succeeded in completing their studies and were able to cross the barrier of segregation at school, know how difficult it was for a lonely young man to reach the institute of technology, the university and even to complete high school. If we remember those sad years, it was the era of castes, of boys with wealthy fathers and of upstarts. It was either money, or academic and political pull which determined the degree of intelligence of the young student. I can tell you that several of the stars of that time would cut a sorry figure if they had to pass the intelligence tests used today. Progress is putting things right. We are confident that thanks to all the changes in education in general and all the facts known to future students, the next generation will find more justice.
Far from me to think that everything will be perfect. But the sole fact that we make efforts to reach perfection, gives hope to our young people. Therefore, it is our duty to remain careful at all times in order not to give up our birthright for a mess of potage, as an excuse to help students. Hence, it is important for us people from Quebec to make sure that our provincial rights in the field of education are not gobbled up once more by the federal ogre.
That is why we, the members of the Rallie-ment Creditiste, objected to the bill under study. At that time we had already discovered another intrusion, hidden as usual. We have always been pioneers in the protection and reconquest of the rights of the province of Quebec and we shall carry on the good work.
In Le Devoir of July 15, which for once, does justice to us, one can read on the editorial page, the following article by Mr. Paul Sauriol:
It is almost unanimously that the House of Commons passed Monday, on first reading, the bill establishing loans for students. If the resolution was passed on division, it was at the request of the Ralliement Creditistes which objects to this new federal intrusion into the provincial jurisdiction. Three of the four groups in the opposition joined the Liberals to approve this measure. This vote throws some light on some recent speeches on co-operative federalism.
Mr. Speaker, the bill states clearly that the provinces remain free to set up their own students' loan scheme. Such a scheme
Loans to Students
has been in operation for a few years already in our own province. However, the possibilities in Quebec are too limited, precisely on account of the action of the federal government in Quebec.
I hope that bill will be one more opportunity for the federal government to make up for its unfairness in the field of education by giving back to Quebec its share of taxes collected in our province.
The best would be for the present government to give back to each province which so desires its taxation right. But as long as we have those two old finance parties, which have never been honest enough to give back what they borrowed, we will remain in the sad obligation of accepting the crumbs which will fall from the table of the champions of centralization.
We realize that such socialist penetrations please certain provinces and that explains why this government, in spite of their fine electoral promises, infringe more and more upon exclusive provincial fields.
Our greatest concern at this time is to know when that widening of powers will come to an end. Why, even at the last election the Liberals presented themselves as the champions of the return of taxation rights to provinces. It was the end of the famous joint plans.
What happened since? In all provincial exclusive fields, we have seen a succession of casual encroachments upon the jurisdiction of Quebec. The Ralliement Creditiste made every effort to delay, if not to check that take-over of the various strongholds of the province of Quebec, but the federal Liberals, implicitly supported by Quebec Liberals, have continued their advance under the camouflage of co-operative federalism, which should rightly be called compressive federalism.
Luring the people with alleged benefits they took advantage of the situation to crawl into the very foundation of our provincial structure.
Even today it is clear that our students, like our school boards, our municipalities and even our province itself need the assistance expected from their government. But do you really help people when you sentence them to bear the yoke of banks for the rest of their lives?
Yet that is what we are doing when we give chartered banks permission to finance the education of our young people. And we
[Stage Direction]
Loans to Students
even go further, since this government guarantees to the chartered banks that they will be the only institutions to enjoy such a privilege.
Mr. Speaker, do you not think it would be much more logical to order the Bank of Canada to put the necessary funds at the disposal of the provinces, so as to allow them to act according to the aspirations and the thinking of their respective population? Several hon. members have asserted that the provincial rights were protected. But in order to pay interest on these loans, we all know very well that the federal government will again levy the necessary taxes in these same provinces.
It is therefore another door open to the federal government in the taxation fields reserved to the provinces.
It is precisely at that level that we are fighting against that interference tolerated by our provincial governments, not to say approved by them and the members who are supporting that bill now.
It is precisely at that stage that we can protect the fortress; it is not only a matter of preventing it from being overrun but also of preventing even arrows from hitting it. By what right, I ask you, does the federal government take it upon itself to tax the people of Quebec, giving them back too often only the third of what it collects from them and offering them small compensations such as free assistance which it considers a fabulous gift?
With Bill No. C-110, as with all other legislation concerning joint programs, it is false to say that the rights of the province of Quebec are protected by the contracting out formula, because the basic encroachment upon the field of taxation bears evidence to the fact that the federal government will again be in control and take the final decisions in this matter.
I should like to quote another extract of Mr. Paul Sauriol's article which was published in Le Devoir:
-a provision under which the federal government will compensate any province which administers its own scheme of student loans.
That is what is called respect for the provincial rights. Such a system remains unacceptable because the central government acts on its own in fields which come exclusively under the provincial jurisdiction, collecting and using taxes for provincial purposes, subjecting to its control and to its schemes even the provinces which would wish to break loose from them.
Let us, once and for all, return the rights to the provinces where they belong and the
[Mr. Gauthier.l
war of rights will come to an end. Thus, the federal government will stop being a mock Santa Claus.
We are longing for the day when the Quebec government will stop playing the game of totalitarian federalism, when we shall at last have in Quebec a government with sufficient courage to get rid of those old tax-mongers.
If each government would keep to its own field, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that in either field everything would be in order.
We firmly object also, throughout the province, to these being subjected to the will of bank managers. In order to get out of an abyss, we will be walking near the edge of a more dangerous precipice.
Let us imagine a student coming from a family in receipt of public welfare payments. What impression will he make on the bank manager when he answers the long list of questions asked by the chartered banks in the course of their investigations? If the father does not have a bank account or does not have his bank account in such and such a bank or, which is worse, if he never had a bank account, what will happen?
In these circumstances the degree of intelligence would be determined tomorrow by the chartered banks trust which would control in this way the whole direction of our future thinking.
After giving to chartered banks the power to create all our credit, the control of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation over our small home owners, the control of the Farm Credit Corporation over our agriculture, the control of our industrial life and and even the control of our vital index, today you ask them to control the training of our young people.
Auguste Choquette: You dramatize.


An hon. Member:: We are realists.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: A youth anxious to make his dreams come true will be tied to the worst trust which now controls us completely, and tomorrow will even control our thinking.


Auguste Choquette: This is a nice speech, but I should like to know who wrote it.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: It is certainly not a demagogue like the hon. member for Lotbiniere, for he always repeats the same nonsense and always practices the same demagogy. Why does he not try to become more responsible?
Therefore, we take exception, Mr. Speaker, not to the necessary assistance provided for students, but to the hypocritical manner in which the bill was introduced. Why is it that

when Quebec needs something to survive, it has to come and get it from the central government which decides the quantity and quality?
The idea is repugnant to us. And that is why we denounce this federalist oppression.
In conclusion, I ask the minister to authorize the Bank of Canada to make available to the provinces the necessary amounts for educational grants, and I repeat, for educational grants. Students should not be given loans but grants, because a loan is not assistance, it is a trap.
The government should respect the terms of confederation and return taxation rights to Quebec and everybody will be happy. [Text]


Mr. Kindt:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Michael Starr: May I ask the acting house leader whether there are any changes "El thebUsi-ness of the house for tomorrow or Friday, or will the order remain the same as the leader of the house announced last night?


Mr. MacNaughl:: Mr. Speaker, the business of the house for tomorrow and Friday will remain as outlined by the house leader last night, with the possible exception that if there is any time left tomorrow after concluding the student loans bill and the federal-provincial fiscal relations bill we will take second reading of Bill No. C-112, to amend the Judges Act.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 16, 1964