1965-03-30

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should like to deal with a matter raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) some few days ago. As reported at page 11963 of Hansard of March 4 last the hon. member for Port Arthur stated:
I wish to raise a question of privilege which appears to involve collusion between officials of the Department of Justice and certain members of parliament, in particular Messrs. Francis, Bas-ford and Macaluso. To illustrate this collusion I should like to make reference to certain questions on the order paper, being questions Nos. 2,042, 2,608, 2,766 and 2,805.
Subsequently in his remarks the hon. member for Port Arthur also said:
It is my belief that when you, sir, and other members of this house read these questions to which I have made reference you will wonder why they were ever accepted. The rules indicate that questions should be framed in such a way as to elicit information rather than give it. These questions appear to me to transgress many of the rules we have in respect of the kind of questions which should be allowed.
It seems to me that there are two aspects of the question raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur. On the one hand there is the allegation that there was collusion between certain hon. members and officials of the Department of Justice, and on the other that certain questions were irregular as to form and content.
Having stated the alleged question of privilege raised by the hon. member objectively and fairly-at least I hope so-may I now say that the Speaker's responsibility with regard to questions as stated at page 355 of May's sixteenth edition, "is limited to their compliance with the rules of the house. Responsibility in other respects rests with the member who proposes to ask the question".
That is the end of that quotation. I am also prepared to say that the rules and conventions with respect to questions are being applied in much the same manner now as they have
been applied under at least two of my predecessors. I would suggest it is neither feasible, necessary nor desirable for the Chair or the clerks at the table to look in behind the terminology of a question for the purpose of ascertaining whether a question is inspired, so to speak, or whether it is being put on the paper for the purpose of embarrassing or harassing a member or members of this house.
May I also add that I am not sure that it is irregular, immoral or contrary to usages for an hon. member to obtain information from a department either by a telephone call, through correspondence or by a personal visit to a department, and having obtained such information place questions on the order paper based upon or using therein some of the information so obtained. From a procedural point of view I am unable to find any authority or support for that proposition.
Therefore, for the reasons stated, it is my duty to say that I am unable to find that a prima facie question of privilege arises from the wording of the questions to which the hon. member for Port Arthur referred in his remarks on Thursday, March 4 last; and in consequence I cannot accept the motion presented at that time by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.
However, the question raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur went deeper than procedure, when he went on to say the following, as reported at page 11963 of Hansard for March 4 last:
I think all members of parliament, whether government or opposition, only ask for a fair chance. After consultation with your officials, Mr. Speaker, who deal with the order paper and questions of procedure, I now put before you for your advice the question whether there is a clearcut case here of collusion of the kind that would attack the traditional parliamentary rights of members of parliament.
Having given much study to the wording of the questions enumerated by the hon. member for Port Arthur, the Chair is unable to find any grounds to establish the fact that there has been a clear cut case of collusion between certain hon. members and officials of the Department of Justice or any other department of the kind which would attack the traditional parliamentary rights of mem-

Question of Privilege
bers of parliament. It seems to me that a clearcut charge of this nature would be a fitting and proper question for reference to the standing committee on privileges and elections, and if such were made the Chair would be prepared to accept a motion setting out a definite charge of this nature in which any member or members who may be involved or implicated therein are named.
In this regard I might reiterate in part a statement by the Chair made on Friday, October 30, 1964, as reported at page 9595 of Hansard. At that time I said:
It is undoubtedly a very serious thing to attack the conduct of any member of the House of Commons, and in that respect a specific charge should always be made, not a general charge. I am confirmed in this opinion by an excellent ruling, it seems to me, given by Mr. Speaker Michener on June 19, 1959, which appears on pages 583 and 584 of the Journals. I should like to refer to two short sentences in that ruling. I read from page 583:
"It has been strongly urged by some members that the house should not set in motion its power to try and to judge the conduct of a member unless such member is charged with a specific offence. It is urged further that not only must he be charged, but that he must be charged by a member of the House of Commons standing in his place."
I will now deal, if I may, with the form and the content of the eight questions referred to by the hon. member for Port Arthur in his remarks on March 4 last. With reference to questions 2,720 to 2,724 inclusive, I can find nothing unique or unusual in the wording of these questions. It is not possible for the Chair or for officers of the house to determine whether or not they were placed on the order paper by way of harassment as suggested by the hon. member for Port Arthur. In this regard I can do no better than to use the words of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre when, as reported at page 11964 of Hansard for March 4 last, he said:
Surely it is no function of the Speaker to ascertain whether or not access to files has been made available to private members of the house. I do not know what sort of investigation Mr. Speaker could carry on in that regard.
In my opinion, what I have said about questions numbered 2,720 to 2,724 inclusive will apply equally well to questions numbered 2,608, 2,766 and 2,805.
I now come to question No. 2,042, notice of which was filed on October 2, 1964, and which was read into the record and referred to specifically by the hon. member for Port Arthur on March 4 last in the following words:
Mr. Speaker, it is apparent from the information contained in that question that it is ex-

tremely unlikely the hon. member for Carleton had the specified dates and facts at his fingertips.
It is not my intention to quibble about the form or substance of this question, but I am of the opinion that it might have been drafted in terms more general in nature than those which were used. However, in fairness I should point out that much has been said in a report by a commissioner of inquiry which was laid before the house, in the courts of this country, in the newspapers of this land, and indeed in the debates in this house as well, concerning the Hal Banks case. Personally I was of the opinion that almost every facet of that question was of public knowledge.
It may be of interest to the house, I think, if I were to quote at this time an eminent and widely recognized authority on parliamentary procedure, Sir Gilbert Campion, a long time clerk of the British House of Commons, at page 145 of his "Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons", 1946 edition, where he states in part as follows:
Not later than three o'clock the question hour begins. This is a more important item of business than any yet described. It is expected to provide lively moments and seems to be of unfailing interest to members and the public. It is modern and affords a useful method of supervising the administration of the government. Its effectiveness is generally recognized. Questions "turn a searchlight upon every corner of the public service". Their chief object is "the explanation to the public of the meaning of political events", and "they are often arranged by the government itself so as to give them an opportunity of making announcements in a somewhat informal way". They are "serviceable as obviating the necessity in many instances of more extended debate and of motions for papers". And finally "questions afford to the private member under modern conditions almost his only opportunity".
"Most of these authorities agree also that the privilege of asking questions is liable to abuse and that the number of questions has increased inordinately."
It is apparent that what was true in the British house in 1946 is also applicable in this house today. To emphasize this point I need only refer to the more than 3,000 questions which have appeared on the order paper during this session alone.
I have referred to Campion only for the purpose of indicating that it is time this house took a long and hard look at the machinery and the rules of procedure covering the asking of questions. The purposes for which questions are now asked have altered considerably since standing order 39(1) was enacted in 1867, but apparently the terms of this standing order and the machinery followed

in handling questions have remained unaltered for almost a century. For example, one need only look at citation 171 of Beau-chesne's fourth edition in which will be found numerous and, in many cases, inoperable restrictions covering the form and content of questions. I suggest that if each and every one of these restrictions were applied in every case, very few questions would ever reach the order paper.
I regret having taken up so much time of the house at this time, but I propose, if the house will agree, to have this entire question studied by the special committee on procedure and organization in order to have the machinery covering the handling of questions modernized and to have rules laid down which will serve the purposes of and assist hon. members in posing questions.
In conclusion I should like to thank the hon. member for Port Arthur for having raised this question, since it may cause the special committee on procedure and organization to focus its full attention on a long neglected but important part of the procedure of this house.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


Mr. Speaker:: May I also take this opportunity to discuss two questions raised by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott), and this will be considerably shorter.
On Friday, March 12, 1965 the hon. member for Danforth asked two questions of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Nicholson), the first as follows:
I wonder what steps the minister is taking to investigate the circumstances under which Senator Gelinas was supplied confidential information from the files of the department by Raymond Denis in the Stonehill case, as reported in the press.
The second question was:
Is the minister aware that Raymond Denis has given testimony under oath to the effect that information from the files of his department was made available to Senator Gelinas?
Objection was taken to these questions. To the first question I made the objection that it contained an assertion, an allegation. To the two questions the Minister of Transport objected that they were questions about proceedings before a royal commission which is sitting at this time.
The hon. member for Danforth and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam were of the opinion that this particular evidence in
Grain Payments
no way involved a matter that was sub judice, and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam added:
I believe Your Honour will want to take under advisement the question as to whether evidence given before the Dorion commission which is not related to the terms of reference under which that commission is operating can be the subject of questions asked in this house. The particular question raised by the hon. member for Danforth related to the Stonehill case, and nowhere under the terms of reference is Mr. Justice Dorion authorized to investigate the Stonehill case...
May in his seventeenth edition at page 352 gives examples of inadmissible questions and, as set out in subparagraph 8, among the types of question ruled out of order are those dealing with matters referred to a royal commission. It would seem to me that the Stonehill case, not having been referred to the Dorion commission, does not fall within the terms of reference under which the commission is operating and therefore is in no way sub judice.
However, it would appear that these questions should not have been asked in their present form, and I do not think they would be proper questions to be put on the order paper as they now read. As I mentioned when the first question was asked in the house by the hon. member for Danforth, it is in the nature of an assertion or an allegation. I have come to the view that such questions should not be allowed in their present form, but I see no serious objection to having them put on the order paper if drafted in proper form.



OATS-FINAL PAYMENT FOR 1963-64 CROP YEAR

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the house that the Canadian wheat board is announcing in Winnipeg today the final payment for oats delivered to the board during the 1963-64 crop year. The total amount of the final payment to be distributed to producers is $4,707,003. The average final payment is 9.751 cents per bushel, compared to 12.375 cents per bushel for the 1962-63 crop year. The board will begin issuing final payment cheques to producers today, March 30, 1965.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in view

Citizenship Policy
of the important principle involved in the Bergsma case and of the question asked a few days ago in the house by the hon. member for Hamilton South, I should like to make a short statement on the government's intentions with respect to Mr. and Mrs. Bergsma, the couple who were recently refused citizenship by a judge of the citizenship court, His Honour Judge Leach.
Hon. members are aware that, on March 17, Mr. Justice Schatz of the high court of Ontario pronounced a judgment confirming the decision of the citizenship court judge. My immediate predecessor in office and the Minister of Justice, and more recently my parliamentary secretary, have told the house of the government's concern over this particular case, and have predicted the introduction, if found necessary, of amendments to the Canadian Citizenship Act with a view to correcting the situation.
With all due respect for the opinions of the two judges mentioned, both my department and I are concerned about the soundness of the original decision and the judgment of the high court confirming it. We had not thought that the citizenship act could be interpreted in the way it has now been interpreted. As a matter of fact I am informed that several citizenship court judges have permitted applicants to affirm rather than require them to swear the oath of allegiance.
The Attorney General of Canada feels that the legal question involved should be settled by a court of final resort. It seems less than reasonable that Mr. and Mrs. Bergsma should be required to bear the legal costs of contesting a decision on an aspect of the legislation with which the government is not in agreement and which, if sustained, we intend to ask parliament to change. I am sure, therefore, that hon. members will be pleased to learn that the crown intends to pay the reasonable costs to Mr. and Mrs. Bergsma of pursuing this matter in the courts; and their legal adviser, Mr. Ian G. Scott of Toronto, is being or has been advised accordingly.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: would like to congratulate the minister on the announcement he has just made. I am sure all hon. members have been perturbed by the court decisions to which he has referred. It was felt that either the government should immediately introduce amendments to rectify the situation or pursue the course which the minister has just outlined. I think the country generally will applaud the minister's decision to meet the necessary costs that the Bergsmas may incur if this case is finally

decided in the highest court of the land. It seems to me if we are going to have a country in which there is religious freedom, that religious freedom should extend to people who may have views which differ from those of the majority of Canadians. I think the minister has followed a very wise course, and I offer him my heartiest commendation.



NEWFOUNDLAND-AGREEMENT ON FINANCING OF CONSTRUCTION OF TRANSMISSION FACILITIES

Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that the northern Canada power commission has today concluded an agreement with the Newfoundland and Labrador power commission under the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, to finance the construction of power transmission facilities in connection with Newfoundland's Bay d'Espoir hydroelectric project at a cost of about $17,700,000.
Under this agreement a transmission line system 320 miles long will be constructed in eastern and northwestern Newfoundland. The transmission line and facilities will serve such centres as St. John's on the Avalon peninsula and Corner Brook on the west coast. The Atlantic development board has already agreed to provide $24 million to help finance the construction of the power plant itself and to assist in the conversion to 60 cycle power of the electric services of central Newfoundland and the west coast.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief comment on this important statement. I do so because there is no one from Newfoundland in this particular group. I should like to congratulate the minister on this important announcement which, as I recall, refers to a matter which has been under discussion for a number of years and indicates that the present government supports entirely the program inaugurated by the former administration under the Atlantic provinces power development scheme.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question based on the criticism of the government for



3u, 13SS

[Stage Direction]
its failure to enunciate an active and positive manpower policy, voiced by the national industrial conference board, as well as the similar criticism that was put forward by the economic council of Canada and to which the minister objected so strenuously. I should like to ask him, is the government now prepared to bring forward such a policy in the near future in order to eliminate the uncertainty and uneasiness which has developed amongst both labour and management?
Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: In June, 1963 we did enunciate what I considered to be an active and aggressive manpower policy, and I hope tomorrow or the next day to make an announcement with respect to this matter.


Michael Starr: Would the minister not consider bringing forth legislation along the lines of the manpower and automation bill which was placed before parliament by the previous government, and which the present government killed when it came to office?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This government brought about an improved measure through a supplementary estimate more quickly and effectively than was contemplated in that legislation. It is now in operation, and it has developed agreements in certain parts of the country.


Michael Starr: Can the minister inform the house what results this manpower policy has brought about in Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would be glad to tell the house the results of this policy, but I think it would require more time than I have available on orders of the day.


Michael Starr: You could do it in half a sentence.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON ASSISTANCE TO OLDER WORKERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Now that the government has cancelled its program to assist workers aged 45 years and over to find employment, after running it for about five months at a cost to the taxpayer of more than $3 million, what plans does the minister now propose to institute to take its place?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I hope to be able to announce an older worker program in the near future.
Inquiries of the Ministry QUEBEC-PROPOSED CENTRALIZATION OF EMPLOYMENT OFFICES
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Is it the present policy of the government or of the Department of Labour to proceed to the closing of several small employment offices so as to centralize them in main offices such as Victoriaville, Sherbrooke and Thetford Mines?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to get a more detailed answer. In view of the fact that this policy will be applied next April 1, that is two days from now, could the minister inquire about that and make a statement in the house tomorrow?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Minister of Justice whether he has any report to make to the house regarding the efforts of his department to locate Lucien Rivard. Has he received a report from the attorney general of the province of Quebec regarding Rivard's escape, and is he himself satisfied that reasonable precautions were taken to prevent that escape? I would also ask the Minister of Justice whether he is satisfied that all possible efforts are being made by the police at various levels to apprehend Rivard.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: With due deference I must answer the first part of the question by saying it would not be proper for me to comment on the discharge by a provincial authority of its own responsibilities. As for the second part of the question, I am pleased to advise that I am satisfied all police authorities involved have been and are taking all necessary steps to effect Rivard's arrest.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could I ask the minister whether he has made inquiries and can now assure the house that all the major law en-

Inquiries of the Ministry forcement authorities in the various cities and states of the United States have been fully acquainted with Rivard's escape and are on the look-out for him?


Guy Favreau: As far as the facts involved in this question are concerned I must say I am receiving continuous information as to the situation.


Michael Starr: In view of the fact that the desired information as to the whereabouts of Mr. Rivard has not been forthcoming as a result of the reward offered by the government, would the government in order to help the officers in their quest consider increasing the amount from $15,000 to a larger sum?


Guy Favreau: This question has already been answered, Mr. Speaker.


Michael Starr: How about some action?


An hon. Member:: You don't even know where Rouleau is.



HAL BANKS-STEPS TO BRING BACK TO CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['These were United States pictures.']
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
What steps is the government taking now to bring Hal Banks back to Canada? Does it intend to let the matter fizzle out or is it doing something to find trace of Hal Banks and bring him before the Canadian courts?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I must say that the question of Hal Banks, like several related matters, is still under consideration.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister know where Hal Banks is hiding in the United States?


Guy Favreau: No, Mr. Speaker.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the government made a decision regarding relief for Chile in connection with the earthquake disaster there, and if so what has been the nature of the help offered by Canada?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of State for External Affairs: We have ascertained that no Canadians have been injured as a result of the earthquake. We have not yet had a complete estimate of the damage from our embassy.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he could give us any information with regard to the situation existing at the present time in Saigon and South Viet Nam. Second, would he inform us as to whether there is any Canadian representative there who can give information directly to his office?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the situation in Viet Nam, of course, cannot be fully described in response to a question on the orders of the day. The Canadian position is as stated repeatedly, that we have encouraged both sides to agree to a cease fire but there is no evidence of a disposition in this regard in so far as Hanoi is concerned, or in so far as any country which might be giving North Viet Nam encouragement is concerned.
Canada has a representative on the international control commission in Viet Nam, one of our most experienced officers. That officer is in turn assisted by a number of other Canadians, and we are in continuous consultation with our representative. In addition we have representatives, of course, on the international control and supervisory commission in Cambodia and likewise in Laos. So from these three sources we Eire kept fully informed of events as they are seen by these experienced officers.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With that information available to the minister, exactly what happened in Saigon yesterday?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there was a bombing, as my hon. friend knows, of the United States embassy. The full particulars of that have not been given to us beyond what has already appeared in the public press. The bombing, however, represents a further indication of the very serious tensions which prevail in that regrettably divided country.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a further question for the minister of external affairs, with regard to the fact that we have representatives stationed in Viet Nam. Are we right in assuming that there is an official of the Department of External Affairs stationed in Saigon?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, Canada does not have any formal diplomatic representation to any of the Indochina countries. I am glad my hon. friend has asked this question, because I am sure his question was prompted by the news that one of the Geneva powers has dispatched a distinguished former foreign minister to make an assessment of the situation in Viet Nam. In view of the fact that Mr. Gordon Walker will be representing one of the co-chairmen of the Geneva accord powers, this move will be recognized as a very constructive step.
However, I should say that in addition to the representative Canada has on the commission, the head of the far eastern division of the Department of External Affairs within the past few months has been in Viet Nam conferring with Mr. Seaborn and his colleagues as well as other representatives of the commission in the other two Indochina countries. I should also say, finally, that the Canadian representative on the commission in Viet Nam is afforded an opportunity which is denied any other diplomatic representative in Saigon. As a member of the commission he is free to pursue his duties not only in Saigon but, what is more important still, in Hanoi. As a matter of fact, within the past three months Mr. Seaborn has had no less than two important conversations with representatives of the government of North Viet Nam in Hanoi.


Mr. Stuart A. Fleming (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of certain newspaper photographs which we have seen depicting the interrogation of prisoners in South Viet Nam recently, are Viet Cong and North Viet Nam prisoners taken by South Viet Nam and United States forces protected by the Geneva convention with regard to their rights of interrogation?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Geneva convention applies to the situation in Viet Nam no less than it does to other similar situations. However, the United States is not a signatory to the Geneva accord on the use of gas in wartime.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stuart A. Fleming: A supplementary question. Would the secretary of state consider that if South Viet Nam and the other countries are signatories a protest should be launched vis-a-vis the situation pictured very vividly in the press the other day in a photograph showing a prisoner being questioned with a spear at his throat?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has not protested these incidents but I am looking into this at once. The war which is in Viet Nam has features of an international war and a civil war mixed together. It seems that mistreatment of prisoners goes on on both sides, though the pictures appear in relation to acts by one side only, for obvious reasons. I think we have to maintain a sense of balance in these matters, and bear in mind also appalling incidents like the bombing of the United States embassy in Saigon, which can do no good in military terms but does kill and wound innocent bystanders in a haphazard fashion.


Stuart A. Fleming: A
further supplementary question. Would the minister consider the reply he has just given is adequate in the circumstances? There are members of this house who have occupied places in prison camps, who have been given protection and know something of the situation. Surely Canada cannot simply accept that kind of response. Is it satisfactory from our point of view that our friends and allies use primitive and depraved methods of interrogation which we would never tolerate ourselves?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I am sure the house would agree that a statement of this sort from the hon. gentleman would be seriously regarded in view of his own background. But I am equally sure that as a responsible member of this house-and he is a responsible member-he would not want to base conclusions merely on the evidence of a picture in a newspaper.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: These were United States pictures.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I have a question for the Prime Minister or for the leader of the house. Would either inform the house what the course of business may be during the balance of this session, and

Inquiries of the Ministry whether the government intends to open a new session before Easter? If so, what are the government's plans for business in the new session prior to an Easter recess if, indeed, there is to be such an adjournment?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult to speak with confidence about the business of the house these days, but it is our intention -and I hope the house will approve-to get the opting out bill, so-called, through as quickly as possible and deal with the balance of the work of this session, which will be interim supply and supplementary estimates. Then if there is any time remaining while the Senate is completing its work we might have to consider introducing something-


An hon. Member:: Group singing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -but I hope that will not be necessary. Mr. Speaker, group singing would be a refreshing change from some of the other noises we hear in this chamber. After this session ends-and we hope this will be within a few days-it would then be possible to have the recess for Easter we have been talking about-


An hon. Member:: And praying for.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -but only provided we get this session finished in time to have the new session begin and the speech from the throne disposed of. That is all I think we can contemplate before the Easter recess.
While we had hoped that the budget could have been introduced this session-and the Minister of Finance expressed this some time ago-this hope has been frustrated for one reason or another, and the budget will have to be brought in after the Easter recess.



COLUMBIA RIVER-B.C. POLICY RESPECTING RIVER BASIN CLEARING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: In
good conscience I wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works on behalf of the united conservation front of Kootenay West. My question is based on the general concern in the Kootenays over the policy announced by the British Columbia hydro and power authority with respect to the clearing of river basins involved in Columbia treaty projects. Would the minister inform the house what action his department is

taking to prevent the development of hazards to navigation, through the enforcement of the Navigable Waters Protection Act?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member be good enough to put that question on the order paper.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and ask him whether he has any progress to report on the establishment of geographic co-ordinates to delineate the base lines for Canada's territorial waters.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: I wish to advise the hon. member that the question of the establishment of geographic co-ordinates is receiving very active consideration, and I hope to be in a position to make a very definite statement on the matter in the very near future.


John Angus MacLean: Can the minister tell us whether negotiations have been completed with most of the countries concerned? Are negotiations still going on with a number of countries, or are there only one or two to be completed?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I believe negotiations with four countries have been completed. Negotiations with the other countries interested in the fisheries along our shores are continuing.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance, and I am basing it on a speech he delivered to the Haldimand Liberal association, as reported in the Globe and Mail of March 29. When he made his derogatory remarks about one of the members of the house, was his speech a classical example of one who had reached second childhood, or was it a diversion from the scandals within the Liberal party?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Finance a question.
Since the Prime Minister expressed the hope that the budget would be brought dowD

after Easter, can he tell us how much has been done so far by his Toronto advisers in the drafting of the new budget?


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question.
Can he tell the house if, before the 1963 general election, he promised to appoint Mr. Adrien Meunier to the bench of the Quebec superior court if the latter made way for the present Minister of Justice as Liberal candidate in Papineau?
r TPTti



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like address a question to the Minister of Transport respecting the regional air policy in southern Alberta, which has been under consideration in varying degrees from active to very active for the past year.


An hon. Member:: For the past two years.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: For the past two years, perhaps. I would ask the minister whether there has been a determination, or when we can expect a determination, in regard to the supplying of some kind of air line service into and out of Medicine Hat.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman knows there have been discussions between two air lines about this matter but up to the present it has not been possible to find any air line that is prepared to undertake the service. However, I still hope that arrangements can be made to that end.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the pleasing announcement by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources today about the Bay d'Espoir development, I wonder whether the minister could indicate when a decision might be reached on the $20 million allocation of funds to the government of Nova Scotia by the Atlantic development
Inquiries of the Ministry board with regard to their recommendation that this money be used for direct grants to industry, similar to the recommendations in the Professor Wilson report.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is aware that the initiative in that matter lies with the government of Nova Scotia; and I am sure they are just as anxious to get ahead with good uses for this money as we are.



REQUEST FOR STUDY OF EFFECTS OF FOREIGN CONTROL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the Prime Minister a question. On March 19 the Prime Minister said he would be glad to take under consideration a request to have the economic council of Canada make a study of the effects on our economy of foreign ownership and control. I wonder whether the Prime Minister has completed his consideration and is in a position to make a statement to the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. The matter is still under consideration, but I hope to make a short statement about it next week.



MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. Has the Minister of Justice been informed yet that the legislative assembly of British Columbia passed a resolution asking the parliament of Canada to amend the British North America Act and the Divorce Act to permit provinces to legislate for divorce and the grounds for divorce?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I have not been pertinently advised, so I shall inquire.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Arising out of his statement yesterday that the question of the hunting rights of Indians

Inquiries of the Ministry amounted to an emergency situation, I wonder if the minister can tell the house whether the personnel of that interdepartmental committee have in fact been chosen; and if so, when do they intend to have their first meeting?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the personnel of the committee have not yet been chosen. The matter is under study.
While I am on my feet, and tied in with the same subject, may I say that yesterday the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands inquired whether the Indian affairs branch of my department would consider payment of the costs of the two Indians involved in a proposed appeal by the attorney general of British Columbia, from the decision of the court of appeal of that province to the Supreme Court of Canada. I assured the hon. member that I would look into the matter and give him an answer as soon as possible.
I might say that on occasion legal aid is provided by the Indian affairs branch to Indians involved in appeals in hunting and fishing cases where their rights are in question, either by authorizing expenditures from band funds or directly from appropriation. The policy has been that assistance is provided in appeal cases where it is considered that the decision given will likely clarify the legal position of a substantial number of Indians in relation to a particular treaty or a particular law or within a particular region of the country.
In the Clifford White and David Bob case the department has offered to assist the Indians with legal counsel in accordance with this policy. It is understood that application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada has been made by the attorney general of British Columbia. Counsel for the two men concerned are being advised of the department's intention.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, arising out of the answer just given by the minister. Will he consider with his colleague the Minister of Justice, since federal treaties are involved, the intervention by the Attorney General of Canada in this case, which I believe is customary under the circumstances?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to discuss it with my colleague as suggested.
[Mr. Rheaume.l



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Since municipalities in some provinces-in British Columbia, and I believe New Brunswick-are unable to obtain loans under the municipal development and loan act because of the depletion of the allocated funds, can the minister say whether the government is considering an increase in the available funds at this time.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker. As my hon. friend knows, the purpose of this legislation was to accelerate various municipal works. This has been quite successful, but if the fund were added to at this time it would take on a different character and instead of accelerating municipal works I fancy it would merely provide an alternative source of financing.


George Louis Chatterton: A supplementary question. In view of the undertaking given last August, namely that where some provinces deplete their allocation before others they will be provided with more money, would the government not reconsider its position?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to look into the particular reference.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I wonder whether I might reply to a question asked on Friday last by the hon. member for Greenwood concerning a proposal for a tunnel to Toronto island. This, I might say, is a subject very close to the heart of the hon. member for Spadina, who has made representations to me about it on numerous occasions.
I am not in a position to give a firm answer to the question raised on Friday. However, the hon. member will be interested to learn that a delegation from Toronto will be here early in April to discuss this matter with the Minister of Transport and other ministers, including, I can assure him, myself.
Robert William Prittie: supplementary question. Would the Minister of Transport also take into consideration at
12S43

the same time the question of a tunnel to the Vancouver international airport?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I spent practically all week end considering that question, and I am still considering it.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources but, in his absence, I shall direct it to his parliamentary secretary.
Could he tell us what progress has been made concerning the negotiations with Quebec for the transfer of jurisdiction over the Eskimos to the Quebec government?



CANADIAN COASTGUARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  T. S. Rarneff@Comox-Alberni: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport seems to be a fairly good source of information today. I should like to ask him whether he recently made a statement on the west coast about the expansion of coastguard services. If so, what was the substance of that statement?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, when I was in Victoria I was asked a question about the coastguard, and I said I did hope there could in the course of the next few years be a substantial expansion of the coastguard on the west coast, and I do hope so. But I made no announcement of anything imminent or immediate.


Mr. Barnett:: A supplementary question. Would the minister not consider it desirable to prepare himself to make an immediate announcement of a considerable expansion of those facilities?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, there are a great many things which would be desirable, but the Minister of Finance can collect only so much money from the taxpayers of Canada.
Dominion-Provincial Relations FORESTRY



SUGGESTED CHANGE IN NAME OF DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question.
In view of the fact that the ARDA program finds in the province of Quebec a wide range of application, would the Prime Minister consider giving the Department of Forestry a more appropriate title?
Since that program affects to the same extent the fields of education, sociology, agricultural rehabilitation and rural redevelopment, I think it would be desirable to find for the Department of Forestry a new title more suitable to the activities now in progress in the Gaspe peninsula and undertaken jointly by the province of Quebec and the federal Department of Forestry.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS TRANSFER TO PROVINCES OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR SHARED PROGRAMS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, March 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gordon for the second reading of Bill No. C-142, respecting the operation of certain established federal-provincial programs, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lambert.
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the current debate I am sure many members on both sides of this house have become convinced of one important thing, namely that our constitution itself should be a modern constitution suited to modern times. It is my impression that many members in all corners of the house have been convinced of that fact, and I might say that I intend to relate my remarks to the amendment.
I do not say this in a partisan sense, but it is my impression that the government should have set up machinery a long time ago in order that we might have obtained agreement that our constitution should be modern and suited to modern times. This could be brought about by a series of federal-provincial conferences held at different times in different parts of the country. I do not suggest that we repeat the performance that took place before 1867, when in order to get confederation and this nation on the

Dominion-Provincial Relations rails in the first place we actually had a Liberal-Conservative coalition. I am suggesting, however, that the federal government should take the initiative, certainly before it places this kind of detailed legislation before this house in relation to federal-provincial relations, to set up an all-party committee to study our constitution. Members of parliament and members of the Senate could be appointed to this committee.
One of the first tasks of this committee would be to travel from one end of Canada to the other conferring with similar bodies if possible or with the governments of the day in the provincial capitals. The next step would be to meet in Ottawa, where findings could be made by the committee and further studies carried out. A final meeting would then follow of the federal and provincial committees.
Let me say at the outset that the results of such a series of conferences might indicate one of three things; that the constitution should remain exactly as it is, because it is flexible enough for current needs; that it should be amended slightly, or that it should be entirely scrapped. I use the word "scrapped" advisedly although perhaps it is not the best word to use in this debate. My suggestion is based on the idea that there are generally speaking three points of view in this country today; one expressed by those who feel we need a new constitution, one expressed by those who feel the present constitution is sufficiently flexible for present needs, and another expressed by those who feel it needs only slight amendment.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, the government should have taken the initiative a long time ago to make sure these different points of view were brought to the conference table. Whatever might happen, we cannot expect miracles, but such a series of conferences would go a long way toward establishing agreement in respect of our constitution. Whatever the results of such a series of conferences, the resulting constitution I suggest would be a modern one suited to modern times. I plead with the government to take this kind of initiative before they, again, proceed with the type of detailed legislation we are currently considering.
Relating my remarks to the amendment at hand, surely if we have this type of a conference it will also mean that we can discuss priorities, and that is the kernel of our amendment. I plead with the government to take this kind of initiative before continuing

with this alternative type of ad hoc legislation in relation to federal-provincial problems.

We must realize that, while we wish to see some progress in the federal legislation concerning the Canadian economy, it is important that our federal-provincial relations be at their best. At this point, I wish to suggest something to the government, in all broadness of mind. When we are not in agreement with the policy advocated by this government concerning national unity, or federal-provincial relations, it is not enough to answer that we, the Conservatives, are anti-Quebec. On the contrary, I can assure you that we are of good faith.

I should like to repeat what I said. At the present time in this Canadian House of Commons we are beginning to seriously realize that we cannot make progress in many legislative fields which affect the economy of Canada unless we do everything possible in every corner of this house to improve national unity and federal-provincial relations in the truest sense of the word. I for one, and I think I speak for the majority of members in all parties, suggest that when we are dealing with this subject of federal-provincial relations in this year 1965 we must try to reach a bipartisan level.
On every occasion when we do not agree with the government in respect of questions of national unity, on every occasion when we suggest an alternative proposal, and on every occasion when we fail to say "Yes, yes, yes" to the government in respect of its measures designed to improve national unity and federal-provincial relations, I suggest it is not fitting for the government to reply by suggesting that the leader of this party and the members of this party are anti-Quebec. The Liberal party has been doing precisely that in the province of Quebec since 1867. It has been making this kind of smear there for many years, and I suggest that my people are now going to stop it. The answer to our propositions, which the government has continually given, that is that we are anti-Quebec, is no longer a good enough answer. Let me suggest immediately that while the current dialogue of debate is taking place, many people in the province of Quebec whose voices have not been heard are thinking that we must maintain a strong central government in Canada.

I should like to say right away, sir, that substantively speaking this legislation is correct. I have no argument with its general purport. With relation to most of the joint programs listed in the bill it is my view that the provinces have a perfect right, legally and in every other way, to opt out of these programs. But here in parliament we must be cognizant of what Haldane said about justice; that justice must not only be just, it must seem just. Like so many things this government has done, while this legislation substantively speaking may be correct, the timing of the government is bad. They have brought in legislation of this type at a time when they have failed for so long to do so many other things related to the central problem of federal-provincial relations.
As I proceed with my remarks I should like to discuss the proposed amendment to the bill and some principles of federal-provincial relations for which I for one feel our party stands. 1 should also like to discuss a few general things in the field of federal-provincial relations that I think the government should have done before they confronted the Canadian people and the Canadian House of Commons with the type of ad hoc, patchwork legislation with which we are faced today. Then I should like to close my remarks by, 1 hope, objectively criticizing the government's performance in general in the field of federal-provincial relations.
By way of introduction let me simply say that I do not think it is good enough just to say that because provincial premiers, even if those provincial premiers are Conservative, advocate a certain course of action this necessarily means that the federal Conservative party in the House of Commons must automatically agree. When provincial premiers, be they N.D.P., Social Credit, Conservative or Liberal, come to Ottawa to engage in federal-provincial conferences or for any other purpose they must defend the provincial cause no matter what their political stripe is. It has been ever thus since confederation. On the other hand federal parties, no matter what their political stripe may be and no matter at what period in the evolution of Canadian history they are acting, must defend the federal cause and powers. Because the Prime Minister at various times chooses to do otherwise I simply reiterate and emphasize the fact that this is his choice.
In the corridors of the House of Commons during the past week it has been said to me, for example, with regard to this legislation we are now discussing that it is impossible to disagree with it because revenue
Dominion-Provincial Relations minister Kierans of the province of Quebec has his tax forms already prepared based on the passage of legislation of this kind. In many ways I have great respect for the revenue minister of the province of Quebec, but I think this is a very dangerous attitude for federal political parties, be they in the opposition or in the government, to take. While we realize there has got to be give and take, compromise, understanding and good will and the ability to see both sides of the question in federal-provincial relations, when all is said and done the federal government must defend the federal cause, and people in every corner of Canada, including the province of Quebec, are very concerned lest we water down the strength of the federal government.
But do not misunderstand me, Mr. Speaker. I am not saying this particular piece of opting out legislation would do that. I have already said that I agree with it in substance, but in some respects one wonders why this legislation has been brought before us. Is it not merely crossing the t's and dotting the i's and only putting into legislative form that which I have always felt the provinces could do at any time? At any rate, if many people are perhaps regarding this legislation in a mistaken way, I say again it is because of the bad timing of the government and, as Haldane said, in this instance justice will not seem to have been done.
Before I proceed to review the government's performance in the field of federal-provincial relations I should like in discussing the amendment to refer to some principles with regard to federal-provincial relations which my party feels it is most important that we should adhere to at this time.

It must be realized that the constitution of Canada-and I want to repeat this as often as possible-is the first in the world to combine a federal government system with a parliamentary system.
I always believed that a federal system of government should try and combine a measure of unity with a measure of diversity.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that Canada never was and never will be united along the lines of the principle of the melting pot. Everyone knows that we have a small population spread over a vast territory, and I believe that when our population is much larger, when means of communication are faster than ever, our motto toward Canada should be: Unity in diversity.

Dominion-Provincial Relations
Our federalism is based on a particular psychology among the various people and provinces, a psychology which results in a desire for union, but not for unity of language, culture, religion and so forth.
Such a stand for unity in diversity should always be considered as a positive and dynamic factor in our national make-up. The truth is that this basic diversity in our national life often gives rise to numerous problems through the years of our nation's development. We are faced with some of those problems at the present time. I think that, when we are content to speak of the need for mutual respect and understanding and the need for co-operation, we are not being positive enough, far from it, in taking this attitude of live and let live. It goes without saying that co-operation and understanding are essential elements of our attitude, but the sooner we concentrate on the positive advantages of our diversity, the less we shall be hearing about a confederation crisis. Then, we shall start looking outwards as well as inwards.

When we say that our party was the party of confederation-I am now enunciating some of our party's principles with relation to the amendment, the bill and federal-provincial relations-it has much greater significance than simply underlining the fact that we were in power in 1867. The spirit of Macdonald and Cartier means more than that. It means that we have two great founding races and Canadians of many cultural and ethnic origins working together to build our country.
This gives Canada its unique strength, and this spirit of unity in diversity keynotes the fact that the melting pot theory is not applicable to the Canadian mosaic. A Conservative believes a man can be intensely loyal to his family, to his church, to his community; and when he does this there is no reason to hold that his love of country has diminished. We recognize, sir, in this party, as so often the government does not, that people on the local level know what is best for them and how best to govern their own affairs.
I think to a great extent this principle is being underlined in the legislation before us which permits, at this time in our nation's history, those provinces who wish to do so to opt out of certain programs. I am told that the expression "opt out" is not all that desirable. Perhaps we can all get together and think of a more suitable expression which
[Mr. Grafftey.i
would not lend itself so often to misunderstanding.
Let me quote from two great men who understood Conservative principles, principles which I believe are applicable to the Canadian scene at this time, namely Salisbury and Burke. In my view these general observations illustrate the universality of Conservative principles, even in Canada in 1965. I think they should be underlined as we are considering the principles of the amendment and of the bill itself. The following is an excerpt from a speech by Lord Salisbury on the Conservative party at Newport on Monday, October 7, 1885, which illustrates the persistent Conservative advocacy of a more equitable balance of initiative and authority between central and local governments. He said;
Now bear in mind what true reform and local government means. It does not only mean-what I quite admit-that the local authorities should be popularly elected; hut it means that when you have got at what you want, when you have provided the proper constitution of local authority, you must provide that the local authority has sufficient powers, and that it gets those powers by diminishing the excessive and exaggerated powers which have been heaped on the central authorities in London.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me quote-pertinently, I believe-from a speech by Edmund Burke, because it illustrates the traditional Conservative attitude toward the morbid concentration of power in modern states, another principle upon which I think many supporters of the government would agree. I believe this is a principle that should be underlined at this time in Canada's evolution:
It is boasted that the geometrical policy has been adopted, that all local ideas should be sunk, and that the people should be no longer Gascons, Picards, Bretons, Normans; but Frenchmen, with one country, one heart and one assembly. But instead of being all Frenchmen, the greater likelihood is that the inhabitants of that region will shortly have no country. No man ever was attached by a sense of pride, partiality, or real affection to a description of square measurements. He never will glory in belonging to chequer number 71, or to any other badge-ticket. We begin our public affections in our families. No cold relation is a zealous citizen. We pass on to our neighbourhoods, and our habitual provincial connections. These are inns and resting places. Such divisions of our country as have been formed by habit, and not by a sudden jerk of authority, were so many images of the great country in which the heart found something which it could fill. The love of the whole is not extinguished by this subordinate partiality.
I should like to interject here, Mr. Speaker, a note which I think many members would agree with, and that is that because Quebeckers love their province it does not in any

way diminish their love for their country called Canada. Burke went on to say:
Perhaps it is a sort of elemental training to those higher and more large regards by which alone men come to be affected, as with their own concern, in the prosperity of a kingdom. To be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ, as it were) of our public affections. It is the first link in the series by which we proceed toward a love of our country, and of mankind.
Having said these things, I admit at some length, I fully recognize that on the other side of the coin the federal government was created in Canada to guarantee minimum social and economic conditions in every part of our country from the Atlantic to the Pacific. When we talk about provincial autonomy we should be equally aware of the fact that the federal position must be zealously guarded.
This is one lesson that I am not sure the present government has learned or understands. The federal government, too, has its autonomy. The Conservative will fight extremes wherever he finds them in Canada. The Conservative will fight the extreme of centralization. The Conservative will fight the extreme of decentralization. We therefore arrive at what somebody will call the obvious conclusion, that in Canada we must have a strong federal government acting in co-operation with strong provincial governments, both acting within their respective constitutional jurisdictions. This is almost axiomatic, Mr. Speaker. However, it is something that must be repeated time and time again.
What principles and considerations will help to bring about such a state of affairs? The principles and considerations that I am about to enunciate relate to federal-provincial relations and things which this government has neglected to get under way. They must get activity in these general areas under way as soon as possible. Permanent consultative machinery between Ottawa and the provinces must be improved immediately. A real secretariat for federal-provincial relations must be established at the heads of government level.
Now, Mr. Speaker, every time I mention this subject and say this is something that must be done before we act on this type of ad hoc, patchwork legislation, ministers opposite say such a secretariat has been set up in the privy council office under the right hon. Prime Minister, who reports directly to this house on federal-provincial relations. The type of secretariat about which I am 20220-819J
Dominion-Provincial Relations talking, the type of secretariat based on the ARDA approach and the natural resources approach so well understood by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle when he was minister of agriculture, is the type upon which we should base such a secretariat. I say this because in the field of ARDA, in the field of renewable resources, as many members recognize we have initiated real federal-provincial cooperation based on a secretariat of this kind. The secretariat which the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) says has been set up in the privy council offices, with the help of one or two senior officials who are already overworked, is not the type of secretariat I have in mind.
The provinces and the federal government must meet as soon as possible to plan priorities. This must be done before patchwork legislation of the type we now have before us is brought before the Canadian House of Commons. If it is, even though, objectively speaking, the legislation may be in accordance with the strict terms of the law we shall be obliged once again to take a critical stand: It is the timing which is so important. It should not be forgotten that this government's greatest failure to date has taken place in the field of federal-provincial relations.
I may have my rose-coloured glasses on, but I think the old reactionary Tory who worried about the growth of government expenditure is a thing of the past. At least I hope he is. There is no longer any reason to fear the growth of governmental expenditure in itself. Big government is not necessarily a bad thing, provided we make sure that the state works for the individual and not the individual for the state. We recognize that more public institutions must be built- roads, parks, hospitals, improved prison institutions. All these things must be done. We have been talking about plans for medicare. Surely the government in a bipartisan way can accept a suggestion whether it comes from Premier Roblin or from any other premier, or indeed from any corner of this house. Surely the government can swallow its pride and get together with the provinces as quickly as possible in order to plan priorities.
There is a third thing which I believe needs to be done; I have listed it third but perhaps it should have come first on the list. As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks we should obtain agreement as quickly as possible so as to obtain a modern constitution suited to modern times. I have already suggested in brief outline a series of conferences

Dominion-Provincial Relations through which this goal could be attained. We should not expect miracles, but such meetings as these would go a long way toward alleviating the present situation. Certainly, before patchwork, ad hoc legislation such as this is brought forward for consideration by the House of Commons again, such a series of consultational conferences should be held. Why should we have such a series of conferences?

First, let us deal very briefly, Mr. Speaker, with the matter of public education.
How many times has it been said that almost a hundred years ago our economy was mostly a rural one. Education came under the provinces' jurisdiction. I will not give statistics but in 1867, at the time of the little red school house, expenditures for education were much lower than they are today. In this era of high automation, a good education is essential and our provinces must have the financial resources and sufficient taxation powers to fulfil their ever increasing responsibilities.

There is another reason why we should begin right away to hold a series of constitutional conferences so as to modernize our constitution. I have in mind the difficulties presently being faced by our cities, towns, municipalities and metropolitan areas. I fully admit-and I am not being patronizing in this sense-that according to the terms of our constitution cities, towns and metropolitan areas fall under the authority of the provinces by virtue of section 92. However, the sprawling metropolitan areas we find in Canada today are not cities and towns in the sense of those words in 1867 when our constitution was drawn up. We see a metropolitan area about to come into being in Montreal. One already exists in Ontario and others are planned to come into existence. Already we have metropolitan areas which prepare annual budgets larger than those of several of our provinces. While I freely admit that the provinces have the prior responsibility under the terms of the constitution with respect to this new form of metropolitan area, the federal government surely cannot turn its back on the problems which face these sprawling cities and metropolitan areas in 1965-problems involving urban renewal, parks, playgrounds, the treatment of the aged and the disabled, physical fitness, juvenile delinquency, and so on. Again, I maintain that the federal

government cannot turn its back on the difficulties confronting these new units of government in this modern day and age.
I find it hard to put into words the third consideration I have in mind-relating to why we should get this constitutional conference under way as soon as possible. Let me simply say this: At the time of confederation in 1867 there was a union in many ways between the two great founding races. Today, those speaking for the vast majority of French speaking Canadians say they want to remain in an outward looking and dynamic confederation. Without placing blame in any direction they simply state that up to the present they have not been equal partners on the national scene. Common sense adjustments must be made in a spirit of good will and give and take. On the other hand, in 1867 the area of Canada west of the lakehead was only sparsely populated. After the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway the situation changed. In addition to those Canadians who travelled west from other parts of Canada, people from many lands came to our shores to join with the two founding races in the experience of nation building. My experience in Ottawa and in the west has shown me that the millions of Canadians who now populate our nation west of the lakehead have their own unique, dynamic and meaningful concept of Cana-dianism, as do other regions of Canada. It is possible that political, economic and social developments in Canada over the past years have accentuated regional points of view. If this is the case, then I for one feel it constitutes one of the basic strengths of Canada founded on the idea of unity in diversity. The time has come, however, to minimize the possibility of misunderstanding, and this is another reason why we should hold the series of conferences which I have suggested.
May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that in the province of Quebec a legislative committee is well advanced in its study of our constitution. Soon it will report on its work and make recommendations. Is this not another reason why the federal government should take the initiative and set up a series of constitutional conferences? I think the answer from the fathers of confederation would be, yes.
I should like to make a few brief closing observations in the area of our party's principles. I believe that apart from the responsibility the federal government has for maintaining social and economic standards throughout the land we should insist that the

government which spends the tax dollar should be obliged to raise it.
There is another principle, sir. It is my opinion that a great disservice is done when the ordinary fiscal problems connected with federal-provincial relations are confused with the larger question of bilingualism and bi-culturalism. I fully realize that many of my province's aspirations-legitimate aspirations -relate to economic considerations; but currently too many people both inside and outside Quebec are confusing the normal demands for the tax dollar with the auestion of English-French relations. The results are harmful, sir. Men in responsible public positions should realize that the words "nation", "state" and "province"-and these are just examples-do not always have the same meaning in both the official languages of our country.
Take one translation. For example, "de-mander" in French means "to ask for", but when somebody is speaking in French in the province of Quebec and says "demander", invariably it gets translated in the English newpapers of the country as a "demand" from the province of Quebec. It is said the people of Quebec say, "We will have our way by demanding this, or else". But it does not mean "demand". I do not want to seem to be giving the house a lecture at this time, Mr. Speaker, but this is just one example. As I say, "demander" in French means "ask for"; but invariably we see in the English newspapers outside the province of Quebec that Quebec is demanding something, when they are only asking for something.
In finishing my remarks today, Mr. Speaker, I want to make some specific criticisms relating to this legislation brought forward by the government. My criticism is directed toward the field of federal-provincial relations and the attitude thereto of this government. One year ago a centralist cabinet made up of over one third ex-senior civil servants slavishly adopted the centralist point of view. I am not exaggerating when I say that apart from a budget which, for the first time in the history of Canada, had its main parts completely withdrawn, all major aspects of the federal government's domestic economic policy floundered on the rocks because they failed to consult with the provinces in areas of conjoint jurisdiction. Municipal loans, loans to university students, the extension of the Family Allowances Act-these are only examples-and the budget itself were all key areas where the government floun-
Dominion-Provincial Relations dered on the rocks with its whole economic program.
Apart from the programs floundering, Mr. Speaker, national unity was hurt. But now the pendulum has swung to the other extreme and, as I said before, many Canadians are now fearful of the government's not stopping in the middle of the pendulum, but having gone right over-at least this is how it seems to many of us-to the extreme of decentralization. What the right hon. Prime Minister has omitted to realize is that no matter what the political stripe of the government, no matter what principle or doctrine this government bases its activities on, a federal prime minister in federal-provincial relations must defend the federal cause; he must not negotiate it. The right hon. Prime Minister did great things for this country, and I was proud of him, when he negotiated so honourably for our nation at home and abroad. I say this in a bipartisan sense. But in federal-provincial relations there are times to lead and times to negotiate. However, Mr. Speaker, the present government has negotiated far too long and has forgotten to lead in the federal cause. That is one of the real reasons why federal-provincial relations are in the state they are today, and why national unity has been hurt so much.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member to advise him that the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the house give unanimous consent to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) continuing?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the house for their kind permission to continue my remarks, which I will certainly bring to an end very shortly. I would simply like to close my remarks by repeating-and I know members opposite will think I have been quite partisan in the last few minutes-that which I said at the beginning, namely that I think in this year 1965, in the area of federal-provincial relations most of us should try immediately to strike a bipartisan note and get on to bipartisan ground. I sympathize with the government because with regard to federal-provincial relations it is difficult to know exactly what to do in a young country like Canada, the first country in the western world that has attempted to combine a federal system of government with a parliamentary

Dominion-Provincial Relations system. It is not easy and I recognize that; but surely this is another reason why when we come up with alternative proposals with regard to this subject hon. members opposite should not say we are just anti-Quebec. But that is what will be said of many of us.
The government got into great trouble a year ago by slavishly adopting outmoded centralist principles, and now they have gone right through the middle of the pendulum to the extent that it seems very, very possible to many Canadians that they are advocating an exaggerated system of decentralization today. Conservatives, Mr. Speaker, fight the extremes of centralization or decentralization wherever they find them. I can only plead with the government to give serious consideration to this question.
While I have made a lengthy speech today on this subject, and while I agree with the substantive part of the legislation the government has brought before the house, I think their timing has been terrible. I believe the government should get on with the basic things which must be done in federal-provincial relations before they bring this type of detailed, ad hoc, patchwork legislation before the Canadian House of Commons. The next time they bring this kind of legislation before the House of Commons, I hope the government will have taken the initiative to really improve permanent consultative machinery between Ottawa and the provinces. I hope the government will have taken the initiative to convene a meeting with the provinces to plan public spending priorities in the social and economic fields. Third, but probably most important, I hope the government will have taken the initiative to set about this series of conferences so that we shall obtain a modern constitution suited to modern times.
If this is done, sir, I can assure members opposite that they will find members on this side of the house only too willing to discuss matters of this nature in a bipartisan sense. I for one, and I am sure this applies to many members, think that if we do this kind of thing, if we get behind principles of this kind, we stand a much greater chance-I am a realistic optimist when I say this-in a spirit of co-operation, willingness and with a broad view, of really having something to celebrate about in 1967.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, there are many who believe that there are no fundamental differences between the two major parties in this country. I see in the
[Mr. Grafftey.l
kind of legislation which has been introduced by this government over the last 18 months to two years a pattern which separates me as far from their philosophy-and farther-as I am from those on my left. There are fundamental differences, notwithstanding what members of the fourth estate may write in this connection; and what I have read indicates-as is often the case-that they, like the spectators, are often behind the play. I can do no better than put on the record at the outset the statement of those principles from which stem my beliefs in this matter of opting out and the constitutional problems confronting the country generally.
This is the view of Sir John A. Macdonald when he was speaking in the confederation debates, as reported at page 33:
Ever since the union-
He was speaking of the United States of America.
__was formed the difficulty of what is called
"state rights" has existed, and this had much to do in bringing on the present unhappy war in the United States. They commenced, in fact, at the wrong end. They declared by their constitution that each state was a sovereignty in itself, and that all the powers incident to a sovereignty belong to each state, except those powers which, by the constitution, were conferred upon the general government and congress. Here we have adopted a different system. We have strengthened the general government. We have given the general legislature all the great subjects of legislation. We have conferred on them, not only specifically and in detail all the powers which are incident to sovereignty, but we have expressly declared that all subjects of general interest not distinctly and exclusively conferred upon the local governments and local legislatures shall be conferred upon the general government and legislature.
These words were quoted by Prime Minister St. Laurent in this House of Commons on January 31, 1949, as reported at page 88 of Hansard for that year.
Rather than finding new ways to divide the nation the government should be searching, in my view, for an opting in program rather than an opting out program. There has been no indication of that, that I have been able to see. The course has been exactly the same from the beginning. This is a curious reversal from a government which over 22 years was the all-powerful government of policies on centralization.
The theory of two nations was enunciated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) at Murray Bay on August 17, 1963. This enunciation was the first I had heard of the theory of a nation within a nation. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that that phrase will come back to haunt the Prime Minister. I believe that

you can speak culturally of a nation within a nation: But politically you cannot have a nation within a nation, and still have one Canada. Yet every action of this government shows that is precisely what they have in mind-two nations, politically as well as culturally.
Never in my belief has national unity been under attack as it has been under the Pearson administration, under the Liberal administration, under Liberal policies. The tactics, as my hon. friend from Brome-Mis-sisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) has just pointed out, appropriate to the United Nations do not work on the Canadian political scene. This government and its adherents have persistently taken the attitude that Quebec is to be treated as a foreign country, to be bought with concessions and shoved off in the corner to run its own affairs. To this 1 object. To this I take violent exception. A Liberal policy of gradual isolation of Quebec will ultimately result in separation. I call it deconfederation on the instalment plan. Quebec is not a foreign country. It is as much a part of Canada as Ontario, the maritimes, the west or the north. Historically it is more important. I think of the words of Henri Bourassa-
Le Canada tout entier, c'est notre patrie.
That is the true, authentic voice of Quebec speaking. It is a voice that this government does not want to hear. This government has hitched its star to the extremists, and in doing so is progressively dismembering Canada. This legislation, the opting out bill, is just one of those steps-the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) has called it this, as has Mr. Lesage-perhaps a first, halting step, along the road to eventual disintegration.
From my observation this has been the attitude of the Prime Minister from the beginning. We have two flags, two pension plans, opting out, a constitution with the vertebra removed, Ontario adopting a modified red ensign-and other provinces will be doing the same. We have one flag for the provinces, another for federal purposes. That is the situation in which they are placing this country. We are divided, rent asunder, torn, fragmented, at a time when we are approaching the one hundredth year of confederation, a confederation that has given us freedom, prosperity and peace. My observation is that it is a very sad and shocking sight, a very far cry from the days of the visionary words of Sir John A. Macdonald which I read into the record at the outset. This is not my con-
Dominion-Provincial Relations cept of how a nation should be built. It is not my concept of how to create unity.
The Liberal premier of Saskatchewan said this to the Canadian club on October 19, 1964:
At one dominion-provincial conference after another, the provinces, faced with ever-increasing costs, are making ever greater financial demands on Ottawa. And year by year the federal authorities, for the sake of national unity, have been forced to give ground.
I ask, where does it stop? When does the government cease giving away the birthright of all Canadians, the right to a national government and to a national structure? Under the Pearson government parliament is being plucked of its powers like a chicken. Every now and then the Minister of Justice makes a speech. He talks about everything except that which we want to hear. He is amazingly voluble on some things and just as amazingly reticent on others. He made a speech in Montreal on February 27 this year, one whole section of which was devoted to "The natural interdependence of Quebec and Canada", as though they were two different countries. This is the government that talks of our interdependence with the United States. While they are paving the way for union on the one side, they are opening the door to separation on the other. In the same speech the Minister of Justice, after explaining opting out as some precious pearl in the diadem of co-operative federalism, tied it in with the constitutional amendment and said that this could be only, to quote him, "a preliminary step". One shudders to think what is coming up next in the Liberal bag of tricks.
I believe Mr. Lesage understands these matters a little better-perhaps a little better than anyone in the present federal govem-men. He says that opting out has obtained for Quebec a special status. These are his words, as quoted in the Montreal Gazette for March 4 of this year. There is another view on this special status which comes from the Louis Riel committee, published in Le Devoir for March 27:
The Louis Riel committee therefore is of the opinion that the Favreau-Fulton formula-
That is a complete misnomer. Mr. Fulton's name should not be in there at all, because this formula is so far removed from the one with which he dealt as to make him a complete stranger to it. Its dealing with section 91(1) of the act makes it so. I repeat:
The Louis Riel committee therefore is of the opinion that the Favreau-Fulton formula implies a grave danger of the balkanization of Canada, outside of which would be Quebec. Our special

Dominion-Provincial Relations status would then become the isolation of being shut out, and might better be expressed as a "singular status."
That is exactly the point I am advancing. This is not opting out: It is shutting out Quebec from confederation all along the line. One cannot separate opting out from the constitution and all the rest, because it is all part of the same theme. If it were only opting out there would be no problem; but it involves the whole course of this government. Certainly the argument on the constitutional changes applies directly to opting out, because they are directly linked by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) in his speech, and by the premier of Quebec, Mr. Lesage, in his remarks in the legislature of Quebec.
Sir John A. Macdonald's view was that there should be a strong central government. This was Cartier's view and this was George Brown's view. I quoted Macdonald from page 33 of the confederation debate, speaking on February 4, 1865 where he outlined the dangers of so-called "states rights", and the manner in which that philosophy had erupted into civil war in the United States-which the fathers of confederation in Canada tried to avoid and did avoid by giving the residual powers to the federal government. They were right then, and those who stand for a central government having the capacity to discharge its responsibilities are just as right now, because anything less than that would mean the fragmentation of this country.
The Prime Minister of Canada has been almost indecent in his haste to give away what Canadians in every province and territory of this country have spent 100 years in building. He has praised the constitution with faint damns. He has characterized it as obsolete and archaic. He has said that we must reshape it, revamp it and rebuild it. In 1963 he said that we needed a 1963 model. No doubt now in 1965 he is suggesting that we need a 1965 model. He has shifted with every wind, swayed with every change in temperature, sought on all occasions to please, to concede, to surrender, to give in, as long as no one is going to get annoyed with this pristine Liberal government-this aggregation of Simon pures on the treasury benches. What a farce, Mr. Speaker, I say.
On November 26 at the federal-provincial conference the Prime Minister said this:
No constitution can provide in all of these matters, a clear and rigid separation of the functions, responsibilities and powers of our respective governments-
It did, until they over there started fooling around with it; tinkering and tampering in

a field in which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) is an expert.
The allocation of powers in the British North America Act is in the clearest language imaginable. There are exclusive federal powers and there are exclusive provincial powers, and in a few areas the power is shared. The residue belongs to this parliament. It should be noted that the powers are not allotted to this or that government-and opting out is indirectly in this area-but to the central parliament or the provincial legislatures.
Thus, when a weak federal government sits around a table in secret sessions with the provinces, in what is rapidly becoming the fourteenth parliament of this country, and arrives at secret decisions, it is not the federal government that is giving up its own powers, but the powers of the parliament of all the people of Canada. These are being sold down the river-and I repeat "sold down the river"-to satisfy the exigencies of the Prime Minister's view of practical politics. That is all it amounts to-the buying and selling of our national patrimony; the negotiation of the national structure. This is one thing that is not negotiable as long as parliament has even a scintilla of responsibility.
The premier of Quebec believed that in 1949 and the present Prime Minister also believed that in 1949. On February 15 of that year the Prime Minister said in parliament that to accord a veto to the provinces would place this country in a "constitutional strait-jacket" which would make "progress and development quite impossible". This is exactly what he is now attempting to do. Where is the responsibility or the logic in such an abrupt about-face? Did the Prime Minister know then what he was talking about, or does he not know now?
At the conference in 1963 he was the first to speak and he produced the opting out offer before even being asked. The Prime Minister said at that time:
One can readily conceive of a new arrangement involving transfer to the provincial governments of full responsibility for some of the present shared-cost programs. Such a transfer would be carried out on a scale that would involve hundreds of millions of dollars.
What a delightful carrot to place before the provincial premiers even before the conference got under way. This was hundreds of millions of dollars voted by this parliament in respect of specific programs in which the federal government would be playing a part, being shovelled out at federal-provincial conferences by the Prime Minister, starving

for support. All this money, in the words of the Minister of Finance used in this house a day or two ago, if I heard him correctly, would go to the provinces opting out and producing new programs-not the same ones, but different ones, in accordance with clause 12, having substantially the same objectives as those approved by this parliament.
Under that criterion I suggest to the Minister of Finance that two programs as radically different as the Soviet cosmonaut program and the Zambian space project-oil drums and all-would get the same cash remuneration. Although radically unlike both certainly have "substantially the same objective". The whole thing takes on an air of unreality, but that is customary when dealing with the projected legislation of this government. At the same federal-provincial conference, after falling all over himself to offer the provinces the most colossal handout of the people's money in Canadian history, the Prime Minister made one of his statesmanlike assertions. He said:
We are seeking by co-operation to make our federal system work to the best advantage of all Canadians.
After that revolutionary opening he went on to say:
This can be done on the basic principles established in 1867.
I have just read those basic principles from the debates which took place in 1865. Cooperative federalism from the point of view of Liberal policy as practised by this government means the dismantling of our constitutional structure and the surrender of national sovereignty. It represents the progressive fragmentation of federal authority, and it means placing this parliament in the deep freeze.
The basic principles established in 1867 were ruthlessly scrapped on October 14, 1964 and this Prime Minister, for whatever short time he may have left, will go down in history as the man who drove a wedge into the constitution of Canada and, in so doing, into confederation itself. The Prime Minister and his government continue their relentless downgrading of confederation and the Canadian constitution. On television on January 5, 1964, with Mr. Ryan of Le Devoir and Mr. Lynch of Southam's, both of whom have seen a great light since that time, the Prime Minister delivered himself of this penetrating constitutional analysis:
Well, I think the focus of power, apart from the time of great national emergency, like war or the great depression-the focus of power in every
Dominion-Provincial Relations
federation tends to become blurry. I don't know whether it's any more blurry in Canada now than it was. I think the relations are going to be changed between the provinces and the central government.
The Prime Minister has a habit of dropping these little asides immediately prior to launching a sortie against our entrenched institutions. It was not long after that utterance that he began demolishing the constitution. I do not know to what extent the focus of power was "blurry", to use the Prime Minister's word, before the advent of Pearson Liberalism on the scene, but I know that since the arrival of the present Prime Minister it is getting blurrier every day. One after another our national institutions, the things that hold this country together, have been toppled and scrapped, with nothing to put in their place except what I will refer to as an instant policy cooked up in the backrooms of the Liberal hierarchy. They are great masters of the art of instant policies.
I say this to the Prime Minister and to the Liberal party opposite: Under the constitution as drawn up 100 years ago there was no doubt where the focus of power was; there was nothing blurry about it at all. The focus of power was in this federal parliament. They knew that only in this way could Canada remain free, independent and prosperous.
That is my belief. Changes may be made, not the instant changes of Liberalism-even this one is backfiring on them-but changes emanating from a clause by clause study and examination, changes in relation to the needs of the people, the provinces, educational groups and so on, changes that will come about as a result of that very kind of conference that is suggested in the amendment, but changes which will leave the federal parliament with the power to act in the government of this country.
I say to the Prime Minister and his collection of fumblers over there: Continue as you have been doing, continue to weaken this nation at the centre and it will come apart. You will have progressive fragmentation leading to separation on the one hand and absorption into the United States on the other.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: I hear groans from members of the party opposite, but there are many in the ranks of that party to whom this eventual result would not be displeasing in the least.
On April 19, again on television, this time with Mr. Pelletier and Mr. DePoe, the Prime Minister spoke of "protecting and guarding

Dominion-Provincial Relations the rights of French Canadians as guaranteed in our constitution". Now he proposes to remove that guarantee by reducing the power of the federal parliament to protect those rights and placing their survival in the hands of the provinces. I say, sir, that you cannot separate these policies of the Liberal government. They are all part of the same theme; they are all part of the same package. They lead down a road to deconfederation at the end of which is a precipice, and if the Liberals continue on that course it can only mean disaster for Canada as a country, for Canada as a federal state, for this nation as one Canada.


Mr. Mackasey:: Will the hon gentleman permit a question? 1 gather from the hon. member's eloquent remarks that he does not approve of the bill because it weakens the federal government. Am I right in presuming, therefore, that he disagrees with the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) who discussed the bill on March 17 last and said at that time, as found on page 12487 of Hansard:
In putting forward the amendment-
Which was simply to retard the bill.
__I am prepared to propose, I want it to be
clearly understood that my hon. friends and I recognize the rights of the provinces in the fields indicated by the joint programs. These rights have always existed, and so have the rights belonging to the crown of Canada; otherwise all these things would have been ultra vires.
I do not want to take advantage of the hon. member's generosity by reading the whole speech of the hon. member for Edmonton West, but he made a very strong case that the bill now before us is only recognizing rights that the provinces have always had.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member asking a question?


Erik Nielsen: I see nothing inconsistent at all between the remarks I have made and those made by the hon. member for Edmonton West. I am not suggesting for a moment that there be any watering down of provincial powers, any more than I am with regard to federal powers. On the contrary, this division or demarcation should be respected and neither one should be invading the field of the other, because it will only bring about disintegration. The message I was trying to get across in my remarks was that all of these policies of the Liberal government, which I believe are as different as night from day from the policies of this party, are lead-
[Mr. Nielsen.)

ing only to deconfederation on the instalment plan.


Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew South):: Mr. Speaker, it is one of the great things about the House of Commons that even a cat may look at a king in this chamber. It does not have to be a championship Cheshire or Siamese. Even an alley cat or an old tomcat can look at the king across the floor. We have seen this happening this afternoon from the very humble back rows. I thought this particular cat was belled with the Dorion inquiry, because I am told that when this particular cat left the Dorion inquiry its tail was very much between its legs-


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Wait until the report comes out.


John James Greene: -and it thereupon repaired to the safety of this chamber to come back to life.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Wait until the report comes out.


John James Greene: I understand that the views that were aired or read by the hon. member who has just spoken were not the views of the 52 per cent of the official opposition, but of the 48 per cent. It would appear from the public press that the hon. member was not able to carry his own caucus with regard to the views that he has brought forth today.


Mr. Pugh:: Say something about the constitution.


John James Greene: I understand also from his words that he not only disagrees with the 52 per cent but also with Mr. Fulton who was formerly a member of that party. I understand that Mr. Fulton is not a member any more of the 48 per cent Prince Albert section of that party, but is a member of the 52 per cent section.


Mr. Ricard:: You cannot make up your mind yourself, that is why.


John James Greene: I think it is important, if I can get through the cackling of geese from the other side, Mr. Speaker, to put on the record, in order that the record may be very clear in this regard, the difference of view amongst those on the front benches of the hon. gentleman's party, as represented by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), and the apparent views of the 48 per cent as represented by the last speaker. Now, I believe this should be put in juxtaposition on Hansard so that all those-there may be a few who are interested in the

hon. member's words-who wish to do so may be able to compare his views with those of others. The hon. member said categorically, as I have recorded it, that what this house needs is an opting in, not an opting out policy.
I think it is important that these words of his, in which he alleges that this legislation-I suppose he was discussing this legislation-is going to fragment the nation, be kept in mind. Let us see what the honourable and responsible member for Edmonton West had to say on this same subject. I quote from Hansard, page 12486:
A great deal has been written about it-
He is speaking about the opting out legislation; he was speaking about the subject matter at hand, whatever the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) may have been speaking about.
-a great show has been made about it, and somehow or other the phrase "opting out" has been coined as a result of the meetings which led up to this bill and to the agreement behind it. With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I think this is one of the biggest hoaxes perpetrated on the Canadian public in the last few years.
There is no opting out in this bill. Provinces are going to be given the right to sign supplementary agreements to join programs in which they are now involved-
The hon. member for Edmonton West went on to say, as recorded at page 12488:
I believe, Mr. Speaker, we must recognize that the provinces have had the right to enter into these areas.
Then, later, he said:
Therefore I believe that this bill does not at the present time increase the field of activity of any of the provinces. It does not detract from their jurisdiction;-
These words, I think, are particularly appropriate in the light of the less informed views of the last speaker.
-it does not detract from the jurisdiction of the government of Canada, because this bill does not amend the constitution.
Now, there would appear to be some slight divergence of opinion between the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Edmonton West in this regard, but I take it that it represents little more than the difference of opinion that is presently extant in the hon. gentleman's party between the views of the 52 per cent and the views of the 48 per cent. It may be appropriate, therefore, that we have heard from them.


Mr. Lambert:: I can tell you that you do not know what you are talking about.
20220-820i
Dominion-Provincial Relations


John James Greene: The hon. member went on to refer to the original debates in this house in 1865 prior to confederation and he enlightened us with a speech by the then attorney general for Canada west, wherein he very particularly enunciated that he wished to have a strong federal constitution to prevent the chaos that had resulted in the land to the south. This is all very well, but I think the hon. member was a little less than candid with this house if he tried to leave the impression that those views of the attorney general for Canada west were subsequently implemented in the constitution of Canada as evidenced by the British North America Act.
I think it should be pointed out also that prior to the enactment of the constitution and prior to any judicial interpretations of that act in subsequent years, there were those, in particular some hon. members from Canada east, who took part in the confederation debates. I do not know if my hon. friend has seen fit to read any other passages than those of Sir John A. Macdonald or whether his party recognizes any of the other fathers of confederation. However, if the hon. member for Yukon has read the speeches of other members, he will know that many members from Canada east were very much afraid of the fact that a constitution as envisaged might result in a unitary constitution which would abrogate some of the essential rights of language, religion, etc., which members from Canada east deemed essential if this nation were to survive. I think the hon. member again was less than candid to the house when he failed to tell the house that subsequent to these speeches by Sir John A. Macdonald, the judicial interpretation of our constitution by the privy council resulted in something far less than the central powers which he is attempting to leave the impression existed until this opting out bill was introduced.
I think any student of constitutional history in this land, no matter how slight his knowledge may be, would agree with the fact that the judicial interpretation of the British North America Act has resulted in a great proportion of the residual powers being vested in the provinces rather than in the federal government. If I may straighten the record which has been distorted to some degree by the last speaker, I would say this has been a problem of Canada since these judicial interpretations left the provinces with the vast majority of economic, social and judicial powers, while the federal government was

Dominion-Provincial Relations given the vast majority of the taxing powers. Then, following the Rowell-Sirois report in 1938, this house used those taxing powers to remedy the difficult situation at the end of the depression and the subsequent period of war. These federal powers were used to a far greater degree in the national interest than the constitution of this country, as it has evolved and as it has been interpreted by the courts, actually permitted.
If there is one thing that distinguishes between the reactionary, who has his head in the past and his foot in the deep, deep past and the realist in political life, it is that the realist can distinguish between present needs, present trends and the present desires of the people of Canada, and what has occurred in the past. It is all very well for the hon. gentleman to stand up in this house and say: This is what Sir John A. wanted and therefore this is what we should do. I suggest that possibly this is a position the party has taken too often in the past. They have had both feet so far back in the nineteenth century they never realized exactly what was happening in the twentieth. In recent years in particular this has been the position taken by the administration represented by the party of which the hon. gentleman was, I understand, a very remote member at that time-although he has since come to the fore, possibly shall we say through the negative aspects of his abilities. When members opposite were in power his positive aspects were not appreciated by his leader; but now his party is out of office he has found other attributes which apparently are highly regarded by his party.


Norman Platt Lambert: You are safe either way.


John James Greene: If there is one thing which has certainly characterized the administration of the party which is now the official opposition-and one has only to read Mr. Newman's book or Mr. Hutchison's equally valid review of the record of the Conservative party-it is the fact-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am not sure whether what the hon. member is about to say has any relation to the bill before us, but I would ask him to bear in mind that we are studying a certain piece of legislation. Perhaps the hon. member would be good enough to relate his comments to the bill.


John James Greene: I will certainly endeavour to the best of my humble abilities to relate these views to the bill in question. I was about to say that if there is one thing which characterized the administration between

1957 and 1963 it was that it put its feet, and its head such as it was, well back into the past in constitutional as well as in social matters. Its members apparently failed to realize the fact at the present time with the great emphasis on growth and the great need for national development at the local level affecting matters which, in accordance with our constitution as it now exists, are within the provincial ambit of authority, there is a need to turn from the concepts of Rowell-Sirois to this new demand for development capital and development taxation money at the provincial level.
It has been characteristic of this administration that since it took office it has recognized this fact. The opting out bill before us, along with other measures such as the municipal loan fund, recognizes that the trend to centralization which was the natural trend of the thirties, to get out of the depression, and the inevitable trend of the war years has now been reversed, and that what is needed today is power, authority, and the wealth with which to carry out obligations for development at the provincial level.
Contrary to what the hon. gentleman who last spoke said-and I say this despite the fact that there are differences of view between him and the hon. member for Edmonton West in this regard-I submit that this bill is but one of the measures passed by this administration which takes cognizance of the important fact to which I have drawn attention. It is singular that the hon. gentleman should talk about the fragmentation of this nation and the difficulties in national unity which have occurred in the last two years. He looks back on the halcyon days from 1957 to 1963 when this nation was apparently unified as never before; when there was no friction between the various parts of the nation; when, apparently, there was absolute harmony between the French Canadian part of our partnership and the rest of Canada. I suggest there may be others in this country who would say that in the past two years we have for the first time, in matters such as this and in recognition of the fact that differences in this nation do exist, come far closer to realizing true unity based on an appreciation of our differences than we did by stamping them under heel, as was the case during the period between 1957 and 1963.
The hon. member for Yukon has referred to deconfederation on the instalment plan. He has referred to Mr. Bourassa who said-

The whole of Canada is our homeland.

It is very easy for members of the House of Commons and others outside this house to say that confederation should be what they wish it to be as individuals. Apparently for the hon. gentleman, confederation is the same as that of Sir John A. He has not advanced a step since 1865. He would like Canada to be exactly as Sir John A. had it in 1865. It is this attitude on the part of various persons in this land who say: 1 love this country and it is a great country but it must be the Canada I would wish; not some other kind of Canada; I am not willing to move an inch, which I feel is so out of place today. This is, in fact what the hon. member is telling us, because he has not moved an inch since 1865. I think it is clear that if this country is to continue to thrive and grow as a nation-and we have no doubts in this regard-it must be because our leadership has the wisdom and the understanding to assess what has happened in the past as well as the courage and the foresight to look forward to the needs of tomorrow and apply those lessons from the history of the past to the needs of tomorrow, social, economic and national.
Contrary to what the hon. gentleman has attempted to infer by his doom and gloom recital of what is happening to the nation at the present time in fields such as this, I believe this administration has recognized the situation as it exists through judicial interpretation; they know the facts of the constitution with which we are faced and they have accepted the fact. Yes, and that there are two founding peoples in this country as well as many other persons who have come here from other lands. With this attempt to look at provincial needs from an economic and social standpoint they have said that the trend to centralization is not in the best interest of this country, nor what is likely to preserve our country today. The time has come to turn outward to some degree by measures such as this and to give the necessary authority to the provinces, the necessary taxation to the provinces, by grant or otherwise, to enable them to carry out their responsibilities under the constitution.
Who would deny that in a land as sparsely populated and as widely spread as this, the problems of development, which are local problems, are better handled at the local level than they are from Ottawa, which is so
Dominion-Provincial Relations remote from many parts of the country and where not only in this house but in the public service it is so difficult to find the comprehensive knowledge of local needs necessary to effect development on a sound basis? Surely this can be done better on the local level? Legislation of the kind before us and similar legislation constitutes recognition of this fact.
I would point out that the hon. gentleman has again tried to perpetrate on this house- and through it, I take it, on the country-the myth that this bill, along with similar measures, is something particularly or peculiarly directed to the great province of Quebec. I suggest that this is not in any way so. It has been so often the attempt of the party that the hon. gentleman represents to divide this nation on that basis-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John James Greene: -to try to impute motives to this administration on the basis of doing things such as this, of bringing in legislation such as this which recognizes an economic fact, namely the need of the provinces to be able to handle the national growth which is needed at the local level on their own basis and with their own particular circumstances in mind. The attempt to twist this into some form of favouritism for the province of Quebec is, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, doing the subject of national unity, to which the hon. gentleman professes allegiance, the greatest disservice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: That statement in itself is a twist.


John James Greene: This legislation recognizes the existing economic and social facts of Canada as they are today. It recognizes, as has other legislation in this area by this administration, what the people of Canada today, at this time, desire in this area. While the hon. member has attempted to impugn the character, the integrity, yes, and certainly the judgment of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in this regard-


Erik Nielsen: What judgment?


John James Greene: -I suggest that history will record that, just as Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King was the leader who recognized that at the time of Rowell-Sirois, and the subsequent war at the end of the depression, centralism was the need of the day, so the right hon. Prime Minister of this day will be recognized in history as the man who kept this country together for the great

Dominion-Provincial Relations future that is ahead by recognizing, Mr. Speaker, the social and economic needs of the time and the national need of the time, and by having the wisdom, the foresight and the courage to translate that voice of the people in this country at this time into legislation such as this, which is the manifestation of Canada's needs and desires today.


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


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I wish to ask a question, too, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Halifax.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member this question, because I understood him to say that strong central government was only important in time of war or in time of serious depression. I would therefore ask if he does not feel that the fact that in the future we will be dealing, in our economic international relations, with larger and larger commercial units, will make it necessary, for this purpose, for Canada to have a strong central government in the future. Also, when it comes to opting out, if he is going to allow provinces to opt out of many, many programs, would he agree that provinces such as Nova Scotia should be allowed to opt out of the tariff structure that protects Ontario?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is a difference of opinion now. Your party is divided.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, that the record might be correct in this regard, I at no time said that the only time a strong federal government was necessary was in time of depression or insurrection, in time of war. I said that historically it was patent that a strong federal government was needed at that time, and the administration that was then in power in this country recognized that fact.


Erik Nielsen: For 22 years.


John James Greene: I agree with the hon. gentleman that there must be a strong federal government at all times in this nation.


Michael Starr: Of all the boloney that we have ever heard.


John James Greene: I do not, as hon. gentlemen opposite would allege, accept the fact that giving the provinces the power, the fiscal authority and the money to carry out development within their own areas is in any way fragmenting the powers of the federal government in this country.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Answer the question.


John James Greene: In answer to the hon. gentleman's question, if he feels that the federal authority is being in any way limited or is becoming inconsequential, I would suggest, with respect, that he look at this year's estimates.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? My question arises from his statement that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) should not be calling this an opting out bill. I am wondering if his attention has been drawn to page 12669 of Hansard, where the house leader of the official opposition asked this question:
Could we have the business of the house for tomorrow?
The reply of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) was:
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will start with the Canada pension plan bill, and if that is finished we will revert to either the opting out legislation or the Companies Act.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John James Greene: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I fear that the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume) was not giving the due and diligent attention to my words of wisdom which they merited.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: Now we know why you didn't win.


John James Greene: In referring to the name of the bill I was not giving my own opinion in this regard; I was quoting that great authority in this house, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). Those were his words. In my view the terminology "opting out" is unfortunate. In my humble view the bill should be called "the recognition of existing provincial powers bill".


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) had waited a little longer, in addition to commenting on what he thought might have been some disagreements, some divergences of opinion between hon. members on this side of the house, he might, after some hon. members had participated, have found that there were within reason a number of differences of opinion on this side of the house.


Mr. Byrne:: That is obvious.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am proud that this is the case. While this bill is by itself, I think, reasonably innocuous, nevertheless it does touch on issues which are basic and fundamental to the preservation of this nation, of this union. It is bound, for that reason, to have its impact on people in different parts of the country in different ways. I am proud to belong to a party which does not only permit but which encourages divergencies of opinion on these particular issues, as opposed to being one of a number-and I say this in a purely parliamentary sense-of little honourable lambs all bleating together in unison.


An hon. Member:: Except one.


Gerald William Baldwin: Except one. I admit that we did have one honourable black sheep from Halifax bleating on his own. However, I think there has been quite a lot of confusion as to the terminology with regard to this particular issue. We hear talk of centralization and decentralization, strong federal governments, weak federal governments and strong provincial governments. I think a lot of this is not altogether an accurate description of what the situation is. You need and must have a strong central government, as you must have strong provincial governments, each acting within the scope of the necessary authority which provincial governments and a federal government must have in a federal system of government. There is no question about that. I think it is a case of rendering unto Ottawa the things which belong to Ottawa and rendering unto the provinces the things which must belong to the provinces. It is this failure to conceive of this division for which later during the course of my remarks I will lay strong blame upon the government, because I think they have been derelict in their duty. I refer not only to this government but to the government of the Liberal party which persisted for some 22 years.
This is a debate, Mr. Speaker, which I hope will become not only a debate in this house but a great national debate throughout the country. This must come about if we are to solve what I think is the most difficult and persistent problem which this country will have to face for a number of years, namely the division and distribution of parliamentary powers and taxing privileges between these two forms of government. On the other hand, I think it would be a shameful thing if, in our attempt to do this, during the course of this debate any effort was made to whip up the fires of racial and regional
Dominion-Provincial Relations anger and hostility, prejudice and bigotry. I feel that this is something which must be avoided, and we in this house owe it as a duty to our country and our constituents, as well as to our party to make sure that this is not done.
The greatest difficulty-and this particular bill brings the problem to the fore-is how we are going to arrange for the distribution of powers between the two levels of government. There is no virtue per se in centralization. There is no sin per se in decentralization. Coming from the constituency I do, living in an area remote from the centres of government both provincial and federal, it has been our experience in the frontier lands of the north that too much centralization was not a good thing. We found it difficult, being remote and having no considerable measure of representation, to secure from the levels of government those legislative measures required for the development of our frontier lands. For this reason, when we talk of centralization and decentralization we must consider this particular fact.
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) put his finger on a very acute difficulty in this whole issue. This country of Canada may be compared to a great bowl, with Quebec and Ontario, being in the centre, at the bottom. Everything has a natural tendency to come down to the centre. This natural tendency has been accentuated by two other steps which have been taken, one of which was mentioned by the hon. member for Halifax. For a great many years the protective tariff has permitted in the central part of the country the development of manufacturing areas and resources which, under different circumstances, might well have gone elsewhere; I do not think there is any question about that. I have heard it argued that it would have been a better thing had the fathers of confederation settled upon a unitary system of government. I disagree with that view very strongly indeed, Mr. Speaker. If in a country like Canada we did have a unitary system of government, then much as I admire my colleagues and the people in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, at this time more than one half of the people living in the areas of Canada outside of those two provinces would now be living in those provinces, and a large part of our industry would also be situated there.
In addition to the protective tariff there is another special measure which I think points in the same direction. With regard to the problems of transportation, the question of

Dominion-Provincial Relations rail freight rates was the subject of discussion during the lengthy hearings of the MacPherson royal commission. Legislation was subsequently introduced and this has now been discussed by a committee of this house. There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the effects of the type of freight rate controls and horizontal increases in freight rates which have been perpetrated for many years has placed upon the shoulders of people living outside of the central provinces a very, very substantial burden. This, of course, has been explained many times. By reason of the competitive situation prevailing in Ontario in particular vis-a-vis water transportation, the railroads are compelled, in seeking increases in freight rates, to have recourse to the areas outside of the central part of Canada. It is my suggestion that in order to meet this and other situations we must have strong provincial governments, acting, however, within the sphere of what is proper provincial authority. I think that for anyone to suggest that we should weaken the provincial governments and vest that power in a central government would not be to the benefit of this country of Canada. Certainly, judging by what I have heard so far this has not been the voice of this party; and I am quite sure that if this policy is pursued the voice of us on this side of the house will have to be heard.
Let me examine for a minute some of the functions which strong provincial governments, acting within the proper sphere of their authority, have been able to bestow upon the people within these provinces. I am just going to deal with some very recent measures which have been taken. The province of British Columbia, acting within the sphere of its authority in connection with the construction of a railway into the north and the construction of development dams for the production of power, has been able, acting as a province, to aid in the development of resources in that province, and in a general way to be useful in aiding the general development of Canada.
The provinces of Manitoba and Nova Scotia, through the medium of measures of industrial development geared to the smaller communities, have very considerable achievements to their credit.
With regard to the province of Quebec, I am one of those who admire the spirit of adventure and progress which that province has been displaying in the last few years, with the hope, within the limits of proper provincial authority, of advancing and bene-


fiting the people of that province. I think it compares with the sense of achievement that we on this side of the house, through the policy of national and northern development of our government in 1958, were able to bring to the people of Canada as a whole. I respect and admire the people of Quebec for what they are doing in this regard.
I leave, Mr. Speaker, this part of my remarks by emphasizing once more that there is no case which can be made for the weakening of provincial authority. Certainly I do not think that anyone on this side of the house is attempting to make such a case. Provincial governments must be maintained strongly, but maintained strongly within the limits of what must be proper provincial jurisdiction.
I should like now to make some comments about the statement made by the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene). There is no doubt, as my hon. friend for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) said, that the original conception of Sir John A. Macdonald and the fathers of confederation was to provide for the residuary powers being allotted to the central government. They attempted to achieve this by placing in the initial clause 91 the words "enacting measures for peace, order and good government". However, by means of litigation rather than legislation as a result of a number of cases taken to the privy council, this situation did not continue, with the result that something other than what was intended by the fathers of confederation was brought about. The law lords of England came to the conclusion, which could not of course be appealed and which has thus been written into our constitution, that the residuary powers should really be allotted to the provincial governments under the heading of property and civil rights.
It is as a result of this change that we find ourselves in the present difficult situation, facing problems which the mind of man could not even consider in 1867. These decisions by the privy council have resulted in the fact that we now find ourselves with provincial governments charged with responsibility in many areas in respect of which unfortunately the smaller provinces do not have the financial resources.
The hon. member for Renfrew South said that the present Liberal government has accepted the constitution as it is. I suggest that is a grave error which this government has made and I propose to deal with it in a moment.

Before leaving our consideration of the bill itself, I should like to make one or two more comments. Most of the provisions can be considered during our clause by clause study in the committee of the whole, but there is no doubt that the bill simply permits the provincial governments to continue to administer those programs involving subject matters which lie exclusively within provincial jurisdiction. It permits the provincial governments to continue to administer these programs, but with a change in the method by which financing is to be arranged. Surely that is the net result of this legislation. This may well be the result desired because of problems which have arisen between federal and provincial governments as to the interpretation of these programs.
In examining the Auditor General's report for the year ending March 31, 1962, I find he has said this:
-the audit office opinion was restated that the Unemployment Assistance Act, administered by the Department of National Health and Welfare, includes ambiguities which have resulted in varying interpretations, and that the text merits further consideration.
The Unemployment Assistance Act is one of the measures covered by this bill. The Auditor General repeated that statement in the report for the years ending March 31, 1963 and 1964. It is quite obvious for this reason that it is not a bad idea to have this kind of legislation vested in the provinces, subject of course to the necessity of requiring the provinces to establish to the satisfaction of the federal government that they are administering these programs to the same extent as they were under any previous arrangement. This is probably highly desirable, because instead of having two civil services, provincial and federal, dealing with the question, we would only have the one provincial administration. I am sure the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) will be subjected to very close questioning about this subject, in order that hon. members may be satisfied that the provincial governments will have to undertake to enter into agreements by which these programs will be maintained and carried out in a manner at least as good as or better than before.
One benefit I can envisage in this regard is that the provincial governments would have an unfettered use of this money and could perhaps carry on the same services at a lower cost. Or, conversely, they might be able to use the same amount of money and provide better programs. These are possibilities I can envisage under the provisions of
Dominion-Provincial Relations this bill but I think they are the only possible benefits which might accrue from it.
For the above reasons, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should ask why the legislation was passed. The hon. member for Renfrew South has suggested that the present government accepts the constitution as it is. That being the case, the government is making a grave mistake. The difficulties we find ourselves now facing, and the real issue which this country must face very shortly is, how are we going to rearrange legislative responsibility and how are we going to reallocate the division of power between the federal and provincial governments. How are we going to redistribute taxation privileges in light of changing conditions and the conditions which now prevail following almost 100 years of confederation, and in light of the decisions of the privy council to which I referred? These decisions have obviously placed burdens on the shoulders of provincial governments which originally were not intended to be borne by the provinces. There must be redivision and reallocation, and the fault of this government is that it has only played around at the edges of these difficulties rather than face up to them.
The government has established a royal commission on bilingualism and bicultural-ism, and I do not discount the efforts of that commission because it has its use; but this does not touch upon the real nub of the problem. We have had a flag debate here in this chamber. Although I cannot discuss it, I can say that it also did not go to the heart of the issue, but remained on the perimeter. We have been faced with the problem of establishing a contributory pension scheme, and we are now attempting to work out an opting out formula. We must also face the difficulties involved in establishing legislation for amending our constitution. All these things may be of some use, but I am afraid that we are neglecting the real issue in the method by which we are attempting to redivide constitutional powers.
We must be realistic and realize that there was a very ancient and deep-seated hostility in Europe between the two Canadian founding races for many hundreds of years. We must recognize that this hostility was exported to this continent and has persisted here to some extent in a political form. That political hostility has never been very far from the surface but always there ready to bubble up when encouraged by irresponsible people in public life and elsewhere.

Dominion-Provincial Relations
The good will which must exist in Canada between the two founding races can be compared to a bank account. It has never been very large or extravagant, but I am afraid that as a result of these peripheral measures -the royal commission, the flag debate, the pension bill, the opting out legislation and the amending formula with regard to the constitution-by thus exacerbating the issues we are drawing cheques against this bank account, and soon we are going to have to face the real problem of finding a means by which we can redivide the constitutional authority in this country, at which time we will find that there is nothing left in the account.
Just the other day the Prime Minister announced that the question of the increase in steel prices was going to be referred to the economic council. This is a very nice gesture but it is absolutely meaningless. No federal government has any power or authority to deal with prices. No matter what the economic council may find, the ambit of authority does not lie within the four corners of the federal constitution. Only in the case of an emergency under the peace, order and good government provision is it possible, as it was during the war, for this to be done.
A short time ago the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) indicated that in his opinion the combines legislation was not as effective as it might be. He intimated he was giving some consideration to broadening the base of this legislation and this jurisdiction from criminal law by drawing on the trade and commerce provisions. This matter has been the subject of judicial consideration, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think there is any doubt but that, without an expression of willingness on the part of the provincial governments to render to the federal government a measure of the authority they now hold, without an expression of willingness on the part of the provincial governments to give to the federal government some authority with regard to the question of price fixing, it is impossible for the federal government to deal with these problems which in the very near future may become problems that are national emergencies in scope.
We look ahead not too many years when, having in mind the increase in population, we will be faced with problems of water pollution and air pollution and with regard to the conservation of rivers and lakes. These are matters that lie squarely within provincial jurisdiction. They cannot long be ignored on the national level. Before too long it will be


necessary for negotiations to commence between the two levels of government for the purpose of seeking to have the provincial governments convey to the federal government some measure of authority, even if on a joint basis, to deal with these pressing problems. When that time comes we may find that conditions as between different regions of this country may have been so exacerbated by measures of this kind that we are now considering that we will fail in our desire to obtain the consensus we must have to achieve these changes. This is the complaint I have against the government and the Prime Minister, that they have been playing around the edges and have refused to come to grips with the real problem, the reallocation of powers between the two levels of federal and provincial authority.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, we are considering Bill No. C-142, introduced last March 13 by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon).
A close examination of the bill shows that it is in a sense the implementation of the cooperative federalism formula, and especially so considering the statement of the Minister of Finance, as reported on page 12483 of Hansard:
A province, to contract out of a joint program, must enter into an agreement with the federal government. The bill empowers the governor in council to authorize the Minister of Finance and the federal minister responsible for the administration of the joint program to enter into an agreement with a province.
We are told that this Bill No. C-142 will allow provinces to opt in or opt out of shared programs. On the other hand, a closer examination of the bill will show that they have no alternative, that their only choice is that they can negotiate with the federal government concerning existing shared programs. They are not free to withdraw from existing joint programs or to change them. There is therefore no option, because there is federal control. The provinces are under the sway of the federal government and the whole structure of this bill indicates that provinces will be limited in years to come.
Under this bill or under co-operative federalism the provinces will continue to be tied to the federal government and will not be free to opt out of shared programs. They can only accept what will be decided by the Minister of Finance who will still retain the necessary authority to accept or reject the proposals of the provincial governments.

This means that in the future, the provincial governments, under the provisions of Bill No. C-142, will have to eat out of the federal government's hand, so to speak. The provinces will still be under the sway of the federal government which keeps control over all taxation powers.
The government will continue to levy taxes and it will grant the provinces only what it wishes to give them. The federal government still retains control over inspectors for the various joint programs and the appointment of officials who will still have something to say in any future negotiating of those joint programs.
In short, the federal government retains control as at present. The only privilege given to the provinces under this bill is the power to negotiate.
For a long time we have been spelling out in the house our position respecting the central government. As regards the legislative or other powers of the provinces, the federal government should cease once and for all to be the authority monopolizing all taxes and all taxation responsibilities.
The federal government took over all the taxation fields and then said to the provinces: Come and eat in my hand if you want to develop any sector of the economy. The provinces will therefore have to keep on going to Ottawa to get the few cents that should be theirs or the taxation powers granted them under confederation.
The federal government stole some taxation fields from several provinces. Today, it would like to give them a few cents, a few crumbs in return for what it has stolen from them over many years, particularly since the war.
Everywhere we see school boards, municipalities, even social bodies make constant representations to the various provincial governments in order to obtain further sources of revenue which would enable them to meet their obligations more easily.
Following the new formula or, if you prefer, the continuation of the formula set forth in Bill No. C-142, the provincial governments will in turn continue to make representations to Ottawa to obtain crumbs in order to meet the obligations they have under their jurisdiction.
The fields of taxation which the provinces held before the war should be given back to them. There should be an end to the hypocrisy of co-operative federalism, an hypocrisy established as a legislative system under which the provinces will still be compelled to beg, to
Dominion-Provincial Relations eat out of the hand of the federal government, in short to make representations every year to obtain a few crumbs in order to meet responsibilities which, from both the legislative and legal points of view, are theirs.
We are told that the measure before us will result in a transfer of $900 million to the provinces. A transfer, yes, but on the terms of the federal government, according to the mood of the Minister of Finance in the future.
We are told of a transfer of $900 million, but last year, according to the figures given to us, the province of Quebec alone lost $278 million, an amount which is subscribed to the federal government as direct and indirect, hidden or official taxes. That amount of $278 million has not been given back to the province.
The sources of taxation of the provincial governments should be given back to them; those governments should no longer be compelled to come to Ottawa; in short, the government should stop telling us, under the pretence of co-operative federalism, that agreements have been reached with the provincial governments, while the situation should be what it was before the war, that is to say, the provinces should still have their sources of taxation, which would be the logical way to allow them to meet their obligations.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Carleton):: I should like to say a few words-


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: -before this debate is concluded. It is not easy for any member of this house to have an accurate or careful appraisal of the full significance of the legislation. I have listened, Mr. Speaker, to hon. members on the other side. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said it meant nothing; everything would continue as it was before and even the phrase "opting out" was a misnomer. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) took a very different view and felt it was the greatest detriment to confederation.
I feel the full significance of this bill can only be judged in the light of events which will emerge after the interim period and after the recommendations of the committee which is studying our tax structure, after the permanent arrangements, the nature of which we can only guess at this stage, are clear. In a previous debate in this house concerning

Dominion-Provincial Relations federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, I believe in August of last year, I put on the record these same reservations which I have had, and which I am sure every member in this house in all parties has had, concerning the possible implications in the development of shared cost programs. These reservations, of course, in the minds of hon. members relate to standards and relate to the achievements of federal-provincial authorities over a period of years. There is the dominion council on health, and the council on welfare which is in the process of being born, and other groups which result from co-operative arrangements between the federal and provincial authorities.
I am concerned also with the operation of the equalization formula and just what this will mean in connection with the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. For example there is a list of institutions, which of necessity changes in nature because of the course of events from year to year. I hope that the auditors who have the responsibility for certifying the necessary expenditures under this act will not find any great difficulty in making proper certifications when they come representing the federal authority in a field which is admittedly a provincial responsibility. These are the kinds of reservations, Mr. Speaker, which I am sure are shared by all hon. members.
This party is just as democratic as the party on the other side of the house in recognizing that its members have a responsibility to stand as such and speak as such. I hope, Mr. Speaker, as was pointed out by the spokesman on this side in the beginning of the debate, that this will not be the end of the shared cost programs or the end of shared cost initiative, especially in light of the fact that the report of the royal commission on health programs indicates the need for shared cost programs in the training of doctors, nurses, dentists and all the ancillary professions in order to get a proper and equitable distribution of these facilities. I can see no other means of achieving this end without the federal grants, which have been developed in co-operation with the provincial authorities, to provide these things. I am sure that with the initiative that is in this house and in this party to which I am proud to belong, there will be further programs which will go forward in the years ahead within the framework of the recognition of the respective responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments.


It is not easy at this stage, in the light of the events of our times, to anticipate the developments which will certainly occur at the end of the interim period outlined in this bill and to know what the full significance of the legislation before us will be.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the desire of the house to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is in a difficult position since there is no clock facing the Chair at the moment.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, it is six o'clock. [Text]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Obviously, there is no desire for the Chair to call a division at this time. It would seem it would be better to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Remi Paul (Berlhier-Maskinonge-De-lanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, this Bill No. C-142 is one of the last basic pieces of legislation that will be brought before us during this session, but it is extremely important because, once again it concerns the problem of Canadian unity and the future of confederation, since it deals with relations between the central government and the provinces.
This matter raises special interest at the present time in view of the resurgence now taking place in all areas within the French Canadian community. French Canadians today are facing a dilemma which is indeed the problem of Canada as a whole. French Canadians wonder whether they can develop and preserve their entity in a system where, owing to the force of circumstances, they are condemned to remain in a state of perpetual minority.
English Canadians are wondering whether the aspirations of French Canada are really consistent with their views of a united and dynamic Canada: One Canada, one nation.
Canada constitutes one country only, one political entity. In a sense, we live in a united

country, out within that political Canada there are two nations, certainly two peoples with a different history, different origins, cultures and traditions, and using two different languages.
An affirmative answer can be given to both previous questions, on one condition: The French Canadian must be able to find among his English speaking fellow citizens, that is among the majority, friends or allies who, ih the first place, believe in the survival of his group; second, judge it desirable; and third, accept to set up a policy that will allow for that fact. It is therefore necessary for my English speaking colleagues to recognize certain facts that are basic for their French Canadian fellow citizens, and here are some of them:
First, of all it must not be forgotten that confederation is the result of the pact between two peoples. Historically speaking, we only have to refer to the conferences held before the birth of confederation to realize that at that time, the fathers of confederation who represented both groups then living in Canada, had set their minds on the signing of a pact or agreement. Had it been otherwise, one can wonder whether French Canada would have accepted the confederate pact of 1867.
The British North America Act, Canada's constitution, is undoubtedly a pact. I will spare you a recital of the various rulings to that effect made by the highest courts of the land and by the privy council in London to which Canada need no longer appeal since 1948.
In addition, some secondary characteristics of the confederative pact lead us to believe that it is an agreement, a contract entered into by four provinces, namely Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario. It later became law through an imperial act enacted by the parliament of London which approved this constitution as a pact.
Each of those peoples in Canada is entitled to full development. Consequently, we should have the necessary ways and means to reach this objective.
We must admit that the minority group is entitled to some safeguards which, besides those granted in the constitution, protect its language and officially recognize its status and national entity.
This situation exists in every country where there are two or more cultures, but even more so in a country like ours where the culture of the majority group is also that of a great neighbouring nation, the most powerful in the world.
Dominion-Provincial Relations
The English citizens of this country must recognize that the province of Quebec is not a province like the others. Anyway, are there two absolutely identical provinces in this country?
Is there a geographical similitude between the provinces of British Columbia and Newfoundland, or between Saskatchewan and New Brunswick? Every province has its peculiar environment. And the province of Quebec, because of its history, its culture and its mission, is not a province like the others, since its role consists in safeguarding the French culture and the French language outside its geographical territory.
This difference of interpretation, which allows two groups to face but not understand each other, is probably due to the fact, as was brilliantly pointed out this afternoon by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), that words do not have the same meaning in English and in French.
Indeed, for my English speaking colleagues and for the English Canadian population of this country, the word "nation" means "state"; hence, the argument that there should be a single "state-nation" in Canada. This is the point the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) tried to develop in his speech, to which I listened with great interest and which I intend to review a little later on.
For the French Canadian, the word "nation" expresses the concept of a people, of a civilized community having its own institutions it wants to keep. It is in that sense that the province of Quebec is different from the others; but the people of that province aspire to the same ideal of Canadian unity, by working to form a Canadian people and a Canadian history.
We, French Canadians, wish to co-operate in building up a strong and prosperous country. We do not want privileges. We do not want special rights. We only want one thing: that the Canadian constitution be fully respected.
That is why I do not propose to speak now about Quebec balkanization; I will deal with that later on.
I was saying that the citizens of the province of Quebec do not want privileges. They are only asking that the Canadian constitution be fully respected. That is why the great majority of the people of the province of Quebec are supporting Bill No. C-142 brought forward by the government.
I should like to refer to a statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon)

Dominion-Provincial Relations when he introduced this bill, as reported on page 12482 of Hansard for March 17:
For example, a good many of these programs, and certainly the largest of them, fall primarily within provincial jurisdiction, and perhaps that should be emphasized.
The purpose of this bill is to enable the provinces to take full advantage of the Canadian constitution. One may wonder whether the ten provincial premiers have not analysed this question, since, whatever may be their political affiliation, they have all seen in this measure a piece of legislation that could be used to return to the provinces those taxation powers which, unfortunately, had been taken away from them or which they had yielded to the central government during the war in 1941. Because of the national emergency, the Liberal government of the day had called upon the provinces to yield their taxation fields, and the provinces agreed without reservation.
But where the Liberal government of the day misled the provinces was when it lured them with the idea that this concession was only temporary, that is for the duration of the war. And we recall the struggle put up by those two great premiers who have left their mark in Canada's history, Premier Duplessis of Quebec and Premier Hepburn of Ontario who, in 1948, at one of the very first federal-provincial conferences, proclaimed the need for provincial autonomy. And it was then that the people of the provinces realized that there was a condemnable encroachment on the part of the federal government, which had undertaken to withdraw from certain fields of taxation the moment war ended, when after three years had gone by, the Liberal government, the centralizer of that time, was still maintaining the economic hold that prevented the provinces from implementing and developing their policies and programs.
Now, a disguised formula, the equalization payments, was devised to satisfy the provinces which were different from Quebec. Since this economic system could not be as disastrous for them as for the province of Quebec, they accepted that arrangement which gave them back certain taxation fields coming under their own jurisdiction.
It will be recalled that the Conservative party introduced for the first time, in 1960, an option formula to solve the problem of university grants. At the time the Barrette-Sauve-Fleming formula was greeted with great enthusiasm.
If that formula was excellent in 1960-61, why would it be unworkable in other fields
[Mr Paul.]

today? Throughout its history the Conservative party has always been, in its philosophy and its policies, the defender of provincial rights and autonomy.
One may wonder whether this party, today, keeps going in the same direction.
For my part, I could not understand the difference of opinions which arose between the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), whom I congratulate for his excellent speech on the subject and who showed the practical meaning of provincial autonomy, and his colleague for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who contradicted him this afternoon by talking about a balkanization, a fragmentation of the provinces.
I will come back to that, Mr. Speaker, but right now I would like to talk about the objectivity of the bill under consideration. The Liberal party introduces this measure under the guise of co-operative federalism. It does not deserve much credit for giving back to the provinces what it took away from them. It should not try to be taken for the great supporter of provincial autonomy because, to all practical purposes, this bill does not give anything more to the provinces. It simply recognizes the economic principle it has followed and considers to be false, namely that a government can collect money or taxes and that this money can be spent by another government.
The Liberal party is to blame for making such publicity before introducing this bill because it is basically faulty in that it transfers taxation rights to the provinces conditionally only. It is not a total and absolute recognition of the rights of the provinces in certain fields of taxation.
What can be said against the bill introduced by the Minister of Finance? It has been designed only for a period of transition, since he mentioned that the period extending from the passing of the bill until 1970 or 1971 for certain programs would be experimental, while it would enable the provinces to introduce a certain legislation, so as to give back to them some fields of taxation coming under their jurisdiction.
He shows good will, but is he really determined to go on? I have no doubt that he will be eager to correct this anomaly in the bill which gives the federal government a right to control this legislation. In fact, he acknowledges himself that the federal government has legislated in certain fields of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, as I said a moment ago, in his speech of March 17. If the provinces are given back certain powers
12S67

of taxation, why should the federal government keep any control and impose its will with regard to the administration of money granted to the provinces taking advantage of this legislation?
Mr. Speaker, this is a step forward taken by the federal government, the Liberal party. I am glad to note a certain conversion in that party because, if, in the past, it has been the party of centralization, we must now give it credit for having recognized that the provinces have the right to legislate in fields related to the shared programs listed in the appendix of Bill No. C-142.
The provinces have accepted the principle of this bill introduced by the minister. This brings me to disagree with the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), even though he put forward learned and sound arguments in reply to the remarks of the Minister of Finance. I do not question his good faith when he introduced his amendment. Let me read it over with you. It is to be found on page 12489 of Hansard for March 17, 1965, and I quote:
That Bill C-142 be not read a second time until further consideration has been given to the priorities of their requirements desired by the provinces of Canada and its territories in those fields of jurisdiction indicated in the schedules of the said bill, such priorities to be established at a federal-provincial conference convened for the said purpose.
Is not this measure dilatory and unacceptable? If the legislation is good, why delay its passage? Why not simply ask the committee on taxation to speed up the analysis of the situation in order to establish priorities in respect to the various programs likely to be inserted in this legislation and afterwards analysed? I shall therefore take the liberty to disagree with my hon. friend from Edmonton West and to vote against his amendment.
I disagree with the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) even more, when he refers to the balkanization of Quebec. What does he mean by balkanization? I wish he had given us some definition. When he speaks about Bill C-142 as a surrender of the federal government to the provinces, he is mistaken, for he should know that some legislative powers are granted to the provinces by the constitution. He is shocked because the federal government might hand over $900 million. There is nothing shocking in a repentant government handing over to the provinces the money illegally taken from them since 1941. There is nothing shocking, because it is in accordance with and provided in the con-
Dominion-Provincial Relations stitution. The federal government has legislated in fields coming under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. If the federal government is handing over $900 million to the provinces, we should be happy about it, because it is in accordance with the spirit and the letter of the 1867 constitution.
What does the balkanization of Quebec have to do with this? If the province of Quebec wants to take advantage of this legislation, it is because it provides us, citizens of Quebec, with a means of safeguarding the rights granted to us in the constitution.
It is of little importance to us that this bill be introduced by a Liberal or a Conservative government. What really matters to us, who want to contribute to the progress and the greatness of our country and who wish to be respected in accordance with the 1867 pact, is the fact that we find in it a means for the provinces to have some of their fiscal rights acknowledged.
The operation of these plans by the province of Quebec must not lead to the conclusion that our fellow citizens entertain the idea of dissociating themselves from the rest of Canada. Absolutely not. Unfortunately, there are too many people for whom Quebec's aspirations mean separatism. No, Mr. Speaker, we are not separatists, we simply want to do our share so that all the rights of all Canadian citizens will be respected and not curtailed in any way. In return, we want to get what is guaranteed to us under the constitution.
We do not want any privileges, but we believe that through the full respect of the spirit of the Canadian constitution, we shall find the necessary safeguard to prevent us from joining with all those agitators whom we could call separatists or half-separatists.
As I said earlier, the Conservative party was once the party of provincial autonomy, but within its ranks there seems to be an adverse tendency now. I would surely be vexed with myself for not congratulating the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) who spoke this afternoon about the Canadian constitution problem in such a masterly way. He did not talk about the "balkanization of Canada or of Quebec". On the contrary, and thanks to his legal knowledge, he was able to suggest a way of reconsidering perhaps the Canadian constitution, so that the two main nations composing it may keep on respecting one another and, in agreement with the other minorities in this country, work toward the development of Canada as a whole.

Dominion-Provincial Relations
Mr. Speaker, it is only through the action of a sincere and earnest team that the experienced, informed and forward-looking Canadians who have freed themselves from old bonds will be able to build the future Canada, strong, vigorous, free, a reflection on the American soil of two great cultures, developing freely and contributing, each in its own way, to the enrichment of the whole of Canada.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join very briefly in this discussion of Bill No. C-142, and in doing so I speak as a person who is removed from the federal-provincial squabbles, controversies and negotiations which have been going on for some months. I have no particular provincial axe to grind. There is no power play taking place in the Northwest Territories or the Yukon which would force the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) down an unpleasant road. For that reason I believe I have a perspective that would perhaps be a luxury to members of parliament who live in other provinces of Canada. This is a luxury they either cannot afford or are unwilling to assume.
I am unhappy with Bill C-142 and I will briefly map out my reasons. My unhappiness is not entirely related to the provisions of the bill itself, but rather mainly because of the principles it contains. We have here in fact this country, which has been built from sea to sea to sea, and all that remains now is for the federal government at the negotiating table to peacefully divide the spoils.
The vehicle they have chosen for this division of the loot is a negotiating table at a federal-provincial conference. The difficulty I see, which is the reason I reject this kind of action, is that if you are going to fight over a pie that is not quite big enough, the strongest and healthiest will win every time.
We in Canada in the past 20 months have been in the position of pitting a weak and vacillating Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) against determined, forceful, provincial premiers, all of whom have a mandate, which is something the present Prime Minister does not have and will never achieve. The sad fact of the matter is that the federal government has come out second best in every single federal-provincial conference that has been held.
There is one other reason I am distressed by this proposition. The governments of the Yukon and Northwest Territories were not


allowed to attend these secret sessions at which deals were made. Before the minister or anyone else on that side interrupts me, I should state that I know there is no legal requirement on the government to invite the governments of the Yukon and Northwest Territories to participate. However, let me remind them that there is a moral obligation on the government-an obligation that has not been recognized since this government took office-to allow those Canadians who happen to live north of the 60th parallel in this country an opportunity to sit in at the banquet table, to perhaps catch the crumbs from the pie which is being divided. The people of Canada in the northlands have as much of a stake in this kind of deal as have any other Canadian citizens. It is only because of an oversight on the part of a government which says it has built the country and it now should parcel it up that northern Canadians were not consulted in this regard.
There is another reason I am unhappy with this division. I am particularly unhappy because of the majority sponsorship. The dealings have been negotiated by the Minister of Finance. One need only remember that this man was the genius behind the Gordon commission report on Canada's economic prospects. This is the man, you will remember, who was charged with the responsibility of deciding what are Canada's economic prospects. All hon. members will remember what he said. He said, in effect, if there is no economic base in the maritime provinces, and the people out there are poor, they should move to Toronto. After all, he made a million dollars, so they can as well. That is an indication of the character of the man who is now sponsoring this legislation. This is a man who can only be described as some kind of a "Malcolm X" of the Canadian financial movement who is protecting this country in the interests of Canada from the evil to the south of us. He is the man who was going to protect us from this influence. He is the "Malcolm X" who was recently assassinated by his own brother-in-law, the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury), when he allowed American cars to come across the line free of duty.
There is another reason I am unhappy with this legislation. Speaking as a northerner I do not like the provisions of this bill, although not specifically because they have any relationship to the province of Quebec. I do not like them as they apply to any other province in Canada. I do not understand why it should be necessary to have different programs in provinces which decide to run their own

programs in fields such as old age assistance, blind persons allowances, disabled persons allowances, roads to resources and vocational training. It is my opinion that in order to develop this country these programs must be based on guarantees of fundamental developments in social securities of a national scope. There is no other choice for Canada.
This question I pose directly to the minister. Why should those of us who live in that 50 per cent of Canada which is not even in confederation-the Yukon and Northwest Territories-let you people crucify confederation and then get together to divide the garments? Why should we let you destroy confederation before we even get in? Why do you people not understand that the whole country, including the 50 per cent which is in Canada's northern regions, belongs to Canadians? It is Canadian land and can be developed by Canadians. This area belongs also to the people of southern Canada, particularly if you will but for a few years restrain your impatience and keep unto the federal authority that kind of strong central government required for the continued development of this country. I can guarantee the minister and all those of you who are anxious to receive money now and pull out, that if you will invest your money in the northland of Canada willingly and with a spirit you will receive in return every nickel you invest, and then some.
I have another question for the minister. Why should I as a Canadian be inhibited in travelling to or settling in any part of this country, be it Quebec, Ontario or anywhere else? Why should I not have available to me, to my family and to my aged parents the same social security measures, the same programs that are available to me where I now live? Why should I have to reapply for these benefits? Who is it over there on the treasury benches in the millionaire cabinet who believes that if you cut a horse in two it will run twice as fast?
Before the minister and his colleagues rush ahead with this legislation, or even in retrospect, I invite them to take a look around the country. Fly from here to Toronto, a favourite trip of the Minister of Finance, and take a look below you on a clear day. This country is empty. It has not been built up yet. It will never be built up if we have a government that decides it is going to divide the spoils here and now, that for our 100th birthday party we will just sit on the little bit of resources we have, on the little bit of money we have and parcel it out. There is
Dominion-Provincial Relations an old saying in the Canadian northland that goes like this: "Don't sit on your frozen assets". I direct this advice to the minister.
I invite him to fly from here to Halifax if he wants to see a country that is empty. I invite him to fly from here to Edmonton or Vancouver or, if he can muster that peculiar courage that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) occasionally does, fly into Canada's northland and take a look around. This country is empty. It is not built up. The job of confederation is more than 100 years away from completion, and I for one am not prepared as a northerner and particularly as a Canadian to have the group of ministers over on the treasury benches say that wherever the most electoral pressure comes from that is where they will spend the most money. If you do that you will perhaps have demonstrated your ability to survive in office beyond the next election, although I would not bet on that. You will have demonstrated an ability to survive politically in the short run, but you will have destroyed the hope of this country to develop into a great land.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) deserves the careful consideration of the house because it would have the effect of giving the government time to reconsider what it is doing. It would have the effect of giving the provinces and the federal government the time to meet in open session where people from all parts of the country, including the little old Northwest Territories and the Yukon, could sit in on the negotiations and get at the governments. It would give us time to take a look at the British North America Act, its division of responsibilities and its division of revenue sources, to see how well it has served us and where we are going.
The point has been made consistently in the house by other members that no change in the approach to the constitution is envisaged in Bill No. C-142 and that really all the federal government is doing is to give back to the provinces those things that they have by right. I sit in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, and I hear various causes being advanced. One which I support fully is the right to have a bilingual House of Commons and, indeed, the right of French Canadians, of whom I am one, to be able to use their own language and to have the bilingual nature of this country adequately and willingly reflected in the things we do. Inevitably the argument put forward is that there was

Dominion-Provincial Relations an agreement to this effect entered into willingly by the founding races of this country. There are other agreements that were entered into, including the agreements entered into by the province of Quebec with the federal government, and these are the agreements that the bill proposes to change. If a deal is a deal, which is the way we operate in the part of the country from which I come, what right has the province of Quebec or any other province to say that they want out of the deal now because it does not suit them? It suited the provinces very well, at the time they signed these agreements, to have the benefit of national programs and the benefit of a central government that would collect the moneys and share in these programs.
Most of the agreements covered in the bill do not expire for another two years at least. By what right can any member of this house demand that the federal government turn over to the provinces two years in advance money that they had agreed would be used to finance joint federal-provincial programs until 1967 at the earliest? This is another reason why there is ample time for the federal government to recall the provincial premiers. We will support the Prime Minister if he wants to get tough with them. He does not have to tremble every time one of the provincial premiers yelps at him. We will give him the backbone that he has apparently lacked up till now. We have agreements that are still good for at least two years if we want to insist on enforcing them, so why can the Prime Minister not take the time to renegotiate the whole business? Let him sit down with the premiers and say that we know that the demands on the provinces are increasing and that it is time a review was made of the sources of revenue. Indeed, the whole area of their responsibilities could bear some scrutiny in the light of 100 years experience, in the light of a much changed Canada.
We are not opposed to this kind of thing but we are opposed to people of mean spirit, mean ambition and, yes, mean vision. We are opposed to people of this kind deciding that in the interest of votes or in the interest of their own immediate ambition they will carve up the pie that is called Canada and pass it out to the 10 hungry provinces at a time when 50 per cent of the country is begging to be given consideration. We want to enter confederation. We want you to invest your money in our country. We want you to help us to develop our political, social and educational institutions. We want you to do these things
[Mr. Rheaume.l
and we are prepared to pay you back with interest. We do not want people like the Minister of Finance, or the premier of Quebec for that matter, carving up Canada to suit themselves. In that regard I recall the statement of the premier of Quebec in Dawson city in the election campaign of 1953. That was before he became minister of northern affairs, because that post had not yet been created for him. He was then the minister in charge of the old resources and development department.
When asked about living and working conditions for the people in the Canadian north around Dawson city in August 1953, he said: If you don't like living in Dawson city why don't you move south? Then, we have a Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) who said: If you cannot make a living in the maritimes, move to Toronto. These are the men of great spirit, great imagination with tremendously broad horizons, who are going to develop this country. All I say, Mr. Speaker, is, thank God they were not around in 1865 because if they had been this country would still consist of a little cluster of people huddling along the St. Lawrence valley. If it had been left up to them to develop the country that certainly would have been what would have happened.
I have in my reading, Mr. Speaker, come across an interesting passage in the confederation debate which can be found on page 681 of the debates on confederation. This is for February, 1865 and the hon. member who at that time represented the constituency of Oxford North was speaking on the matter then before the house. He makes the point, first of all, that it is absolutely essential for the building of Canada, for the advancement of the confederation that is being proposed, that there be a strong central authority, and that various local and regional interests will have to be sacrificed to the building of a great nation. Having made that point, which is precisely the point I am making tonight, he goes on in these words-and it is strange indeed I believe that 100 years later a member of parliament can stand up in this house and echo those words exactly. Even though we have come a long way perhaps, the problem facing us as a young nation has remained approximately the same. He says this:
Geographically this country covers a vast extent of territory. We can lean our backs on the snows of the north, and from that quarter no enemy can attack us: and if we have no great breadth from north to south, we have a large expanse westwards. Although, too, we are in a

northern clime, although our latitude is higher than that of our southern neighbour, yet this is no obstacle to the growth of population or to the increase of prosperity. Teeming millions will in future inhabit this land, and we are called upon now to lay deep and broad the foundations of a great empire. Let us shew that we value the free institutions of Britain transplanted to this soil; institutions founded upon principles of freedom and universal toleration; institutions that have made the parent land great, and that mark it out as the one bright spot in the old world to which the eyes of the nations turn when their liberties are imperilled, and as the city of refuge to which crowned heads, as well as the victims of their misrule, can alike flee for safety in the hour of their misfortune. I have no hesitation, Mr. Speaker, in endorsing the scheme before us.
In that, he and I differ because I do not endorse the bill before us. I quote again:
I accept it, further, because of the prospect it holds out to us of building up a great nationality here, and of handing down to our children institutions which our fathers have bought with their blood.
These words, Mr. Speaker, are words I direct to the Minister of Finance and to all other members of parliament, regardless of which side of this chamber they sit, and to all provincial premiers in their anxiety to divide up the pie: Be careful, all of you, if you decide that those of you who cower along the United States border are going to divide the southern 50 per cent of this country and parcel it amongst yourselves to get rich quick; you be careful, because there is a kind of separatist movement that would not take much prompting in that 50 per cent of this country that lies north of the 60th parallel.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat told us that Canadian unity could be safeguarded inasmuch as our French Canadian ethnic group accepts almost any sacrifice, while nobody else would accept the same sacrifices.
The hon. member stated that if we had stuck to the situation prevailing 100 or 200 years ago, our citizens would be living only on the shores of the St. Lawrence, that is if we had followed the policy of Quebec.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume) is not very aware of the present situation in Canada. Moreover, he does not want to understand the interest of the province of Quebec in safeguarding national unity, without however prejudicing anybody, neither English speaking nor French speaking people. Yes, we want to save Canada, but in the most complete mutual respect of the various ele-
Dominion-Provincial Relations ments which at the present time form our Canadian nationality.
Mr. Speaker, we are considering Bill No. C-142 under which the provinces will be free to participate or not in joint programs.
I heard a while ago the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) tell us that all we have to do is respect the Canadian constitution as it was set up in 1867.
I sincerely believe that the constitution of 1867 no longer meeets the present requirements of Canada. As Her Majesty the Queen said recently in Quebec city, there is nothing surprising in the fact that we want to change, amend and improve a constitution dating back 100 years. In our opinion, the constitution of 1867 must be adapted to the present needs, that is to this day and age.
It is not enough to say, as the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) did, that Quebec wants to balkanize itself, or that Ottawa wants to balkanize Quebec in order to turn it into something else than a province in confederation.
We wish to be part of confederation, but on our terms, not those of Tom, Dick or Harry. We wish to be part of confederation on our own terms, those of the inhabitants of Quebec, of the people who built our province and were the cornerstone of the whole country.


Some hon. Members:: True.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I hear Liberal members say that I am right. I am right indeed. We do not want to diminish anyone. Neither do we want to discriminate against anyone. However, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Douglas) stated, we wish to be ourselves within confederation, without discriminating against anyone.
It is really something to hear people speak of national unity and what have you, especially to hear people who do not understand anything about the province of Quebec refer to the balkanization of Quebec.
The existence of Quebec dates back to 1608, even to 1534, which means that we have been anchored to and rooted in Canada for about 400 years. Never have we demanded from anybody privileges that would not be granted to others in Canada. Never have we demanded prerogatives or rights that would not be given to other groups in Canada. This country's history is there to prove it.

Dominion-Provincial Relations
We in Quebec defended Canada against the American invasion more than 150 years ago. We have insisted on being and remaining true Canadians, without discriminating against anybody.
Today we hear some hon. members-not only English speaking members, but French speaking ones as well-say that Quebec is inclined to secede from confederation. That is not true.
We are not asking only for joint programs between the federal government and the province of Quebec. Indeed not. There are also joint programs between the other provinces and the federal government. When there is some talk about separatists and separatism, one thinks right away that the province of Quebec is involved.
Barely three weeks ago I went to western Canada on the far side of the Rockies, and did you know that I met there people as separatist as any to be found in the province of Quebec? Do you know that in Alberta, in British Columbia and in Manitoba, there are people as separatist as any to be found in Quebec? Why? It is not because they are against the province of Quebec. No. It is not because Quebec is against the rest of Canada. Not at all. It is because Ottawa infringes upon the rights and prerogatives of the provinces; that explains the wave of separatism which is sweeping Canada at the present time.
If we are to balkanize Quebec, let us balkanize the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, let us balkanize also the hon. member for the Northwest Territories, because it is illogical to talk as he did earlier, always attacking the province of Quebec.
It would seem that Quebec is the pet aversion of Canada; that it is a province that should not belong to this confederation or union of provinces.
According to the constitution we have provincial rights.
Are we accused of being socialists because we have provincial rights and prerogatives? Certainly not. In the field of education, every province is free to legislate according to its needs, its mentality, its thinking, and its will. The educational system in Manitoba, in Ontario, in Quebec, in Alberta, or in British Columbia is not quite the same. Every province is free to legislate in the field of education.
Direct taxation such as the income tax, is a field which belongs rightfully to the provinces and not to the central government in Ottawa. Today, when we see the government in Ottawa taxing us and interfering
[Mr. Caouette.l
in the field of the personal income tax, we know that those rights were handed over to Ottawa at the time of the second world war. As soon as the war was over the government in Ottawa was supposed to give back to the provinces those taxation rights. Never has the Ottawa government kept its word at that time, as it never kept it with regard to any province of Canada in this respect.
The highway system is another field of provincial jurisdiction. Will you accuse the province of Quebec of being separatist because it builds express highways from Montreal to Sherbrooke, Montreal to Quebec city or Montreal to the Laurentians?
Will you accuse Quebec of being separatist? Would you accuse British Columbia of being separatist because she is now building the most beautiful highway system ever conceived and built in the whole world? What we are seeing now in British Columbia is her business, and this is under provincial jurisdiction according to the constitution of 1967.
In the field of agriculture, we often ask the federal government how many loans have been granted to the province of Quebec and what is being done to help Quebec's agriculture. Each time without fail, we are told that Quebec has her own farm credit corporation. Ottawa has one, but it lends its money elsewhere, because the other provinces do not have such a plan. Nevertheless, the province of Quebec pays taxes at the same rate as the other Canadian provinces to serve agriculture. The federal government says that Quebec has her own farm loan board, but we still pay taxes to Ottawa even though we do not benefit from the federal farm loan program.
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Ber-thier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) stated a moment ago, we do not ask for special privileges, and those who claim the contrary are quite mistaken. All we ask is that our rights be respected as we respect the rights of others. We ask absolutely nothing from others. We want to run Quebec as we see fit and not according to the views of others. We want to run Quebec and develop it according to its possibilities, its potential and its capacities. That is what we ask and nothing else.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill No. C-142 concerning shared programs, which gives the provinces the alternative to participate or not, we believe that the federal government would be well advised to grant each of the provinces, and especially the province of Quebec, the following rights.

First, the control of its credit.
If a province has brains, manpower, intelligence, purpose, it should have the power to render possible financially what is possible materially.
When we see the shared programs, and even apart from these; when we notice in our province, for instance, in the field of hospitalization, people who apply to be admitted to a hospital and who must wait six, seven or eight months before being admitted; when we see students ready to complete their studies in medicine, for instance, at Laval University in Quebec city, who cannot be admitted because there is no room and that hundreds of young people from 18 to 20 years old are refused, then, no one, not one federal or provincial member of parliament wonders whether there is a lack of materials, engineers, physical possibilities, intelligence and manpower for the construction of universities and hospitals. The problem remains always the same; there is no money to build universities and hospitals.
Mr. Speaker, if the provinces had the control of their credit, these inadequacies would disappear.
We have been taking part for six, seven or eight months in debates concerning the establishment of new chartered banks in Canada, while the other place refuses to recognize the request, in proper form, of the government of British Columbia. Some individuals enjoy the very power which is being refused to the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not dwell on this matter for I will have an opportunity to do so in a few weeks. But if two, three or ten individuals in Canada are entitled to own a Canadian chartered bank, to control or try to distribute the economic blood of the nation, then a responsible province, a responsible government, should be more than entitled to enjoy similar prerogatives and similar rights. That is why we are asking that the province of Quebec, and indeed all the other provinces, have control over credit.
Second, we are asking control over our immigration. We want to know, for instance, when Mr. Hal Banks leaves Canada or the province of Quebec and when he will return. The same thing goes for the other provinces. I could say the same thing about Lucien Rivard. We do not propose, Mr. Speaker, to prevent citizens from Poland or anywhere else from settling in Canada. But we want to know who is coming to settle at home in the province of Quebec, and who is leaving, so
Dominion-Provincial Relations that we may know exactly where we stand regarding our population. In the province of Quebec, the French Canadian majority has never prevented any minority group from claiming their rights or from being considered as equals to others.
Mr. Speaker, as I often say, an active minority group, wherever it may be, in British Columbia, Ontario or Manitoba, will always manage to make itself respected.
I give as an example to all Canada the province of Quebec. In Quebec, where we make up 85 per cent of the population and where English speaking Canadians number only 12 to 15 per cent, we can state with pride and satisfaction that this minority is treated exactly like the French speaking majority. We are happy to mention it and affirm it.
Why should not the same situation prevail in Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan? The English minority in Quebec insisted on its rights and was respected. There are French minorities in western Canada where it is asked that a C.B.C. radio and television station be put in service-the Minister of Transport is in his seat and I remind him that we ask that the C.B.C. radio station in Victoria and Vancouver be made to serve that minority.
I heard a member of the New Democratic party, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), state that there was no need for French in British Columbia, because there were only very few French Canadians. When I was there two or three weeks ago, I met a group of French Canadians in Vancouver, in Victoria and in Maillardville. We are asking that the rights of French Canadians be respected there, and this hon. member replies that there is no minority problem.
Mr. Speaker, what about joint programs set up in this manner?
Fifteen per cent of the population of my area are English speaking, and I call the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) to witness, because he represents the neighbouring riding. French Canadians make up 85 per cent of the population and when application was made for a television station in Malartic, in my riding, to serve the English speaking population of Villeneuve, Chapleau and Timiskaming, I was glad that the Department of Transport granted a licence to the Timmins station for that purpose.
Mr. Speaker, we will be denied these same privileges in Victoria, Vancouver, Edmonton,

Dominion-Provincial Relations Alberta, Regina, or in Saskatoon. There are
limits-


Mr. Fane:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) said there was no French radio station in Alberta. That is wrong; station CHFA in Edmonton is French and broadcasts in French all day and all night.


Mr. MacEwan:: Wrong, as usual.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vegreville is quite right. There is a radio station in Edmonton, but it is a private station, not one operated by the C.B.C. This station broadcasts from time to time some C.B.C. programs, but the C.B.C. does not operate a station in Edmonton at the present time. There is no relay in Edmonton as we have in our area to serve the English speaking listeners.

Do you understand me now?


Frank John William Fane: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, what difference does it make? If the radio station in Edmonton is broadcasting in French continuously-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) has the floor.


David Réal Caouette: 
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must call the attention of the hon. member for Villeneuve to the fact that on the motion for second reading, it is out of order to discuss the clauses of the bill.


David Réal Caouette: Very well, Mr. Speaker. We shall deal with the sections of this bill when the house is in committee of the whole. Until then, we shall merely talk about this measure in general terms to show clearly that the province of Quebec is not so keen on joint programs.
I understand that the federal government tells us that a province may participate in a joint program or opt out of it. I believe that our province should not accept a single joint program as that would allow Ottawa to collect the taxes and later on to decide which portion will be handed back, according to the equalization formula.
In my opinion it would be more logical and more normal for Quebec to decide on its own what should be given back to Ottawa. The federal government has no business telling Quebec what to pay to Ottawa, no more than it is Ottawa's business to tell the provinces of Ontario or Manitoba what they should pay to the federal government. But it is up to the provinces to determine what can be done in order to help Ottawa maintain cohesion, understanding and some kind of unity between our Canadian provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly object to this idea. I know that we are free to participate or not to participate. However, there are always standards and legal points which compel the province to contribute to joint programs, and subsequently Ottawa decides on the amount of equalization which will be handed over to the province. Then, it is total centralization, or a complete abandonment of provincial jurisdiction.
In my opinion, Ottawa never created a province, but the provinces created the federal government. As long as we respect the full autonomy of every province, we will have a representative government, a federal government which will respect the rights of each province. This does not imply respect for the

province of Quebec only, to the prejudice of other provinces, as was said earlier by the hon. members for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume) and Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), who are afraid of balkanization.
We will balkanize the hon. member for Yukon when we have a system-


Erik Nielsen: I already am.


David Réal Caouette: You are already balkanized. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we will respect the rights of others, but we want our own rights to be respected and we do not fall into this trap of joint programs operating to the prejudice of provinces and only to the benefit of a top-heavy-I said "top-heavy"-officialdom which burdens the Canadian people with taxes.
When the federal government will have been put in step with realities and possibilities existing in Canada, provinces will be free, they will be able to develop according to their wishes, their aspirations, their possibilities, and then we will live in a happy Canada, in a land of satisfied provinces.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, this is a most important piece of legislation. Regrettably in the minds of some it seems to be something which should be tucked in at the last minute, not only the last minute of this particular sitting but the last minute of this elongated session. In this particular phase of our nation's history we have in recent months been faced with problems far greater than those which usually accost the politicians or the public. The questions we now face are not simply questions of who shall govern us, or how we shall be governed, (and a multitude of expressions could follow on that imputation), but questions concerning what kind of country we are to have. In other words, the very structure of our political organisms is constantly before us for review and consideration.
This is one of the measures, although perhaps not the most important, which deal with this over-all question of the structure of our political society. Therefore because of its tremendous importance it should not be treated as a mere afterthought.
I must start out by saying, as many of my colleagues have said, that there is, as I see it, no impropriety at all in so far as the provinces are concerned. The hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) said that no
Dominion-Provincial Relations province is asking, through this legislation, for any special provisions. I agree with that observation, but I find that I cannot agree with most of his observations which followed.
This is not an excessive demand, nor an improper one by any province. It is not an invasion upon dominion jurisdiction. As one of the strongest and unrepentant supporters of the rights of the dominion I make this statement. I, like the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume) am something less than deliriously happy with the legislation as a whole. I am impressed by the casual air about the whole thing.
We seem again to have insufficient information and possibly insufficient discussion about this legislation. I must say "possibly" because naturally being merely a Canadian citizen and a member of the senior legislative body in this country I do not know what went on at this one dominion-provincial conference at which this matter was discussed. This is one of the very important aspects of our present political situation. We are developing what practically amounts to a third area of governmental action and decision. We are almost developing a multi-governmental area of action and decision, and it is not clearcut as to where the responsibility lies. There is no channelling of information so that the responsibility may be appraised. There has been secrecy and uncertainty, and one is never sure exactly what did take place.
I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) some time ago to table the correspondence in respect of this important matter. He wrote to the premiers of the provinces on August 15, 1964, and that is a long time ago. From how many premiers were answers received? Premier Stanfield advised that the matter would be studied, and that is the last word we know of from the premier of Nova Scotia. I should like to know what the premier of Nova Scotia thinks about these things. After all, he is a representative of the oldest legislative body in this country and one of its most able and wise men. I should like to know what he thinks.
I should like to know what Premier Robarts thinks about this proposal. He is a man of great wisdom whose contribution I am sure, to the whole dominion-provincial discussions, was immeasurable. The viewpoint of Premier Robarts is not before us.
Premier Ross Thatcher of Saskatchewan had some questions to ask. He wrote the Prime Minister on August 21 and stated that he would appreciate it if the government could clarify the phrase: Contracting-out

Dominion-Provincial Relations provinces must continue to carry on programs of this nature. He also said that he would be very much interested in the amount of cash compensation to be paid in respect of the type C programs. There has been no letter tabled here representing the reply sent to the premier of Saskatchewan. There is nothing before us of any kind from the premier of Alberta. There is no definitive answer from any premier, except the premier of Quebec, and, I think I can say, also the premier of New Brunswick. I see no letter from the most important premier of them all, the premier of Prince Edward Island, where confederation began.
I am surprised that, since these discussions took place originally in June, and since the Prime Minister's letters were written in August, there has been no follow-up or further discussion in respect of this matter. These matters were discussed in June and the letters were written in August, yet down rings a curtain of silence over practically the whole subject.
I am concerned in this regard because there is no indication that the present dominion team is playing on its own side. It has often been the case throughout our history that the opposition in the dominion legislature has adopted strong provincial rights points of view. I think this is the first time in our history that a government on the dominion scene has become itself the champion of the provincial side of the argument. This will make history. I suppose it will be one of the great contributions that the present government will have made to our national development. However, if I were writing this speech instead of saying it I would put quotation marks around the word "great".
I must take to task my friend from the Northwest Territories. He was unfair to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon). He referred to what the Minister of Finance had in mind for the maritimes. I believe he was unfair in not placing on the record the fact that, along with shipping us out to more lush parts of the country, the Minister of Finance was going to give us some travelling assistance. Whether this was to be in the form of first class tickets, or coach class tickets, or tourist class tickets, I do not know, but I think the record should be set straight. It was his suggestion that we should be subsidized in our move from the maritimes to more profitable areas.
Some of us have decided to remain in the maritimes. Some of us have found that staying there is a little easier and a little better
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
because there once was a government, not too long out of office-although it seems a long time-which looked upon this whole question differently. That government had some conception and appreciation of national goals as well as provincial needs.
It is easy to say that certain provinces can carry out programs of social welfare and development, and possibly there are provinces which are able to do so and can do so very well. It is natural that we must look at the jurisdictional rights of provinces as well as the economic needs. However, there is something which must never be forgotten in respect of this whole area, and that is the economic inequity which exists among the provinces.
Confederation was many things, but one thing it was, was a sharing of economic advantages and disadvantages. One of the great accomplishments of the former government was its ability to look across this land and see that inequity had been allowed to continue and become more acute. It used the powers of the national government to redress some of the long standing wrongs, just as it looked at the various sectors of Canadian society, such as agriculture, and took steps to bring remedial measures to the fore.
It is all very well to talk about the rights of the provinces. We know that these areas are areas of provincial jurisdiction, but what would this country be without the initiative that has to be taken by national governments? One of the members who spoke in this debate the other day, the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle (Mr. Hamilton), was in large measure responsible for two of the finest programs that this country has ever seen, programs which have brought benefits to people from Halifax to Victoria. I refer to the roads to resources program and the ARDA program. There are many welfare and development programs which many of the provinces could never initiate. Are we to say that is too bad, there are provinces that can, so let the others enjoy their lower standard of income? Let them call on the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) for a little travel assistance for their people to move to those areas where such programs may be carried out.
We are living in an age of mobility. Canadians move about more than ever before. We have recognized the principle of portability in pensions. Let us not lose sight of national needs and the inequalities that exist in various areas of the country.

I know that the burdens upon the provinces are great because in 1867 the provinces were given many areas of legislative responsibility which at that time were considered minor in economic terms. Welfare and highways were not very expensive in the 1860's. The great expenditure was on railways instead of highways and the dominion government had the responsibility for railways. But not long after confederation we entered the so-called welfare age and the expenditures over the years have become immense. In 1926-27 the federal government spent on welfare $49.7 million. In 1956 the amount had arisen to $1,402 million. I do not bring this forward for partisan reasons but when the government which I supported took office the amount was increased from $1,402 million to $2,575 million, the greatest increase of any like period in our confederation.
One thinks of the great benefits brought to many people. One thinks of those provinces which could not mount these programs on their own. Tonight I heard many speakers talk in general terms about the problems of the relationship between the great founding races of this country. Some say they are not separatists. I would go even farther than that and say that I am anti-separatist. We do not want any part of this country to leave. I should like to see French Canada take an ever-increasing part in the dominion government. I am one of those who is not French speaking but who will support their every legitimate claim to recognition within the dominion governmental apparatus. It was a shocking thing that the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron) had to make a complaint the other day, and the manner in which it was initially rebuffed was even more shocking. We want closer relationships, not a moving away but a closer drawing together.
I know it is quite proper constitutionally and juridically for any province to move into these areas. Many of them were theirs originally, but I wonder if it would not be a great piece of statesmanship, or are we expecting too much, to try to bring about a pooling together of national programs so that we would have more, not less. Things are moving very fast in the world today and the world is not moving in the direction of decentralization at all. There are many countries in the world which are of the opinion that a national entity is now too small and they must progress toward something larger. Is it wise for Canadians to move in the opposite direction? At moments of greatness, in moments of peril too, this country has found 20220-821
Dominion-Provincial Relations it necessary to look to Ottawa for leadership. We must make sure that at Ottawa all parts of this country are able to make their proper impact.
I could never welcome any move which would weaken the national structure. If we look back over the last two years, do we not see evidence of the weakening of the national structure? It is all very well to describe it in juridical and constitutional terms but if we have a shuffling off of the economic potency of the dominion government in the direction of regional ones, constituent ones, the provinces, surely the ability of the central government to redress economic wrongs and to provide equalization or an approach to equalization has been diminished at a time when our needs are great.
Like many other speakers who have taken the issue beyond the constitutional and the economic, in my opinion we are struggling in Canada, as we often are, to find a national expression. We are worried about the parts breaking away, and it is one of the unfortunate elements of our day that we have on the national scene one of the weakest governments since confederation. I say this not with partisan delight but with great sorrow, because now if ever is the time that we need a strong national government, a government with a sense of purpose, a government which the provinces could follow; but the provinces would have to know where they were going before any province would even get in line for any national purpose.
While I can say that I have seen a great many less desirable pieces of legislation than this one, like some of my colleagues I am concerned about the trend and the tendency, the acceleration toward decentralization that is reflected in the bill, proper as it may be constitutionally and legally. Obviously the legislation has been conceived after little discussion, but I wonder whether it is the kind of legislation which we should salute.
Therefore I think the suggestion of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is a wise one. It would be nothing new for the government to have to reverse itself and have to change its mind. Everybody is doing it. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Nicholson) did it the other day, and in line with this perhaps we should look into this matter much more carefully and fully than we have. We should not enter into great constitutional changes without more study and having regard to the economic aspects it is this kind of study that the hon. member

Division
has recommended as wholesome and necessary at this time.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
Is the house ready for the main motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the main motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those against the main motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, and bill read the second time.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the consent of the house to go into committee of the whole to continue study of the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent of the house to go into committee of the whole?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. C-142, respecting the operation of certain established federal-provincial programs.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


Lucien Lamoureux: May I suggest to members of the committee that clause 2 should be called and clause 1 delayed until consideration of the other clauses has been completed.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Supplementary agreements.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, clause 3, subclause 2, reads as follows:
A supplementary agreement shall contain an undertaking by the province that the province shall continue to operate the program in accordance with the authorizing instrument except as to the manner in which the government of Canada will contribute-
I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if this means that all of the supplementary agreements that are entered into between the federal government and the provinces must be-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. May we have order in the committee. It is a bit noisy.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -strictly in accordance with what is contained in the authorizing instrument, or will there be some flexibility as to what the provinces may do with these programs-I am thinking particularly of the hospitalization program-if they enter into a supplementary agreement?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, the provinces will be required to comply with the terms of the agreement, and if I am correct in thinking what my hon. friend may be thinking about a certain method of financing a certain program in a certain province I think he will be disappointed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, that is no answer at all. The interpretation I take from subclause 2 of clause 3 is that the supplementary agreement would have to contain exactly the same terms that are in the authorizing instrument or the agreements that are
20220-821J
Dominion-Provincial Relations in effect at the present time. If the provinces are going to be required to enter into a supplementary agreement, particularly with respect to hospitalization, that has exactly the same terms as the present agreement which runs until 1970, then it seems to me that Bill No. C-142 has no purpose whatever. If you interpret this exactly it seems that the provinces have no flexibility or latitude whatever to bring about a different kind of agreement. What purpose is there in transferring the authority for the administration of these programs if the provinces are going to be tied hard and fast to the authorizing instrument? This Bill No. C-142 is a farce if there is to be absolutely no change under the new agreements from the agreements that are in existence at the present time.
If you go farther you find in clause 9, subsections 1 and 2, that if the cost of operating any of the supplemental agreements is more than the province would receive in revenue from the percentage points of tax abatement, then the Minister of Finance is authorized to make a payment. On the other hand, according to subsection 2 of clause 9, if the yield from those percentage points of tax abatement is higher than the cost of the supplemental agreement, this then becomes a debt owing by the province to the federal government. So, what is the purpose of this bill? It seems to me it is an attempt to make it appear that the provinces have an additional degree of autonomy. If you put subclause 3 of subsection 2 together with clause 9 you find that there can be absolutely no change in the supplemental agreement from the agreements that are in effect at the present time. At the same time you find that they cannot have one dollar of extra money for the purpose of flexibility.
In other words, if they earn a dollar more than the programs cost it becomes a debt to the federal government. If the yield is less than the cost of the program, then the federal minister can make a grant. It seems to me we have come to that stage now in discussing Bill No. C-142 where we need some explanation as to where there is going to be any flexibility.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: My hon. friend made the same point during his speech on second reading. The same point was made at some length and very clearly by the hon. member for Edmonton West. In fact that was the point of the whole speech of the hon. member for Edmonton West, if I recollect it, that essentially these programs will continue as they

Dominion-Provincial Relations are now for this interim period. The only difference will be in the method of payment. This was a point which was quite clear to the hon. member for Edmonton West and quite clear to my hon. friend. It was less clear, apparently, to the hon. member for Yukon.
The bill is most definite that a supplemental agreement may only vary the terms of the original undertaking in two particulars, the manner in which Canada shall reimburse the provinces for their assumption of the former federal share of the cost and the manner in which the provinces shall keep the government of Canada informed as to provincial expenditures on the program. Now, that is fundamental to this bill. Some hon. members may disagree with it. Other hon. members, like the hon. member for Edmonton West, might say that this is not quite as world shattering as some people have led them to believe. As I have explained, this is an interim measure only. We will not get down to making basic changes until the tax structure committee has done its work and has reached a conclusion which it is prepared to bring to this house.


Norman Platt Lambert: I have just a brief comment. I am glad to see the hon. member for Medicine Hat has followed very well the strictures I placed on this bill. It is obvious that Alberta is not going to get any relief in its dispute with the federal government in connection with the Alberta hospital insurance agreement. Now that Alberta has taken over the servicing of the capital cost of the hospital program, I understand the minister's officials are even disallowing the servicing cost of that part of the Alberta hospital insurance program. This is something less than they had before. One further point to show that this is a case of "plus ga change plus ga reste la meme chose". I suppose the situation is to be more or less unchanged because, as the hon. member for Medicine Hat pointed out, if the equalization formula proves insufficient under the operation of clause 9 a direct grant may be advanced provided the minister is satisfied, and so on. Well, he will be satisfied when he sees the operating costs after they have been announced. So there really will be no change, in practice.
My conclusion is that this bill is merely in response to the vanity of one provincial premier. There was an ultimatum, and this is the answer. As the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands said the other day, the mountain laboured and brought forth a mouse. That is all this bill is-a mouse.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Well, I have here a copy of the Winnipeg Free Press issue of March 19 and there is a heading here which says "One Tory's Mouse is Another Tory's Monster". It puts forward the view held by the hon. member for Edmonton West; it suggests that to him this is nothing but a mouse. But it also puts forward the view of the hon. member for Yukon and says that to him it is a snarling lion. I will not read the article but it is very well put. If I had thought of this particular clipping earlier I might have given it to my hon. friend from Renfrew South; I am sure he would have been able to use it to advantage.


Norman Platt Lambert: Of course, we are not responsible for some of the poetic licence which editorial writers some times take. Besides, I did not speak of a mouse the other day; the hon. memer for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands did so. Again, this was part of the poetic licence taken, as the hon. memer for Yukon had not spoken. So the editorial writer was indulging in fantasy, as editorial writers sometimes do.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am sorry I began this discussion on menageries by referring to sheep and lambs this afternoon. I think clause 3 which we are considering contains the pith and substance of this bill and I wish to direct the attention of the committee for the moment to subclause (2) where it states that the province shall continue to operate the program in accordance with the authorizing instrument. I should like to ask the minister if this should be read in conjunction with clause 17 which invokes Part VII of the Financial Administration Act and provides that the powers of the Auditor General shall continue.
As I understand the picture as far as tax abatement is concerned, the federal government will be collecting money as an agent of the provincial government; in this sense it is the money of the provincial government but there will be an equalization payment from the federal government to the province. I would assume, and I should like confirmation of this from the minister, that the Auditor General will have the same powers as he had previously to make sure under the meaning of subclause (2) that the program is continuing in accordance with the authorizing instrument.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to move that clause 3 be amended by deleting subclause
[Mr. Gordon. 1

(2). I do this because the provision of this subclause which ties a province to making a supplementary agreement which is completely in accordance with all the provisions which are now in the authorizing instrument is a clear contradiction in my view of all the promises which were made by the Prime Minister during the dominion-provincial conference on November 26, 1963. I am going to quote some of the statements that he made when talking to the provinces. This is what he said, according to the text, in his opening statement:
One can readily conceive of a new arrangement involving transfer to the provincial governments of full responsibility for some of the present cost-shared programs.
Then he said this:
One way to do this would be in the field of equalization payments and by increases in the abatements which the federal government makes in its tax laws to take account of provincial taxes.
There is no change. Under clause 9, if you consider both clauses 1 and 2, there is absolutely no change in the amount of money that a province can take from these 20 percentage points of tax abatement. If the supplementary agreement, as I said before, costs more than the yield from this abatement, then it becomes a debt by the province to the federal government; and on the other hand the federal government is authorized to make up the difference if the new agreement costs more than the yield from these abatements. So there is absolutely no transfer of responsibility for collecting tax, because when you reduce it to terms of absolute dollars in relation to the programs, it must remain exactly the same as in the so-called authorizing instrument. The premier of Ontario said this in his opening statement to the very same conference:
There...are defects in these conditional grants which should be remedied. The conditions attached to the grants are too rigid. They create administrative difficulties, fail to recognize fully regional needs and peculiarities, and often result in some services being overexpanded to the detriment of other services of higher provincial priority.
He went on to say this:
Every effort should be made to reduce the rigidities and to modify these arrangements so that federal interference in affairs of provincial responsibility is kept to a minimum.
By keeping subclause (2) in clause 3 there is absolutely no change that would give effect to these stated objectives of the Prime Minister of Canada and the premier of Ontario. The premier of Manitoba had this to say when he talked about the problems of joint
Dominion-Provincial Relations interest or responsibility in cost-shared programs:
It is precisely in these areas of mutual concern that we find what friction, disharmony and frustration perplex us today.
So, Mr. Chairman, as long as subclause (2) of clause 3 is in there, there is no real transfer of any authority either of the administration, the regulations or the details of the program; nor is there any transfer of any real authority in so far as tax collecting is concerned. It is for this reason that I move that we delete subclause (2) of clause 3.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Mr. Olson moves that clause 3 be amended by deleting therefrom subclause (2). I presume the hon. member means that the remaining clauses be renumbered accordingly.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Olson) negatived: Yeas 5; nays 87.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 3 carry?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, there is one other problem with clause 3 and that concerns the date. Subsection (3) of clause 3 says:
No supplementary agreement in respect of a standing program may be entered into after the 31st day of October, 1965-
It may be that there is no administrative difficulty here, but there may be one. For example, many of the legislative assemblies in the provinces are nearly ready to adjourn their 1965 session. If they do not provide during this current session of their legislature for the amount of income tax that they anticipate will be required in relation to any of the agreements into which they may enter, I am wondering what is going to happen between January 1, 1966 and the end of that fiscal year. Because I presume that the federal government would withdraw from the income tax field to that extent; and if that were done prior to the provinces having taken up the difference and passing an act to impose those percentage points of tax abatement, would the provinces be put in any difficulty?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The provinces, of course, have copies of this bill, are fully familiar with it and have been for some time. They have probably decided what they want to do by

Dominion-Provincial Relations now, although they have not informed me to that effect. If a province should on October 31, 1965, enter into an agreement, and if the government of that province gave an undertaking to put forward legislation in their legislature changing their tax rates, I think that would be acceptable on the understanding that the changes would be retroactive, and if they were not, that there would be a satisfactory accounting.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I can tell the Minister of Finance that there are some provinces who do not understand what is contained in Bill No. C-142. As a matter of fact they began studying it very recently since the Minister of Finance made his explanatory remarks on, I believe, March 17, which was the first time it came before the house for second reading, and they have begun to realize how inflexible supplementary agreements could be in relation to the old authorizing instruments. There are many provinces at the present time who have not decided out of which programs they are going to opt out.
For example, I know that my own province planned on opting out of some programs because the arrangements between the federal government and the province, so far as calculating the shares of the cost was concerned, were not satisfactory. However, after they studied the details, particularly of clause 3, a certain confusion and disappointment developed because the flexibility they expected to find was not in the bill.
I am sure there is a great deal of serious consideration taking place at this time in the cabinets of several of the provincial governments because Bill C-142 does not live up to the expectations they had. I am wondering whether it would not be the wise course to defer for six months the effective date of October 31, 1965. Many of the provincial authorities I am sure did not realize that this bill was as rigid as it is.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I think the second part of my explanation should be satisfactory. I cannot see that any province will not have had an ample opportunity to review the bill by October 31, 1965. I am sure most of the provincial authorities have already given consideration to this bill. The hon. member refers to the province of Alberta, and while it is true that the minister of health of that province was here a week ago and expressed certain disappointment because this bill did not do something which

it says it does not do, the words of the bill seem to be reasonably clear and there will be ample opportunity for a province to take advantage of the bill if it so desires.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, subclause 2 of clause 3 reads as follows:
A supplementary agreement shall contain an undertaking by the province that the province shall continue to operate the program in accordance with the authorizing instrument except as to the manner in which the government of Canada will contribute thereafter in respect of the program and the manner in which accounts are to be submitted.
Clause 3 is entitled "Standing programs" while subclause (2) deals with supplementary agreements. Does not the implementation of this clause involve for the federal government and for the provincial governments a duplication of expense and bureaucracy? In other words, a provincial bureaucracy controlling the federal bureaucracy and a federal bureaucracy watching what is going on in the province concerned.
We want explanations on that matter, that is, we want to know whether or not any province can administer its own program.
If a province decides to participate in a joint program or to work jointly with the federal government, will there be two organizations, two different administrations to be paid, one in the province and one in Ottawa, which would in fact double the administrative cost?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If anything, I would think the effect of this would be to reduce the cost of supervision, and that sort of thing. The only thing the federal government will have to do before it pays out any money is to check and see that the money was spent for the purposes provided for in the act and under the agreement.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to ask the minister if there is any provision anywhere for changing the supplementary agreements. For example, at the present time the legislature of Alberta is considering changes in the administration of the hospitalization program to allow for the payment of some outpatient care. This is not in the authorizing instrument at the present time and I am wondering whether there is some provision for changing the supplementary agreements so that the cost of this outpatient care can be shared by the provincial and federal levels of government.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It is hoped that such matters will be covered during the discussions of the tax structure committee. I should like to emphasize again that all provinces have expressed a very keen interest in and appreciation of this committee which was set up by them as well as by the federal government. It is hoped that all these points of difference and causes of irritation between the federal and provincial governments, such as there are in the case of several provinces including Alberta, will be discussed, but this particular bill does not provide for that kind of adjustment. Adjustments will be made after the tax structure committee has reached some agreement and it may well provide for a greater degree of flexibility than is contemplated here.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Then if the province of Alberta signed a supplementary agreement it would be necessary for the Minister of Finance or the Minister of National Health and Welfare to come back to parliament for an amendment to this legislation before the federal government could participate in the payment of these outpatient costs?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That is correct.


Mr. Valade:: I have a question for the minister. Clause 3, subclause 1, refers to annex 1 and section 3(e) of annex 1 refers to student aid. However, there is a difference in terms between the French and English versions and I will refer to the French version.

Can the minister tell us whether the words "student aid" mean "school children aid"? What is the meaning of the word "student" in Schedule I?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: This clause refers to the university loan program.


Georges-J. Valade: The French version and the English version may result in different interpretations because the word in French does not mean university students. It may mean a scholar or a lower grade student.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Perhaps my hon. friend would let me have a look at the translation. If a correction is needed we will see that is done.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Do I understand that clause 3 will stand?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, may 1 say I will not disagree, provided the minister will
Dominion-Provincial Relations give us the assurance that the word "etudi-ant" means university students.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That is intended.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it agreed that clause 3 will carry with this understanding?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
On clause 6-Increase of individual deduction from basic tax.
Norman Platt Lambert: I have one question on clause 6. This tax abatement is for the term of a supplemental agreement only and if no further agreements were signed to carry out the terms of the supplemental agreement or the original agreement, I take it then the tax abatement would fall and there would be a reversion to the federal authority.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
On clause 8-Tax equalization payment.
Colin Cameron: I wonder if the Minister of Finance could perhaps lead us through the labyrinthian sentences in this clause and tell us what they mean?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: This is very simple, and I shall be glad to do so. The bill expresses the intent of the clause by declaring that the unit equalization value is the amount by which the per capita yield of a single unit abatement of the basic federal individual income tax in a province has to be increased in order that it will equal the per capita value-I am reading this slowly so my hon. friend can follow me-of a single abatement point in the two provinces in which the per capita value of a single abatement point is highest.
The tax equalization payment associated with each standing program is the value of the unit equalization in each appropriate province multiplied by the number of abatement units associated with the particular program. Now, I hope I have made myself clear, Mr. Speaker.


Colin Cameron: I must compliment the minister on this masterpiece of clarity.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Dominion-Provincial Relations
On clause 9-Payment to adjust for operating costs.
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: First of all, I do not agree with clause 9, but it seems to be fruitless to move amendments. I believe subsection 2 should be deleted altogether so that a province could at least retain that part of the income tax that they will be able to levy. I should like to ask if the payments made by the federal government to provincial governments for their share of these programs will be paid on a monthly basis or a quarterly basis. Perhaps the minister could tell also when payments will be made for the equalization to adjust operating costs?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: As my hon. friend knows, the payments between the federal government and provincial governments now are very complex and are adjusted periodically. In the main, the payments will be made quarterly, to the best of my understanding.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There is an important matter involved here. The cost of operating these programs has to be paid by the provinces until the federal government comes through with its share. If the federal government payment is delayed for several months it may become a rather heavy burden for some of the provinces to borrow the money and pay these month by month operating costs. I am wondering if the minister will not undertake to see that the provinces will not suffer a financial loss by way of having to pay bank charges and so on, if federal payments are delayed?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do not know how far I should go, Mr. Chairman, but within the limitations of the strictures imposed upon the government by interim supply and these other opportunities for reviewing expenditures by parliament, I would agree with him completely that payments should be prompt and provinces should not be imposed upon in the way he suggested. I should like to have an opportunity to review the practice at the moment before going further.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is not a satisfactory answer-that the minister wants to review this. I think the provinces have a right to know from the minister, before they have to consider whether or not they want to enter into these supplementary agreements, when these payments are going to be made. If there is to be a hold-up it seems to me that the Minister of Finance could give an undertaking based on the federal share of these programs in the past, and work out arrangements by which regular interim payments
[Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands).)
would be advanced at least to the extent of the federal share of these programs, so that the provincial governments would not be required to pay financing charges.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The practice is to make payments quarterly and to adjust at the end of the year. This has been the case since 1957.
I think the same practice should be continued, otherwise we would be in all sorts of difficulty. I should like to look into exactly what the practice is now, and perhaps I should make a statement on third reading.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It would be agreeable to have a statement on third reading, but there are to be substantial changes in our practice. For example, we are transferring 20 points of tax abatement to the provinces which the provinces will have to levy.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: May I answer that? All this means is that certain tax revenues which previously flowed into the federal treasury and which were then used to reimburse the provinces will go directly into the treasuries of the provinces. I am not in a position to say whether this means that any province will get a few dollars earlier or later than under the present system; I do not believe it will make any appreciable difference of any kind.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I presume the federal Minister of National Revenue will collect this income tax abatement.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Only in some provinces, not in all.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In nine out of ten.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That is right.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If the federal government is to collect these 20 percentage points of tax abatement and then turn the proceeds over to the provinces, when is this going to take place?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I have just received some expert information on this point which will probably make any further explanation on third reading unnecessary. The equalization payments will be made monthly and the estimated adjustments will be added or subtracted monthly.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is very useful information, and I am sure the provinces will be pleased to hear that these payments will be made monthly.
One other question before we pass clause 9. It concerns the turning over of the 20 percentage points of income tax collected by the

federal government on behalf of the provincial governments. Will the total amount have to wait until all the income tax returns are in on April 30, or whenever they are due, or will there be interim payments in this respect, too?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: There will be interim payments adjusted monthly with a final adjustment later.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 20 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules I and II agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will now revert to clause 1.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Norman Platt Lambert: By leave, now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: the third reading of the bill.
30, 1965	12385
Business of the House


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Norman Platt Lambert: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Norman Platt Lambert: Notwithstanding the clapping, it is still a mouse.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader, is there any business left for this session?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of remark the house leader of the government likes to hear. Tomorrow we will take interim supply-or now, if the house would wish it.


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Some hon. Members:: No.


George James McIlraith: Then after interim supply, the supplementary estimates.


[Stage Direction]
It being eight minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
12987
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 31, 1965