May 11, 1965

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

LIB

George James McIlraith (President of the Privy Council; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. Mcllraith:

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we propose to bring forward for the consideration of the House, first, order No. 6 on today's Order Paper, second reading of Bill No. C-98, an Act to make provision for the retirement of Members of the Senate; then order No. 13 on today's Order Paper, second reading of Bill No. C-101, an Act to amend the Bank of Canada Act; then order No. 5, the resolution preceding the National Housing Act amending bill; then order No. 10, being a resolution providing for the setting up of a Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons to consider the state of penitentiaries; then order No. 3, second reading of Bill No. C-102, an Act respecting banks and banking.

May 11, 1965

Business of the House

We would hope to follow that order of business, and I have listed several items so that Members will be ready for discussion of any of them in the next few days. But it may be that we will have to readjust the order of calling them if any are not dealt with by Thursday night.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
NDP

Harold Edward Winch

New Democratic Party

Mr. Winch:

Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Government House Leader?

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
LIB

George James McIlraith (President of the Privy Council; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. Mcllraith:

Yes.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
NDP

Harold Edward Winch

New Democratic Party

Mr. Winch:

In view of the fact that the House acceded to his request to have ten departments pass through on the first supply motion, the understanding being that they will be referred to the Committees, will the House Leader for the Government say when the Committees to which the estimates can be referred are going to be appointed?

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
LIB

George James McIlraith (President of the Privy Council; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. Mcllraith:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to deal with that subject. Notice of the procedural reforms is on today's Votes and Proceedings and can only be on the Order Paper by Thursday.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader; Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles:

Tomorrow.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
LIB

George James McIlraith (President of the Privy Council; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. Mcllraith:

It is transferred tomorrow to the Order Paper. In any event, that order embraces several proposed changes to the Standing Orders, one of which is the rearrangement of Standing Order 65, which provides for the setting up of the Committees to which the estimates would be referred. As soon as that can be dealt with, it is our intention to immediately refer these estimates to the Committees and proceed with them in the Standing Committees.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
PC

Michael Starr (Official Opposition House Leader; Progressive Conservative Party House Leader)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Starr:

If I may ask a question, Mr. Speaker, in view of what the Government House Leader has now said, and in view of the fact that I think all of us are anxious to expedite the work on these estimates, would it not be logical for the Government to consider these rules in order to set up those Committees on Thursday, rather than wait until next week?

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
LIB

George James McIlraith (President of the Privy Council; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. Mcllraith:

I will give it consideration, Mr. Speaker. The reason I did not call it for Thursday had to do with the expected absence of the Prime Minister on that day. But I will certainly consider the suggestion that it be considered earlier than I had otherwise anticipated.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
PC

Michael Starr (Official Opposition House Leader; Progressive Conservative Party House Leader)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Starr:

Otherwise the Committees will spend a week doing nothing.

[Mr. Mcllraith.I

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink

PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


A motion to adjourn the House under Provisional Standing Order No. 39A deemed to have been moved.


EDUCATION-REQUEST FOR INCREASED PER CAPITA GRANTS TO UNIVERSITIES

?

Mr. R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to participate in a debate at this hour of night. However, the needs of the universities of this country cannot be interfered with, I think, and a minute or two to bring this matter to the attention of the Government once again will, I hope, be useful. The problem I face, of course, is that there is such a mass of information about the problem facing our universities in Canada today that it is rather difficult to boil it all down into a minute or two.

The Minister of Finance in his Budget, when referring to federal assistance to universities, said that he and his colleagues were prepared to wait until the results of the study being made by the Bladen Commission were brought down. The Bladen Commission was set up by a private group, the Canadian Universities Foundation, and financed-this is part of the Canadian paradox-by United States and Canadian corporations. The C.U.F. asked the Minister of Finance in December 1963 to increase per capita grants for universities in this country. As a matter of fact, the first brief was submitted to the Prime Minister in May of 1963, and one of the mysteries of this Government-at least I consider it a mystery-so far as assistance to universities in this country is concerned is that they have done absolutely nothing since the time they assumed office to the present day.

Dr. John Deutsch, who is featured in the May issue of the Atlantic Advocate, an issue which concerned itself largely with education for national growth, had something to say about this. After all, Dr. Deutsch is Chairman of the Economic Council of Canada. He recommended that the contribution of the Federal Government be increased by $2 to $3 per head of population. He goes on to say:

A rapid and sustained expansion of university education, including education at the postgraduate level, must be given a high priority in making available the necessary resources in comparison with other forms of public expenditure.

May 11, 1965

He adds:

There has long been a deficiency in our educational system in regard to the training of technical personnel beyond the high school but short of the university level. The value of our natural wealth is great, but. .. there are even greater riches in the knowledge and skills of men.

It is not often, Mr. Speaker, that a Government is given both the problem and the answer to the problem in such simple, clear and readily understandable terms. After all, the problem is that the universities of Canada are receiving grossly inadequate amounts of money from the federal Government. The answer to this problem, or a good deal of it, is contained in the submission of the Canadian Universities Foundation made to the Minister of Finance in December 1963, and is as follows:

University operating costs are rising at a rate greater than 16 per cent per annum. The chief contributing factors are:

(1) Enrolment of full time students is going up at an average of between 11 and 12 per cent per annum;

(2) Additional university teachers are being appointed each year, and their salary rates are rising;

(3) As more buildings are provided to accommodate students and staff, maintenance costs increase;

(4) Facilities for graduate studies and research are being expanded, and these are costly to operate.

Effective for the fiscal year 1962-63, the then Government of Canada increased the sum available for university grants by raising the rate per capita of the population of the province to $2. Including allotments, direct or indirect, for all ten provinces, the grants totalled $37 million in that year. If the federal Government contribution to the operating costs of the universities had kept pace with the rise in those costs, the total sum available for 1963-64 would have been $43 million.

I interpolate at this point, Mr. Speaker, that I understand that as of now the amount of money would be some $58 million.

[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)

As I say, the problem I have is to try to digest the tremendous amount of evidence now available to the Government concerning what has been rightly classified as a crisis.

I am trying to boil it down and make a presentation to a Government which up to now has done nothing about this crisis since it assumed office. And they have the answer. The Canadian Universities Foundation in its brief has presented the Government with the answer. Dr. Deutsch, the Chairman of the Government's own Economic Council, has supplied the answer. Members of Parliament have tried during the months to provide this answer. I think it is deplorable for the Minister to slough off his obvious responsibility in the manner in which he has done. The

DEBATES 1189

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion urgency of the problem relates to the fact that students are now preparing themselves for the fall of 1965, yet they are told that they must wait, and that the country must wait, for the Bladen Commission report.

Topic:   EDUCATION-REQUEST FOR INCREASED PER CAPITA GRANTS TO UNIVERSITIES
Permalink
LIB

Lucien Lamoureux (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but his time has expired.

Topic:   EDUCATION-REQUEST FOR INCREASED PER CAPITA GRANTS TO UNIVERSITIES
Permalink
LIB

Lawrence T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance)

Liberal

Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):

Mr. Speaker, I propose to take up only a moment or two in reply to the hon. Member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather).

It is scarcely necessary for me to say that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) is acutely aware of the importance of additional finances for higher education. Let me point out again that during the Budget debate the Minister made it clear that this matter was receiving close attention, but that a final decision had been deferred until there has been an opportunity to discuss with the Provincial Governments the report of Professor Bladen and his colleagues.

The hon. Member for Royal suggested that there was a simple answer to this problem. I wonder whether he has ever communicated with the chief financial critic and spokesman for the Official Opposition, the hon. Member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), who has expressed dissatisfaction with the present per capita formula for university grants. I expected that the hon. Member for Royal would propose a new formula, but in view of the fact that he did not, I assume that he acquiesces in the suggestion of the Minister of Finance that we wait for the Bladen report.

May I also suggest that there are two sides to this coin as far as higher education is concerned. This Government has taken action by way of student loans to provide assistance for people who wish to attend university. It has also given higher grants to university scientific research programs. Let me assure the House, Mr. Speaker, that when the Bladen report has been received, this Government will consider it in an appropriate and responsible manner.

Topic:   EDUCATION-REQUEST FOR INCREASED PER CAPITA GRANTS TO UNIVERSITIES
Permalink

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-REPORT OF LAW SOCIETY RESPECTING ONTARIO SUPREME COURT JUDGE

NDP

Francis Andrew Brewin

New Democratic Party

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):

Mr. Speaker, I feel about as nervous as a maiden speaker, because I have never spoken in the House at such a late hour.

1190 COMMONS

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion

I asked the Minister the following question: Has the Minister received, and has he had time to examine, communications from the Law Society of Upper Canada about the position of Hon. Mr. Justice Landreville, a Justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario; what is the nature of the communication received, and what, if anything, does he intend to do about this situation which has cast a shadow over the administration of justice.

Mr. Speaker, I must admit my surprise when I heard the ruling made by Mr. Speaker, that this was a question for the Order Paper. My surprise was occasioned partially by the fact that a similar question asked a few days ago was allowed but the Minister at that time had not yet had time to examine the communication. My surprise was heightened because I thought anything that affected the integrity of the administration of justice was of the highest urgency.

I need hardly tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Benchers of the Law Society of Upper Canada are the governing authority of all members of the Bar of Ontario. This body has the reputation which one would expect of the senior leaders of the Bar-a reputation of extreme caution, particularly in respect of matters affecting the reputation of the judiciary.

It is my understanding that the Law Society did something unprecedented in the legal history of Ontario about a week or two ago, when it was announced in a press report that the Benchers of the Law Society concerned had sent a report concerning Mr. Justice Landreville to the Minister of Justice. What I want to know and what I think this House should want to know is whether this responsible, and I might almost say ultra respectable body indicated in their report that there was any reason for the very grave disquiet that many have felt about this situation.

The activities of this judge shortly before he was appointed to the Bench have been revealed by a series of investigations and trials. I will not attempt to outline them here. It is only fair to point out that in criminal proceedings it was held by a magistrate that there was no case for criminal trial on the charges laid. But the standard expected of a justice of the Supreme Court is not just the standard of avoiding the application of

DEBATES May 11, 1965

the criminal law. What is complained of here may not be within the purview of the Criminal Code but it still might be a matter unbecoming one who occupies high judicial office. In any event, I think this House is entitled to know whether or not the Benchers of the Law Society have made a report which either directly or indirectly suggests that action should be taken by the Minister or by this House in regard to the matter.

It is my conviction, Mr. Speaker, that the absolute integrity of the judiciary is one of the most important pillars in the whole fabric of our judicial system and, indeed, of our whole democratic system. I trust the Minister will leave no stone unturned to make sure that justice in Canada is above reproach. I look forward to a direct answer from the Minister or from his Parliamentary Secretary.

Topic:   ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-REPORT OF LAW SOCIETY RESPECTING ONTARIO SUPREME COURT JUDGE
Permalink
LIB

Donald Stovel Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):

Mr. Speaker, I can say on behalf of the Minister that in fact a report has been received from the Benchers of the Law Society of Upper Canada in connection with the matter to which the hon. Member has referred. I am advised that the report followed a letter which arrived two days before marked "private and confidential" and that the Minister assumed that this applied to the report. It is for that reason that the contents have not been revealed.

Following upon receipt of the report the Minister took steps to advise Mr. Justice Landreville to the effect that it had been communicated to him and invited Mr. Justice Landreville to express his own views on the question. These are expected from the judge either late this week or early next week.

The hon. Member has said that he feels that justice in Canada should be above reproach, a general principle with which I think no one will disagree. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that before any decision or action on this particular question is taken both viewpoints on the question should be heard. Therefore I think any statement should be deferred and that we should await the response from the judge which, as I have indicated, is expected late this week or early next week.

Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.19 p.m.

May 11, 1985

Topic:   ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-REPORT OF LAW SOCIETY RESPECTING ONTARIO SUPREME COURT JUDGE
Permalink

May 11, 1965