1946-05-01

[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. 0. BREITHAUPT (Waterloo North) presented the first' report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 18, for the relief of Juliana Ed-monda Isabella Ferdinanda Becquaert de Beaujeu-Mr. MacLean.

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

Mr. FRASER:: 1.	Is Bert Hughes an employee of the National Film Board?
2.	If so (a) what position does he hold; (b)
what salary does he receive; (c) what are his duties)?	*
3.	Are there any known communists employed by the National Film Board?


Mr. CLAXTON:: 1.	This question presumably refers to Herbert Hughes, who is a temporary employee of the film board.
2.	(a) Circulation manager; (b) $220 per month; (c) distribution and shipping of catalogues, and other similar materials.
3.	No. Of course, applications for positions in the public service of Canada do not require applicants to state their political affiliations.
[Mr. Martin.!



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	To what financial assistance are veterans resident in the Whitehorse area of the Yukon entitled ?
2.	Is approved agricultural land available for settlement by veterans in that area?
3.	Is it possible for veterans to purchase property and fulfil the requirements for the erection of homes in Whitehorse?
4.	What steps have been taken by the Department of Veterans Affairs to rehabilitate veterans in the Yukon territory?


POSTAL SERVICE-COMMISSIONS -ON STAMP SALES
Mr. PROBE:: 1.	As of March 31, 1946, in what post offices in Canada is it the practice of the department to sell stamps to the public without commission being paid on such sales?
2.	Are stamps sold in post offices in Canada by individuals or companies who receive commissions on such sales? If so, in what post offices and at what rate of commission or on what terms?
3.	Do any persons or companies other than those selling in regular post offices receive conr missions on stamp sales? If so, at what rate of commission or on what terms?
4.	How many persons or companies received commissions in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1946, for sales as above?
5.	In what general cases do the salaries or remuneratien of postmasters become affected by the amount of stamp sales within their post office?
6.	With respect to the persons or companies included in the terms of questions 2 and 3, in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1946, how many received commissions of (a) less than $1,000; (b) between $1,000 and $5,000; (c) more than $5,000?



ESQUIMALT NAVAL BARRACKS


Mr. PEARKES:: 1.	Has an ice hockey arena been authorized for the Royal Canadian Naval Barracks at Esquimalt, British Columbia?
2.	If so, what is the estimated cost of this building?
3.	Has construction commenced?
4.	If so, have any priorities for building materials been granted?
5.	Have any requests been received for permission to construct a civic ice arena in Victoria?
6.	If so, have building permits been granted or refused for the construction of a civic arena?
7.	If refused, for what reason?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. COLD WELL:: For .a copy of any agreement or agreements under which the White Pass and Yukon Railway acquired properties in the Whitehorse and Yukon territories.

Motions for Papers



NAVAL HAUL-UP SLIP, ANDERSON'S POINT, N.S.

Mr. GILLIS:: For a copy of any agreement entered into between the Sydney Engineering and Dry Dock Company and the Department of Munitions and Supply or the Department of Reconstruction, with respect to the operation of the naval haul-up slip at Anderson's Point, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.



RADIO BROADCASTING - PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS AND CROWN COMPANIES

Mr. COLDWELL:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and recommendations exchanged between the Department of Transport, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and any provincial governments, regarding the ownership of radio stations by provincial crown companies or by provincial governments.


Mr. McCANN:: In view of the fact that a committee on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has been set up I would suggest to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that this motion be withdrawn. The information which he seeks can be brought out to a better advantage when the committee is sitting.


Major James William Coldwell: The radio committee may not sit for some time; therefore it would be a few weeks before the information would be available. I am anxious to get it as soon as possible; therefore I should be glad if the house would pass the motion.


James Joseph McCann: In any event it would be necessary to receive the consent of the provinces that the information be given. I oppose the motion on the ground that it is not the practice to produce in the house correspondence between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is a separate corporation, and other agencies.


Mr. GRAYDON:: The minister has said that this is a separate corporation. Is it?


James Joseph McCann: That is what I say.


Gordon Graydon: If it is a separate corporation, has there been any change with respect to its employees being allowed to organize a union? I understand that in the past they were not allowed to organize, on the ground that the corporation was connected with the government. It cannot be both. The government cannot blow hot and cold with respect to the corporation. Either it is a separate corporation or it is a department of government.


James Joseph McCann: I have no knowledge of a desire on the part of the employees of the corporation to organize a union, and therefore I cannot answer the hon. gentleman's question. I take the position which has been taken in this house before, that since the Canadian 63260-09
Broadcasting Corporation is a separate corporation, correspondence between it and other agencies is not producible in the house.


Major James William Coldwell: I hope the minister will obtain the permission of the provincial governments as soon as possible. I should like to point out also that this is a practice that has crept in in recent years. Formerly permission was regarded as necessary where the correspondence was with governments of other countries; now it is the governments of the provinces as well.


Mr. COTE (Verdun):: I was paired with the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Hazen). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. ABBOTT:: I was paired with hon.
member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. GINGUES:: I was paired with the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion,


Mr. WHITMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. PINARD:: I was paired with the hon. members for Hastings South (Mr. Stokes). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) . Bad I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Gauthier). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Chevrier), the Minister of Transport. Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland)': I was paired with the hon. the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Macdonald). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BOUCHER:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BRADSHAW:: I was paired with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Marier). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.



EDUCATION


Mr. F. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration ways and means of equalizing educational opportunity across this dominion and granting financial assistance to the various provinces for this purpose.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to move this resolution I am doing something with which I am sure a great many members of this house agree. Since this resolution first appeared on the order paper some time ago, a large mjmber of hon. members as well as others outside the house have expressed interest in it. I hope therefore that what I have to say and what other hon. members may have to say on the resolution will be carefully considered by the government with a view to doing something about it when the debate is ended.
I should like to present a few reasons why I consider the matter of education and the question of federal aid to education to be among the most vital issues before us to-day.
Education is practically synonymous with civilization. If we read history we realize that in some ways education must be considered older than civilization itself, because had it not been for education, whether in an organized or in an incidental form, no civilization would have been possible.
I ask the house to give consideration to the fact that education is in the modern world one of the chief sources of power. We talk about natural sources of power, about solar and

Education
other varieties of energy. If it were not for organized education over the years it would not have been possible for us to enjoy the benefits of the natural energy which we have developed. Any of us who read history at all realize that the discovery of steam power, of electrical energy, of the internal combustion engine, and-more recently-atomic energy, has been possible, not because somebody merely stumbled on the discovery, as we are sometimes erroneously led to believe, but because people skilled in science and research have, over a number of years, done work which they would not have been able to do had they not had the advantages of education.
Let me refer again to atomic energy. Most of us who read about it in the first instance might have had the idea that some bearded recluse, playing around with test tubes in his laboratory, stumbled across a startling discovery and so we had the atomic bomb. Of course we know that that is not so. It took the scientific experts not of one country but' of several allied countries together, with a whole staff of trained men worldng for a long time and spending millions of dollars on equipment, before they, working as a team, came to the conclusion that the atom was divisible.
I would also ask hon. members to realize that education is so important that the race is actually between education and disaster in the future of the world. All we have to do is glance at, the headlines each day to realize that there is grave danger of world conflict at almost any moment. Once again we are, so to speak, sitting on a powder keg; and in my view only through education can the peoples of the world solve their problems and face up to their great opportunities.
We must have education in order to solve our problems of the future-and we have great opportunities, because if we can apply the knowledge we have gained during the course of the war, especially in the discovery of new forms of power; if we can learn to control the power which we have discovered and developed, we shall be the masters of our destiny. But if we allow these new forms of power to control us; if we allow these new methods of destruction to gain mastery over us, the future of the world will be black indeed.
Some people will say that there is organized education all over the world, that the people of to-day are not as ignorant as the people of one hundred or even fifty years ago. Perhaps that is so, literally speaking, but comparatively speaking I would say that we are as ignorant to-day in relation to the complex-63260-691
ity of our environment as was primitive man in relation to the comparative simplicity of his environment. We sometimes laugh when we read about the centuries it took primitive man to discover that by rubbing two sticks of wood together he could create fire. We have since learned how to create fire in all its forms, and yet we have not learned to use it without burning our fingers.
I say, therefore, that in the interest of the future of civilization itself we must turn our attention more and more to education as our hope. We can make out of atomic energy either a utopia or a Frankenstein's monster. If we can so train ourselves and so train future generations of children that they can put atomic energy to use for peaceful purposes and the happiness of mankind, we shall have created a utopia or something very much like it. If on the other hand that skill and that knowledge are not there, then we may have created something which will devour us in the end.
Someone may ask why it is I express such concern about the present state of education. We may think that the educational system we have in Canada at present is adequate. It is certainly something better than we had years ago, but I would quote, from "Canada 1946", the official report on the state of education as the department responsible for this report sees it. These are not my words. They will be found at page 204 of "Canada 1946":
The Canadian Teachers Federation reported that, using the criteria of cost per pupil, no progress was made during the sixteen years ended in 1942. Teachers' salaries, which form a considerable percentage of this, began to increase after the outbreak of war but until 1943 rose no more proportionately than the increase measured by the cost of living. Since that time several of the provinces have increased their minimum salary standard and while none as yet has reached the mark set by the C.N1E.A., Saskatchewan's minimum of $1,200 for teachers with permanent certificates and $1,000 for others is a long way from the $400 or less received by . highly qualified experienced teachers in the middle 1930's.
The significant fact there stated is that, according to the Canadian Teachers Federation, an organization that should know, and does know, no progress has been made in relation to cost per pupil in the last sixteen years ending in 1942, which means that if the cost of education has risen, if teachers' salaries have risen, it has been only in proportion to the cost of living all round, and we are not proportionately any better off sa far as the educational system is concerned.
I wish to turn now to an analysis of the present position in dollars and cents. The figures I will use are for comparative purposes

Education
only, and do not mean that what I am going to propose has to be carried out to the letter.
Mr. LaCROIX: Is the hon. member aware of the fact that education, according to our constitution, is entirely under the control of the provinces?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am aware of that, and in due course I will answer the hon. member's question. I shall be glad to deal with it as I go on. According to a survey report of the Canada and Newfoundland Education Association, 1943, we were spending at that time $146 million on education in this country. We cannot say that this is either adequate or inadequate without reference to the recommendations of the committee in that respect. They recommended that an annual increase of $144 million be made, which is almost double what was spent at that time, and in addition they recommended that a capital expenditure of $59 million be made in order to improve buildings, equipment, facilities and so on, making a total increase of $203 million. If we add that to the $146 million spent at that time, it comes to $349 million.
As I say, I am not using these figures because I am asking the government to spend any specific amount of money, but rather as a comparison to see what the position is. It means that if we work it out on the basis of the Canadian population, estimated roughly at twelve million, we have ,a per capita of $29, which would answer the recommendation of the Canada and Newfoundland Education Association.
The reason I quote these figures is to show what it would take in the way of financing by the provinces, the municipalities and the federal government to implement the report of the C.N.E.A. Out of the $29 per capita, how much is the federal government proposing to spend in the financing of education at the present time? The only source from which I can get figures in that respect is the dominion proposals to the provinces in connection with the dominion-provincial conference, which appear at page 46 of the brief. All members, I believe, have the brief.
With the exception of special training given in connection with rehabilitation, the dominion proposes these sums of money to the provinces, if an agreement is reached. First of all there is a lump sum of $85,000. I would not say that is a ridiculous figure, but I do not know how it got in there; perhaps it is a left-over from some benevolent fund. That $85,000 is to be spent in this way: $5,000 to. Prince Edward Island and $10,000 to each of the other

eight provinces. However, it gets better as it goes along. There is an amount of $1,915,000 to be allotted annually to the provinces on the basis of the number of youth in the age group of fifteen to nineteen in each province. There is a capital allotment of $10 million to be used for putting up buildings and getting equipment in connection with vocational training. This is on the basis of vocational and technical training, none of it being earmarked for elementary or public school education.
This works out to a total of $12 million proposed by the dominion to the provinces if an agreement is reached. Going back to the per capita figure of $29, it means that the dominion is proposing to spend one dollar per capita out of the $29 that needs to be spent in order to provide even a modest and reasonable standard of education in the country, which leaves $28 out of the $29 per capita to be raised by the provinces and the municipalities.
How is this amount to be raised, and in what proportions? According to figures I have from the bureau of statistics for 1941, the latest I could get in this respect, the municipalities were raising 83-3 per cent on school finance, and the provinces 16-7. From the figures I am using for illustration purposes it can easily be seen that under the present proposals of the dominion government to the provinces, and under the present system of financing education in this country, the municipalities will still have to carry the heaviest burden. Then come the provinces, and after that the dominion, whose costs will be very light in comparison. I myself cannot see how this can be done under the present set-up. If the proposals of the dominion to the provinces were implemented I do not believe that even a minimum standard of education could be attained in Canada without much greater contributions by the dominion government.
So much for the present financial situation. The resolution calls for equality of educational opportunity in Canada. This is the theme to which I want to devote most of my time today. No one will argue with me when I say that unless we have equal opportunity in education, and an equal standard of education, or come as closely as we can to it, all talk of national unity is futile. Last night we heard a great deal from all sides of the house about the need for national unity. Unless we can first get equality of opportunity in the field of education across this dominion, we shall not reach the stage of national unity which we all desire.

Education
I wish to place on record a few tables of statistics which will bear out my contention that the opportunities for education across Canada are anything but equal at the present time. To save the time of the house I am going to ask for consent to place the tables in Hansard without going through them in detail.
The first table to which I should like to refer deals with the expenditures per child between the ages of five and nineteen by provinces, which is referred to in this report as the expenditures per unit. It will be seen from the table that the amount ranges from $14.29 in Prince Edward Island to $49.61 in British Columbia. Approximately three times as much is spent in British Columbia as is spent in Prince Edward Island,. These are the two extremes.
Now let us take three geographical areas for purposes of comparison. If we take the maritime provinces as a unit we find, according to the 1941 figures, which are the latest ones I could obtain, that $21 per child is spent. If we take the prairie provinces as a unit we find they are spending $33 per child. Ontario and British Columbia as a unit are spending $46.50 per child. The Canadian average is $33 per child. How does this compare with the recommendation of the Canada and Newfoundland Educational Association? Their recommendations work out to $67 per child. In other words we shall have to spend $67 per child throughout the dominion if we are to attain even a reasonable standard of education. At the time to which I have referred we were spending approximately $33, which means that we shall almost have to double our expenditure for education if we are to reach the standard recommended.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Has the hon.
member the unanimous consent of the house to place the tables on Hansard?


Paul-Émile Côté: Would the hon.
gentleman tell us the source from which he obtained these tables?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: This table is taken from the report by Professor K. F. Argue, presented to the national convention of the Canadian Teachers' Federation in 1945. The table is as follows:	.
Expenditure per child (ages 5-19)
By provinces: 1941
Prince Edward Island	
$14	29Nova Scotia	
22	70New Brunswick	
19	74Quebec	
22	86Ontario	
46	87Manitoba	'	
35 37Saskatchewan	
32	85Alberta	
39	41British Columbia	
49	61
Comparison of three areas:
Maritimes	
21	00Prairie provinces	
33	00Ontario and British Columbia 46	50Canadian average	
33	00Amount recommended by Canada-Newfoundland Education Association	
67	00
The next table' to which I want to refer is one that shows that there is not only a difference between the amounts spent, and consequently a variation in standards of education from province to province, but also a difference between urban and rural centres. Those of us who come from rural areas will agree that almost without exception the opportunities for education in rural Canada leave very much to be desired. Indeed that is an understatement. Here are some figures which will show that the opportunities and facilities for education in the higher brackets, namely, high school and universities, are much greater in urban centres than in rural areas. The table gives a comparison of boys by age groups across Canada. These figures were also taken from the Argue report:
Attendance: urban and rural. 1941-Boys by age groups:
Rural Urban per cent per cent
13	
93	9714	
75	9415	
52	8116	
33	5917	
19	3918	
12	2519	
7	16
The figure of 16 per cent is not a high one, and leaves much to be desired; but it is more than twice as high in the urban centres as in the rural areas. It means that out of every one hundred boys who started school, only seven were still in school by the time they had reached nineteen. This is a serious state of affairs. We who come from the rural areas know something about the reasons why so many boys and girls leave school at the age of fourteen or fifteen. I have had some practical experience in teaching. There are two chief reasons for this situation. One of them is that in the rural areas, especially throughout western Canada, there are no high school facilities for teaching these children unless their parents are in a financial position to send them to a town of considerable size where they can attend high school, which incurs expenditures greater than the parents are able to afford. The second reason is that where there are facilities for high school education in small towns they usually consist of a two-room school, with all the grades from grade 9 to 11 in one room and from grade 1 to 8 in the other. The high school teacher is
Education

obliged to handle all grades from grade 9 to 11, and sometimes from grade 8 to 11. Therefore it is physically impossible to offer the variety of courses to fit the needs and desires of the students who are attending school. I have seen boys and girls of fourteen years of age leaving school because the talents with which they are gifted or the abilities which they possess cannot be satisfied in a school which offers only one course of education. This lack of variety, this lack of something to satisfy their intellectual appetites, causes them to become disinterested. They leave school not because they have not intelligence. Perhaps they have more than the average intelligence in certain lines, but the courses offered lack variety. Everybody has not the same intellectual appetite, and these students do not wish to take what is offered.
In my twelve years of experience in teaching I have seen young people who were practically geniuses being driven away from school because of the fact we. had nothing to offer them to keep up their interest. You cannot offer a potential electrician a course in history and expect him to like it. It is not up his alley. On the other hand, you may have a budding diplomat, and if you make him do mathematics two or three hours a day he is not going to try to carry on.
I have another set of figures to which I wish to refer, and I am going to ask the consent of the house to put them on Hansard in order to save time. This refers to the variation and inequality in salaries across the dominion. I do not think anyone will deny that if we want to have a high standard of education we must, first of all, have a high standard of teaching personnel. There are several reasons why people who might otherwise become good teachers, either leave the teaching profession, or go somewhere else rather than make any effort to enter that profession.
In this connection let me quote from the report of the reconstruction committee of the Canadian Teachers' Federation. This report contains -a significant paragraph as to the quality of teachers which, in the opinion, of the Canadian Teachers' Federation, we should have. They state:
The status of the teaching profession must be raised to the level where it will attract into the profession young men and young women of the very best character and ability in such numbers as to allow for a careful selection of those to be trained as teachers, on the basis of health, leadership, character and other outstanding qualities of mind and heart, as well as on the basis of academic standing of at least one year of post-secondary study.

That is asking for a fairly high standard, but it is not at all too high. I am one who considers education so important that we cannot overemphasize the quality of teaching personnel. But if we are exacting that type of teaching personnel, if we are asking for that type of teachers, then we must be prepared to pay for it. The following table, from the bureau of statistics, which I mentioned earlier in my observations, will serve to show the way in which we have been paying for it:
Median salaries of Teachers, 1944 By provinces: Rural
More than
one room one room
Prince Edward Island ....	$598	$538Nova Scotia	
730	580New Brunswick	
774	612Ontario	
1,204	1,021Manitoba	
996	843Saskatchewan	
955	902Alberta	
1,176	996British Columbia	
1,250	1,007
A'mere glance at these figures will show that in none of the provinces is the schedule of teachers' salaries anywhere near where it should be. Indeed, in some of the maritime provinces the salaries are such that it is impossible for the teachers to maintain any adequate standards of academic attainments; in fact it makes it difficult to make a living. I could probably say much more about the position in which teachers have found themselves for many years; but I shall refrain from doing so, since the time at my disposal is passing by.
Having given, those figures, having shown the lack of equality in opportunity across the dominion, and having proven, I suggest, that there is a need for the federal government to enter the field of financing education, I should like to place upon the record the stand taken in this connection by certain organizations and individuals.
What is the stand of the Canadian Teachers' Federation, a body which is in a position to speak for teachers in this dominion? In a letter dated July 23, 1945, addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the Canadian Teachers' Federation said this in part:
The plain truth is that education can never be raised to the status that it should occupy in a democratic society unless the dominion government provides the necessary money by liberal grants on the basis of need.
And that is "liberal" with a small "1".


Gordon Graydon: That is taken for granted.

Education


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I should like also to quote a resolution passed by the national convention of the Canadian Teachers' Federation in 1945. This is recent, and puts the organization clearly on the record. This is what they say:
Whereas important aspects of federal-provincial finance are to be decided at the present dominion-provincial conference; and
Whereas the matter of federal aid to education is considered to be one of the most important of these;
Be it resolved that we urge the federal and provincial representatives at this conference to see that the matter is included in their discussions with a view to implementing some such scheme in order to assure all Canadian children an adequate standard of education.
Surely this sets out their stand clearly and unequivocally; there can be no quibbling as to the position of this great body of teachers.
Where do the political organizations in this country stand? I am fortunate in having before me excerpts from statements made by the leaders of three of the parties, and by one of the ministers of the government. I shall begin by quoting the leader of my own group, in a statement he made in May, 1945. Here are his words:
Education is a matter of concern for Canada as a whole; not for a community or a province only. And next, and equally important, there is implied the recognition that the resources of the provincial governments are insufficient to undertake all the educational activities that modern requirements of peace and war demand.
That makes it clear where we in this group stand in the matter of federal financial aid to education. I now come to the then leader of the opposition, the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). Here are his words-and I wonder if he will recognize them to-day:
The ability to pay affects the whole problem of equal opportunity. The answer lies in federal aid for education.
I believe this sets out his attitude quite clearly. If it does not he will have an opportunity of setting the record straight.


Gordon Graydon: Is anybody arguing
against that?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Not at all. I am just leaving it open, in the case the hon. member wishes to say something.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps the hon. member does not like me to think in that way; but I do.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I now come to the leader of the Social Credit party, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). Here are his words.
Equality of educational opportunity is desirable and, therefore, substantial federal grants should be made to the provinces.
I think that is clear, and the hon. member nods his head in agreement.
I come now to the government side of the house, and quote these words from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Claxton) who, I assume, speaks for the government in this respect:
But the constitution does not prevent the federal government from giving substantial assistance to education.
I hope the hon. member who interrupted me earlier will take that to heart, because those are the words of a minister in the government he supports. I believe these quotations place upon the record as fairly as it can be done the attitude taken by the various political parties in the house, taken, significantly enough, in May, 1945. It will be recalled that there was an election in June of that year. I have no reason to believe that any one of these gentlemen has taken a different position since then; therefore I have nothing but the highest confidence that, when the time comes, each of them will rise in support of this resolution.
In the time left at my disposal I should like to answer two possible objections to the proposal I made. One of those objections, which was implied in a question asked by an hon. member opposite, is that of provincial autonomy. I was asked whether I was aware that, according to the constitution, education is under the jurisdiction of the provinces. I answered that I was well aware of that, and may I point out that a careful reading of my resolution will show that I am not asking the federal government to take over the administration of education in this country. That is not suggested in the resolution, or in anything I have said to-day. What I am asking for, and what all the leaders of the various groups and one of the ministers of the government have agreed upon, is that the federal government should make substantial grants to the provinces to make it possible for the provinces to finance education properly. I hope that will clear up any misunderstanding which may exist in the minds of hon. members. This resolution does not suggest that the federal government should administer education.


Mr. La CROIX:: Is the hon. member adding the words, "Without any control from the federal government, so far as expenses are concerned?"


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Although I thought I had made myself clear, for the benefit of the hon. member may I repeat that I am not suggesting that the federal government take over the administration of education. My resolution calls for a substantial federal grant to the provinces, to be used as the provinces see fit.
Education

Mr. LaCROIX: Without any control?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I think I have made it clear.
The other objection which may be raised, and it is one of the stock objections, is the matter of cost. There are those who will throw up their hands in despair and say that this will cost too much. I do not deny that it will cost money, and a great deal of money because if we are to obtain quality we must pay the price. But let me assure the house that if we want to make the safest possible investment in the future of this country there is no safer or more gilt-edged security than the education of the growing children of Canada. It is impossible for us to overspend in this respect. What I have said earlier in my address should, I think, bear out the fact that for every dollar spent in this way we shall get hundreds, perhaps thousands, of dollars of value in the future. I ask hon. members to use their imaginations to the extent of realizing that we are now standing on the threshhold of a great opportunity. We have discovered through our scientific efforts the sources of power of which we never dreamed before. All we need to do now is to control those powers and direct them into the proper channels, and then we shall have in the future a veritable paradise in this country. I have no apologies to make and no hesitation in recommending to the government, with all the vehemence I can gather, the adoption of this resolution.


Mr. HANSELL:: If I may ask the hon. member a question because I do not expect to participate in this debate, I fancy that what has bothered some hon. members, judging by the interruptions, is the same question that is bothering me. I agree that we should seek financial aid from the federal government, but can my hon. friend throw some light on this question? Can we expect the federal government to give financial aid to the provinces without the federal government expecting to have something to say as to how the money is to be used?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: It is quite possible that the federal government may make certain recommendations to the provinces as to the best possible way in -fohich the money could be spent, but I would point out that it is not necessary for the federal government to go into the fiield in which the provinces are now operating. The federal government, without interfering with what the provinces are doing, could spend large sums of money for erecting buildings and in purchasing equipment and in paying for teacher training which the provinces are in need of to-day.


Ernest George Hansell: That is a good answer.


Mr. BONA ARSENAULT (Bonaventure):: (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) on his very able presentation of this resolution; however, the fact remains that were this motion to be adopted by the house, it would, in my estimation, constitute a serious threat to provincial autonomy, with regard to education. The resolution is worded as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration ways and means of equalizing educational opportunity across this dominion and granting financial assistance to the various provinces for this purpose.
Such a resolution constitutes a threat to our provincial rights in matters pertaining to education. It does not say what sort of education it is intended to equalize across the Dominion. Does it refer to primary, secondary or postgraduate teaching? We do not know. But in its very vagueness, the resolution constitutes a threat, and it is up to the representatives from the Province of Quebec, from the Erench speaking settlements of Ontario, New Brunswick, the western provinces, and other parts of this country, to ward off this intrusion of the federal government in the field of education.
Section 93 of the British North America Act grants the provincial legislatures exclusive rights in matters of education and teaching, so that the hon. member for Dauphin has presented his resolution in defiance of our constitution, in defiance of the greatest chapters in the history of French Canada, of those heroic struggles which our compatriots have had to wage in Ontario, New Brunswick, western Canada and elsewhere, on matters with regard to which there can be no compromise.
Those who, in this period of unrest, take pleasure in gnawing at the confederation agreement of 1867, may as well know that the French-speaking members of this house are ready to take up the challenge.
We want none of this federal centralization in matters pertaining to education.
I would not be surprised that this apparently harmless motion would be but the beginning of a great manoeuvre launched by the partisans of centralization in Canada, to deprive us of our educational rights and aim a blow at provincial autonomy in that respect.
As lately as October last, at their annual convention, held in Quebec City, the Canadian Congress of Labour put forward the following proposal:
That a standard educational programme be drawn up by the federal government and implemented by the municipalities.

Education
When one is aware of the present tendencies within neutral labour unions, the suggested surrendering of the educational field to the Federal government, in defiance of our constitution, is not at all surprising.
But when a member of Parliament, the member of party represented in this house, one whose attitude is often so typically Canadian and who is therefore discreetly admired by a great number of his colleagues, puts forward a proposal which would have such a centralizing effect on the field of education, we have reason to be thoughtful, particularly when this member's party could well constitute, before very long, His Majesty's official opposition in this house. To those who might think that this approach to this important question is peculiar to the members from Quebec or to the French-speaking members of the other parts of the country, may I say that at the last meeting of the Canadian Newfoundland Education Association, held in Toronto in October 1945, the director of education for Ontario, Mr. Althouse, stated that the provincial autonomy in matters of education was not only a provincial right but a national asset.
Certain provinces, he added, due to financial difficulties, would gladly accept the federal government's intervention by way of grants, but other provinces, including Quebec, do not *want any such grants as their acceptance would imply a recognition of the dominion government's rights in educational matters.
Not only did the director of education for Ontario admit the exclusive right of the provinces in educational matters but he also recognized its practical value from a strictly Canadian standpoint.
Further, on February 13 last, the hon. Wilfrid Bovey, who sits in the legislative council, and is a member of the Canadian Association for Adult Education, a recognized authority in educational matters, after lauding the teaching standards in the province of Quebec, made the following statement in the Quebec legislature:
I' have been told that our third party proposes to establish a dominion department of education. I do not believe in the centralization of education. I believe in a maximum of decentralization. I believe that the principles recognized in the province of Quebec are sound. If the day comes-and I think it will come-when the dominion government increases sharply its grants for educational purposes, we must make sure that we do not sacrifice our academic freedom for financial considerations.
Personally, I am convinced that in educational matters we would lose this freedom to the extent that we accept such grants.
In a questionnaire submitted to the Prime Minister, which was published in Maclean's of February 1, 1946, the following question was asked:
Do you believe that the dominion government should play a larger part in education?
And the Prime Minister replied:
Under the Canadian constitution, education is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. Therefore the dominion government must not in any way interfere in matters within the purview of the provinces. But the central authority should help the latter to make greater educational facilities available (1) by concluding financial agreements which would enable the provinces better to meet the cost of education; (2) by granting financial assistance towards vocational training, scientific research, educational training of servicemen, etc.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the stand taken b>
the Prime Minister of this country, that is the policy of the Liberal government, the policy which should be endorsed by all Canadians respectful of confederation and of the exclusive rights of provinces in educational matters. We are against any direct Dominion cooperation which would inevitably result in a more or less rigid control by the central authority in this sphere which, under our constitution, is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
And this question offers a special importance to the province of Quebec to which rights have been specifically guaranteed by the constitution.
Do you realize where the direct interference of the dominion government in educational matters might lead at a time when not a single dominion deputy minister is Frenchspeaking and when most of the key positions in the dominion civil service are held by people who are undoubtedly well intentioned but who are neither of our tongue nor of our faith.
In Quebec, the educational system is placed on a non-political basis. This province has no minister of Education, but a department of Public education represented in the legislature by the provincial Secretary. The Superintendent of Public education of the province of Quebec has two secretaries as assistants, one French speaking and the other English speaking, and all the powers in the educational field are vested in the Superior council of public education with the superintendent as ex-officio chairman. This council is comprised of two committees, one with a Catholic membership and the other composed of Protestants and they hold separate meetings. Each committee has the same number of members and administers, independently from the other, all educational matters falling

Education

under its jurisdiction. Besides, in every community with a protestant minority, this minority is entitled to form its own school board.
Some provinces should draw inspiration from this time-honoured system which is perfectly satisfactory to the various racial and religious groups and leaves no room for provincial, and much less federal, political interference of the kind suggested by the hon. member for Dauphin.
Education is probably the Canadian activity that has been the most difficult to establish on a sound basis. At any rate, no other has required more sacrifices and heroism. In Quebec, but more especially in the French speaking districts of Ontario, New Brunswick and the Western provinces, it has required the best that could be recruited in intelligence, devotedness, courage, self-denial and perseverance of a racial group feeling that it had a religious and intellectual mission to fulfil; of a racial group that has so far proudly discharged its duty and has entrusted to the French-speaking members of this house especially, the imperative duty of fighting every attempt at absorption and every infringement of our rights, especially in the field of education.
I will no doubt be permitted to add with Mgr. Camille Roy that:
"Compared to the other provinces of the Canadian confederation, the province of Quebec has indeed nothing to envy from the points of view of its institutions, its general intellectual culture, or the special value of its leading classes."
Of this, I need no better proof than the acknowledged excellence of the young French speaking representatives sitting in this house since the opening of the present Parliament.
The provinces have already accepted indirect help from the federal authorities in extra-scholastic fields such as scholarships, professional and technical training which had become imperative, it was claimed, as a result of war.
Because of this fact, the supporters of centralization will no doubt invoke the classical argument of precedent to insist from now on, on a direct participation in school activities, which we shall oppose to the limit of our strength. This is the reason for which we oppose the motion of the hon. member ior Dauphin, which, we hope, will be defeated by the house.
(Text):


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I desire to participate in this discussion only briefly. I am prompted to do so by the fact that for a good many years I have
TMr. Arsenault.]
taken a keen interest in the subject brought before the house by this resolution, and also because during the course of the debate the mover of the resolution (Mr. Zaplitny) mentioned my position with respect to federal aid to the provinces. I would recall to your mind, Mr. Speaker, that in October, 1943, at a convention in the province of Quebec of teachers' associations there, a comprehensive discussion with respect to education generally was participated in by three of the political parties: the party to which the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny), the mover of the resolution, gives allegiance; the party of the then parliamentary assistant to the Prime Minister, now the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Claxton); and the party represented by myself. That forum provided an interesting opportunity to discuss in some detail the approaches of the various parties to the subject of education. Because of the fact that the leader of the C.C.F., Mr. Claxton and myself are all federal men, the question of federal and provincial jurisdiction naturally formed a subject of discussion. To-day I only want to confirm and in some respects to reiterate and repeat the position which I took then and which I hope I shall always take with respect to this matter, namely that we must base all our discussions about education on the firm and solid foundation that, though we discuss the matter in the dominion parliament, it falls directly and completely within the purview and jurisdiction of the provincial governments. That, I think, must be our first approach. While the hon. member for Dauphin spoke of it later in his speech, I should like to make it the foundation upon which any arguments I shall advance will be built.
I was interested in the interruption and intervention of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), who raised a question which is probably in the minds of most people who have given some study to the subject of education and how it shall be financed. I thought there was some merit in the question he raised. I have only one concern with respect to federal aid to education, and I s believe it is profoundly shared by most hon. members. In seeking federal aid for education we must bear in mind that when it is forthcoming it must be subject to complete safeguards that the giving of money shall not be used as a big stick over provincial governments to impose upon them the will of the dominion concerning education, or anything else. I therefore preface my remarks by saying that when aid is sought, or when it is suggested that the government should consider the whole problem of giving aid to the provinces in matters of education, in whatever

Education
aid is given both the letter and the spirit of the constitution with respect to the safeguarding of education for the provinces shall be observed. That is one of the planks upon which we must stand in connection with dominion aid to education. I am. one of the last in this house-and I think I have plenty of company in other parties-who would consent to any rigid standardization or uniformity of the educational system, because in a country with such varied interests as Canada it just cannot be done. We have to consider our Canadian problems in the light of the conditions in which we as a nation find ourselves, and work upon that basic ground as best we can to make a good job out of the situation as we find it.
That viewpoint, however, does not lead me, and I hope it does not lead either the country or this parliament, to the conclusion that we as a federal parliament must neither discuss nor deal with the question of education across Canada. There are many ways in which the safeguards I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks can appropriately be applied and at the same time we can still do a great deal as a dominion parliament.
What the hon. member for Dauphin said a few moments ago with respect to educational opportunities is perfectly true. I feel keenly in this matter because, like many others in this house, I was bom and raised in a country district, where we had to go two and a half miles to and from school morning and night, where the conveniences were quite different from those available in urban places or, for that matter, in many rural districts nowadays. As one moves cm and takes a place in the business, industrial, professional or agricultural life of the country, one realizes how important it is to have a good educational system. More than that, geography and finance must not be the sole yardsticks by which the amount of education in this or any other country is to be measured. My conviction in that respect comes from the depths of an experience which many of us have had who originated in the rural districts of Canada. For that reason it seems to me that the boy or the girl in the remote hinterlands of Canada is just as great an asset to the country and should be developed in the same degree as the person who was born under more favourable geographical and financial circumstances. I would go farther; as far as that aspect of the problem is concerned I believe there is a responsibility resting upon the dominion parliament, subject to the safeguards and to the jurisdictional questions which I have mentioned, to give opportunities to people who, 63260-701
because of such circumstances as I have indicated, are now denied those opportunities. I remember very well making this statement in October, 1943, at the forum to which I was referring a few moments ago:
While the cost of education is not necessarily the only measure of educational value, at the same time it may well serve and sometimes does serve as an index of educational facilities.
There is one matter I wish to touch upon, and my remarks this afternoon are not planned; they come to my mind as I approach a subject in which wTe are all interested.


Mr. MARTIN:: From the heart.


Gordon Graydon: Well, that is perhaps the fact. We talk about school's as being the only element in education, but there are two other important factors that should be considered. I know that the hon. member for Dauphin is a very distinguished leader in his own profession; and I must be careful, too. when I discuss the teaching profession, especially when I recollect that early in life I came under the. influence and control of a young lady who is now my wife and who was for a few years in that profession. I have, therefore, a wholesome regard and respect for the authority and influence of that great profession. I would say, however, that there are two other important factors to be taken into account, namely, the home and the church. Let us not always assume that all the educational facilities in the country are provided by the primary and secondary schools or by any other type of school. They certainly do a great work and anything I say must not be regarded at all as a reflection upon them. I do not believe, however, that the schools can do a good job-and I say this writh a firm conviction-unless they form part of a great team in which the home and the church are important partners.
I believe that the greatest citizens in Canada have been trained for citizenship and to take their part in the future of this country in this three-way partnership that I have mentioned-the home, the church and the school. I am going to express a purely personal opinion which I have stated before in private. Perhaps there is no harm in repeating it in the House of Commons. I have sometimes wondered whether we are not organized to the point where we have become overorganized as a society. And in this I have not education in mind.
People are planning so hard and comprehensively to live better that they themselves have scarcely the time to live. So that instead of placing the emphasis upon the objective they place it upon the method. The
Education

result is that the objective comes in for secondary consideration. I hope that in our education, as in other matters, the objective will not be lost sight of in the maze of organization which is so often essential if that objective is to be attained.
I do not know what my colleagues in the house have found in the ramifications of their experience, but my opinion is this. The skill of the mind is an important matter, but let us also remember that there is a skill of the hand; and if we build up in this country only those who are skilled in brains, skilled in mind, and disregard the skilled hand of the manual labourer, we shall not have the balanced type of activity, the balanced population, which in my opinion is essential to the well-being and the advancement of a great Canadian community.
I have seen, as no doubt many other hon. members have seen, well educated men and women who have not been able to make their full contribution to society and to lead a fuller life. This is something I have discussed many times before, though I am not surc-whether I have mentioned it in the house However, I shall do so this afternoon. I refer to the industrious man-or the woman -who is endowed not merely with a good brain or with skilful hands but with a well developed fund of common sense. Such a n* ' or woman is a great asset, an important ;i making a full contribution to the Canadian community and to Canadian affairs generally.
Education is a broad topic with many ramifications, and much as I should like to philosophize on the subject this afternoon I must hurry on to one or two points I have in mind. I do not think we always plan our education as well as we might. I know this is strictly a provincial matter, but I do not think there is any harm in mentioning it here because it applies to all the provinces. I suggest that we do not always educate our men and women for the callings for which they are best fitted. The selective type of education seems to me to be of vast importance in the days that lie ahead. This nation has a population of eleven and a half millions and it cannot afford to waste many of those people by educating men and women for the wrong jobs. For that reason I hope that as time goes on, in the various educational movements in Canada, we shall eliminate as far as possible the round pegs in square holes, as we have tried to do in other directions. I say that because there is no reason why a man who is capable of developing manual skill should not have just as high a place of prestige and standing in any community in Canada as the man who is

skilled in brains and mind. That is the kind of balanced community I should like to see in this country. I should like to see people educated along the lines for which they are best fitted. It is a waste of education, a waste of money, if we follow any other course, because every time a man or woman is turned out of one of our universities there is a substantial public investment in that person. Because there is a public investment in every one of them the public has some right to see that the money has been spent in the proper places, as is done in other investments that the people make. That, I hasten to point out, is another personal view. I felt that this was the forum which gave me the opportunity to express it. I believe in the selective form of education which is being utilized in some provinces, perhaps not all. It is being utilized to some extent in the province from which I come. Speaking of Ontario I should like to say that since the present regime took office in that province there has been a most marked and significant advancement on the whole question of costs of education, the whole question of plan of education and the utilization of the best means of reaching the objective of a well educated province.
May I mention the question of our position in the schools with regard to teaching. This is not a national matter. It may be regarded as a matter that comes entirely within provincial jurisdiction. I wish to mention it because it fits into the general picture. One of the things that this country must do is to see that the seats of learning, whether they be higher or lower, are purged of any teachers who may be found to have undemocratic ideals, whether they are purveying them to the pupils or not. This is a matter that recent events would indicate as being an essential need. In making reference to it I am not casting any reflection upon any seat of learning except to say that if in the future we are to build up a great Canada based upon democratic ideals and principles, we cannot do so unless we have people teaching those ideals in the schools, whether they be public schools, high schools, or universities. I should like to see more emphasis laid upon the teaching of what democracy really means. We have a great system of government, our democratic system. I know there are weaknesses" in it, but there will always be weaknesses in any type of government where there are imperfect people to govern. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that more emphasis ought to be laid than has been laid in this country, and in others, upon seeing that our younger generation are brought up under democratic ideals, and that the dangers of other types

Education
of totalitarian government ought to be shown to our younger generation. It may be argued, of course, that these are matters again that should not be dealt with in a measure of this kind, but to me they seem to be part and parcel of a great general picture which deserves to be shown.
Great strides have been made in the teaching of civics and in the teaching of our form of government, but I believe we can go even farther. As a layman I feel-I am going to risk such criticism as may come to me-that perhaps we might do more than we have done along that line.	.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer before I conclude my rambling remarks. Coming up through our schools in every province we have men and women who almost seem to be predestined to take leadership in certain lines of activity. There is not one in this chamber this afternoon who, if he looks back on his early school days, cannot think of some students whom he regarded as potential leaders, and who, because of financial or other obstacles standing in their way had to finish their schooling at an early age. Because of that we have lost men and women with leadership qualities who could have contributed much to this nation as a whole. Our brilliant minds must have some avenue by which they can reach the top, regardless of geography or finance.
I well remember that in the early days of another parliament the present Secretary of State (Mr. Martin), and others of us, took a stand in favour of something which comes within the jurisdiction of this parliament and of which this parliament should take cognizance, namely, the question of a comprehensive system of national scholarships. That was a movement and a policy that met with almost universal approval in most parts of Canada. I raised it again in the session of 1944; I raise it now. I believe that national scholarships would interfere with nothing so far as the jurisdiction of the provinces is concerned. It could in no way be regarded or criticized as stepping into the field of provincial jurisdiction. On a broad national scale it would help to bring out of the schools of our country our men and women who would be of great value to the nation at large. Once a comprehensive system of national scholarships is put into effect my belief is that no money would be better spent. No money would provide greater dividends to the people of Canada than national scholarships. I wish to leave that thought with the minister and with the government.
There is another problem to which I should like to call attention. Now that the war is over-I know there was some objection during the war and no one desired to press it at that time-we should institute a national library. Othe countries have been pressing for this. It is a matter which has been brought up on many occasions by the teachers' federation. It is a matter which finds agreement amongst educationists generally. This country is in the position where it can no longer suggest that we cannot afford to place at the disposal of the people of Canada a great national institution such as a national library. I leave that problem with the government as one to which they might properly give their consideration.
I have another suggestion to offer. There ought to be some move made by provincial governments to come to some kind of agreement whereby there might be an effective provincial teachers' exchange. This is a matter on which leadership might properly be given by the dominion government. It is a matter which, in my opinion, would go a long way toward bringing into effect the type of national unity which my hon. friend suggested when he moved his motion,
I should like, if I may, because of the time factor, to pass over some of the points I had in mind when I rose to speak. I wish to say in passing, however, that when we speak about the division of jurisdiction between the dominion and the provinces in matters of education, we should keep in mind that in 1944 there was passed an amendment to the Technical Education Act, which allowed the provinces and the dominion to work hand in hand in matters of vocational and technical training. So far as I know, that amendment met with unanimous approval in parliament, following which it became law.
The whole matter of vocational training and technical assistance has been worked out between the dominion and the provinces. The provinces have jealously and properly maintained full jurisdiction over the manner in which money shall be expended for educational purposes, and the education made available. At the same time, however, there has been a broadening and a levelling of the burden of payments across the dominion.
I think most hon. members in this debate have hesitated to go far into the question of dominion-provincial relations, and for a very good reason. To-day within the precincts of this building the whole question of finance, as applied to the provinces and to the dominion is open for discussion and decision. In my view it would be presumptious if, in the
Education

midst of significant discussions which have not yet been concluded or which have not come to fruition, parliament were to attempt to set out in specific form proposals which in any way would interfere with or which would project themselves into the general discussions now taking place.
I am sure the remarks of other hon. members will be made with that important reservation, as indeed mine have been made, and that they will be made for the purpose of bringing before parliament some thoughts respecting the manner in which, in the days ahead, as a federal parliament we can help our people in matters of education. That has been our desire and our objective.
When discussing this afternoon one of the fundamental matters which come before the people of Canada, we are discussing something which has also been projected into the international field. The economic and social council of the united nations organization set up at San Francisco was a new organ. It was a further * experiment in the field of international cooperation and understanding. We have tried different curatives; but the preventive measures as envisaged by the work of the economic and social council constitute some of the most important work of the united nations. Under the activities of the economic and social council comes the whole question, on an international level, of cultural and educational cooperation.
As I sat in the conference at San Francisco, when the economic and social council was being set up I was deeply impressed with the importance and the stress indicated by the various delegates of the world upon the question of education. Sometimes we take education for granted. In my view, however, many of the world's problems can be either solved or made more acute, depending upon the type of education applied to them.
While in Germany last December those of us who were there had some opportunity- perhaps not a great one-of assessing the position of the younger members of the German population. While it might be considered presumptuous on my part to express an opinion as to what should be done in that country- because it is under the competent control of the allied control authority-nevertheless it was the opinion of many that through proper educational processes and planning there was still hope to make of the younger boys and girls of tender age a democratic nation which would eventually take its place among the nations of the world. Yet this was a country which in twenty-five years on two occasions

and with bad education along totalitarian lines had disturbed the peace of the world so materially.
We talk about the tremendous value and importance of education. This afternoon I should like to add my word to those of the hon. member for Dauphin and to say that in my view the government should take into consideration ways and means of equalizing educational opportunity across the dominion, and of granting financial assistance to the various provinces for this purpose; but with these reservations and conditions, namely that by its support of such a resolution the present position Of the dominion-provincial conference and the negotiations taking place therein shall not be prejudiced. In addition to that, nothing herein should be allowed to permit the dominion government or parliament, by the payment of any sums for any purpose, to wield a big stick over any province, or to compel or enforce its will in those provinces with respect to any type of education upon which parliament might decide.


Benoît Michaud: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the resolution dealing with education which is now before the house, I wish to voice my remarks in my mother tongue, the language of my forbears and of the long line of pioneers and settlers who, during 300 years, through hard and persevering work, performed inconspicuously and receiving but little notice, have so deservingly contributed to the building up on the American continent of this country of abundance, this land of unlimited prospects, this extraordinary country which is envied and admired throughout the world, and which should ever be foremost in the thoughts of the members of this house, my country and yours, Canada.
In using the language of my forebears, I wish to pay a tribute to 13 generations of ancestors who are sleeping their last sleep in this Canadian soil which they have cleared by dint of unremitting toil. I wish to render homage to all my fellow-citizens of French language and culture, and thereby to reaffirm their right to the use of their language and to the development of their culture, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I wish to pay a tribute to all those worthy pioneers, those valiant settlers, those daring trappers, those fearless explorers, like Louis Joliet whose tercentenary we celebrated last year. Finally, I wish to honour all those gallant missionaries and those heroic nuns who left their beautiful and dear country to dedicate their lives to the evangelization of the wild tribes of the new world, in the most primitive living conditions.

Education
Mr. Speaker, I hope I may be forgiven if I emphasize those facts, but I want to stress the highly civilizing part played by the doughty people who came from France in the seventeenth century and who prompted the historian Parkman to make this significant statement:
Spanish civilization crushed the Indians; English civilization despised and neglected them, but French civilization opened its heart to them and gave them its love.
We have heard, during the last month, words of high praise about the real merits of English culture and the numerous advantages which the status of British subject implies; therefore, I do not see why a wrong interpretation should be placed on my tribute to those great men of the past, sprung from another race which is equally noble and proud, and steeped in a culture .which has brought such a great contribution to the progress of mankind in many fields.


Roch Pinard: Hear, hear!


Benoît Michaud: Thinking of all those great men of the past, most of whom were born outside this country, and who have so greatly contributed to the building up of the Canadian nation, I wish to say that their sacrifices were not made in vain. The civilization they so highly personified and which they established in this American wilderness, has kept progressing satisfactorily.
Thanks to the fair-mindedness of ithe majority of our countrymen of British origin, this same civilization may now be expected to flourish in peace, in harmony and in justice, to the country's greatest benefit and glory.
No one more than myself, as a former teacher, bewails the lack of educational facilities unfortunately apparent in many sections of this country.
Until I was fifteen, the only school-house I ever knew was the small, overcrowded, one-room affair, under a teacher holding the lowest elementary certificate then available.
Some years later, I taught in schools that were hardly better equipped, save for the teacher who, nevertheless, must not be too underrated.
There are now schools in my constituency which are even more handicapped than those I knew as pupil and teacher. It saddens me deeply, and I have no dearer wish than to see established throughout Canada, a school system which would command the admiration of the whole world and, especially, bring joy and happiness to all Canadians. And that is why, if I thought that this resolution could in any way bring some improvement in our schools, I should unhesitatingly say: "Let us carry it, and put an end to this debate."
While deploring the deficiencies of our educational system, we should not however yield to pessimism and close our eyes on the consistent progress accomplished in this field during the last few years. At its last session, the Quebec legislature passed a bill which, according to a school inspector will do much to promote the cause of education in that province.
I am not very familiar with conditions in other provinces but I know that in New Brunswick, of late years much progress has been made in this field.
Among the many laws enacted in my province for the promotion of education, I should like to mention the following: first, an act to raise the minimum wage, second, an act providing very liberal grants for the building and equipment of new schools of all kinds, from little red schoolhouses to consolidated rural schools.
Finally, may I point out that under the rule of county units, all country districts in the county are grouped for the purpose of financial administration. As a result of this law, passed by 14 out of 15 counties in the province, a minimum of uniform and quite satisfactory educational facilities has been established. The new act came into force some three years ago in the first counties where it was applied, so that it is rather early to come to a conclusion as to its effects, but even now we may foresee very encouraging results from this new legislation.
Does that mean that the situation is satisfactory? Far from it. Salaries are still too low, as well as teaching standards. Schools are too few and are not adequately equipped.
From a practical point of view, however, what is the meaning of the present resolution? It calls for financial aid to the various provinces with a view to insuring that all parts of the dominion will share the same educational facilities and in order to help the provinces financially. In other words, this resolution, in the last analysis, is asking the dominion to grant certain sums to the provinces for educational purposes.
At the present time the dominion government and the nine provinces are discussing problems of a significance and importance that jan hardly be exaggerated. They bear directly on the matter of financial assistance to the provinces. I believe that nobody in this house is unaware of the tremendous difficulties facing our public men at this moment.
A number of very' ticklish problems have been dealt with in the course of negotiations. Time and again the provinces have charged the federal government with intruding in
Education

provincial matters and invading the field reserved exclusively to the provinces by section 92 of our constitution.
No field has been more jealously guarded by the provinces, none has been freer of dominion interference than that of education. The fact that it has not yet been mentioned once at the dominion-provincial conference seems to indicate that the policy on this matter has never wavered since confederation.
I am not well versed in provincial history, but I know that in New Brunswick, when the Public Schools Act was passed in 1871, vain efforts were made by the minority to have it disallowed. It was hotly and bitterly discussed during the 1872, 1873 and 1874 sessions. Rightly or wrongly, the dominion refused to exercise its power of veto.
In any event, parliament took the position that educational matters came under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures. Here is a statement, chosen at random, made during the 1872 session by Sir John A. Macdonald:
It is common knowledge that this matter almost threatened the existence of confederation and that, if the federal parliament had been asked to settle the problem of public schooling, that would have been sufficient for the people of Lower Canada to repudiate confederation.
To my mind, the above-mentioned act clearly violated the spirit if not the letter of the confederation act and in support of my contention, I will quote more evidence from the same statesman:
I entirely disagree with the hope expressed in certain quarters that we should, by some means, oppress one language or place it on a level inferior to that of another. I believe that the attempt, if made, would fail or that it would be foolish and spiteful to carry it out should it be practicable. The oft-repeated statement that Canada is a conquered country is always untimely. Whether Canada be conquered or surrendered we have a constitution under which all British subjects are placed on an equal status, enjoying equal rights as far as language, religion, property and the individual are concerned. There is no superior race; there is no conquered race, here; we are all British subjects and those who are not of English descent are nevertheless British subjects.
Like any other piece of human workmanship, the British North America Act is marked by some imperfection, and when interpreting it, we would do well to remember the words of the Master; "The letter killeth and the spirit giveth life".
To my mind, the unfortunate educational quarrels that have been rife since 1867 are directly due to the narrow meaning which we attacli to sections 93 and 133 and which never occurred to the fathers of confederation.

Thank God, bitter educational quarrels have vanished almost completely from this country, equal to Europe in area. As if Canada were not large enough to harbour comfortably two civilizations, while more than twenty different cultures are flourishing on the old continent.
To all Canadians, holding these narrow views on education and linguistic rights and interpreting section 33 in its more restricted meaning, may I point out that this section does not insure greater protection to the minorities in Quebec than to the minorities in other provinces. There is the difference, however, that under the same section, Quebec has always granted the greatest possible protection to minorities, while other provinces have subjected them to vexations and inflictions such, as the double tax, with which this province is faced once again.
In fact, for the past five or six months, there has been an organized campaign to limit the full flowering of one culture and to strip minorities of rights already sorely curbed. The local papers of yesterday and to-day bring us snatches of the unfortunate struggle waged at a time when harmony and tolerance of the highest degree are so eminently desirable.
I am convinced that the distribution of equal educational advantages throughout the country matters less than the dissemination of an educational system based more directly on the principles of equality, justice and tolerance merftioned in Sir John A. Macdonald's judicious saying, which I quoted a moment ago: "There is no superior race". Such is Canada's greatest need, as regards education. The discussions which have taken place in the house for the past month lead one to believe that things have changed considerably since 1890. In this very house, we have heard some members speak on behalf of one race and one culture. Discussion did not alwaj'S remain on a friendly plane. Some members considered expressions, harmless in themselves, such as the words "imperialists and colonials", meant for them. They replied by other equally innocuous statements which were nevertheless intended to do mischief, and we heard the words "conscripts, conscription, etc."
Those terms, to my mind, carry no opprobrium. I ask my fellow-citizens on this side of the house to keep calm when an hon. member opposite speaks of conscription. That method of recruiting exists in practically every country in the world. Even Great Britain had to resort to conscription during the last two wars.

Education
We have no reason to upbraid a man for not taking up arms of his own free will in defense of a foreign country or even of his own, when the laws of the land do not compel him to do so. Until the Napoleonic wars, there were only career soldiers, armies of mercenaries, and conscription or coercion for military service did not exist.
I need not remind hon. members opposite that Great Britain did not have to enforce conscription when my ancestors were called upon to defend Quebec, the key to Canada, against the armies of Arnold and Montgomery in 1775.


Roch Pinard: Hear, hear!


Benoît Michaud: May I be permitted, in that respect, to quote the words of testimony spoken by Lord Baldwin, on April 21, 1939, before the student body of the University of Toronto:
(Text)
And let Canada never forget it was the loyalty of Quebec in the American War of Independence, and subsequently, that settled the future destiny of Canada and makes her nationhood to-day a reality. Two languages, two cultures. two great religious branches, unity and freedom.
Great Britain did not have to resort to conscription when it was necessary to defend this country against the United States in the war of 1812-14. It was not my ancestors who were lacking in loyalty around 1850 when there was strong agitation for the annexation of Canada to the United States. Finally I wish to point out that conscription in Canada did not apply only to the province of Quebec. The figures quoted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) during the hectic session of November, 1944, show that the draftees w-ere distributed throughout the provinces in such proportions that it is very difficult for a province to cast reflections upon another. Incidentally, the draftee who threw his rifle overboard in Halifax-an incident which assumed gigantic proportions in the eyes of the official opposition-was not from Quebec and was not of French origin or language.
In view of the fact that some time the most trivial discussions in this house give rise to fiery outbursts, it seems that the teachings of Sir John A. Macdonald have not been very well understood by many citizens of this country, and , for this reason I am of the opinion that the encouragement which the Dominion government should give to education should be along the lines that I' have suggested.
I hope my remarks have not been offensive.
I have endeavoured to limit them to generalities and I would be sorry if they had been misunderstood.
In concluding, I wish to summarize in a few words the stand I have taken on the present resolution:
First, education does not come under the federal authorities and this field is among those that the provinces guard with the greatest care.
Secondly, all that the federal government could do would be in the nature of financial help to the provinces.
Thirdly, such financial help from the federal authorities, as far as administration is concerned, is presently under discussion by the provinces and the federal government and any resolution adopted in this house could not, in any way, contribute to the success of the conference.
Fourthly, the greatest need of education in Canada, is for education in accordance with the principles expounded by the great statesmen I have quoted in the course of my remarks.
Let us hope that this kind of education may be instilled and perfected for the greatest good of our country.
(Text):


Mr. F. D. SHAW (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset emphasize the fact that we of the Social Credit group greatly appreciate the opportunity of associating ourselves with the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) in support of his resolution. We have felt for a long time that the federal government should take steps toward the equalization of educational oportunity in Canada and toward giving financial assistance in the field of education.
Speaking in the House of Commons a few weeks ago, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), a former minister of education in the government of Alberta, emphasized the fact that we must strengthen the sinews of our Canadian democracy and revitalize that democracy. It is obvious to me that there is a growing feeling among Canadians that that revitalization is overdue and that the strengthening of the sinews of our Canadian democracy is also overdue.
I am sure that the members of this house will agree with me when I assert that unquestionably the greatest agency for accomplishing the revitalization of democracy is education. It would seem, therefore, that we as Canadians must direct our effort toward two things: first, a nation-wide effort toward the improvement of education and the
Education

expanding of that education, and, second, making possible a greater equalization of educational opportunity in this country. The provision of even a modest programme of technical, agricultural and adult education, to say nothing of equalizing the limited educational opportunities which we now enjoy, offers such a task under our present system of financial restrictions as to be quite beyond the possibilities of several provinces, possibly all of them. The provision, therefore, of this expansion of opportunities should be the prime concern of all Canadians, not of just one community in Canada.
I realize fully that under the British North America Act education was one subject assigned exclusively to the legislative authority of the provinces, barring, of course, the education of Indians. Probably in no other field does the anomaly of the authority allocated ,to the provinces on the one hand, and the narrow basis of taxation assigned to the provinces on the other, become so apparent as with respect to education.
History, I believe, reveals the reason for this. Confederation, as we all know, occurred in 1867, but it was not until 1870 that the first legislation was passed in England to establish the ordinary public elementary schools. It is certain that the fathers of confederation in all their wisdom looked eastward in rendering many of their decisions, but even in looking eastward they could not discover that in ' England the ordinary public elementary schools had yet been established. Even making allowance for the greater social progress which has taken place in North America, it is inconceivable to me that the fathers of confederation could have envisioned such development as has occurred in the field of public services. Many provinces have actually in the past expended more on education than the subsidies which they received annually from the dominion. May I also say that those fathers of confederation could hardly be expected to have envisioned the development which has taken place in the fields of technical and agricultural education and of vocational instruction.
I said a moment ago that many of the provinces found themselves in the position of expending more for education than the subsidies received from the dominion. Let me just go back to my own province for one mdment to give the house an indication of the trend there as far as educational costs are concerned. Back in the fiscal year 1935-36 the government of that province appropriated approximately $1,450,000 for school grants. During the present fiscal year the ordinary 
grants in that province for educational purposes amount to $5,372,000. That is an increase of approximately $4,000,000 between 1935-36 and 1945-46. May I say that in that province, where we have progressed tremendously in the field of education, we now find that approximately 20 per cent of our total revenues must be appropriated for educational purposes. Think what that means: fifteen government departments, and a department of education having to be granted approximately 20 per cent of all revenues to meet educational costs. That is not all. Other departments make appropriations for repairs, say, to our agricultural colleges, to our technical schools, for capital structure, and so forth, making a total grant in our province of $6,555,000 a year for educational purposes; that is, between 20 and 25 per cent of our total revenues.
Naturally in our province, as in most other provinces, the people are asking for-demanding, may I say-better schools, better paid teachers, better facilities within those schools. Certainly they are entitled to them; but there must be a limit to which a province depending upon its own resources can go in order to provide those much needed and necessary services to its people. I might add that we are also faced with this situation as far as the costs of operating the public and separate schools, namely ^'[DOT]oviding elementary and secondary education in our	we
have to meet as high as 26-2 per cent of tile costs. In some of our divisions the cost of operating rural schools requires that the government pay 40-J per cent, and in at least one of these remote areas where conditions are not so good the government of the province have been called upon to pay 80 per cent of the cost. I say that the government of our province are happy to do that, but what will happen in advancing those educational services if we are forced, through conditions over which have no control, to witness our revenues falling drastically? There can be only one result unless we secure federal assistance, namely a reduction in our educational services to our people, and I am sure we do not want to see that happen in any part of Canada.
In this dominion we have no legal restrictions upon the migration of people from one province to the other. The educational standard, therefore, of one province is of vital concern to another province. If people migrate from what I might call, from the point of view of education, a low standard area to a province having a higher educational standard, the latter will suffer the infiltration of what I can think of in no other term than,

Education
perhaps, the ill-equipped masses. This question of unrestricted migration from one province to another is one of the strongest reasons for urging upon the federal government grants-in-aid to assist the provinces to bring about the equalization of educational opportunity.


Solon Earl Low: With no strings attached.


Frederick Davis Shaw: As my colleague the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) asserts, with no strings attached.. I intend to come to that if time permits.
I am not one of those who are always inclined to look elsewhere in order to determine what we should do. I think we have made a pretty good job in many respects of carrying on, ourselves. But let us look to England for a moment. In England education has undergone a marked change; and I am not speaking of the period since the labour government came into office; this happened a long time ago. In England over 50 per cent of the cost of education is met by the central government out of the national treasury. There is no question over there, as far as one can ascertain, about the principle that education is a national responsibility. As far at least as I am able to determine, they recognize that grants for education in the modern state are virtually indispensable; and I say that the same applies here.
The best evidence which I have been able to procure would indicate that in the United States the situation is similar to our own. I have in my hand an interesting publication which came off the press in 1937, entitled, "Wealth, Children and Education", by John and Margaret Norton, of Columbia university. I am going to quote a short section from this, not because I want to indicate what conditions are in the United States but because conditions here are in so many respects parallel to what we find there. I quote:
Larger participation by the federal government in the financing of public education has been advocated by many students of the problem of educational finance during the past two decades. This advocacy is based upon the known facts of the lack of significant educational opportunity for hundreds of thousands of American boys add girls and upon the increasing evidence of the disparity among the states in ability to support schools.
The obligation of the nation to provide support for public education is fundamental. Schools and other means of education have been recognized from the beginning of our history as necessary for the' maintenance of the nation and for the prosperity of its people.
It was in line with this early appreciation of the importance of education that action was taken by the congress of the United States in the support of schools. As the nation expanded beyond the thirteen original colonies, land was set aside in each state by the federal government for the support of higher education. In
more recent years money has been granted for the development of agricultural experiment stations, for vocational education, for the rehabilitation of those injured in the great war, for persons disabled in industry, for a programme of education of youth and adults through the extension service of the department of agriculture, and for many other purposes.
The situation is quite comparable here and I expect to deal with it in a moment. I continue the quotajtion:
But all of the measures taken up to the present time are insufficient to meet the legitimate demand for an acceptable programme of education for all children and youths throughout the nation. There are children in the United States for whom no school at all or a very minimum term of three or four months is provided. There are others who are 'taught by teachers with inadequate preparation. There are still others for whom the necessary books and other educational supplies are wanting. There are hundreds of thousands enrolled in schools in which the opportunities provided are limited to a traditional school curriculum which takes little or no account of the special aptitudes or abilities of those who vary in intelligence, in interests, or in vocational outlook from the selected group for whom the schools were originally organized.
How true that is in our own country.
Children who are denied education in the poorer sections of the country to-day will live in other parts of the United States and will be responsible for government, local, state, and national, in the years which lie ahead. From those areas in which educational opportunity is most meagre there will be recruited the population of our cities.	.
This publication deals with the disparity of opportunity as between states, and communities within states. I have no up-to-date statistics showing the disparity in this country, but it would almost stagger the imagination if one did have complete statistics. The discrepancy between provinces is not so great; but go into any province and notice the discrepancies which exist as between communities, and you will agree that it is staggering. In our own province, for example, the government, through the department of education, has made every effort to remove these disparities within its own province. There have been special grants; there have been bonuses to teachers. In our province they bonus teachers to go into our more remote areas to carry the message to children who otherwise would be without the opportunity of attending school. That is in Alberta. Better salary schedules have encouraged better teachers to join the profession there. Then, of course, through the reorganization of our whole administrative system, we have enabled some of the schools which operated for only a month or -two during the year to operate now for a full ten-month period.
Education

I could go on for a considerable time and deal with the situation which did exist in some of the remote communities and the situations that exist to-day, but I shall not take the time at the moment to do so. The following extract is to me extremely significant. I do not even recall the source from which I obtained it, but I think it is worth listening to because it contains the very essence of truth:
Because a province or an area within a province is too depressed to furnish an adequate proframme of education is no fault of the children.
'oorly equipped schools, underpaid and dissatisfied teachers cannot produce an environment for our children which is conducive to mental health and a progressive society. This is a good reason for claiming that education is a national problem. The productivity, the mental tone and the outlook of all our people make Canada what it is. If an area is depressed, if its children suffer and become disillusioned, the effect on the social and economic institutions wrought out of the experience of hundreds of years may be disastrous. Reckless and irresponsible experimentation in education may result in immeasurable damage to the fabric of society. Recent European experience has shown that we cannot afford to permit our young people to become discouraged.
When I refer to this fact I do not want it to be thought that I am trying to create the impression that Ottawa, as we say, has totally ignored education in the national sphere, because I realize that is not correct. If my reading has resulted in my being correctly informed, it was early in the present century that there was an exodus of people in Canada from the farm back to the city. This, so I have learned, caused a great deal of concern. The government or governments of the day recognized the need for encouraging a more diversified agriculture and the carrying of scientific knowledge out to the farms. I believe it was in 1013 that $10 million was provided by Ottawa to be paid over ten years, $20,000 to each province per annum, the balance distributed on a population basis. Most of this, however, went for capital works. No province could resist the offer; the people would not permit them to. They had to construct educational institutions, and by that time, the end of the ten-year 'period, the grant ceased and the provinces were left with the complete responsibility of maintaining the institutions which they had established.
I believe it was in the same year, 1913, that a royal commission reported in favour of dominion grants for technical education on the ground that, since technical education might give a stimulus to national development, the federal government had both an interest and a responsibility in it. I believe it was in 1919 that a dominion act provided another $10 million for a ten-year period for technical

education, $10,000 to be paid per annum to each province and the balance on a population basis. The province in that case was to spend an equal amount. What happened in my own province? If the information I have is correct, we spent a million and a half on the technical school in Calgary. But the grants suddenly ceased and we had the whole project on our hands, to be kept up and operated out of revenues from the province.
In 1931 there was a new measure for the promotion of vocational education. I believe that $750,000 per annum was to be paid to the provinces under that act for a period of 15 years, and in 1937 $1,000,000 was appropriated for technical education. But this actually was a relief measure since it was designated for the purpose of education of young unemployed people.
While a province naturally appreciated the assistance granted under this act and other acts, it left them in the unfortunate position . of using most of the grant for capital works and then having to shoulder the full responsibility of maintaining and operating the institutions.
I also know that under the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act of 1942, which was a war emergency training program, any type of training needed in connection with the prosecution of the war was to be made available. Provision was made there for rehabilitation of the armed forces, and we know that there was to be a continuation of those projects commenced under the youth training.
These are all very fine. I congratulate the government on them. But it was unfortunate, I would suggest, that it took a war to bring about a recognition of the dire urgency of giving the children, our greatest asset, the opportunity of higher education.
Speaking of the rehabilitation of the armed forces, which is taking place under the Vocational Training Coordination Act of 1942, I wish to congratulate the government. In my city of Red Deer we have one of these institutions. I have talked to the young men and they are completely satisfied with the nature of the instruction being offered. 'There is a fine staff of teachers. Though this' may be apart from the subject, I take the opportunity of expressing the wish that the government, the responsible minister, would decide to cooperate with the city of Red Deer in taking care of the serious housing situation that has developed there as a consequence of this school. There is a great deal of buck-passing from one department to another.
These young men come back from overseas after four or five years and they go to Red Deer to take the vocational course. They

Education
are asked to be separated from their families again. Any who do find rooms for their families squeeze out somebody else or render it impossible for a returned serviceman to secure adequate accommodation.
I say, in passing, that I wish the government would make that picture wholly complete and satisfactory by cooperating with the council of the city of Red Deer. I know that during the war the government made provision for ordinaiy educational services for the navy, the army and the air force in various ways. We appreciate all that. We know it is providing education for many of those who would not have been educated if there had not been a war; but we also remind the government that there are still those younger generations coming up, those who were too young to participate in the war. We should like to see an extension of all these educational facilities to these younger people as they grow up.
We all know that the provision of technical education is extremely costly. The same might be said of agricultural advanced education and of any type of vocational training. We realize that we must have the best type of teachers; we recognize that we must have the best possible equipment in these institutions; but, Mr. Speaker, the provinces have reached the stage where it is becoming impossible for them to proceed much further in the provision of these facilities.
I believe the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) referred to geographical and financial factors when considering this matter of education. I reflect with horror upon some of my experiences in the early thirties while engaged in the profession of teaching. Almost daily I saw children, bright youngsters, walking out of my classrooms simply because economic conditions at home were such as to make it impossible for them to carry on with their education. Fortunately-and it is tragic to have to couple the two together-many of them have been provided now with an opportunity for further education as a result of having volunteered for service in the armed forces of Canada. But if there had not have been a war what would have been the situation? The words of the hon. member for Peel bring this one experience to my mind. I remember a little lad of about ten. He just did not seem to get anywhere in school when taking the ordinary courses we had to offer him. I had written him off as just a bit hopeless. One Saturday afternoon that lad happened to come to me. I was standing beside a truck, the hood of which had been lifted. He started asking me questions about the engine, and he embarrassed me quite a bit. He knew more about it than I did. That lad should have had an opportunity of leaving the ordinary school, the best that we could provide, and taking the course for which he was properly adapted. That case could be multiplied scores of times.
Let us consider our universities. Generally speaking, our universities are struggling along on endowments, tuition fees from students and provincial grants. We know what the result has been. Every year we lose many of our finest professors from the universities. A number of them go over the border into the United States because they are offered more money. I do not wish to be misunderstood.
I am not saying that these professors are looking only for the dollar, but they had a costly course of training and we think they are entitled to decent remuneration. They cannot get it from many of our institutions to-day, and because the institutions cannot meet the cost these professors are leaving us every year. The dominion government should make available to the universities of this country sufficient funds to enable them to retain the best possible instructors.
There is a great deal of controversy with respect to how the assistance should be granted to the provinces. All one has to do is to listen to the discourses which have taken place in another place in recent days to know the great differences of opinion which exist. My colleagues and I feel that the only way in which the grant could be made to a province for education purposes is on the weighted basis, taking all factors such as the wealth of the province, the taxable income, probably the number of children of school age within the province, the number of children in rural areas, and so forth, determine a formula and apply it in an impersonal manner. That is only one way. I wish to emphasize that we are not advocating interference by the dominion government with the administration of education within the provinces. We say, leave it with the provinces. The federal government might do something else, namely, establish a capital fund for the construction of schools. Every member of parliament, at least those outside the cities, has occasion to travel through the country and speak to audiences in these schools. On top of that I have had an opportunity of teaching in some of them, and the situation is a disgrace. Capital costs are so high in every part of Canada to-day that it is becoming increasingly difficult to improve these schools. Even in so-called normal times it is becoming increasingly difficult to provide the necessary schools. The
Education

federal government should establish a capital fund at cost to enable the provinces to build more and better schools.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that it must be apparent to all that a nation cannot compete successfully with other nations to-day if the entire responsibility for educational training and scientific research is left to the care of each individual province. Let me make that clear. I do not wish to be misunderstood. I refer to care only in the sense that the provinces have to meet the bulk of the costs connected with educational institutions.
May I repeat what I said earlier? We support this resolution. We feel that the government should take into consideration ways and means of equalizing educational opportunity across the dominion by granting financial assistance to the various provinces for these purposes.


Mr. JOSEPH ALFRED DION (Lake St. John-Roberval) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I oppose the resolution now before the house because it would inevitably lead to the centralization of education. I feel that for all true Canadians provincial autonomy in that field is an inalienable right. It is not merely a relic of the past, but a spiritual value of present importance for the peace and prosperity of the Canadian nation as well as for the progress of education itself.
From a pedagogical standpoint, the mischief done by centralization cannot be overemphasized. It tends to kill all initiative among teachers and to hamper teaching. Through it, the drawing-up of the curricula falls into the hands of bureaucrats and officials, and without any .desire to say evil things concerning those honest people, no one can be content with holding only favourable opinions about them. With centralization, impersonal reports and directions are substituted to intimate and beneficial contacts. That is why experienced teachers fear educational centralization. As an illustration, I only have to mention what happened in the American Senate in 1944. I quote from the September 1944 issue of Relations:
The American Senate has just received bill No. 637, which was supposed to save education through generous grants from Washington. The vice-rector of the Catholic University of America, Mgr. Edward B. Jordan, in his booklet entitled "Federal Aid for Education," states the reasons for that rejection. The sponsors of the bill had brought up as arguments the situation of poorly-paid teachers and the too unequal educational facilities as between the various states. But those reasons did not overshadow the much more serious drawbacks that are involved in any federal subsidy in that field, u on era 1 ly speaking, the writer said, the opposi-
tion to the bill " took the form of a protest against any measure likely to bring about federal control on education" . . . The bill would be the -wedge -which would allow the federal authorities gradually to gain control of the whole United States public school system, thus ruining the principle whereby the control of schools belongs to local authorities, a principle that has featured American civilization since the colonial days.
I quote further:
The statement made by the President of Harvard, Dr. James Bryant Conant. deserves to be quoted: "In the field of education, more than in any other sphere, the only principle that should be held is the one whereby responsibility is devolved on local authorities. The dangers of a centralized and strong power, having a preponderant influence in educational matters is so obvious and they have been so often pointed out, that it would be unnecessary to make further comments about them."


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it is six o'clock.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, May 2, 1946.