1950-05-22

Mr. W. G. Weir (Poriage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Argue be substituted for that of Mr. Herridge on the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand a petition signed by over twenty thousand incurables, who are asking for assistance by way of pension. It was the intention to have this presented to parliament in the regular way, but on looking over the wording of the petition I doubt whether it is strictly in order. I am therefore advising the Canadian Association of Incurables and the .Shut-in Friends' Association to present the petition directly to the government.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many bushels of (a) feed oats: (b) feed barley, were sold by the wheat board to feed merchants, dealers or brokerage houses in each of the months beginning in December, 1949, and to date?
2.	What was the average price received for each of said grains in each of said months?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	It is not the policy of the Canadian wheat board to divulge its sales position within the crop year in which it is operating.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL PARK AT BLOMIDON, N. S.
Mr. Stanfield:: 1.	Have representations been made to the
federal government in connection with establishing a national park at Blomidon, Kings county, Nova Scotia?	.
2.	Has the provincial government at Halifax made any such representations, and has it offered to acquire land for the purpose?
3.	Has any survey been made of the presumed park site?
4.	If so, when will the work be started?


Mr. Prudham:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The provincial government has made representations. Since no area has been selected, the offer of land has not been a consideration.
3.	Reconnaissance of the general area has been made jointly by a representative of the federal government and a provincial government officer.
4.	See answer to No. 3.


CURRIE BARRACKS, CALGARY    TENDERS FOR CONSTRUCTION WORK
Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: 1.	What persons or corporations tendered on the ' construction of a 250-man barrack block at Currie barracks this year?
2.	What were the amounts of such tenders?
3.	When, to whom, and at what amount was the construction contract granted?
4.	At what date were the marked cheques submitted with the tenders returned to each of those tendering?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1. (a) Bennett and White (Calgary) Ltd., 1120 9th ave. W., Calgary, Alta.
(b)	Bird Construction Co. Ltd., 1427 19th ave. E., Calgary, Alta.
(c)	Shoquist Construction (Western) Ltd., 1826 10th ave. W., Calgary, Alta.
(d)	Poole Construction Co. Ltd., 2402 2A street, S.E., Calgary, Alta.
2. Tenderer (a): First alternative tender, $515,236; Second alternative tender, $501,236.
Tenderer	(b):	First	alternative	tender,$533,000; Second	alternative tender,	$499,200.Tenderer	(c):	First	alternative	tender,$552,340; No	alternative	price.	Tenderer	(d):	First	alternative	tender,
$556,648; Second alternative tender, $539,338.
3.	Contract not awarded as yet.
4.	Tenderer (a): May 12, 1950; Tenderer (b): Being retained; Tenderer (c): April 20, 1950; Tenderer (d): April 20, 1950.
IMPORTS OF COAL Mr. Hansell:
1.	How many tons of coal were imported into Canada during 1949?
2.	From what countries was this coal imported?
3.	What tonnage was imported from each of these countries?

Questions


Mr. Mcllrailh:: United Kingdom, 331,457 tons; Union of South Africa, 17 tons; United States, 21,863,736 tons; Total, 22,195,210 tons.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Ernest George Hansell: How many registered unemployed were there as at May 1, 1950, in the districts covered by Edmonton, Calgary, Lethbridge, Drumheller and Blairmore?


Mr. Mitchell:: The number of persons registered with the national employment service at May 4, 1950, in the local office areas named is as follows: Edmonton, 5,598; Calgary, 4,088; Lethbridge, 890; Drumheller, 326; Blairmore, 204.


CIVIC HOLIDAY
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has consideration been given to the matter of compensating employees of the Winnipeg post office who were not given civic holiday as a holiday with pay in August, 1949?
2.	If so, what is the result of such consideration?
3.	Will such compensation be paid?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1. Yes.
2 and 3. Under the regulations then in force no compensation may properly be given.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


EXPORTS UNDER INTERNATIONAL


Mr. Argue:: 1.	How many bushels of wheat were purchased by each importing country under the international wheat agreement from August 1, 1949, to May 1, 1950, or to the most recent date for which information is available?
2.	What quantity was imported from Canada by each country, during the same period in (a) 194950 crop year; (b) 1948-49 crop year?


George James McIlraith: Return tabled.



SALE OF TIMBER LANDS OR LEASES

Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	How many timber lands or leases were sold by the dominion government in each of the years 1947, 1948 and 1949?
2.	To whom, and at what price?
3.	How much other lands were sold by the dominion government in each of the years 1948 and 1949?
4.	To whom, and at what price?
5.	Were these sales by competition?
6.	Were they advertised?



PUBLIC DEBT

Mr. Dube:: What was the public debt of each province of Canada, except Newfoundland, at the end of (a) the year 1935; (b) the year 1949?


George James McIlraith: Return tabled.



GRAIN ELEVATORS

Mr. Low:: 1.	How many federal government grain elevators are there in Canada, and what is the location of each?
2.	Which of these elevators are being operated by the government, and which are being operated under lease to private companies?
3.	How many permanent employees are there in each of these elevators, and what is the yearly salary of each?
4.	What was the total bushelage of grain handled by each of these elevators for each of the calendar years 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949?
5.	What volume of grain was cleaned and/or conditioned in each elevator for each of the past five years?
6.	How much feed was ground in each elevator during each of the past five years?
7.	Which of the government elevators took in sufficient revenues to pay operating costs in each of the past five years?
8.	How many hours per day does each government elevator remain open for business?
9.	Is it possible for farmers and stockmen in the vicinity of any government elevator to buy wheat screenings directly from that elevator?
10.	If not, how are such wheat screenings disposed of?



OFFENCES UNDER FEDERAL STATUTES


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: 1.	Have there been any convictions in Newfoundland since April 1, 1949, for offences under federal statutes?
2.	If so, under what statutes were the prosecutions taken, how many convictions have been recorded, and what punishment was enforced in each case?



FLOOD CONDITIONS


Mr. Blackmore:: 1.	What sections of Manitoba were flooded by the
Red river in 1948?	.
2.	What was the estimated dollar cost of the flood damage of 1948?
3.	Did the federal government aid in rehabilitating flooded areas of the Red river valley after the 1948 flood?
4.	If so, how much did the federal government contribute in tendering such aid?



GASPE COUNTY, QUEBEC, RETURNING OFFICER

Mr. Balcer:: 1.	In what year was C. E. Thibault appointed returning officer for the county of Gaspe?
2.	On what date was he removed from office, and for what reasons?


Mr. Bradley:: Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents in connection with the payment, under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, to Ronald Reynold-son of section 36, township 21, range 26, west of the second meridian, district of Chamberlain, Saskatchewan.



FRASER RIVER BASIN BOARD

Mr. Fulton:: For a copy of the terms of reference or instructions on the basis of which the dominion-provincial Fraser river basin board was constituted, and also a copy of any further instructions issued to the board since its constitution, by the dominion government.



EDUCATION


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration means of expanding and1 equalizing educational opportunity across Canada, by the granting of financial assistance to the various provinces for that purpose.
He said: May I say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that there is nothing political about this proposal-and when I say "political", I mean in any partisan sense-because on both sides of this house there are members who are in favour of this resolution. It is the same resolution that I introduced at the last session of the house, on Wednesday, October 19, 1949. What I had to say then may be found at page 932 of Hansard and following pages. Today I do not wish to repeat the arguments I advanced at that time, but I want to supplement them and add something to them.
The resolution I moved last session received in the house a good response, which was reechoed in the country. At that time the resolution was spoken to, although the time was short, by the hon. members for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier), Carle-ton (Mr. Drew), and one or two others. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) himself had a word or two to say about it. I hope he was enthusiastic about it, but, as in so many other cases, I presume that his enthusiasm was tempered, as it often is, by the consciousness of the responsibilities of power. I make this motion most sincerely, chiefly with the aim of winning over that small section of public opinion which remains opposed to it, and which I think is opposed largely on account of lack of information or wrong information.
The public opinion has changed greatly in this matter over the years.
At first, education was considered merely to be the responsibility of the parents. Later the parents were assisted by the churches; then we had compulsory education-and may I say in passing that that loss of freedom was followed by the opening of a good many wider freedoms. Then we had the imposition of general taxation for the purposes of education, and that has become as generally accepted as compulsory school attendance. Then we had
Education
the coming of the so-called free secondary education-a great step forward. I said "so-called free"; it is not really free. If it were, it would be participated in by everybody equally; but it is not so participated in. It is still true-and this is proven by statistics- that the economic status of the parents decides whether the children shall or shall not attend high school.
It might be of interest to consider for a moment who the children are who attend high school at the present time. I find that almost 100 per cent of the children of the professional classes attend high school; of business people, 85 per cent; of civil servants, about 65 per cent; of skilled labour, 59 per cent; of unskilled labour, 15 per cent. So that the statement that secondary education is in all cases free will hardly hold water.
I suggest that the support of education needs to be put on a sounder basis than exists at the present time. In times of great crisis, as in a war or in an economic depression, we find that education is one of the first casualties. We find too that the remedies that are prescribed are always short-time remedies. We find ourselves prepared to accept inferior teachers, or people who are not teachers at all, and that sort of thing.
Perhaps I shall say no more about that matter for the moment, and go on to the treatment that this resolution received at the last session when I gave my opinion in regard to federal aid.
I may say that I was supported in that resolution by many well-known educators in this country. I wrote a few of their names down. There was Dr. Althouse; Dr. Wallace, of Queens; Dr. Trueman, Mr. Lazerte, and in Ottawa Mr. P. J. Kennedy, from whom I quoted-he was speaking to the Knights of Columbus organization. I can cite many organizations which have endorsed the proposition; they include the Canadian Legion, the Canadian School Trustees Association, the Canadian Teachers Federation, and so on.
Following the debate last year, my desk was flooded with expressions of support from hundreds of individuals and organizations throughout this country, including professional organizations, labour organizations, farm organizations, co-operatives, and business organizations. I have no doubt that others received such expressions of opinion -in fact I know, because many members telephoned to me with regard to the matter, saying that they too had received letters asking for their support of the resolution.
What ideas must we put before the public in regard to this matter? First of all, I would

Education
say the necessity for and the importance of education. To this enlightened house I need not go into details about that. Then there are certain fears that we must get rid of. We must get rid of the fear in their minds that federal aid would involve federal control. I should like to quote from my own speech of last session in that regard; the sentence which I think covers it is to be found at page 935 of Hansard, as follows:
There is only one control that would be necessary by the federal government, as far as I can see, in granting-and note the words that follow-assistance to the provinces to get on with their own type of education. That control would be to see that money voted1 for the purpose of education was spent for that purpose.
And for that purpose alone. I had intended, sir, to put on the record a long paragraph from the Canadian Bar Review, volume 37, No. 5, by F. R. Scott, McGill law faculty, who is an authority on constitutional law. I do not know whether I might be allowed by the house to put the paragraph on in full. I can read it.


An hon. Member:: Read it.	-


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I shall read the relevant part, and leave out the longer part. It reads as follows:
Certainly no constitutional principle prevents the federal government from evolving and initiating educational plans of this type. For such plans do not mean federal legislation on the subject of education itself, but rather the formulation of methods of financial assistance to existing forms of provincial education. The control over the organization of schools and the choice of curricula remains provincial.
That, sir, is the meat of the matter. To those who are interested I recommend that they read the whole paragraph, which appears on page 526 of a reprint from the Canadian Bar Review, and is entitled: "The federal government and education." The article itself is entitled: "Dominion jurisdiction over human rights and fundamental freedoms."
The third thing that public opinion seems more prepared to accept now than it used to be is equality of educational opportunities. The birthright of every child is a minimum standard of education, based not upon the wealth of the parent, of the local school district, or even of the province, but on the wealth and the resources of the whole country. In short, the principle of equality of educational opportunity is an intrinsic part of democracy as we understand it and as we like to practise it.
There are of course many precedents for federal aid to education. I listed them last year in my speech. I can mention one or two of them from memory. There were the D.V.A. grants, which I think everybody admits were

successful. There is the family allowance, which, 1 think it is fair to say, is a measure of aid to general education. There is vocational training, apprenticeship training, and so forth. Therefore we have precedents in the matter. I do not think anyone will say that our acceptance of these things involved federal control that had any general effect upon our freedom with respect to what we shall teach our children.
I said that there was a need for equality. Let me point out that at the present time there is great inequality in matters of education. There is first of all the difference in the extent to which people in different parts of the country are seized of the importance of education. I claim, of course, sir, that that is a sign at least of a lack of education on the part of those people. Some of the other implications are a difference in the professional standards of teachers, a difference in the standards required of those who go out and teach children who everywhere show no difference in the mass to begin with. I find, for example, that in one province the training of a teacher takes twenty times longer than it does in another. The degree of difference in the qualifications of teachers is greater than the degree of difference in the qualifications of the members of any other profession in this country. It is true to say that there is a difference in the economic wealth of the school districts themselves, and also of the provinces. The expression "the have and the have-not" which we have heard applied to provinces can be applied also to different types of communities on agricultural land, depending on whether the soil is productive or non-productive. Then there are differences among the provinces in the per capita expenditure on education. The last time I spoke on this matter I listed one province as.spending $31 per head on the education of its children, while another province, in the same year, was spending $83 per head.
There is a considerable difference in teachers' salaries. While I think teachers are as faithful in their duty as those of any other group, I still think that the salary that a teacher is paid is a fair standard of his ability to teach. I shall get into a controversy in some quarters over that remark, but I believe it to be generally, though not always true. This difference in salaries occurs between province and province, and it occurs particularly as between rural and urban districts.
There are also differences in the economic position of the parents. This has a decided bearing upon the attendance, not in our public schools perhaps, but certainly in the

high schools. As I pointed out earlier, there are tremendous differences in the amounts brought in by taxation on real estate. It is unfortunate that up to the present our educational funds have depended largely upon the value of the real estate in the district concerned. The granting of some basic federal aid to education would help to do away with this inequality of opportunity.
The other day the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) -showed me the Forest Hill high school in the city of Toronto. I stood amazed at its efficiency, its magnificence, its equipment for every type of educational purpose. I thought of some little schools that I have seen where there were no books to read, and no equipment, and I said to myself: Surely there is a lack of educational equality in this country.
I have instanced these things at random. The figures are on record. I quoted some last year. The point is this. Some Canadian children are the innocent victims of a set of circumstances over which they have no control. Are we adults concerned about them? I know that education is a provincial matter. But members of this parliament are trustees charged with the well-being of the public and of the children of this country. Many of us are looking forward to the report of the Massey commission. Many briefs on this subject were presented to that body in various parts of the country. I have no doubt that when the report is received the government will have a comprehensive view of public opinion in this matter.
This brings me to a point which I think should be mentioned. There are certain preliminaries that are necessary to federal aid to education. The first one is investigation and research on the part of this dominion government to find out what the true condition of education is in this country. That work has already been initiated by various educational organizations. Some hold that this important matter should be a subject of conversation between the dominion and the provinces at the coming, dominion-provincial conference. One of the great difficulties is that our right hand does not know what our left hand is doing in the matter of education. The provinces have so zealously considered education to be a matter totally and solely within their jurisdiction that the general public in one province have only a vague idea as to what their neighbours in the next province are doing. In education they have no knowledge of its status, its scope or its method so far as it relates to other provinces.
In passing may I ask this question of hon. members: Shall we ever have national unity
Education
as we should like to have it in this country as long as that remains true? Since we have little knowledge of the subject as between provinces, then I suggest that the first expenditure of federal public money should be made on a survey of conditions of education in each of our provinces, so that their needs may be determined. This would be only a small expenditure in relation to the general aid I recommend. It is my opinion that federal aid should not be a grant across the board, but rather a grant according to proven need.
There is preliminary work to be done. Surely there is machinery in the federal department to initiate that work. The education branch of the bureau of statistics is doing a good job now, and it could be broadened and expanded, or a similar branch could be set up under the auspices of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Martin:: We are doing quite a bit of that work now.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I know the minister is a busy man.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said we are doing quite a bit of it already.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am glad to hear that.


Mr. Knowles:: The principle has been
established.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Such grants as I have suggested might be allocated to the compilation of necessary data and information so as to estimate (1) the ability of provinces to meet their educational requirements; (2) the amount per capita already being spent in that direction, and (3) the amount of federal aid necessary to bring about some reasonable amount of equalization in respect of educational facilities.
I have here a book headed "Teachers' Salaries and Qualifications in Eight Provinces," published by the dominion bureau of statistics. This publication apparently takes no account of Quebec, nor does it have any information about Newfoundland, because it is the report for 1948. It is a publication the study of which I would recommend to all hon. members. Perhaps the house would be interested in having on record some of the figures it sets out. It shows differences in salaries, in academic and professional standards, and in the length and quality of professional training. I referred to one case in which teachers in one province received twenty times as much training, in point of time, as teachers in other provinces. The differences are (a) as between province and province, and (b) as between urban and rural areas.

Education
I shall place on record some interesting tables as they are set out at page 3 of this red book. Table C shows the percentage of teachers with a university degree, by location, in 1948. These are the figures for the city schools:
Percentage
with
university
degree,
city
Province	schools
Prince Edward Island	 4
Nova Scotia	 31
New Brunswick	 23
Ontario	 32
Manitoba	  37
Saskatchewan	 54
Alberta	 34
British Columbia	 42
I am proud of the figure shown for my native province of Saskatchewan. I shall not weary the house with the figures for schools in towns and villages, or large rural schools. However, let me draw the attention of hon. members to the figures for -the one-room rural school, the basis of education in our country. These figures are as follows:
Percentage
with
university
degree,
one-room
rural
Province	schools
Prince Edward Island	 -5
Nova Scotia	 IT
New Brunswick	 -3
Ontario	 -9
Manitoba	 1-2
Saskatchewan	 1-4
Alberta	    1-7
British Columbia	 2-9
The average figure for the eight provinces in city schools stands at 35 per cent, in town and village schools at 27 per cent, in rural schools with more than one room at 11 per cent, and in rural schools with only one room at 1-1 per cent. Perhaps the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) would think that that is why so many good men come from one-room rural schools. Unfortunately I cannot agree with him in that regard-even in a kindly way.
Another table appears in this book showing the percentage of substandard teachers in one-room rural schools. First of all, there should be no such thing as a substandard teacher; the two terms -are almost contradictory. One may be substandard in his qualifications, but if he is, he should not be a

teacher. From this table I shall read only one column of figures:	.
Percentage of
substandard teachers in one-room rural
Province	schools, 1948
Prince Edward Island	 27
Nova Scotia	  67
New Brunswick	 41
Ontario	 20
Manitoba	   45
Saskatchewan,	 30
Alberta	 18
British Columbia	 33
While I believe I have already proved my point on this basis concerning the necessity for some federal assistance to the provinces, I shall place on record one more table dealing with salaries. While it is not always true that the size of the salary necessarily shows the qualifications or ability of the teacher, generally speaking I believe it is true. This table indicates the classification of teachers in all publicly controlled schools according to annual salary received in 1948:
Average
salary,
male
Province	teachers
Prince Edward Island	 $1,063
Nova Scotia	 1,831
New Brunswick	 1,550
Ontario	 2,588
Manitoba	     1,804
Saskatchewan	 1,625
Alberta	 2,406
British Columbia	 2,787
I have not examined these figures closely, but my memory is that some of them are more than twice as large as some others.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No statistics for Quebec?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: There are no statistics for
Quebec in this publication. I have no idea why. There are none for Newfoundland, either, for the reason I have already indicated. The complete figures appear in this book, and they make very interesting, but, so far as I am concerned, very sad, reading.
There is another interesting thing about teachers which those of Anglo-Saxon and French extraction should consider. What is the racial origin of the majority of teachers in our prairie schools? At the moment the greater number of the teachers in western Canada are of neither Anglo-Saxon nor French origin. Well, racial origin or language has nothing to do with one's ability as a teacher, but it is interesting to most of us in this house of those origins to know we are not doing our share in contributing recruits to the profession. Thirty per cent of those in the profession have expressed the

intention of not continuing in it. In most cases the parents of the teachers-I am talking now about the western prairies and British Columbia-are farmers and skilled labourers who sent their children to the normal schools.
I have had some experience as a high school teacher in a city. We discovered that our better students were not going to the normal schools. [DOT] These young people stated quite frankly that they did not expect to be able to maintain a good standard of living by following the teaching profession. This is a fact that must be faced. If we want good teachers for our children, we are going to have to pay for them. You cannot expect to get good men and women for nothing. You cannot expect a man to go out in Saskatchewan or any other province and raise a family and contribute to the welfare of the community on a salary of $800 a year. I do not want my children taught by that sort of person, that is if that salary is any true measure of his worth.
To come back to the matter in hand, aid to education has been given before, but only in the form of special grants which were paid because of emergency. As a matter of fact, most of these grants in aid of education have arisen out of short-term policies, some of which remained and some of which did not. We need a long-term policy on a permanent basis for this whole thing.
As I say, these grants emphasized some special phase of education, such as vocational training during the war. I could talk for a long time on the question whether or not things like that are education. What is education? It is a subject I will not tackle here.


Humphrey Mitchell: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I see the Minister of Labour is trying to interject. I do not agree that education is something that you learn in a technical school, that it is a quick course given to teach a person how to fly an aeroplane or to be able to shoot straight with a machine gun. That is far removed from what I understand education to be.


Humphrey Mitchell: If some of us did not work with our hands, what would happen? My hon. friend says that you do not obtain education at the vocational school. Let me tell him that I have done fairly well with my hands.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I think the minister is confusing training with education. I have heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) say many things, and I have quoted him on
Education
various occasions, but I think one of the best things he ever said was that the man who was best fitted to assimilate education and appreciate it was the man who had worked with his hands as a boy on a Saskatchewan farm. So far as I am concerned, I am prepared to back that up one hundred per cent. Even if the Minister of Labour had said it I would have supported it.
At the moment I am speaking of federal aid for general education-and I said "general" education. The whole future of this nation depends upon the quality of that education. Far be it from me to detract from technical or vocational training, or for that matter from the federal grants in aid of university education. I am in favour of all these things. I hope the universities will receive grants; they are certainly in need of them, and they should have support from federal funds. I am pleased to note that the Saskatchewan university has been provided with a grant of $1,125,000 by the Saskatchewan provincial government in the budget for 1950-51. I hope the universities will receive federal aid, but I want it made quite clear that such aid should not be permitted to delay or divert our minds from the greater field, which in my opinion is education in general.
In conclusion let me emphasize that federal aid should be granted so that every child in Canada, irrespective of where he lives or of the economic status of his parents, should be guaranteed a minimum of education as of right; consistent, of course, with his ability to take advantage of that education. The greatest need of our age and for the future is that our children have an interest not only in their own province and in their own country, but in the wide community of the world. So far as education can help to fill that need, it is worthy of support by all the resources of this nation.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have no thought of attempting to examine too strictly the exact wording of the motion now before the house. I believe its intention is clear. As I understand it, the purpose of the motion is to bring to the attention of the government, through a vote of this house, the desirability of equalizing educational opportunity across Canada. I concur in the aims and objects expressed by the mover of the resolution.
There is only one point in regard to which I suggest that some caution should be exercised. In supporting the motion the hon. member said that we have little knowledge of the situation in the different provinces. Without raising the point for the purpose of criticism, I wish to say emphatically that

Education
there is a great deal of knowledge available. For many years the Canadian Education Association, which is representative of every province-including	Newfoundland, even
before Newfoundland became a part of Canada-has been examining this whole field, not only from the point of view of abstract educational problems, but from the comparative point of view as well. I should be greatly concerned if the adoption of the resolution led to the creation of a further board or commission of inquiry. The Canadian Education Association is fully capable of dealing with the question of the comparative levels of education across Canada. It is composed of the technical experts in each province who understand exactly what the situation is today and what the desirable level would be in the years ahead. I mention this in the hope that the resolution will pass, that the government will act upon it, and that the government will then consult those who have been studying this very question for many years.
It has already been said that there is no idea that the adoption of the motion should be taken as suggesting any encroachment upon provincial jurisdiction. It is a good thing to keep that in mind. Undoubtedly the house should be most careful not to make any suggestion that would lead to any measure of encroachment upon the jurisdiction of the provincial departments of education over this field. This does not mean, however, that the provincial governments would not welcome a measure of support which would make it possible for them to carry out the general advancement of their educational programs.
I wish to support what has already been said, and to repeat that it is necessary to deal with this matter on the basis of the special requirements of the different provinces, because the aim should be not only to assist education but also to equalize opportunities for education in every part of Canada.
I think it is particularly appropriate that the resolution should come up at this time. Later this year there is to be a dominion-provincial conference. The problem of equalizing education in a satisfactory manner is one which requires effective co-operation between the dominion government and the provincial governments whose responsibility it is to direct educational programs in their respective jurisdictions. I hope that with the adoption of the resolution the government will then determine what can be done and will be in a position to deal with the subject when that conference meets later this year. I suggest, however, that no attempt be made to lay down any conditions as a qualification upon which

financial assistance would be dependent. If that is done, the purpose which the resolution seeks to achieve will be defeated, because the provinces most certainly will not welcome an indirect measure of control which they would not accept directly.
In considering this subject I think there are ways in which the dominion government can assist without of necessity limiting their assistance to such arrangements as may be made for ordinary educational facilities. To a great extent the qualifications of our teachers will depend upon the number of young men and women who can take university courses, and particularly those branches of university courses which will qualify them for teaching. There is a great opportunity for the dominion to assist in that field by extending the number of scholarships which will make it possible for young men and women to take university training of that kind. Scholarships already are being granted. The number could be greatly extended with advantage to every part of the country.
There is another field in which the dominion government can act directly to assist the general cause of education. Today in this and every highly developed country, research in the field of education, in medicine, engineering, pure science and the broad general field, is the very basis of our progress. Grants might well be made to assist in research under each of these headings, and also to provide sustaining scholarships, in order that young men and women who demonstrate special qualifications in any field of research may be able to carry forward their advanced studies in Canada; thus we would reap the full benefit of the education they receive.
From time to time we speak with regret about the fact that intelligent young men and women, who have had the advantage of our educational system in the public schools, high schools and universities, have left Canada and availed themselves of opportunities open to them elsewhere. It is highly important to the advancement of Canada that we provide sustaining scholarships at a level which will encourage young men and women of the keenest intelligence to stay here in the field of research, whether it be in education, medicine, science, or anything else. I do not think we should be satisfied unless we can say without reservation that all our children, no matter where they may live, no matter what the circumstances of their parents may be, have open to them equality of educational opportunity to the utmost limit of human ability. That should be our purpose; and as I interpret the resolution, that is its intention.

The more we spend on education the less we will spend on reform and on prisons. When we ask where the money is to come from-and that is a very sensible question -I suggest that we could probably save some of the enormous expenditures we are now called upon to make on prisons and reformatories if we spent an additional amount in providing educational opportunities in all parts of this great land.
That does not apply only to moral status; it applies also to the health of our people. No greater measure of personal security can ever be given our citizens than to implant in their hearts and minds the highest possible character and the highest possible personal standards. Moreover, the best security we can give against avoidable ill health is to impress upon our people a sense of social discipline and training which will prepare them, to the very limit of their ability, to meet the physical as well as the mental tests of life.
Today education assumes greater importance than at any time in the past. It has been said in this house during the present session as in earlier sessions, and as it will be said again, that we are in the midst of a world-wide struggle for the minds of men and women. We are. We are not in a cold war. War is war; and we are engaged in a war between decency and slavery. Toward the winning of that war, to which we have already committed so much of our national strength, a very basic preparation may be made in our homes, our churches and our schools. The character of our people, which our children develop at their mother's knee, when they go with their parents to church, and later in the great public institutions of learning, will very largely determine our success or failure in that so-called cold war. Education is the very foundation of our civilization.
I propose to support this resolution, as I hope others will, without too precise an examination of its wording, with the simple thought and hope in mind that the government will take those preliminary steps as a result of which they will be ready to join with the provinces in expanding equality of educational opportunity to every part of Canada.


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution now before us calls upon the government to take into consideration means of expanding and equalizing educational opportunity across Canada through the granting of, financial assistance to the provinces for that purpose. Before proceeding further, may I commend the hon. member
Education
for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) on having again brought this resolution before us. I say "again" because last fall the same resolution was considered by the house for a very brief period of time. I commend the hon. member also on the skill and sincerity with which he presented his case.
When the resolution was before us last fall the time factor operated in such a way as to prohibit many of us from expressing our views upon this extremely important subject. While prevented from doing so on that occasion, however, we have taken advantage of other opportunities to extend our support to the general proposition under consideration. In fact last February my leader, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), was so much concerned with the importance of this subject that he devoted a substantial portion of his speech during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne to the question of federal aid to education. As a former teacher and a former minister of education in the province of Alberta, the hon. member was admirably qualified to deal with this subject in a practical and realistic manner.
On that occasion the hon. member for Peace River made two extremely important assertions. I am not going to undertake to quote them verbatim because I realize that would not be in keeping with the rules of the house; however, he said something to this effect. First, nothing can contribute more to the internal security of Canada than a broad, general understanding on the part of her citizens; and second, if democracy is to function successfully and yield the results the people want from the management of their affairs, there must be a high general level of educational achievement among the people.
There is much to commend itself to us in those two statements. As hon. members will realize, owing to its size, its widely varying resources and the productive abilities within its boundaries, Canada has many areas in which incomes are much lower than in other areas. The degree of prosperity varies very definitely from province to province, and indeed from municipality to municipality within the province. As I think my leader also mentioned in February, the bulk of the revenues from which the school districts must pay their educational costs come from taxation upon real property. The inevitable result is a wide divergence in educational opportunity, because within certain areas there is substantially less real property for the authorities to tax. In those districts where production is unusually low and incomes

Education
therefore are very small, certainly there is less opportunity for our boys and girls to enjoy the educational opportunity and educational standards that are essential to their welfare and to the welfare of this country. I am told that many of our local school authorities are obliged to raise more than seventy per cent of their educational requirements through taxation imposed upon real property in the community. One appreciates how small must be the over-all receipts from the imposition of taxes where the amount of real property is limited.
In assessing current educational costs one cannot but give some consideration to several important factors which have resulted in an almost skyrocketing spiral of educational costs within this country. I have been told that anywhere from fifty to seventy per cent of the budgets of many local educational authorities goes to pay the salaries of the school teachers. I know, for example, that within my own province we have seen a greater increase in the salaries of teachers during the past five years than during any other five-year period in our history. Speaking of rural areas only, the salaries of teachers have increased by an average of eighty-five per cent.
I mention that only to indicate how in one field alone the burden of educational costs has climbed so rapidly within our country. I want to hasten at this point to say, Mr. Speaker, that certainly I know, from quite a number of years of personal experience, taking into consideration at the same time the nature of the work performed by teachers and also the present-day cost of living, that the teachers of Canada are today disastrously underpaid. The $1,500 or $1,600 averages in my province, for example, in our rural communities represent [DOT] probably 85 per cent to 100 per cent increase since the thirties. But is there anyone here who would argue for one moment that even a $1,500 or $1,600 average for schoolteachers, even in the rural areas of any province in Canada, is fit, proper or adequate recognition of the outstanding services which they perform to the community and to Canada? Yet when I refer to those $1,500 or $1,600 averages, I am quoting averages which are substantially higher there than in a great many other parts of this great dominion. Considered in the light of the training which it is necessary and desirable for a teacher to have, taken into consideration along with the highly important nature of the services performed by a teacher, and taken in relationship to the incomes of other employee groups within the country, I would say that salaries generally are terribly low, disgracefully low.
[Mr. Shaw.)
One cannot but note the increased cost of construction and equipment of school buildings within the Dominion of Canada. I have no specific figures available; but in passing I might just mention the fact that in my own province, for example, in a period of three years, 1947-49, capital construction increased from $2-6 million in the year 1947 to $4-7 million in 1949. If one were to take the general capital cost of construction in the educational field, I think that those figures might easily represent not a 100 per cent overall increase in the number of units built in 1949, but an additional cost represented by an almost double cost of providing the same units which were being provided in 1947.
Speaking last February my leader suggested to the government that it might be advisable for them to set up a revolving fund out of which the educational authorities within the country might be able to borrow money at a low rate of interest for the purpose of constructing schools and equipping them. In my province a step in that direction has been taken. Only this year such a revolving fund was set up by the government of the province of Alberta. Any school district within that province is able to borrow up to 25 per cent of its authorized borrowing for the purpose of school construction; possibly I should have said "approved school construction". The local board is required to repay only one-half of the original loan and there is no interest payable on that sum. Payments are extended over a ten-year period of time. I mention that fact only as an indication of something that probably could be done by the dominion government in order to assist capital construction in many parts of this Dominion of Canada.
Only recently I was advised that the cost of school equipment, principally schoolbooks in libraries and the like, has advanced by approximately 40 per cent within the last five years. I realize that there are certain definite reasons for this, such as an increase in the costs of materials which go into these books, advances in wage rates, rising transportation costs, and the devaluation of the Canadian dollar in relation to the American dollar. This latter factor comes in there substantially because of the fact that a goodly part of the printed materials in book form which are used are printed in the United States; and the additional 10 per cent has to be paid because of the devaluation.
We may get another picture of what is occurring from another reference to my province, and I am making references to my own province because of the fact that naturally one would have more information about his own province than he would about the others,

Education
and because of the fact that for some years I occupied a position in the school-teaching profession in that province. Taking my .own province, in 1947 the educational costs were $19-9 million; by 1949 those costs had increased to $26-6 million. The provincial authorities there have been endeavouring to relieve the burden which is imposed upon the local district by accepting increasing responsibility for meeting the over-all costs of education. I am, however, the first to admit that this action has not been reflected too greatly in the local field because of the continuing high costs of almost everything that goes into education. For example, within a period of three years, my province has increased the grants to the local school district by more than 6 per cent, from approximately 21 [DOT] 5 per cent to 27-2 per cent, while at the same time trying to assume ever greater costs such as contributions to a teacher retirement fund, which in itself has jumped from $6,600 in 1939 to over $587,000 in this year, 1950. I point that out, Mr. Speaker, as showing the increase in the cost of education and showing that, even though the province may go as far as it can having regard to its responsibilities in the over-all field, most of our provincial governments are experiencing a great deal of difficulty in meeting the over-all cost of education.
I may just refer to this matter of school grants for a moment, and once again using my own province largely because of the fact that it is with that province that I am familiar. School grants in the fiscal year 1935-36 amounted to $1-39 million. By 1949 those had increased to $7-78 million; and I am not taking into account of course this figure of $587,000 which is paid into the teacher retirement fund. As far as my province is concerned this represents an increase in cost of approximately 2 per cent. While 2 per cent does not sound like very much, it is 2 per cent of a budget which is probably five times what the budget was in 1935. In dollars it represents an increase of almost 700 per cent.
Again, Mr. Speaker, within that province expenditures on education from income account increased from $2-4 million in 1935-36 to over $10-71 million in 1948-49, and in 1950 it will likely go to $11-22 million. That represents an increase from 13-3 per cent to 23-5 per cent. I am going to say this before someone else does. I recognize that the province of Alberta has been extremely fortunate as far as industrial development is concerned. However, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to refrain from saying that that sort of thing has not come just as the result of the passage of time or by accident. We have been extremely fortunate in having within that
province a government which I characterize as a wise government, and as a government which has pursued policies which have resulted in the rapid development of those great resources.
If a province like mine, Mr. Speaker, with its increased revenues resulting in part from the greatly expanded industrial development within the past two or three years, finds it difficult, how much more difficult must it be for so many of the provinces where a corresponding set of circumstances has not existed. If it is becoming a burden in a province like mine, what must the situation be in certain of our maritime provinces, for example? The mere fact that we have been able to do some of these things of course does not mean that other provinces should immediately undertake to do it too; but is there any reason why the children living in some of these other provinces should be deprived of that quality of educational opportunity which I think all hon. members agree they should have?
When my leader spoke in February he was criticized, not in this house, but by a publication which I have had to refer to before and am sometimes obliged to call a questionable publication, namely, the Farm and Ranch Review. I do not know why I should pay any attention to it; nobody else does. It is a publication which is the product of a politically ambitious, though hopelessly frustrated individual. In its March issue this publication states-I am going to read this first statement because it will reflect the mental turmoil of the editor.


Mr. Low:: Who is he?


Frederick Davis Shaw: A man by the name of Porter.


Solon Earl Low: Marsh Porter?


Frederick Davis Shaw: Yes. Probably the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) knows him. He says:
Offhand, we can imagine nothing of less consequence to this society than a speech by Mr. Solon Low. the leader of the Social Credit party in the House of Commons.
I think that proves what I said previously, Mr. Speaker. That expression is nothing but the irresponsible product of a politically ambitious but hopelessly frustrated mind. I continue:
But when he asks the dominion government for aid for schools, we cannot resist calling his attention to the fact that he is talking to the wrong people.
It should have been directed to his party-liners in Alberta. This year the Alberta government's income from oil lands royalties will far exceed $30 million. This income from wasting assets should go into permanent capital assets.

Education
I am just going to digress at this point to remind you, Mr. Speaker, and the house, that not long ago when I spoke here I referred to this same publication and to the criticism of the government of Alberta contained in it for paying off a very substantial part of its provincial debt and saving the people of the province an additional $18 million a year which they would have had to pay in interest and carrying charges had not that portion of the debt been liquidated. This is the publication that criticized the Alberta government for having done that, and yet they come along with this, which they would like to think is a great display of wisdom. They begin by telling us that we should be giving consideration to the fact that our oil and gas are wasting assets, and that we should take the proceeds from them and put them into other permanent assets. We have always declared, as has the premier of my province, that we recognize these are diminishing assets; but had we listened to the editor of the Farm and Ranch Review we would never, even from the beginning, have looked upon the proceeds from this development as diminishing assets. They go on and say:
No finer program for building up Alberta could be devised than a province-wide government financed school construction project.
When this publication came out the editor did not know, even though the papers were full of it, that the government of my province had set up a very substantial borrowing revolving fund for the construction of capital assets in the educational field within that province. I continue:
The Alberta educational council has urged the Manning government to undertake just that. It, of course, will pay no attention to the A.E.C.
In view of what has been done already this spring I think you, Mr. Speaker, as well as I, could find the appropriate language with which we might describe that particular editorial. I realize, sir, it would not be parliamentary whether you thought of it or whether I thought of it. I continue:
Maybe it would listen to Mr. Low.
The government of Alberta undoubtedly heard Mr. Low when he was speaking here, even though they were a couple of thousand miles away, but obviously the local government with its representatives in the same building did not hear him, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to remind the house that not only did the hon. member for Peace River point out that federal assistance should be made available for educational purposes, but he went on and mentioned several ways or methods by which this could be done. He referred to the old Municipal Improvements

Assistance Act which, as I believe he said at the time, has been in mothballs for a long time. It was an act under which approved projects entered into by school districts and municipalities could be financed in part at least under this act on an interest rate approximating 2 per cent per year. Certainly that act, or something comparable with it, could be put into operation and we could assist materially in meeting the burden of heavy capital outlays by our school districts in the several provinces.
He also referred to the school trust moneys. This would affect Saskatchewan and Alberta particularly; but so far as Alberta is concerned they still have $12 million here which I say we could put up a very strong argument for as a province. We feel that it is ours even though in the stricter sense of the word it is not.
The interest from that money was to be made available to the province to assist in educational work. We believe that $12 million itself could be put into a revolving fund out of which money could be borrowed for capital construction. Repeating again what the hon. member for Peace River said, we cannot see any continuing justification for the heavy taxes at present imposed upon vans and school busses. In my own part of the country, as well as in other areas of Canada, we have endeavoured to improve the educational facilities by the centralization of service. For example, in a community we have found that we could provide certain advanced educational courses for our pupils, provided a number of pupils were brought in from certain areas, so that one school could be constructed and equipped, and the very finest of teachers available could be induced to teach. An ever-increasing number of vans and busses are being used to transport these children.
However, the federal government insists upon imposing heavy taxes on these vehicles. We have urged and continue to urge the removal of such taxes. Finally, we would favour a straight grant to the provinces. Personally, I would go so far as to say that special consideration should be given to the poorer districts, so far as those grants are concerned. We are not limiting the action of the federal government to those specific fields, but would be glad to approve any measure which in effect would have the result of granting assistance to each province for educational purposes, and thus have the result of improving the educational standards and granting greater equality of educational opportunity for our youngsters.

I should like to see a vote taken on this resolution. After all that is the best way to ascertain where we all stand in a matter of this kind. What I have said today has been said for my associates in the Social Credit group. Those are the things we have fought for; those are the things we shall continue to fight for. We realize the provinces should do all they reasonably can within this field of education, and we assert that Alberta, at least, has accepted its responsibility.
Before taking my seat let me say that we have always stressed the fact that the administration of education should remain within the provincial jurisdiction, where it is today. Moreover we cannot forget also that a number of precedents have been established for the type of assistance set out in the resolution.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at length, because I join with the hon. member who has just taken his seat in my desire to see a vote taken on this resolution.
May I first thank the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) for what he has done in introducing the resolution and giving the house an opportunity to discuss a matter of particular interest and importance to all Canadians. I intend to support the motion, and I shall do so with no apologies for having on many occasions stressed the necessity for economy. Economy is parsimony when applied too strictly to education, because expenditures in education pay dividends by way of good citizenship which do not flow from many other expenditures parliament must necessarily make.
I join with those who have preceded me in stating that while at all times provincial rights must be preserved and maintained, and nothing must be done that in any way would appear to be control on the part of the federal authority over education, jurisdiction over which rests with the provinces, the carrying out of this motion would in no way constitute interference either directly or indirectly with provincial jurisdiction in the broad field of education.
Indeed, as the motion reads it can be accepted in principle by all, irrespective of the desire of each of us to support the constitution in its entirety. The mechanics for the carrying out of this motion must necessarily be left to those charged with the responsibility of carrying it out. I know of no better summary of the situation in general than that given in November, 1949, by the Canadian Teachers Federation, as set out in a booklet issued by them and entitled "Federal Aid to Education". As a foundation for the
Education
argument I intend to advance I should like to refer to one or two of the submissions made in this brief.
It states that the Canadian Teachers Federation represents a membership of some 60,000 and that, taken with La Corporation Generale of Quebec, makes up 99 per cent of the men and women who are in daily contact with boys and girls in Canadian schools. It points out that the federation is non-political, is not unduly affected by special interests, and is independent of governments, both dominion and provincial. It is only fair to say, and properly, that the Canadian Teachers Federation has lived up to its responsibilities and its desire to build the best Canadian citizenship.
In the course of this brief it quotes from its representations made to the government in February, 1949. On that occasion it said, in part:
We believe that a straight per pupil capita grant would bring the greatest benefits compatible with the safeguards which certain provinces would require to guarantee that the federal government would not infringe upon their jurisdiction in the field of education. . . We do not overlook the possible additional assistance which the federal government may render generally through an extension of the research program of the education branch of the bureau of statistics or through grants earmarked for specific purposes.
Then it expresses the desire to work with any committee set up by the cabinet, and also with representatives of the provinces, to the end that a system may be arrived at mutually agreeable to the federal and provincial authorities. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) dealt with that phase of the matter and suggested-I believe properly-that the mechanics of the fulfilment of the motion might very well be left to the dominion-provincial conference which is to reconvene this fall.
It sums up in a general way the answer to the question so often raised, namely that federal help might be regarded as an invasion of provincial jurisdiction, in that it might imply control by the federal authority over education in the provinces. I believe the answer given in the brief is a conclusive answer to those who advance that argument, when it says:
Federal aid for education is a need bom of a shift in taxation. Meeting this need1 may involve fiscal control-safeguards in the spending of funds from the federal treasury-but not policy control.
In any plan of federal assistance it would be understood and agreed that the expenditure of funds by the government of Canada would in no way be deemed to confer upon any minister or official of the government of Canada any right of supervision or control over any school or educational institution with respect to which federal government funds are expended.

Education
I would go further and say that it should not imply either control of the plan or the use that is made of the moneys advanced. One often hears it said that private members' days are a waste of time, and sometimes the number of members in the chamber would indicate that there was ground for that belief. But I believe it is through the instrumentality of resolutions such as this that private members' days provide an opportunity to the private member to discharge responsibilities that might otherwise be denied him. When this matter came up last fall the minister spoke on October 19, as recorded on page 946 of Hansard. Before the Prime Minister had concluded, the debate was adjourned and as private members' days ceased to exist for that session the motion died the inevitable death that occurs when private members' days are done away with. The Prime Minister spoke quite shortly and tersely and used these words:
I am sure all hon. members have welcomed this opportunity of focusing their attention upon this assertion, one which certainly appeals to each and every one of us, that there should be across Canada the greatest possible degree of equality of opportunity for the education of our young Canadians, the Canadians of the next generation.
That is an expression with which we are all in agreement. Then the Prime Minister went on to say:
Whether or not the granting of financial assistance by the federal government to the various provinces could be arranged in such a manner as to avoid exercising any direct or indirect control over the field of education, which is essentially within provincial jurisdiction, is a question offering greater possibilities of controversy.
With all the respect that one must have for the opinion of the Prime Minister I find it difficult to follow him in those words. We have grants in aid in various departments of government, all without supervision or direction in any way as to the means of expenditure. If we accept the need, if we accept the desirability of equality of education in all provinces, if we believe that Canadian citizenship can be built up only upon the foundation of equal opportunity to all young Canadians irrespective of their geographical location, then surely there can be no objection to the acceptance of this motion. It does not state that there shall be control; it leaves the administration to the provincial authorities. It makes the declaration of agreement with the necessity of the government taking into consideration means of expanding and equalizing educational opportunity across Canada. After the Prime Minister dealt with that phase of the matter, he took another means of postponing consideration of the motion when he said in effect that as the Massey royal commission was sitting parliament should wait until it had

brought down its report. So that there will be no misunderstanding of what the Prime Minister said I read his words as follows:
Hon. members know that, at the present time, there is a royal commission investigating the problem as to whether or not we are making the best possible use of the public moneys being expended for the promotion of the development of the aspect of national life in Canada which is not measured in statistical trade returns, or in dollars and cents, or pounds and shillings.
Then a little later:
It will certainly be a matter of months before we can obtain a report from that commission, and I should think it would be wise not to attempt to determine with any degree of precision how the purposes can best be served until we have had that report.
It js not a question of how the purposes can best be served because this motion simply declares the desire of the house that the government should take into consideration means for expanding and equalizing educational opportunity across Canada by the granting of financial assistance to the various provinces for that purpose. In any event it is for the House of Commons and parliament to determine this question. The Prime Minister recognized the desirability of having equality of opportunity in education for the children of this country. That is all there is in this motion. I do not suggest that there was anything intentional in the termination of private members' days after October 19 last year, but whether there was or not it certainly was completely effective in the postponement of any action being taken on this motion.
I hope that this motion will be voted on today. I shall not speak for more than ten or twelve minutes, because I will not be a party to denying this house an opportunity to vote on this important matter.
There is one matter to which I think I should make reference. The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) pointed out that in the prairie provinces the majority of teachers were of other than Anglo-Saxon or French origin. I do not know what he had in mind when he said that. I do not think it is racial origin that determines whether or not a Canadian is qualified to teach in our schools and inculcate principles of democracy in the children of the present or the next generation. I know the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will join with me when I say that many of these young men, whose parents came to this country forty or fifty years ago, are carrying out the principles of democracy which so many of them displayed on battlefields all over the world during the recent war.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I wonder if the hon. member would let me put myself right in that regard? I agree with everything the hon. member

Education
has said. What I really had in the back of my mind was to blame people of Anglo-Saxon and French origin for not taking on the job. I quite agree that racial origin has nothing to do with the making of a good teacher, but it is a point of interest to us in this house who are mostly of Anglo-Saxon and French origin that our own people are not doing this job.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the hon. member for indicating that he has the same view that others from the western provinces have in that regard. I am not going to say that 1 was much of a teacher myself because my career as one did not last very long.


Humphrey Mitchell: I guess they found you out.


Mr. Hodgson:: There wasn't enough money
in it for you.


John George Diefenbaker: No, it was not that. I did not intend to mention this, but the fact was that my clock was fast. During the time I should have been in school I was out shooting gophers. The inspector, the late Dr. Magee, came along and indicated that gopher shooting was not a part of the curriculum and at the termination of the short term my permit was not renewed.
We hear a good deal today about the Douk-hobor problem. The Doukhobors make good citizens; it is the Sons of Freedom who have not made good citizens and who show no signs of doing so. In the school where I taught there were five Doukhobor boys who constituted the majority of pupils in that school. Three of them became professional men. One became a leading artist and the fifth became a missionary. That is indicative of what happens under our public school system. Those Doukhobors were a good type and made good citizens. In the main those in the province of Saskatchewan do not belong to the Sons of Freedom who today hold the law in contempt and show no regard for the educational opportunities they have had. One hon. member has said that education of itself will produce good citizenship. I knew some of the Sons of Freedom whom we had in our province before they migrated to British Columbia. Some of them were well educated but nevertheless they did not become better citizens in spite of the educational advantages they had.
Every conceivable argument in support of the resolution has been advanced by the mover and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) today, as on October 19 last. Summarizing my remarks, and supporting the resolution as I do, I believe that the resolution will provide certain advantages. First it will provide an opportunity for
greater equality among Canadians everywhere in the matter of education. Second, it will make possible the raising of teachers' salaries so that the best men and women will be mobilized for service in the great profession of teaching. The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) explained the meaning of his words a while ago. I feel that the teaching profession is so notoriously underpaid today, even having regard to recent increases in the last few years, that however desirous most young Canadians with the necessary educational advantages may be to remain in the profession the rewards are too low. The level of reward is so low that it is no inducement to remain in the profession to those who wish to advance themselves and secure the material advantages of life. Everything should be done which will assure increase of their salaries. That would be possible under advances made by the federal authority, although not earmarked for that purpose.
In the third place, it would enable the extension of a system of scholarships, to which reference has already been made. Within the last few years there has been a wide extension in the granting of scholarships. To my knowledge the finest example in the world of the granting of scholarships is the Scottish system. Recently I was reading Lord Shaw's views on the subject. At the end of his life he was able to name many of the outstanding Scottish people of his generation whose contribution to their country had been made possible by a system of national scholarships.
I feel sure that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) will be the first to support the resolution on this ground if for no other. On the 24th of February, 1937, a private members' day, he introduced a motion in the house reading:
That, in the opinion of this house, following the practice already established in Great Britain and other industrial countries, the government should investigate the desirability of a system of national scholarships to be made available to outstanding students who are financially unable to continue their education, to enable them to secure undergraduate and (or) post-graduate training in our universities, university colleges, agricultural colleges and technical schools.
I should like to see the system -of scholarships extended. I know something of the results in the province of Saskatchewan. Some twenty-eight years ago the Masonic order established a system of scholarships in that province available to all regardless of religious faith or racial origin. The purpose was to provide worthy Saskatchewan students with advanced education conditional on their undertaking to teach in the rural schools of the province where the population was of

Education
other than Anglo-Saxon or French origin. That system went a long way toward the improvement of educational opportunities. Several of these young men of various racial origins are making their contribution not only in the research council of Canada but also in the bureau of national standards at Washington, and their opportunities for that wider field of service were provided as a result of the establishment of these scholarships in our province.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I was one of them.


John George Diefenbaker: I intended to mention that.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I did not know you knew.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, I knew that. The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) was one of those who received a scholarship, and utilized it in such a way that two of his former pupils, the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison) and the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Larson), are now members of the House of Commons. The scholarship won by the hon. member for Saskatoon paid off in good citizenship in the house to which he and I have the honour to belong.
Having said that, I join in what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has said in support of the resolution. I feel sure it is worthy of the support of members in all parts of the house. It is a resolution on which there should be a vote, and it should not be talked out.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it is only by accident that I find myself in a position to speak on the resolution at this time. The discussion that has taken place up to the moment is one to which I can take very little exception. One might agree with most of the things that have been said. There was one suggestion, however, made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), which makes it necessary for someone in the government to say something at the moment. Since I happen to be the senior member of the government present at this time, it becomes my duty to make some remarks.
It has been suggested by the last speaker that because this resolution was considered on the last private members' day last session, and so near the end of that day that it was impossible to have a full discussion or to have a vote taken, the same thing might be intended on this occasion; and the last remarks of the hon. member were an appeal to us to see to it that the resolution was not talked out. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is not the desire of the government to have it talked out. It is the desire of the government to

have a vote taken; but I am not going to agree that it is the desire of the government to have a vote taken on the issues which have been presented to the house this afternoon.
Most of those issues did not have very much to do with the resolution; and most of us could agree with many of the things that have been said. But I think we should read the resolution, and should perhaps accept the interpretation that was placed upon it by the mover rather than the interpretation it has been given by others. The resolution reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration means of expanding and equalizing educational opportunity across Canada, by the granting of financial assistance to the various provinces for that purpose.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) said he was not going to quarrel too much with the wording of the resolution. I can quite understand that, for if he had started to quarrel with it he would have had to oppose the resolution, on the arguments he presented before he resumed his seat. Therefore I suggest that, accepting the interpretation of the mover of the resolution, when we vote upon it we do not vote on the question of whether or not grants should be made by the federal government to promote research in education, for example. The federal government has been making grants to promote research in education under all governments for many years. I was going to say that has been done since the time of confederation, but I have not checked the records back that far. At any rate the government has been making these grants ever since I have had anything to do with education or with politics, and that takes me back at least thirty-six years.
Most of the types of research grants that were spoken of were given freely to institutions of higher education right across Canada, where that kind of research work is carried on. Grants for research purposes in connection with soil surveys, for example, are given to universities and colleges of agriculture right across the country, to promote examination of the qualities of soils and everything that goes with that in relation to agriculture. Grants have been made to assist in the development of ways and means to better safeguard the health of the people of Canada. Those grants have been made to universities and medical and nursing schools. Those are educational. Grants have been made to all provinces to encourage the setting up of technical schools, which the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) said he did not have in mind at all. Many others

have had them in mind, and had educational grants of that kind in mind in discussing this resolution.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: We already have that.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, we already have it, and my hon. friend said that was not what he was talking about. Eventually I am going to get down to what he was talking about. He was not talking of the kind of grant given to technical schools to promote the development of that kind of education; he was talking about something else. From what he said I am quite sure he was not talking about the kind of research grants we are making already to universities right across the country. I assume he was not talking of the kind of support we gave, the universities during and after the war which made it possible for young men to come back from overseas and get an education which otherwise they probably would not have been able to get. All these things have been done; all these things are accepted, and we are going on with them.
Then I take for granted that he was not talking about those scholarships that were mentioned by the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). Scholarships can be set up to promote education in various ways, and are set up more particularly to encourage people to go into that kind of educational work associated with research, technical pursuits and all that sort of thing. Scholarships are set up to encourage people to go into that work and devote their lives to chemistry, for instance, in order to make some great contribution to the health of our people. All these things are good. They are being dealt with in one way or another now. They all have to do with the promotion of that aspect of education about which, as I have always understood it, there has never been any question of the federal government doing something.
So I think my hon. friend got himself down pretty well to the elementary schools of this country, or if he went beyond those he was talking about what we might call the secondary schools. He suggested that teachers should be better paid, and that education in the different provinces should be more the same. If I interpret that in what I would consider to be proper language in relation to education, it seems to me it has to do with the curricula in the different provinces. I agree with much of what has been said to the effect that the educational systems of the different provinces are not entirely the same; but I would point out that undoubtedly
Education
the people in those areas think they should not be much more alike than they are at the present time. That is their view.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I know the minister wants to be fair, and I did state today that it was not my suggestion that the curricula should be interfered with, or that they should be uniform. I did not mean any such thing, and I do not think I said it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was being fair to my hon. friend, because I was not just emphasizing the two things he Sid say.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: If I might conclude what I was about to say, I also used the words "grants in order to allow the various provinces to carry on the type of education in which they are at present engaged". Those were my words.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was trying to avoid saying what I will have to say now. When my hon. friend rose he pointed out that he did not want anything done that would interfere with the curricula or that would interfere with the control of each province over its teaching staff, and so on. He did not want interference in anything which under our constitution the federal government cannot interfere in now. But in stating why this resolution was necessary and why it should be adopted he called attention to the fact that there are great differences in the curricula across the country. He called attention to the fact that teachers are paid much better in some provinces than in others. Then, just before he sat down, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw), called attention to the same thing and pointed out that the province with the greatest financial ability to take care of its requirements of any of the western provinces, and with ability to do so probably equal to that of any province of Canada, was finding it difficult now to continue paying the present salaries. If that is the case, then I should like to suggest to him that probably if he were to follow the meaning of this resolution, if it has any meaning applied to that, when you average the amount right across the country and take the poorer provinces along with those which are better off, it might not have the result of increasing the salaries beyond the salaries that are now paid in some of the provinces.


Frederick Davis Shaw: May I just point out, Mr. Speaker, that I did not tie it to salaries; I tied it to the entire educational costs. I referred to salaries.


James Garfield Gardiner: My friend dealt with the fact that their salaries were $1,200 to $1,500 and that they were higher than in other provinces.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I did not say that either.

Education


James Garfield Gardiner: You had better read your speech tomorrow.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I said the average was $1,500 to $1,600 in rural areas.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is higher still; $1,500 to $1,600 in rural areas; and he says they are finding difficulty in paying salaries on those levels in Alberta now. The hope is, from his argument, that after they have received this grant from the federal government, they will be able to improve upon that. That was the suggestion of the argument. I am simply saying this, Mr. Speaker: If the second-best-off province in Canada- and I will put it there rather than the top of the list-is paying better schoolteachers' salaries now than they can afford to pay, how are we going to increase salaries right across Canada by getting a grant out of the federal treasury that must come out of the pockets of all the people in all the provinces of Canada? That is one thing that I think we have got to have a little further look at. It is all right to suggest that we are not at the moment talking about spending more money in Canada. But if there is anything to the argument, we are talking about nothing else but spending more money in Canada: spending it for purposes that might be all to the good, but nevertheless it is more money.
That having been said and other things having been said, I think that again we should have a little further look at the resolution before us. I read the resolution a few moments ago; and I indicated that, as far as I could make out, the mover of the resolution was talking about elementary schools and possibly secondary schools; he was not talking about higher education where these grants for research and all that kind of thing are made. He was talking about the very thing that the fathers of confederation were talking about when they were discussing this thing back at the time of confederation. He was talking about the very thing that we have all been talking about ever since. We have assumed that the provincial governments must have the control over the curricula, over the salaries paid, over the hiring of teachers, over the education and training of teachers and all that kind of thing, in a country so varied as Canada is. Then when they came to the conclusion that separately these provinces could not fully finance a system of education or any of the other systems that they had been asked to finance, they decided that the proper thing to do was to give them a per capita grant, grants to take care of their public debt and grants to take care of the other things. They handed them that money and said "Do what you like with it".
Everyone who has supported this resolution this afternoon has been putting forth the argument that we should not put any strings on the money that we give to the provinces.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Except for one thing. What I did say was that the only control that I saw necessary was one control that would ensure that the money was spent for the purpose for which it was voted.


James Garfield Gardiner: And that purpose is education.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then that is control.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact, that is exactly what this resolution does mean. This resolution means that the government is being asked to give all grants to the provinces with this one string on them, that they must be spent for education. Then my friend has given the best demonstration we could possibly get of what members of this house would do if we did that. They would be saying that the curriculum of this province is not as good as the curriculum in that province. They would be saying that the teachers are not paid as much in this province as they are paid in that province. They would be discussing all these questions which he was discussing this afternoon. And I venture to say again that it is the very thing which the fathers of confederation were trying to avoid our having to discuss and which everyone since has been trying to avoid our having to discuss.
Having said that, I am not going to say that the federal government should not do anything more to assist in education across Canada. There has been a way and there is a way; and that way no one has found reason for changing up to the present. When we laid down the basis for grants that were to be made by the federal government to the provinces at the time of confederation, we said they were to be on a certain basis. If I remember correctly-and I am only speaking from memory; I have not discussed this question for a long time-it was about 1907 before we changed that basis materially. They called an interprovincial conference and they changed the level of those grants. Why did they change it? It does not matter whether it was in 1907 or one of the other years in that neighbourhood', but there was the first time when they changed it. And on the occasion when they did change it, it was because costs of these certain things had gone up; and because they had gone up and because there was much more of it to be done than had to be done before, they raised

Education
the grant. They did not say, "We are going to pay a grant to education; we are going to pay a grant to promote mining in a certain area". They did not say, we are going to pay a grant in order to promote this or to promote that, but they said, "We will increase the grant to the provinces." They paid the whole grant to them and then they left it to the provinces to determine how much of it they were going to spend on education and how much they were going to spend in other directions.
I have not any objection-and I am quite sure that there is not any member in the government who would have any-to the suggestion that was made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) that these are questions that are going to be discussed next September. In the interprovincial conference that is to be held next September the question will be discussed as to whether or not the government of Canada should provide the provinces, through some means or other, with more money than they are being provided with at the present time. One speaker after another has been saying that he used to teach school. I myself taught school for ten years.


An hon. Member:: That is too long.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is too long perhaps to teach school at the salaries that we had then; I agree with the people who have been arguing that point. But nevertheless I did teach school. I was minister of education in the province of Saskatchewan for a number of years just as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) was minister of education in the province of Alberta. I may say that I never was minister of agriculture in Saskatchewan, but I was minister of several other things, and one of them was education. This question has been argued right back through the years. But every time it was argued we asked the people down here for more money. When I was there, we were getting about $4 million for all purposes. I think we are still getting that $4 million, although I have not had occasion to examine the records carefully. On top of that we are getting from the federal government somewhere between $13 million and $15 million of money paid into the treasury of Saskatchewan. There has never been a string put on it to say that they could not spend the whole $15 million for education if they wanted to. They have had that extra money. I presume that when they go to the meeting in September there is going to be an argument to the effect that the amount of money that has been paid to the provinces ought to be increased. I do not know whether or not the federal government is going to agree that it
ought to be. I do not suppose anyone knows or will know until the arguments are heard. I agree with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) to the extent that, in a thing like this, the question as to whether we are going to change the whole system, under which moneys are made available for all purposes, to one of turning over a certain lump sum of money to the provinces and saying, "That is for education and for education only", is a question which should be considered in September. To come out and say: There is a certain sum of money; now that you have it we expect you to equalize your teachers' salaries with the salaries in every other province; we expect you to teach the same subjects in this school as are being taught in that school; we expect you to turn out pupils that have the same qualifications as in other provinces-that can only lead to trouble.


Mr. Noseworihy:: The minister is drawing a red herring across the trail.


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend reads his speech tomorrow he will find out himself that he criticized the conditions that we have in Canada under which our students and pupils from different provinces are not coming out from our school with the same kind of education. I would just ask him to take a look at the house we have here, which is the result of the teachings of the educational systems of all the provinces in Canada.
I venture to say that if you were to take two lawyers, one from one province and one from another, and compared them, you would not find a lot of difference in their ability to deal with the questions with which they have to deal. I think you would find that true even of the chaps who taught school.


Mr. Rowe:: What about the Minister of Agriculture?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is not so much
difference in qualification between those who sit in one part of the house and those who sit in another, or those who attended school in one part of the country and those who attended in another.


William Earl Rowe: What about the Minister of
Agriculture?


James Garfield Gardiner: When I was minister of education I did not agree that any other curricula or any other system was exactly right excepting the one that I was administering; but I have gone across Canada since then, and I had before that, and I found that each one of the provinces turned out a pretty creditable group of pupils from its schools; and if they have the opportunity to go through secondary schools, one group is just about as

Education
creditable as the other. If they go through the universities, pupils are turned out of equal ability from the different universities. For example, the other night I was invited over to my own alma mater dinner at the university of Manitoba. I found that we could muster quite a group down here who the civil service commission seem to think are pretty good people.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They cannot compare with the university of Toronto.


James Garfield Gardiner: On another occasion I noticed that the university of Alberta was doing the same thing, as was the university of British Columbia. On each occasion it was found that you could get just about the same number from one area as from another. In addition you found that one group was just about as competent as the other.
As I go around, the only thing I find in my experience is that quite a number have wandered from the maritime provinces to the other provinces, and they seem to get back here by some means or other. Quite a large group of them have graduated from our different universities, but they had their birth down in the maritime provinces. Everyone in this house knows why that is. Down in the maritime provinces they have had some difficulties in establishing industries and other things that are necessary, and large numbers of their population have shifted further west; but it does not make any difference where they started in the elementary schools or where they got their secondary school education or their university education, when they come into this house or into the civil service at Ottawa one group measures up just about as well as another.
For that reason I say there is no use discussing this question from the point of view of making us all alike. If we were all alike perhaps we would not agree as much as we do now. As a matter of fact we agree only because we understand the situation in the area of the country from which we come. We realize that because we have some difficulties there, other people will have difficulties in their areas, although they may be different from ours. But the men who have been trained in the secondary schools and the universities of the different areas are able to represent their point of view and what the difficulties are in their areas just about as well in one section as in another.
I say that for this reason. I agree with what the leader of the opposition said, namely, that the proper place to discuss this question and bring it to a finality as a matter of decision is at the September meeting. I do not see any reason why there

should be any great change in the method by which an additional amount of money is handed on to the provinces to be expended. If they are to have control over the expenditure of that money they will surely use a sufficient portion of it to take care of education. Therefore I think that is the time to consider the whole question.
On the matter as to whether or not it is going to interfere with the constitutional relationship between the provinces and the dominion, my suggestion is that we keep this as far away from that discussion as we can. I know of only one way of keeping away from a discussion and at the same time doing the thing that ought to be done, and that is, to make these grants, whatever grants we are to make, to the provinces without tying a string on them and saying: "You must spend this on education; you must spend this on something else." But say: "Here is the money. You know your problems; you understand what ought to be done." When we are speaking from time to time in this house we may say that one province is not spending enough on education, but they will probably tell us that it is none of our business, and they will go right on spending the money as they think it ought to be spent.
If we are to keep our people agreeing with one another across the country and cooperating in doing the things that ought to be done, we had better leave that question pretty well where it is. Since that is the question that the mover of the resolution says we are really dealing with, namely, a discussion of the question as to whether we are going to provide a grant earmarked for education, and thus introduce a discussion every session of the expenditures- whether or not they are being properly spent in order to do this or to do that-I say we had better leave that alone. If we are to pay an extra amount of money let us pay it in a general grant as always and say to the provinces: "Go ahead as usual and spend it." I am going to oppose the resolution.



FLOOD CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
citizen" of may 22
Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: On a matter of privilege affecting not only myself but every hon. member in this House of Commons may I say, Mr. Speaker, that in this afternoon's Evening Citizen there is an article headed: "Death grip relaxed in Red river valley." I have just returned personally from Winnipeg this morning. This article points out:

One Winnipeg reporter asked Mr. St. Laurent what the "little man" could expect-the man who had lost everything-in way of relief from the federal government.
The Irish temper of the 68-year-old Prime Minister seemed to spark. He replied sharply: "Directly? Nothing."
Now, there is a lengthy article-


James Garfield Gardiner: Read it all. He did not say "nothing".


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Why not wait until he is here?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not see how this is a question of privilege to be raised at this time.


James Arthur Ross: If you will allow me to read two or three lines further on-I will read it all if I am permitted to.
Mr Speaker: There was no question of privilege.


James Garfield Gardiner: On a question of privilege, as long as my hon. friend does not stop where he stopped-I read the article in the paper this morning-


James Arthur Ross: Not this article.


James Garfield Gardiner: The paper said that the Prime Minister stated that they would not be paying the money to the small man or to the big man, but any money that they were paying would be paid to the provincial government, and the provincial government would deal with others through the municipalities. That is what he said.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think this is the time to debate this question. If the house wants to hear-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Wait until the Prime Minister is here.


James Arthur Ross: It turns out that the Manitoba relief fund is being terribly handicapped by it.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot allow it to be brought up at this time.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Did you see the article in the Citizen?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


George Alexander Drew: In view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture is apparently acting as leader of the government today and has made those comments, may I submit to you, sir, that there is a question of privilege affecting every hon. member. I think every hon. member here had the right to believe, as a result of statements that were made, that certain provisions were being made to meet the situation, and as the report in this 55946-172
Manitoba Flood
afternoon's paper seems to contradict that, every hon. member has a right to know what the policy of the government really is.


Alphonse Fournier: Why not wait until the Prime Minister is here to bring it up?


Mr. Lennard:: When will he be here? That is the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently there is an article in a newspaper which has quoted the Prime Minister as making certain statements. The Minister of Agriculture has said that it is not a complete statement. In any event I do not think this is the time to state this matter.


William Earl Rowe: May I submit that the house is not familiar with the issue. Hon. members will not know whether it is a question of privilege until the article is read.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is not the time to raise a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not accepting the statement which has been read as a question of privilege.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Knight:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration means of expanding and equalizing educational opportunity across Canada by the granting of financial assistance to the various provinces for that purpose.
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) leading the government today has made it clear that he is opposed to the resolution. I presume that is a summons to all members supporting the government to rally against federal aid to education.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He said just the opposite.


Donald Methuen Fleming: By the time the right hon. gentleman had finished I had to read the resolution again and recall some of the speeches made this afternoon, because it seemed to me that the resolution itself had been changed beyond all recognition, and that after the description given them by the right hon. gentleman some of the speeches made this afternoon were scarcely capable of recognition.
However, I go by the terms of the resolution-and they are perfectly clear-and also by statements made by hon. members participating in the debate, and not upon the secondhand rehashing of them by the Minister of Agriculture to suit his own purposes in the debate.

Education
This is not a new resolution. It was before the house on October 19, at the last session, and appeared in identically the same form as we have it today. It is unfortunate that at that time little opportunity was given for debate. It came on a Wednesday afternoon, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) himself rising at about ten minutes to six and speaking briefly. The matter was not permitted to come to a vote, nor was it permitted to come before the house again at that session.
For my part I welcome the opportunity afforded the house today to pursue debate on this important subject, and I am very happy indeed to hear the Minister of Agriculture, speaking for the government, claim that he hopes to see this resolution brought to a vote today. I cannot think of anything that would be a more healthy occurrence in respect of this resolution than that it should come to a vote. And because I want to do all I can toward contributing to bring this question to a vote today, I shall be brief in my contribution to the debate.
The situation has changed only in two respects since the resolution was last debated on October 19. First, there has been evident in all parts of Canada a greater measure of support for the idea inherent in the resolution than had been apparent even up until that time. The second fact is that, if the deliberations of the Massey commission have any relevance, then presumably we are six or seven months closer to receiving the report from that commission than we were when the house debated this resolution last October. I am not suggesting that the fact that the Massey commission is sitting is a circumstance relevant to the debate at all. I mention this only because the Prime Minister in his brief contribution to the debate on October 19 cited that as a reason why apparently he did not wish to see the subject brought to a vote at that time.
I followed the Minister of Agriculture today with no little interest, and I shall attempt now to do that which he sought to do with reference to speeches preceding his speech in the debate, whfen he proceeded to state the substance of those speeches. The substance of the speech of the Minister of Agriculture, it seems to me was this, that what is being done now by the federal government and what is being done by provincial administrations in support of education is in all respects good and in all respects sufficient, and that therefore there is no occasion for any change in the present arrangement. With that statement I am in complete disagreement.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is your statement, not mine.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The situation is not satisfactory at the present time. It is a misleading kind of artifice in a debate, and a resort to adroit strategem by the right hon. gentleman when he says, "Now, here are the products of the educational system of one place, and here are the products of the educational system of another place; they are just about equal when they get down here." Well, it is a very different thing to compare the qualifications of the graduates of various universities from comparing what is really a proper matter for comparison in this debate, namely the educational opportunities for young Canadians across Canada, from coast to coast.
If ever there was a fine example of drawing a red herring across the trail, then certainly the Minister of Agriculture today has drawn the biggest red herring across any trail that has been seen in this House of Commons for a long time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And that's saying something, too!


James Garfield Gardiner: You are turning Tory, again.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister was referring to the hon. member sitting to the left of the hon. member who has the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I can still tell a red herring when I see one; and that one really smells.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When anybody sees the light, the Minister of Agriculture should have no objection to people coming out of darkness into light.
The minister sought to suggest that there was some veiled assault upon the autonomy of the provinces in this resolution. What could possibly be more absurd! Everyone who has spoken in the debate this afternoon has prefaced his remarks with the clearest intention to maintain the exclusive legislative jurisdiction in the provinces in respect of the field of education and the institutions connected therewith. No member of the house has proposed directly or indirectly, by statement or by inference, that there is any thought whatever in the resolution of subtracting one iota from the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the provinces as it is set out in section 93 of the British North America Act.
Certainly it was not a situation calling for the kind of comment that fell from the lips of the Minister of Agriculture. Apparently when he has a weak case the minister, in attempting to buttress that case, comes along with the suggestion-he does not come right out and say so-that somebody is doing something or proposing something in the debate which is in fact the very antithesis of what they have said their intentions were.

Education
Let there be no red herrings from the Minister of Agriculture or any other member of the government on this issue. There is nothing in the resolution that in the slightest degree tampers with the legislative and administrative autonomy of the provinces in relation to education. Jurisdiction in respect of that subject was placed in the provinces by the British North America Act. There it remains, and there it will continue to remain, even if this resolution is accepted today in the House of Commons-as I hope it will be. No one can seriously suggest that there is the slightest intimation in the resolution of any attempt to dictate to the provinces in matters falling within their legislative jurisdiction.
The Minister of Agriculture introduced one further proposal when he said, "This is not the time or the place for a discussion of the question of federal aid to the provinces in matters of education. Reference has been made to the fact that there will be a dominion-provincial conference this fall. That is the place and that is the time to discuss this matter".
Well, that is a new one, coming from the government benches. We did not hear that from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) who is taking such an animated interest in this debate this afternoon. It will be remembered that there was quite a debate earlier this session on a resolution introduced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to deal with the subject of old age pensions and the setting up of a committee. Mention was made of the fact that that was a subject that might well come before the dominion-provincial conference this fall, but that was not treated by the Minister of National Health and Welfare as a reason why that subject should not be discussed in parliament or in a parliamentary committee. On the contrary, the minister seemed to give considerable encouragement to the idea of the discussion of that subject in a parliamentary committee, if I correctly understood him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You correctly understood me, but there is no point in what you are now saying.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If there was a point in it the Minister of National Health and Welfare still would not see it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not as intelligent as the hon. member; that is clear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I extend to the minister my condolences. Here we have these two apostles of an outworn political philosophy sitting side by side at the moment and looking reasonably friendly. But in their expositions of the content of that outworn political 55946-1721
philosophy they seem to arrive at precisely opposite conclusions on similar propositions of fact. Here is the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), if you please, who says that parliament is not the place and that this is not the time to discuss the subject of federal aid to education.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that at all. Discuss it all you like. I told you how I was going to vote.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sorry if I misunderstood the right hon. gentleman. As I understand it now, he, speaking for the government and that vast phalanx over there, says he is going to vote against it and therefore there is no use parliament going on to discuss it. That is a new idea of the autocratic and totalitarian philosophy of the government opposite. Either the Minister of Agriculture is completely at variance with the Minister of National Health and Welfare and with common sense, or he has expounded and in fact is' asking the house to subscribe to the simple authoritarian proposition that when the Acting Prime Minister or the leading member of the government of the day says that he is going to vote against a particular resolution then parliament ceases to be the place to discuss that question. Not being able to follow these authoritarian minds in their various processes I still believe that, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister of Agriculture considers that he has doomed this resolution to the limbo of defeated resolutions, this parliament still is the place and this is the time to discuss this matter because it is a matter of great importance to people in all parts of Canada.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare said that there should be an expression of opinion on the part of parliament on a subject in which he was interested and which certainly is bound to come before the dominion-provincial conference, but the Minister of Agriculture by way of contrast says that because he has spoken on this subject he has sounded the death knell of the resolution, and because this matter is coming before the dominion-provincial conference then this is not the place and this is not -the time to discuss the subject. The Minister of Agriculture can have his authoritarian and totalitarian philosophy all to himself and let him get what comfort he can out of it before the democratic-minded people of this country catch up with him.
What is at issue in this debate? The aim of the resolution is the equalization of opportunity for all young Canadians across Canada as far as education can do it. It will profit the Minister of Agriculture very little to deny that that is inherent in this resolution.

Education
If he does I can quote him an interpretation of a resolution in identical terms by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) who spoke on October 19, 1949, as reported on page 946 of Hansard. At that time the Prime Minister said:
I am sure all hon. members have welcomed' this opportunity of focusing their attention upon this assertion, one which certainly appeals to each and every one of us, that there should be across Canada the greatest possible degree of equality of opportunity for the education of our young Canadians, the Canadians of the next generation.
The Prime Minister recognized what was inherent in that resolution. The Prime Minister saw quite clearly that which the Minister of Agriculture has so effectively sought to becloud. What is proposed here and what is the whole purpose and intent of this resolution is to achieve for young Canadians right across Canada equality of opportunity as far as education can equalize opportunity. Let us be quite candid and realize that equality of educational opportunity cannot achieve complete equality of opportunity for young Canadians. I suppose in only a theoretical sense will it ever be possible to have complete equality of opportunity in a world inhabited by humans, but educational opportunity, if it adheres to the principle of equalization, will do much to afford to young Canadians, regardless of the means of their parents and of the section of the country in which they happen to be born and raised, equality of opportunity with other young Canadians.
It is not simply a matter of equalizing opportunity as between the provinces, although that is involved in this resolution as far as it can go. But it does involve the seeking by proper and constitutional means to effect as between individuals that equalization of opportunity so far as it can be brought about by educational opportunity. Apparently the Minister of Agriculture is entirely satisfied. He looks around at the persons coming from the different provinces-he is careful to select those who have had the benefit of higher education-and he says, "All is well". I am sure the minister must have had experiences similar to those I have had, but I think he has forgotten about them.
He and I were born in places about ten miles apart. While I did not have much of my formal education in the county in which the minister and I were born, nevertheless he got quite a bit of his education there. Let us agree that he has made good use of it. When he was growing up he must have seen many youths, as I have seen in my shorter span, who by reason of lack of means on the part of their parents were denied the opportunity of higher education. They were denied not just

university education, but in many cases even high school education. Many of those youths I knew might have made just as good use of that educational opportunity as I did, or perhaps even better.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You did very well with yours.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Thank you. I tried to take advantage of what educational opportunity was afforded to me, but I should like to see every young Canadian given the same educational opportunity that I was. It was not done without considerable sacrifice on the part of my parents, and I want to make it perfectly clear that there will always be a place for young Canadians to make sacrifices in order to attain the advantages of education. But much can be done that has not been done to afford educational opportunity to young Canadians who are being deprived of such opportunity today, an opportunity of which they could make the most excellent use but an opportunity which they are denied by reason of lack of means on the part of their parents.
This problem has gone far beyond the means of local governments. There has been no little improvement in the scale of salaries paid to schoolteachers in recent years but much of it has been due to the greater assistance afforded by provincial governments. Many provincial governments are today in the position where they cannot go much further in affording assistance in the field of education. That is the reason why aid is required on a constitutional basis from the federal government to assist in providing educational opportunities.
We have made great strides in the field of education in Canada. There is no need for envy when comparing the educational systems existing in the provinces of Canada today with those in other parts of the world. Canada can boast of having given to the world men who are leaders in the field of education, and who can hold their places with teachers and educationists from any other country in the world. There are great benefits to be derived from education. We have good systems in Canada. It is necessary though that aid be given to extend the benefits of those systems to those who are not in a position today to take full advantage of the educational opportunities that our provincial systems are intended to afford.
I wish to express my profound regret that the acting leader of the government, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), has seen fit to expound so reactionary a point of view as he did this afternoon. In effect he says:

"Everything is all right. Don't do anything. Don't even discuss the problem because I, Sir Oracle, have pronounced upon it."


Mr. MacDougall:: Oh, have a heart.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is precisely the tone of his speech this afternoon.


George James McIlraith: No, no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is precisely the tone of his speech this afternoon. I gave the Minister of Agriculture the benefit of the doubt. When he said this afternoon that this was not the time and the place I interpreted that as meaning that he felt that this occasion was premature because the matter would be coming before the dominion-provincial conference. He enlightened me, however, on the proper interpretation. He said the reason he had said that was that he had spoken this afternoon. As he has undertaken, so far as he can, to doom the resolution to defeat, it is quite apparent that that was the reason he spoke as he did. I said and I repeat that the Minister of Agriculture meant, "I, Sir Oracle, have spoken, and that is the end of the matter."
Many educationists in this country, and many young Canadians will suffer today and in days to come for what the government has undertaken to say this afternoon through the Minister of Agriculture if government members opposite follow the reactionary lead given to them by the minister. Few more deplorable statements have fallen from the lips of ministers of the government in the house than that which fell from the lips of the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, we were discussing the following resolution:
That in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration means of expanding and equalizing educational opportunity across Canada, by the granting of financial assistance to the various provinces for that purpose.
I doubt whether anyone in this house can speak with authority on whether or not education, from the eastern boundary of our country to the far west, needs financial assistance. It is because of that fact that I do not intend to speak on the educational facilities throughout Canada. I do know something about the local situation in British Columbia, having served on a school board there as late as June, 1949. Because I know of the conditions that prevailed at that time in my own riding, I intend to speak of that situation.
Education
During the latter part of 1949 and the early part of 1950, about 70 families per week entered the constituency of Burnaby-Richmond. This meant that approximately 135 children came into the riding every week of the year. With 30 to 35 children in every classroom, this meant that between 4 and 5 classrooms per week were filled. I know what financial stress that put on the riding, and because of that I am going to attempt to link up the financial situation in Burnaby-Richmond with federal aid for education.
Over a long period of time, and. by process of bylaw, we were able to build some schools. In fact, the riding now has about a dozen more, but the result of that put my riding into the hands of the receivers. For some years the constituency was handled by one man until those debts were paid up. Today, through the grace of a good provincial government, we are able to run our own affairs, because that government is putting approximately $35 million per year into education. I believe that is more than the total amount the province of British Columbia should pay to educate our children. Our position on the west coast is perhaps a little different from that of other provinces, because of the increased migration into British Columbia from the prairies and Ontario. In the end, people realize that British Columbia is the ultimate so far as living in Canada is concerned.
During the next five or six years our schools will be overtaxed no matter how we try to keep up with construction. In educational circles it is felt that 30 pupils per classroom is about the number any teacher can possibly handle. In Burnaby-Richmond the average is something like 45 per classroom; at least that is what it was when I left. It has reached the point where no province or municipality can contribute further towards education. When we loaded the elementary schools there was a blank space at the top end. We loaded our high schools with pupils who should never have been there in the first place. Many of the teen-agers going through elementary and junior high schools should never be there, because almost 50 per cent of them do not intend to attend a university. Many of them will not have the financial means to do so. It has been found that most of those pupils should go to vocational schools; that is their proper future. The other 50 per cent-I think that figure is exaggerated-should have the opportunity of ascertaining whether they can get the required marks that will enable them to go to university. Of the 50 per cent who should go to high school, perhaps 10 per cent have parents who can

Education
afford to send them to university. What about the other 40 per cent? I think this is where federal aid for education comes into the picture. This 40 per cent of our young men and women attending high school have parents who are not financially able to send them to university. I believe it should be the ambition of the federal government to inaugurate a series of scholarships that would allow our teen-agers to go to university, should their marks come up to the required standards. I am going to support this resolution, because I believe it is aimed at assisting these teen-agers who are attending our high schools.
Many of the speeches this afternoon have gone far beyond the point the member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) intended when he introduced the resolution. I intend to support the resolution because I know that, from the practical standpoint, these young men and women in our high schools who deserve to get a university education are not getting it, because provincial and municipal finances will not allow further aid to education. This afternoon it was said that a lawyer from New Brunswick is just as good as a lawyer from British Columbia, and that a schoolteacher from Nova Scotia is just as good as a schoolteacher from Alberta. I do not see the point of such a statement. I do not think that is what the member for Saskatoon meant when he spoke of equalization of educational opportunity across Canada. I believe he meant an equal opportunity for education for everyone who desires it. Because I believe that, I still want to refer back to these young men and women who are attending high school. When hon. members are speaking tonight, or when they are voting, I wish they would remember that their vote will either help these young people or allow them to remain in high school until grade XIII, at which time they will go out into the world with nothing more than senior matriculation, and that does not mean very much in this day of specialization.
I want to put the cost of education in British Columbia on the record, Mr. Speaker. Within the last few days the provincial minister of education gave me the figures, and for the school year 1946-47 the cost was $20,100,000. In 1947-48 it rose to $25,750,000; in 1948-49, it was $35,500,000. The provincial share of those total costs was as follows: 1946-47, $9,500,000; 1947-48, $12,500,000; and in 1948-49, over $17 million, which is approximately 15 per cent of the total budget.
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that no province can stand that strain on its financial resources without some help from the federal government. I believe too that without that federal

help the municipality of Burnaby will again be in danger of going into receivership in the near future. Although we have a good municipal administration in that district, with the strain of the cost of education on Burnaby-Richmond at this time, I do not think it is humanly possible for the council to bring to fruition the educational ambitions of our people. I intend to support this resolution.


Joseph William Noseworthy: When the history of this century comes to be written, Mr. Speaker, the one theme that will run through the story of the first half of it, and possibly through a large part of the second half, will be the struggle of the democratic world against dictatorship. History will record how, in the first half of this century, the democratic countries fought two world wars to preserve their way of life, to preserve democracy from being overthrown by dictators. It will record how at the present time, in these years, democratic countries including our own are spending up to half of their government revenue in order to maintain their defences against dictatorship. When that history comes to be written it will show that the one great ally on the side of democracy, the one ally that will in the long run help to preserve democracy, is education. Writing on the subject of education, Horace Mann, who is known through the world as one of our greatest and most progressive educationists, has this to say:
If ever there was a cause worthy to be upheld by all of toil and sacrifice that the human hand or heart can endure, it is the cause of education. It holds the welfare of mankind in its embrace as the protecting arms of a mother hold her infant to her bosom. The very ignorance and selfishness which obstruct its path are the strongest arguments for its promotion, for it furnishes the only adequate means for their removal.
Those of us who believe in democracy and are concerned to see our way of life eventually succeed over dictatorships cannot but be concerned about the whole question of the education of our citizens. In the modern world, dictatorships today rely on terror methods, on a controlled press, on the denial of information to the people, and on the subordination of the thoughts and actions of the masses to the purposes of ruling cliques or individual despots. On the other hand, democracy rests on the emancipation of the human spirit, on individual freedom, on education for private living and for social participation. The character of our citizenship is determined to a great extent by the nature of the education which those citizens receive.
As has been said already in this debate, while education in and of itself does not make good citizens, nevertheless outside the home and the church there is no greater

agency in this country for helping to build citizens than that of our schools. The character of Canadian citizenship is, apart from the home and the church, basically fashioned in the schools of the nation. When we speak of citizenship being fashioned in the schools of the nation, we think first in terms of the elementary school; second, in terms of our secondary or high schools; and only third, in terms of our centres of higher education or universities. The elementary school is basic; it is the first and most important of all. One reason for that is that there are still many thousands of our children who never get beyond the upper grades of the elementary school or who at best never get beyond the lower grades of the high or secondary schools. The elementary school is the one centre that our children who attend school at all have an opportunity of attending. In the second place, it is in the elementary school that the children are passing through their formative years. It is then and there that the foundation of socially approved attitudes and of good citizenship are firmly laid, if they are to be firmly laid at all.
It is because of the importance of education in a democratic country, because of its importance to the very survival of democracy in today's world, that education down to the level of the elementary school must become the concern of our federal parliament. No federal parliament that has any understanding or appreciation of the vital importance of education to the survival of our way of life can afford to let any question either of jurisdiction or of economy stand in their way in this vital matter.
Since the foundations of good citizenship are to be laid in our elementary schools and reinforced in our secondary or high schools and our universities, every province in Canada must be financially capable of providing teachers of high personal qualifications and extensive training. To the men and women who are to do this job which is so fundamentally vital they must be in a position to offer remuneration in line with that which is offered by commercial and industrial concerns. It is far more important to the wellbeing of this nation that we have capable and adequately-trained personnel in the classrooms of our schools than in our offices and factories. It is a national calamity that only second-rate and partially-trained personnel, paid third-rate salaries, is often all that can be secured to staff these classrooms in which such a vitally important job is to be done.
Education
It is a national tragedy that that should be the situation in so far as our schools are concerned, whilst industry and commerce, where visible monetary profits prevail, can outbid school authorities at every level in securing at much more remunerative rates the best trained and most capable personnel. And even more deplorable than this is the fact that nowhere in Canada can educational authorities compete with industry and commerce in remunerating their personnel. More deplorable than that is the fact that such educational opportunities as are being offered to the children of this country vary, as has already been said, very widely from one municipality to another and from one province to another.
The disparities in ability of individual provinces to supply and equip suitable buildings, to train and pay suitable teachers, to provide suitable programs of diversified education are all too well known, too widely recognized to require elaboration. By and large in this country today the educational opportunities afforded to children of any province can be measured in the amount of money per pupil spent by that province on education. There are other factors, but as a rule the best measure we have today of the quality of education that our children are getting in the various provinces is the amount of money that these provinces are paying per pupil. What is also true is that expenditure in the Canadian provinces varies very directly with the individual or personal income of the people of that province. I will give figures for 1946, the last year for which I have them. In 1946 Prince Edward Island had an average personal income, based on the school population, of $3,000. In that year that same province, which had the lowest personal income per pupil of any province of Canada, also spent the least money per pupil on her schools. In that year she spent $45 per pupil on education. In the same year British Columbia spent $115 per pupil as against Prince Edward Island's $45, nearly three times as much. Notwithstanding the fact that Prince Edward Island spent only $45 and British Columbia spent $115, both provinces made practically the same effort on the basis of that income.
British Columbia spent on education $1 out of every $63 of personal income received. Prince Edward Island spent $1 out of every $68. Here were two provinces each putting forth practically the same effort, paying the same percentage of their income on education, one province able to provide $45 per pupil, the other with no more effort on their part able to pay $115 per pupil.

Education
In the same year, making another comparison, New Brunswick spent $1 out of $53 personal income, and Ontario spent $1 out of every $55. In that year and on that basis Ontario was able to pay $116 per year per pupil on education; while New Brunswick, making the same comparative effort, was able to pay only $60 per year per pupil. To give a still further illustration in the same year, Saskatchewan paid $1 out of every $34 personal income on education; Alberta $1 out of every $36. Their sacrifices or their efforts based on the personal income of their citizens were almost the same, yet these provinces were paying slightly less than either Ontario or British Columbia who were paying $1 out of every $55 and every $63. Here were two provinces paying $1 of their personal income out of every $34 and $36 and yet they were not able to spend on education on that basis as much as Ontario and British Columbia were spending, who were spending only $1 out of $55 and $63.
If as a nation we in Canada are to pay anything more than lip service to the democratic principle that is involved in the term "equality of educational opportunity", then we must find some means whereby educational facilities in the smaller and poorer provinces can be raised to a level that is suitable to the whole of Canada.
It is not necessary that the education should be uniform. No one who believes in federal aid for education has ever suggested that we should have a uniform system of education across Canada. All we have been maintaining for twenty years is that from federal resources there must come the means whereby those poorer and smaller provinces at least can bring their educational standards up to that which will be suitable for all of Canada.
Federal aid to education as implied in this resolution is the only means I know of whereby that thing can be achieved. This is important. The kind of education that boys and girls in one province get is of interest to every other province in Canada. The mobility of our people in Canada, where one out of every three moves from the province in which he is educated into some other province and becomes a citizen of that province, makes it essential that the nation as a whole should assume some responsibility for seeing that an adequate standard of education is maintained in all our provinces.
On this point the Rowell-Sirois report has this statement to make:
The most economically distressed areas are the ones least capable of supporting these educational services, and yet are also the ones in which the needs are likely to be greatest. Not only national duty and decency, if Canada is to become a nation

at all. but equity and national self-interest demand that the residents of those areas be given average services and equal opportunities.
In the modern age contact and intermingling of the population between favoured and unfavoured regions is bound to occur. The more fortunate areas cannot escape the pressure on their standards and the effect on their people; in this case prevention, in both fiscal and human terms, is much cheaper than the cure.
I believe I should pause here to say that the teachers federation, home and school clubs, trustees associations from all across the country, and numerous other organizations, have for many years been pressing for government aid to education at the elementary as well as at the secondary and university levels. The government's reluctance, as indicated this afternoon by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), to support elementary and secondary schools is usually ascribed to the alleged limitations imposed by section 93 of the British North America Act. That section states that in and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education. Those of us who support federal aid at the elementary and secondary school levels feel that there is no conflict whatever with that clause, which gives the provincial legislatures the exclusive right to make laws in relation to education. There is no conflict in the federal government giving financial support.
It is quite clear from the act that its intention was to place the administration of education under provincial jurisdiction. Most authorities on constitutional law and on education are agreed that financial assistance can be given in such a way that it need in no way whatever encroach upon provincial administration or provincial rights. The report of the Alberta royal commission on taxation in 1948 supports this position, because at page 65 of that report we read this:
There are nine provinces in Canada, each with an educational standard which is within its ability to support. Some no doubt can establish a minimum standard of education beyond the reach of less favoured provinces. The most economically distressed areas are the ones least capable of supporting education and yet they are the ones in which the needs may be greatest. It appears to the commission that there is a place for interprovincial equalization of educational opportunity. This would mean the creation by the dominion government of an interprovincial equalization fund to be distributed among the provinces according to need for the purpose of providing equal educational opportunity to all the children of all the people of all the provinces.
Then the royal commission goes on to say:
The commission if of the opinion that there is no legal hindrance to the dominion in establishing such a fund and further the commission believes that no infringement of the rights of the province need take place in the administration of such fund.

The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) appears to be of the same opinion- at least he was of that opinion in 1945, when he took part in a public debate in Montreal, held under the auspices of an educational association. On that occasion he was reported as having said:
But the constitution does not prevent the federal government from giving substantial assistance to education. Direct assistance might be given in different ways.
I do not know whether he has changed his point of view on that matter since or not. In the brief submitted by the government of Saskatchewan to the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences, they go much further and say:
It is submitted that even if the British North America Act were inconsistent with federal financial participation in general education, the federal government should, in, the interest of the national welfare, find means of making such participation possible.
The federal government has given valued assistance in many special aspects of education. In a speech in this house on November 5 of last year I reviewed the entire field and pointed out the extent to which the different departments of government and the various government agencies were already contributing to many specialized phases of education. For instance, the government is helping finance health education across the country. The government is helping finance physical fitness education. It is helping to provide scholarships at the university level. Health education and physical fitness education are subjects which are taught in the elementary schools of this country. Many of the scholarships given by the federal government are given to pupils who are pursuing arts courses in our universities. These arts courses do not specifically qualify students for particular professions such as medicine, law or engineering. In these courses the students receive	a general	education,	andthey are assisted in that by the federal government. As a matter of actual fact the federal government is today in the field of education at the elementary and secondary as well as at university levels. Regardless of any limitation which may be placed upon the government	by	reason	of the BritishNorth America	Act, this government	hasalready entered	that	field.
There appears to be no constitutional barrier to prevent the same government from bearing a share of the financial responsibility for general elementary and secondary school education. In either of those fields the government can give much more effective help to future citizens of this country.
Education
I submit that financial assistance to general elementary and secondary school education would not only be more effective but would be much more democratic than the aid being given in specialized fields by the present government, and on the dollar-matching basis. The dollar matching basis on which money grants for specialized educational services are given today is predicated on the proposition that to him who hath shall be given. It is most helpful to the wealthiest provinces while the provinces in most direct need of assistance find it difficult to match the federal grant dollar for dollar. In many instances the less fortunate provinces cannot take full advantage of these grants and at the same time maintain a maximum effort in the field of general education. There is always the danger that in attempting to avail themselves of federal money they may jeopardize the welfare of children in the field of general education.
When the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) suggests that the only way in which the federal government can assist education is by making grants to the provinces to do with as they please he is just not being realistic. That is not the way in which this government is making and has in the past made grants in aid of education and in aid of many other services. The money given to the provinces for health services and hospitalization is not given to be spent as they please; that money is given to the provinces for a specific purpose, to be spent for a specific purpose. The money given to the provinces by this government as a contribution toward old age pensions is not given to be spent as the provinces please; that money is given with a string on it, and that string is that the money shall be spent for old age pensions.
The money that is given in the form of grants to technical schools and which has been of great importance across the country is not given to the provinces to do with as they please. These grants are given with a string attached, that the money must be used for specific purposes. When the Minister of Agriculture suggests that we are introducing a new principle, that there is to be a changed procedure, he is not being realistic, nor is he facing up to the situation that actually exists in connection with grants made to the provinces for these various purposes.
I suggest, as have other speakers, that this house should adopt this resolution as a starting point before the dominion-provincial conference meets in the fall. Educational authorities, both provincial and municipal, have asked that this subject be placed on
2724

Education
the agenda of that conference. I suggest that we adopt the resolution, which is that the government be prepared to give consideration to this whole question, the details to be worked out at the dominion-provincial conference.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take only a minute or two, not because this subject is not important but because I am anxious to have the motion come to a vote. I hope the resolution will be passed tonight. I think the inequality of educational opportunity which exists in Canada is admitted by practically everyone. A great deal has been said today about inequality which exists as between provinces, and I shall say no more in regard to that, but in my opinion even greater inequality exists as between the urban and rural areas.
I think the provinces could do more than they have done to remove that type of inequality. It costs a considerable amount of money and a good deal of progress has been made in providing more opportunity for children in rural areas, particularly in the newer areas located long distances from towns and where the children are under serious disadvantage. We should do our utmost to remove that type of disadvantage.
Of course the attainment of complete equality of educational opportunity is just not possible. However, the ideal of complete equality of opportunity is one that we should always keep before us and constantly work toward. The desirability of some equalization of opportunity is almost universally admitted, although this afternoon the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) seemed to have some doubts about it. He appeared to try to give the house the impression that the people who were supporting this resolution, the people who were working toward federal aid for education wished to have the federal government control the curricula in the different provinces and make all of us alike. There is no thought of trying to make people in one part of Canada a carbon copy of the people in another part. The giving of federal grants to the provinces to help them with their educational problems need not and I do not think will work toward that end.
Let me give an example. The same amount of money might be spent on obtaining an education in a higher institution of learning but yet turn out totally different products. One man might want to specialize in history and spend live, six or more years attending university and taking post-graduate courses. Another man might go in for moral philosophy. Those two men get totally different kinds of education and it would be a brave man indeed who would say that the one was better educated than the other. You fMr. Noseworthy.]
can have the same sort of thing on the provincial level where one province has a different curriculum from another, yet excellent results are produced in each province.
At the present time the main burden of providing for junior and secondary education falls on the property owner in the city or country. That burden has become constantly greater and has now reached the point where in a large number of municipalities it is not going to be possible to increase it very much. Some of the provinces have given a certain amount of help but the provinces have limited sources of revenue and in some cases, probably, not a great deal more help can be given.
Under those circumstances the only means by which a further equalization of educational opportunity can be accomplished is by federal grants to the provinces for that purpose. In my opinion there are three ways in which the federal government could aid in connection with the whole question of education. The first is by means of direct grants which the provinces could use to improve their educational set-ups. The second, which has been mentioned already, is by way of scholarships. This form of aid is being carried out to a certain extent at the present time by way of fellowships granted by the national research council. However, a great deal more could be done in that connection, particularly in the way of training nurses. Assistance in this connection could be provided by grants from the dominion government. At the present time there is a definite shortage of nurses in Canada, and from what I can learn the number of girls entering nursing schools is not nearly sufficient to meet future demands. Having in mind the national health schemes about which the Minister of National Health and Welfare has been talking, that is one way in which some direct aid can be given immediately so far as training and education are concerned.
A third way in which the dominion can help in educational matters is by dominion operated and financed schools. This is not a new idea. We have had dominion operated schools in this country for a long time. I refer to the Royal Military College at Kingston, and its counterpart on Vancouver island, Royal Roads. These dominion schools give specialized training to people who hope to enter the permanent forces of Canada as officers. In addition to military training they provide an extremely good general education. In my opinion that principle should be more widely followed. There is just as much necessity in the national interest for certain other specialized types of schools as there is for the military schools which we now have. Certain types of education and training attract a very small number of people, and there is probably need in Canada for only one

school of that type. Where that situation exists it seems to me that the proper body to operate such a school is the federal government, and it should then permit people from all parts of Canada to attend by means of scholarships.
Something has been said about the supply of teachers, and I should like to say a word on that matter. In the province of Alberta there are a considerable number of schools for which there are no teachers, and the same situation exists in other provinces. Children are taking courses by correspondence, and of course there are unqualified teachers in a large number of schools. The shortage of teachers will increase rather than diminish as long as the present scale of teachers' salaries continues. You cannot expect to attract to the teaching profession the type of men and women needed in that field when the scale of remuneration is considerably less than that of a good carpenter or bricklayer at the present time even for the higher paid members of the teaching profession, to say nothing of the lower paid members who of course receive a great deal less than a skilled workman of any kind. In order to secure for the teaching profession the type of people required and to keep them there after they have been secured, there is no doubt that teachers' salaries must be increased. The time has come when that increase can only take place through the use of federal funds to some extent in aid of education.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think that members of the house will all agree that the discussion introduced by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) has given us an opportunity to focus our attention on a matter that is of great interest in the country. I think, however, that it would be well at this time to point out that, while most of the speakers have directed themselves to the general purposes which the hon. gentleman had in mind, not all of them have directed themselves specifically to the actual terms of the resolution before the house. For that reason, it may be useful to recall to hon. members what the actual terms are. It provides:
That in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration means of expanding and equalizing educational opportunity across Canada, by the granting of financial assistance to the various provinces-
These significant words should be noted:
-for that purpose.
What do the systems of education in our ten provinces involve? They involve the teaching of our children in four categories of education, in some provinces the kinder-55946-1734
Education
garten, in all provinces the primary school, in all provinces the secondary schools, and in all provinces colleges and universities. The policies of education in those fields deal not only with curricula and salaries of teachers but with a whole series of questions which would have to be considered if any proper appraisal of the extent of the financial assistance proposed were to be taken into account.
I think it is important to bear these facts in mind. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) spoke of the assistance now being given by various departments of the federal government. I will come to that later. What I want to point out is that the kind of assistance which he has outlined is not the kind of assistance envisaged by the resolution. We are asked to provide ways and means of expanding and equalizing educational opportunity by the granting of financial assistance to the various provinces for that purpose. The grants that are made in various fields now by the federal government are not made for that particular purpose. They are made for specific purposes, and the resolution does not deal with .specific purposes. It deals with the whole question of education in its generalized form.
Apart altogether from proceeding with the consideration of this matter in an orderly way, there has been appointed, as has already been mentioned in this debate, the Massey commission. In speaking about the Massey commission the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), expressing the view of the government on February 3, 1949, stated:
We feel that survey-
He was referring to the survey to be undertaken by the Massey commission.
*-can be made most effectively by a group of Canadians who are Independent of the government. That is why we are going to set up the royal commission I mentioned earlier.
Having in mind the character of the briefs that have been placed before the Massey commission from the universities' conference, the secondary school teachers association and other bodies interested in education, of what value and significance would it be for us, covering this wide field of education, to exercise at the present time a judgment in respect of a matter which certainly has not been finalized in the judgment of the Massey commission?


Joseph William Noseworthy: That is stalling.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When my hon. friend spoke I listened to him with great attention. I know he is going to give me the same kind of attention because I propose to deal with the matter as seriously as I know how. Speaking on this question some time ago

Education
the Prime Minister said that we recognize the importance of this matter. He used these words at page 946 of Hansard of October 19, 1949:
Personally I have no doubt that it will be necessary to find some way in which these institutions can continue to be supplied with that which is necessary to them to maintain that high standard in their educational activities.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: What institutions?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The institutions of learning covered by the resolution then before the house, and which is again before the house today.
Now I mention that statement because the speech of the member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) lends itself to the interpretation that, because the Minister of Agriculture speaking for the government today had indicated what we thought should be the way in which the resolution should now be treated, we on this side of the house were not interested in education. Those were practically his words. Surely, that cannot be substantiated by the statement which I have just read from the Prime Minister, from the speech which was made this afternoon by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), and from what I know must be accepted as the common view of every member in this house. We look upon education as one of the fundamental requirements of our Canadian society.
In his speech this afternoon, the leader of the opposition-if he would allow me to say so, I thought it was a good one-told us he preferred to give the resolution the interpretation which he wanted; that was his right. He went on to inform the house that we are to have a dominion-provincial conference in the autumn of this year, and this matter should be considered at that time. In that connection, I looked up the words the leader of the opposition uttered when this resolution was discussed last session. Those words deserve repetition tonight. At page 942 of Hansard for October 19, 1949, he said:
For that reason I have stressed, both in this chamber and elsewhere, the urgent necessity of calling a dominion-provincial conference to consider the whole relationship between the dominion and provincial governments so the financial requirements of the provincial governments for all purposes may be fully considered and the amount required to provide adequate educational opportunities may therefore be determined with some knowledge of what is required by each province for that particular purpose.
Surely that is the underlying reason why the attitude taken by the government in this matter should be supported. There is to be a conference at which this matter may be

discussed. No hon. member tonight has suggested a particular plan for giving financial assistance to the provinces, beyond the mere general declaration that, because of the high cost of education, some financial assistance should be given.
Then, in that same debate, the leader of the opposition made this statement at page 943 of Hansard:
I can say most definitely from my own experience-
And he had experience as minister of education in the province of Ontario.
-that the fact that the attempt was made in this case to exercise control by an indirect method is an indication that, in providing for grants of this kind, there must be a definite understanding that the independence and discretion of the provincial departments of education will be retained, no matter what the amount of the grants may be.
He was referring to the grants in aid of physical fitness. This raises the important question of jurisdiction.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You will have to vote for the resolution after what you have said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That raises the important question of jurisdiction. Some hon. members say that a mere grant in aid, not given for a specific purpose, is not an interference with section 93 of the British North America Act, which assigns to the provinces exclusive competence in matters of education. Having in mind the very caution which the leader of the opposition asked us to note; knowing what was said in this house in the debate last fall when this subject was discussed; recalling the words of the premier of the province of Quebec; knowing how jealously, and properly so, the provinces regard the education field; if this resolution were passed in the form in which it is now before the house, we would create in the minds of the people in several provinces the definite judgment that matters, which at the conference last January were regarded as being included among those rights which were to be entrenched, were likely to be invaded by the central government. Under no circumstances should this parliament do anything which would give any section of our population the impression, rightly or wrongly, that we intended to adopt functions and policies that would violate one of those entrenched rights, education.


Mr. Gillis:: Entrenched is right; dug in solid.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend may take that view, but the fathers of confederation laid down the dogma, if you will, that education was a matter for the provinces. Anyone who would interfere with that, after considering the character of this federal state today,

would be doing a great disservice, not only to the cause of national unity but to the cause of education itself.
Let me give an example of the importance of this. All of our provinces have now entered into an agreement with the dominion government with respect to the National Physical Fitness Act, under which grants are made to the provinces to enable them to carry on the work of recreation, handicrafts, and so on. One province has withheld its decision about entering into such an accord. Why? On the ground that in its judgment it jeopardizes the position granted to the province by the B. N. A. Act, and even collaboration on this level is construed by them as an invasion of a field specifically given to them in the British North America Act.


An hon. Member:: Do you agree with that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not agree with that interpretation, and it is because I do not agree with that view that I have made a distinction between the grants in aid we are now making and the kind of financial assistance which is suggested in the terms of this all-embracing resolution.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Explain.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says "explain". Have I not make myself clear? This resolution as it now reads calls for financial assistance, but not for a specific purpose; it calls upon this parliament to take ways and means, without reference to the provinces, to do a perfectly laudable thing, to equalize educational opportunity in Canada. The resolution calls for just that. It does not request us to sit down with the provinces and discuss the desirability of giving them financial assistance in providing an opportunity for improved education, or to help them formulate a policy, or to discuss financial assistance in the whole field of education. Speaking personally, I am not saying that that might not, in some respects, after consultation with the provinces, be a good thing. What I am saying is that to do that merely by the present resolution would be injurious to the national unity of this country.
I know something of how jealously some provinces, and some groups within each province, look upon education as something that has a provincial character, and consequently one that must be so strong in its text as not to permit violation or intervention from a government outside of the province. It is because of that that I think a distinction must be noted between what is desired and how that desire may be realized.
Education


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister permit a question? Does the minister recall a statement made in a speech in Montreal several years ago by his colleague, the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), in which he said:
The constitution does not prevent the federal government from giving substantial assistance to education. Direct assistance might be given in different ways.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not disagree with that statement at all, but that is not what this resolution calls for.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is, precisely.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am going to deal with that. My hon. friend said there was a difference between the attitude taken by the Minister of Agriculture in this matter, and the attitude I took with regard to another matter now before a committee of this house. Surely, that is not an analogy at all. The matter which is before the other committee is one over which this parliament not only has the right to exercise jurisdiction, but actually does exercise jurisdiction in co-operation with the provinces. The terms of the resolution as it is now before the house do not call for specific grants within the meaning of the definition given by the Minister of National Defence in the speech he made in Montreal.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: What would happen to this resolution if I had made a specific recommendation for the expenditure of money for federal aid?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Answer that one.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps before I am through I might suggest to my hon. friend that the resolution, if it had been couched in different language, might have provoked a different reaction. My hon. friend laughs, but that is what I honestly believe to be the case.


An hon. Member:: Not from you.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is not anyone in this house who does not want to see the children of this country given the best of educational opportunity. There is no one in this country or in this house who does not want our children to receive, regardless of his or her financial status, the best education possible. In that connection, in spite of the limitations of our educational systems in this country, I think we have every reason for being proud of our achievements. The work that is carried on by the primary schools, by the secondary schools and by our colleges and universities deserves the commendation of every member of this house, as it is freely given. One recognizes the inadequacy perhaps of the income paid to certain teachers in certain sections of the country. Those are all problems that one recognizes; and the fact that

Education
one points out that under the constitution the responsibility for adjustment of those matters resides with the provinces should not and cannot fairly be taken as being opposed to what undoubtedly the hon. member had in mind but which, in actual terms-if I may say so with respect-he has failed to state. It should not be forgotten that for specific purposes we are now doing a great many things in aid of education in one form or another. But for specific purposes nothing that has heretofore been done has been done with the purpose of formulating policy or of dealing with the basic fundamentals of education in any province, but by way of supplemental assistance for specific purposes.
This afternoon the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) spoke of the need for research and in what he said I fully concur, as I am sure every other member of the house will. The work of the national research council in varied fields is a work that assists in a supplemental way the work carried on by our higher institutions of learning in this country. The work of individual departments of government; the encouragement of research in a particular field by the Department of Resources and Development and by the Department of Agriculture; grants given in aid of technical education in this country; the student scholarships under dominion-provincial agreement carried on under the operation of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell); the training opportunities given to veterans, some 133,000 of them, to improve their college and university training as well as to give them vocational training-those are all various steps that indicate the great contribution that is made by the federal government of Canada for the purposes of supplementary education for specific purposes, and I underline the words "specific purposes", to point out that there is >a distinction between grants in aid for a specific purpose and a resolution so all-embracing as this particular one is.
Then there are the grants for social work by the Department of National Health and Welfare; the vocational training grant; the grant for physical fitness; the national research council grant for general purposes, not only for industry, not only for physics, not only for the pure sciences but for medicine and so on. These grants are indeed of a significant character. The national research council fellowships which enable hundreds of our best trained scientists to carry on their research projects in this country at our universities and colleges are a definite contribution in a supplementary way to the cause of education in this country.
I particularly have an opportunity of knowing something of the working of these grants or these fellowships under the medical divi-

sion of the national research council. Under the national health program there has been tremendous assistance-in restricted fields, admittedly, and for specific purposes-to over 2,000 individuals in the past year and a quarter. The hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) spoke a moment ago of the need of professional training for nurses. As we know, under the national health program one of the grants is for that very purpose, and under that grant a great number of individuals have received nursing training, and occupational therapy training; and a whole series of other training programs have been accorded to nurses and to persons in corollary positions under that grant. There is the grant under the national health program that is [DOT] given to assist students who are studying _ psychiatry and who are taking a psychology course such as the one that is being carried on at the university of Toronto, and McMaster university. Those are all significant grants that are being made to the cause of education.
When one thinks of the provision that is made under that program for the purchase of teaching equipment, in thousands of dollars in every one of our provinces, one cannot ignore the fact that this is an important assistance to the cause of education. The amount of money that has been given to the provinces under this program for the purchase, for instance, of motion picture machines alone in order to carry on visual education, would run into many thousands of dollars, and must all be regarded as a significant contribution for a specific purpose to the cause of education. The fact that moneys have been given to assist teachers to carry on certain of these courses is not without its significance. The grants made for research under the public health grant, under the t.b. grant, are all grants made in aid of research and extremely important research. Two years ago, on the medical side, there was not more than about $5,000, apart from the national research council grants, given by the federal government in aid of medical scientific research. Today there is almost $2 million available, through this program or through the national research program, by which medical research is carried on. In the field of cancer-an important phase of the work carried on by our medical schools, and that is part of our job of education-two and a half years ago there were three fundamental cancer projects only under way. Today there are over eighty-one as a result of this program and of the assistance given to it by the provinces. Apart from the grants that are made under the specific grants, there is the research grant in this year in the amount of $300,000 which is alio-

cated for the specific purpose of medical scientific research. All these things are not without the greatest value. Any hon. member can today go to McGill university, to the university of Montreal, to Western university or to the university of Manitoba, and he will find there that extremely important research is going on with regard to cortisone and ACTH, two of the most important drugs to appear within the last decade and a half. These are all significant contributions that are entailing tremendous expenditures on the part of the people of this country, all part of the program of assistance supplementarily given to the provinces in respect of matters of research which but for this assistance would in all probability in most instances not be carried out at all.
Then there is another important contribution made by the federal government with respect to education. I am sure the leader of the opposition will agree with me when I say-and he has had experience as minister of education-that after the introduction of family allowances in the province of Ontario, as in other provinces, the school attendance was in greater measure than at any time before in the history of this province. I have been told by the ministers of education in at least four provinces that as a result of the introduction of family allowances the statutory requirement has been lived up to to a greater extent-in one case the figure was 14 per cent higher-than before family allowances were introduced. One should not just accept these family allowances as having merely a social benefit. They have a great benefit in terms of giving the parents the opportunity of keeping their children at school until the statutory school age is reached, and that is a result of great importance.
This year we are spending over $300 million in family allowances.


John George Diefenbaker: In what province was that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the province of Prince Edward Island.


Arthur Leroy Smith: They both went to school.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That province has a very great educational achievement in spite of its small population.
The family allowance can be regarded as an assistance to education in a way that does not contravene the constitution of our country. The books, the clothing, the nutritional opportunities, all of which enable the child to continue at school, surely must be regarded by this house as a definite contribution towards buttressing the systems of education
Education
that we have in our country. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that I express what might be regarded as the reconsidered views of even the hon. gentleman who introduced this resolution when I say, in the language of the Prime Minister of this country (Mr. St. Laurent), speaking in this house on this same motion on October 19 last, as recorded at page 947 of Hansard:
I should think it would be wise not to attempt to determine with any degree of precision how the purposes can best be served until we have-
-heard from the Massey commission, and I would add, using the direction given by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), until we have had an opportunity first of sitting down and discussing these matters in detail with those jurisdictions of government which, under the constitution, have the exclusive responsibility in matters of education.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on this resolution, which I support. No fewer than five school boards in my constituency of York West have passed resolutions and written to me on this very matter. The costs and the problems of education in the densely populated and rapidly growing urban municipalities of Ontario require immediate and most urgent consideration from the federal administration.
To give the federal government some idea of their responsibilities, expressed on a cash basis, may I say that in the next few years the suburban municipalities around the city of Toronto will probably have around 10,000 new houses erected by the federal government agency of Central Mortgage and Housing alone. This depends on a number of factors which I will not go into at the moment; but that is the sort of problem and the size of the problem with which we are faced.
Let us look at what this means to the urban municipality and to the school boards. In the next four or five years 10,000 houses will be built in suburban Toronto under the auspices of the federal housing authority. That means that there will be in the neighbourhood of 20,000 children of school age who will require 400 school rooms. The cost today of an individual school room in central Ontario, or in Toronto, runs anywhere from $35,000 to $50,000, depending upon whether it is a primary school or a technical school. That will mean for the national housing project alone an expenditure of some $16 million for schools. The municipalities are in no shape financially to meet this capital cost. What will happen is simply this. You have your federal government assisted houses and you have another group of houses infinitely greater than the federal government assisted houses which in the next five or ten years will probably entail an expenditure approaching $50 million in the Toronto

Education
area alone for new schools. That is new capital for new schools.
The mayor of Toronto has said that today municipal taxation has reached the absolute bearable limit. I would say that if municipal taxation goes up you will begin to have a destruction of the value of real estate either in terms of value or in the security of tenure.
In my opinion the federal government has a direct responsibility for the results of its action in building these housing schemes. Today you cannot build houses without due recognition of the problems of servicing them. One of the most expensive problems of servicing houses is looking after the educational needs of the people who live in them. Today the cost of education is 60 per cent or 70 per cent of the total tax on real estate. If this goes higher two things will happen. First, municipal taxation will increase to a point where the ownership of real estate, home ownership itself, will become less desirable. Secondly, you will put on the municipality a burden of taxation which will seriously jeopardize its solvency. Those are the immediate problems we have to solve. It is not a problem we have to solve five years or ten years from now, but rather jone we shall have to solve this year. Every new house that is going to be built this summer creates its own school problem. Every new house that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation builds creates a school liability which, in my opinion, is the responsibility of the federal administration.
I am not going to go into arguments about the wording of the resolution. Possibly it might have been worded somewhat differently so as to make it suitable to merit my absolute and unqualified support, because I feel that the mere expenditure of money without certain safeguards or qualifying conditions is unwise.
I should like to mention one condition which I think is an important one, and that is that if the federal government is to spend money on education, and I sincerely hope they do, the government must see-if the money goes into capital in the nature of schools which, I believe, is perhaps the most pressing need-that its investment is secure. One of the conditions I would urge upon the federal government, particularly in dealing with new school sections, is to see that the community in which a school is built is properly planned. Today one of the great problems in connection with education, and the cost of it, is that it has been found that the population in the centre of our major cities, and which supported the old schools, has moved out, with the result that those schools serve a diminishing number of pupils. Indeed, we have cases in Toronto where

schools have actually been closed or put to other uses for that reason.
This is an uneconomical thing to have happen, and it can be prevented from now on by proper town planning and proper zoning. I make the point strongly to the government that all money expended in capital expenditures for schools should have attached to it the condition that such money should go only into those school sections or communities where there are adequate town plans, so that the value of the real estate, the value of the school and the type of the community will remain constant and of high value.
My other suggestion by which the government could give immediate aid to the schools in my constituency is one I have made before. Today the average householder in the Toronto metropolitan area is paying between $185 and $200 in taxation for municipal purposes. Of that amount between 60 and 70 per cent goes for education. I suggest that the government consider immediately allowing that taxation as an expenditure deductible from income for taxation purposes.
Today our municipal tax structure is increasing at an alarming rate. This is true all across Canada. What we have to do immediately is to relieve the burden of taxation on the people who today are paying for the education of our children, namely the property owners. I suggest the first thing to be done is to allow school taxes-as a matter of fact, all municipal taxation-as a deduction from income for tax purposes.
That falls into line with the principle of doing away with double taxation. I strongly suggest that the government consider that at once, and that it certainly be considered as one of the principal items to be taken up before the dominion-provincial conference. This is not an academic problem; it is not a problem that can wait for the report of the Massey commission. The commission may sit for years; we do not know. This is not something we can wait for a conference or a royal commission to decide upon. This is something that today in this very year every householder, every owner of real estate and every head of a family is finding right on his doorstep in the demand for taxation for municipal purposes.
Unless this constantly increasing cost of municipal taxation is arrested we are going to find ourselves in a position similar to that of the twenties and thirties when the value of real property was destroyed because of taxation, when municipalities became bankrupt and when the vital security of the whole of the Canadian people was jeopardized. I repeat

that this is not an academic subject; it is not a subject which can wait. This is a subject which requires immediate attention.
(Translation):


Mr. Jean Lesage (Monlmagny-L'Islel):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is hardly necessary for me to repeat what I said on numerous occasions regarding the importance of education in Canada. Nevertheless, I consider it my duty to oppose the resolution now before the house for reasons, or rather for one reason I shall state very briefly.
Let us see first of all how the resolution before the house reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the.government should take into consideration means of expanding and equalizing educational opportunity across Canada, by the granting of financial assistance to the various provinces for that purpose.
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. members of this house to note the words "for that purpose". They are very important. The motion, as it reads, provides that the federal government will grant financial assistance to the provinces for educational purposes. I wish to draw the attention of the house to the words "for that purpose" for the motion does not ascribe a particular meaning to the word "education" and I must therefore conclude it refers to education in general. Besides, it is clearly implied by the context and I need not repeat the distinctions made just a few moments ago by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin).
If such subsidies were paid to the provinces by the federal government it would be duty bound to keep a constant check on the provinces in order to make sure that payments were being used exclusively for educational purposes. One can imagine, for instance, a central government at a given time made up of men with definite ideas on the meaning of the word "education" and who would demand that the same meaning be adopted by the provincial authority. The federal government could then claim that certain sums paid to a province for educational purposes are being spent by that province for purposes which, in the minds of the members of the federal government, are other than educational. This might be a source of endless difficulties.
You have only to consider what is happening at the present time in the province of Quebec under the leadership of l'Union Na-tionale to see how far that can go. As a matter of fact, under pretence of financial assistance to school boards, the government of that province has deprived them of their administrative and educational autonomy. In my opinion, the
Education
same thing could easily happen in the federal field if financial assistance were to be granted to the provinces by the federal government for general educational purposes, or in other words, for no specific educational purposes.
As far as I am concerned, my respect for the constitution of this country is such that I can surely not agree with the principle of federal grants to the provinces for general educational purposes. Moreover, I hold no brief from my constituents in this matter.
I do regret the absence from this house of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer). I am convinced that he would agree with me on this principle, and that he would be forced to oppose the views expressed this afternoon by his leader (Mr. Drew) and by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), because the attitude taken by them today does not correspond in any way to the attitude they took during the last electoral campaign, when they claimed to be staunch supporters of provincial autonomy. They laugh because they do not understand.
(Text):
The leader of the opposition may laugh, but he who was such a ferocious defender of provincial autonomy proposed this afternoon that the federal government should enter the educational field which under section 93 is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial governments.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, since there is a Hansard record may I insist that there shall not be such a deliberate misstatement as that which has just been made. I made it perfectly clear, and in words that could not be misunderstood, that no step taken here should imply any intervention in the exclusive jurisdiction over education by the provincial governments. What the hon. member was trying to do was to place on Hansard an impression which was entirely contrary in every way to what I had said, and which he knew to be contrary.


Jean Lesage: While I was speaking in French I said that any grants for general educational purposes made to the provinces would necessarily give the federal government the right to review the expenditures, and the right to review by the federal government the expenditures by the provinces for educational purposes means that the federal government would be entering the provincial field of education.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: I
should like to remind all hon. members, and in this case particularly the leader of the

Education
opposition, that when an hon. member has the floor he must not be interrupted unless it is to put a question. The leader of the opposition did not state that he was rising on a question of privilege. If he wishes to clarify a remark that he made, of course in these cases the house is always generous although it could be done after the hon. member who has the floor finished his speech. If the leader of the opposition merely stands up the Speaker cannot know his reason for rising unless he states he wishes to ask a question or is rising on a question of privilege. It is important that the Speaker should know.


George Alexander Drew: I am rising on a question of privilege. I imagine that the hon. member who is speaking must have been out of the house when I was speaking because I find it difficult to believe that he could make the remark he has now made if he had been in the house. I pointed out clearly this afternoon that any arrangement that was made must be made in such a way that the granting of money would entail no indirect control or supervision over or intervention in the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces over education.


Jean Lesage: Before I made my statement in English I had implied while speaking in French that a vote for the resolution as worded meant approval of the fact that the federal government would be entering the provincial field of education. If I understood correctly what the leader of the opposition said this afternoon, he stated definitely that he approved of the resolution. If he approves of the resolution then he is against provincial autonomy in the field of education. I believe that is logical and sensible, although it is a matter for argument.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: On a question of privilege-


An hon. Member:: Again.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Again. I think I should join the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) in protesting the meaning the hon. gentleman gives to my resolution. I am accustomed of course to these charges of being a "cen-tralisateur".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Order. The hon. member cannot control the interpretation placed on his resolution by other hon. members. After all, hon. members are at liberty to give their own interpretation to a resolution before the house. Their interpretation may be wrong in the view of the mover of the resolution but he cannot rise on a question of privilege and protest against the interpretation given to the [The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin).]
resolution by other members. I should like to refer hon. members to citation 235 of Beau-chesne, third edition, page 101, which reads:
A member who, during a debate, has spoken to a question may again be heard to offer explanation of some material part of his speech which has been misunderstood; but he must not introduce new matter or endeavour to strengthen by new arguments, his former position which he alleges to have been misunderstood, or to reply to other members.
Therefore I should like all hon. members to respect the rules of the house, and I would ask the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage) to carry on with his speech.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I must say that I did not at any time say that the resolution would in any way take away from the jurisdiction of the provinces. The hon. member said something else when he was speaking in French.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to tell the hon. member that I understand fairly well the French that is spoken in this house.
(Text) :


Jean Lesage: Maybe I spoke in such a low voice that the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) could not hear me.
(Translation):
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has endeavoured to convince us that he could support the resolution since the federal government would not have to earmark the grants for educational purposes. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) takes refuge behind the same argument.
To justify such views either the motion would have to be redrafted, as I pointed out a moment ago, or the member for Lake Centre or the leader of the opposition would have to bring in the necessary amendment.
As I understood the member for Lake Centre this afternoon, he simply requests that the general grants provided by the federal government to the provincial governments under the constitution be increased.
I shall use the argument put forward by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) this afternoon to state that this is a matter for discussion at the federal-provincial conference to be held next fall.
In any case, if the provincial governments wish to get grants from the dominion government for educational purposes, they will certainly ask for them at the next conference, but it is up to them to mention the matter and not up to us because we have received no mandate from the Canadian people as regards education.

(Text):


John George Diefenbaker: What is the hon. member reading from at the moment?


Jean Lesage: I am following notes, as the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) often does.


John George Diefenbaker: I wondered what you were reading from.


Jean Lesage: I am not reading; I am following notes. I do not believe I can be accused of having read when I was speaking in English or that I can be accused of reading now. I took notes when the hon. member for Lake Centre spoke this afternoon, and I was referring to them.
(Translation) :
Personally, I should be amazed if the Quebec government, of whatever political hue, ever agreed to let the federal government look after education in general in the province. I am sure that the bosom friend of the leader of the opposition, the present premier of Quebec, will not be very pleased with him when he reads the speech he made this afternoon.
Had X received a provincial mandate, I would be duty bound to oppose the motion and I would never agree to let the federal government have a say in the whole matter of education in the province of Quebec.
However, ours is a federal mandate and in my opinion, educational matters are not within our jurisdiction. It was not without reason that the fathers of confederation specified in section 93 of the British North America Act that education was solely under provincial jurisdiction. That was done in order to protect the rights of minorities. Now as I belong to a minority, I should be remiss in my duty if, like others from this side of the house who are prepared to vote against the motion out of genuine regard for the Canadian constitution, I did not consider myself bound to express my unqualified opposition to a motion which would involve the loss of sacred rights upon which our very survival depends.
For that reason, I shall vote against the resolution.
(Text):


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, my main reason for rising at this time is that the resolution has been before the house and debated at considerable length on two occasions. To the best of my knowledge no member from the maritimes has taken part in the discussions. In order to disabuse the minds of members who may
Education
think that we have no educational problems in Nova Scotia, I feel it is my duty to rise and say something about the resolution. This afternoon the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) displayed some very smart footwork. I admire him for it. He stated that the government was anxious to have a vote on the resolution.


James Garfield Gardiner: Agreed.


Clarence Gillis: At the same time I notice that there are quite a few government members ready and willing to speak. I think the Minister of Agriculture was quite safe in making that assertion. I cannot understand how he can take the position that the wording of the resolution implies controls. It has been read to the house several times. It is plain and simple, and there is not a word in the resolution to suggest that, if it were passed by the house, the federal government would tell the provincial governments in any way how, when and where they should spend the money. The Minister of Agriculture rang the bell for government members in the event of a vote. He told them he was leading the house, and that in so far as he was concerned he would vote against the resolution. That means that it would be voted down. He did so on the ground that the resolution implied control. I like to be fair in these matters, and I do not think anyone reading the resolution can construe it as entering the provincial field of education.
At the same time the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) suggested that if the resolution had been introduced in some other form dealing with specific matters the chances are it might have received favourable consideration. I am sure the minister knows that if that resolution had been presented in any other form it would not have been discussed by this house. If it had been specific, and recommended that this or that should be done, that money should be spent, then it would have been considered that a private member was advocating government expenditure, and the motion would have been ruled out of order. The only form the resolution could take in order to have a discussion is the innocent form in which it is found. It merely asks the government to increase the grants to the provincial governments for the purpose of equalizing educational opportunity across the country.
I believe this afternoon the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was misleading his members with his interpretation of the resolution. Of course, he is entitled to do that, but as house leader I believe he was unfair in the attitude he took. I view this

Education
as an extremely serious matter. The teachers union of Nova Scotia has been urging the federal members to act on the matter of federal aid to education. I am going to put one of their telegrams on the record, in order to show why they think education in the maritimes cannot keep pace with the other provinces. They believe it is due to economic reasons, and I think that is correct. This telegram is signed by the general secretary of the Nova Scotia teachers union, and reads as follows:
The educational opportunities for the children of Canada depend in large measure on the wealth of the individual province. Nova Scotia as you know is one of several provinces which is not financially independent. The Nova Scotia teachers union has long favoured federal aid to education, and now this subject has come before the house, we urge that you, in the interest of the children of Nova Scotia, support federal aid to education wholeheartedly.
That is the position taken by the Nova Scotia teachers union, and it speaks for all teachers in that province.
To support the contention that you cannot have equal educational opportunities across the country on the basis upon which the federal grants to the provinces are made, I cite the remarks of the member for Burn-aby-Richmond (Mr. Goode); I believe he put his finger on the problem. Speaking in this debate this evening he told us that he taught in a rural section of British Columbia, and he believed that 50 per cent of the students that went to high schools had no right to be there. Their parents were not financially able to put these children through university if they did graduate from high school. In many cases the parents were not financially able to allow the children to complete high school training. He felt those children should go into vocational schools. He said that the reason for that was an economic one. I believe that is a rather serious statement, especially since it came from a teacher. That is true not only in rural British Columbia but in many of the rural districts right across Canada. It is true not only in the rural districts of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick but in the industrial sections of those provinces.
If you look at the record of the men going into and coming out of the services you will find that thousands of young Canadians who fought throughout the war and returned to this country were not in a position to take advantage of the vocational training offered by the government because they had not completed the eighth grade. If a man had not completed the eighth grade he could not qualify for vocational training under the veterans legislation. Thousands of these men were not able to go through 
the eighth grade, because of the economic conditions that existed across this country in the years previous to the war.
When the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) was speaking, he painted a lovely picture of the assistance the federal government is rendering, not only in the field of education but also in health. I often wonder whether that information is trickling through to the people, and whether the people actually get it. I believe, as a result of my travels through my province, they are not getting it. For example, if there is money on hand in Nova Scotia for educational purposes or to assist a worthy student, how does it happen that several times during this session I have received letters and telegrams from student veterans who are within a couple of months of graduation from a university when their grant has run out? Those boys are not able to spend the next few months in university and graduate with a certificate because they are unable to pay the tuition. Where are the educational grants that go to the province of Nova Scotia? Several of these cases have beefl brought to my attention, and if there are funds on hand in the province they certainly should be used to assist that particular type of case.
Free school books are provided up to the eighth grade. Sometimes its appears to me as if many of the provinces want eighth-grade scholars. They seem to be afraid that if the student goes through university he may become smart enough to threaten them in the political field. There are too many eighth-grade scholars. In my opinion the books used up to the eighth grade are not very expensive and could perhaps be provided by the parents, but after the pupil leaves the eighth grade and goes to high school the books become expensive and the parents cannot buy them. In the final analysis it is the municipal government that takes the beating on this question of education. In my home town, a town of about 28,000, 60 per cent of the total income is spent on schools. This means that 60 cents of every dollar is spent on the upkeep of schools, and the payment of teachers' salaries. This means cutting into other essential services in that town, and I know that many other towns in the province of Nova Scotia are in a similar position.
I am strongly in favour of the federal government having some supervision of the money. When you look back at some of the . dominion-provincial conferences you find the premiers of the provinces taking the position that they will not relinquish this field or that field. They want to keep the prerogatives laid down in the constitution of 1867, when

the world was completely different from the one which now exists. What is it they want to keep? The supervision of the poor, the lame, the sick and the maimed. If the federal government makes a grant for health purposes, it is earmarked for cancer research or cripples.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As a result of the direct suggestion of the provinces in each case.


Clarence Gillis: I am not so sure of that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure that if I give my hon. friend that assurance he will accept it.


Clarence Gillis: I will take the minister's word for it, but I still think someone is fooling him. We remember how the federal government took the bull by the horns when it enacted the Old Age Pensions Act. It was said that any province desiring to take advantage of it could do so. It was not very long until they all did. I think it is completely unreasonable to expect the federal government to pour out millions of dollars to the provinces and then say the federal government should not have a voice in how the money is to be spent.
If the federal government sends money into Nova Scotia or into any other province I believe that they should be in a position to say that that money is to be used for educational purposes. In the case of the student veteran within two months of graduation but who, because he cannot pay that two months' tuition fee, must go out, I believe that funds should be available to assist him. Then with regard to entrance to high school, for economic reasons and because of differentials that exist in standards from province to province thousands of children cannot take advantage of high school. Where a child shows promise and is recommended by his last teacher, I believe that funds should be earmarked for the purpose of assisting that boy, or girl, to go through high school, and I believe that principle should be followed through university. What have we in this country today? We have professional men who should be digging ditches and we have ditch diggers who should be professional men. Education does not necessarily mean that you have brains. It means that you were fortunate in picking your parents and that they had the finances with which to put you through university.
Until you get around to that specific direction in this field of education, I believe you .will always have the difficulties that you now have. On the other hand, the figures or the statistics put on record this afternoon by the member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) in my opinion were quite revealing. From province to province in this country
Education
the standards differ greatly. As to your educational set-up or social service set-up, everything the government has to spend money on to assist people, there will be a differentiation depending on the income of the province. British Columbia has a provincial income of $105 million a year; Alberta, $79 million; Saskatchewan, $74 million; and Ontario and Quebec are up proportionately. But when you go down to the maritimes, you find it is down to nothing through no fault of their own; they are victims of confederation. Until such time as you have ironed out the inequalities that exist in the whole economy across this country, there will be no possible chance of having equality in social services or educational facilities. These things have to be ironed out first.
I strongly suggest that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) might consider this point, and I know that many representations have been made on it. He could assist education if the Family Allowances Act were amended to provide that, in cases in which a boy or girl had reached the age when he or she was coming off the family allowance, it could be continued while that boy or girl was continuing education. The greatest hardship suffered by the parent is in getting the child through high school. That is where the family allowance could be of great assistance. I know that the act does not provide for that assistance, and the administration are adamant that they are not going to make any changes in that direction. While the family allowance is of great benefit now up till the boy or girl reaches the age where he or she comes off it, I know that many cases have been brought to the attention of the minister asking for a continuation of that allowance while the child is continuing education. That is something the minister could do, and do quickly.
Then as to this business of waiting for the Massey commission to report, may I say that I do not think there is any necessity to delay this particular question until the Massey commission reports. What can the Massey commission report to this government that has not been reported by the Rowell-Sirois commission? I am sure that every member of this house who was here in 1940 and secured a copy of that report has read not all of it-because I do not think anyone would ever read it all-but the sections that apply to social security, revision of the constitution, education, and dominion-provincial rights. Most of us went through it. I think that was the most comprehensive report that was ever brought down in this country, covering the whole economy of the country and the field of dominion-provincial jurisdiction. It was

Education
a new constitution. It made recommendations. If they were carried out, there is no necessity for having any difficulties with the provinces; and there would be no necessity for appointing another commission to take evidence on arts, letters, music and so on and so forth. You have the whole thing in that Rowell-Sirois commission report. You spent millions of dollars on it, brought it into the house, and a few of the members read it. It was never publicized, and it was sent to the archives to gather dust. For anyone who wants the real picture of the whole economic set-up and the changes that are necessary in the economy to bring about some measure of equality as between province and province, the evidence is all contained there in that Rowell-Sirois commission report. I say that the minister should take a look at it and go back over it, because I do not think you will ever gather that kind of data again. I think it is one of the best reports ever written in this country.
I think it is time to take action. We still have a chance to vote on this resolution this evening. I should like to see a vote taken but I should like to see the minister or the cabinet and the members on the government side of the house take the position that the federal government will give assistance if the provinces cannot do anything for themselves, if they have not the money with which to promote education, if they cannot do an adequate job in the field of health. And they admit they cannot because they have not done so though they have been at it since 1867. As to any of the benefits where all this money is being spent, when I go back to my own province my impression is that it is much more difficult today to get service than ever before, either in the way of hospitalization, medical attention, education and all the other things that we are spending all that money on. I do not know what happens in the other provinces, but I certainly cannot see any local administrations that are getting their hands on any of that money to perform any services at all. The minister is building hospitals. He went into that matter at great length this afternoon, but I do not think it is germane to this resolution. But there is no use building hospitals if you cannot get into them. You just built a citadel there and put a lot of equipment into it; and unless you have the wherewithal to pay a lot of money, you do not get in, so you are just out in the cold. I know that the average member is in this position. He is plagued from week to week to have this, that and the other thing done. But there is one thing the Minister of National Health and Welfare could do. He could call his organization together tomorrow and say,

"Let us just extend this family allowance to children who are continuing education." That is simple enough. That would be of considerable benefit to a great many widows particularly who badly need it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am accused now of doing too much.


Clarence Gillis: If that is the attitude, there is not much use in discussing the matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said that I am accused now of doing too much.


Clarence Gillis: Don't you worry about that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not.


Clarence Gillis: You will be accused anyway. Anyone who is not getting kicked around is not doing anything.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is all I get.


Clarence Gillis: Just you go ahead and do the job, and 99 per cent of the people will back you up anyway. There are just a few who will kick you, and you will be able to take that. Am I to understand that the minister will take under consideration that matter of amending the Family Allowances Act to provide relief where children are continuing education?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We will all be studying these matters with great attention.


Clarence Gillis: I am glad to hear that the minister is paying special attention to that particular matter. In closing, I should just like to say this. I still cannot understand the Minister of Agriculture's interpretation of that resolution this afternoon, because I know he is a man-


James Garfield Gardiner: You will talk the resolution out, if you keep on.


Clarence Gillis: No. There is plenty of time. The minister is a man who has a keen insight into these matters and he generally gets to the root of things. But on this particular resolution this afternoon I just could not make him out. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode), a teacher himself, interpreted the resolution and advanced some excellent reasons as to why it should be adopted.


James Arthur Ross: I desire to offer a few remarks in support of the following proposed resolution:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration means of expanding and equalizing educational opportunity across Canada, by the granting of financial assistance to the various provinces for that purpose.
I think the resolution is clear, despite the arguments that have been advanced against it as interfering with provincial rights. I do

Education
not think there is anything of that nature in it. Despite the fact that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) spoke against the resolution, I wish to endorse it wholeheartedly and also the remarks of the speakers in support of it.
This motion was discussed for an entire day last fall, namely on October 19, 1949, and arguments were set forth by my leader, which may be found on page 942, and following, of Hansard. Dealing with the splendid work of schoolteachers he, as minister of education in an Ontario government, rendered splendid service to education in that province which has been referred to by government speakers today. In that respect I might quote one paragraph of his speech last fall which is to be found at page 944 of Hansard. He said:
There is, however, this important consideration; which cannot be emphasized too often. Even if we built in Canada the finest schools that have ever been constructed anywhere, we would have done nothing to advance our educational standards unless those who are teaching in those schools are highly qualified to teach the children that come under their direction. For that reason, wherever the school may be and whatever type of school may be under consideration, the effort of all those concerned with the advancement of education in Canada should be to raise to a level that is in keeping with their responsibility the salaries of those to whom we are entrusting to a considerable extent the whole future of Canada.
There is a lot of meaning in that paragraph. I am sure there is no hon. member in the house who will not admit that at the present time there is great inequality in educational opportunities throughout this nation. In fact in a bulletin issued in 1945 it was shown that the average salary of teachers in one province was $633 while in another province in another part of the country the average was $1,552. Surely that is a tremendous difference in two provinces of this dominion. In 1941, the last year in which the census was taken, there were only 85,000 citizens in Canada with university degrees. At the same time there were in this country 360,000 people between the ages of 6 and 16, that is school age, who were not attending school at all. In my opinion, these figures are alarming.
I spoke on this matter on October 27, when we were discussing the amendment of the constitution, namely, the British North America Act. I think that is in keeping with the suggestion made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) this afternoon; but in view of some of the statements made today I ' want to refer to the Manitoba teachers federation. Their brief has been endorsed by what is to me the greatest and most influential
organization in Canada, namely, the Cana dian Legion. I do not think anybody will dispute that statement either. They said:
A new definition of education which involves the all-round development of the child, and an emphasis on citizenship, make the educational perspective of 1867 and a narrow interpretation of the provisions laid down in respect to education in the British North America Act untenable today.
At another point in their brief they said:
In any plan of federal assistance it would be understood and1 agreed that the expenditure of funds by the government of Canada would in no way be deemed to confer upon any minister or official of the government of Canada any right of supervision or control over any school or educational institution with respect to which any federal government funds are expended.
That should clear up many of the arguments advanced by government speakers today. They have a very fine and lengthy article, but the point that I am most concerned about is the situation in the province of Manitoba from which I come. Cost of education has been a vital issue in the past two years at our annual Manitoba municipal convention, because the municipal officials must find the greater part of the money by a levy on real estate. In fact our municipal corporations in Manitoba find, by a levy on real estate, $3 for every $1 supplied by the provincial government. I am sure that is an antiquated system of financing education in the province. Notwithstanding that situation, the school trustees association of the province of Manitoba made it a vital issue at their last annual meeting. At their last convention, as reported in the Winnipeg Free Press of January 25, 1950, in an article headed, "Education minister says he feels Ottawa cannot give much more aid," the following appeared. First of all, what are we to expect from our provincial minister of education if he attends a conference next fall, when he publicly states that the province cannot expect any more aid from the federal government? According to the article he added:
Doubt that the provincial government could go much further in the matter of financial aid to education was expressed Tuesday by Hon. C. Rhodes Smith, minister of education, in an address to 600 delegates attending the 41st annual convention of the Manitoba school trustees association.
I agree with all the remarks made by my colleague the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) on the great burden on real estate brought about by the cost of education. You cannot continue to have a levy on real estate, as we have in Manitoba, for over 75 per cent of the cost of education, and under that system have equality of education. It just cannot be done. I know that in my own municipality -I have referred to this on occasions, and there are many other examples throughout the entire province-a number of farmers along

Education
the Souris river have lost three crops in the last three years and they are now in the process of losing the fourth.
When this land does produce it is the most productive soil anywhere in that part of the country. Therefore it is the highest assessed property in the country. The majority of the taxes levied there are for the cost of education.
Some twenty miles down the river from me in another municipality there are a group of farmers who have lost the last seven crops in that river valley. They are in process of losing their eighth consecutive crop now. On another occasion I pointed out that they are attempting to get permission to sue this government for the faulty and improper construction of dams on the river, because prior to the construction of the dams those people had not lost a crop owing to flooding since the year 1916. Surely under a modern system today we must face up to the situation.
When I spoke last fall I suggested that municipal authorities should be invited to the dominion-provincial conference next fall. In view of what the Minister of Agriculture said this afternoon, I repeat that if this matter is to be discussed at that conference then the heads of the municipal unions should sit in, at least in an advisory capacity.
I have quoted the statement of the minister of education for the province of Manitoba, who does not think that we should even ask for federal aid. In the statement he said he does not think the province can go any further. What can we people in Manitoba expect when he attends this convention and speaks for the department of education in Manitoba? We do not have any municipal authority here. I am serious about the suggestion that they should be here.
There are further observations I should like to make at this time, but I dealt fully with the subject on October 27, and my remarks are to be found in detail at pages 1200 and following. The wish has been expressed by many hon. members that there should be an opportunity for a vote on this resolution tonight. In view of that, in view of the very full statement I made on the same resolution last fall, in view of the fact that my leader has spoken most effectively- and I have pointed out his record as minister of education in Ontario-and in view of the fact that I wish to endorse the resolution wholeheartedly, and will have more to say at another time, not wishing to be accused of standing in the way of the taking of a vote on this very important matter this evening, I will resume my seat at this time.

(Translation):


Mr. Robert Cauchon (Beauharnois):: Mr. Speaker, members on both sides of the house realize the importance of education. I need not draw the attention of the government to this matter, since it has already appointed a commission to inquire into the educational standards of the Canadian people, and the ways and means of improving them. This commission is known as the Massey commission. So far, the manner in which this commission has performed its duties has brought nothing but commendation.
In the meantime, the government has not remained inactive and after having heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) read a list of the grants made to various universities in this country, all will agree that they are endeavouring to promote education in Canada. The government has done everything that could possibly be done without encroaching upon the rights of the provinces.
Allow me to congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare for the assistance afforded to our veterans with regard to education.
After the commission has submitted its report and has made known the shortcomings, if any, of our educational system, the government will undoubtedly carry out these recommendations, and thus be in a position to solve the problem of education after having agreed to increase its grants to the provinces, while, at the same time, safeguarding provincial autonomy.
I do not wish to speak at any length on this subject. I am opposed to this resolution in its present form because, first of all, it is premature and, second, because it infringes on the rights of the various provinces.
(Text):


Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth):: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Kirk (Digby-Yarmoulh):: May I assure hon. members that I did not call "question" when they spoke. I shall take only a few moments to speak on a subject concerning which I had prepared copious notes. However, it is not my intention tonight to repeat the arguments made earlier. I believe, as did those who spoke earlier, that this is a matter of great national importance.

In speaking tonight I do so without attempting either to support or to oppose the resolution, but rather to bring out certain points which have not been mentioned before. I do this without in any way trying to twist the words of any previous speakers or to paint any black pictures.
It has been mentioned by several speakers that education is within the jurisdiction of the provinces. There is no point in my discussing that matter further. It is only fair to say however that the national government has been most active in promoting certain phases of education. Our federal government has been most scrupulous in trying to meet its constitutional obligations in respect of the protection of the rights of the provinces and the rights of minorities.
In discussing this matter there are certain points which must be taken into consideration. It has been my hope not only to ask but to answer some of those questions. First, have those who are supporting or who have been opposing the resolution as worded taken into consideration our educational history, particularly with regard to finances, both in the past and at the present time? Have they considered the method by which technical and vocational education were introduced in Canada? Have they considered to any great extent the federal government's present participation in education? Have they thought of the difficulties that occurred in the United States when under W.P.A. they began issuing grants very freely for the building of school plants? Have they thought of the system of scholarships in effect in other countries? Most important, have they thought just what the expression "equal educational opportunity", which has become almost a cliche, really means? Have they thought at what level they would like to have federal educational aid? Is it to be at the primary level, the secondary level or the university level?
Several speakers have made the suggestion that if we were to spend twice or three times as much on education we would have a system twice or three times as good. However, not one of them carried his argument further; each was content to make only the bald statement. I do not see how we can assume that by spending twice or three times as much we shall of necessity have a much better system of education.
I feel I must reply to two or three statements made by members on both sides of the house regarding education in the maritime provinces. I believe I can speak with some little authority-certainly I can so far as education in Nova Scotia is concerned-
Education
because as I said a few days ago I spent practically all my adult life working in the field of education in that province.
When the suggestion is made, as it was by at least one speaker, that Nova Scotia does not have a good educational system, or a system not as good as that in some other provinces, I should like to know by what method we are going to measure the system? Earlier speakers suggested that whether or not a teacher was paid $1,150 in one area and $1,152.40 in another, it did not necessarily follow that the teacher would be any better or that the type of service given would be any better.
It has been said that certain provinces have spent a great deal more for their physical plant and equipment. This is true. But it does not necessarily follow that the education will be better in proportion to the additional amount of money spent. I do not believe it is generally realized-certainly it is not by some who spoke earlier today-that in Nova Scotia we have embarked within the last decade upon a system of improving considerably our physical plant and equipment, in securing better training for our teachers, and planning new types of school buildings we propose to build within the next few years. We plan for approximately seventy-five rural high schools and consolidated high schools, which will mean that practically every boy and girl in Nova Scotia will have rural high school and consolidated school facilities available to them.
We have under construction at the present time two regional vocational high schools. They are being financed partially by grants under the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act of 1942. We propose during the next few years, if the municipalities in the areas concerned are as interested in the plan as the counties of Yarmouth and Halifax have been, to build at least three more regional vocational high schools. At the same time we are doing this we are spending much more money on education than we did before. I do not think that any hon. member should stand up in this house and suggest that, because we are not spending as much per capita, as much per pupil or as much in total as some of the other provinces, we have not as good an educational system.
There are several ways in which the dominion government takes part in education. Some have been mentioned and I should like to mention one or two. You may wonder why I go from a discussion of rural and vocational high schools to a discussion of the research council and other such matters, but as I mentioned earlier I do not want to repeat what previous speakers have said. I think the establishment of the research council

Education
represents one of the most constructive and forward steps ever taken in this country. I think we should look on it more as an institution for the promotion of the development of our natural and national resources than as an educational agency.
I wonder how many people realize that in the penitentiaries of Canada, which are under the jurisdiction of the national government, the federal government, in some cases with the assistance of the provincial government, is providing vocational and correspondence courses for the inmates so that when they come out they will be better fitted to earn their living and to lead a better life.
In Great Britain where the national government is responsible for education, as it has been for centuries, national scholarships have been set up. The same is true of the Union of South Africa where the national government is responsible for higher education. But in Canada, where the provinces have jurisdiction over education, as far as I know not one province has instituted a system of scholarships.
The words "equal educational opportunity" have been bandied about today and I venture to say that every single member in the house has a different interpretation of them. I sometimes think that we get a false impression. It is so easy to misinterpret the principle of equality as applied to education. There is a great diversity in the potentialities of children and I feel that the concept of equality is slightly improper. I would much prefer to use a term like equitable distribution of educational opportunity.
It must be remembered that in applying this principle the governments themselves have nothing with which to meet the obligation. Regardless of their geographical location or the areas under their jurisdiction they do not have any funds. The funds must come from the people themselves. Whether it be at the municipal, the provincial or the federal level, the funds must come from the individual taxpayer. There are those who feel that the national government could help both the municipal and the provincial governments to provide education by relieving them of certain other services. There are those who believe that education should be paid for by a threefold association at the municipal, the provincial and federal levels. There are those who think that the government should give assistance in the form of grants in aid. There are others who feel that there should be no federal assistance whatsoever.
Provincial autonomy is greatly cherished in all parts of Canada, and particularly so with reference to education. Those who feel that there should be federal aid say that that aid can be provided without there being

federal control. Those who are opposed to federal aid say that if we do have such aid there will be federal control. In other words, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
I think it was the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) who said that this was more than an academic discussion, and I quite agree. This is a discussion in which one must consider .carefully the effect upon the country's economy and at the same time consider the variety of educational facilities provided in the different parts of Canada. I feel that a discussion such as this has been worth while. It has given us and the people of the country an opportunity to consider the problem and to decide whether there should be federal aid for education.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, like the speaker who has just taken his seat, I submit that the cost of education, regardless of how it is raised or how it is administered, must come from the individual taxpayer. To say that the cost will be provided by a central organization does not indicate that that cost is going to be decreased. I firmly believe that it would tend toward increasing the cost of education.
Those who are responsible for the expenditure of money, whether it be for education or for any other purpose, will I think in great measure be more discriminating and more careful as to the ways in which they expend our money, if they also be responsible for the raising of money. There is no argument against that fact. By keeping the administration of education and schools in the smaller areas it will tend toward making available a greater measure of voluntary work and therefore to a great degree reduce the actual cost of administration and so on.
I think it was the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) who argued that because ten thousand new homes were being built in Toronto there would have to be large expenditures for school purposes in that particular area. That is quite true, but it must be remembered that new families will be moving into such areas and it does not follow that the people in some other area should take over the responsibility of educating those children. In an endeavour to bring the federal government into the picture the hon. member argued that this was a federal housing project. That is quite true, but it must be remembered that in most cases the federal government is paying 75 per cent of the cost, with the provincial government paying 25 per cent. New sources of taxation are brought into being by the federal government which will go into the general fund of the provincial government, who are thus responsible for any

further assistance needed in connection with education. These areas will also bring in additional taxes to the municipality which is responsible for the basic administration of the schools. I certainly agree wholeheartedly with everyone who has spoken previously in this debate that the question of education is of the utmost importance. We must go just as far as we can in every respect, but I do not think it follows that by centralization and bringing the federal government into the matter we shall improve the picture a very great deal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you opposed to federal aid to education?


James Arthur Ross: He is just talking it out.


George James McIlraith: You have had a chance to speak. Let others have a chance.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The province of British Columbia set up a commission to investigate the cost of education. The result, the Cameron report which left the city of Kimberley in which I live in a most unfortunate position. The report really discriminated against that area, and I should like to explain in what way that came about. In the Cameron report there was a great deal of sympathy for the poorer or rural areas. This is merely an illustration to show that just because we have the larger authority giving instructions it does not always work out for the best of all concerned. I want to prove that is not the case. The recommendation in the Cameron report was that rural areas would not be charged in excess of 8 mills on their property, houses and so on. The Cameron report also recommended large municipal school areas where it would be necessary to bring school children in from rural areas by bus. The recommendation of 8 mills for rural areas overlooked the fact that a large number of people living in what might be called the suburbs of Kimberley were people who were working and enjoying the same privileges in every way as those living within the city. They were all working for the one large mining company. The people outside the municipality of Kimberley enjoyed a very low mill rate of 8 mills on the dollar for school purposes whereas in many instances people in poorer circumstances than those on the outskirts are paying in the neighbourhood of 40 mills on their assessments. Therefore it is easy to see that the people in the city are paying for the transportation to school of those in the outlying districts and providing them with the same facilities obtainable by those within the municipality. That is a question that has to be worked out, and I am sure that with further consideration it will be.
Education


Joseph William Noseworthy: Question.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: This illustration is merely by way of proving what can take place. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) indicated that the government had not done enough for veterans who were not able to carry on their school work by reason of entering the armed forces. He said that on their return to civil life the government had not done enough to assist them in obtaining an education. Personally I feel that the Department of Veterans Affairs has done by way of assistance to returned veterans more than any other country. I have in mind one particular case. This individual is closely related to me and that is why I know the case better than any other. I should like to use it as an example of how veterans were aided through educational benefits extended by the government. This man was discharged from the army and when he began university training he was married and the father of two children. Before completing his university training he had three children to support.


Mr. Graydon:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but I think the house generally would like to have a vtte on this most important resolution.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is not a question of privilege.


Mr. Sinclair:: He has a right to speak.


Gordon Graydon: I have a right to rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Kootenay East.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Very few members on this side of the house have had an opportunity to speak on the question.


James Sinclair: Just cheap Tory politics.


Mr. Cruickshank:: We know nothing about filibustering over here.


Mr. Speaker:: Eleven o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have done it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Saved by the bell.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will move to go into supply and call one item of the labour department and one item of legislation, these items to stand. Then we will take up Bill No. 179, an act to amend the Research Council Act; Bill No. 222, an act to emend the Cold Storage Act; Bill No. 82,

.	Business of the House
an act to amend the Criminal Code; Bill No. 180, an act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946. If we have any time left we will take up Bill No. 153, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the minister mind repeating the first item?


Alphonse Fournier: We will move to go into supply and call one item of the labour department and one item of legislation, these items to stand.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 23, 1950