1952-03-20

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Matthew MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria) presented the first report of the standing committee on standing orders, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 10, for the relief of Shirley Doreen Rowe.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 11, for the relief of Dorothy Minnie Hogbin Neale.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 12, for the relief of Dorothy Ailsie Jean Coghlin Hands.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 13, for the relief of John Hell-mann.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 14, for the relief of Myrtle Jesse Marie Gangin dit Gilmore Cooney.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 15, for the relief of Hilda Richardson Tait.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 16, for the relief of Catherine Vaughan Troy Campbell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 17, for the relief of Mary Margaret Graham.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 18, for the relief of Bernice Pomp Gates, otherwise known as Bernice Frank Gates.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 19, for the relief of Mary Mildred Antoinette Castonguay	Smithson.-Mr. Winkler.


Mr. Argue:: 1.	How many tests were made in Saskatchewan to determine whether any animals (a) had foot-and-mouth disease: (b) were carriers of foot-and-mouth disease?
2.	What was the nature and the results of each test?
55704-39J
3.	What facilities are necessary for the determination of foot-and-mouth disease?
4.	Are such facilities available in Saskatchewan?
5.	If so, at what points and under whose auspices?


Mr. Gardiner:: 1 (a) and (b). 9.
2.	Animal inoculations. Four tests were positive and five were negative for foot-and-mouth disease.
3.	Equipment for the inoculation of susceptible and non-susceptible animals would enable a qualified veterinarian to make inoculation tests. Diagnostic tests in a laboratory require the services of a staff trained specially in the virus field and the serological field and special provision for isolation, for disposal of infected air, for collecting and treating effluent, etc.
4 and 5. Inoculation tests can be made in the field, but laboratory tests require the special facilities referred to above. Only at the Animal Diseases Research Institute, Hull, Que., are all these necessary facilities available in Canada.


WHALLEY, B.C., MAIL DISTRIBUTION BUILDING
Mr. Cardiff:: 1.	Is the new building, used for the distribution of mail at Whalley, British Columbia, owned by the government?
2. If not, who is the owner, what rent is paid for its use per month, and to whom is the rent paid?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	No.
2.	(a) Thomas Binnie; (b) $497; (c) Thomas Binnie.


DAIRY PRODUCTS-IMPORTS AND EXPORTS SINCE 1951
Mr. Wright:: 1.	What were the total imports of (a) butter: (b) cheese; (c) powdered milk; (d) evaporated milk; (e) whole milk, during each month of 1951 and 1952, to date?
2.	What were the total exports of these products for the corresponding months?
Questions


IMPORTS OF MILK PRODUCTS AS SPECIFIED, ENTERED FOR CONSUMPTION IN CANADA DURING EACH MONTH FROM JANUARY 1951 TO JANUARY 1952
Mr. Howe:: 1.
Month	Butter	Cheese	Milk, whole, powdered	Milk, condensed or evaporated	Dried whey, dried skim milk and dried buttermilk	Milk, freshlb.	lb.	lb.	lb.	lb.	1951	634,640	834,039	2,083,277	303,241	302	210	1,267,132	2,856,127	1,177,944	440	120	1,524,942	not2,000	277,830	72	3,910	481,671	1,470	393,194	526	3,720	178,500	separately1,600	548,748	8,415	566	285,244	152,794	472,430	620,814	classified45,069	1,112,824	3,320	420	735,490	470,500	4,913,781	17,429	53	198,170	7,088,559	574,925	981	3,282	510,834	3,564,631	801,967	381	1,920	177,920	1,221,873	476,944	5,631	280,614	1952	January	1,835,271	2,256,830	922	5,230	23,000



CANADIAN EXPORTS OF MILK PRODUCTS AS SPECIFIED DURING EACH MONTH FROM JANUARY 1951 TO JANUARY 1952

[Stage Direction]
Month	Butter	Cheese	Milk, whole, powdered	Milk, skim, powdered	Milk, condensed	Milk, evaporated	Milk, freshlb.	lb.	lb.	lb.	lb.	lb.	gal.1951	51,800 21,300	453,800 689,900	473,000	65,400	185,800	280,300	February	336,500	49,500	204,700	526,600	15017,600	287,900	533,300	20,500	294,800	403,300	62726,600	178,000	596,300	25,000	429,800	762,100	May	67,400	108,800	1,248,500	2,500	1,020,800	1,216,400	1,04486,000	1,329,100	1,079,000	11,400	1,091,000	1,210,900	3,00133,000 65,200	2,635,100 4,627,800	917,300	45,900	1,839,600	1,940,300	August	
September	1,102,300	15,800	503,100	4,639,300	3,13227,800 27,500 82,000	6,210,000 8,104,600 5,089,200	343,100 858,600 1,626,000	57,500 90,800	143,200 234,300	3,273,100 1,868,700	1,476191,600	1,502,900	1,733,100	7,211December	37,500	939,000	991,300	455,000	815,800	3,784,600	1,2421952 January	53,800	168,400	290,100	200,600	48,000	501,200	2,496

[Stage Direction]
CONTRACTS FOR DEFENCE FOOTWEAR Mr. Lennard:
1.	How many contracts for defence footwear were let from April 15, 1951, to February 29, 1952?
2.	What were the amounts of these contracts?
3.	To whom were they let?
4.	At what price?

FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION Mr. Knight:
I. What amounts have been contributed as federal aid to education, during the last three flscal years, by provinces (a) under the headings of agriculture instruction, technical education, vocational training, youth training, Indian schools, student aid, physical fitness, national research at universities; (b) under any other relevant headings?

2. What amounts have been paid and will be paid, approximately, in federal grants to (a) universities, during the current fiscal year, by provinces; (b) provinces for purchase of text books as media for teaching language to immigrants?

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: May I ask
the Minister of Finance when he expects to be able to release the statement of the comptroller of the treasury with respect to revenue and expenditures for the month of January, and for the first ten months of the present fiscal year?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: I think the figures will be available on the 8th of April.


Mr. Fleming:: Why wait for them until then?


INCOME TAX
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue in connection with a decision made by Mr. Justice Wilson in British Columbia recently in a conspiracy trial, wherein, over the objection of solicitors for the Department of National Revenue-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, I have to tell him what I was going to ask him.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would be good enough to put his remarks in the form of a question.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, I wish to ask the
minister this: in view of the decision of the judge that income tax returns are not confidential and can be produced in court, will the department give consideration to making the law certain that income tax returns shall be confidential and not admissible in evidence?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: The taxation division of the
Department of National Revenue has consistently resisted the production of income tax returns in court. In this particular case it was ordered by a judge to produce them. We have made application to the appeals division of the court in British Columbia for the right to appeal. We have been granted that right, and will make the appeal at the proper time.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Is the appeal based upon the fact that the contention of the department still is that they are inadmissible because they are confidential?


James Joseph McCann: Absolutely.


Mr. Graydon:: Nobody should be able to snoop into other people's business like that.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to ask a question jointly of the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance. Has the government received representations recently from Canadian National pensioners on $25 a month, and from superannuated civil servants, for augmentation of their low pensions? Is the government giving consideration to any such recent representations?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Yes. Yesterday I saw a group of retired pensioners; but they represented, I believe, mostly the pensioners of the Intercolonial Railway and the Prince Edward Island Railway, although they purported to represent also retired employees of the Canadian National Railways. I indicated to them, after the presentation of their brief, that it would receive consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And will the Minister of Finance say whether similar consideration is being given to the plight of retired civil servants?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The matter has not been raised recently.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did I understand the minister to say the matter has or has not been raised recently?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I said it had not been raised recently; and there has been no change in the position of the government, which I have stated in the house on a number of occasions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the minister checks his mail I think he will find he has had recent representations.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If the hon. member means have I had any letters about it, of course the answer would be yes.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. Is his department aware that

Inquiries of the Ministry the state department at Indianapolis has issued a notice that the deadly livestock disease, anthrax, has gone into that state, from Ohio? What is being done in Canada to stop its coming here?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not yet been notified of the suggested possible spread of the disease. However, I can assure my hon. friend that if there is any information to that effect, it is being properly taken care of.



FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE  SEED AND SEED- CLEANING EQUIPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. As seeding time is rapidly approaching, will immediate consideration be given to an amendment to the quarantine regulations to allow the movement of seed and seed-cleaning equipment from farm to farm within the quarantined area?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think there can be any general remission of regulations within the quarantined area with regard to the movement of seed and seed-cleaning equipment. I am sure the hon. member will realize there will be certain farms from which that kind of thing cannot be moved to other farms within the area. I am also quite certain that everything that might necessarily be done and which can be done in order to assist in the securing of seed by seeding time is now being done. I do not think there will be any great difficulty about it.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask this supplementary question? Will certificates be issued by veterinarians within the area so that farmers who must move seed to a farm they have to sow, or who have to have seed cleaned now, will be allowed to move the necessary seed and equipment? I was not asking that the regulations be lifted.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have men reporting on the activities within that area with regard to every condition that has been brought about as a result of the foot-and-mouth disease being there. We have officials who within the last twenty-four hours arrived there from Ottawa to make certain that everything is done. What they tell me is that that area is being so well run, under the co-operative activities of those who are there in the district, that there is probably less complaint in that area than anywhere else in Canada. Having that in mind, I think we may be satisfied that this matter will be well handled.



FARM CREDIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Considering the heavy losses to western farmers through the wet year of 1951, and the foot-and-mouth disease experience, will the minister tell the house what measures the government contemplates for enabling those farmers to obtain credit for operations in 1952?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Let me say at once that I know of no heavy losses among farmers in connection with the current crop. The current crop is the largest ever grown in western Canada; and I think when the harvest is finished it will have been found to be the most profitable crop ever grown in western Canada.
In the second place, the losses from foot-and-mouth disease are being compensated for by separate legislation.
In the third place, the credit provisions made available to farmers for 1951-52 have been availed of only to the extent of about one-twentieth of the total credit for which provision was made. It is my conclusion that no provisions of the kind suggested in the hon. member's question are either necessary or desirable.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: I wish to ask a question of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries. Is convertibility of sterling being arranged for the 1952 production of Newfoundland salt codfish? Will there be deficiency payments to the Newfoundland fishermen for the year 1951?


Mr. J. Watson MacNaughi (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: The
hon. member for St. John's East has asked two questions, the first of which relates to the convertibility of sterling for the purchase of the 1952 production of salt codfish. I can tell the hon. member that arrangements for the sale of the 1952 Newfoundland salted fish production to European markets are at present being made. The position will be clarified well in advance of the new marketing season.

The hon. member's second question has to do with deficiency payments to the Newfoundland fishermen for the year 1951. In respect to this question I can tell the hon. gentleman that the prices already received by Newfoundland fishermen for their 1951 salt fish production are above those of the previous year. Meanwhile the market remains very buoyant and the product is moving most satisfactorily. However, final returns from these export sales cannot be known by the trade for some time yet. We have no reason to assume that no further settlements between merchants and fishermen will be made as a result of the current export sales. Until these developments and ultimate facts are known, the question of deficiency payments is premature. Meanwhile the fisheries prices support board is making a constant review of these developments.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. O. Campney (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: On
Monday last the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Huffman) asked two questions with reference to an aircraft firing range on Lake Erie, which I should like now to answer. His first question was:
Has agreement between the Canadian Department of National Defence and the war department of the United States in establishing a firing range for jet and other types of planes using live ammunition on lake Erie been concluded?
The answer is: Yes. Such an agreement was entered into by an exchange of notes between the two countries in October last and runs until December 31, 1952, when it may or may not be renewed by mutual consent.
The second question was:
Why was all the area established north of the international boundary, as indicated by a plan in the London Free Press under date of March 15?
As a matter of fact the area depicted by the London Free Press is not accurate, but the whole area of the firing range is on the Canadian side of the international boundary. It was so arranged in order that complete jurisdiction and control might rest with one country, in this case Canada. The area is well clear of the shore line, and adequate safety precautions will govern its use so that the safety of persons and property outside the area will be in no way endangered.



JAPANESE PEACE TREATY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The other day the hon.
Inquiries of the Ministry member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) asked a question, in regard to ratification of the Japanese peace treaty, which I might answer now. Ratification of the treaty has been completed and the instrument deposited on behalf of the United Kingdom and Japan. Parliamentary action in regard to ratification has been completed in Australia and Ceylon. Parliamentary action has begun but not been completed in the United States, New Zealand, The Netherlands and France.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: May I ask the Prime
Minister if a decision has been reached as to the length of the Easter recess this year?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I would not like to say that a decision has been made. What has been decided is that I will place a notice of motion on the order paper-subject, of course, to the decision of the house-to the effect that when the house adjourns on Wednesday afternoon or evening of holy week it stand adjourned until the Monday after Easter week.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, March 19, 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. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock last evening I had explained why we were supporting this motion, and I wish now to review briefly the points which, I suggest, provide convincing reasons why the government should be prepared to accept the motion and take action which will carry out its intent without in any way infringing upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial governments in the field of education.
It is not the duty, nor is it the right, of the parliament of Canada to interfere directly or indirectly with any aspect of education itself. Education, however, is everybody's business and everybody's concern. As Canadians, and as members of this house, education must be of great concern to all of us. To the extent that the government and parliament of Canada have it within their power to assure that the provincial governments will have adequate financial resources to give equality of educational

Education
opportunity to children, we in this house should do what we can to make sure that steps will be taken by the government to give the provinces adequate revenues to meet their constitutional obligations.
No problem is causing greater concern to educational and municipal authorities today than that of meeting the heavily increased costs of education. Because of their inability to raise the salaries of teachers, and because they see no immediate prospect of finding the money to do so, unless there is some change in the situation neither the educational nor the municipal authorities will be able to offer that encouragement which would stop the steady and increasingly rapid drain upon the teacher supply in this country.
I pointed out yesterday that the estimate of the bureau of statistics is that if the present drain on teachers continues there will be a shortage of 25,000 teachers by 1955. That would mean disaster to the whole structure of education within Canada. At the same time I pointed out that this estimate is based upon the present percentage of attendance of pupils. The percentage of attendance and the length of time during which the pupils attend are far from satisfactory. As indicated by the figures I gave yesterday, pupils are leaving school far too soon, for many reasons. That flow of pupils from the schools will be increased if because of a shortage of teachers there is more crowding of our classrooms and less opportunity to give the pupils personal attention. If we were able across the whole of Canada to give every child the educational opportunities it should have, and to give equality of education up to the extent of the capacity of every child regardless of the means of its parents or where the child may live, then instead of a shortage of 25,000 we probably would have a shortage of 50,000 teachers by 1955.
I can only repeat that the whole future of this country is dangerously threatened by the possibility that the ten provinces of Canada may not be able to provide the kind of education that has carried us along the road of advancement as far as we have gone. It is not a case of advancing education still farther; the danger is imminent that education will go back rather than ahead, because of a shortage of teachers, and because of the increasing difficulty encountered by municipal and educational authorities in providing the money to meet heavy educational costs.
It is for that reason, because it is of concern to us as well as to the provinces, that I repeat, with all the earnestness I can put into my words, the suggestion that the dominion government arrange to meet the provinces for discussions, now long overdue, in an effort

so to readjust taxation within Canada that the provincial governments may have from their own revenues financial resources which will be adequate to give their children that equality of educational opportunity which I am sure every hon. member in this house wants to see in Canada.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: In rising to take part in this debate I think I should at the outset make it clear that I am speaking to,a private member's resolution, and not to a government resolution or concerning federal government policy.
It is commonplace to say that the jurisdiction of provincial legislatures over education is, of all provincial rights, the one of which some if not all of the provinces are most jealous. Therefore, as between federal and provincial governments, the initiative in connection with matters pertaining to education is one which I think the federal government has always felt should be taken by the provincial governments. So far as I am aware, the provincial governments have never raised with the federal government at any time the subject matter of this resolution as such; nor have they raised the question of educational costs except as an item of the provincial budgets which naturally were the subject of discussion in the Rowell-Sirois report, in the conference dealing with the dominion proposals of 1945, and indeed in all the fiscal conferences between the federal government and the provinces.
It is for this reason that the federal government as such has never had occasion to consider as a matter of government policy the precise subject matter of the resolution before us. It is quite true, as I have already indicated, that in other contexts this question has arisen. I have no doubt that some of my colleagues have formed opinions upon it, as I have done. The ideas which I express today are, therefore, entirely my own, although doubtless most of my colleagues will agree with some of them.
I should like to compliment all of those who have taken part in this excellent debate, in that they have made clear many points of law and fact which are involved in this resolution. I think it is also correct to say that they have come within striking distance of the nub of the whole matter, although with great respect I do not think that they have actually pin-pointed what that nub is.
From what has been said it is clear that certain points of agreement have emerged. It is hardly necessary for example to repeat all the truisms about the great importance of

education in our national life. Nor is it necessary to argue at great length that teachers' salaries in general are inadequate; for their inadequacy is clearly established by the relative economic unattractiveness of the teaching profession. It is very gratifying to me to hear the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and the hon. members for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight), Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) state in such positive terms not only that education is wholly a provincial responsibility under the British North America Act, but that it is unthinkable that it should be otherwise. When the hon. member for Red Deer asserted that no child should be deprived of an opportunity to acquire a good education, he was again stating a truism with which no one would disagree. It may be stated that the general agreement in this house upon most of the principles which have been enunciated so far in this debate affords a much more satisfactory basis for examination of the facts than would be the case if we were in disagreement on those principles.
Having stated some of those points of agreement, perhaps I should clear up some of the points upon which I must confess reluctantly I am in disagreement with some hon. members. I disagree, for example, with the leader of the opposition when he states that because the federal government makes grants to the universities of Canada, it admits that it could and should make substantial grants to the provincial governments earmarked for the support of primary education.
In this connection the hon. member made much of the fact that under the British North America Act the provincial legislatures have exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of education. That, of course, is quite correct. I suggest that anyone with a reasonable knowledge of Canadian history must realize that it is one thing to make, to universities which are entirely self-governing and non-political, grants which form a minor part of their total income; but it is quite another thing to make, as has been suggested, a contribution which would be a large part of the income of the primary schools of the province, to provincial governments whose provincial departments of education actively control, supervise and make policy for the whole primary school system of the province. There is no comparison between those two facts, and the hon. member draws an analogy which I must regard as a false one.
It was not an accident that at the time of confederation the legislatures of the provinces were given exclusive authority to make laws in relation to education. It was a deliberate provision which certain of the fathers of confederation insisted upon as a
Education
condition to the formation of Canada, in order to protect their religion, their language, and their way of life. The point of this is that primary education is concerned entirely with the instruction of the young during the highly formative period of their life-instruction which, as the Rowell-Sirois report said, is of decisive importance as regards religious training and the preservation of language and of culture. I quote from volume II of the report, page 50:
We have already said that the instruction of the young during their formative years is a matter which the provinces must continue to control- subject, of course, to the safeguard for religious minorities provided in the British North America Act and amendments. A free hand in something so important to the social and cultural life of the people seems to us to be vital to any provincial autonomy worthy of the name, and it is obvious that any attempts to alter the existing arrangements would1 meet with powerful opposition and would provoke profound resentment.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that to anyone who stops to reflect upon this matter the difficulty about large federal educational grants to the provinces earmarked for primary education would be this. If they were large enough to be worth while, the dominion treasury simply could not defend handing out these large sums of money to the provincial governments without assuming some responsibility as to the manner in which they would be spent. For the federal government-for example, the present federal government, or any federal government that might be in power in Canada at some future time-to supervise the manner in which these grants would be spent by a provincial government for primary education would involve, in the opinion of a large number of sincere	Canadians-amongst
whom I number myself as one-an interference with the exclusive authority of the provincial legislatures over education, and something which, under certain governments and under certain circumstances, could prove to be exceedingly harmful. It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that, with the leader of the opposition, I think it is preferable that the federal government, rather than make grants to the provinces earmarked for primary education-if the federal government is to provide assistance at all-should provide other financial resources.
On that point the leader of the opposition and I are in complete agreement; and we are supported by the Rowell-Sirois report, which has this to say at page 51-and I quote at some length because this is the definitive recommendation of the report on this very point:
Many representations have been made to us that financial help should be extended by the dominion to the provinces for various purposes, such as scholarships, technical training, grants to be used

Education
for general educational purposes provided1 that the provinces did not reduce their own expenditure on education. These representations appear to have been inspired largely by consternation at the reductions in educational expenditure which certain provinces, under the stress of the depression, have felt compelled to make. It has even been contended that the dominion is bound to see that there is equal educational opportunity, as far as is practicable, for every Canadian child.
We have the deepest sympathy for these views which have been advanced by many of the organizations most closely associated with education in Canada, and we share to the full the regret that, especially in recent years, education has been terribly neglected in many of the poorer parts of the country and that wholly disproportionate sacrifices have been imposed on those who have devoted their lives to this important public service. But the representations appear to us to go too far in denying-
And this, Mr. Speaker, I suggest is the point of this particular part of my argument. -the right of each province to decide the relative importance of expenditure on education and expenditure on other competing services. It is our hope that provision can be made for the fiscal needs of all provinces, including within those needs provision for the education of the young. Our financial proposals-
That is, the financial proposals which the Rowell-Sirois commission outlined in another part of their report.
-aim at placing every province in a position to discharge its responsibilities for education, on a scale that is within the means of the people of Canada, if it chooses to do so. Once this position Is established it seems to us best that education, like every other form of welfare service in a democratic community, should have to fight for its life, and that a generous provision for the education of the children of the nation should depend, not on any arbitrary constitutional provision, but on the persistent conviction of the mass of the people that they must be ready to deny themselves some of the good things of life in order to deal fairly by their children. Hence we do not think that it would be wise or appropriate for the dominion to make grants to the provinces earmarked for the support of general education.
As is well known, Mr. Speaker, owing to the recalcitrance of certain provincial governments, the Sirois recommendations were not put into effect in Canada-that is to say, their financial provisions which were designed to place all the provinces in such a position that, if they wished to do so, they could finance education adequately. Hon. members will also recall that the further recalcitrance of certain provinces prevented the implementation of the proposals made by this federal government in the year 1945 to place the provinces in that position.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the minister at this point retain some semblance of the facts. If he will cast his mind back, he will recall that the provinces met the dominion government in 1946 as well.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. My hon. friend is quite correct. If I am not mistaken, what I said was that they were dealing with the 1945 proposals-


George Alexander Drew: No. That was not what you said.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -by the federal government. My hon. friend is quite right in his interjection-which I think really had little relevancy to my remarks-that the conference extended from 1945 to 1946. But I am glad to accept that correction.


George Alexander Drew: And it was not called off by the provinces.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, that is a matter of
opinion, which also is not relevant to my remarks.


George Alexander Drew: If that is not relevant, then
what you are saying is not relevant.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That also is a matter of
opinion, and I do not agree with my hon. friend.
Upon the break-down of these two efforts to put the provinces in such a position that they could adequately deal with what is really their constitutional responsibility, the members of the house are all familiar with the fact that there were negotiated the dominion-provincial tax agreements-which have now been in existence for some four years and which will shortly expire, to be replaced, I hope, by renewal tax agreements even more favourable to the provinces. I shall endeavour to show today that those tax agreements have put the provinces of Canada in such a position that they and their municipalities, if they wish to do so, can increase their support of primary education. But if the municipalities and the provinces having the benefits under these tax agreements, instead of increasing grants to primary education, prefer to increase their expenditures upon roads and bridges, or to reduce debt, or to spend their revenues on the discharge of any other provincial function which they regard as having priority to education, I suggest to the leader of the opposition that they are at perfect freedom, under the tax agreements and under the constitutional law of this country, to exercise that discretion. I am sure that is a freedom which he, having regard to his views on provincial autonomy, would be the first to support and approve.
Therefore, sir, the real question here is whether the federal government and the provinces, in concluding these tax agreements, have attained one of their objectives namely that of placing the provinces in a position, if

they chose to do so, of supporting adequately the cause of primary education. I do not know any shorter or simpler method of establishing that than by pointing out that the provincial authorities, after attending several conferences-the ones arising out of the Rowell-Sirois report; the one, as the leader of the opposition has pointed out, in 1945, extending into 1946, dealing with the proposals of the federal government at that time-after thoroughly canvassing this whole question in those conferences and again in all of the subsequent conferences leading up to the tax agreements themselves, have accepted and executed these agreements. These provincial representatives, who, whatever may be implied to the contrary sometimes. in this house, are very intelligent and competent men, have executed these agreements as purporting to do, and as I think I can show, as in fact doing that very thing; that is, these tax agreements put the provinces in the position of adequately supporting education if they desire to do so.
Some may say that that is a short and simple answer, but not a satisfactory one, that we should have a more objective one. What are the facts and the figures? I do not wish to go too much into detail on the facts and figures, but it so happens, to begin with, that I have some figures applicable to Manitoba, which I have retained since the time that I was treasurer of that province. They indicate that when we went into this tax agreement our revenues from the various sources which were surrendered were in 1946 a little over $8 million in that year. In place of this, we got, under the agreement, a guaranteed minimum of $13,500,000, and received in the year ended March 31, 1948, about $14,500,000. This enabled us to increase our expenditures for education from $2,800,000 in 1946 to $5,600,000 in 1948. That was one of the first things we did with this increase that we got.
I am not suggesting for a minute that even that provision was adequate; but, Mr. Speaker, under the proposed renewal of this agreement the guaranteed payments are $18,800,000 instead of a little over $8 million, and the adjusted payment for 1952-53 is $20,890,000, nearly $21 million. During this interval in Manitoba-which now, as always, has an economical and careful administration; its budget is one of the smallest among the provincial governments, certainly in western Canada- in Manitoba the total budget went up from $19,250,000 in 1946 to over $33,500,000 in 1949, and I saw the other day that its present budget is $49 million. Will anybody argue that between these two limits of $19 million in
Education
1946 and $49 million in 1952 there is not some elbow room if it were needed for some increase in the provincial contributions to primary education?
I have used the figures in the case of Manitoba because they were the only figures that I had to show the revenue that was being obtained from these tax sources before the agreement went into effect. In that connection I might say this. Outside of the central provinces and British Columbia the productivity of these tax fields in Manitoba was higher than it was in either of the other two prairie provinces at that time, so that our relative benefit between what we had got before and after the signing of the tax agreement was smaller than in some of these other provinces.
I think perhaps the best way to indicate the value of the tax agreements is to set out the position of all the provinces during this five-year period, which is covered by this agreement. First may I, without invidiously mentioning any single one of the provinces, examine what their expenditures were for education during that period, and what their expenditures were for highways and bridges. This is a fair comparison to make of two important provincial expenditures.
In 1939-that is, before the tax agreement was entered into-the total expenditures upon education in all the provinces was $38 million. The total expenditures on highways and bridges amounted to $87-6 million. In 1949 the amount spent on education totalled $154,100,000; on highways and bridges, $251,700,000. Now, let us look at the total budget. The total provincial expenditures in 1939 amounted to $356 million. In 1949, they amounted to $858 million. Does anyone suggest that there is not some elbow room in there if the provincial ministers charged with the constitutional responsibility for dealing with education desired to use it? In the face of these large over-all increases in provincial expenditures, does anyone suggest that some more moneys could not have been paid on education?
But apart from these provincial expenditures, let us look for a moment at the surplus position of the provinces. During the five-year period there was not a single province in Canada that did not have a surplus, and a substantial one. The accumulated current account surplus of all Canadian provinces over that five-year period was not less than $670 million, that is a surplus over and above these expenditures that I have been talking about.
Now, these are the provincial governments which the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. 55704-40$

Education
Knight) suggests that as a matter of dire necessity we should help; that we should interfere with provincial autonomy in order to pay some more money over so that they could discharge their provincial responsibilities.


Mr. Knight:: On a point or order; I at no time suggested that we should interfere with provincial autonomy. I maintained throughout that we did not have to interfere with provincial autonomy to bring about the thing that I request.


George Alexander Drew: No one in the house has suggested it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: From his standpoint I think my hon. friend is quite right in what he has said. I think the leader of the opposition is also quite right in his interjection, but I suggest from my standpoint, and I have had some little experience in provincial administration, I should like to know how the federal treasury could pay over large amounts of money to the support of primary education without in practice interfering with provincial autonomy.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I should like to ask the minister a question. Have I his permission?


Mr. Speaker:: With the minister's permission.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Certainly.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: My question is this: The minister made a great point of the difference between direct grants-


An hon. Member:: Ask the question.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: -to universities as apart from grants to the provinces.


An hon. Member:: Ask the question.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: My question is this, my friend: Is it the minister's considered opinion that the $35 million which has been paid already by the dominion government for the purposes of education, a great part of which has gone to the provinces in the form of indirect vocational and technical aid grants and so on, has interfered in any way with the jurisdiction of the provinces over education within the provinces?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow me extra time in which to answer these questions. I had thought that I had made that point clear. I tried to make it precise by drawing a clear distinction between payments to the universities of Canada, which are non-political and entirely

self-governing, on the one hand, and payments by the federal government to the provincial governments which are earmarked as grants in aid in respect of a matter that comes under the active control of the provincial departments of education on the other hand. If that distinction does not elucidate the point to my hon. friend's satisfaction, then I am afraid I cannot do any more for him.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: What is the answer of the minister? Is it his considered opinion that those grants to the provinces, indirect grants to the provinces for the purposes of education-he has not answered my question-is it his considered opinion that those grants have in no way infringed on minority rights in connection with education?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am quite prepared to answer that question with one word-no. I said in the beginning, I repeated it and I will repeat it now if my hon. friend insists, that there is no comparison between the payments he has just been referring to and large contributions by the federal treasury to the provincial treasurers for the support of primary education. If he will not accept my reasons I ask my hon. friend to agree with the reasons given by the Rowell-Sirois commission.


George Alexander Drew: May I ask a question just to clarify the matter? I understand from the minister that he is suggesting that the expenditures in the different provinces right across Canada have been higher for highways than for education?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


George Alexander Drew: I assure the minister he is not correct, because the expenditures in Ontario-


An hon. Member:: You made your speech.


George Alexander Drew: I am giving the facts. The expenditures last year in Ontario on highways were $52,267,000 and on education, $67,888,000.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have figures which I believe to be accurate. Perhaps in view of this rather irrelevant point which the leader of the opposition has raised; which does not really illuminate this question which my hon. friend from Saskatoon has asked-


George Alexander Drew: If it does not illuminate it then the minister is wasting a lot of time.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I was referring to my hon. friend's point, but as he, the leader of the opposition, has raised this matter of Ontario expenditures, let us deal with it. The figures

which 1 have and which 1 believe are correct indicate the following expenditures in Ontario:
On
On highways education and bridges
(millions of dollars)
1939	
13-9	31-51946	
34-5	45.31947	
45 -6	62 01948	
50 1	67-71949	
51-7	72 01950	
57-7	85-6


George Alexander Drew: According to a statement which will appear in the press today and which I am sure is accurate, the cost of education in Ontario last year was $67,888,000, and the amount spent on highways was $52,267,000.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It only goes to show that since my hon. friend's departure from Ontario their policies with regard to expenditures on education have been improved.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The same thing happened in Manitoba.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: All the figures I have used apply to years of my hon. friend's regime.


George Alexander Drew: The minister does not know what he is talking about.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That too is a matter of opinion. I am not able to agree with my hon. friend's opinions always, unfortunately.


Mr. Sinnott:: Very few can.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: But I want to compliment the leader of the opposition upon the excellent speech he made and with the main point of which I agree entirely, that is that if we are going to preserve provincial autonomy it is better to put the provinces in a financial position to support properly their schools and to let them exercise that autonomy by choosing themselves between different outlets for expenditures. But I do not agree with my hon. friend in the precise manner that he advocates for putting the provinces in that position. He says to do away with these tax agreements which have proved in fact to be so beneficial to all the provinces.


An hon. Member:: Not to Ontario.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: He says, "let the dominion government cease invading the provincial fields of taxation."


Mr. Hodgson:: Correct.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I see my hon. friend has gained at least one adherent for this wrong conception of his. My hon. friend, I should think for a matter of seven or eight years, has been harping upon this business of the federal government invading provincial fields of taxation. I do not expect to change his
Education
views by drawing his attention to the provisions of the British North America Act because he has had them drawn to his attention many times before and has remained completely impervious to them. But I would point out to you, sir, that section 91 says this: -it is hereby declared that . . . the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated, that is to say,-
3. The raising of money by any mode or system of taxation.
I apologize to the house for putting to it a proposition which, but for the views which have been disseminated in this house by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition would be an insult to the intelligence of hon. members. The proposition is this: Since the powers of the parliament of Canada with regard to the imposition of taxation are completely unlimited, in what sense can it be said that parliament invades any other legislature's field of taxation by exercising powers which the constitution gives to parliament?


George Alexander Drew: I will answer that. .


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: It is a question.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


George Alexander Drew: I understood it was a question.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: With the minister's permission.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is all right.


George Alexander Drew: I took it as a question and I am very happy to answer it.


Mr. Brown (Essex West):: You are not making a speech.


George Alexander Drew: The answer is very simple. At the time the dominion government asked the provinces to enter into agreements during the course of the war whereby the provinces would remain out of certain tax fields, they did so with the unqualified promise that after the termination of the war those tax fields would be returned to them undiminished. The government is in default on its solemn word, and has been ever since.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, that is a very interesting piece of special pleading; but it is, it so happens, rather a complete refutation of what my hon. friend has just said, that the parties to this wartime tax suspension agreement, with the exception of two provinces-


George Alexander Drew: Which embrace over 60 per cent of the population.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -entered into tax agreements under which they have agreed, not to give

Education
up their power of taxation but merely not to exercise those powers during the currency of those agreements, in return for payments from the dominion treasury which are much larger than the signing provinces were ever able to obtain from those taxes themselves at any time in their previous financial history.
And, so far as the other two provinces of Ontario and Quebec are concerned, at the very same time my hon. friend made the statement he just made a moment ago, these provinces are themselves occupying these fields of provincial taxation of which he speaks, not having signed tax agreements. So that my hon. friend's elucidation of his position today has not added anything to the positions that he has previously taken on it. And these positions have never had any foundation in constitutional law.


Mr. Coldwell:: On a point of order, I did not realize that we were discussing taxation agreements. I thought we were discussing education.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, I should have thought the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), having regard to the fact that the provinces have the responsibility for the financing of education, would regard perhaps as being related to that question the fact that the tax agreements help to put the provinces in the funds with which to discharge that responsibility.


Major James William Coldwell: The reference to it was all right, but let us not have a debate on it.


An hon. Member:: It was a lengthy reference.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: So far as the provinces of Ontario and Quebec are concerned, I would say there is a most interesting article in the Toronto Saturday Night of March 1 which tends to show that these existing tax agreements, thie ones that are expiring, were so favourable to the provinces that even the provinces of Ontario and Quebec have lost substantially by not signing them.


George Alexander Drew: That is not so.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, my hon, friend knows it all, of course. I was referring to the article in the Toronto Saturday Night; and if my hon. friend will forgive my saying so, I would rather take their views than his in the matter.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You need to be educated'.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: At the time when a renewal of the tax agreements is being considered, it is absolutely open to all the provinces, the whole ten of them, to decide whether they will come into the agreements or stay out of them. And, if they stay out, then, in the case of

the two central provinces, they will continue to do what they have been doing for the last five years, and that is to occupy perfectly freely and in the same way as they always did the fields of provincial taxation, to the extent that they wish to do so. And they can continue that position.
Now, in view of the expenditures by provincial governments upon subject matters other than education, in view of the surplus position over the five-year period of some $670 million by way of surplus on current account-and that is over two-thirds of a billion-it seems to be reasonable to suggest that, if they wished1 to do so, they could increase expenditures upon primary education. They could increase those expenditures out of their present resources, instead of reducing debts, instead of having surpluses, instead of having built so many roads, and1 so on. And if we are going to pay the respect to provincial rights and to provincial autonomy that we should pay, then it seems to me that once the provinces have been placed in that favourable financial position, one which has improved out of all recognition over what it was prior to these tax agreements, and improved not only because of the tax agreements but also as a result of other federal policies, which have increased greatly the productivity of the provincial taxes themselves-


Mr. Rowe:: And yours has, too.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is quite right, yes. Also in the interval our necessity for expenditures has not only increased but has been multiplied, and the burden under which the federal budget is now labouring is an enormous one, as I am sure my hon. friend will agree.


William Earl Rowe: A lot of people will agree with that.


James Arthur Ross: The taxpayers of Canada realize it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: And, for that reason, the point of this whole matter seems to be this, that so long as the provincial governments have exclusive jurisdiction over the subject of education, which they will continue to have, then they should have the right, to use the language of the Sirois report, to decide the relative importance of expenditures on education and expenditures upon other competing provincial services.
They have that because, again to use the language of the Sirois report, a generous provision for the education of the children of the nation depends, in the last analysis, not upon any arbitrary constitutional provision, but upon the persistent conviction of the mass

of the people that they must be ready to deny themselves some of the good things of life in order to deal fairly with their children.
It is in precisely the realm of political activity of the municipalities and the provinces, which are continually being held up to us as being closer to the people, that these decisions are made, and that the impact of the people's views can be brought most forcibly upon those who have decisions to make.
Once it is the fact-and it is the fact- that the provincial treasuries are no longer in the position in which they were prior to these tax agreements, it can no longer be argued that they are unable to make these provisions, if they wish to do so. And if therefore the people of the provinces, speaking democratically through their votes, really want a lot of money spent on education, it is a simple matter for them to elect provincial governments pledged to spend it instead of attempting to throw yet another burden upon the sorely pressed federal government, and at the same time in my view-and I think in this the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) will agree with me-attempting to make a really vital attack upon provincial autonomy.


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure provincial governments across Canada will appreciate the lecture the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has just given them. It makes one wonder why the minister has changed his opinion so greatly since the days when he himself was a member of a provincial government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Provincial treasurer, at that.


Joseph William Noseworthy: And it makes one
wonder-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On a question of privilege I would simply affirm-and I hope my hon. friend will accept my statement-that my views have not changed at all; they are precisely the same now as they were then. What has changed is the financial position of the provinces.


Joseph William Noseworthy: It makes one wonder how it comes about that the minister knows the needs of the province so much better than the premier of that province. Those are questions which naturally come to mind of one who does not know much about the inner working of Liberal politics.
This subject of federal aid to education to my knowledge has been before the house almost annually for the last ten years. I first spoke here in support of federal aid to education back in 1942, and I do not think there has been a year since when there has not been a debate on that subject in this house in one form or another. The arguments
Education
for federal aid to education have been presented to the house year after year. Every hon. member who has given any thought to this subject knows those arguments. Every hon. member who has been in contact with his municipal council and his school boards knows those arguments and knows how necessary is federal aid to education. Every member of this house who has considered the matter knows that just as we passed from the stage when the municipal taxpayer was called upon to bear the entire cost of education, so now we have reached a point where the cost of education should no longer be left to the municipal taxpayer and the provincial government. Every hon. member knows that without federal aid the governments of some of the provinces just cannot provide educational opportunities equal to those provided by other provinces. In spite of all the minister may say about expenditures on roads and bridges instead of education, in spite of all he may say about what the provincial governments could do for education if they wanted, he knows that no matter how sincere some provincial governments may be in attempting to provide equal educational opportunities for their children they just cannot do it.
We who support federal aid to education maintain, and we think quite rightly, that it is the heritage of every Canadian child to be given the best educational opportunities that are available, not in Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick or Newfoundland or Quebec or any other province, but the best educational opportunities that can be provided by Canada as a nation. That is the basis on which we make our claim for federal support for education. As a matter of fact I doubt whether many measures that have come before this house in recent years have had more public support across Canada than this matter of federal aid to education. The parents of this country are interested in it. They are much more interested in getting the best possible education for their boys boys and girls than in any quarrel the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) may have with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), or in any quarrels between political parties in this country in regard to federal and provincial jurisdiction or the taxing rights of the provincial and federal governments. What the parents of this country want is that regardless of where those children may live, they shall be given the opportunity to get the best in education this country can offer. They are quite willing to let the politicians fight their battles over questions of provincial and federal rights. They expect us as intelligent representatives of the people to

Education
get together with the provincial authorities and find some formula which will give the children that educational opportunity.
I said few measures had received more popular support than this. Home and school associations all across this country, who know educational problems and are interested in education, have supported this measure. School trustee associations, municipal councils, trade union congresses, farmer organizations, chambers of commerce and, I am told, at least five provincial governments support federal aid for education. I know some provinces have requested it. The premier of Manitoba, the minister's own province, is on record at the federal-provincial conference of last fall as asking for federal aid for education. This measure has been receiving increasing support across the country because the need has been growing and becoming more evident every year. Now we are actually facing a crisis. It may be quite true, as the minister says, that the provincial governments are delinquent in their duty towards education, that they are not conscious of the need-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend knows I did not say the provincial governments were delinquent in their duty, so he should not attribute the statement to me.


Joseph William Noseworthy: O.K.; the provincial
premiers can read what the minister said. They can read his lecture on their willingness to spend more money on roads and bridges than on education. They can see where he pointed out that if they wanted to spend more money on education they could do so. His words are there to be read. But whether or not the minister is right, the fact is that a crisis is developing. If the present trend continues until 1955, as was pointed out yesterday, by that time we shall have a shortage of 25,000 teachers. That means that in 1955 half a million boys and girls in Canada will be without teachers in their schools. That is a very serious matter. Whether the provincial governments or the federal government may be responsible for education, the thing we have to consider here is whether we as a nation can afford to let half a million of our children go without teachers. The parents of those children are not concerned with our quarrel over constitutional questions. It is the job of the politicians to iron out those difficulties. That is where the federal government should show some initiative in getting together with the provinces. We have done that in other fields. It would not be the first time the federal government has had to 
go into a huddle with the provinces to arrive at some agreement by which the federal government would come to their aid.
The minister has drawn a whole school of red herring across the trail in his effort to indicate to the Liberal members of this house how the government wants them to vote on this issue. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter far too important to Canada as a nation to be one in which members of any party should take cabinet dictation. This is a matter upon which every member in the house should be entirely free to vote as he feels will be in the best interest of the boys and girls of today, who will be the citizens of tomorrow.
We are not asking for a vote of confidence in the government. We are not suggesting that the federal government should step in and take over control of education. Other civilized countries in the world today, with the federal system of government, find it possible for the central government to give the amount of money that the Minister of Justice was talking about without infringing upon state or provincial rights. They have been doing it for years. This argument that the federal government cannot put any sizeable sum into the hands of the province for educational purposes without interfering with what religion is taught in the schools is just so much boloney. It is done in other countries, and it can be done in this country if the iLiberal government wants to do it. It can be done without any interference with religion, language or anything else that is taught in the schools of the various provinces.
All we are asking for in this resolution is 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. We are asking the government to take that matter into consideration. I presume that means getting together with the provinces, and attempting to find out if there is not some way whereby the federal government can co-operate with the provinces in a manner that will be acceptable to the provinces. Then, the federal government could make it possible for boys and girls living in one province during the early years of their life to be educated as Canadian citizens, and not as citizens of any one province. It would make it possible for them to move from one province to another, equipped educationally to the best possible extent that Canada can afford, and not merely to the extent that a particular province or municipality can afford.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the first step towards

equalizing opportunity of education should come from the provinces themselves. School boards in districts with low assessment find a great deal of difficulty in providing adequate funds for teachers' salaries, and for capital expenditures. In the case of the province of Ontario, with which I am familiar, that problem has been attacked in a very realistic way. Because I am familiar with the way that problem has been tackled, I propose to mention it here.
In Ontario, the government not only gives a fixed sum for each pupil in average attendance during the preceding year, but also gives supplementary grants on a sliding scale whereby districts with the smallest population and the lowest assessment receive the largest grants. In this way Ontario strives to equalize the opportunity for education within the province. Now, I believe that the federal government should make funds available on a sliding scale to help equalize the opportunity for education between the provinces, in the same way as Ontario has made funds available to equalize opportunities within the province. It would not be my intention that the federal government should take any part in the policy or administration of education. This field belongs to the provinces alone.
This government should beware also of attaching any strings to grants which it might make, lest those grants become a factor in policy making. However, at the present time, the federal government makes grants to education without encroaching upon the sovereignty of the provinces. I believe it could do a great deal more.
The greatest variations in opportunity for education come from two sources. First, there is inequality in the physical facilities for education. Second, there is inequality in the standards of teaching. The first of these we shall always have with us, because it is impossible to provide in small rural communities the great variety of facilities available in large centres. This difference can be best modified by the governments closest to the needs of the people.
However, the unequal standards of teaching we do not need to accept. I believe it is here that federal funds will be of the greatest assistance. They would not interfere with the policy or administration of education within a province, but would make available to the poorer provinces additional funds so that they could bring their teachers' salaries up to the level of those of the wealthier provinces.
Surely, it is the policy of all provincial governments to hire the most qualified teachers that they can afford. Unfortunately,
Education
there is often not sufficient money available to hire highly qualified teachers, and funds for the purpose of equalizing the standards of teachers' salaries would do more for the equalization of opportunity in education than anything else. A poor teacher in a well equipped school cannot give a sound education; but a good teacher in a poorly equipped school can achieve wonders.
Let us, therefore, make funds available so that each province can give its teachers in all districts a salary sufficient to recompense them for undergoing the long training necessary to become good teachers; a salary sufficient to entice into that vitally important field the many able and interested people who at present must shun the teaching profession simply because of the inadequate salary which that profession provides. In this way the federal government would be in no way interfering with the rights of the provinces, and it would be a long step towards making the equalization of opportunity for education a reality.
I should like to make a further suggestion which would probably be contingent upon greater funds being made available to the provinces for more highly trained teachers. I believe that school boards should give serious consideration to the matter of a more intensive study of French and English in all grades. Our country is bilingual by law, but in most regions it is not bilingual in practice. The two languages are often a purely mechanical barrier between the two great races working out a better understanding with each other. If all children from grade 1 up were taught both languages, this mechanical barrier would disappear; and with the greater understanding of each other, closer unity would, I believe, result.
Another matter within the federal field of education is the need for the establishment of a tri-services college within the province of Quebec, without in any way encroaching upon provincial rights. I attended the Royal Military College between the years 1927 and 1931. When I was there I felt that it was a great pity that more French-speaking Canadians did not attend that college. The obvious reason they did not attend it was the language difficulty. The few who did attend were up against a very real handicap indeed.
Today, of the 500 cadets in the two service colleges, only 38 are French-speaking Canadians. It is obviously preferable that all potential officers should be trained together at the same college. But if French-speaking Canadians do not come forward in sufficiently large numbers because of language

Education
difficulties, I believe that the sensible thing to do is to establish a separate services college in the province of Quebec.
During the war I served in two brigades with two French-Canadian regiments. Their valour and efficiency were equal to any in the Canadian army. I believe that we must do everything we can to make it as easy as possible for large numbers of French-speaking officers to be trained in preparation for another possible conflict. The way to do this is, I believe, through the establishment of a tri-services college in the province of Quebec.


Mr. A. H. Jeffery (London):: Mr. Speaker, I am in the unenviable position that I have just been preceded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), who has stolen about half of the speech that I wished to make today. I wish, however, to point out to some of the hon. members the difference between aid to universities and aid for technical training and general education. It must be admitted by all here that we need scientific education in the development of Canada. We are fast becoming an industrial nation. In order to support this industry and to develop as have other countries with more experience, we must train the people. This is a national matter. The help that we can, by the dominion, give the universities in technical training to workmen is justified. When we come to the provinces, however, we have provinces that want to give various types of education. We have some provinces that want to educate their children longer than do others. If we step into the field of general education, the government would have to set certain standards that must be lived up to before they could make contributions.
I note that the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) rightly suggested that the schools should teach more French and English. I think that is an excellent idea. But is he not here in the federal house laying down a law for the various provinces to follow? And that is just the sort of thing that would happen if we got into the field of education.
A few years ago I certainly could have supported aid for general education to the west and to the maritimes because of the sparseness of their population; they had long distances to go and small taxes, and that aid would have been justified. But I think the picture is changing, and doing so rapidly. With the discovery of oil and mineral resources, and the coming industrialization of the west and the maritimes these people will have the money; and they have the money, as has been indicated by the Minister of Justice. All have surpluses and they can pay for education if they so choose. I agree

with the Minister of Justice that for us to hand over large sums of money to the provinces for manipulation by the provinces themselves would be a mistake. They have the money. Let them spend it where they wish. If we handed them over large sums of money, they might withdraw all money from education and let us pay for it. That would not make sense.
I am, of course, particularly familiar with the province of Ontario, which has a $30 million surplus this year. Why do they not use that $30 million surplus to better education in the province? As a matter of fact, education in the province of Ontario today is responsible for the most profligate wastage that has ever occurred in that province. I could give some examples where the amount spent on schools, at the insistence of the board of education in Toronto, was twice that which the local boards wanted to spend but which they had to spend or they could not get the grant. I am thinking of gymnasiums, auditoriums, swimming pools-yes, even a sound-proof rifle range. That is not the sort of thing that the federal government wants to pay money for. They want to pay money for education.
Do not misunderstand me. I believe in auditoriums, gymnasiums, swimming pools- yes, even a rifle range-in the crowded cities in order that we may keep the children off the streets, keep them occupied and give them something. But how ridiculous it is to provide, for the children of agricultural people, auditoriums, swimming pools and all those things when they have available the great out-of-doors; when they leave school at four o'clock they can go back and get the best education in the world on their own farms. I would hate to see the money go to such a place as the province of Ontario, having regard to the way they have forced these small municipalities practically into bankruptcy by insisting that they take on this terrific burden of education.


An hon. Member:: You should go out to Saskatchewan.


Alexander Haley Jeffery: The type and the amount of education that should take place in the province is for government at its lowest level to decide; it is not something to be decided by a department of education in the capital of some province, and which insists that the local authorities do this, that and the other thing. They should have a certain standard of health, and if they provide this standard of health, let them proceed from there, not tell them that they are going to build gymnasiums, swimming pools and rifle ranges, as has been done. Let them build their own.


Mr. Murphy:: That is what Thomson says.


Alexander Haley Jeffery: That is what he said.


Joseph Warner Murphy: See what he got.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who was Thomson?


Alexander Haley Jeffery: If the provinces would forget the concentration on the frills and would go in for more technical education for which there is available to them the help of the federal government, we would be making a contribution to Canada as a whole. That is what this house is interested in: Canada as a whole. We should not invade provincial rights and we certainly should not provide money to be used on the type of frills that are being provided in Ontario today.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, we do not want to see this motion talked out. Consequently we are omitting to say a lot of things on the subject that we might say. In listening to the hon. member who has just spoken, I noted that he raised the old bogey of provincial rights. I do not see that the question of provincial rights has much effect having regard to what the resolution of the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) is looking for. All that resolution asks for, in so far as the federal government can do it by way of grants in aid, is the endeavour to equalize educational opportunities of all children in Canada. The hon. member who has just taken his seat definitely proved the necessity for action of that kind. His whole argument was that Ontario has too much money, that they are throwing it away on unnecessary gadgets, and so forth. That is exactly what this resolution deals with. It recognizes the inability of the provinces all across this country, because of the difference in provincial income, to be able to do the things in the educational field that they would like to do.
If the federal government adopted the resolution that is on the order paper, there is no reason why some of the surplus that Ontario has could not be used in Prince Edward Island, in New Brunswick and in other sections of Canada where salaries are very low in comparison with what they are in Ontario.
The hon. member said he believed in Canada as a whole. That is exactly what the resolution is asking him to do.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: You might use the surplus in Quebec.


Joseph Warner Murphy: And the federal surplus, too.


Clarence Gillis: His whole argument was in
support of the resolution, although he thought he was arguing against it. I feel strongly
Education
on this subject because within the past few months in the section of Canada that I come from we had teachers of the rural sections driven to the point that, in order to focus attention on their problem, they were obliged to go on strike. That strike lasted I think about six weeks. Thousands of children were home from school-of course the children did not mind that. The salaries in that area were down around $1,100 a year. The teachers received a lot of criticism. It was said that they should not have gone on strike; it was not a dignified thing to do; and so forth and so on. The question had been debated in this parliament, in the provincial legislature and by the municipalities, for years. But the teachers got no action, and so they were forced to do what they did in order to focus public opinion on the question.
I should like to ask some hon. members who say that, by granting federal aid, you are invading provincial rights, you are going to upset the constitution and so forth, how it is that that objection is not raised when the health grants are discussed. It is exactly the same thing. The field of health is under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments. Nevertheless, millions of dollars a year are given in grants in aid to the provinces, and are used for that purpose, and nobody screams about upsetting the constitution or invading provincial rights. It is necessary. Then again, on this matter of aid, whether it is an aid or a subsidy, it is federal government money being used for the purpose of advancing the best interests of the country.
You are subsidizing practically everything in this country. The whole agricultural industry is receiving grants in aid from the federal government, and nobody hollers about provincial rights. Practically every industry in this country is receiving grants in aid from the federal government in one way or another. The railroads get subventions for the movement of steel, coal, grain and so on. They are grants in aid, and nobody talks about the constitutional position. Canadian National Railways receive write-offs ,of theoretical deficits amounting to millions of dollars a year. They are grants in aid to the railroads, and they are applicable to every province in the country, but nobody says anything about provincial rights. But in the field of education, where teachers are moulding the future citizens of this country, they are asked to work for salaries lower than street cleaners receive in some instances. The moment you raise the question of bringing up the individual teacher's salary to the point where he can live everybody screams about invading provincial rights.

Education
There may be something to a theory that I have had for a long time. It is a good thing for those in power to keep as many people in the country in that grade 6 or grade 8 scale as long as they can be kept there. They are hewers of wood and drawers of water. It is not hard to get them into the army to pack a rifle and that kind of thing. It may be dangerous to educate them too highly. Take the last war, and the number of young men who went into the services who were illiterate. The federal government had to set up schools in this country in order to give a large percentage of young men who went into the services the necessary education to be able to sit down and read a map and understand it. There the federal government went into the field of education, but nobody screamed about provincial rights. They took from the provinces hundreds of young men who were illiterate, and in order to place them in a position where they could understand their basic training and read the manuals they had to set up schools.
The provinces have had jurisdiction in that field since confederation, and it has not worked-not to the satisfaction of the people of Canada, and particularly of the teachers. Thousands of young men who came out of the services in the last war, from province to province, found themselves in the position where they could not take advantage of the government's program of rehabilitation. They did not have university entrance, so they were out so far as university training was concerned. Thousands of them, who did not have grade 8 education, could not even take the vocational training end of the program. They were dealt out completely. We demanded in the house-it was demanded in the legislatures-that part of the rehabilitation program should have been to take a boy who was in the sixth or the seventh grade and give him at least sufficient schooling to enable him to take the full program of vocational training. It was not done.
The provinces have not done the job that they should have done. They have not done it because of the unequal distribution of the wealth of the country. Ontario can do it, yes. Eighty per cent of the succession duties paid in this country over the years, until 1949 anyway, were paid in the province of Ontario. Do not think that the big estates were built up of capital all earned in this province. It was earned all over this country, but the estates were built here. The same thing applies to at least one section of Quebec that I know of, namely, Mount Royal.
A lot of the taxes paid in the central provinces comes from money from other parts
[Mr. GiUis.l
of the country. The taxes are paid on it here. I do not think the federal government will do anything about federal aid at this session, but I think it should at least do this. The dominion-provincial agreements are coming up for discussion. I do not think that provinces like Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are getting the deal they should get, having regard to the provincial income. I do not know about Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia, but I do check the figures for the maritimes, and I do not think they are getting the deal they should. For example, in the 1947 agreements the province of Nova Scotia received from the federal government about $16,300,000. I understand that that includes the statutory subsidies of about $2 million a year. Under the new agreement, which I think has been entered into, or is about to be entered into, they will step that amount up by about $2 million to $18 million. I cannot see Nova Scotia getting the deal there that she should get, because I hold in my hand a press release. It is dated February 16, 1951, and it sets out that in that year the provincial government paid back to the federal government in the fields of taxation which they had relinquished some $24,338,000. I have the details here if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) wants me to read them, but I never like cluttering up the record with too many statistics. The figures are official as they come from Ottawa. Under the agreement the dominion government paid back to the province $16,800,000. That indicates that there is $8 million to play around with and that would help the Nova Scotia government considerably.
I am not making any demands, because I know there is much more money coming into the province from the federal government than is paid under these agreements. I have always taken the position that the provincial governments which have not made similar arrangements with the federal governments are evading their national responsibility. Family allowances, old age pensions, assistance to those 65 to 69 years of age, subsidies to mining, agriculture and other industries such as steel and what have you, all those come back to the provinces. Somebody pays taxes on those things to the provincial governments of Ontario and Quebec. I repeat that they are not accepting their national responsibility when they refuse to come under these agreements.
While I might make an argument for the payment of that $8 million, I am not going to do it. I mention it merely to show the unreasonable position taken by the central provinces in relation to the equalization of

educational opportunity, social security and so forth across this country. They are not pulling their share of the load.
I am suggesting that if the agreement with Nova Scotia has not been finalized consideration should be given to an upward revision to enable that province to do something about the teachers' salary problem. I spoke about this briefly in the throne speech debate.
I figure that Nova Scotia has reached the end of its rope. To attempt to throw the load on the municipalities is most unreasonable because the municipalities in that part of the country are imposing taxes on property as high as 12 per cent. They just cannot go any further. In the town in which I live 60 per cent of every dollar taken in in taxes is spent on the schools. That town cannot continue to carry that load without cutting down on other services. It just cannot go any further. The salaries paid in the municipalities are as high as the municipalities can pay.
Unless the provincial government can find new sources of revenue, and they are trying -they are talking about a tax on gypsum and so forth-they will not be able to do any more than they are at the present time. Teachers right across the country should receive the same salary. There should be no differential as between provinces because they are all Canadians and doing the same job. In order that that can be done arrangements must be made with the federal government. If Ontario does not want to enter into such arrangements-according to some speakers, Quebec is quite willing to talk over the matter in an effort to come to some understanding- that is fine, but I believe the provinces of this country should receive some consideration in their need.
It amuses me sometimes to hear hon. members say that if we accept money from the federal government that government will soon be writing a uniform curriculum for the schools all across the country. It might be a good thing if they did. About two months ago I listened to a national forum over the air composed of eminent scholars in different localities all the way from Vancouver to Halifax. We heard from people in Halifax, Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and from a number of other provincial stations. They were discussing the question of the school curriculum in the different provinces.
According to the discussion, the history as taught in Manitoba and in Quebec is absolutely different. It was teachers who were making these statements. For example, they said that the history with regard to the Riel rebellion had a completely different version in Quebec from what was taught in
Education
Manitoba. We talk about national unity, but if we cannot have the same facts of history taught to our children how are we going to have national unity? The whole matter is involved in the field of education.
After attempting to handle this problem since confederation the provinces have demonstrated that all they can do is to set up differentials in salary across the country, to such an extent that the teachers are just walking away from their profession. Young boys and girls who might take up this profession are advised not to do so because there is no future in it.
We are very anxious to have this matter voted on tonight, favourably I hope. There are a lot of things one could say on this subject, but I do not want to be accused of talking it out. I hope other hon. members will make their speeches short and to the point so that we can have a favourable vote and tell the federal government that we want federal aid to education. We can do it without disrupting the constitution or wanting to write the school curriculum for the different provinces.
This federal aid would be just the same as other forms of aid now given to the provinces. It would be administered provincially, but it would be marked specifically for educational purposes. I hope we can have a favourable vote tonight. If Ontario does not want to come in, as was indicated by the last speaker-


Joseph Warner Murphy: He did not speak for Ontario, he spoke for Mr. Thomson.


Clarence Gillis: I am glad to hear he did not.


Mr. Harkness:: Just for the minority.


Clarence Gillis: In my opinion the dominion government should be ready to render this assistance.
(Translation) :


Mr. Andre Gauthier (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking part in the debate this afternoon, but I feel that the scope of the matter under discussion and the effects which would follow the adoption of such a motion justify my attitude.
The confederation act of 1867 has established the rights and privileges of the different governments and has placed all matters pertaining to education under the unqualified jurisdiction of the provinces. The fathers of confederation, having carefully examined the problem of education, acted very wisely, I think, in denying the federal government jurisdiction over this field of activity. Consequently, the constitution gives the provinces full sovereignty in the field

Education
of education. As long as my province will accept its responsibilities-which I hope she will never shun-I shall object to any interference by the central government in matters over which it has no jurisdiction, especially with regard to education.
The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) said a few minutes ago that the provinces should make the first step. However, as the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) stated yesterday, the province of Quebec has a surplus of funds for educational purposes, and so the chances are that Quebec will never request any grant from the federal government.
For those reasons and for others upon which it is not necessary to elaborate at great length, I am opposed to the present resolution. It has given the hon. members an opportunity to express their views. I am convinced that the Liberal party will reject unanimously such a resolution.
I shall therefore vote against the motion presented by the C.C.F. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) on the grounds that it is too general, that it lacks preciseness and that, in my estimation, it constitutes an unfortunate attempt to encroach upon the field of education, which is and must remain under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
(Text):


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the subject of education is one of very great importance to everyone in Canada. While we are deliberating here from day to day more than 2,500,000 young Canadians are in attendance at schools and colleges throughout this dominion. Parents, trustees, teachers and provincial governments are devoting close attention to the problem of education.
Despite the allocation of the responsibility for education to the provinces by section 93 of the British North America Act, the dominion government in my opinion has or should have a very great interest in education. One of the great problems of any state is that of national unity. For no country has it been a greater problem than for Canada. The two major racial groups, English and French, joined together in a federation, have the marked characteristics of race, language and religion that at times tend to keep them apart.
The geographical barriers to unity in Canada need no special comment. Superimposed upon these factors that make for disunity has been the steady growth of immigration into this country, based upon policies adopted by the federal government. During the forty-five years from 1896 to
IMr. Gauthier (Lake St. John).]
1941 there were 5 million people from all parts of Europe who entered Canada as immigrants. Less than half of them stayed, owing to the greater attraction south of the border; but a pattern was set, and subsequent immigration has not altered the picture.
We are a diverse people. Nowhere is the diversity of our population more apparent than in western Canada. On some occasions the Winnipeg Free Press has printed New Year's greetings in 67 different languages. The British and Foreign Bible Society has sold the scriptures in the city of Winnipeg in 50 languages. At the present time about 85 per cent of the people are Canadian-born; but we are still too young a country for the influence of racial origin to be ignored.
On the matter of racial origin, the dominion bureau of statistics, according to the census of 1941, indicates that the Irish comprise
11	per cent of our population, the Scots
12	per cent, the English about 25 per cent and the French 30 per cent. The remaining 22 per cent comprise very large groups and numbers of people. In round figures, just to show the extent of the racial origins of groups in Canada, the 1941 census shows that there are 470,000 people of German origin, 310,000 of Ukrainian, 215,000 Nether-landers, 170,000 Jews, 168,000 Poles, 113,000 Italians, 100,000 Norwegians, 85,000 Swedes,
38.000	Danes, 21,000 Icelanders, 84,000 Russians, 43,000 Czechoslovakians, 41,000 Finns, 38,000 Austrians, 30,000 Belgians,
25.000	Roumanians, 22,000 Yugoslavs and
11.000	Greeks, in addition to other smaller national groups from Europe.
Then, we have 75,000 Asiatics, 22,000 Negroes and 125,000 Indians and Eskimos. In 1867, when the British North America Act established the Dominion of Canada the racial groups were divided into 2,110,000 from the British isles, 1,080,000 French,
200.000	Germans, 30,000 Dutch and a negligible number from four other races. So when the fathers of confederation assigned to the provinces the sole responsibility for education the difficulties that were to arise from immigration forty or fifty years later were not envisaged.
To cope with all the inherent forces of disunity in Canada, to weld together into one nation all these diverse groups, the chief influence throughout the last fifty years has been the Canadian provincial school system, and in particular the elementary schools. The process of adaptation, assimilation and integration has of necessity been carried out largely with the descendants of immigrants in the second and third generations, for, on the whole, the task of instructing our immigrant population in Canadian ways has

received no special attention. We have simply assumed that they would wish to learn our languages and adopt our customs. No special effort has been made to inculcate in them a pride in being Canadian. No special effort has been made to emphasize our traditions or to lay stress on Canadian citizenship.
As a result the development of Canadian unity has been retarded. The time has surely come for increasing the emphasis on Canada, its history, its traditions, its heritage and its culture. The making of a Canadian nation is a long, slow process, and it is of national or federal concern. At its base is education, elementary, secondary and university.
The very diversity of our racial origins in this country is a strong argument in favour of just such a survey as has recently been completed by the Massey commission.
You cannot by wishing or direction create a Canadian culture; but you can certainly provide by forethought for its development. Provide the means; make suitable the environment and the arts, letters and sciences will develop.
The preamble to the terms of reference of the Massey commission reads in part as follows:
That it is desirable that the Canadian people should know as much as possible about their country, its history and traditions: and about their national life and common achievements.
The report goes on to state this clearly implies-
-that there are important things in the life of a nation which cannot be weighed or measured. These intangible elements are not only essential in themselves; they may serve to inspire a nation's devotion and to prompt a nation's action.
Then follows this important passage:
When Winston Churchill in 1940 called the British people to their supreme effort he invoked the traditions of his country and based his appeal on the common background from which had grown the character and way of life of his fellow countrymen. In the spiritual heritage of Great Britain was found the quickening force to meet the menacing facts of that perilous hour. Nothing could have been more "practical" than that appeal to thought and emotion.
If a similar appeal to thought and emotion could be made in Canada by an emphasis on our history and traditions it would serve us well in our slow march toward unity within the state; and that emphasis is of federal importance and concern. The most readily available agency for imparting knowledge of our history and traditions is the school system. The federal authority has a great interest in the education of the Canadian people.
Education
On a lower plane the federal authority is concerned with the standard of education of our people. There is a close relation between the lack of education and the committing of serious crimes. Our federal prisons are evidence of that fact, for the present inmates are largely those who have had very little formal education in our schools. During the last war the federal authorities discovered an unusually large number of illiterates or semiilliterates, who required special educational courses before they could be usefully employed in the armed forces.
There should be a national interest in education generally because of the results shown by the Canadian provincial educational systems. When considered as a whole, looking at the broad picture, we find that over 50 per cent of Canadian children leave school before completing grade 8. This means that every other Canadian has had less than eight years of formal education. Yet the tendency is to require higher educational qualifications for admittance to many occupations. In other words we are denying to half our population an opportunity that should be their right through their childhood years; for the fact that so many do not complete their elementary education is due not so much to lack of interest on the part of the children, nor to lack of ambition for them on the part of their parents, as to lack of opportunity and lack of schools and trained teachers, or to unsatisfactory school conditions.
In the matter of denial of educational opportunity, I made an intensive investigation of that subject in the province of Manitoba about four years ago. I endeavoured to measure the standards of educational opportunity on the basis of the enrolment in the high schools. I found the average for the province showed that 18 per cent of the total number of children of school age were in high school. In the wealthier or more progressive areas, urban and rural, the percentage might rise to over 24 per cent, but in some areas of our province only 4 per cent of the children of school age were in high school. In these areas, for economic or other reasons, children discontinue school at grade 6 or grade 7 or grade 8, and do not receive the advantage of high school training. Either there are no high schools within reasonable distance of their homes, or the elementary schools have been so poorly organized or assisted that the children have not been successful in completing their courses. In some instances parental indifference may be the cause. Whatever the reason, this constitutes a denial of opportunity for many thousands of Manitoba children, and I imagine a similar survey in other provinces would indicate similar conditions.

Education
Basically the fault is economic. A great part of our trouble with education is primarily due to the lack of sufficient money to build and maintain schools and provide trained teachers. Very little is spent on the education of our children when you calculate the expenditure per child. For Manitoba, combining elementary and secondary schools and using the figures of the bureau of statistics for 1948, the average spent on each pupil was $157.27. I do not suppose there has been much change in the amount spent per pupil in the intervening years, but that amounted to less than 80 cents per pupil for each school day, the price of two packages of cigarettes. And for what? For daily instruction five times a week in the art of living and working together; in the study of the essential elements of education; in training for citizenship in a great democracy; in developing body, mind and character; in learning Canada's history and imbibing her traditions. No other task of comparable importance to the state is performed with such meagre support.
To the school taxpayer, the owner of real property, the cheapness of education is far from obvious. He finds it very burdensome, and cannot be blamed for urging that the weight on his shoulders be reduced. So long as the major cost of education is borne by a tax on land, our educational system will suffer from a lack of sufficient financial support. Other sources of revenue for education are urgently needed.
It is at this point that mention must be made of the Rowell-Sirois report, to which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) referred this afternoon. The able commissioners who surveyed the Canadian scene more than a decade ago hoped their recommendations for national adjustment grants would enable the provinces to maintain an average standard in all fields in which the provinces have jurisdiction. The hopes of the commissioners have not been realized. With regard to education the commissioners felt that they could not advise special grants for education in general. Again I quote the passage already quoted by the Minister of Justice:
Our financial proposals aim at placing every province in a position to discharge its responsibilities for education (on a scale that is within the means of the people of Canada) if it chooses to do so. Once this position is established it seems to us best that education like every other form of welfare service in a democratic community should have to fight for its life . . .
I end the quotation at that point because I take issue with the report there. Education, and certainly elementary education, should not have to fight for its life. Elementary education should be the right of our
fMr. Gauthier (Lake St. John).]
children, not a matter of choice for any governmental body. Similarly equal educational opportunity in secondary education and at the university level should be guaranteed every child in Canada. If any class or group in our society requires a bill of rights, it is the school age children of our country. Denial of educational opportunity is a blot upon the record of a country that so proudly points to its material achievements, its promising future and its heritage of freedom.
The answer lies in adequate financial support for education, with the federal authority providing the additional assistance that the provinces require. Slowly but steadily the federal government, through its extensive taxing powers and because of changing economic conditions, is becoming financially more powerful. The provinces, unless blessed with unusual natural resources, are unable to maintain from their restricted fields of direct taxation the services required. Some people consider that federal support for education means inevitably federal control or interference. Ottawa should not be allowed to grip any part of the provincial educational system.
There is already a considerable record of federal aid to education without federal control. The sum of $10 million was granted as early as 1913 to assist in agricultural training in the provinces. Other large sums have been made available for technical and vocational training, scholarships and for veterans training at the universities. Now we have an outright grant to universities. The federal government has established a pattern of assistance without control, and is showing am interest in education.
Education is of national concern and merits support from the federal treasury. Education is not just one among many competing welfare services. It is basic to the development of a democratic society. Education is a right which should not be denied any child in Canada. Opportunity for higher education should be the privilege of every Canadian boy and girl. A country composed of so many racial groups needs to place special emphasis on education in order to ensure the development of that unity within a federal system that is so essential for national development.
Further, I maintain that there is abundant proof that education still lacks sufficient financial support and that the only source from which the necessary assistance can be obtained is the federal treasury. Present interest by the federal authorities can be increased and present federal aid to education can be enlarged without curtailing provincial jurisdiction and responsibility.

The goal we seek is a united Canada. In the words of that great jurist, Mr. Justice Frankfurter of the United States:
The public school is at once the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny.
By means of the schools of Canada we have the opportunity of maintaining our honoured traditions, of strengthening our democracy and of developing into greatness as a united nation.
(Translation):


Mr. L. D. Tremblay (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I have had the honour to represent the county of Dorchester in this house for 17 years. Needless to say I have heard speeches on many subjects, some timely, even urgent, some rather unimportant and some quite untimely. Since the beginning of the debate on this resolution, I have been wondering whether a certain group of members are not rather oblivious of the fact that the government of this country is based on a constitution which, if not very clear on certain matters, is very clear with regard to other subjects, particularly on the matter of jurisdiction in the field of education. The mover of this resolution apparently is asking for certain grants from the federal government!, This is precisely what we are opposing. The province of Quebec will never allow the federal government to encroach upon a field over which the province has complete jurisdiction.
The motion introduced by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) reads as follows:
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.
At this moment, Mr. Speaker, it would not be amiss perhaps to recall section 93 of the constitution which leaves no doubt whatever as to the jurisdiction in the field of education. Section 93 is entitled "Education" and reads as follows:
In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the following provisions:
(1)	Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the province at the union;
(2)	All the powers, privileges, and duties at the union by law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the separate schools and school trustees of the queen's Roman Catholic subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the dissentient schools of the queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic subjects in Quebec.
Education
As I was saying, up to this point there is no ambiguity. Yesterday, the hon. members for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier), for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) and for Lake St. John (Mr. Gauthier)-I congratulate them all-clearly expressed in this house the reasons for our opposition to any interference on the part of the federal government in a field which comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. The hon. member for Portneuf had this to say in respect to the manner in which we deal, in the province of Quebec, with those of our fellow citizens whose tongue and religion are different from ours:
And now, Mr. Speaker, I feel Quebec has set an example with two councils of education, one for the Catholic schools, the other for Protestant or neutral schools. These two councils direct the policy of the provincial government in matters of education and keep the people of the province informed.
I shall go even further-here I call the attention of the hon. members from the other provinces, especially those who may be at the head of school boards-and state that the province of Quebec is setting an example which should be followed by all. In my province, grants are made without regard to the faith to which the educator belongs! Such an example is worth following.
Mr. Speaker, the sponsors of this motion seem entirely unaware that we are debating a question that is outside our scope. One thing is certain: whenever-be it today or at any other time in the future-a measure dealing with public education is brought before the house for approval, the province of Quebec will oppose it unanimously I am sure.
It is not my intention to stress the point at great length because it is self evident. No doubt about it, we are dealing with a matter outside our sphere of jurisdiction.
Some people may say "Haven't you stepped into that field already or do you believe that the granting of large subsidies to universities to further their development does not constitute intervention?"
Mr. Speaker, I would say that a distinction should be made here. That is precisely the opinion of the Most Rev. Father Levesque-a man we are rightfully proud of-who, as a member of the Massey commission, represented Quebec universities. It might be necessary to distinguish between primary education, secondary education and university culture. Was it not the late Cardinal Villeneuve, whose authority was well established, who said that universities are schools of higher learning and of social leadership?

Education
But I do not want to approve those who claim that a distinction should be made. I wish to point out to the house, however, that before making grants to help the best source of culture that we have, that is our universities, the federal government had made an agreement with the provincial authorities.
There must be an agreement before such a contribution can be made. Besides, the hon. member for Portneuf pointed it out as recently as yesterday when, according to page 604 of Hansard, he said:
Dealing further with this matter of education-I do not want to speak at too great length in order to give others a chance to speak-I have risen in this house quite often, to ask the government of the province of Quebec to accept the National Physical Fitness Act. Quebec is the only province that has not accepted this act.
And further:
I recall that under the Youth Training Act, the federal government has given rather substantial grants to the technical schools and to youth, following agreements with the provinces.
Well, that is an altogether different story. We could, of course, intervene by mutual agreement, under such terms as would be determined by the provinces in co-operation with the federal government.
The federal government has intervened elsewhere. I see here that for training of youth and assistance to students the following amounts were granted to the province of Quebec:
1945- 1946	 $ 79,735
1946-	1947	
130,2981947-	1948	
172,0481948-	1949	
124,9761949-	1950	
77,398
It should be remembered, however, that in every case there had been previous agreement and that is what we ask. We are therefore opposed to this resolution, we from the province of Quebec, because we are autonomists not only as regards the federal field but we are prepared also to fight as vigorously for the autonomy of the provinces and even of the municipalities. We abide strictly by the British North America Act which affords us strong guarantees in which we place our confidence. For this reason we are strongly opposed to any interference in a field which does not belong to us but to the provinces.
Besides, I maintain that, as Liberals, we must oppose this measure. In the federal field, it was the Liberal party which gave Canada her autonomy.

I shall not go back to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, nor to Mr. Mackenzie King, and relate their achievements in that field, nor shall I recall everything the Liberal party has done in that connection; I shall merely give a quite recent illustration of the fact, an illustration which is still fresh in our minds. When the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) presented a bill to abolish appeals to the privy council, he revealed himself the defender of Canadian autonomy. When he asked this house to request from the British government the right to amend our own constitution, with regard to federal matters only, he was once more the champion of Canadian autonomy.
Consequently, we are right in claiming that, as Liberals, it is our duty to oppose this resolution by which the hon. member for Saskatoon is asking us to invade a field which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
As far as the provincial field is concerned, I will be rather trite in asserting that, as Liberals, we must spend as much energy in order to safeguard provincial autonomy, as we do in defending the autonomy of Canada itself.
On November 22, 1949, the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent reminded Canadians, in a radio speech, of the following facts:
The British North America Act is Canada's constitution as well as the constitution of the provinces. 0
The Liberal party has always believed that the rights of the provinces must be respected and that no federal law can change, restrict or weaken the jurisdiction of the various provinces. In other words, it is essential to secure provincial co-operation . . .
The motion now before the house does not imply the co-operation of provincial authorities; it suggests, rather, that the federal government should intervene and distribute educational grants throughout Canada. That was not, however, our leader's opinion. He said:
In other words, provincial co-operation is essential to the institution of a complete and satisfactory method of amending our constitution.
A little further on in this speech which was listened to by almost everyone in this country, the Prime Minister added:
I could illustrate my point by comparing the constitution to a two-sided house of the type commonly known as a duplex, which is nothing more or less than a single house whose two sides are separated by one wall. Two families have been living in these two sides since 1867. But since that date, one family,-in this instance the provincial family,-could paper the walls, change the plumbing or even put in a new window without having to obtain permission from anybody, whereas the other family,-the federal family this time,- could not make such improvements without first getting permission from a landlord living in another country, some three thousand miles away. It must be added, however, that this landlord has always been very accommodating.

Well, we are of the opinion that both families should be able to decide by themselves what improvements they want to make to their own premises-and it is permission for the federal family to do so that we are asking, and nothing more.
We do not suggest that one of the two occupants should have the right to tear down the partition wall or to cut through the roof without consulting his neighbour. And that is why the representatives of the federal government and of the provincial governments will meet on January 10 next . . .
That was in January, 1950.
... in order to consult one another on the procedure to be followed if ever it becomes necessary to pull down the partition wall or repair the roof.
Well, I say that as Liberals it is our duty to be logical and to oppose the motion made by the hon. member for Saskatoon. I will not add anything further. If that motion is not untimely it is at least premature. If the provinces consider that their revenues do not allow them to give adequate assistance to education, let them come to an agreement with the federal government in order to obtain new sources of revenue, but as far as the federal government is concerned, "hands off" education.
(Text):


Major James William Coldwell: There is still five minutes to go, and I think I can finish what I have to say in that time. I suppose that the tremendous interest in the financing of educational institutions at this time is due to the very large increase in the number of boys and girls who are now entering high school, compared with the number who entered forty or fifty years ago; and of these, the number who desire to go on to the universities. Consequently the methods of raising money for educational institutions that were quite satisfactory forty or fifty years ago are now not adequate.
I think we all agree that there must be no interference with the provincial control of education, but it seems to me the argument that the making of grants to our provinces for the purpose of education would be an interference is an argument that is not well founded, and, even after the minister's defence of it this afternoon, I still consider it to be ill-founded.
Our educational opportunities in this country are unevenly apportioned across the country. Some provinces may be well able to bear the expenditures that are necessary in connection with the modern educational system. Other provinces cannot bear the burden. As has already been said, if we are going to consider our country as a united nation, then every boy and girl in every part of Canada should have precisely the same opportunity for education as boys and
Education
girls that live in every other part of Canada. That is the reason why most of us are so anxious to see something done by the federal parliament to assist the provinces in the burden of education which they have to bear. And let us bear in mind that it is not only the provinces as provinces, but the municipalities themselves are unable, in the manner in which they have to raise the funds to carry on education, to do so adequately.
A great deal of criticism is made of the schools today. I have heard recent addresses in which it is said that the students entering our universities are not well equipped in the English language. I think that is true, but I do not think that the schools can be blamed for it. I think the environment in which we live is blameworthy, on that account. After all, those of us who can look back forty or more years ago, when we were at high school or about to enter university, will remember that in those days we had none of those diversions we have today, neither the radio, the cinema nor the more modem thing, television. But we had good books. The result was that we read "The Pilgrim's Progress"; we read the Bible. When we were children we read G. A. Henty and W. H. G. Kingston, and the other stories that were told in good language. Today you have the newspapers with the comic strips and slang driven into the boys and girls every day of the year; consequently I say, Mr. Speaker, that anything we can do to promote a higher standard of education, particularly a higher standard of literature, whether it be the French language in Quebec or the English language in the English-speaking provinces, or both languages, which is better still, in all provinces of Canada, we should do it. We should do all that we can to achieve those desirable ends, but it will take still more and more financing, and the municipalities and the provinces cannot bear the burden. I want to say very briefly that I associate myself with those who have this afternoon and yesterday urged the apportionment of some financial aid for education to the needy provinces of this country.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that our human resources are the most valuable of all our resources and for that reason education is a matter of supreme and vital importance. We know also that some provinces have already reached the point where they can no longer

Education
cope with the tremendous problems of financing the education of children in the face of present costs. Furthermore, they see no hope of meeting the increasing demands of the foreseeable future without outside assistance. Of no province is this more true than of my own province of Newfoundland. No one would be happier than I to see some formula worked out whereby the federal government would share with the provinces the cost of educating our children, a burden which already is beyond the capacity of many provinces to bear.
I want to make it quite clear that I am not opposed to federal aid to education, but having said that I want to make it equally clear that I cannot support this resolution in its present form and I should like to place on record my reasons for not doing so. My first reason is that I do not know exactly what the resolution means, and I doubt if anyone else does. The key words are "equalizing educational opportunity." Before we can equalize anything we must have some standard by which to measure it and therefore we would need some standard that could be applied to educational opportunity in the various parts of Canada. Does such a standard exist? If it does, I have never heard of it and I doubt if any two educators in the world could agree on any such standard.
I should like to know exactly what is in the mind of my hon. friend who has introduced this resolution and of the hon. members who have supported it. Does he envisage selecting the standard of one province that has a very desirable system and bringing all other provinces up to that standard?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Does the hon. member wish me to answer that question?


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Chesley William Carter: I would rather finish.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I thought it was a question directed to myself.


An hon. Member:: You misunderstand
everything.


Chesley William Carter: Does it mean that every person shall have an equal opportunity to the point of putting everyone through college? Does it mean that we will erect in every small village educational facilities similar to those to be found in the larger cities? I submit that equalization on that basis is a sheer impossibility.
If I were to select a standard of education for Canada I think I would select that of the province of Alberta. I have been greatly impressed by the educational work that has been done in Alberta. I have here a small pamphlet entitled "Quiet: Morals at Work"

published by the Lincoln Foundation at Louisville, Kentucky. It gives details of the work carried out by three teachers in Alberta, I believe in the city of Edmonton. I should like to bring this pamphlet to the attention of educators all across Canada.
When we start out to equalize educational opportunity across Canada who will be the judge? How shall we measure the equalization that we hope to accomplish? Then we have the words "educational opportunity." Exactly what do they mean? When introducing the resolution the hon. member placed on Hansard a table, to be found at page 591, giving the expenditure per pupil in the different provinces on elementary and secondary education, the expenditures on public, elementary and secondary education per pupil on an average daily attendance basis and on a per capita basis, and the median salaries of teachers in all schools. Does my hon. friend imply that educational opportunity is based on the per capita or per student expenditure? Anyone who has anything to do with education knows that money is but one factor, and a very small one, that goes to make up educational opportunity. An even more important factor than money is the teacher. Another important factor is that of home environment.
Then, along with these, there are other factors such as the curriculum, the system of education, educational administration, and even the objectives and values stressed in the curriculum, as well as the facilities for teaching, and the quality of teacher training. I do not think we should assume or be asked to infer, because one province spends three times as much per capita as another, or because the salaries are twice as great in one province as they are in another, that therefore the first province is supplying twice as much or three times as much educational opportunity as the second one.
As I said before, money is but one factor, and indeed one of the least important of the factors entering into educational opportunity. The expression "educational opportunity" is one that means different things to different people. It has various meanings in various parts of the country. I do not think we should vote for any resolution unless we know exactly what it means, and exactly what it is that we are voting for.
I note some hon. members have suggested the resolution simply means that the federal government should give out grants to the provinces for educational purposes, while other members have gone farther and said that these grants should be given without any strings attached. It is all very well for hon. members to make suggestions when they do not have to take the responsibility for results.


Mr. Sluder:: They are good at that.


Mr.   Carler@: The kind of assistance required to help the provinces meet their educational needs is going to run into hundreds of millions of dollars. The second question I would ask is this: where is this money to come from? If we take the total production in 1951 dollars and convert it to 1939 dollars, and divide that by the total man-hours worked, we find that our annual man-hour production has not increased very much over 1939. Unless we increase our annual man-hour production considerably we cannot find money from that source.
That leaves only two alternatives, one of which is a reduction of the present services, and the other increased taxation. Hon. members have not said what services they want reduced or what taxes they want increased. On the other hand they have charged this government with grossly overtaxing the people, and there is a general outcry for reduced taxation.
I cannot agree with hon. members who say that no strings should be attached to federal grants to provinces for education. It does not seem reasonable to me that the federal government should say to the provinces, "Here you are; we have got $20 million or $30 million for you. Take it and do what you like with it, so long as you spend it on education." I do not think that any responsible government conscious of its responsibilities to the taxpayers-and the taxpayers are the taxpayers of the provinces-could do such a thing.
Education is a very broad term; it is capable of many meanings; and it is quite possible that if money were granted on such a broad basis it could be used for purposes other than the purposes parliament might have in mind. And if such a thing should happen, then the very members who made this suggestion would turn round and charge the government with being grossly derelict in its duty, and guilty of gross neglect.
I do not see how any government can make grants of that magnitude-of the magnitude of hundreds of millions of dollars-without carefully prescribing the purposes for which the money is to be used, and the conditions under which it is to be expended. But the very minute the federal government does that it exposes itself to the charge of interfering with provincial rights.
The interests of the federal government should stem mainly from the national standpoint. I am not convinced that any province is doing all it can or should do to develop in our children a true appreciation of our national heritage or to develop the common loyalties and national thinking that are needed
Education
to make us a great nation. Instead of that we see some provinces indulging in what might be described as intellectual snobbery. Teachers who are highly qualified in one province are not qualified1 in another. We look across Canada from east to west and we see wide disagreement on educational aims, values and methods. We see that in one province grade 11 is the equivalent of grade 12 in another. We see wide differences in standards of curricula and of examinations.
No one would suggest that there should be a rigid system of education all across Canada, especially in a country as vast as ours. One of the functions of education is to be flexible so that it can meet the great variety of needs that arise in different places. But I still think that a far greater collaboration is possible than has been achieved at the present time; and a great deal more can be done to obtain uniformity of standards in the grading of pupils, in the grading of teachers, and in the awarding of diplomas.
It is my opinion that many provincial departments of education are too provincially minded. I doubt whether we should advocate that federal money should be spent to increase that tendency.
Another question I should like to have answered is this: even supposing we agree on a definition of educational opportunity, and even supposing we find a standard by which to measure it so that it may be equalized, on what basis would such grants be awarded? Would they be awarded purely on the basis of need, so that provinces which did not need money for education would not get any? Or would they be awarded on a per capita basis or per student basis? As soon as we do anything like that, Mr. Speaker, we create still further inequalities.
I do not think anyone can deny that a problem does exist, and it is a problem which in the national interest must be solved. If it is possible to find a formula under which the federal government can share the educational burdens of the provinces on particular items, such as teachers' salaries, classroom accommodation or teacher training, no one will be happier than I. Essentially, however, it is a provincial problem involving provincial rights, rights which are most jealously guarded. It has been pointed out on the floor of this house that already the federal government is providing assistance in as many ways and to as great an extent as the British North America Act will permit. That assistance has been estimated to amount to some $35 million. Therefore I think it would be not only unwise but highly improper for the federal government to take any initiative

Education
in matters pertaining to primary education in Canada, which is essentially a provincial responsibility. Because it is a provincial responsibility, I feel that the initiative should come from the provinces, not from this government. For that reason I aim not able to support this resolution.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon):: I think it is an excellent thing, Mr. Speaker, that the members of this house should have the opportunity to debate in detail this very important subject of education. Just two weeks ago we as a nation observed education week. For several years the slogan that has been adopted in connection with that week is this very appropriate phrase: "Education is everybody's business". That being so, I think we as members of this house can take it upon ourselves from time to time to give consideration to the situation concerning education in this country.
Tonight I do not want to go into the constitutional aspects of the problem. Neither do I want to deal with the question of standardization, which was raised by the previous speaker, mainly because I do not think the resolution as it stands carries any implication concerning standardization. It refers to equalization of educational opportunities across Canada. During the few minutes I am going to speak this evening I want to view the problem from the standpoint of one who has recently come from the educational field. As a matter of fact I might style myself as one who started on the road to Damascus and fell among politicians. Whether or not that was a good thing remains to be seen.
Some people seem to have the impression that the controversy or discussion today concerning educational matters is a case of crying wolf, that actually the field of education is not as badly off as this discussion would indicate. I think we must admit that the interest which has been aroused in educational matters during the past few years would indicate that there is a real crisis, a real problem to be dealt with. For example, an article in the Canadian Home Journal by Hugh MacLennan, one of our outstanding Canadian writers and novelists, described teaching as the thankless profession. In his opening paragraph he said:
The most exploited, neglected and underprivileged class in Canada are not people the comfortable classes never see. They are not sharecroppers, migrant fruit pickers, sweat shop girls, or fishermen in outposts. They are the nation's school teachers.
That was Mr. MacLennan's description of the situation, in 1949. I believe it was H. G. Wells who said that civilization is a race between education and catastrophe. He may

have exaggerated a little; but the way governments have been studying the problem and the interest educationists have been showing in recent years would indicate that something is seriously wrong with our educational system. I might mention several reports, including the famous report of the Harvard commission on education. In Manitoba in the years following the war we had several surveys of our educational problems, and the provincial government has put out two different reports on educational matters, one on general education and the other on adult education.
Regardless of the constitutional difficulties, regardless of the splitting of hairs as far as this resolution is concerned I think it would be a tragedy if we should permit institutional and political rigidity to prevent us from facing the realities of the problem. There was a time when a study of the three R's would be sufficient for the ordinary citizen, the famous "readin', writin', 'rithmetic, taught to the tune of the hickory stick". From the remarks of one speaker this afternoon I gained the impression that he was harking back to the days of the three R's, when he referred to some of the unnecessary frills in the educational system at present, particularly in Ontario. I would suggest that some of these things we are prone to call frills today are really necessities.
As the previous speaker indicated, schools are not the only source of education. There are all kinds of informal sources of education, such as the press, radio, television, the cinema and even the books which are being banned from the stands in the city of Ottawa. They are all informal sources of education. Then there is the family and the church. I would like to point out that one reason for the crisis in education at the present time arises from the fact that the family and the church are not performing the functions they formerly performed. Owing to social change, owing to industrialization, urbanization and so forth, we find that some of the functions which formerly belonged to these other social institutions have now fallen upon our schools. And in assuming these new responsibilities our schools find that the problem of producing educated, mature citizens to meet the challenge of living in a very complex world is a much more expensive proposition than it was in the days of the little red school house and the basic three R's.
An indication that we are facing problems in that regard is seen in the rise of various new professions trying to fill the social vacuum. We have social workers of various kinds who are trying to mend the pieces

of our society, trying to catch the victims of this complex civilization when they reach the bottom of the hill, instead of putting a fence at the top of the hill to prevent the casualties. We have psychiatrists. We have marriage counsellors, endeavouring to deal with an increasing problem of family breakdowns and divorce. Those people are very important in the kind of society we have; but I would suggest that of all these social welfare people the most important is this neglected individual to whom Hugh Mac-Lennan referred in his article as the most neglected and underprivileged in Canada.
In referring to social workers, we sometimes use the term "social engineer." If we are justified in using that term, I think the school teacher is the "social engineer" par excellence, in the type of society in which we live today. Compare the training of a teacher and a teacher's salary with the sort of training that goes into the preparation of professional people in other walks of life such as the legal profession, dental or medical profession or an engineer. This reveals that the standards we have for these important people, the school teachers, are ridiculous. Before a dentist can pull teeth, he has to have at least five years at university. A doctor has to have six or seven years at university, while an engineer has to have four or five years before he can build roads or bridges. The school teacher, who carries the large load of equipping our young people to live in this world today, does not have to meet such rigorous standards. We all know that schools are carrying on almost a cradle to the grave program today, with adult education, kindergartens and so forth. We all know, too, that there is a tendency for parents to bring their youngsters to the doorstep of the school almost as soon as they can toddle and say, "Here they are, learn 'em good." That is all the parents see of them until they graduate at the end of the assembly line.
These professional people, the teachers who are entrusted with the task of working with human personalities-with human souls if you will-well, any sort of training will do. I do not thinJk there is any question of equality of opportunity under those circumstances. In Manitoba, for example, we have over 500 permit teachers. A permit teacher tends to be a grade 11 student who has flunked too many subjects to go on to grade 12, so he goes into the rural areas to be a teacher. In Manitoba we still have over 500 of them entrusted with this very important task of producing mature, democratic citizens in the sort of world we have to face at the present time. Some say, and this is an argument that harks back to the three
Education
R's tradition, that you do not need much education to teach kindergarten children. I would say here is where the basic job of education is done. Unfortunately, we get the poorest teachers in the kindergarten because they are paid the lowest salaries. These low paid permit teachers gravitate to the important job of introducing youngsters to their first experience in the schoolroom.
Fortunately, we are getting the single salary schedule in some places. Wherever teachers have equal qualifications, regardless of whether those qualifications are used in elementary, high school or university, they are recognized by an equal salary. The reason that cannot be done on a comprehensive scale is due to the financial problem which has been dealt with during this debate today.
In addition to the teacher problem, there is the matter of facilities. We have the one-room rural school in which the teacher conducts nine grades. Such facilities are hardly adequate to give a child the necessary educational background today. We have the large school area that is being developed in the rural parts of the country in order to overcome the handicap of inadequate facilities. In Manitoba this idea has been promoted since the end of the war, but the results have not been very successful so far. We have only one large school area. The other main problem of education, that is the curriculum, is automatically overcome when we have a large school area because then you can give the broad curriculum that is necessary to meet the diversified needs of the young people in our society. In the prairie provinces -it is a little different in provinces like Ontario and Quebec-the high school program is largely based on the theory that most of the students are going on to college. They are all given a broad general academic training. In reality, only two or three per cent of the high school graduates continue on to university and into the professions. You have, therefore, a completely unrealistic approach to the problem. The commercial areas, business, technology, agriculture and so forth, are completely neglected so far as school programs are concerned.
This inequality of opportunity that is mentioned in the resolution is most noticeable in the rural areas. It is quite obvious that the rural part of the country does not offer the same opportunities as the urban areas. In fact, the school systems in the larger cities are in excellent shape so far as qualified teaching personnel, physical facilities and curriculum are concerned. These provisions are made at the expense of exorbitant municipal taxation. If we need to have

Education
emphasized any more than has been emphasized the problem of inequality in educational opportunity, we need only refer to the discrimination that exists between rural and urban students. With rural-urban migration going on as it is today, the rural student is placed at a decided disadvantage.
We have had it pointed out that lack of funds is at the root of the matter. Some hon. members have attempted to demonstrate that the provinces have sufficient resources at the present time to bring educational standards up to the level required. One member from Ontario held out a great promise for the prairie provinces by saying that we are just becoming industrialized. If we are only patient, we shall soon have enough money to bring up the standard of education to equal that of any province.
But at the rate of industrialization going on in Manitoba at the present time, particularly in regard to defence industry, I cannot see much hope for a solution to this problem in the next few years. We are actually faced with a crisis to such an extent that Mr. MacLennan, to quote him again in that article, says:
Our whole system of popular education is in danger of disintegration . . . and that means ruin for a whole society.
Let me stress again that is not merely crying "havoc" or merely crying "wolf". Those who are closely associated or who have been closely connected with the problems of education today are greatly disturbed at the inadequacies and inefficiencies. As to where the solution lies, I do not know. I am not going to attempt to offer any solution tonight. I am not going to attempt to outline a master plan. But at the root of the matter, I repeat, is the lack of sufficient funds. Federal aid could assist in that matter, or maybe provincial aid, provided that the provinces had sufficient revenue to meet the extremely high costs of adequate education at the present time.
In view of the importance of our human resources, I think something should be done. I could give all sorts of concrete examples of young people in our part of the world who have been deprived of an adequate opportunity because of inadequate schooling facilities. I think it is imperative that, above all else, we preserve our human resources. I do not think anyone will disagree with the expression of opinion that there is not the proper emphasis on our educational system at the present time. If we compare the money we spend on other things-and I need only mention, as an example, the money that is poured into liquor, and the profits accruing therefrom-that comparison in itself would

indicate that there is a real basic need to heal the schism in the body politic. When thousands-yes, millions-of people can stand to look at the world only through an alcoholic haze, there must be something wrong with the sort of world they are living in.
I would suggest again that when teachers get together and discuss these problems they are not just talking through their hats. They are talking because they see a real situation, a real need, a real problem; and I maintain that it is one of the basic problems we have to solve at the present time.
(Translation):


Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Monimorency):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the house reads as follows:
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. Speaker, may I submit what I consider to be the views of the province of Quebec in the matter. In my province we do not want any federal grants for education. I was quite surprised, today, to see how the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and members of his group and the C.C.F. group endeavoured to force upon the province of Quebec something which we do not want. We have reasons of our own to oppose this procedure. We want to maintain the principle which is recognized under our constitution. As a matter of fact the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) clearly indicated in a brilliant and sincere speech this afternoon that the province of Quebec was justly opposed to federal interference in the field of education, because, as I said, of the very special nature of the problem of education in our province.
We have tried to develop French culture in the province of Quebec, and that culture, thanks to our institutions of learning, has extended beyond our boundaries. But we want this culture to develop throughout this country from sea to sea, concurrently with Anglo-Saxon culture. I believe this will be one of the best ways to ensure, in our country, that national unity we all long for.
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition endeavoured to prove this afternoon that the province of Quebec should receive those grants the same as all the other provinces. I listened to him without surprise. I am convinced that the Conservative party is prompted by the bureaucrats who direct our public service and

whose sole aim is to centralize the whole state apparatus under the control of Ottawa. As I have just said, I am by no means surprised that the members of the C.C.F. party should want to place our whole educational system under federal control in order to weld together the two cultures which up to now have developed along parallel lines, but on which rest the richness and strength of our national unity.
I know that certain members of our federal bureaucracy, whom the influence of the French language annoys, are constantly urging the members of the two political groups in front of us to do what they can to lessen the prestige of our beautiful idiom. May I be permitted to quote the poet's verses on the French language:
To try to stop Its flight is to try to keep buds and roses from blooming:
To try to destroy its power and its charm is to dream of preventing the appearance of the dawn.
You cannot do it, gentlemen. Your efforts are useless. Let me say to the leader of the opposition and to the leader of the C.C.F. party that their attempts are doomed to failure because the province of Quebec knows that the acceptance of grants results in subservience.
During the provincial election in Quebec, the Hon. Mr. Duplessis advocated absolute refusal of any grant from the federal government for purposes of education. I repeat here the words he used at all his meetings. Recently, he accepted a sum of money given to him as the result of one of the recommendations of the Massey report. I therefore say that he has capitulated for he accepted, from the federal government, money that only a few months ago he spurned with horror. The province of Quebec will keep that in mind at the next provincial election and will ask him what happened to his campaign in favour of autonomy in the field of education, which besides was a farce, as is now the stand taken by the Progressive Conservative party. I do not mention the C.C.F. for their very doctrine is based on centralization, but at least they say so frankly. The Progressive Conservative party, through its leader's utterances, has gone on record as being in full accord with this proposal, put forward by a party fundamentally committed to centralization.
The Hon. Mr. Duplessis, it seems to me, had he wished to use the revenues of the province of Quebec, could have found all the money necessary to further the cause of education in our province, through the provision of generous grants. The federal government offered him the use of five per cent of the income tax paid in by every individual.
Education
In other words, out of every hundred dollars paid in by the taxpayer to the Department of National Revenue, the province, according to the terms offered by the federal government, would have received five dollars, without having to disburse one cent. As a matter of fact, such a proposal was made by the chambers of commerce of the province of Quebec in order to assist education. He could thus have given our universities about $8 million. The Hon. Mr. Duplessis saw fit to ignore this generous offer and now he is accepting the federal government's grants.
Thus we see that the position of the leader of the opposition here in Ottawa, in so far as grants to the provinces for purposes of education are concerned, is identical to that presently being adopted by the Hon. Mr. Duplessis.
The leader of the opposition wants the federal government to subsidize education in the provinces. We are against it. Such is the attitude of the province of Quebec. Gentlemen, at the next federal election, we will remind you of the position the Progressive Conservative party has just taken. We will also remind the Hon. Mr. Duplessis of his recent capitulation in accepting grants he had formerly denounced.
(Text):


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: I am not going to attempt to follow the hon. member who has just taken his seat, either in form, eloquence or vigour. I think the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) deserves credit for again bringing this resolution before the house. It is an important resolution. The question of equalization of education in this dominion is one which concerns a great many people. It is not my intention to take very much time this evening. I followed the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) this afternoon. He pointed out a fact which we all know, that, as far as administration is concerned, education is something which is entirely under the jurisdiction of the province. No one in this house, and I am sure no one in this country, wants to change that fact.
The hon. member who has just taken his seat spoke eloquently of the loss of autonomy in the province of Quebec if the federal government should give grants for education.
I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that neither the province of Quebec, the province of Ontario, nor any other province in Canada would lose one iota of its autonomy if a grant were made to the different provinces for education. As a matter of fact, in speaking this afternoon the minister said that if a grant of money were made for education the federal government would have to exercise some care, or some supervision, over the spending of that

Education
money in the different provinces. That does not follow at all, Mr. Speaker. We all know that at the present time, in grants and subsidies, the federal government is paying out millions of dollars to the different provinces of this country. I should like to ask any member of the government whether they are supervising the money which is being spent now in the provinces, or which is being given to the provinces in these large grants and subsidies? In some few instances they are, but the great bulk of this money is under the administration of the provinces and the federal government is exercising no influence over the expenditure of that money, nor would they exercise any influence over money which might be granted to the provinces for education.
The minister also said that it is within the purview of the provincial governments to spend their money as they wish. He asked: Why not spend it for education, if it is necessary, and not spend it for public works or for some other service? Down in my province, Mr. Speaker, if we spent less money than we do for public works, or for some other services, we would not have any roads or we would not have those public services. An argument of that kind does not sound good in a debate such as this.
We do need help. We do need help in the smaller provinces in this Dominion of Canada. We need help in New Brunswick. They need help in Newfoundland, despite the argument of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) a few moments ago. A province that pays only $900 average to its teachers needs help, and no member from that province need stand in his place in this house and tell us that under such circumstances they do not need more assistance than they get from their own government.
As I say, we in New Brunswick need this assistance. They need it in all the four small provinces down by the sea. They may not need it in Ontario-I do not believe they do. Ontario is a very wealthy province. I do not think they need it in Quebec. Quebec is a wealthy province. It is not needed so much in the province of Alberta, which is becoming a very wealthy province. That also applies to the province of British Columbia, which can afford to pay some $2,500 or $2,600 to its teachers. But we need it, Mr. Speaker. I believe the time will come, whether it is done by this government or by some other government, when assistance will have to be given to these small provinces to carry on education.
I want to correct the impression which I think some hon. members gave to the house,

and this is one of my chief reasons for rising to speak. In the different tables that were presented yesterday afternoon and in the comparison given of the number of pupils who leave school under grade 8, it was stated that 58 per cent of the pupils of the province of New Brunswick leave school before they finish grade 8. We have in New Brunswick a system which is different from those in most other provinces. We have graded schools, and ungraded schools. The small schools in the country districts are ungraded schools; they do not run up to grade 8. But, as a matter of fact, the pupil who graduates from a country school has the equivalent education of grade 8 or even a higher grade, so when they say that 58 per cent of the pupils of New Brunswick never reach grade 8, that is a mistake or misinformation.
In our province, under a great burden, we have also been endeavouring to increase our school facilities. In our province we have been very proud of our schools. As I pointed out when speaking on this resolution in a former year, when South Africa wanted a system of education for that dominion they came to the province of New Brunswick and selected the system which we then had in our province. We are not as backward in education as perhaps some people might think after listening to the addresses in this house. What we need is money, and more money in order to provide the educational facilities needed by our children.
There is another argument that could be advanced, a very practical one. Last year New Brunswick imposed a 4 per cent sales tax because its resources were not sufficient to provide the revenue for education. That sales tax was in addition to the sales tax imposed by the dominion and it represents a tremendous burden. An extra 4 per cent must be paid on everything the people buy, which, I repeat, is a tremendous burden for our small province to bear.
One hon. member said that education should be of great concern to the federal government, but he pointed out also that that government is now giving considerable aid to education by its support of the Royal Military College, vocational grants, education grants, education of Indians and so on. Another hon. member pointed out that education in connection with national defence should be of great concern to the federal government. I think it was the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) who made that statement, and I agree with him. During the last war I was in charge of a military training centre and I was amazed at the number of young men coming up for recruitment who had to be turned

down because they did not have the necessary educational qualifications. It seemed to me to be a great loss as far as military training was concerned.
I do not want to take up too much time because I should like to see this matter come to a vote tonight. Before closing, I should like to mention one native of New Brunswick, a man who was born and educated in that province, who left it and then came back and has contributed greatly to education in our province. I refer to Lord Beaverbrook. He has furnished many scholarships for training in universities in Canada and in Europe, particularly in England. We are most grateful to him for the assistance he has given.
I do not think it is necessary for me to labour this point any further. The province of New Brunswick needs assistance, and needs it badly. I know that the province of Nova Scotia needs assistance. When the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) spoke on this matter last year he mentioned that fact. The hon. member regrets that for business reasons he is unable to be here this evening. The need is there as the smaller provinces want to have opportunities equal to those possessed by the richer provinces. The only way to my mind that that can be done is by some assistance from the federal government.
I do not think it is necessary for the federal government to supervise the money given for educational purposes. Surely the men who represent the people in the different provinces are responsible enough to spend that money in the best interests of the children of their provinces. I think the argument advanced by the minister falls absolutely flat. I am satisfied that money can be granted to the provinces without their losing one iota of their autonomy, as one hon. member from Quebec is afraid would happen.


Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I take part in this debate on the invitation of the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) who said that no Liberal member from Saskatchewan had expressed his views on this matter. I have no hesitation in expressing mine. I would refer to a previous debate when the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Smith) said that if these gentlemen want to debate in a rather lively manner, we are the boys to do it. I join this debate on those terms.
The premise of the argument advanced by the hon. member in support of his motion seems to be equality of educational opportunity for children across the land. Those hon. members who come from Saskatchewan will remember that that was the slogan of the C.C.F. when they came into power in 55704-41$
Education
that province in 1944. They were going to provide equality of education in Saskatchewan. How far have they come along that road? One thousand schools have been closed since these gentlemen took over and we now have study supervisors in charge of 558 of those schools. They are known in Saskatchewan as sitters. They perform the duty that you would naturally think a sitter would perform: they sit. They try to keep a little order in the schoolroom. Some of them are high school pupils and have some teaching ability and they try to carry on some of the work of instruction. But it does not matter what line of business you are in, if you have no qualifications you cannot carry it on as successfully, and that applies to sitters.
It has been suggested by this motion that the federal government should grant the provinces assistance for educational purposes. I disagree with the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) because I do not think you can hand over money to the provinces for education willy-nilly. If we did that to any great extent there would not be any need for any of us being here. The federal government would just be a taxation collection agency to turn the money over to the provinces to be spent in the way they wanted to spend it.
That is not my idea of the function of the dominion government. We must have some supervision over how money is spent if we are going to take money from the taxpayer. Hon. members of the opposition have never been backward in giving away money as long as it is somebody else's. They are not too concerned about how it is spent.
The minister of finance in Saskatchewan has just brought down his budget and I should like to draw attention to his educational program. The receipts under revenue account total $1,681,920. I can break down that figure if necessary. Then there are receipts from the education and hospital tax which is a sales tax. When these gentlemen came into power and said that they were going to have equality of education, they said also they were going to take off this tax. Instead they have increased it 50 per cent. It is now called an education and hospital tax, one-third being used for hospitalization and two-thirds for education. Allowing for the cost of administration, the net amount for education is $7,231,020.
Then there is the public revenue tax which is collected by the municipalities. This was originally earmarked for road work in the municipalities, but it has now been taken over by the provincial government and they are going to throw that into the education tax pot. Off this $1,600,000 you take $80,000 for commissions for collection, leaving you

Education
a net from your public revenue of $1,520,000. The total receipts earmarked for educational account are therefore $10,432,940. The estimated payments on educational account, according to Mr. Fines, the minister of finance out there, show expenditures of $11,708,600. Therefore, deducting those two totals you find that from special taxation in the province for education, or from receipts from outside sources-from the federal government in some instances, in connection with schools for the deaf and so on-you have a discrepancy there the province will have to pay of $1,275,660. Thus $1,275,660 is all it is costing them for education in that province, outside of what they have from special taxes.
Where do they stand in their revenues? This year they are getting from the federal government-and they say they should be getting more-some $26 million. In 1939 that was something over $2 million. So their revenues have gone up, in spite of the federal government. What are the other expenditures they may have out there? Well, according to the minister of finance in the province, here is what is being spent on social service and health-and we are interested in that, if we are going to give money to the province. I am interested to know what they are doing with what they have now. Altogether, social welfare is costing something more than $10 million and public health $18 million, making a total of $28,560,000. Then, less the federal government account for public health and social welfare amounting to $2,568,000, along with some other deductions, they are left a net of $25,062,000. They take off the one-third of their educational tax which goes for hospitalization-a direct tax for that purpose-which gives the sum of $3,615,000, and we find that they are spending on social services, altogether, the sum of $21,447,000 or, in other words, about twenty-one and a half million.
The net cost of public health is therefore about $21,500,000 and the net cost of education is about one and a quarter million. The total cost of both public health, social aid and education in the province is $22,722,850.
Their subsidies from the federal government this year amount to $26,727,520, leaving them a net over income from the federal government of $5,280,330. In other words the federal government pays for all the social aid, it pays for all the education and it pays for all the public health in the province of Saskatchewan. And they still have $5,280,000 left.

There is no reason why they could not apply some of that to education. We do not say how they have to use it. And I thought the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) put it very squarely this afternoon, for anyone who wishes to read his speech. However, this is what we are doing with our money in Saskatchewan, under the government we have out there now. Certainly I do not think anyone would want to hand out a lot more money to be handled in that way. If we are going to have a thousand schools closed at the end of that time, and another 558 with sitters, then we see there the worst situation in education to be found anywhere in Canada. When there is an effect there is always a cause. What is the cause of our not having teachers? Well, we have there a government with a mania for control and regimentation. We have there a government that insists upon price controls, and that enters very closely into this picture. It used to be that the local school board, if it wanted to hire a teacher, found out how much the teacher was worth on the market, looked over their assessment in that district and decided whether they could pay that much money, whether they would have the teacher or would not. Under those circumstances we always had teachers.
Now, however, we do not have teachers for the simple reason that our government has said that the larger school units will do the hiring, and they do not go into the competitive market. They take the competition right out of it.


Mr. Thatcher:: You do not believe that, yourself.


John Hornby Harrison: These gentlemen do not
believe in competition. They do not believe in free trade in teachers, or anything else. So that is why we have no teachers-for the simple reason that the local school boards cannot go out and hire teachers, even if they want to. They have to sit back and take what they get-and they get 558 sitters.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Whom are you fooling,
Jack?


John Hornby Harrison: The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight), having invited me into this dance, naturally will expect me to kick the furniture around. He says that 90 per cent of the people in the ridings represented by Liberal members from Saskatchewan are behind federal aid for education. Well, I was home in January, and I think I spent as much time on the road as did the next man. As a matter of fact I travelled something over 5,000 miles while I was there, and was away from home practically every

day. I can say that I never had anyone mention to me, federal aid for education. I did have a lot of them mention the fact that there was no education, that they were not getting any. In fact, one gentleman told me that his child had been in school for six years and had never yet had a teacher. He had had nothing but sitters. Fortunately he had had a couple of good sitters, and he said he learned many things from them.
However, I do not think that the mere handing of more money to these gentlemen will improve the situation at all, if they are still unwilling to let the school boards go out and hire teachers for what those teachers are worth.
Another contribution they made to education was to close the normal school at Regina. Well, how are we going to have teachers if we close the normal schools? Very few youngsters will want to take training as teachers when the only future they have ahead of them is that of sitting.
If we give money to a government that has shown itself as irresponsible as the one in Saskatchewan, will that get more education? And then the question arises that one might be educated and still have no wisdom. That does not help, either.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: That applies to you in this instance.


John Hornby Harrison: Thank you, sir. As I said, after the federal government pays for all the social services in the province, and pays their health bill, and all sorts of services for education, they have $5 million left from what they receive from the federal government. What do they do with that amount of money? Well, they go out and build theatres under the stars. We have open air theatres at Weyburn built with government money that could have been used for education. Is that an indication that we should hand more money over to these gentlemen just to throw around? They might even give it to Mr. Schumiatcher, and he would get a commission for advising them to give it to him.
I make these remarks to show mainly that, in a mild way, I am opposed to this resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are not opposed to the resolution; you are just opposed to the mover of it.


John Hornby Harrison: The hon. member for Saskatoon has said that 90 per cent of the people who are supposed to be interested in federal aid for education are to be found m Liberal ridings in Saskatchewan. Again, as I said, I have not found any of them who
Education
were interested enough to mention it to me. Some of them did complain about there being no education. I would say that the only 90 per cent figure in that area I covered would be the number of those who are just plumb against that provincial government. They are going to change it-and they are going to change it this summer.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise purely for the purpose of setting the record straight on one point. I listened with great regret this evening to the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) who, if I understood him correctly, spent a good deal of time in suggesting that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) had used language inconsistent with the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces over education. That was my understanding of what the hon. member said, with great vehemence. I want to point out that that was an absolute travesty; not only a travesty but an absolute contradiction of clear language used yesterday by the leader of the opposition. I want to put on the record very briefly what the leader of the opposition said on this point, to show how utterly inconsistent it is with the suggestion of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency. At page 608 of Hansard, after discussing the question in general terms, the leader of the opposition said:
That being the situation, confronted with the necessity for dealing with this subject in a manner that will equalize the opportunity for education right across Canada today, what can be done to meet this situation without in any way impairing the constitutional position and the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial governments over education? That is the question that we must be able to answer if we are, in turn, to indicate any way in which the government, with the support of the parliament of Canada, can tackle this problem.
I submit nothing could be clearer, more unambiguous or positive, and I again express my regret that the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency should have so distorted-I think that is a fair word-what was said. As I stated in rising, I wished to put the record straight during this sitting of the house so there could be no misunderstanding whatever.


Mr. E. T. Applewhaiie (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my main reason for participating in this debate is to take this first opportunity to repudiate and refute if possible a statement made during the course of this debate yesterday afternoon. At the time the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) was speaking, and at page 594 of Hansard, he said:
If a boy or girl is too lazy to study, no grant from the government of Canada will change his or her mind. In the first place, with regard to education, there must be on the part of every student the determination and will to learn something. In the

Education
second place there must be on the part of the teacher the ability to make something understood by the student. The thing works both ways.
The hon. member lor York South (Mr. Noseworthy) then interjected:


Joseph William Noseworthy: Education
many of the difficult social and educational problems America has come to face are national in scope and character and call for general and country-wide solution.
May I draw the attention of the house to the last sentence which reads as follows:
To assist in such national solution many nationwide agencies have been set up, and there has been a strong and persistent movement for some national financial aid to the states, and for a secretary of education in the president's cabinet.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Order. I think the hon. member should give the number of the page and the volume from which he is quoting.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: That is the 1949 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, volume 7, page 996, the first column, and the closing paragraph. You will note, Mr. Speaker, that in the United States, together with the desire for some financial aid to the states from the national authority, and tied in with it in the same sentence, is the statement that there is also a body of opinion favouring a secretary of education in the president's cabinet, a department of education at the national level.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a preview of the problem which faces us today.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have but a few words to say. I am not here for the purpose of contributing in any way to talking this resolution out. All I want to do is to voice my support for it, as I have done on previous occasions, and to say that in so far as the Progressive Conservative party is concerned, the attitude that we take is that, constitutionally, education is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces and shall remain so; and that any contribution made in order to carry out the purpose of this resolution, namely to take into consideration means of expanding and equalizing educational opportunity, in no way implies control. Simply paraphrasing a slogan of another day, the attitude of this party is: Federal assistance ever; federal supervision never. That sums up our attitude on this matter.
I know that the members in all parts of the house wish to have the opportunity of standing up on this occasion and being counted. Having expressed my approval of the resolution, I therefore take my seat.


Mr. Rene N. Julras (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to say a few words on this resolution when it was before the house last year, but I was prevented from doing so. This year, particularly in view of the many interpretations that have

been placed on the resolution, I therefore felt that I could not reasonably vote on it without stating my position.
A great many statements have been made on education generally; that is, on education in general without particular regard to the resolution. In this respect the resolution will have some merit and make some contribution to a consideration of the question as a whole. I think it is a good thing that the Canadian people as a whole should be seized with the importance of this problem of education in this country at the present time. With most of these general considerations, I think all hon. members of the house are agreed. I am sure that we all want improvement, as for that matter do all people throughout the country.
Nobody will quarrel with the idea that we should have better schools. By that I mean better buildings to house the children. From travelling around our respective provinces and throughout the country we all know that there is great need for improved facilities in a great many parts of Canada. I suppose that this condition will be with us for quite some time because there will always be room for improvement. But in connection with this whole question, there is another significant point that arrests our attention throughout the country today, namely the need for a more competent staff to teach the children in the schools. The figures have already been placed on the record by more than one speaker, and I do not intend to repeat them. With such a large number of teachers teaching on permits only, it is obvious that this situation could be a threat to education as a whole. After all, all those who are teaching on permits at the present time are people who have not been trained to do this highly specialized and technical job.
With that problem I suppose we could couple the problem that arises out of the present pay that teachers are receiving. Those figures have also been placed on the record by a great many members, and I do not intend to do it now. From the smallness of the pay that the educators of the nation are receiving at the present time, it is obvious that they would naturally be attracted into other fields than that of education. Unless this situation is remedied, I am afraid the trend will be for the situation to continue to get worse instead of better.
This resolution also brings forward something else and that is, if I might term it so, the suggestion for more education for the children of Canada; by that I mean a higher standard of education and with that a better opportunity or more equal opportunity for

all the children of the nation. With regard to those last two points, I feel strongly that there is definitely room for improvement. In many parts of this country it is not easy for a young man even to go through the primary and secondary schools to get a higher education without financial means of some sort. There are many countries in the world where children can get a higher education and can complete their education in much easier ways than we have available in this country. I think it is obvious that there is room for a good deal of improvement in these various lines. As it now reads, I feel that this resolution is hardly compatible with provincial autonomy in education; and I propose to elaborate a little on that point. But this general discussion on federal aid to education is, I believe, at the present time having some adverse effect in the nation. So much has been said about federal aid to education -the term has been used very loosely, almost everybody has a different concept and a different meaning for it-that it seems to have been accepted in a great many parts of the nation, or among the public generally, as a cure-all of all the shortcomings of our educational system in Canada. It seems to have been accepted as a cure-all formula; it seems to have been accepted as a system that would cure the shortcomings of our educational system in each province without any effort in particular by anybody. It has, in this respect, distracted attention away from the authorities who really have the responsibility in this matter and have the power to remedy the situation. Therefore I think it would be well to place it in its proper perspective and apply the resources, if I may say so, of everybody concerned, who wants a better educational system in Canada, where they will do the most good and where the authority lies to improve the condition.
For instance, in this debate we have seen that some speakers have looked upon this .resolution as meaning a grant to either vocational schools or universities. In the minds of many in the country, federal aid to education means grants to universities, and on that basis they agree wholeheartedly with the resolution. However, some others believe this resolution means grants to primary and secondary education. There again some people agree with this suggestion; but a great many people do not agree with the suggestion that the federal government should make grants to primary and secondary education. Therefore there are many concepts of federal aid to education.
Education
Yesterday and today we have seen another version, another interpretation of this resolution by the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Drew). According to his remarks it would appear that he looks upon this resolution, or the interpretation he places upon it, as merely an expansion of the tax fields. According to him this resolution means that it is simply giving the provinces a greater opportunity of levying taxes. I must confess that upon reading the resolution over and over again I cannot see that it means just that, and the impression I got from the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) on every occasion that he has spoken on his resolution is that it was definitely aid or assistance or grants to all levels of education. At least he never voiced any objections to grants or assistance to any level of education in particular. If the resolution actually means only that we are considering giving another field for the provinces in which they can raise money, then on that basis I would assume that almost any hon. member would be quite free to support it. But the way the resolution reads it states specifically:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration means of expanding and equalizing educational opportunity across Canada-
Then it goes on to state the way in which it should be done namely:
-by the granting of financial assistance to the various provinces for that purpose.
I do not think there is any way out of it; it definitely means to earmark grants to the provinces for that purpose. Therefore the general interpretation that has been placed upon it by the official opposition is not in accordance with the resolution. I do not think it can be so interpreted and agree with the wording of the resolution.
In the discussion so far everybody has proceeded from the basis that education was the primary responsibility of the provinces. All those who have spoken so far in the house have advocated that provincial autonomy should be maintained as such. This afternoon the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) made the statement that he did not know of any resolution that had received as much general support as this one. These are not his exact words, but that is the idea they conveyed. In some respects I suppose it could be true; but as I said, when you consider the interpretation that has been placed upon it by a great many people, you will find that a great many of them support it, and at the same time support a different thing altogether. Therefore it is very hard to
650

Education
determine who supports what in this resolution, unless we define our terms and define what we mean by federal aid to education.
The feeling that is abroad, that if the federal government will take it over it will relieve municipalities of a heavy burden, is, in many instances, basically the idea that it would leave them more revenues to spend on something else. In many quarters nowadays they do not even stop to try to distinguish between federal aid through provincial autonomy and federal aid generally. I was very much surprised to get a resolution from the Manitoba Associated Chambers of Commerce. They passed a resolution at their 21st annual convention on December 5 and 6. Their resolution would indicate that they consider the time has arrived for the federal government to take over the responsibility of education in Canada. In all fairness to them I think I should place the whole resolution on the record. It is headed: "Dominion Aid to Education", and reads as follows:
Whereas the subject of education in recent years has become one of the most important governmental problems and has now emerged as a social problem of equal status with old age security, pensions and unemployment insurance; and
Whereas the growing girl and boy represent the citizens of democracy of the future and constitute Canada's greatest investment for the future; and
Whereas the time has come for the dominion government to consider the problem of education as a dominion responsibility, or at least a responsibility wherein federal aid in much greater measure should be given, to assist already burdened and harassed municipal governments;-
I might point out that they do not even mention here the provincial governments in the resolution. They go directly from the federal to the municipal. This is the preamble. Then the preamble reads:
Therefore be it resolved that the Manitoba Associated Chambers of Commerce requests the Canadian Chamber of Commerce to make the strongest representations to the dominion government to persuade it to accept a much larger degree of responsibility regarding the cost of education in the provinces and for such purpose to assist the provinces to a much greater degree with federal aid for education.
I think that resolution speaks for itself. Many resolutions have been passed in the last year or so and are being passed today. If you read them carefully I think you will find that their meaning is not always the same. They do not look upon federal aid to education in the same way. They indicate different conceptions of the meaning of those words which have become almost a slogan in the country.
It would appear that everyone is anxious to maintain provincial autonomy in connection with education. As I said earlier in my remarks, I cannot understand how this resolution as it is now worded could be
compatible with the maintenance of provincial autonomy. Everyone knows that when a government or any other body makes a grant it is bound to exercise some control. Apparently the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) was under some illusion last year when he spoke on this matter. I remember him saying that it could be done easily and simply and he pointed out to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), that that had been done by his department. I should like to quote from page 585 of Hansard of February 22, 1951, where the leader of the opposition is reported as follows, after the minister had just spoken:
The minister who has just spoken is one who has reason to know that these exclusive fields do not always present the constitutional barriers where there is an attempt or when there is a definite plan to assist in a particular way.
And again:
But I would point out that just as education is the exclusive field of jurisdiction of the provincial government so is hospitalization, except for marine hospitalization. Nevertheless, no insuperable barrier has been encountered by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), to find a way to assist the hospitals of this country, and hospitalization generally, where it was found that the provincial governments did have some difficulty in that field.
Then he goes on to say:
I would go further. These plans have been carried forward in many instances without any suggestion that directly or indirectly there was interference with the administrative responsibilities of these provincial departments which handle these particular activities.
Apparently his illusion has been dispelled in that regard because yesterday he had definitely changed his views and I quote from his remarks, as reported on page 608 of Hansard:
We have seen what happened in the case of the department of health. Health measures and hospitalization, except for military hospitals, were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. Little by little the dominion government have entered that field until now they have expanded their department of health to a point where, with publicity agents added, they have an organization that is incomparably larger than that to be found in any of the provinces.
The complaint of the leader of the opposition is that the autonomy of the provinces suffers by the making of grants. Another example in this connection is the aid given to universities. These grants have raised no political controversy, at the time those grants were instituted. Today the leader of the opposition used strong language in referring to the manner in which it was being done and he questioned the wisdom of the government in doing it.
The reason I bring this out at the present time is to show that if the federal government or any government is expected to give
[Mr. Jutras.l

substantial grants to any other body it is bound, irrespective of what the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has just said, to exercise some control over the expenditure of such grants. I am surprised that any hon. member would argue that parliament can make substantial earmarked grants to a province without supervising the manner in which they are expended.
The resolution asks, first, that means be provided to expand education. I do not think any strong argument has been advanced for the federal government invading the educational field which is fundamentally, basically and constitutionally a provincial right. No substantial reason has been offered to warrant the federal government providing means to expand education. I am dealing with the resolution one part at a time. To expand education would mean that you are going to take education with all its irregularities and increase its scope. That is the meaning to be taken from the resolution.
Why could not the provinces do that better than the federal government? All the federal government will be doing will be to go out into the provinces, raise some money and then turn it over to the provinces so that they can raise the standard of education. But that also implies control. If we are to vote money to expand education in the country we have the responsibility of seeing that the money will accomplish that expansion of education.
To merely make a grant to a province, and we make many as it is, does not mean it will be applied to education. I suppose it will be said that the money could be earmarked for education. Even though that is done what is there to prevent a province, not necessarily cutting its own grant to education but being tempted, and perhaps justified, to refrain from increasing that grant. In effect the federal grant would simply replace the provincial grant.
If we vote money to expand education in the country we must of necessity exercise a certain degree of control, at least to the extent of seeing that the money so voted is applied to the expansion of education. The moment you attempt that, you attempt a certain degree of control in education. And that applies only to the expansion. But we see that this resolution deals with another far more complicated, far more involved and far more delicate problem, that of the equalization of education.
I agree with the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) that, on that basis particularly, the resolution is premature at this time. I ask you this: how can you expect the federal government to equalize education 55704-42J
Education
when the provinces have not equalized it in their own field? Surely the basis of the first step in the process would be for a province at least to establish a system of equalization within that province before the federal government should be expected to step in to equalize education.
I presume that when the hon. member for Saskatoon refers to equalization he means equalization as between one province and another. Because if he means equalization of education within a province, then definitely it would involve control.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: May I suggest to the hon. member that I have never in the house suggested equalization of education anywhere. I have emphasized equalization of opportunity for education. My hon. friend keeps using the term loosely, and in that connection he quotes me incorrectly.


René Jutras: I welcome the interruption but, to tell the truth, it is a pretty fine distinction.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Read the resolution.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Read the resolution.


René Jutras: I have read it twice, and I intend to read it again. But the hon. member will agree that the distinction is a pretty fine one. The resolution contains this expression: "should take into consideration means of expanding and equalizing educational opportunity."


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: That is right.


René Jutras: Well, if the facilities are not there, they will not have much opportunity. I am looking at the problem from the practical point of view-to get something done, not just to talk in generalities. Because if we were to pass this resolution, then surely it is intended to equalize education throughout the country. Otherwise, if it is only a matter of opportunity, and no means is provided, there is not much point in carrying on the discussion. One must face the problem now. The importance of the argument applies to the opportunity as well. I fail to see how any federal government could possibly devise a formula that, to use the expression of the resolution, would equalize educational opportunity across Canada, without going in in some way. It is very difficult for me to understand how this could be done.
That is why I say that, in this equalization, the first step is up to the province. An equalization system should be established first in the province, before any consideration of the federal government should enter into the picture.

Education


Joseph William Noseworthy: Is not the hon. member aware that today every department of education is seeking to equalize opportunity within the province?


René Jutras: That is a broad statement that would require a good deal of qualification. They may have the intent to equalize education, but 'how successful have they been, and to what extent they have made an effort to do it, is still another matter. I am not the only one who holds that view. I believe hon. members of the C.C.F., including the hon. member for Saskatoon and perhaps also the hon. member for York South quoted from this booklet, which purports to be a report on the financing of education in Canada, and to have been prepared at the request of the Alberta teachers association for presentation at the national convention of the Canadian teachers federation at Vancouver on August 13 to 17, 1945. By the way, it was published by the Canadian teachers federation, and I believe a copy of it was sent to me by that organization.
For the information of the hon. member for York South I would say that at page 32, part of section 3 states as follows:
As a means of removing or at least greatly lessening the inequity of Canadian education, three administrative and financial adjustments or reforms are recommended:
1.	For the area of municipal or small district finance-larger units of administration.
2.	For provincial administrative areas-sound equalization schemes supported by adequate provincial funds. These seem urgently needed in all provinces where such schemes are not currently in operation. If, in this field where the provincial governments have undisputed autonomy, thoroughgoing equalization schemes were universal, the reasonableness of proposing an equalization scheme dominion-wide in scope would be greatly increased.
In effect, that is exactly what it means. If a scheme were already established in the provinces, the argument for federal assistance, if one wishes to call it that, would be very much stronger. But, even apart from equalization as such, without going into the matter more fully I would suggest that a great many of the school acts of the provinces have a long way to go before there is equalization of opportunity in education within those provinces.
I could go on for some time on this matter, but I do not propose to do so now. It is obvious, I suggest, that before the federal government could go in to equalize opportunity within a province, a very thorough spring cleaning of some of those school acts would have to be done. One can see the difficulty that would arise at once. So that even if the federal government did want to act at the present time, in certain of the provinces it would be prevented from doing so

because of the obsolete school acts they have on their statute books. I think every hon. member is aware of that fact.
So that I suggest the first thing to do would be to try to direct public opinion along the line of improving education generally in Canada, but that such attention should be centred on the provincial governments instead of on the federal government, and that the people ought not to be distracted from the responsible authority in the matter.
While I realize that the teachers federation are endeavouring to better their condition- and certainly I do not blame them for doing so; indeed I would give them all the support I can, because I believe they have a strong case and should receive better remuneration for the work they do-I suggest sincerely to them that if they would concentrate at the provincial level, at which point they have a chance of bettering their condition, they would have a greater chance of achieving success than by being taken in by this general slogan of federal aid to education. I thought the Manitoba school trustees association made one of the finest presentations to the Rowell-Sirois commission in 1937-38. I would like to put on record their submission on this very point of federal aid to education, which is to be found in volume 9 of the briefs presented to that commission:
The policy, control and' financing of schools, as between dominion and province, is and must remain a provincial responsibility, but certain of the social services and kindred obligations should be considered to be national obligations and the cost thereof assumed and paid by the dominion, thereby leaving the province freer scope to care for the needs of education.
That, I think, was a very sound approach. I believe almost everyone who has taken part in this discussion has approached the question on the basis that education is a provincial responsibility and must remain such. Then why not free the hands of the provinces to apply more of their resources to education? In passing I might suggest that this recommendation has been followed very closely by the federal government since that time. As we all know, this is exactly what the federal government has been trying to do. It has relieved the provinces to a large extent of their responsibilities in connection with social services, with the result that the provinces should be in a better position to meet their educational requirements.
At the same time I want to quote the conclusions of the Sirois report itself. I still think that was one of the soundest reports ever published in Canada and that with very few exceptions their conclusions have proved

to be correct. On this complex and delicate matter of federal aid to education the report had this to say at page 51 of book II:
We have expressed our objection to grants for elementary and secondary education where any suspicion of dominion interference would seem to us dangerous.
So it seems advisable not to institute a system of grants or assistance at the primary or secondary school level, if we are to maintain provincial autonomy in the field of education.
In this resolution the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) advocates expanding and equalizing educational opportunity across Canada by the granting of financial assistance to the various provinces for that purpose. As I said earlier, it is almost impossible to conceive of a formula that would accomplish this expansion and equalization without at the same time involving some measure of control over these things. As a matter of fact for any government, federal or provincial, to make a grant to any body without exercising any control whatever would in itself be an evasion of responsibility.
In presenting their arguments a great many hon. members have based them on the assumption that the provinces did not have the financial resources to carry out this expansion and equalization.


Some hon. Members:: Time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: I am
sorry, but I must inform the hon. gentleman that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Has
the hon. member unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


René Jutras: May I be permitted to say just four more sentences?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Has
the hon. member unanimous consent to complete the argument he was presenting?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If he wants to talk it out.


René Jutras: Previously I quoted Mr. Argue, associate professor of education at the university of Alberta. I would like to put on record just four more sentences from what he had to say on this point. It will take only a minute, and will not make very much
Education
difference. I will not go into it beyond saying they made a complete survey of the situation and here is what they said on that score:
It was also indicated, however, that the majority of the provinces could have provided much more adequately for their schools than they did in 1941 without federal aid and without reserving more than a "reasonably attainable" proportion of their public revenues for the schools.


Mr. Charles Henry (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, this resolution reads as follows:
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.
This is a very interesting resolution. If we analyse the history of "federal aid" to education in Canada during the first half of the twentieth century, it is apparent that "federal aid" as it exists has come about now in a very orderly manner by agreement with the provinces. The first act of "federal aid" was when Sir Robert Borden came to office with a Conservative government during the period from 1911 to 1917. I refer to the Agricultural Instruction Act passed in 1913 under which the sum of $10 million was allotted, to be spent during the following ten years. The next legislative enactment concerning "federal aid" came under the same prime minister in 1919, when the Technical Education Act was placed upon the statute books. This statute also allotted $10 million for technical education and again provided that the money should be paid over a period of ten years thereafter. Therefore during the Borden regime we had the sum of $20 million allotted by statute for federal aid to education, the first $10 million for agricultural training and the second $10 million for technical education. This was no small accomplishment in those days when the population of Canada was about half the size that it is now.
Next, we come to another Conservative regime, namely that of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. We find then a great absence of any further expansion of "federal aid" to education. The next Conservative regime was that of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. We find then a great effort to provide further "federal aid" to education, but no result. I mention the Vocational Education Act passed in 1931. Hon. members who are longer in public life than I am may recall that that act provided $750,000 per year for the purpose of vocational education, and the period of operation of the act was to be fifteen years. To say the least, under the Meighen and Bennett regimes, advancement of federal aid to education "perished in the attempt" along with somebody else.

Education
We come now to the regime ol the late Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and that of our present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). In placing those two regimes together for consideration, I can mention to the house the Youth Training Act passed in 1939. This statute was operative for a three-year period following its passage, and provided $4,500,000 in "federal aid" to train rural and urban young people in the latter days of the depression. Then, in 1942 a Liberal government under the late Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King passed the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act of that year. This statute was the means of repealing, in effect, the Youth Training Act of 1939 and the defunct Vocational Education Act of the Bennett regime passed in 1931.
A very significant accomplishment can be placed on record under the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act. From 1945 down to the end of the present fiscal year the Department of Labour reports that it will have spent or will be spending on all the various types of vocational training under the statute in question the sum of $51,541,625. Now, this sum is in addition to the "federal aid" to universities provided in the estimates at the last session, which amounted to $7,100,000. This makes a total for these purposes in the post-war period from 1945 down to the present fiscal year by way of "federal aid" to education of $58,641,625.
Summarizing "federal aid" to education in terms of dollars, Mr. Speaker, we see that during the first half of the twentieth century Sir Robert Borden was responsible for allotting $20 million. The Right Hon. Arthur Meighen is responsible for allotting nothing, and the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett tried to allot much but wound up by spending nothing. You have, therefore, $20 million to the credit of the Conservative party in those days. To me this does not sound like the words of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) who said that the policy of his party was "federal assistance ever".
I think, however, that under Liberal governments we have done much. I am not underestimating the federal aid to education at the university level of $7,100,000, the byproduct of the Massey commission on arts, letters and sciences. I think that is all to the good. In these days when we find difficult problems within and without for all Canadians, a discussion of the humanities cannot be properly conducted under this resolution. I do say that is a significant achievement, and it is one that is very near and dear to me.
What I wish to stress tonight is the continuing need of vocational training, and the

aid which this government in particular has given to vocational training for those who do not go to university either through their own choice or otherwise. Youth training today at the vocational training school level is a matter of vital importance to those who do not choose a profession or the advanced lines of business which require a university or other education. It is for them that I speak tonight, and it is for them that I encourage the government in the increase it has seen fit to make in the vocational training estimates of the Department of Labour.
In the year 1952-53, I find in the estimates of the Department of Labour, under the heading "Youth Training" the sum of $440,000. I am gratified to note an increase in that item over the year 1951-52, because in that year it amounted to $410,000. I pass on to apprenticeship training under the vocational training branch of the Department of Labour. I am gratified to note that in the year 1952-53 there is $750,000 in the estimates for this purpose, whereas in the year 1951-52 there was $500,000. This constitutes an increase of $250,000. As to vocational school assistance, it is a matter of satisfaction to see that in the estimates this year we have $2 million, the same amount as last year. Fore-manship training is a matter which is going to receive attention, and there is an increase there over last year. I note the sum of $12,000 for the coming year. There is also a further item in these estimates as to vocational training for "gainful employment"or defence industries. Here we have the sum of $650,000, an increase of $150,000 over last year. Hon. members will be pleased to note further that the vocational training branch of the Department of Labour proposes to continue its work of training workers for the armed forces. Under this item we have $160,000 in the estimates for the coming year. There is a final item for vocational correspondence courses amounting to $15,000.
It is apparent therefore that in the year 1952-53 in the Department of Labour there is allotted the sum of $4,027,000 for vocational training. Last year, 1951-52, there was $3,652,000. This is a formidable increase of some $375,000.
Why do I take such satisfaction in the increase of these sums? It is because in the riding of Toronto Rosedale I speak for many middle-class families and also for those in the lower brackets. They feel the need for opportunity in education along the lines of vocational training. It is a particular satisfaction for me to know that vocational training facilities in Canada, under the proven methods established in the first half of this

century, are going to be expanded and that there will be an expansion of educational opportunities in the vocational training field for the children of these particular families.
I note that the department is skilled in the administration of this "federal aid" for vocational training. I feel that there will be a judicious handling of the money so that organized labour may not fear an extraordinary production of the wrong kind of workers in the wrong places. Experience has shown in the past that this branch has done its work well in co-operation with the provinces. As evidence of my interest in this vocational training problem, hon. members may have noted that there is on the order paper resolution No. 13 which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give early consideration to the making of provision for increased financial assistance for the improvement and extension of vocational training facilities and the training of workers in skilled trades and occupations, with a view to providing adequate facilities and opportunities for training for workers in all sections of Canada and developing and increasing the skills and numbers of workers in essential trades and occupations in the national interest.
We come now, Mr. Speaker, to the present resolution. In attempting to explain the gradual development of "federal aid" to education, one asks one's self the question: How does it come about that under the Borden regime we had some federal aid? How do we explain the great absence of "federal aid" and no expansion of the accepted lines of federal aid under the Meighen and the Bennett regimes? The best explanation that I can offer is the opinion of a noteworthy, now deceased journalist in this country-and I refer to Mr. J. W. Dafoe-in a letter which he wrote on September 16, 1943, a copy of which appears in the "Historical Review" of 1944. In this letter the late Mr. Dafoe, who is respected by most Canadians, said of Sir Robert Borden:
His stature rises as the perspective lengthens but it has some way to go yet before justice is done him. I had many a heart-to-heart talk with him down the years, and after each of them I was in the habit of saying to myself: "Either he's a Grit in disguise or I'm a Tory."
Passing on, we can sum up the situation to date in this way. At the university level the Liberal government of the day has allotted $7,100,000; at the vocational training school level since 1945 there is the sum of $51,541,000. The question is what is to be done by way of "federal aid" for education at the grade school and secondary school level.
I was deeply impressed this afternoon with the statesmanlike speech of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). To my way of thinking he gave hon. members much to consider
Education
at this time, when attempts are made on all sides, shall I say, to strain the constitution, in spirit and letter, to the very limit. He made a deep impression upon me in many ways, but more particularly with reference to the province of Ontario in which I reside.
X am not as familiar as is the Minister of Justice with what went on in the province of Ontario during the regime of the premier who preceded the present incumbent of that office. I note with interest, however, that the minister is able to establish that, during that regime, more attention was paid to bridges and roads than to education, as the figures of the province show. During his speech it came to my mind that today we had certain aspects of the dominion-provincial-tax situation still with us in the province of Ontario. On March 1, 1952, in the well known magazine Saturday Night an exemplary journalist by the name of Michael Barkway wrote an interesting article on what he calls "Tax Impasse Costing Millions". There is a subheading which reads: "Ontario, Quebec aloof from first Ottawa tax offer, consider new one". This is a detailed study of the situation of Ontario finances in so far as this relationship is concerned with the federal government. Hon. members will no doubt feel that they do not want me to go into detail at this time, and I do not wish to do so. But Mr. Barkway reaches this conclusion, and I quote him in the middle of the article:
. . . and it is already certain that over the whole five-year period Ontario will have lost substantial revenue by staying out of the federal-provincial agreements.
If this is so, Mr. Speaker, may I conclude with this thought. The present incumbent of the premiership of the province of Ontario has proven himself to be a co-operative man, and a conciliatory man in every sense of the word. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) seems concerned about the opportunity for educational advancement in this country, and I include the province of Ontario within the meaning of his words in this house. Let him and the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) use their influence with the premier of Ontario to cause him to sign a tax agreement and stop the loss of money described by the journalist which I have just quoted. Within the framework of the dominion-provincial tax arrangements, if we can cause the provinces to make the necessary agreements, let us give whatever tax funds the provinces may need for all purposes, including that of education. But, Mr. Speaker, the constitution of Canada in the field of education is to me sacrosanct, as I know it to be with the majority of Canadians. I speak not only of its letter but of its spirit. The

Education
best evidence of the fact that we must therefore carefully seek out agreements before we attempt to adopt legislation such as this in its entirety lies in the variety of views which have been expressed here in this debate. As the last speaker has said, let us preserve provincial autonomy. I say: Let us have federal aid to education, as now existing for universities and vocational training establishments, but at the grade school level and the secondary school level it is for the provinces to administer within the framework of the provinces under dominion-provincial agreements as visualized by the Minister of Justice this afternoon.
However I am satisfied and proud of the federal aid given at the university and vocational training levels. On this question I will not add anything else. But I will ask hon. members not to lose sight of the constitution when they advocate "federal aid" to education at the grade and secondary school levels.
(Translation):


Mr. Jules Gauthier (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, we have before us the following resolution moved by the hon. member for Saskatoon (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.
The first thing that comes to mind, on reading this resolution, is the matter of whether education is a federal or a provincial responsibility. According to our constitution, education is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. One must therefore conclude that the above resolution, as was so aptly put by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), is premature. Furthermore, we are not here to find ways of avoiding and circumventing the law, but actually to pass wise laws and to see to their enforcement by making sure we ourselves are setting a good example.
As to autonomy, I am pleased to state in this house what I have said several times, at Jonquiere and at Arvida. Furthermore, on December 14, 1949, as a member of a delegation in my capacity as mayor, I requested from the prime minister of the province of Quebec, municipal autonomy for my city stating that any municipal authority should have the right to impose taxes to be able to meet its own obligations and remain free. I pointed out also that the functions of administrators did not consist solely in begging from IMr. Henry.]
the superior authorities a few dollars owed to them, but in devoting all their energies, their zeal and devotion to the accomplishment of administrative actions worthy of the name, in the common interest.
For such reasons, if taxing powers in the field of education are to be defined as between the federal and provincial governments, and likewise if agreements are to be made to amend the constitution in this regard, let that be done without delay. But as long as this is not done, I shall oppose this resolution with all my might and I want to say so frankly and honestly in this house.
(Text):


Mr. G. T. Fulford (Leeds):: One could not listen to the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) and others of our French-speaking colleagues in this chamber both yesterday and today without realizing the importance that is placed in the province of Quebec on retaining the form of education upon which the culture of that province has been built. If the federal government were to give educational grants to the various provinces it would be necessary for control to be exercised by the federal government-


Some hon. Members:: Why?


George Taylor Fulford: -over how this money is to be spent.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Why?


George Taylor Fulford: If there were not, you would be the first to howl over it.


Mr. Cardiff:: Talk about something with which you are familiar.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Talk it out.


George Taylor Fulford: Possess your soul in patience for a while. I think I have something that I can tell you, and I do not think you would want in the west what we have in Ontario. We in the English-speaking provinces of Canada-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Where is that?


George Taylor Fulford: -have very definitely swung away from the old system that was known to our fathers and our forefathers. We have swung away from the cultural subjects of old, from the three R's, into what I shall call an easier form of education. It is easier for the teachers and easier for the pupils. It is more pleasant. Our French-speaking brethren in Canada have preferred to concentrate on the humanities, and certainly with the diverse opinions that exist in this great Canada of ours, it would be completely impractical and definitely not wanted, if standardization could be enforced.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Eleven o'clock.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Who is going to enforce it?


George Taylor Fulford: I remember some years ago a friend of mine returning to his home. His daughter said to him: "Daddy, may I have a razor blade holder?" He said: "Why do you want a razor blade holder?" She said: "Teacher said we must have it because we are going to cut statues out of cakes of soap tomorrow." If I have ever seen a man blow up it was that man. He said: "Going to cut statues out of cakes of soap. Now, I ask you what kind of education is that? I am going to write to the board of education and tell them what I think of them." I said: "I think before you do that it might be advisable to write a letter to the department of education. This may be some new fad that is going to improve their cultural life. It is going to make it easier for them to enter university."


Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.


George Taylor Fulford: "It may be something that we of the older generation do not know anything about." And yet, that is part of the fundamental teaching, or was up until a few years
ago. It may have changed since then. It was one of the things that were taught in the province of Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.


George Taylor Fulford: I bring that matter up, but there is much more I could say. I simply say I cannot support the resolution because I cannot see how primary and secondary schools could be equalized under federal control, due to the fact such control strikes at the very basis of confederation of this Dominion of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member talked it out.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

James Joseph McCann: Hon. gentlemen will recall that on Tuesday a motion was carried suspending standing order 28. Therefore, tomorrow a motion will be made to go into supply and, with the Speaker in the chair, there will be a debate on external affairs.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 21, 1952