1952-03-19

PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. W. G. Weir (Poriage-Neepawa) moved:: That having regard to the fact that forty-six applicants, listed below, published notices in compliance with standing order 95 announcing intention of applying at the last session of parliament for private bills, and that during that session a special order of the house precluded the consideration of private bills, the said forty-six notices be referred to the standing committee on standing orders with instructions to report upon the advisability of permitting such notices to be regarded as sufficient for the present session, namely: Victoria Elias Abdelhay, Samuel Long Adamson, Gregorij Sergeij Anker-Jakerov, Alberta Lomas McLeod Archibald, Cecilia Rachel Baird, Cora Marguerite Blume, Herve Brunelle, Mary Viola (Violet) Taillon Brebeau, Frederick Charles Butler, Mabel Stacey Delorimier, Roger Denis, Gertrude Mintz Dankoff, George Louis Draper, Kenneth Oliver Frawley, Virginia Patricia Gariepy Geary, Eva Lubin Greenfield, Denise Gelinas Gilmour, Dorothy Ailsie Jean Coghlin Hands, Cosmo Iellamo, Mary Ann Munro Kelly, Laurent Langlois, Jeanne Antoinette Sophie, Helena Kessler Meyer, Sheila Ruth Coppelman Mitmaker alias Mintz, Omer Mont-petit, Thomas Richard Markey, Alfred Machabee, Edith Olive Catherine Cramp Midgley, Frances Betty Bennett Murray, Frederick Ernest Marlow, Julia Emma Pearl Sager Noiseux, Lillian May Holloway O'Brien, Marie Laure Jacqueline Patenaude Racine, Olive Myrtle Weston Rouet, Molly Lebovitz Rapkin, Libertia Vinivar McClusky Rutherford, Shirley Doreen Rowe, Georgine Jun Ruzicka, Alma Dorothy Lines Robertson, Harry Murning Smith, Vivian Mary Dickson Stewart, Alice Courey Sal-hany, Dorothy Grauer Shapiro, Dorothy Esme Graham Snell, Hilda Miriam Magee Taylor, Florence Margaret Parsonage Velleman, William Wallace Watson.
He said: This situation, I am told, arises from the fact that what these people did would have been in compliance with the ordinary procedure had we not had the extra session last fall. The idea of the notice was simply to announce intention of applying for private bills at the next session of parliament, which was in fact the session last fall, and we were not able to deal with them at that time. This motion is to regularize matters so that they may be dealt with at this session of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for
the financial year ending March 31, 1953, was presented by Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.


Mr. Fulford:: 1.	When was the union station at Brockville, Ontario, erected?
2.	Have any major repairs been made by the Canadian National Railways or the Canadian Pacific Railway to this station since its erection?
3.	How many passengers travelling by Canadian National pool trains numbers 5 and 14, and Canadian Pacific pool trains numbers 563 and 562, have transferred trains at the Brockville union station, since January 1, 1945?
4.	Has any recommendation ever been made to change the location of this station in order to give better accommodation to passengers and to facilitate the handling of both mail and express?
5.	Have the railways given consideration to the construction of a vehicular subway on Perth street, Brockville, to relieve the traffic congestion whenever a Canadian National Railways train crosses the said street, and more particularly whenever an eastbound Canadian National passenger train stops at the Brockville union station?


Mr. Benidickson:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Constructed by the former Grand Trunk Railway about the year 1860.
2.	The original building was extended to its present size in 1904. Necessary repairs have been made to the building from time to time. The Canadian Pacific commenced using the station jointly with the Grand Trunk Railway under agreement of 1875.
3.	Information is not available in our records to enable an answer to be given to this question.
4.	No recommendation has been made for changing the location of the station.
5.	Consideration has been given on several occasions in the past ten years to remedial measures that would relieve traffic congestion at Perth street. Following the filing by the town of an application to the board of transport commissioners in December 1945, the railway prepared, and submitted to the board and the town, plans for vehicular subways at Perth and William streets, and for a pedestrian subway at Perth street. Conferences between representatives of the town and officers of the railway were held from

Questions
time to time, but because of the high cost of grade separation and the uncertainty of related highway construction in the area it was decided, in January 1949, to defer further decision of the proposals to a more propitious date in the future.



RADIO SCRIPT OF &quot;HERE'S HEALTH


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: 1. Who was the author of the script "Here's Health-Battle Bugs'' used by the Department of National Health and Welfare over C.B.C. on Sunday afternoon, March 2, 1952?
2.	What amount, if any, was paid to the author for this script?
3.	Is the author an employee of the Department of National Health and* 1 2 3 Welfare?
4.	If so, what is his salary per annum?
5.	What was the total cost of putting this particular script on over the air?


Mr. McCusker:: 1.	Mrs. Helen Marsh.
2.	Nil.
3.	Yes.
4.	$4,520. In addition to producing a weekly dramatic radio program Mrs. Marsh's duties include the writing of leaflets and booklets and the planning of exhibits, filmstrips and
posters on dental health, Indian health, family allowances and general health and welfare subjects, the carrying out of liaison duties with women's adult education organizations, and handling specialized public relations matters at conferences and conventions.
5.	$392.15-Cost of production and recording only. Independent radio stations, of which there are 102 airing this series, provide the broadcast time free of charge.



UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What was the total number of unemployed
persons in Canada as at the end of (a) October. 1950; (b) November, 1950; (c) December, 1950; (d) January, 1951; (e) February, 1951; (f) March, 1951; (g) October, 1951; (h) November, 1951; (i) December, 1951;	(j) January, 1952;	(k) February, 1952;
and (1) for the latest date for which figures are available in March, 1952?
2.	What is the break-down of each of the above figures by provinces or by regions?
1 and 2.


Mr. Gregg:: The number of workers registered with the national employment service at the various dates requested are given below, in nearest thousands, for Canada and by regions:
Canada	Atlantic	Quebec	Ontario	Prairie	Pacific*Apr. 6, 1950	435,000	78,000	156,000	95,000	57,000	49,000Nov. 2, 1950	147,000	20,000	45,000	38,000	21,000	23,000Nov. 30, 1950. ..	186,000	24,000	55,000	47,000	30,000	30,000Dec. 28,' 1950. ..	227,000	28,000	71,000	53,000	38,000	37,000Feb. 1, 1951	300,000	42,000	89,000	68,000	51,000	50,000Mar. 1, 1951	297,000	45,000	93,000	63,000	51,000	45,000Mar. 29, 1951...	290,000	46,000	95,000	57,000	50,000	42,000Nov. 1, 1951	156,000	17,000	43,000	54,000	19,000	23,000Nov. 29, 1951. . .	208,000	21,000	56,000	73,000	27,000	31,000Dec. 27, 1951...	267,000	27,000	80,000	85,000	35,000	40,000Jan. 31, 1952...	363,000	42,000	105,000	110,000	48,000	58,000Feb. 28, 1952...	371,000	47,000	115,000	112,000	48,000	49,000
*Added for purposes of comparison.
It must be remembered that not all unemployed workers register with the national employment service, and that some of those who do may find jobs on their own and not notify the local office where they are registered. In this latter case, their applications usually remain on file for fifteen days after they were last in touch with the office, at which time they are then cancelled.



MANITOBA INDIANS


Mr. Bryce:: 1.	How much wild rice was harvested and sold by the Manitoba Indians in 1951?
2.	Did the Indian department handle this rice? If not, who did?

3.	What were the names of the companies that bought the rice?
4.	What was the average price paid?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 1.	Information is not available as to the total amount of wild rice sold by the Indians of Manitoba in 1951, as the Indian affairs branch only supervised harvesting on Lone island and Crow Duck lakes in the Whiteshell forest reserve. Forty thousand pounds of wild rice were harvested on the above-mentioned areas and approximately half of the pickers were Manitoba Indians.
2.	Answered by Nos. 1 and 3.
3.	The name of the company which bought from Indians wild rice harvested in the

areas mentioned in No. 1 is the Canadian Fish Producers. A list of purchasers elsewhere in the province is not maintained.
4.	Forty-four cents per pound plus 5 per cent royalty to the province of Manitoba.



CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONS

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many retired civil servants are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the following brackets: (a) less than $20 a month; (b) $20 to $29.99 per month; (c) $30 to $39.99 per month; (d) $40 to $49.99 per month; (e) $50 to $59.99 per month; (f) $60 to $69.99 per month; (g) $70 to $79.99 per month; (h) $80 to $89.99 per month; (i) $90 to $99.99 per month; (j) $100 per month or over?
2.	How many widows of retired civil servants; are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the number of retired federal civil servants and also the number of widows of retired federal civil servants residing in each province?


Mr. Sinclair:: 1 and 2. Number of retired civil servants and widows receiving pensions of amounts within each of the following brackets as at February 29, 1952:
Retired
Monthly	Civil Widows
Servants
(a)	less	than $20 ....	. . 371	877(b)	$20	to	$29.99 	. . 524	883(c)	$30	to	$39.99 	. . 721	767(d)	$40	to	$49.99 	. . 802	799(e)	$50	to	$59.99 	. . 753	651(f)	$60	to	$69.99 	. . 831	418(g)	$70	to	$79.99 	. . 845	226(h)	$80	to	$89.99 	. . 917	145(i)	$90	to	$99.99 	. . 824	98(j>	$100	or	over ....	. . 4,021	19010,609	5,054
3. Number of retired civil servants and widows residing in each province as at February 29, 1952:
	Retired Civil	Widows
Alberta 	Servants 489	160British Columbia . .	1,791	552Manitoba 	487	211New Brunswick ....	247	143Newfoundland 	30	13Nova Scotia 	405	197Ontario 	4,694	2,403Prince Edward Island	58	28Quebec 	1,882	1,070Saskatchewan 	237	9610,320	4,873Outside of Canada ..	289	18110,609	5,054
Questions



NATIONAL HARBOURS


Mr. Higgins:: What steps have been taken to establish a national harbour or harbours in Newfoundland?


William Moore Benidickson: There have been no
further developments in the matter since a similar question, of the hon. member was answered on June 13, 1951.



FRASER RIVER NORTH SHORE


Mr. Goode:: 1.	Has a report been received from the federal engineer at New Westminster, British Columbia, regarding the serious condition of the north shore of the Fraser river, main channel, between Woodwards landing and Steveston bar?
2.	If so, what action is being taken by the Department of Public Works?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Yes, a report has been received stating that rock should be placed at several locations on Lulu island between Woodwards landing and Steveston bar.
2.	Plans are being prepared to carry out this work as required.



INCOME TAX INSPECTORS

Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	What is the salary of income tax inspectors working in the rural areas of Canada?
2.	Do these income tax inspectors receive a percentage of collections on outstanding income taxes?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Employees of the taxation division, engaged in rural areas of Canada in assessing income tax returns, are paid remuneration within the following salary ranges established by the civil service commission: $2480 to $2770 (clerk grade 3); $2770 to $3110 (clerk grade 4); $3010 to $3710 (assessor grade 1); $3740 to $4220 (assessor grade 2); $4220 to $4760 (assessor grade 3); $4740 to $5200 (assessor grade 4).
2.	No.



GANDER AIRPORT


Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Are any runways at Gander airport to be extended this year?
2.	If so, which runways are to be extended, and by how many feet?
3.	Is it proposed to build a new terminal building at Gander airport this year?


William Moore Benidickson: 1 and 2. Runway no. 14-32, reconstruction of which was started last year, will be completed to a length of 7,500 feet this year.
3.	No.

Questions



PORTUGAL COVE, NFLD., WHARF

Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Has there been any discussion with the government of Newfoundland since July 20, 1950, relative to the maintenance of the wharf at Portugal Cove, St. John's East, Newfoundland?
2.	If so, what was the result of such discussion?


Mr. Chevrier:: No formal discussion has taken place with the government of Newfoundland by this department relative to the maintenance of the wharf at Portugal Cove, Newfoundland, but an extensive survey has been conducted and a definite plan will soon be proposed to the provincial authorities.



IMPORTS FROM IRON CURTAIN COUNTRIES

Mr. Noseworthy:: 1.	Is Canada now importing goods from any country or countries behind the iron curtain?
2.	If so (a) from what countries: (b) what goods; (c) in what quantities; (d) what firms are importing these goods?
3.	If not, at what time did importation of goods from each of those countries cease?


Mr. Howe:: 1.	Yes.
2(a), 2(b) and 2(c). See statement below. 2(d). Not available.
3.	Answered by Nos. 1 and 2.
Statement showing imports into Canada, by principal commodities, from countries as specified, during the calendar year 1951
	Unit of Qty.	Quantity	Value
Bulgaria: Total imports 				$ 4,185
Principal commodities:			
Cheese 	Lb.	2,940	1,415Settlers' effects 	$	2,770Czechoslovakia: Total imports	4,668,069Principal commodities:	Rubber boots and shoes	Pr.	220,611	238,644Raw squirrel skins 	No.	48,513	45,683Cotton fabrics 	Lb.	313,233	519,591Cotton gloves 	Doz. pr.	42,484	231,630Other cotton manufactures 	Lb.	47,814	92,416Flax, hemp and jute products	$	205,547Wool yarns and warps	Lb.	63,000	188,317Wool fabrics 	Lb.	163,144	791,605Hoods and shapes or fur felt, for hats	Doz.	5,454	83,218Other textile products 	$	119,598Wood furniture 	$	60,824Sewing machines 	No.	2,612	83,352Motor cycles, side cars and parts	No.	687	123,054Electric light fixtures 	$	93,045Window glass 	Sq. ft.	8,148,741	445,970Glassware 	$	245,474Toys 	$	56,032Jewellery 	$	127,610Artificial feathers, flowers, etc., for ornamenting	hats 	$	77,888Precious stones and pearls, real or imitation, not	set or mounted 	$	145,529Hungary: Total imports 	$ 120,983Principal commodities:	Broom corn 	$	13,162Clothing 	$	10,102Glassware 	$	14,971Settlers' effects 	$	66,994Poland: Total imports 	$1,429,535Principal commodities:	Clover seed 	Lb.	44,092	31,536Calf skins, raw 	No.	147,500	620,123Towelling, tablecloths, etc., in the web, wholly of	flax or hemp 	Lb.	222,660	175,978

Questions
Poland: Principal commodities (concluded)
Unit of Qty.	Quantity	ValueWool fabrics 	Lb.	20,809	77,058Wood furniture 	29,017Window glass 	Sq. ft.	1,701,741	73,640Cresylic acid 	
Alabaster, spar, amber, terra cotta or composition	Lb.	782,879	78,880ornaments 	$	92,737Settlers' effects 	$	161,396Roumania: Total imports 	$	21,718Principal commodities: Settlers' effects 	$	21,345U.S.S.R.: Total imports 	$	357,932Principal commodities: Fur skins, undressed 	No.	257,271	303,870Settlers' effects 	$	42,117
Soviet zone of Germany:
Separate figures not available.



VETERANS DISABILITY PENSIONS

Mr. Diefenbaker:: How many veterans, by provinces, have had their disability pensions reduced since the first day of December, 1951?


Mr. Mulch:: Reductions in awards of disability pensions following pension medical re-examination:
Number-
Province	W.W.I
and II
Newfoundland	 3
Nova Scotia	 75
Prince Edward Island	 13
New Brunswick	 69
Quebec	 106
Ontario	 502
Manitoba	 87
Saskatchewan	 41
Alberta	 92
British Columbia	 158
Total	 1,146



YARMOUTH


Mr. Nowlan:: 1.	Have tenders yet been called for the construction of the proposed car ferry to operate between Yarmouth, Nova Scotia and Eastport, in the state of Maine?
2.	If not, when is it proposed to call for such tenders?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	Not yet.
2.	As soon as steel situation improves sufficiently.
Note: The above answer refers to the Yarmouth-Bar Harbor ferry.



NEWFOUNDLAND COD FISHERY

Mr. Browne (SI. John's West):: 1.	What has been the cost since its commencement of the long liner experiments in the Newfoundland cod fishing?
2.	What has been the revenue received from the same?
3.	What boats have been operating during the past year, and what boats are operating now?
4.	What number make up the crew on each boat, and who is the captain of each?


Mr. MacNaughl:: The information as to long-lining experiments carried out by the federal government in Newfoundland is as follows:
1.	$40,181.24. 2.	$3,280.98. 3 and 4.	No. of	Year Name of boat	crew	Captain1951 O Johnny O	3	R. W. DeckerMiss Osborne	4 1	East Wind	4 i	Gordon HemeonEdward Humby	4 J	
1952 Edward Humby 4 Gordon Hemeon



IMPORTS OF LAMB AND MUTTON

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What quantity of frozen dressed lambs have been imported into Canada from New Zealand, in each month since the 1st of November, 1951?
2.	How many are en route?
3.	How many pounds of mutton have been imported from (a) Australia; (b) New Zealand, month by month since the 1st of July, 1951?


Mr. Howe:: 1 and 3. Exact information as requested is not available in the bureau of statistics. See note and statement below.
2.	Information not available.
Note: Imports of fresh lamb and mutton are recorded in a single item in external

Questions
trade statistics and there is no separate record of imports of frozen lamb and of mutton. The imports of "fresh mutton and lamb" from Australia and New Zealand, entered for consumption in Canada from July 1, 1951, to January 31, 1952, were as follows:
Australia New Zealand
Month	Pounds	Pounds
July, 1951	
August	 33,264
September	 86,952	1,537,826
October	
November	
December	
January 1952



HEALTH INSURANCE SURVEYS

Mr. Henry:: 1.	What progress has been made by the government since the last session in health insurance studies and surveys for Canada?
2.	What part is being played by the Canadian Medical Association in the government health insurance studies and surveys?


Mr. McCusker:: 1.	Since the last session comprehensive reports have been completed, or are now approaching completion, on the health insurance programs in effect in the following countries: Denmark, New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands, and Great Britain. Studies are being made of public hospital care schemes in Canada and on Canadian medical care programs for social assistance recipients.
In addition to compiling these reports from official documents and through correspondence, officers of the department have made a number of extensive on-the-spot reviews of health programs in effect on this continent and in Europe. The director of health insurance studies, in recent months, has visited Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, The Netherlands and Great Britain. During his visit he was able to see interesting aspects of the health service provided, and to discuss the various types of programs with officers of professional health associations and government health departments. Other officers of the department have carried out similar studies of voluntary and government-sponsored health care programs in Canada and the United States.
The provincial health surveys made possible by grants under the national health program have not all been completed. The great body of factual information contained in the reports already received is now being collated. A national sickness survey has recently been completed of a sample group of 10,000 Canadian families. This is the most comprehensive and searching study yet

made of the extent and economic implications of illness in Canada, but it will take months to analyse the great mass of information gathered.
2.	In every province, when the health surveys were first organized, members of organized medicine were nominated to the committees and have served on them and participated in all discussions and the preparation of all recommendations in connection therewith.
When the national sickness survey was being organized the Canadian Medical Association was approached asking for the co-operation of their provincial branch to assist each province in validating the information obtained by the enumerators in cases where medical attention had been recorded during the survey. At our request the association published an outline of the national sickness survey in the June, 1950, issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, asking for the co-operation of the members of the association in order to assist the provincial survey committees in each province in gathering the most accurate information possible. It appears from the reports received from the provinces that the co-operation of organized medicine has been everything that possibly could be desired.



POULTRY


Mr. Nowlan:: 1.	How many birds in Nova Scotia, within the last six months, have been destroyed because of infection, or exposure to Newcastle disease?
2.	How much compensation has been or will be paid for each such bird so destroyed?
3.	Were the flocks from which such birds originated previously vaccinated by a serum proposed to protect against Newcastle disease?
4.	If so, from what source was such vaccine obtained?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	30,300 birds.
2.	According to schedule (of current market values) effective July 1, 1951.
3.	A vaccine, yes.
4.	Animal diseases research institute, Hull, Quebec.



DUMPING DUTIES

Mr. Lennard:: 1.	What was the total amount applied as dumping duties on goods entering Canada during the calendar year 1951?
2.	How much of this amount was applied against textile products such as (a) hosiery and half hose; (b) underwear; (c) outerwear?


Mr. Howe:: 1.	$1,547,289.
2.	Not available; detailed breakdown not kept.



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCES

Mr. Goode:: How many veterans in Canada are at present in receipt of the war veterans allowance, by provinces?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Return at January 31, 1952:
Statistical records are maintained by departmental districts, not by provinces. Figures by departmental districts are as follows:
St. John's, Newfoundland, district, 459; Charlottetown district, 407; Halifax district, 1,839; Saint John, N.B. district, 1,342; Montreal, P.Q, district, 2,443; Quebec, P.Q. district, 414; Ottawa district, 901; Kingston, Ont. district, 1,000; Toronto district, 4,210; Hamilton district, 1,266; London district, 1,490; North Bay district, 693; Winnipeg district, 2,513; Regina district, 736; Saskatoon district, 832; Edmonton district, 1,069; Calgary district, 1,029; Vancouver district, 7,456.



PRICE MAINTENANCE LEGISLATION

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Have there been any investigations amongst alleged violators of the anti-price maintenance legislation?
2.	If so, how many, and how many cases have been investigated, and with what result?
3.	Have any complaints been, received? If so, how many?


Mr. Garson:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	No.



DISTRICT COURTS, NEWFOUNDLAND

Gordon Francis Higgins: What steps are being taken to set up district courts in Newfoundland?


Mr. Garson:: In response to a similar question reported in Hansard of June 7, 1951, page 3795, it was pointed out that constitution of provincial courts comes exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature, and that therefore this question should be asked in the Newfoundland legislature.



TORBAY, NFLD., AIRPORT-RUNWAYS

Gordon Francis Higgins: Are any runways at Torbay airport to be extended this year?


William Moore Benidickson: No.



CANADAIR


Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	Who comprised the personnel of the first management company of Canadair Limited?
2.	What positions had1 they held immediately prior to their appointment to the management committee of the said Canadair company?
55704-38i
Questions
3.	Were any of them shareholders in the Electric Boat Company at the time of the sale of Canadair to that company?
4.	If so, who held shares in the Electric Boat Company, and1 to what did these amount?
5.	Did any of these people hold other interests in Electric Boat Company at the time of the sale of Canadair to that company?
6.	If so, what were these interests and who held them?
7.	Were any of these people employed in any capacity with Canadair Limited after its acquisition by the Electric Boat Company?
8.	If so, who were so employed and what positions did they hold?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Directors: B. W. Franklin, president; J. E. L. Duquet, Ralston, Kearney, Duquet & MacKay, Montreal; Clayton F. Elderkin, Haskell, Elderkin & Company, Montreal; M.
O.	Haskell, Elderkin & Company, Montreal; D. H. Macfarlane, secretary-treasurer; W. H. Meacher, comptroller; R. G. Stopps, Canadair Limited.
2.	B. W. Franklin, employee of Canadian Vickers Limited; R. G. Stopps, employee of Canadian Vickers Limited; W. H. Meacher, employee of Canadian Vickers Limited; D. H. Macfarlane, employee of Federal Aircraft Limited.
The other directors were partners in their respective firms as shown in No. 1.
3.	Not available.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Not available.
6.	Answered by No. 5.
7.	Yes. B. W. Franklin, D. H. Macfarlane, W. H. Meacher.
8.	B. W. Franklin, director and consultant; D. H. Macfarlane, secretary; W. H. Meacher, chief industrial engineer.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


Mr. Lennard:: Are orders placed by defence production for defence services finally inspected by officials of defence production or by officials of the defence services?


Mr. Campney:: Inspection involved on
account of orders placed by defence production for defence services is the responsibility of the Department of National Defence.



IMPORTS IN SEPTEMBER, 1951

Mr. Charlton:: To what area or district in Canada were the thirty-three cattle shipped which were imported from England and Scotland, and discharged from our quarantine station on September 22, 1951?


Mr. McCubbin:: All the cattle Shipped to Ontario; subsequently one was delivered to Illinois, and three to Florida.

Questions



SALE OF CATTLE FROM BURNS PLANT, REGINA

Mr. Argue:: 1.	How many live cattle were sold by Burns and Company, Regina, or any agent thereof, from (a) December 1, 1951, to December 27, 1951; (b) December 28, 1951, to January 6, 1952; (c) since January 17, 1952?
2.	How many of each of the above groups of cattle were consigned to points in (a) Saskatchewan; (b) other parts of Canada; (c) the United States?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	(a) December 1 to December 27, 52; (b) December 29 to January 16, none; (c) Since January 17, none.
2.	(a) to Saskatchewan, 52; (b) other parts of Canada, none; (c) United States, none.



RAILWAYS


John George Diefenbaker: How many box cars belonging to Canadian railways were there in the United States in (a) November, 1951; (b) January, 1952; (c) February, 1952?


William Moore Benidickson: November 1, 1951, 20,965; January 1, 1952, 20,060; February 1, 1952, 20,205.



POST OFFICE EMPLOYEES


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the government received representation from its post office employees asking that they be granted the five-day forty-hour week?
2.	If so, has consideration been given to such representations?
3.	What is the result of such consideration?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Still receiving consideration.
3.	See answer to No. 2.



IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION, 1951

Mr. Catherwood:: 1.	How many immigrants came to Canada from each of the following countries in the year 1951: (a) England; (b) Germany; (c) Holland; (d) Denmark; (e) Italy; (f) Czechoslovakia; (g) all other European countries?
2.	How many immigrants of European origin returned to those countries during the year 1951?
3.	How many immigrants from Great Britain returned to that country during the year 1951?
4.	How many immigrants came to Canada from the United States during the year 1951?
5.	How many Canadians emigrated to the United States during the year 1951?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 1. (a) 30,405; (b) 29,196; (c) 19,266; (d) 4,737; (e) 23,426; (f) 3,385; (g) 68,851.
2 and 3. Such records are not compiled by the government of Canada.
4.	7,732.
5.	Such records are not compiled by the government of Canada.



WOOLLEN CLOTH FOR AIR FORCE UNIFORMS

Mr. Harkness:: 1.	What is the price per yard presently being paid by the government to the manufacturers of the woollen cloth being used to make air force uniforms?
2.	At what price did the government sell the wool to the above manufacturers to process into the above cloth?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Average cost $7.35, approximately.
2.	From $3.65 to $3.75 per pound, depending on which of three qualities of wool were sold.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Sinnotl:: 1.	What amount of subsidy was paid by the dominion government to hog producers during the years 1945 to 1951, inclusive, by provinces?
2.	How much has the dominion government paid in assistance to apple growers during the years 1945 to 1951, inclusive, by provinces?
3.	How much has the dominion government paid by way of subsidy to (a) potato growers; (b) milk producers; (c) cheese and butter producers, during the years 1945 to 1951, inclusive, by provinces?
4.	What was the total amount of freight assistance paid to eastern feeders during the years 1945 to J951, inclusive, by provinces?


Robert McCubbin: Return tabled.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Thatcher:: What was the total number of employees permanent, non-permanent, and temporary, working for the government of Canada, including all departments, commissions, boards, embassies, agencies, etc., but excluding crown commercial corporations, as at (a) December 31, 1938; (b) December 31, 1946; (c) December 31, 1951?



LEGAL SERVICES


Mr. Lennard:: 1.	Was Norman L. Mathews, Q.C., or the firm of Mathews, Stiver, Lyons & Vale retained by the federal government during the years 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951?
2.	If so, what fees and disbursements from all sources were paid to Norman L. Mathews, Q.C., and/or the firm of Mathews, Stiver, Lyons & Vale in each of the years 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951?



HALIFAX AND DARTMOUTH, N.S.    GRANTS IN LIEU OF TAXES

Mr. Balcom:: What money grants, in lieu of taxes, have been paid the city of Halifax and the town of Dartmouth for the year 1951, on property of: (a) Department of National Defence; (b) Department of Public Works; (c) Department of Veterans Affairs; (d) Department of Agriculture; (e) national harbours board; (f) Canadian National Railways; (g) national research council?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Wright:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other communications from the Meadow Lake Indian agency to any Indians in the Prince Albert sanatorium from September 1, 1950, to date.



GRADING OF HOGS

Mr. Bryce:: For a copy of all instructions issued since January 1, 1952. by the Minister of Agriculture or any official of his department respecting the grading of hogs.



CANADAIR-ELECTRIC BOAT COMPANY

Mr. Coldwell:: For a copy of (a) the contract between the government and the first Canadair management company signed November 11, 1944, and any amendments thereto: (b) the contract made between the Electric Boat Company and the said management firm of Canadair Limited.


Mr. Dickey:: The hon. member has agreed to drop part (b) of this motion, and the order as amended is now tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the order shall be for that part of the motion under (a)?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Return tabled.

Major James William Coldwell: For a copy of schedule A to the letter of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the Electric Boat Company dated on or about January 20, 1947.




Major James William Coldwell: For a copy of all agreements made between the crown and the Electric Boat Company, including the agreement or agreements for the exercise of option to purchase the Cartierville plant and the equipment therein.


John Horace Dickey: I have spoken to the hon. member about this motion and he has agreed to the order which is now being tabled as being a full response to his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion carry in accordance with the statement by the parliamentary assistant?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Return tabled.


Major James William Coldwell: For a copy of the agreement or agreements between the government and the Douglas Aircraft Company for the use of patent rights to the Douglas C54 and Douglas C47 aircraft in connection with the production of the North Star aircraft.
Motions for Papers



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

Mr. Fulton:: For a copy of the agreement between the dominion government and the provincial government of British Columbia covering the construction of the British Columbia portion of the trans-Canada highway under the Trans-Canada Highway Act.


Mr. St. Laurent:: This will be subject to the usual reservation that the consent of the provincial government of British Columbia will be obtained.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Edmund Davie Fulton: For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda and telegrams exchanged between the dominion government and/or the minister and/or Department of Resources and Development or any other government department or minister and the government of the province of British Columbia or any minister or department thereof, concerning the trans-Canada highway agreement, including negotiations regarding reimbursement of the provincial government for construction carried on thereunder and for capital construction already in existence and regarding the removal of tolls.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Subject to the same reservation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon) moved:: 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my first proposition is that this resolution is not intended by any means to be a political resolution. The principle of federal aid for education has its adherents in every party and in every corner of this house. A favourable vote for this resolution could not be considered in any way as being a vote of want of confidence in this government. May I say that I move the resolution because I think it will be for the benefit of the Canadian people, in the interests of Canadian national unity, and particularly for the benefit of Canadian children.
According to the British North America Act, education is under provincial jurisdiction. Its subject matter, its method and the curricula are all within the jurisdiction of the provinces. With that I have no quarrel. But the quality of the product of these provincial schools, the young men and women whom they are turning out, is, to my mind, a matter of national importance and of concern to the whole Canadian nation.
Thousands of young men educated in Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia or any of the

Education
other provinces are scattered throughout this country and are making their contribution to the building of Canada into a great nation. There are men and women of all walks of life and all professions-scientists, educationists, engineers, economists, and the rest. You find them, too, as Canadian representatives in many other countries. There they are not classified as the product of any provincial system of education, but under the broad and proud insignia of the maple leaf.
The principle behind the resolution is that all children in Canada should enjoy equality of opportunity of education irrespective of their geographical position, of the country of origin of their parents, or of their economic status. That should be denied to no child in Canada, irrespective of where he may live and irrespective of his origin. Why has that objective not been achieved up to the present? Well, it is largely a matter of the funds available, or not available, I should say, to the provinces. The enlightened members of this house are well aware of the differences among the provinces in the funds which are available, and the reasons for that inequality.
This is a far-flung country, Mr. Speaker. Providence has not scattered her gifts across it with an even hand. Great wealth-producing natural resources are in the possession of some provinces and have been denied to others. Industrialization has been developed intensely in certain of the provinces, and practically none has taken place in others. Then we have had tariffs; we have had freight rates; we have had the centralization of the payment of corporation profits. These things have tended to keep some provinces poor in relation to others.
The hope that some of us entertained that some of these inequalities would be eliminated at the various dominion-provincial conferences has not been justified. Had it been justified, there might have been less need for this resolution.
The resolution, sir, is not a new one. I have introduced it in this house on three different occasions. Why has it not succeeded? Why have we not translated into legislation the principle involved? Dare I say, sir, the fact that we have not done so is a sign of our national immaturity, a sign that there is still in some degree a lack of that national unity to which we all would look forward?
There are still those who think that federal aid to education would somehow or other
imply federal control, that those who favour the resolution have some sinister desire to interfere with minority rights in the matter of education, or even in matters of language or religion. Thus it is that those who are sincerely in opposition to this resolution-and I give them credit for their sincerity-and indeed this government, which I cannot believe is sincerely opposed, but which fears to adopt it as a matter of practical politics, always fall back upon the excuse of provincial autonomy.
May I say here once more, sir, categorically, that there is no desire on the part of anyone I know, least of all on my own part, to interfere with the administration, the method or the curriculum of education within any of the provinces. The object is to ensure that each province shall have sufficient funds to carry on the system of education which the people of that province themselves favour.
A great man has said that this century belongs to Canada. Industrial development is unparalleled. A great new age for Canada is opening up. Well, I suggest that we should get ready for that new age by having our young people ready to meet it. Can we afford it, you ask. Well, look at our liquor bills and our tobacco bills. Look at the huge surplus that we have built up. Look at the investments in development that are pouring into the country, in British Columbia particularly and in other provinces as well. We are becoming one of the wealthy nations of the world, with one of the highest standards of living in the world. Can we afford to develop our human resources? I ask you, sir, can we afford not to develop them?
I have said that in Canada there exists great inequality of opportunity in education for children, and this might be estimated on a provincial basis, or at least on a geographical basis, I suppose. It is only fair, sir, that I should document that particular assertion; therefore I would ask permission of the house to put on the record a table which I have prepared from figures furnished by the dominion bureau of statistics, and on which, in order that it may be clear to my immediate listeners, I shall make some comment here. If I have the permission of the house, sir, I shall do that.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman leave to have the table included in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Education


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The table follows:
Expenditure per pupil on	Expenditures on public, elementary and secondary education	Median	salariesProvince	elementary and secondary education	per pupil on average daily attendance basis	per capita of population	of teachers in all schools	1948	1949	1949	1949	1950$ c.	$	$	$	$83-66	83	13	1048	1083100-06	114	19	1520	101-32	128	20	1258	1341172-41	161	23	1974	2109157-27	160	22	1593	1689172-53	174	27	1514	1580211-73	201	32	2163	2279221-28	244	30	2502	2668(!)	120	19	C)	C)C)	77	13	976	966
(*) No figures available.
These figures were obtained from Dominion Bureau of Statistics Daily Bulletin, Vol. XXI, No. 42, of February 20, 1952 and D.B.S. Bulletin on Teachers Salaries and Qualifications in Eight Provinces, 1948.
In making a comment or two upon this table I should like first of all to mention what certain provinces spend on education of an individual child as compared with certain other provinces. I find from this table that the expenditure on public, elementary and secondary education per pupil on an average daily attendance basis is as follows:	British Columbia in the year 1949
spent $244; Alberta spent $201, and Saskatchewan $174. These are the three highest, as compared with the three lowest: Newfoundland, $77; Prince Edward Island, $83, and Nova Scotia, $114.
As to the individual contributions of the populations of the provinces toward the education of their children, I take the figures under the heading "Public, elementary and secondary education per capita of population" and I find for 1949 that each inhabitant of British Columbia contributed $30 toward education. Alberta takes the lead in this regard with $32, and Saskatchewan comes
next with $27, as compared with the three lowest: Quebec, $19; Newfoundland, $13, and Prince Edward Island, $13.
As to how the provinces treat their teachers-and perhaps this has some measure of relevancy to this whole discussion-in the matter of salaries, here are the median salaries from the table which I have just put on the record. Median salaries in all schools for 1950 were $2,668 in British Columbia; $2,279 in Alberta, and $2,109 in Ontario, as compared with the three lowest: $1,341 in New Brunswick, $1,083 in Prince Edward Island, and $966 in Newfoundland. If my hon. friends will read that table in full I think they will agree that it tells the story of inequality of educational opportunity across Canada.
Then of course there are the differences within the provinces themselves. There are the differences between rural and urban schools in such matters as buildings, equipment, the efficiency of teachers, and the like. In my own province of Saskatchewan we

Education
have a program designed to bring, about at least some degree of equalization as between those types of schools. I am sure other provinces have a similar aim and are moving in that direction. Some of the provinces may be said to be making notable efforts in the education of their children; but with all the will in the world they are limited by their limited resources.
The demand by the people for the education of their children can no longer be met by the local authorities, or, in fact, by the provinces themselves. Surely the federal government has some responsibility in meeting this situation. Let us consider one or two respects in which I think this government has a responsibility.
Immigration to Canada has brought to our schools a great influx of foreign-born children as well as adults. In many districts defence and industrial projects are going forward. We have army camps, air training establishments and all the rest of it, and they are all contributing their quota of children. The families of these service personnel are swarming into the local schools, which lack the necessary buildings, equipment and teachers to carry on their educational work.
At present, of course, the basis of taxation in the municipalities is upon real property. A broadening of that basis is one of the first necessities, bu,t the municipalities are without power to do anything in that direction. Most of the municipalities are at the end of their resources. They have turned to the provinces, whose administrators have replied that they are in exactly the same position.
Let us look at the state of education in this country as a result of all these developments. It is not my purpose here to deal with the efficiency, or lack of it, in the educational methods followed by the provinces. That is strictly the business of the provinces concerned. I would rather point up here the inadequacy of the system under which we operate to finance properly our schools, because the problem with which we are dealing here today is almost entirely financial. The recent trouble in Nova Scotia, where they had a strike of teachers, would indicate that all is not well in the maritime provinces. I have here a Canadian Press dispatch which I think speaks for itself. It is entitled "Serious Problems to Face," and is dated Ottawa, March 3. It reads:
Canadian education week, sponsored by an army of some 3,000,000 citizens, started Sunday amid mounting indications of growing deficiencies in this country's educational system.
Some of the problems are these:
1. A disturbing shortage of teachers, expected to climb to 25,000 by 1955.

2.	Overcrowded class rooms and lack of schools. By 1955, another 1,000 schools will be needed to keep pace with registrations. There is serious doubt whether Canada will have them.
3.	An alarming number of drop-outs in school attendance. The bureau of statistics estimates that fifty-five per cent of Canada's population has no more than an elementary or public school education.
School enrolments-with the exception of Quebec, for which no figures are available-are expected to jump to 2,027,900 from 1,770,200 this year.
Then listen to this:
But there still will be many children leaving school too soon. In Quebec, the percentage of population with less than eight years schooling has reached 62-5, the highest of any province. In other provinces the percentage runs from a low 35-4 in British Columbia to a high of 58 in New Brunswick.
That shows a picture which is not pleasant to contemplate. I believe the estimated shortage of 25,000 teachers for 1955 is probably low, because it was based upon last year's figures, and we find that the figures this year are even worse. Those were the figures, of course, of normal school trainees, where teachers receive their training. We have to face the fact that large numbers of people teaching at present are not fully qualified to do so, and that our best students are not finding any inducement to enter the teaching profession. If you will just scan the salary figures in the table I have put on record you will discover one of the principal reasons.
Perhaps I had better develop a little more fully the falling off in the number of normal school trainees. As I said, it is even worse this year than last year. The writer of that press dispatch predicted a shortage of 25,000 teachers in 1955. All the provinces report a drop in enrolments this year, and I am going to put the figures on record. The decreases as compared with last year are as follows:
Percentage
Province	drop
British Columbia	 20
Alberta	 15
Saskatchewan	 22
Manitoba	 15
Ontario	 10
Quebec (Protestant schools)	 12
New Brunswick	 20
Prince Edward Island	 37
Newfoundland	 13
I have not the figures for Nova Scotia for this year, but I imagine we may assume there is a drop there as well. That points to a rather serious condition, Mr. Speaker, for which I confess I have no remedy except the one I am advocating today. Assuming a continuance of the present trend I warn the Canadian people that three years from now a substantial proportion of their children will

have either no teachers at all or teachers not properly qualified. That is a condition none of us want, and some of us at least think we have a remedy.
Now we come to the argument as to federal aid being unconstitutional. Of course that argument has been brought forward time and time again; it is nothing new in this house. I remember that a year or two ago the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) made that his main argument when the government decided to turn thumbs down on a similar resolution. It is argued that federal aid to a province earmarked for a particular purpose is unconstitutional. As a matter of fact the minister based his argument on three words in the resolution; he objected to the phrase "for that purpose". Then are grants to the provinces which have been earmarked for old age pensions or the building of hospitals unconstitutional?
But we do not need to mention those things, because we have many examples of federal grants in aid to education itself. The federal government is already committed to tremendous expenditures by way of aid to education. I estimated the amount of the commitment last year as $35 million, and probably that is too low. This amount was spent either in the form of direct expenditures or in the form of grants to the provinces for the purpose of education. I have jotted down a few of the undertakings, but I have not half of them. My list is as follows:
Direct education of Indians; veterans educational training, both vocational and at universities; the Royal Military College and the Canadian Naval College. I suppose one would classify those as direct expenditures. Then, we have the indirect ones as follows: Vocational school assistance, youth training, educational health grants, aid to schools of social work, technical school grants, and national research.
Anyone who says, in the face of this list, that federal aid to education is unconstitutional, is simply talking double-talk. If the thing for which I am pleading is unconstitutional, then by the same token those things must be unconstitutional. I am happy to say that last year the government took a progressive step when it included in the estimates an amount of $7,100,000 for federal aid to universities. I presume that was unconstitutional, too, but we had the good sense to do it.
Then we have another grant foreshadowed- I do not know how large-and that is a grant for a national system of scholarships.
Education
Those are my main arguments. I warn this government that while I said this was not a political resolution, and no politics should enter into it, it may become a political matter. I should like to warn this government, in terms that it understands, that in the past five years a tremendous demand for federal aid to education has been created. I could talk for hours on this subject. I could write a book; in fact I could fill a dozen books with quotations from educationists and those interested in education in this country who favour this idea. I could tell you about those who, on a national basis, have subscribed to this resolution-the Canadian school trustees association, the Canadian Legion, University Women's club, I.O.D.E., chambers of commerce, and dozens of others. Then, perhaps not on a national scale, hundreds of other resolutions have been sent into this government from agricultural organizations and co-operative societies. I forgot to mention the labour organizations who have been demanding this aid for years.
I warn the government that so far as we in western Canada are concerned, ninety per cent of the people who are represented by the Liberal members from Saskatchewan are in favour of federal aid to education. Up to the moment I have not heard much support for that cause from those particular backbenchers.
When I was talking about the number of federal grants in aid of education to which the dominion government has already committed itself, I asked whether those grants were unconstitutional. Did the fact that they might have been unconstitutional prevent this government from granting them when the urgent necessity arose? My argument today is that there is an urgent necessity for federal aid to our elementary and secondary schools. With all due respect, I should like to ask whether any of the provinces protested the acceptance of those grants, or, if protesting on the one hand, did they not reach out with the other for the money? Can anyone say that the acceptance of those grants interfered in any way with provincial jurisdiction over education, or that they implied any control that lessened provincial autonomy in that field? Can any hon. member argue that the grants so far contributed to education by the federal government have in any way lessened the control of the people of any province over their own system of education? It would indeed be strange that a province should have any constitutional qualms, if I may call it that, about receiving a couple of million dollars of federal money to assist young people over fifteen years of age in getting

Education
an education where half of their time is spent in the shops, but would consider it unconstitutional to accept a like grant providing people of the same age with an education which happened to be purely academic. There is no logic in such a situation, and there is no logic in the continued refusal of this government to give those grants in aid of education.
I have put forth certain conclusions. First, I have set forth as my premise the democratic principle that every child in Canada should have, as of right, an equal opportunity of education with every other child. Second, I have shown that the educational system in Canada is riddled with inequality, and that the cause of such inequality is largely financial. Third, I have shown that the municipalities in certain of the provinces, and those provinces themselves, are unable to cope with the expenditures needed to bring about such equality. Finally, asserting that such equality of opportunity is a subject of national concern, I urge that the dominion government, the only body with the necessary financial resources, should proceed forthwith to inaugurate a system of federal aid to education in Canada.


Mr. Jean Frangois Pouliol (Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight), who is so well informed' whenever he addresses the house. But this is not such an easy matter as he contends it is. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and representatives of the provinces have met together to discuss the constitution of this country. To a certain extent their discussions have been successful, but they have not agreed on everything, in spite of the good disposition shown by this government and by the provincial governments. I believe all those concerned are in complete agreement on this subject, and it seems to be premature to discuss a resolution of the kind that is before us now.
In virtue of the constitution-and I do not intend to read the text of the provisions that concern education-the federal government is empowered to do certain things exclusively; the parliament of Canada is empowered to do certain things exclusively. On the other hand, the provincial legislatures have the counterpart of that right; they have the right to do other things exclusively. I have never understood how and why there could be, between the parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures, an agreement to bypass the constitution and to come to certain understandings which are not in accord with the constitution itself. I hope that I am clear enough to be understood. That is the

crux of the discussions that have been entered upon between the government of Canada and the representatives of these provincial governments.
If a boy or a 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 the will to learn something. In the 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.


Mr. Noseworthy:: The teachers would do better if they were paid higher salaries.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend is one of the distinguished members of this house, but I never had the honour to be one of his pupils.


An hon. Member:: That is your loss.


Jean-François Pouliot: It may be unfortunate. I will not discuss the matter, but I have a right to speak. If our views differ, it is too bad; but I have the right to express mine. I may disagree with any hon. member in this house, but my convictions are just as sincere as are those which may be expressed by anyone else.
The question is this, Mr. Speaker. The provinces have exclusively certain rights that they should be proud to enjoy. Each province is like a kingdom by itself in certain matters. In others they have no right at all. What I admire about the constitution is that the same thing applies with regard to Ottawa. Ottawa has some powers that are exclusive, but it cannot go beyond the constitution. In matters that are not under the jurisdiction of parliament, by virtue of the constitution, Ottawa has not the right possessed by any province, small or large.
There is one thing that the hon. member for Saskatoon has not mentioned, and it is a vital matter; it is the basis of the discussion. The provinces are supreme in educational matters. Can they or can they not respectively fulfil their obligations to the citizens? Do they have sufficient revenue for that purpose? The last edition of the Canada Year Book that I have before me is that of 1950. It is not complete with regard to the revenue of the provinces of Canada, but it gives us an idea of the trend that has existed with regard to the increase of the revenue of the provinces. My hon. friends will admit that at the present time their province of Saskatchewan, as well as my province of Quebec, gets more revenue from taxation than it did a few years ago. It is therefore easier for them now to give larger subsidies to education than it was possible for them to give some years ago.


Mr. Shaw:: But it goes only half as far as it did ten years ago.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend will admit that the revenue of his province is larger now than it was then.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Yes; but a dollar will buy only 52 cents' worth of materials or services as compared with what it would buy ten years ago.


An hon. Member:: More education.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is too much education. Anyhow, the provinces now have much larger revenue than they had then. In all provinces, more schools are built by the provinces for the use of school children. I will tell my hon. friends what has happened in my province- and I speak mostly of my province because I know it better than I know the other provinces, especially in a provincial field, because education is a provincial field. I was impressed when I learned that the provincial government of Quebec had paid the debts of the school boards of my province. A large amount of money was involved. Following the method of reasoning of my hon. friends, may I say that there is a greater population in the province of Quebec than there is in some of the western provinces; but, on the other hand, the proportion of the students should be approximately the same. I wonder why the Saskatchewan government, which has been enterprising in so many fields, has not decided to follow the example of Quebec and to pay the debts of the school boards without any assistance from Ottawa?


Mr. Sluder:: Everybody wonders that.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know that; but that question mark is in my mind just the same as it is in the mind of my hon. friend. This is an example from Quebec, the banner province of Canada. Why do not our friends who support the socialist government in the province of Saskatchewan inform their friends of what has been accomplished in the province of Quebec in behalf of education and without the assistance of the dominion government? Why do they not tell the premier and their minister of education:	This is a good example to
follow. Do that; after we have done it, we will speak on education in the House of Commons of Canada, but not before. With each right there is connected a duty. The students have the right to education; they have the right to any benefits that can be derived from anything in this country. I shall not discuss the merits of education that is given, because that is outside what I intend to say today. But until those who discuss federal and provincial matters together have reached a satisfactory agreement, a common agreement, I do not see how we can discuss
Education
matters of the kind here in the House of Commons. It would create dissatisfaction and difficulties throughout the country.
The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) has pointed out that we have the Royal Military College at Kingston, and that we have schools for the navy, the air force, and so on. It is only natural that the government should look after those young men who want to make careers in the army, the navy or the air force, because the militia is under the control of the federal government. This could not be classified as primary, secondary or university education. It is education in a special field, and for a career which, by virtue of the constitution, is under the direct control of the dominion government.
I admit that this is a difficult matter. However one has only to read the confederation debates to see with what care the fathers of confederation discussed those questions from every angle.
For a time I have heard many speeches in the house as to the possibility of the dominion government by-passing the constitution and giving grants in respect of matters under provincial jurisdiction. This is a bad policy,'and it is a bad policy for several reasons. One reason is that in those matters decentralization is desired to the utmost. There is better control of education when it is decentralized, and where the authorities concerned can make a better check upon the spending of money for a definite purpose. Then there are also the traditions to be considered, the school traditions and the teaching traditions-all of which may be a very good thing for Canada, but may also be different in the west from what they are in the east. They may not be the same thing at all.
My hon. friends who insist upon dominion grants for education surely do not realize the difficulties that would be the outcome of such a gesture on the part of the federal government. They have only to read the reports of those interprovincial conferences so ably presided over by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) to find out that when I speak as I do I am not exaggerating.
This is a very contentious matter. I will not say that education is better in one place than in another. I can say however that in the province of Quebec, where I live, millions of dollars have been spent on education, generous grants were made by the provincial government to the universities, and excellent schools have been built. Teachers may complain that they are not paid well enough- and in some cases their complaints may have been legitimate. But all the strikes of those teachers who did not give a good example to

Education
their pupils appear to have been terminated satisfactorily. Those were unfortunate incidents, and I hope they will not occur again.
I would hope that all the provinces, including that from which my hon. friend comes, will look after their teachers and professors well enough so that they will not complain about being paid less than the average person in the same category.
In concluding I would say that the hon. member's motion is premature. It is premature for the reason already given, that the matter is not yet agreed upon. If agreement is given by the dominion government, we will have more trouble, not only in Quebec but in other provinces as well. What guarantee do we have that any provincial government will accept or reject a subsidy of this kind? We have seen how delicate a matter it was to have university grants accepted by the provinces. Those grants were given to the provinces for distribution among the universities. In my province a joint commission has been set up to award the grants to the various universities so that there may be no infringement upon provincial
rights.	,	.
I am sorry I cannot support the motion o the hon. member for Saskatoon. I withhold my support, not because I am opposed to education, but because I find that at the present time the only thing to do is to defeat the motion in the house, for the common good of the country.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, the two members who have spoken today on this resolution have, I think, more in common in their ideas than they may realize. I think there is more common ground in the speeches they have made today than may strike them superficially. In any event I believe I find myself on ground common to both of the speeches made today.
I invite the attention of the house to the fact that the resolution is not in sweeping terms. It seems to me it is a rather carefully drawn and moderate invitation to the house to give expression to a principle. The 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.
May I say at once that in trying to harmonize the views of the two members who have spoken, the concluding words of the resolution do bring them onto more common ground than has been yet acknowledged. This is not a new subject in the house. Hon. members will recall that resolutions in similar terms were introduced by the hon. member

for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) and debated on October 19, 1949, May 22, 1950, and February 19, 1951. Therefore if this resolution be premature, as the hon. member for Temiscouata has contended, it seems to me that it must be so because there has not been any attempt on the part of the government here to find a common ground in negotiations with the provinces with a view to providing to the extent approved by the provinces the kind of assistance that I think is generally acknowledged to be required in the light of the quite inadequate sources of revenue placed at the disposal of the provinces and the municipalities under the constitution of this country.
The hon. member for Temiscouata has laid emphasis, and rightly so, upon the necessity for the most strict respect for the provisions of the British North America Act. I yield to no member of this house in my regard for the sanctity which must be attached to the provisions of that constitution. There is no feature of the division of jurisdiction between the dominion and the provinces wrought by that constitution which is of more importance than that of education. Section 93 of the British North America Act is explicit in its provisions. It provides:
In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education.
The power of the provinces with respect to education is exclusive and, so far as I am concerned, it should remain that way. In giving support to the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Saskatoon, as I am doing today, I wish to make it abundantly clear that there is nothing in the position I am taking which subtracts one iota from the sanctity of the provisions of section 93 of the British North America Act. Education is, and must continue to be, in the kind of country we have, exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provinces.
Evidently the problem then is to harmonize the constitutional position, which must be respected and maintained, with the problem created by the other factor to which I have referred, the result of the constitutional distribution of revenues. This is not the only place in our present federal-provincial relationships where the distribution of revenues brought about by the constitution is creating difficulties and where the constitution is creating problems for the provincial authority.
Do I need in this year 1952 to argue the importance of education? I do not suggest for a minute that education is all-important, but I do submit that in the kind of world in which we are living, in the age in which we are living, the importance of education grows daily. If we have not recognized that

fact I think we shall have to very soon. The standard of education in all the provinces of this country has risen greatly in recent years. Let us all commend that raising of educational standards, that broadening of the field of education, and express our determination within the proper constitutional limitations to assist in that commendable progress.
It seems to me that the matter has special significance in the light of the fact that through education we have at hand a more effective, a more useful and a more adaptable means of equalizing opportunities for the young people of this country than could be provided by any other method. Many talk glibly about the equality of opportunity in life, but it is more easy to talk about that than to create it. We have in education the best, the most effective and the most useful instrument for attaining that object so commendable but otherwise so difficult of complete attainment.
I said a word about the distribution of revenues as between the dominion and the provinces. There may be some provinces in this country which feel that their sources of revenue today are adequate, but I think most provinces will contend that their sources of revenue under the constitution are quite inadequate to meet the responsibilities cast upon them. In what fields has the public come to demand increasing services? My answer to that is that that demand lies principally in the fields for which responsibility under our constitution rests upon the provinces. The fields of education, social services and allied services are fields for which under the constitution the provinces must assume responsibility.
This is not to say that the provinces have all the responsibility in the fields in which the public today is demanding action on the part of governments and not receiving it. For instance, in the field of providing for the employable unemployed the responsibility ought to be assumed by the federal government. It has not assumed that responsibility. I think there are many fields where in recent years the demands of the public for governmental services has been increasing the burdens cast upon provincial governments; and their sources of revenue, being limited under the constitution to direct taxation, are not adequate to meet the increasing demands which are being made by the public.
Therefore something should be done. It will have to be done by common agreement on the part of the dominion and the provinces. None of us can tolerate attempts by the federal government to reach into fields of jurisdiction and without the consent of the provinces to usurp those fields. Far from
Education
it, whatever assistance is given by the federal authority must be given in the light and to the extent of agreement with the provinces.
I come back to the expression used this afternoon by the hon. member for Temis-couata, that this proposal is premature. I say that if it is premature, after a discussion of the subject at session after session for some years past, it is because there has been a failure on the part of the federal government to initiate such negotiations with the provinces as should be designed to assist the provinces to meet these burdens that their revenues are not adequate to enable them to meet today.
In this field, sir, recognition on the part of the federal government of responsibility with respect to assistance to the provinces-and that is what I am arguing for now, assistance to the provinces-is not without precedent. The federal government, as a matter of fact, for many years past, has interested itself in the field of education. It is true that every case has some special aspects to it; but in the sum total, sir, the array is rather formidable. Let us recall, for instance, that in days gone by the federal government has given assistance to the provinces with respect to technical education. It has assisted the youth training plan, which is a joint undertaking on the part of the dominion and the provinces, and has operated successfully; and, sir, it seems to me in the operation of that dominion-provincial youth training plan we have had an example of what can be accomplished in a constructive and useful manner, where the dominion and the provinces are working together to a common end.
The third factor, of course, is one that is present in the minds of us all. It was the federal assistance given to some 130,000 veterans of world war II to pursue their higher education in this country. For years past ailso this parliament has been making grants for the assistance of schools of social work scattered across Canada. These schools of social work, which are in practically every case faculties of universities, have received these grants, and have used them for the purpose of assisting students with bursaries and in other equally commendable ways.
Then, sir, there has been federal assistance given through provincial channels for research, and no money has been better spent than the money that has been spent on scientific research in this country under these joint auspices. And then, sir, of course there is the final, the most recent, the most direct and most striking example, namely, the grant that parliament made last June by way of

Education
gentlemen who support the government opposite. For instance the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) said this away back in 1945:
But the constitution does not prevent the federal government from giving substantial assistance to education. Direct assistance might be given in different ways.
Then I have a statement by Mr. J. G. Brown, who until the last Ontario election was the financial critic for the Liberal party ini the legislature of this province. In a broadcast on April 9, 1950, this is what he said, as reported in the Globe and Mail:
The Ontario government should seek further federal participation in provincial programs, J. G. Brown (L., Waterloo North) said In a provincial affairs broadcast on the Ontario network of the C.B.C. last night.
Mr. Brown said he could see no reason why the federal government should not share In school costs. If there could be federal contributions to hospital building and old age pensions, why not to teachers' salary and school construction, he asked.
I may not go quite as far as Mr. Brown goes, because I have said what he at least is not quoted as saying, that whatever is done here must be done with the assent of the provinces. Nevertheless I point to these opinions expressed by Liberals in public life.
Then, sir, I stress the problem of the rising cost of university education.
Here is a statement made by Dr. F. Cyril James, principal and vice-chancellor of McGill university. It appears in the Globe and Mail of May 10, 1951 under the heading "University Education Costs in Canada Highest." It reads:
A university education costs Canadian students more than in other countries, Dr. F. Cyril James, principal and vice-chancellor of McGill university, said tonight.
"A young Canadian from a family of modest circumstances has less chance of getting a university education today than a youth in any other country with which I am familiar." Dr. James told annual meeting of McGill associates.
He urged governments to participate in the cost of education because work of the universities was of vital importance to the community, and government had not lived up to this responsibility in Canada during the last two decades, as far as the education of civilians was concerned.
I quote a similar statement made by Dr. Sidney Smith, president of the University of Toronto. It is to be found in the Globe and Mail of May 7, 1951. This is the passage:
He noted that it costs the university $1,000 a year to keep one student in an arts course, yet the student pays a fee of $240. And he suggested that since another fee increase will apply in September -the amount has not yet been decided-it will be increasingly difficult for the boy in Swastika and Sioux Lookout to enroll.
"It will be a tragedy," he said, "if universities become places where only the students who live near them are able to attend."

Dr. Smith was full of praise of the DVA students. Despite the burden of a huge enrolment, he said, Canadian universities in the past few years have done a better job of educating than ever.
"The men who came to our university," he said, "could never have hoped to come without federal aid, and some of them were our best students. We had a truly democratic cross-section and it was proved that academic high calibre is found not only adjacent to universities and in the homes of the well-to-do."
The president added that under a scholarship scheme, there is a compulsion on the student to work hard and do well because he knows someone has made an investment in him.
He said that at present, fewer than 10 per cent of Canadian university students have been granted bursaries or scholarships, while 82 per cent of the students at Oxford and Cambridge receive such financial assistance, either from the government or other sources.
The lack of financial aid hits the all-important field of graduate studies, too, the president stated. Universities in the United States receive with open arms graduates of Canadian universities who wish to do postgraduate work. And although they could get just as good a training in Canada in many instances, the students are lured away by the larger fellowships offered. Over 50 per cent of them stay there, according to Dr. Smith. Answering any argument that education is a provincial matter and therefore the federal government should keep out of it, he produced statistics which showed that 20 per cent of the 100,000 living alumni of the university of Toronto are in other provinces. The university, therefore, is making a national contribution. The same is true of all other Canadian universities. Over 50 per cent of the university of New Brunswick's graduates, for example, are in other provinces.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the hon. member permits, may I ask whether Dr. Sidney Smith did not publicly declare a while ago that there were too many students at the university of Toronto?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, sir, I think the hon. member is referring to a statement made by the chancellor of the university of Toronto.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, Dr. Smith.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. member is mistaken. It was a statement made by the chancellor, who happens to be the governor general of this country now. He drew attention to the fact that the university is not the place to send everybody. The university enrolment must be based upon a selective factor, but the same right hon. gentleman would be the first to say that the basis of selection should not be the pocketbook of the parent or the fact that the student happens to have the good fortune to live near the university. That is the great weakness in the present position because, as Dr. Sidney Smith has pointed out, the increase in cost of education at university level has had the effect of making it increasingly difficult for students from a distance, or students whose parents have only modest means, to obtain a university education. Consequently the need for

these bursaries and scholarships becomes greater than ever before. I thank the hon. member for reminding me of that fact which does so much to strengthen the argument I am offering at the moment.
My time has almost expired, and in conclusion I shall mention only one factor. It is a factor that I believe emphasizes the measure of responsibility that rests upon the federal government as a result of its own policies. Today immigration lies largely within the scope of this government. The proportion of immigrants coming to this country who have not that command of either the English or the French language which they require is rising .very sharply. The proportion of immigrants into Canada last year who came from countries other than English-speaking or French-speaking showed a very sharp increase over previous years. What happens to those immigrants when they take up their residence in the various municipalities across the country? At once, you put your finger upon the need for adult education.
Where does that responsibility lie today? The financial burden certainly should be borne, should it not, by means of federal assistance to those municipal and provincial authorities upon whom rests the burden of providing adult education for these immigrants. Yet today the federal government is shirking that responsibility. Last year in my city of Toronto, provision of these courses in adult education for immigrants who took up residence in Toronto cost the taxpayers of that city $68,000, and in addition the province paid $41,000 to provide for a portion of the salaries of the teachers. The federal government should no longer be permitted by this house to shirk its own plain responsibility in that respect.
This is my final word on this subject. What has been said today ought to dispel any fears or misunderstandings or misgivings that any hon. members in this house or persons outside of this house may entertain about any suggested intrusion upon the field of exclusive provincial jurisdiction over education. I emphasize again that if that were involved, I should be the first to oppose it. The exclusive jurisdiction of the province over education must be respected. There must be no intrusion by the federal authority into that field. But that is a very different matter from justifying a refusal on the part of the federal authorities to make provision for assistance to the provinces, leaving the provinces with the free hand which they require in the disbursement of moneys in the course of providing education for the people in their respective provinces. There
Education
must, as the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) said, be no bypassing of the provinces. In this field of education in which Canada has led in the past, let us not contemplate a deterioration in the facilities or quality of education. The federal government, in due consultation with and association with the provinces, recognizing the exclusive provincial jurisdiction in education, must today meet the responsibility that properly rests upon it as a result of the inadequate revenues placed at the disposal of the provinces under the constitution.


Frederick Davis Shaw: As indicated by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight), this resolution has been before us upon three previous occasions. My colleagues and I have supported it upon each of those occasions, and we support it again today. In order to do that, I should not find it necessary to speak for any lengthy period of time or to repeat so many of the arguments which we have advanced upon previous occasions. I agree with the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) that there does exist in all quarters of this house a good deal of support for this resolution. I know that, from personal discussions which I have had with private members from all quarters of this house. Because of that fact, among other things, I should certainly like to see a vote taken upon the resolution today.
We have repeated in the past that, in such a vast country as this, we do have greatly varying economic conditions which must of necessity result in inequality of opportunity arising, more particularly in the field of education. We have expressed the view that no child in this country who possesses the ability and the desire to acquire knowledge should be deprived of that opportunity because of the fact that, owing to existing economic conditions, his family may not have the wherewithal to provide that education. In a country such as this, where people move freely from one geographic area to another, it seems rather unfortunate if not tragic that we should not make every possible effort to establish the same level of educational opportunity right across the country.
I was shocked, as I always am, to hear figures with respect to teachers' salaries. I am not influenced merely by the fact that I happened to spend quite a number of years in that profession. I am shocked when I stop to realize that the average teacher today could go out as a common labourer and earn considerably more than he can earn in the school-teaching profession, and could do so possibly with far fewer headaches. Even if one goes into the higher salary brackets, he still must be shocked to realize how those

Education
salaries compare with those paid to persons who have not had to acquire the same education, the same training and who do not have to contend with the same difficulties with which every teacher has to contend. I sometimes wonder how long it is going to take before the people of this country generally realize that a teacher is performing what I would call the most valuable service that can be provided within the country. If one stops to realize the number of hours in which our children are in their care and the influence which they can have upon the children, it seems most imperative that we should all realize how important it is that we hold out every conceivable inducement to secure and to hold the best possible teachers that we can acquire.
We realize fully, Mr. Speaker, that the administration of education falls within provincial jurisdiction. I might say to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) that there is no argument with respect to that fact. We are not trying to change it. We would oppose any change. We want it to remain within provincial jurisdiction.


Mr. Low:: Completely.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Yes, completely; and I would underline that word. I would point out to the hon. member for Temiscouata that even if the revenues of most of the provinces have increased substantially, so also have the costs which confront governments, municipalities and school boards. The result is that in many cases they are struggling with difficulties which are just as intense as they were ten or fourteen years ago. For example, in my own province I happen to know that the grants paid by the provincial government for educational purposes have increased over the last sixteen years until they are approximately twenty times what they once were. The budget has increased during the same period until it is approximately seven times what it was. The largest single appropriation there is for educational purposes. Yet in spite of the high grants, running as high as 70 per cent to 80 per cent in many of the more unfortunate outlying school areas, we all know that in those school districts or in most school districts, financing the cost of education presents an exceedingly acute problem. If those difficulties exist in the province of Alberta, we can realize how much more difficult they must be in those provinces which have not been fortunate enough to have the same excellent type of administration, might I say.
I might also point out to the hon. member for Temiscouata that the federal government itself, through permitting a condition of inflation to obtain, reduced the value of our dollar

to about 52 cents. He knows what effect that has upon the school boards in his own province and upon the provincial government within his own province. I am sure the hon. member for Temiscouata would agree with me that, in spite of all that may have been done by his own province or his government in the field of education, it would be a fine thing if suddenly a substantial amount of revenue were to become available to them for educational purposes, provided no strings were attached. I think he would agree that that would be a fine thing.
I know, however, what he fears. He fears that the federal government might claim the right to interfere, if they made grants to the provinces for educational purposes. He knows from experience that that is the thing that would likely happen. We, with him, would oppose any such thing happening. He knows that it has been the policy of the federal government, when making certain grants available to the provinces, to set up practically whole new departments in order to interfere, should I say, in the spending of those grants. He fears that, and I know it; and we would stand with him in opposing any such action when it comes to making grants available in order to bring about equality of educational opportunity. He would agree with me, naturally, that in interfering after making these grants the federal government has shown what I might call a lack of appreciation of our constitution, and even a lack of common decency, in dealing with the provinces. We stand on common ground with the hon. member for Temiscouata, I believe, in saying that; that is, if I properly interpreted his speech.
The federal government today makes grants to the provinces; it makes per capita grants, I believe, in lieu of the high cost of government, let us say, or the cost of government within the provinces.


Solon Earl Low: A subsidy.


Frederick Davis Shaw: A subsidy is actually what it is. As far as that grant is concerned, there is no interference that I am aware of. It is an example of what could be done in the field of grants for educational purposes.


Solon Earl Low: They are just offered in good faith.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Yes, they are just offered in good faith, as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) says. But should the federal government decide to make educational grants available to the provinces, who would be in a better position than the hon. member for Temiscouata himself to influence them as far as keeping out of the thing is concerned; that is, as to the administration of it?

I am sure that he would be a powerful influence in persuading them to keep their hands off the administration aspect of it.
I agree with the hon. member for Temis-couata that, under the constitution, these jurisdictions were carefully established. The provinces were given certain things which they alone have the right to do. The federal authorities were given certain fields in which they had complete jurisdiction. Then there were certain fields that were, in a sense, overlapping. Education, as he states, falls within provincial jurisdiction. But those of us who think we know something about the constitution have always thought that when this division of authority was made there was also intended a proper division of ways and means. The latter just has not occurred.
Today for example we find the federal government taking from the provinces under tax grants, by agreement, vastly larger sums of money than they are paying back. I am not objecting to that. For example, if we in Alberta are enjoying such fortunate economic circumstances, then surely we would not object to some of that additional revenue taken by the federal government going into other parts of Canada, so as to assist those who might be described as being less fortunate.
On the other hand we find that through the process of other forms of taxation-taxation generally-they are taking out of certain areas in this country vastly larger sums than they are putting back in. We think one method by which some balance could be brought into the situation would be through the granting of financial assistance to the provinces, without any strings attached. These would be unconditional grants.
I said earlier that it would not take long to say what I have to say. Further, I do not wish to contribute in any greater measure than I have toward talking out the resolution. But let me underline this fact, that were we of the opinion that the only grants that could be made to assist the provinces in the field of education would be grants offered under the condition that the federal government would interfere in their administration, we would be absolutely opposed to such grants. We are with the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) and other hon. members from Quebec who feel the same as we do in this matter.
I, for one, find it extremely difficult to understand why, in the light of all other grants made to the provinces, and in the light of all that has been done in the field of technical and vocational education, there should develop suddenly such a fear that this
Education
is going to result in federal interference in the administration of education within a province. It should not; and we would oppose it if it did.
We are supporting the resolution because we believe it is timely, and we believe what it recommends is required in order to bring about the desired degree of equality of opportunity in the field of education.
(Translation) :


Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words only in connection with the motion introduced by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight). It is not the first time this motion has been on the order paper. We have discussed it on a number of occasions and as I have taken part in previous debates on this matter, I shall deal only briefly with the matter this afternoon.
I have listened very closely to the speeches delivered this afternoon and I enjoyed especially the contribution of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) who has placed the matter of jurisdiction in its true light. He stressed the fact that the matter of federal grants to the provinces in the field of education is a matter coming under provincial jurisdiction and that provincial autonomy, of which we are so jealous in Quebec and elsewhere,-which is as it should be,-must be respected.
I have here a pamphlet, presented by the movement "Education Week in Canada", which I intend using in order to prove that education should be further promoted and that we have not yet reached the point where we should feel disinterested in the matter, but that we must, on the contrary, further encourage our young people to get a better education, provided, however, that the grants, if any, are made by those authorized to do so.
This pamphlet is of interest to a great many associations, like the Canadian Association for Adult Education, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Congress of Labour, the Canadian Association for Education, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Home and School Federation, the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian School Board Association, the Canadian Teachers' Federation, the National Council of Women, and the Canadian Trade and Labour Congress.
When one studies the various activities of those associations, one understands that the problem of education should never be neglected; we should endeavour, to the best of our ability, to ensure its success.

Education
I have with me a few figures which show clearly the necessity of stressing the importance of education. According to federal statistics published in the pamphlet of the national education week, it would appear that:
Out of every 100 public school pupils, 32 do not complete their elementary course. Only 68 reach the eighth grade, which represents the first part of education.
Out of these 68, only 53 enter high school. Half of them drop out and only 22 complete junior matriculation or the equivalent.
The ranks thin again at senior matriculation level; out of 100 pupils that entered public school, only 13 reach that pre-university stage.
Nine of these senior matriculants take a job, another takes some other form of training and three students only enrol at the university.
During their college years, two out of three will take up employment. All in all, out of the 100 pupils that entered school, one only will finally obtain his university degree.
As our young people progress along the way of education, as our boys and girls become adolescents and grown-ups, a good many of them drop out for some reason or other into which I cannot go here.
I am trying to prove that education is a problem which should be of concern not to governments alone, but to all family-heads as well; to better establish my point I have a booklet entitled "Federal Aid for Education in Canada", published by the Canadian Teachers' Federation. It contains a statement pertaining to all provinces, together with figures showing that much more could be done in the field of education. I shall quote the percentage of Canadians who have left school before reaching the eighth grade.
Prince Edward Island, 50-6; Nova Scotia, 50-5; New Brunswick, 58 0; Quebec, 62-5; Ontario, 40-1; Manitoba, 49-6; Saskatchewan, 51-6; Alberta, 45-0; British Columbia, 35-4.
That, Mr. Speaker, goes to show that there are still far too many young people,-and I am not discussing the reasons they have for leaving school,-who spend no more than eight years in the classroom before leaving it to earn their living by working with their hands or with their brains.
Some members are always asking the federal government for more and more money on just about every account,-including this matter of educational subsidies. These members, subsequently, should not accuse the government of spending too much.
I often hear them criticize the government for their surplus whereas, were they to have a deficit tomorrow, they would not fail to
attack them violently. After all, we should be a little logical in our discussions and see to it that our criticism is fruitful.
I was listening to the member who spoke before me mentioning the question of teachers. I have here a document emanating from the Ontario Teachers' Federation. I will quote it in English since the figures concern teachers:
(Text):
To illustrate this situation may I call your attention to some pertinent facts contained in a brief submitted to the dominion government by the Canadian Teachers Federation in February. 1949.
(a)	One out of every ten teachers in Canada holds only a permit or temporary certificate.
(Translation):
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, there is room for improvement in this connection.
(Text):
(b)	The average salary of rural teachers throughout Canada is $1,207 per annum while urban teachers' salaries average $2,120. (These figures do not include Quebec or Newfoundland.)
(c)	The median teachers' salaries for the year 1947 range from $816 in Prince Edward Island to $2,042 in British Columbia.
(d)	At the end of 1947 there were 1,700 fewer teachers in Canada than there were in 1939.
It would appear that the great need is for more teachers because the number of pupils is increasing steadily.
(e)	In April, 1948, approximately 22,000 pupils in two provinces were receiving their education through correspondence courses because of the lack of teachers.
(f)	That 31 per cent of the teachers of one province and only 2 per cent of those in another are university graduates.
If federal grants are to be made to the provincial authorities to aid in education they should be used for the educating of teachers as well, as long as subsidies are distributed through proper and constitutional channels.
(Translation):
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 yet the few thousand dollars we might thus get through the federal government's generosity might enable us to make grants to the recreational or educational centres we are building in the province. However, I must be fair towards the government of my province. They have done a great deal for recreational and

educational centres; but it seems to me that, by accepting the National Physical Fitness Act, they could do more.
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. Obviously, we should never lose sight of the constitutional aspect of the question and if the provinces lack money, they have only to make agreements with the federal government in order to be in a position to distribute more money for education. Besides, that is what many provinces have done in the case of grants to their universities. The government of my province could do likewise and obtain the same aid from the federal government, for primary education. They should do in this case as they did for technical assistance, assistance to youth and assistance to universities.
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 non-denominational 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 request 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.
As there is at present a surplus of funds earmarked for education in the province of Quebec, the government is able to give such grants as are necessary for the proper operation of our educational system. But, as I already said, those grants are always equally distributed among the schools, whatever their denomination. We thus set an example for the other provinces to follow.
I have already told the house that the provinces which are being discriminatory in their way of treating schools of different denominations would be considered as curiosities in a few years. And I hope that time is not too remote. Well, Mr. Speaker, I shall not proceed any further, for it seems to me that I have stated my position clearly enough to make it understood by all my colleagues. I am possessed of a doctor's turn of mind -it has never failed me during the 25 years of
Education
my public life-which leads me, each time that problem is studied here, to express my approval of everything which can foster education; I am always ready to approve of all things which may offer to our youth, our children, our young men and women and even our grown-up citizens, an opportunity for normal education, thanks to which they may become good citizens and make an honest living. I do not say however that people who are uneducated, because fate did not give them parents or patrons who could pay for their education, cannot earn a reputable living. The respectability of our citizens does not always depend on education alone. One must also take discernment into account.
Then there is family education which comes before college or university education. There is education provided by the mother, to which we must also give all our attention. I must congratulate the federal government for its Family Allowances Act which has demonstrated the concern they have for the education of our children. The act is framed in such a way that those who wish to draw the allowance must see to it that their children attend school assiduously for as long as the law requires them to. Consequently, I wish to congratulate the federal government for having passed a law which sets down exactly the age up to which children must attend school if their parents wish to draw family allowances.
Those who are listening now know what I mean; they know that our mothers are able to give their children a better education thanks to these benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having brought in a motion enabling us to express our views on the matter.
In conclusion, I repeat once again that I am in favour of grants to the provinces so that they may give our educational system whatever aid is required, provided the provinces can reach an agreement in this connection; but these grants must not be made unless the fundamental principles of our constitution are properly respected.
(Text):


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I question very much whether a more important subject will come before the house for discussion during the present session than the subject which has been brought to our attention by this resolution. As I have indicated on earlier

Education
occasions when this has been brought forward for consideration, there are very serious constitutional problems involved in any such proposal as that which is made, and the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has very appropriately pointed to some of the dangers that are inherent in any plan of this kind.
I propose to support this motion, and in doing so I hope that I may explain why I do so with full recognition of the concern expressed by the hon. member for Temiscouata, but at the same time seeking to avail myself of the opportunity afforded by this resolution to emphasize the need for something being done which will make it possible for every provincial government in Canada to give to every child the kind of education for which that child is able to prepare himself through his own mental capacity. I say nothing new today, I say nothing that I have not said over and over again long before I entered this house, when I say that there can be no higher purpose guiding those who are responsible for government at any level than to do these things which will make it possible to equalize the opportunity for education throughout the whole of Canada, regardless of the financial condition of the parents or the place where the child may live. The way in which that is done does present difficulties; the way in which that is to be done demands the constant as well as the wholehearted approval and in fact the responsibility of the provincial authorities.
I hope that in what I shall say later I may meet the concern that has been expressed. Before I deal with that, however, I wish to lay before the house reasons why I regard the whole problem of education as one of the most critical problems facing Canada today. This is not just something that can be measured by our own impression as to the type of education which should be given to the children of this country. We are talking about the whole future of Canada. It is not any trite observation to say that the kind of country Canada is in the years ahead will depend on the kind of education that we give our children today and tomorrow.
The reason I said that this is one of the most critical situations is that we are faced with the possibility that there may not be enough teachers to give education to our children. In fact we are not only faced with the possibility, we are faced with the likelihood-nay, we are faced with the certainty- that unless some steps are taken which will provide the financial resources necessary we are going to be so desperately short of teachers that in many parts of this country there will be a very serious question as to

whether the children can get any of the ordinary school education that we have taken for granted so long. We are not confronted now merely with the question of continuing the advances in education that have been going on for years; we are confronted with the very real possibility of education falling away to a point where it is going to be extremely difficult to give even the basic education to our children, which is an essential requirement in any country that describes itself as civilized.
These are strong words, but they are borne out by the facts. They are borne out by the facts that should be in the minds of every hon. member and of every Canadian today. True, we have many magnificent schools, but some of our schools are not so good. On the whole, however, the recent construction of schools has given to us buildings of the most modern type, equipped with the most modern educational facilities. But, after all, the teacher is the first, the vital and the essential requirement of all education in the schools. I say "in the schools" intentionally, because I repeat the obvious when I say that education is not confined to the schools alone. Education is given in the homes, in the churches and in the schools. Today we are talking simply of education in the schools.
Education is not something that can be produced like an ordinary industrial product. The finest building that was ever constructed for this purpose is nothing but a cold mass of brick, stone, glass, machinery and equipment until there are the teachers in the rooms of that school who give to it its life, its meaning and its purpose.
Education is not something to be found in any simple formula. It is something of the heart, the mind and the spirit. Education, without a religious content, education without the spiritual factor following all through its whole course may not be education at all but only instruction.
There are others here who have seen the schools of Russia. There are those who saw the schools in Germany and Italy under nazism and fascism. There the important thing was the extent to which the strictly material aspect of education was being emphasized. In the days before the war I saw some of the finest school buildings to be found anywhere in the world, buildings that have since become the architectural models for schools in this and in other countries, in nazi Germany; but they were not getting education, they were simply getting instruction. In some of these schools they were giving perhaps as fine technical training, as fine engineering instruction as was to be

found anywhere in the world, and we felt the deadly impact of that instruction, but carefully they were avoiding the spiritual aspect of education, which is the thing that gives character, and which builds the life of a country. It is something, as I said before, of the heart, of the mind and of the spirit. That calls for a sense of dedication on the part of the teachers second only to the sense of dedication called for by those who enter the ministry. In fact the teacher stands side by side with the minister in giving to the life of this country the quality we would wish it to have. Teachers also must have confidence in the future of the country, built upon the feeling that their place in society is recognized, if they are to convey that confidence to the minds of our youth which will be the greatest assurance of success in the years ahead. You cannot expect teachers who feel they are not respected as they should be, whose remuneration is less than that of wholly untrained workers, to have that spirit of confidence and optimism which must be in their hearts if they are to transmit it to the children who are going to face the problems of life in this country when they leave our schools.
We have heard today the amounts received by teachers right across this country. One reason so many teachers are leaving the schools is that they can go out and make more money in other occupations which call for very little preliminary education. It is not only the fact that we are losing the teachers from our schools now because their salaries are not comparable with those paid in occupations for which similar education is not required. What is more serious' is the fact that young people, looking at the salaries paid teachers today are not so likely to take the long years of training and to commit themselves to the expense of the education which is required before they can become teachers, if they can go right into some daily occupation that promises them as much money almost as soon as they start work. That is one reason education is threatened today with the possibility that we may not have enough teachers. Surely there can be no doubt about the danger of that disaster with which we are confronted, when we find the estimate of the bureau of statistics that if the present trend continues we shall have in 1955 a shortage of 25,000 teachers in Canada. Let that figure remain in the minds of the members of this house when we are considering the problem now before us. If the present trend continues there will be a shortage of teachers in 1955 of close to the total number of teachers now in the schools of Ontario.
Education
Only one result can follow from a situation of that kind. Many schools in this country will be closed, and in many other schools the burden upon the teachers will be so heavy that there will be still further inducement for people to leave that profession and take up work which imposes upon them less physical and nervous strain. And when I mention nervous strain I do so advisedly. There are those in this house today who recognize that the children who sometimes impose some strain on their parents do not suddenly become saints when they enter the school door. When the collective energy of a group of young pupils is gathered together in one schoolroom it not only takes a sense of dedication and a sense of discipline, it takes an immense measure of patience and love for the children to be able to maintain that sort of discipline without severity which is so essential in our schools.
That is the problem with which we are confronted, dealing with the question only on the basis of our present educational standards and requirements. Even those give reason for considerable concern. Already this afternoon the fact has been mentioned that too many pupils are leaving our schools too soon, and at too early an age. I would like to repeat those figures in the context of these remarks. According to the last available figures, 55 per cent of our population have less than eight years of schooling. In other words they have little or no high school education. Only about 35 per cent of the pupils who enter grade 7 complete their secondary school education. The remainder drop out largely in grades 8, 9 and 10. These are the figures across Canada for those who have less than eight years of schooling, some of them unfortunately much less than eight years:
per cent
Prince Edward Island	 50-6
Nova Scotia	 50-5
New Brunswick	 58 0
Quebec	''	62-5
Ontario	 40-1
Manitoba	 49-8
Saskatchewan	 51.5
Alberta	 45.9
British Columbia	 35.4
Those figures give us a picture which should not be too satisfactory to any Canadian who regards education as the first responsibility of government. So that this statement, removed from its context, may not leave the impression that I am suggesting that education is the direct responsibility of the dominion government, I emphasize as vigorously as possible that education is and must remain exclusively the responsibility of the provincial governments. What I shall come to is

Education
the necessity for this government and this parliament to take steps to provide the financial resources which will make it possible for the provincial departments of education to tackle such a serious situation as that which is placed before us in these figures.
I repeat that it is in relation to such a situation that we are going to have a shortage of 25,000 teachers. If we were giving our pupils now education for the number of years they should receive it, then instead of 25,000 we might well be 50,000 teachers short by 1955. I repeat, this is not just a discussion on whether we agree with the type of education being given. We are confronted with the possibility of real disaster in our educational system unless this situation is tackled without further delay.
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. Last year the dominion government decided to make grants to universities. In doing so they recognized the urgent need of the universities in Canada for additional money if they are going to be able to give to young Canadians that higher type of education which is so essential in a rapidly expanding and developing country like ours.
By giving that grant, the dominion government recognized that it is beyond the financial capacity of many of the provinces to meet the demands of our universities. Unfortunately, the procedure that was adopted has already raised difficulties. It will be recalled by many members that, at the time the decision to make these grants was announced, I asked whether these grants were to be paid directly to the provincial government. I did so because I think that is the only way it should be done. I did so because there are two reasons why grants should not be made direct by the dominion government to the universities. First of all is the fact that, if the grants are made directly by this government to the universities instead of to the provincial governments, then the dominion government may make those grants without any knowledge of some special arrangement which is being made in regard to a particular university by the department of education in that particular province.

Moreover, that grant may be made without knowledge which is in the possession of the provincial government of certain reasons why it is either inadequate or in particular circumstances might be more than is required at the moment. Unless the dominion government is going to set up a department of education in Ottawa, then it has not the information which justifies it in making those grants, unless they are made on a simple arithmetical basis such as the number of pupils enrolled. There are reasons why grants cannot be made on that simple basis. Some universities have a much more costly type of education than others. Some of the universities, by the nature of the courses they are giving, must make very much larger expenditures than other universities, excellent though such universities may be in their own field. For that reason it would be necessary to have officials here who could go to those universities and examine what was being done, before a grant could be made with real knowledge of the requirements of a university.


Mr. Robinson:: Does the hon. member advocate having those officials here?


George Alexander Drew: I most certainly do not. That is exactly the point I am making. I have emphasized before that we do not want any additional branches started here. 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 that that to be found in any of the provinces.


Mr. Knowles:: And still they have not brought in health insurance.


George Alexander Drew: We do not want officials dealing with that, and unless we have those officials there is no place to which any minister of this government can go to get the necessary information except the place to which he should go, the department of education in the province. If he is going to do that, then let the government do the right thing in the first place and make the grants directly to the provincial governments or, on the other hand, provide the financial resources to the provinces which will make it unnecessary for the universities or schools to seek financial assistance outside of the department within the provincial government.
One of the reasons that I emphasize the importance of not getting into some new

department here under the guise of additional grants is the fact that even now a reading of some of the publicity releases would lead one to believe that the dominion government grants to universities are the main grants the universities are now receiving. Let us keep this in proportion. I for one supported and warmly supported the provision of $7,100,000 last year. I made it quite clear that I thought those grants should go directly to the departments of education. May I remind hon. members in this house that the Ontario government alone is providing $8 million in grants to the universities of Ontario, and over $60 million for education. Let us keep this in proportion, and keeping it in proportion let us realize that what has been granted so far may be useful and desirable assistance but is still only a small part of the money that is required by the universities of this country.
However, last year the dominion government did decide to make grants to assist universities. I do not know how, having done that, they can now come before this house and say they are unwilling to make grants in other fields because that would be trespassing on the constitutional responsibility of the provinces. After all, universities are just as exclusively under the jurisdiction of the provincial departments of education as any primary or secondary school.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


George Alexander Drew: By saying they are not, hon. members are simply demonstrating the fact that they do not understand the constitutional division of responsibility within this country. They are emphasizing the very strong reason why, over and over again, it is necessary for us to repeat what the actual division of constitutional responsibility is in these other fields.


Solon Earl Low: Maybe it is the triumph of hope over experience.


Mr. McCusker:: What about McGill university? It is not under provincial command?


George Alexander Drew: In every province the universities are under the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities, to whatever extent they come under government responsibility at all.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Now that is a different song.


George Alexander Drew: I am not going to be diverted by these silly interruptions. It is not a different thing. Neither this government nor any provincial government has ever taken it upon itself to run universities. They have assisted universities, and I hope that no hon. member in this house will ever suggest that we are going to have universities run from the department of education in the 55704-39
Education
province, as provincial universities in that sense. I hope that even by the indirect devices which are being employed we are never going to have the universities under the direct responsibility of this government or any succeeding government in the dominion of Canada.
What I am simply seeking to point out is this. We are dealing with a subject which calls for attention. Whether it be by grants such as were made in support of the universities or whether it be by other methods, the one thing that is absolutely necessary, unless we are going to be headed for serious trouble in this country, is that the financial resources be made available to our schools- our primary schools, our secondary schools, our technical schools and the universities- so that every child in Canada may have the chance to get the education for which his brains qualify him.
I said that there were different methods; but the method that I prefer-and I have indicated that for a long time-is for the dominion government to get out of the tax fields that they invaded and to let the provinces have the tax resources that will permit them to raise the taxes for the things they are called upon to do. This dominion government today is a trespasser in the field of provincial taxes. They have not carried out their promise to vacate the tax fields they entered during the war, and they are doing nothing to make it possible for new arrangements to be made on a satisfactory basis.


Mr. Lesage:: Name the tax fields.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am assuming that any hon. member of this house who is qualified to sit in this house knows the tax fields that they have invaded.


Jean Lesage: But you know that you are skating on thin ice.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am not skating on thin ice. I am dealing with a subject that has been discussed with the most complete frankness on this and on many other occasions. Let me point out one of the reasons why we are now faced with the necessity for early action in this matter. The estimates tabled today indicate that the dominion government is going to raise $600 million more in the coming year than in the year gone by. The taxes of this country are going to be increased by $600 million. That makes it more difficult for the provinces to meet their requirements. It makes it absolutely impossible for most if not all the provinces to find those additional moneys that are necessary today in order to deal with

Education
the question of education. That is something that must be clearly in the mind of every hon. member.
May I also point out that when we are confronted with a $600 million increase in taxation in Canada for the coming year, we realize that this increase is being made at a time when the provincial governments have been asking for assistance in many fields in which it has not yet been given, and that the $600 million increase does nothing to meet those demands. That is the reason why I suggest that the motion now before us can properly be taken simply as a request that this government recognize the need for facing this problem at this time, that it stop evading its responsibilities, and that it call the provinces together in a real dominion-provincial conference and try to find a basis for the adjustment of taxation which will give to the provincial governments that measure of taxing power which they have a right to expect if they are to carry out their responsibilities.
After all, we have seen that problems have been raised by the methods that were employed in making the grants to the universities last year. It is only within the last few days that a statement has been made that arrangements are expected soon, between the
dominion government and the government of the province of Quebec, which will make it possible for the grants to be made to the universities of that province. We do not want any repetition of that difficulty in any future attempt to solve this urgent need.
In this whole problem it seems to me that the time has come to recognize that the inability of the provinces to meet the need for increased payments for education is simply an incident of the continued and deliberate evasion by the dominion government of its solemn obligation to vacate those tax fields it entered during the last war and to find some satisfactory basis of taxation which will give to the provincial governments not only financial capacity to meet their requirements but the real responsibility for those things which are exclusively within their field.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. McCann:: In the absence of the house leader, I wish to announce the business for tomorrow. According to standing order 15, we will deal with public bills and orders.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 20, 1952