1953-01-26

Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to state a question of privilege affecting every hon. member of this house. It is in connection with a C.B.C. broadcast yesterday from Ottawa called "Capital Report". I have in my hand a copy of the text submitted to the station by Mr. Michael Barkway and I shall read the portion which I am making the subject of privilege. I think what I have to put forward constitutes one of the most astonishing breaches of the privileges, rights and responsibilities of the members of this house which can have come to the attention of any hon. member. I propose to read part of page 1 and page 2 of the text used yesterday by Mr. Barkway in the broadcast on a national network from Ottawa. After referring to what he described as the domestic drama of the Currie report, he went on to say:
As a drama critic, I think one's bound to say that act II wasn't up to the standard of excitement of act I. For one thing the sub-plot took up a disproportionate amount of attention. This is the mystery-now being cleared up-of how the C.C.F. party got its hands on an earlier draft of the report which Mr. Currie had neither approved nor signed. The first half of the answer is that the copy was stolen from a print shop in Montreal; and the man accused of stealing it is now in custody awaiting trial. How it got from the thief to Mr. Coldwell-who is certainly honest-we still don't know. But I suppose part of the scene of act III will be laid in a courtroom in Montreal, where some more of the story will come out.
The other part of act II which has now concluded was laid in parliament. I remember remarking on this program six weeks ago that Mr. Currie's description of the Petawawa horses on the pay roll was "more picturesque than precise". It turns out, in fact, to have been so imprecise as to have been false. It was taken, apparently, from the police records and the records of the Petawawa trials and in the process of condensation into one sentence it was wholly distorted. A cub reporter who had done the same thing would have lost his job.
You may think this was just by the way. But these inaccuracies in the Currie report-the horses and the false accusation that the C.N.R. let its tracks be stolen-I think they had a good deal to do with the major theme of the recent parliamentary debates. And that was whether the Currie report should be referred to the defence expenditures committee, or whether instead Mr. Currie
should be invited to extend his inquiries into the rest of the Department of National Defence. The government wanted to send the report to the commons committee for a fuller examination. The government majority-inevitably-voted to do that, and the committee has been set up. This wasn't what the opposition wanted. They say-and they're right-that the committee has a majority of Liberal members; and it's a foregone conclusion that its report will be as favourable to the government as the loyal Liberal majority can make it.
No doubt this is perfectly true. But the committee's report won't matter so much as the evidence which the committee hears-particularly from Mr. Currie himself. The inaccuracies of the original report-which are after all purely incidental-won't matter much if Mr. Currie has a mass of further detail to back up his charges of the "general breakdown in administration". But if he hasn't more detail than he gives in his report, then the government will be in a better position to claim that this is a bit of a storm in a teacup.
The most serious breach of the privileges, rights and responsibilities of members, Mr. Speaker, is the bald statement by this man who purports to be an accurate reporter-


An hon. Member:: He is.


An hon. Member:: Too accurate.


George Alexander Drew: -that, had it not been for these demonstrated inaccuracies in the Currie report, then it is likely that the inquiry might have occupied a wider field. Then let us see some of the positive statements made by this man who enjoys the privileges of the House of Commons, under the privileges extended by Your Honour in the usual way to the highly respected members of the press gallery.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the laughter that greeted that comment indicated a lack of appreciation on the one hand of the significance of a statement of this kind by a man who has the special advantage of hearing all of the debates, under the privileges extended to members of the press gallery in the house; and, on the other hand, that laughter indicated that some of the hon. members who made that interjection in that way obviously disregard the fact that such a statement as this might reflect upon those hon. members of press gallery whose reputation is of the very highest. I think it is our concern in this house to maintain responsibility for members of the press gallery who are part of the general proceedings of this house.

Privilege-Mr. Drew
Now, first of all, may I point to the fact that we have here the bald and emphatic statement, without any reservation, that the Currie report turns out in fact to have been so imprecise as to have been false. Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped that some member of the government would have risen to deal with a statement of that kind with regard to a man they had chosen, and whom they describe, as the most highly qualified man in the Dominion of Canada for the task allotted to him. Nevertheless, whether that might be regarded as the duty of the government or not, the fact remains, as very well might be pointed out, that such a statement is in itself wholly removed from the truth. No such finding has been made; and no such finding could be made.
May I also point out that we have this statement not only going out from this reporter but going out from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is guided by the policy laid down by the government, as stated by the minister responsible for that department.


Mr. Speaker:: I have not interrupted the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), but I am following him closely to determine the question of privilege on which he has risen. A criticism of the government at this time is not a question of privilege. May I suggest that he should state his question of privilege.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am submitting this to Your Honour:	to consider on the
one hand what disposition you feel should be made of these facts, having regard to Your Honour's responsibility for the privileges within this house; and, on the other hand, I am placing before the government facts which they must immediately take into consideration, having regard to their responsibility for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-because there is another point which I think is extremely important in this statement, and it is the question of contempt of court.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, I hardly think this is the time to place that question before the government. On a question of privilege all that can be considered is the breach of the privileges of the house in so far as they concern the house generally or some members of the house.


George Alexander Drew: Well, Mr. Speaker, I pointed out that this statement, carried to the people of Canada by the government-owned broadcasting system-by a man who enjoys

the privileges of the press gallery-stated as a fact certain things which are before members of this house for consideration in committee. This man, over the government-owned system, is taking it upon himself to pass judgment in regard to something that is before hon. members of this house for decision. That is certainly an infringement of the right and duties of members of this house.
Moreover, this man has taken it on himself to flagrantly stand in contempt of court, and the government must have some concern about that, in view of the fact that it initiated these proceedings and also in view of the responsibility it accepts for the policies of the C.B.C.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the facts are before you. This report that I have read to you from Mr. Barkway's text contains one demonstrable misstatement after another. In no single case are those misstatements clearer than in these two statements. There is a reference to non-existent horses-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has stated that they existed.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot allow a debate on that question at the present time. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will not press that point now.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I will not press that point but I will refer every hon. member to the statement of the Prime Minister which shows that they did exist. I would also point out that in this statement Mr. Barkway refers to the false accusation that the C.N.R. allowed its tracks to be stolen. No such accusation was made.


Mr. Speaker:: Clearly that does not come within the questions of privilege which an hon. member is allowed to state as a question of privilege at this time. We are now getting into a debate on whether the facts stated by the member of the press gallery are correct or incorrect.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I will close my comments with this statement in reference to what I have put before you. The statements in this text are before you for consideration. I ask you to consider them in relation to the report, in relation to the statement made by the government in this house, and in relation to the fact that a committee has been set up to discuss this very subject. Also, I place this matter before the government in view of the fact that it has stated its responsibility for the policy of the C.B.C. I submit that the government should act in relation to contempt

of court by the C.B.C. as well as this broadcaster-because if propaganda of this kind is going out while matters of this kind are before this house it destroys the whole effect of committees in this house.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has stated that he has placed these facts before you and that he wishes to have you appreciate them. I do not think I need to make any comment whatsoever.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: He read the statement about which he complains and then he made his speech about it. There is a certain doctrine about what is said or what is published that is sometimes called the doctrine of fair comment. Well, I think that if one applies that doctrine to the statement read by the hon. gentleman, and to his own comments on that statement, the conclusion will not be a very difficult one to draw.
Now, regarding the responsibility of the government for what goes out over the C.B.C. there is to be set up a committee to deal with the C.B.C. It has been stated many times in this house that the government does not attempt to dictate to the C.B.C. what will go out over its wires, and I think the best evidence of that is some of the things that the hon. gentleman himself broadcasts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the committee examining the conduct of those who do direct the policies of the C.B.C. sees fit to make a report to this house, about matters such as this, I am sure the house will consider it. Perhaps in the meantime Your Honour will have to consider whether our privileges have been impinged upon, and whether they are by the broadcast read by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) or by his own statement.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I rise now on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: It is regrettable that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) should disclose his lack of appreciation of the difference now between the position of a member of this house and someone outside making comments about matters that are before this house for consideration. His closing remarks were wholly unworthy of the nature of the matter that is before us.
Wheat


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I shall take under consideration what has been said, and if I feel that I should take any action I shall do so.



BRITISH PURCHASES FROM RUSSIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: On Friday, January 23, the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) asked a question about a report in the newspapers concerning the purchase by the United Kingdom government of some 22 million bushels of wheat from Russia. I made a reply in general terms and promised to make an inquiry to get something more precise to put before the house. This is the information I have now obtained.
It is pointed out, in the first place, that the press reports of the negotiations refer to a quantity of 600,000 tons. I was not able at once to reduce that quantity into bushels, but I am told it is approximately the equivalent of 22 million bushels. In the second place, the report referred not only to wheat but to all grains, and particularly coarse grains. Hon. members will know that the United Kingdom has bought substantial quantities of coarse grains from Russia in the past few years, and the present negotiations are no doubt a continuation of that pattern. The quantities under negotiation, if correctly reported, would appear to be less than in previous years. Generally speaking, the United Kingdom has followed the practice of buying a large part of her wheat requirements in Canada, and the bulk of her coarse grain supplies elsewhere. In the first ten months of 1952, Canada exported only 1,615,000 bushels of barley to the United Kingdom.
On Friday I made reference to current negotiations between the United Kingdom and the Canadian wheat board. As a result of these negotiations, arrangements have been made for the United Kingdom ministry of food to take a portion of the agreed quantity of food for the present year-a rather small percentage-on a class II basis and price rather than under the lower international wheat agreement price. This arrangement will permit the United Kingdom to purchase under the international wheat agreement additional wheat which recently became available in Australia, and which it would otherwise have no right, under the international wheat agreement, to purchase at the class II price because Australia has been unable to fulfil the quota that it must dispose of under the international wheat agreement price. This arrangement does not,

Questions
however, up to the present time, involve any change in the quantity of 115 million bushels which was announced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) as the amount which the United Kingdom had contracted to purchase. It may mean that for a certain portion of it the wheat board will be getting a somewhat higher price than under the original agreement.



PERSONNEL OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE

Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa):: In
compliance with the motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) of January 22, I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Tremblay), that the members whose names are annexed hereto shall constitute the special committee of this house on procedure. The names are as follows:
Messrs. Bradette, Churchill, Fleming, Fournier (Hull), Fulton, Harris, Knowles, MacNaught, Pouliot, Quelch and Weir.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. J. L. Gibson (for Mr. Murray, Cariboo) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 106, to amend the Railway Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Lambert Gibson: The purpose of this amendment to the Railway Act, Mr. Speaker, is to provide that, in any future application to the board of transport commissioners for the construction of any railway, the board shall make such an order as will ensure the elimination of level crossings, and no highway shall be constructed across a railway unless it is carried over or under such railway.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS


DOMINICAN RAW SUGAR IMPORTS


Mr. Murphy:: 1.	(a) What quantity in pounds, of Dominican Republic raw sugar imported in 1951, under the Dominican Republic-Canada agreement was entitled to rebate payable by the Canadian government to Canadian refiners; (b) how much will the total rebate be when completely paid for Dominican Republic raws imported in 1951; (c) how much of this rebate has been paid to date?
2.	(a) What quantity in pounds, of Dominican Republic raw sugar imported in 1952, under the Dominican Republic-Canada agreement was entitled to rebate payable by the Canadian government to
(Mr. St. Laurent.]
Canadian refiners; (b) how much will the total rebate be when completely paid for Dominican Republic raws imported in 1952; (c) how much of this rebate has been paid to date?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	(a) None; (b) Answered by (a); (c) No refunds paid.
2.	(a) Information not yet available; (b) Information not yet available; (c) No refunds paid.



CUBAN RAW SUGAR IMPORTS


Mr. Murphy:: 1.	(a) What quantity in pounds, of Cuban raw sugar imported in 1951, under the Cuba-Can-ada agreement, was entitled to rebate payable by the Canadian government to Canadian refiners; (b) How much will the total rebate be when completely paid for Cuban raws imported in 1951; (c) How much of this rebate has been paid to date?
2.	(a) What quantity in pounds, of Cuban raw sugar imported in 1952, under the Cuba-Canada agreement was entitled to rebate payable by the Canadian government to Canadian refiners; (b) How much will the total rebate be when completely paid for Cuban raws imported in 1952; (c) How much of this rebate has been paid to date?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	(a) 43,399,957 lbs.; (b) $37,485.33 out of $611,111.83 paid in duty on these importations; (c) $29,259.84.
2.	(a) Information not yet available; (b) Information not yet available; (c) $41,909.69.



HAITI RAW SUGAR IMPORTS


Mr. Murphy:: 1.	(a) What quantity in pounds, of Haiti raw sugar imported in 1951, under the Haiti-Canada agreement was entitled to rebate payable by the Canadian government to Canadian refiners; (b) How much will the total rebate be when completely paid for Haiti raws imported in 1951; (c) How much of this rebate has been paid to date?
2.	(a) What quantity in pounds, of Haiti raw sugar imported in 1952, under the Haiti-Canada agreement was entitled to rebate payable by the Canadian government to Canadian refiners; (b) How much will the total rebate be when completely paid for Haiti raws imported in 1952; (c) how much of the rebate has been paid to date?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	(a) None imported; (b) Answered by (a); (c) No refunds paid.
2.	(a) 4,800,300 pounds; (b) Information not yet available; (c) No refunds paid.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many contracts for buildings or projects have been let by the Department of Public Works, to the Lunam Construction Company, in Saskatchewan, since January 1, 1948?
2.	What was the amount to be paid to the said company for completion of each of the said buildings or projects?

3.	How much was paid to the said company on each of the said buildings or projects?
4.	Did the said company become insolvent? If so, when?
5.	How much was owing by the said company for (a) wages; (b) materials; (c) other services, on each of said buildings or projects, since such insolvency?
6.	Of the amounts so owing, how much has been paid by the Department of Public Works?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Eight; Prince Albert, Sask., public building-addition and alterations.
Regina, Sask., R.C.M.P. barracks-repairs and improvements to swimming pool.
Tisdale, Sask., public building-addition and alterations.
Fort Qu'Appelle, Sask., Indian hospital- installation of sewerage disposal.
Langenburg, Sask., new public building.
Fort Qu'Appelle, Sask., new Indian hospital.
Regina, Sask., new building for unemployment insurance commission.
Fort Qu'Appelle, Sask., new public building.
2.	Prince Albert, Sask., public building- addition and alterations, $429,087.40.
Regina, Sask., R.C.M.P. barracks-repairs and improvements to swimming pool, $10,947.
Tisdale, Sask., public building-addition and alterations, $46,147.
Fort Qu'Appelle, Sask., Indian hospital- installation of sewerage disposal, $20,470.15.
Langenburg, Sask., new public building, $85,674.
Fort Qu'Appelle, Sask., new Indian hospital, $336,264.79.
Regina, Sask., new building for unemployment insurance commission, $215,560.57.
Fort Qu'Appelle, Sask., new public building, $132,719.60.
3.	Prince Albert, Sask., public building- addition and alterations, $429,087.40.
Regina, Sask., R.C.M.P. barracks-repairs and improvements to swimming pool, $10,947.
Tisdale, Sask., public building-addition and alterations, $46,147.
Fort Qu'Appelle, Sask., Indian hospital- installation of sewerage disposal, $20,470.15.
Langenburg, Sask., new public building, $85,674.
Fort Qu'Appelle, Sask., new Indian hospital, $296,062.78.
Regina, Sask., new building for unemployment insurance commission, $180,842.46.
Fort Qu'Appelle, Sask., new public building, $103,686.37.
Questions
4.	(a) Yes; (b) February 26, 1952.
5.	(a) Wages-Fort Qu'Appelle, Sask., new Indian hospital, $2,716.31.
Regina, Sask., new building for unemployment insurance commission, $4,115.75.
Fort Qu'Appelle, Sask., new public building, $1,649.22.
(b)	Materials-Fort Qu'Appelle, Sask., new Indian hospital, $61,000.
Regina, Sask., new building for unemployment insurance commission, $58,000.
Fort Qu'Appelle, Sask., new public building, $40,000.
Note-The figures given for (b) are approximate, being based on information received from the suppliers and subcontractors.
(c)	Other services-nil.
6.	Of the amounts so owing, the Department of Public Works paid the following for wages:
Fort Qu'Appelle, Sask., new Indian hospital, $2,716.31.
Regina, Sask., new building for unemployment insurance commission, $4,115.75.
Fort Qu'Appelle, Sask., new public building, $1,649.22.



C.B.C. SPECIAL PROGRAM TO BRAZIL

Mr. Hees:: 1.	Did the international service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, broadcast a special program to Brazil from the Plateau hall, Montreal, on December 17, 1952?
2.	If so, who authorized this program?
3.	Who was the conductor of the program, what is his name and permanent residence address, and what was he paid in (a) salary; (b) expenses, for his services for this broadcast?
4.	What orchestra was employed and how much was paid each member for (a) rehearsals; (b) recital?
5.	What other expenses were incurred for this special program, giving amount in each case?
6.	What was the total cost involved in connection with this program?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	A special program comprising four works, two by Heitor Villa-Lobos, one by a Chilean and one by an Argentinian composer, were performed on this occasion and records were made for use in broadcasts by the international service to Brazil and other Latin American countries, to be sent for broadcast by individual Latin American stations, and other uses. This arrangement was made as part of the cultural and artistic exchange of the international service with countries, particularly with Brazil, which has brought a number of Canadian artists to that country.
2.	The C.B.C. international service.

Questions
3.	Heitor Villa-Lobos, world-renowned Brazilian composer and conductor, whose permanent address is Rio de Janeiro. He came to Montreal from New York city at the beginning of an American and European conducting tour. He was paid no salary, but was given his usual conducting fee, which he agreed in this case would cover his travelling expenses to and from New York and while in Montreal, and his rights as composer of his two compositions performed.
4.	The orchestra employed was that of les concerts symphoniques de Montreal. Payments were at the regular rates of the American federation of musicians for the services performed, including rehearsals, performance, recording rights, and stand-by conductor's fee.
5.	Rental of hall for rehearsals and concert (three days) $150; set-up arrangements for orchestra seating $24; advertising and publicity $517.
6.	$24,278.50 covering all costs including recording rights.



INDIAN SCHOOLS


Mr. Gibson:: 1.	What qualifications must a person possess in order to teach in an Indian school?
2.	What percentage of persons teaching in British Columbia Indian schools hold (a) first-class certificate; (b) second-class certificate; (c) any British Columbia certificate; (d) no certificate; (e) have never attended normal school or any teacher-training course?
3.	What is the salary schedule?
4.	(a) How many advertisements for teachers in Indian day schools have been inserted by the Indian department in newspapers, during the past ten years; (b) was any mention made of required qualifications; (c) was any salary stated in figures; (d) were any specific schools mentioned?
5.	How many months has Masset Indian day school been closed in the past ten years?
6.	Must Indian children wait until seven years of age before starting school? If so, for what reason?


Mr. Harris:: 1.	Teachers are expected to hold a second-class Canadian teaching certificate or better- or equivalent. Because of the shortage of teachers in Canada it has been necessary to accept some applicants who do not hold such certificates.
2.	(a) 70-1 per cent; (b) 22'8 per cent; (c) 33-9 per cent; (d) 7-1 per cent; (e) 4-7 per cent.
3.	Schedule attached.
4.	(a) From 1942 to date 85 advertisements for teachers have been published in 201 newspapers. The number of insertions in each newspaper have not been counted.
(b)	Only with reference to salary schedules.
(c)	Most of the advertisements stated that a salary schedule was in effect, and in 19 of the 85 advertisements the salary range for teachers holding first- and second-class certificates was stated.
(d)	The name of specific schools was mentioned in 21 advertisements.
5.	The Masset school was closed during the past ten years as follows:
1945, October to December inclusive; 1946, September to December inclusive; 1947, September to December inclusive; 1950, December. A total of 12 months.
6.	No. Indian children are admitted to schools before the age of seven years. However, they are usually not admitted to residential schools until they have reached the age of seven. Except under special circumstances, it is not considered advisable to remove children under seven years of age from their homes for admission to a residential school.

1951 SALARY SCHEDULE FOR TEACHING STAFF-DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION



YEAR OF SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
Day School Teachers
Classification and Grade	Certification	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	Incre- ments$	$	$	$	$	$	$	$	$	$	$	$	$	$1,200	1,300	1,400	1,500	1,600	1,700	1,800	No further increments	1001,700	1,800	1,900	2,000	2,100	2,200	2,300	2,400	2,500	2,600	No further increments	1001,900	2,050	2,200	2,350	2,500	2,650	2,800	2,950	3,100	3,250	3,400	3,550	3,700	150Teacher, Gr. 4	See Regs	2,200	2,350	2,500	2,650	2,800	2,950	3,100	3,250	3,400	3,550	3,700	3,850	4,000	150
Day School Principals
$	$	$	s	$	$	$	$	$	$	$	$	$	$2,700	2,850	3,000	3,150	3,300	3,450	3,600	3,750	3,900	4,050	No fur	ther incr	3ments	1502,850	3,000	3,150	3,300	3,450	3,600	3,750	3,900	4,050	4,200	No further increments	1503,150	3,300	3,450	3,600	3,750	3,900	4,050	4,200	4,350	4,500	No further increments	150Principal, Gr. 4	Secondary School	3,300	3,450	3,600	3,750	3,900	4,050	4,200	4,350	4,500	4,650	No further increments	150
(Salaries are payable in ten monthly instalments)
Note: The salaries listed are supplemented by northern allowance and/or living accommodation, where teachers are stationed in northern or isolated areas. Where the allowance is paid and living accommodation provided the amount o{ the allowances_is reduced.
[Stage Direction]

Questions


Mr. Laing:: 1.	How much was paid out by each of the provinces in 1951 calendar year for the provincial share
of pensions to the aged and blind under the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act?
2.	How much was paid out by each of the provinces in the calendar year 1952 as the provincial share of payments made under the provisions of the Old Age Assistance and Blind Persons Acts?


Mr. Martin:: Alberta	
British Columbia	
Manitoba	
New Brunswick	
Newfoundland	
Nova Scotia	
Ontario	
Prince Edward Island	
Quebec	
Saskatchewan	
Total
1.
Provincial share of payments
(a)	under the Old Age Pensions Act for the calendar year 1951

Provincial share of payments
(b)	under the Old Age Assistance Act and the Blind Persons Act for the calendar year 1952 $ 893,763.08 1,567,254.02 934,032.21 1,074,333.99 650,072.68(c) 831,764.51 4,307,509.01 62,341.01 6,242,236.85 925,272.23

(a)	The provincial share is calculated by taking one-third of the amount paid by the federal government to the province for the federal share.
(b)	The provincial share of old age assistance is the same as the federal share, the province and the federal government each paying 50 per cent of the amounts paid out for assistance. The provincial share of the cost of blind allowances is calculated by taking one-third of the amount paid to the province by the federal government as the federal share.
(c)	Newfoundland paid old age assistance from April 1, 1952.



BONELESS BEEF

Mr. Wright:: 1.	What amount of boneless beef was purchased under reference B.2 page 28, an order issued by the agricultural prices support board, October 7, 1952, contained in sessional paper No. 165A, tabled Monday, January 19, 1953, in each of the provinces listed in that document?
2.	What were the grades of beef so purchased?
3.	Is the agricultural prices support board still purchasing boneless beef under this order?
4.	What are the corresponding commercial grades on the livestock market reports to the M grades, grades D-l, D-3, and S grades mentioned in the reference B.2, on page 28 of the above sessional paper?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1. British Columbia, 140,698 pounds; Alberta, 405,664 pounds; Saskatchewan, 143,-

280 pounds; Manitoba, 1,318,403 pounds; Ontario, 1,044,711 pounds; Quebec, 2,576,183 pounds.
2.	M, S, D-l and D-3.
3.	No.
4.	Carcass grade; M, D-l, D-3, S.
Corresponding grade on livestock market
reports; canners and cutters, common steers and heifers, common cows, bulls and stags.



IMPORTS OF CUBAN RAW SUGAR

Mr. Huffman:: 1.	Does the federal treasury benefit from the raw sugar imported into Canada under the special arrangement between Cuba and Canada?
2. If so, what is the estimated amount of the benefit to the treasury, during the period of the agreement?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1. Yes; the respective rates of duty vary slightly according to the quality of the sugar but in a typical case an importation of Cuban raw sugar would be dutiable at $1.35798 per 100 lbs. while a similar importation of commonwealth raw sugar would be dutiable at $0.30664. In sales to Canada, commonwealth sellers normally obtain approximately 85 cents per 100 lbs. more for their sugar than Cuban suppliers. Therefore, when duty is rebated to equalize the landed cost at refineries, approximately 85 cents out of the $1 margin of preference is retained by the treasury.

2. On the 358,000 short tons of raw sugar which will be imported from the three countries concerned during the period of the agreement, there will be an estimated $6,000,000 of additional revenue to the treasury after payment of rebate to prevent any increase in landed cost to Canadian refiners.



FARM POPULATION AND INCOME

Mr. Fair:: 1.	What percentage of Canada's population was actually living on the land and deriving their living therefrom in the year 1952?
2.	What percentage of the national income did such persons receive?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1 and 2. Information not available for 1952. The nearest available information is as follows:
1.	As of June 1, 1951 (census date) the population living on farms was 20-8 per cent of Canada's total population.
2.	In the calendar year 1951 the net income received by farm operators plus wages and income in kind received by farm help was 13-6 per cent of the national income.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Cardiff:: 1.	How many fires have occurred on property belonging to the Department of National Defence since June, 1950?
2.	Where were these fires?
3.	What was the estimated loss in each case?
4.	Was the cause determined in each case, and, if so, what was the cause?
5.	How many prosecutions have been instigated, as a result of fires to national defence property, since June, 1950?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Fraser:: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence lease any properties in Canada, during the year 1952, for military or other purposes?
2.	If so, (a) where are these properties located: (b) on what dates do these leases commence: (c) what amount is paid per month for each lease; (d) were these places in continuous use from the start of each lease?



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD


Mr. Shaw:: 1.	Under what date did the soldier settlement board of Canada acquire, by purchase, certain lands situated in township 44, range 25 west of the 4th meridian?
2.	From whom was the above land purchased by the soldier settlement board?
3.	Were mines and minerals on the said lands acquired by the soldier settlement board at the time of the land purchase?
Questions
4.	Are such mines and minerals now held in the name of any department of the federal government?
5.	Has consideration been given to the transferring of the mineral rights to those veterans who purchased land in township 44, range 25 from the soldier settlement board?



C.B.C. INTERNATIONAL SERVICE

Mr. Hees:: 1.	Who is the head of the international service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
2.	What salary does he receive per annum?
3.	What was he paid in travelling or other expenses, during the calendar year 1952?
4.	Is he employed on a contract basis? If so, when does this contract terminate?


Mr. Bradley:: Return tabled.



IRRIGATION


Mr. Knight:: 1.	What was the total amount spent by P.F.R.A., since and including 1942 to the present date, upon studies or surveys of the South Saskatchewan river project?
2.	What amount was spent in each of the years covered by question 1?
3.	On what date was the report of the royal commission on the South Saskatchewan river project or any information as to the contents of the report released (a) to the press; (b) to the governments of the prairie provinces; (c) to the House of Commons; (d) for distribution through their mail boxes, to the members of parliament?


Mr. McCubbin:: Order for return.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes. I think parts Nos. 1 and 2 should be made orders for return. As to part No. 3 of this question, the answer is that the report of the royal commission on the South Saskatchewan project was released to the press on January 19 when I tabled it in the house. It was sent to the governments of the prairie provinces by the clerk of the privy council on the same day. When I tabled the report I had been assured that there were available sufficient copies to provide one for every member of parliament, and I so stated in the house. When the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) inquired about copies for members, I was surprised to learn that they had not in fact reached all hon. members and I made inquiries about the matter. I found that, through some unfortunate hitch with regard to assembling, packaging and conveying to the House of Commons, there had not yet reached the distribution office a number sufficient to supply a copy to all members of this house and the other house. I can assure hon. gentlemen that that matter was immediately attended to because we realize-as all those who have to do with distribution must realize-that, when a public document is tabled and distributed, those who are first entitled to get it are the members of parliament.

Education



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. Knowles:: For a copy of any communication received by the Prime Minister or the federal government from the Saskatchewan government, or any minister thereof, with respect to advance information concerning the contents of the report of the royal commission on the South Saskatchewan river project, and also a copy of any reply to such communication.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I think this motion might be adopted. As far as I have been able to ascertain, the only communications were between Mr. Nollet and myself. I now table the telegram I received from him and the answer I addressed to him on January 15.



EDUCATION


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of expanding and equalizing educational opportunity across Canada by the granting of financial assistance to the various provinces for that purpose.
Mr. Speaker, I shall first of all anticipate the arguments of the opponents to the subject matter of this resolution by stating that we in this party would wish-and in fact would insist-that such federal aid as that visualized in the terms of the resolution should in no way involve any interference with provincial jurisdiction over education. Such aid as I visualize would be simply an extension of the extensive aid which is now rendered by the dominion government to education in the provinces and which has been such a distinct benefit to the provinces and indeed to the nation. This aid has been received by all the provinces of Canada, including those which have been most insistent upon their retention of provincial rights. Nowhere has it been argued

and certainly not in this house-that the aid which has already been extended in that matter has in any way interfered with provincial jurisdiction over education, particularly in the vital matters of method, administration and curriculum. The aid to which I have referred has been extended with respect to vocational training, technical training, scholarships in research and the like. I shall refer only to those now, but I have in my hand a sessional paper which shows that vast amounts of money have been expended by the federal government in the provinces for education in other directions.
This is not the first time, Mr. Speaker, that I have propounded these arguments.
TMr. St. Laurent.]
For the sake of those who are actually interested in this matter and would care to do some research on it, I would refer to the debate which took place the last time I moved this resolution, namely on March 19, 1952, at which time the debate continued on March 20. Today, instead of bringing forth those rather academic arguments-I think they were once so characterized by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent); I have brought them forward year after year and the house must be familiar with them all-I want to deal rather with the effect which this resolution is having upon the opinions of the people in the country with regard to it. When I shall have finished, Mr. Speaker, I think you will decide that I have support in some rather unexpected quarters.
At any rate, in my speech on the date that I have mentioned, I dealt with 1he alarming situation in education which has developed in Canada. The last time I moved this resolution it was talked out by a Liberal member of this house. The speech itself which opened the debate dealt largely with the shortage of teachers, the dropping off in the number of students enrolling in the teaching profession, and the great increase in the enrolment in both elementary and secondary schools. At the time of the debate I presented figures to substantiate my arguments in those directions. Those figures I obtained from the dominion bureau of statistics and other reliable sources. These things are of interest surely to all Canadians. I confess that my own interest in the matter is the welfare of all Canadian children, and I lay the emphasis upon the "all". As reported at page 590 of Hansard of March 19, 1952, I stated:
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.
My aim is a degree of equality of educational opportunity for all Canadian children. May I say to one or two of my friends who need to be told, that I have no desire to ask for uniformity in education or equality of education; I am asking for equality of opportunity in education, which is a vastly different thing.
In the speech, the date of which I have mentioned, I produced evidence of glaring inequalities of opportunity in education all across this country. That inequality is due to the difference in the ability of the provinces to raise funds for educational purposes. In the particular tables of figures

from the dominion bureau of statistics which I quoted at page 591 of Hansard in that debate in regard to the amount spent per child by the various provinces upon education, I find that the expenditure per pupil on public, elementary and secondary education on an average daily attendance basis in 1949 is as follows: British Columbia spent $244; Alberta spent $201; Saskatchewan, $174. These are the three highest, as compared with the three lowest Newfoundland, $77; Prince Edward Island, $83; and Nova Scotia, $114. My hon. friends will agree with me that there is not much equality of opportunity depicted in these particular figures.
Many children are having to put up with unqualified teachers and, worse still, with persons who are sitting in a chair presiding over the school and who are not teachers at all.
An interesting pamphlet has been published lately, I think in preparation for education week, by the Canadian education week national headquarters at Ottawa. It says this:
The teacher is the most important single factor in the success or failure of our educational system. Canada needs to have more of her best young people enter this profession. We should be concerned about retainment as well as recruitment. We can help by supporting measures that will elevate the prestige of this profession. Better teacher education, better salaries, improved working and living conditions are essential.
We cannot have good teachers unless we are prepared to provide the above conditions. At the time of the debate last year it was estimated that the teacher shortage-and this is serious-by 1955 would have climbed to 2,500, and at the same time the normal school enrolment had dropped by 20 per cent in a single year. The pamphlet also mentions as well as the teacher shortage another imminent problem, and that is the increasing pupil enrolment. I shall quote that part of the pamphlet. It says this:
The swelling flood of school enrolments, having filled our elementary grades to the bursting point in the immediate post-war period, is now about to descend on the higher grades and secondary schools. We must be ready for this influx or our crowded schools will be literally swamped and the teacher shortage, already serious, will become critical.
In this pamphlet there is a chart. I shall not quote the passage, but I shall give the figures of the estimates of secondary school enrolment in the years from 1952 to 1964. They have given 1952 figures of 300,000 children enrolled in the secondary schools, and the estimated figure for 1964 is 620,000, or a secondary school enrolment which will double itself in the next twelve years. I
Education
ask you, sir, whether or not under our present conditions of education in the provinces, and particularly in some of the provinces, we are now equipped to deal with that condition. It is an interesting thing, and I think it is based on the province of Ontario, to look at the commentary by Francis Oakes Baldwin of Ottawa. This commentator quotes J. T. Stubbs, president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, as follows:
J. T. Stubbs made it clear that the present shortage is just a taste of what is to come-and he made it clear that he was not speaking only of Ontario. He said: "We are resting in a momentary calm at the heart of an educational hurricane-the most alarming teacher shortage ever to face the secondary schools of this province.
I shall not continue to read it, but it goes on to give the figures on the elementary schools and the increases therein. He calls it the swollen attendance in our public schools.
Now, sir, I suppose it is a condition of our history that most of the aid which has been given by this government to education in this country has been extended in a rather underhand and furtive manner. I would suggest that if the government is not prepared to accept this resolution-and I have no doubts about that particular matter-then there are one or two ways in which it might continue this furtive aid to education without making it, as it appears to be today, a political issue. I am thinking of one or two things; I am thinking of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, for example, where we have great numbers of people coming into this country from other countries and bringing their children with them. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration, without saying too much about it, has had to bolster the finances of suburban parts of cities and towns, mining camps and so on, so that schools may be built for the children of those new citizens. I suggest that that is the way that the government could continue to do this thing which it is not supposed to do. In a matter of teachers' training, I would suggest that if we are to get enough teachers in the immediate future we shall have to do something, and I would suggest that the government might even try something which they could very well do without having any suspicion or even an argument raised against interference with provincial autonomy in that field. The teachers' training would still remain in the hands of the provincial authorities themselves and the federal government could stand by with a little financial aid.
I could go on and say a word or two about the same sort of thing in the Department of National Health and Welfare, but I want

Education
to leave that phase of the question for a moment. As I have said, federal aid to education has already been very general and very generous in spots, and I think almost wholly successful. There is a long list of things in which the government has taken part. As a matter of fact, the federal government is up to its neck in aid to education now. I hold in my hand sessional paper 184, tabled in the House of Commons on May 2, 1952, which shows that millions of dollars have been spent. The list is too lengthy to read. There is apprenticeship training; youth training; supervisory training; training of persons to fit them for the armed forces. That is a sad confession. They have to educate people in order to fit them for the armed forces; training of persons to fit them for gainful employment; vocational training for discharged members of the armed forces; vocational correspondence schools; payments to provinces for capital expenditures for education, and so forth; Indian education. There are dozens of places where millions of dollars are being spent at the present time for the purpose of education.
We have of course the recent payment, and the thing which perhaps I am most thankful of all for, namely, the present aid to the universities of Canada, without which aid I see no other alternative but a breakdown in our higher education in the universities of Canada. I hear there is some talk of further expansion of scholarship grants and some federal aid to the children of veterans.
Well, sir, I am in favour of it, but I would suggest that what is good for the children of veterans is also good for other people's children.
Those who have supported the government in its stand have, for want of a better argument, resorted to what I believe is a false one, that the whole matter is unconstitutional. Again, I challenge anyone either in the house or outside of it to say that the grants I have listed have taken away, in any degree, any of the jurisdiction of the provinces over education. Neither has there been any actual interference by federal authorities either with the administration or with the curriculum of the schools.
In various places-seldom, it is true-I have been accused of raising this argument for some ulterior motive. It has been said that I have done so for purposes of political gain. Let me assure my hon. friends that I was working for federal aid for education long before I took an active part in politics, or ever saw this House of Commons.
Let me draw to the attention of the government and the house just how this issue of

federal aid to education is considered throughout the country. Up to this time I have tried to keep this matter from becoming a political issue, and I have placed on the records of the house all the non-political arguments I could bring to bear. I suggest now however that the subject is likely to become a political issue. I fancy it will be in my part of the country during the next election campaign; but if it is, I shall not accept responsibility for it.
I can show from files on my desk that the subject matter of this resolution has been favoured by branches of the I.O.D.E., Legion organizations, labour organizations, agricultural co-operatives, and the Canadian Trustees Association. This is a matter which is the concern of many people throughout the country.
The Canadian School Trustees Association has been particularly active. At the very moment I speak they are aiming to collect between $30,000 and $40,000 to be spent on research in this very matter. They have employed Dr. LaZerte, one-time dean of education in Alberta, to carry out research; and the Canadian Teachers Federation will of course support that project. I do not know whether they have subscribed financially to the campaign, but I believe they are going to institute a similar research program, if they do not join the Canadian School Trustees Association in the other one.
To support that point I should like to read from a pamphlet issued by the Canadian School Trustees Association. It bears the title "Federal Aid", is taken from the Canadian Teachers Federation news letter, and states:
The Canadian Teachers Federation will continue its campaign for education and in this connection will give financial support and actively co-operate with the Canadian School Trustees Association in their research project under the direction of Dr. M. E. LaZerte. This outstanding educationalist has accepted a two-year contract with the trustees to do a fact-finding survey of educational finance with particular reference to need for federal aid.
The fact of the matter is-and this is the most important thing I shall say today-that the expenses of education can no longer be borne by municipalities at the local level. These municipalities turn to their provinces for aid; and in that I wish them all success. I am in favour of educational aid from every source that it can be obtained. But some of the provinces are at the end of their financial tether. Local taxation upon real estate can no longer bear all the brunt. The basis of taxation for purposes of education must be broadened; and the federal government is the only institution of which I am aware

with the resources necessary to make possible the equalization of educational opportunities.
I say that federal aid is the only aid by which we will be able to lower the tax rate on local municipalities. This applies particularly to suburban municipalities, where there has been a great influx of new population, where there has been new building and there is a necessity for new schools. In that connection federal aid might well take the form of the payment of expenses in connection with the building of those institutions.
I could give dozens of examples. Here is one. Only yesterday I received a newspaper clipping-and I am sorry I cannot give the name of the publication although, from the appearance of it, it would seem to be an Ontario agricultural paper. It is headed "School Tax Protested at Federation Meeting". The federation to which reference is made is the Ontario federation of agriculture, before whom Mr. Heatherington made a report in which he said:
Because of the tremendous burden imposed on rural municipalities, due to the need for expansion of present educational facilities, we strongly suggest that the full capital cost of all new school buildings should be borne by the provincial and/or federal governments.
And at that meeting it is indicated that a Mr. Laventure said that he wanted action, "even if it meant a fight." I do not know with whom he was going to fight. At any rate this gentleman who lives in McNab township, county of Renfrew, said that his school tax alone was $185. Then the article goes on to say:
The average one hundred acre farm in his township paid $60 to $80 in school tax, while the village dwellers paid $6 to $8. Farm property pays 10 times as much school tax as non-farmers pay on their dwellings, he said.
I offer this as some evidence as to what people are thinking concerning the source to which they should turn for relief of this condition.
As I said a moment ago, I have tried to keep the discussion non-political, but have warned the government that it could and probably would become political. My submission is that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made it a political matter when, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who was requested by some of the local school people to support an application for federal aid for education-
Education


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Winnipeg school board.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: -the Prime Minister said, as reported at page 1355 of Hansard for November 27, 1951:
While I have the responsibility as the head of the government I would have to ask my colleagues to join with me in refusing to consider such a request.
Then, I have referred to what I said on Friday, March 19, 1952, as reported at page 593:
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.
And again, on the same page:
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 said that I was talking about the backbenchers from Saskatchewan in the Liberal party. We are approaching a federal election, and the government should know that the people of this country in most places support the general terms of this resolution. It is fair to say that the party of which I am a part has supported it unanimously over the years, and I think the same can be said for the Social Credit party. With only a few reservations, where some doubts have been expressed about provincial autonomy it can be said, too, of the Conservative party. And the reservation in connection with provincial autonomy is a perfectly legitimate one; we are making it ourselves.
But I have found that our Liberal friends supporting the government, so far as their votes in the house, or their words in debate are concerned, have been diametrically opposed to it. I say this does become a political issue when the opposition to this measure comes from the Liberal benches, is led by the Prime Minister, and three outstanding ministers of the government, among whom is the one now looking in my direction, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). He and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) appear to be the men who were chosen to lead the opposition of their confreres against this resolution. So I state that it is somewhat of a political issue today. So far as the backbenchers are concerned, they of course voted against the resolution, having taken their cue from whatever minister happened to be leading the fight against it on the particular day. I have made statements that the people in my own province and the people of constituencies represented here by

Education
Liberal members are about 90 per cent in favour of the terms of this resolution. Naturally I have no statistics and cannot prove that opinion. Only one Liberal backbencher, the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison), actually spoke against the resolution and his speech is found at pages 644 and 645 of Hansard for March 20, 1952. In reply to my assertion with respect to the 90 per cent he said, as found at page 645:
I can say that I never had anyone mention to me federal aid for education.
That was his reply to my assertion that there was a lot of interest in the subject. Then he went on to say with respect to my figure of 90 per cent:
I would say that the only 90 per cent figure in that area I covered would be the number of those who are just plumb-
That is not my word. He said "plumb".
-against that provincial government. They are going to change it-and they are going to change it this summer.
I would suggest that if my hon. friend is no greater authority upon federal aid to education or education generally than he was a prognosticator of the results of that provincial election, then he does not know too much about it. My hon. friend of course did not debate the resolution at all. He simply loosed a wild tirade against the provincial government and, may I say, Mr. Speaker, that comes pretty ill from a member whose district has the highest equalization grant given by the province of Saskatchewan. In that whole federal constituency, as was later brought out by Mr. Lloyd, the minister of education, 72 per cent of the total cost of education in that member's entire territory is furnished today by the provincial government of Saskatchewan.


An hon. Member:: How?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I hear some murmurs from some of my backbench Liberal friends. They apparently like this so I will give them more of it. The remarks of the hon. member for Meadow Lake were deeply resented throughout the province and I bring this letter to the attention of the house to show what the people of the country really think about this resolution for federal aid to education. The Saskatchewan school trustees association sent the hon. member a letter which he said he would put upon Hansard. For some reason he neglected to do that. He rose on a question of privilege with respect to the letter on March 31, as found at page 944 of Hansard.


An hon. Member:: What year?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: 1952. The hon. member was interrupted in his remarks by the hon. mem-

ber for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) who asked the following question:
Would the hon. member put on the record the letter to which he Is referring?
The hon. member for Meadow Lake said, "I shall be pleased to do so", but somehow or other in the heat of argument he neglected to put the letter on the record, and therefore it is my intention to do it for him today. The letter had enclosed with it a resolution passed at the provincial executive meeting of the Saskatchewan school trustees association held in Saskatoon on March 22, 1952. The resolution reads as follows:
Whereas from press reports it appears that Mr. J. H. Harrison, M.P., of Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, when speaking in the House of Commons, stated that Saskatchewan had "the worst situation in education to be found anywhere in Canada" and further "the reason Saskatchewan had no teachers was that the larger school units-
I will leave out that part.


Some hon. Members:: Read it all.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: All right.


Mr. Studer:: Saskatchewan spends less
money on education than any other province.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I continue:
-did the hiring and they did not go into the competitive market";
And whereas in our opinion-
These are the words of the resolution of the Saskatchewan school trustees' association, a non-political body.
-these statements are false and malicious and serve only to create a grave injustice to the teachers and school trustees of the province of Saskatchewan and to educational progress generally in our province.
And whereas it would appear from these statements that Mr. Harrison is ignorant of the true situation within the province of Saskatchewan and even of the situation in and benefits obtained by his home town of Meadow Lake.
Now therefore be it resolved that the secretary be instructed to write Mr. Harrison, forwarding a copy of this resolution and requesting him to withdraw his statement so made in the House of Commons and to apologize for the injustice thereby created to the end that the stigma which he has attached to those interested in education in our province, including teachers and school trustees individually and this association, be removed.
That resolution was carried unanimously and forwarded to every member of parliament representing a seat in the province of Saskatchewan. So much for my friend from Meadow Lake. I said that the matter was to some extent becoming a political issue, and I suggest that the hon. member helped to make it so when, in attempting to defend himself, he wrote a letter to an organization of teachers in his own territory who had asked for an explanation as to why he, their member, had opposed my resolution for federal aid to education. He wrote an amazing letter

which is worth a lot just as a source of amusement. My friend thought it was a good letter so he sent it to the North Battleford Optimist and the Turtleford Times. I should like every hon. member to listen to this. It shows the methods of these people. He said:
As a Liberal member here, Mr. Knight's resolution to me-
This is his explanation of why he voted against it.
-was nothing more nor less than a C.C.F. motion. It was put in there expressly to deceive people.
I challenge the Minister of Justice or anyone within the sound of my voice to suggest to me face to face in the house that I have moved this resolution deliberately for the purpose of deceiving people. That is the kind of thing we get on the hustings these days. Out west even Liberal constituents believe in federal aid to education but apparently the federal Liberal members of parliament do not. I want to relate another little incident. My very good and personal friend, the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Larson), came to Saskatoon a little while ago and I suppose he thought he should say a word or two about his M.P. host while he was there. He met a body of Liberals, but I do not know whether it was the Saskatoon or Saskatchewan Liberal association. At any rate, he met some of them. My hon. friend was hardly fair in what he said because, according to the press report, he insinuated that I was prepared to accept federal control over education, something which the hon. member has heard me deny time and time again in this house, or else he has read it in Hansard if he has done me the honour to read my speeches. As an intelligent member of parliament, I expect that the same hon. gentleman has done me that honour.
He spoke in Saskatoon, and it is most amusing. I said I would show that there was support for this resolution in very curious places, so I am going to read a short extract from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix dealing with the meeting of the Liberal association held on October 9, 1952. It is as follows:
Another resolution dealing with federal aid to education also touched off warm debate and finally was passed in an innocuous form.
That "innocuous" is good.
A. G. Lamarsh originally urged that the meeting go on record as endorsing federal aid to education and said it was inevitable that it would come eventually.
Then the paper quotes him as saying:
I think we should be climbing aboard the bandwagon-
How like my Liberal friends.
-and taking some of the credit for it, and not let Mr. Knight (R. R. Knight, C.C.F., M.P. for Saskatoon) steal our thunder.
Education
"Our thunder". Whose thunder? It makes me think of Mr. Churchill's famous expression about "some chicken-some neck".
There was another gentleman present at this Liberal meeting who said:
It would be a catastrophe if the federal government ever came to a point where it controlled education.
It goes on:
Mr. Larson said he did not think even Saskatchewan wanted the federal government to take over education and there was already a good deal of criticism of the federal government for its taxation policies-
He felt that federal aid to higher forms of education, such as the national research council, was all right, but if it was granted to primary and secondary education it would cut across a lot of religious and other barriers. He added that he thought-
And this is significant.
*-Mr. Knight will run into a lot of trouble over the issue, and he has received very little support for his motion to date.
-in spite of these appeals and letters that I have had from organizations all over this country.
Then I will give you a typical Liberal resolution which comes at the end.
Mr. Lamarsh finally changed his resolution to one asking the executive to investigate the problem with a view to bringing in a future resolution if it was believed advisable.
Shades of Mr. Mackenzie King!


An hon. Member:: Liberals all.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Now, sir, I have finished but I would just like to put on the record, so we may know what we have been talking about, a paraphrase of a paragraph of my speech last year. I have put forward certain conclusions. Firstly, I have set forth as a matter of premise the democratic principle that every child in Canada should have as a right equal opportunity of education with every other child in Canada. Secondly, I have shown that the education system is riddled with inequalities and the cause of such inequalities is largely financial. Thirdly, I have shown that municipalities in certain provinces, and those provinces themselves, are unable to cope with the expenditure needed to bring about that 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, while safeguarding the jurisdiction of the provinces over education within their own boundaries, should proceed forthwith to inaugurate a system of federal aid to education in Canada.
Here is a last paragraph, this time from my speech of May 22, 1950, which I would

Education
like to put on the record. This is not a wishy-washy innocuous resolution put because somebody thought it is necessary to get on the bandwagon. Here is what I said and by it I am prepared to stand or fall:
The birthright of every child is a minimum standard of education, based not on the wealth of the parent, of the local school district, or even of the province, but on the wealth and the resources of the whole country.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Adjourn the debate.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, I am going to disappoint my hon. friends, for I am not going to adjourn the debate.
I am a little bit embarrassed, Mr. Speaker, as a minister, in rising so soon to take part in the debate on a resolution moved by a private member on the opposition side. I do so only because I have another engagement this afternoon which I made long before I had any idea that this subject would come up now. I must get away to attend if I possibly can.
I would like to compliment the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) on the presentation which he has just made, which I am sure from his standpoint at least is a fair one. With respect to some of the main points which he has made I do not think there will be any disagreement on the part of any member of this house. No one will disagree with the splendid rhetoric with which he closed his remarks to the effect that every Canadian child should have as far as possible equal opportunity of adequate education. But I would point out that in this matter in Canada, with the peculiar set-up we have, the means to these very desirable ends which he has enunciated is of very considerable importance. I would point out, moreover, that every competent body of specialists that I know of which has investigated this problem of the best method of providing adequate support for primary education has reached conclusions which are quite different from those which are pressed by my hon. friend.


Mr. Graydon:: Not the municipal experts.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Not necessarily the municipal experts. I am referring to the body which was set up to deal with this very problem in the 1930's when it was a much more acute problem than it is at the present time- the Rowell-Sirois commission set up in 1937. That was the latter part of the depression when the problem of providing a very much lower standard of expenditure for primary education was much more acute than it is for us now to provide a much higher expenditure. This was one of the main problems
fMr. Knight.]
with which the provinces, the municipalities and, as related to them, the federal government, were faced.
That body dealt specifically with this very question and made certain comments upon it to which I shall refer in due course. Following that there were conferences between the provinces and the dominion, which, after some ups and downs, eventually culminated in the present tax agreements between those two levels of government. Throughout all of those proceedings the desire and the objective was to place all of the provinces in a position where they would be able to discharge their constitutional responsibilities for, amongst other things, primary education-without any interference in the discretion they would exercise in discharging their responsibilities in their own field of jurisdiction.
The present financial arrangements between the dominion and the provinces-under the tax agreements-are the result of the recommendations of the Rowell-Sirois report to put into the hands of the provincial governments, from federal sources, grants of income which the provinces themselves can spend as they choose. Whether they wish to spend it for primary education or for the building of roads or for any other provincial function is their choice. In other words, the central purpose was to provide all of the provinces with financial means of discharging their responsibilities-leaving with the provinces the sole discretion of how they should do that. Whether they spend more money on primary education and less on roads and the like is entirely up to them.
It is in the light of these decisions and recommendations, recommendations by the Rowell-Sirois report and decisions reached between the provincial governments and the federal government, to which only the other day the province of Ontario subscribed, as the ninth province to do so, it is under these arrangements that the provinces are in a better position to make provision for primary education, among other things.
The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) was fair enough in his remarks to admit that the federal government gives large educational grants to the universities and training schools which are set up for specific purposes under the joint auspices of the federal and provincial governments. I am sure that he would be the first to admit that these arrangements represent the willingness of the federal government to make contributions to the provincial governments in all of those cases in which it is possible to do so without interfering in any way with the provinces' exclusive control over primary education

In support of what I have just been saying,
I should like to quote from the Rowell-Sirois report, because I do not know of any other place in which these principles are more lucidly set forth. I should like to quote from volume II of the report, page 50, to this effect: We have already said that the instruction of the young during their formative years is a matter which the provinces must continue to control (subject, of course, to the safeguard for religious minorities provided in the British North America Act and amendments). A free hand in something so important to the social and cultural life of the people seems to us to be vital to any provincial autonomy worthy of the name, and it is obvious that any attempts to alter the existing arrangements would meet with powerful opposition and would provoke profound resentment.
I suggest that the hon. member for Saskatoon, as a school teacher, must be assumed to be familiar with some Canadian history.
I hope he is. As a school teacher, and as a member of this house, I am sure he will not disagree with that principle enunciated in the Sirois report.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is quite obvious to anyone who stops to reflect upon this matter that it is one thing for the federal government to make grants, for example, to the universities which are self-governing and self-contained. They exercise their own discretion as to the manner in which those grants shall be spent. Any government, whether provincial or federal, knows that in making such grants to universities it has given up any kind of residual control that it might wish to exercise. To argue, because it is proper, in the light of Canadian history, to make grants to institutions of that kind, that it is equally proper to make grants to provincial governments earmarked for primary education, is a totally different matter. It is impossible to draw any proper analogy between the two types of grants.
This is indicated by a further comment from the Rowell-Sirois report. At page 51 they say:
Many representations have been made to us that financial help should be extended by the dominion to the provinces for various purposes, such as scholarships, technical training, grants to be used for general educational purposes provided that the provinces did not reduce their own expenditure on education. These representations appear to have been inspired largely by consternation-
Remember that this was back in the time when provincial expenditures for education were a great deal lower than they are now.
-at the reductions in educational expenditure which certain provinces, under the stress of the depression, have felt compelled to make. It has even been contended that the dominion is bound to see that there is equal educational opportunity (as far as is practicable) for every Canadian child. We have the deepest sympathy for these views which have been advanced by many of the organizations most closely associated with education in Canada, and we share to the full the regret that,
Education
especially in recent years, education has been terribly neglected in many of the poorer parts of the country and that wholly disproportionate sacrifices have been imposed on those who have devoted their lives to this important public service. But the representations appear to us to go too far in denying the right of each province to decide the relative importance of expenditure on education and expenditure on other competing services. It is our hope-
Now, they are enunciating here a principle which is one of the cardinal principles of the Rowell-Sirois report, which is one of the basic principles of the financial arrangements which have been reached between the federal government and the provinces, and which is the only principle upon which it is possible, in these financial arrangements, to have proper respect for provincial autonomy.

that provision can be made for the fiscal needs of all provinces, including within those needs provision for the education of the young. Our financial proposals aim at placing every province in a position to discharge its responsibilities for education (on a scale-
Now, this is an important consideration for my hon. friend to listen to. The taxpayers of this country will certainly listen to it.
-that is within the means of the people of Canada) if it chooses to do so.
If we say, as the motion does, that the federal government should make grants to the provinces to supplement their expenditures for primary education at the present time when their budgets are certainly in a very buoyant condition, if we say it is still necessary to supplement them at this time, and the proposal is-I am sure my hon. friend will agree with this-that sums which would reach large amounts should be paid to the provinces for that purpose and earmarked for primary education, no one with any practical knowledge of public administration would say that there was not a clear responsibility upon the federal government to exercise a reasonable degree of supervision to make sure that the moneys voted by parliament, allocated for purposes of that sort, are actually expended for the purposes for which they have been given to the provinces.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister permit a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would he say that what he has just pronounced applies to the case of the $250,000 which I am very glad the federal government is making available to the school board of Winnipeg for building a school in the city of Winnipeg in the Fort Osborne district?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will investigate the very matter to which he refers, he will find that the department of government

Education
which makes the grant to build that school does satisfy itself that the school meets certain standards and that it is properly built. I would point out to my hon. friend that if he has any idea of Canadian history he will surely be able to distinguish between that case and the case of moneys turned over for the payment of teachers and the like in the field of primary education, involving continuous supervision of provincial expenditures over a period of years.


Mr. Noseworthy:: He would have to be a Liberal lawyer to make that distinction.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This money has been turned over to the Winnipeg school board.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, turned over for the purpose of making a capital expenditure. If my hon. friend spoke with knowledge, he would be telling the house that there are careful checks made in all of these cases to ensure that the money is being properly spent. I do not think my hon. friend is taking the position that the Rowell-Sirois recommendations are wrong. I do not think he is taking the position in opposition to these tax agreements, because certainly if he did he would be acting very much against the interest of the province from which he comes. But what he is saying is that after these arrangements have been made, he is not satisfied as a teacher, as a member of the house or as a Canadian, if you like, with the amount of money which the provincial government, with all the grants which it receives, is spending for primary education in the province of Saskatchewan. That being the case, he wants the federal taxpayers to pay over some more money for that purpose.
There was a time, Mr. Speaker, when a case of that sort could be put up with a great deal more cogency and force than can be done at the present time. Back at the time when the Rowell-Sirois commission was set up, it was quite true that the amounts which were being spent for educational purposes were disgraceful, and that they were much more disgraceful than they are at the present time. My hon. friend may say that they are still disgraceful, even in the province of Saskatchewan. He may say that. But if they are, then may I say I have a few figures here to show that if the province of Saskatchewan wishes to do so it can certainly spend on primary education more money than it is at present spending-


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: May I interrupt-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will allow me to finish my sentence, I shall be glad.
I was going on to say that the figures also show that the province of Saskatchewan has
TMr. Garson |
been placed in a posiuoi. uo so by the very tax agreements whose adequacy my hon. friend is now challenging.
I say to him that the western provinces and the maritimes particularly-and other provinces of Canada; Ontario is now included -have worked extremely hard to find, under the existing distribution of responsibilities between the federal government and the provincial governments, seme method whereby every province in Canada, within reasonable limits, could provide at least a minimum service in the field of education and other fields of provincial responsibility; and they have, after long negotiations and much travail, finally obtained an arrangement which is working reasonably well. What I warn my hon. friend against is leaning too heavily on special earmarked grants and tearing down the whole structure of federal-provincial finance.
When we look at the facts, what do we find? We find that in 1939 the total expenditure on education in all of the provinces was $38 million. At that time-even then-the total expenditure upon highways and bridges was $87-6 million. But in 1949, after the tax agreements had been in effect but before they were signed by Ontario, the amount spent on education was over $154 million- up from $38 million-an increase of more than fourfold in ten years. But during that period of time the expenditures upon highways and bridges by the provinces had been enlarged by $164 million per year because, in part, of the assistance which they had obtained in these tax agreements. The total provincial expenditures in 1939 in all provinces were $356 million. In 1949 they were $858 million.
In the face of these facts, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me to be an extremely difficult thing for a member of this house-even such an eloquent gentleman as the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight)-to say with any force that, in this increase in expenditures from $356 million to $858 million, there was no room or no adequate scope for a larger increase upon education if the provincial government charged with the constitutional responsibility for dealing with primary education had chosen or had desired to spend more money upon that function. In the face of this large over-all increase in all other forms of provincial expenditure, surely no one can suggest otherwise than that if the provision for education is as inadequate as the hon. gentleman suggests it is, then the provincial ministers have the clear responsibility, and not only this government but provincial governments, provincial public

men, the Sirois commission and those who took part in the discussions between the provinces and the dominion leading up to the tax agreements, all seemed to think that it was desirable that the provinces should continue to retain and to exercise that responsibility.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: May I ask the minister a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Surely.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Has he read the pronouncement of Premier Campbell of Manitoba in that regard at the time the provincial conference was being set up and also the request of Premier Douglas that this matter should form part of the agenda?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I may perhaps have read them but I have not retained them in my memory. But if they are to any different effect from what I am arguing, I would certainly disagree with them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And you would be wrong again.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No; not necessarily. I made the suggestion, and I make it again, that I should like my hon. friend-and he put up a good case today-sometime during the course of his research in this matter and his statements upon it to say-as he has been careful not to say-what these bodies like the Rowell-Sirois commission who have investigated this matter think about it.
As to the province of Saskatchewan, let us examine my hon. friend's arguments. He wants more money paid by the federal government into that province.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: May I ask the minister a
question? Does he not realize that the whole burden of my speech is that I am just as much interested in the children of Newfoundland or Prince Edward Island as I am in the children of my own province?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, I agree.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Surely that is plain.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I agree. But during the course of his remarks my hon. friend talked a good deal about Saskatchewan, and properly so, because he represents Saskatchewan. Surely he is not going to deny me the same right. Of course not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the minister comes from Manitoba. Tell us something about what happened there.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I shall be glad indeed to do that if I may make that interjection right :iow. As to Manitoba, for the information of
Education
my hon. friend, although I am sure that he knows it quite well, under these tax agreements that province is getting-and I am just speaking from memory-about three times as much as it was able to get from those same revenue sources by provincial taxes which at that time were the highest of their kind on the North American continent. They are getting it without the imposition of those taxes and without the imposition of as high taxes as Saskatchewan has, with the imposition of only a nine-cent gasoline tax, with no sales tax of any kind at all, and have been able to increase their budget from something of the order of $17 million to between $40 million and $45 million.
Having made that comment upon Manitoba, may I be permitted to deal with Saskatchewan. In 1952-53, these are the amounts paid by the federal government into Saskatchewan: Subsidy, $24,626,000-that is under the tax agreement; health grants, $2 million; pensions to persons 65 to 69, $2,024,000; pensions for the blind, $155,000; vocational training, $128,000; trans-Canada highway, $1,937,000, for a total of $30,870,000: The amounts paid to individuals in the province of Saskatchewan were: Family allowances, $19,450,000; pensions to persons over 70, $19,200,000, or a total of $38,650,000, or a grand total of $69,520,000. Let us get this clear. I am not arguing for a minute that, because these amounts were paid, that in itself is a reason why money should not be paid towards primary education, if it can be shown that after all of these federal payments, and after all of the moneys which that province is able to collect in taxes as a result of the prosperity towards which we have at least in part contributed by the policies of this government, they are in serious need of money, and therefore because of that need cannot support their schools. But, Mr. Speaker, this is the central point upon which my hon. friend's case falls down, namely that under the existing financial arrangements between the dominion and the provinces the provinces do not have enough money to spend upon primary education, if they choose to spend it there, rather than upon roads, bridges and other provincial purposes, which is their right. I sympathize with him; he has done a wonderful job with the material which he had, but he just does not have the facts to support it.
Under this tax agreement the Saskatchewan government has had surpluses every year from April 30, 1944, to March 31, 1951.


Joseph William Noseworthy: What about the federal
government?

Education


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, of course they have had surpluses, too.


Gordon Graydon: And how!


Stuart Sinclair Garson: And when you have a great degree of economic activity, high employment and no unemployment-


Gordon Graydon: And bad guessing.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: And high production in the country, not only the provincial governments but the federal government, by the imposition of tax rates that are not out of line compared with those of other countries, get large amounts of revenue, -and we can have surpluses. I think my hon. friends who have been interrupting me with these remarks will all agree that it is a very desirable thing that Saskatchewan should have a surplus. I am all for it; I am glad to see this province have surpluses; but in spite of the fact that when they have had surpluses for ten years running, and that they have reduced the debt between April 30, 1944, and March 31, 1951, by about $54J million -this is apart from the surpluses-I think the federal government should be given some credit for what it did with respect to that $54J million because it cancelled indebtedness of that province to the extent of $36J million, they now say that they cannot afford more money for primary education.
In rebuttal of this poor mouth which my hon. friend puts up here on behalf of the Saskatchewan government, let me read an article from Time magazine of January 19, 1953. Some, if not all, of the facts on which this article is based must have been supplied by the provincial treasurer of the province of Saskatchewan-.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: On a question of privilege, I have put up no poor mouth for Saskatchewan. I was speaking on behalf of the children of Canada.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Perhaps that was a harsh way of putting the words of my hon. friend, but I leave it to you, Mr. Speaker, and to hon. members, if what my hon. friend did was not this. He said on behalf of the children of Canada: "I would like to see them have a good education; I want more money spent on education, but I want the federal government to spend it." Well, the responsibility for providing the education is that of the provinces, and the only excuse that the provinces have for not -providing it is that they have not the money with which to do it. While perhaps the term that I used was hardly fair, yet essentially my hon. friend's case is that we are asking the federal government to put up this money

because the provinces either have not the money or -they will not spend it in adequate amounts.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: May I ask the
minister a question? He said that the federal government -cancelled indebtedness to the extent of $36J million for Saskatchewan. Why was no calculation made for Nova Scotia?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: To be fair to all concerned, I think one should say that the $36| million represents amounts that were advanced by the federal government to the province of Saskatchewan during the 1930's when the price of the primary product that is turned out there had fallen to its lowest level in four hundred years, and when there was a succession of five or maybe six droughts. Those large amounts of money were advanced to the province for seed grain and relief upon the understanding that the seed grain would be repaid, and when, under conditions which reflect no discredit either upon the provincial government there or upon the people of Saskatchewan in any way, the amounts were not repaid, it was considered proper and fair to everyone concerned that the $36J million should be cancelled. I presume the reason that was not done in Nova Scotia was that the same indebtedness had never been incurred.
I was saying that in the issue of Time of January 19,	1953, the following article
appeared:
Saskatchewan More cornucopias
For 364 days a year, Clarence Melvin Fines dresses like the conservative citizen that he is. But once a year, on the day he delivers his budget to the Saskatchewan legislature, provincial treasurer Fines puts on his gaudiest necktie. It is a flashy red, yellow and blue number, patterned with spilling cornucopias that symbolize the budgetary surpluses Fines has reported for every one of the eight years he has managed the province's finances. Last week, as Fines prepared his 1953 budget message, it was apparent that the cornucopia pattern of his "budget necktie" would be more appropriate than ever. Saskatchewan is winding up the most prosperous fiscal year in its history. With provincial revenues expected to top $70 million, more than double what they were a decade ago, a record-busting surplus is in store in the new budget.


Mr. Cardiff:: What kind of cornucopia does the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) put on?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: He is also doing a very good job under those excellent policies. The article goes on:
Fines convinced his socialist colleagues that a high credit rating should be the province's goal. "We were under suspicion" he says. "Our financial methods had to be more than orthodox. They had to be ultra-orthodox".
And now as a result of the ultra-orthodox methods applied, I presume in relation to the

cost of primary education and creating a condition upon the strength of it, the hon. member for Saskatoon is urging that more money should be paid by .the federal government. We have this request being made. Well, it reminds me, Mr. Speaker, of one time when I was in the position that Mr. Fines is in now and perhaps the hon. member for Saskatoon was in the position he is in now, and I was applying to Mr. Dunning at that time for more money. He said: "Garson, I am delighted that you should have it as long as you do not take it out of me." In the present case, if the-


Gordon Graydon: And the taxpayers think that, too.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, perhaps. I think my hon. friend is entirely right because the danger with which we are really faced in connection with this matter of federal subsidies is this. Perhaps the hon. member for Peel made the remark in part facetiously, but it is a very pointed remark just the same. The danger we are faced with is this. We have here an arrangement entered into after long negotiations and great travail, under which provincial treasuries upon the whole have flourished very greatly indeed. And if there is a tendency not to use in their budgets the prosperity which these agreements have brought them in order to discharge carefully their own proper constitutional responsibilities, and if there is a tendency to keep on loading more and more upon the federal government, then the federal taxpayers of this country, like the goose that lays the golden egg, are going to balk.


Gordon Graydon: They have to pay for the schools at home.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, they have to pay for the schools at home. In other words, it can hardly be maintained that this attitude is reasonable when, during the currency of these tax agreements, the provinces, after increasing their expenditures not only upon education but also upon roads and everything else-very nearly tripling their expenditures over the period of the tax agreements-have an over-all accumulated surplus in the five-year period of nearly two-thirds of a billion dollars.
And yet my hon. friend makes that the basis for his case-that we should provide federal grants to education, to help out provinces which are in that position. Now, I say to my hon. friend that if that is the sort of demand that he is going to make, in the circumstances in which we are at the present time, then he wants to be very, very careful that the point is not reached where the federal 68108-85
Education
taxpayer is going to balk at this and say, "We do not want the agreements at all." And if that were the case, where would his province be?


Mr. Smith (Moose Mountain):: May I ask
the minister a question? Can the minister inform the house if at any of the dominion-provincial conferences provincial governments have requested from the dominion direct grants for education and, if so, how many of them?


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Yes.


John James Smith: The hon. member for Souris says, "Yes". If so, how many?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I hesitate to speak offhand, from memory, on this matter. But I did make a statement last year, at which time I had somewhat more leisure than I have had on this occasion to check that very point. This is what I said at that time-and if the situation has not changed in the last year, it is still true:
It is commonplace to say that the jurisdiction of provincial legislatures over education is, of all provincial rights, the one of which some if not all of the provinces are most jealous. Therefore, as between federal and provincial governments, the initiative in connection with matters pertaining to education is one which I think the federal government has always felt should be taken by the provincial governments. So far as I am aware, the provincial governments have never raised with the federal government at any time the subject matter of this resolution as such;


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: May I ask a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Please let me finish. I am in the embarrassing position of quoting myself because, as I say, I had more leisure last time to prepare. I have not had time to check between last year and now as to whether representations have been made, or have come in, and I do not like to make a definite statement until I make an inquiry. However, I am quoting now what I said at that time-and I think it is still true:
So far as I am aware, the provincial governments have never raised with the federal government at any time the subject matter of this resolution as such; nor have they raised the question of educational costs except as an item of the provincial budgets which naturally were the subject of discussion in the Rowell-Sirois report, in the conference dealing with the dominion proposals of 1945, and indeed in all the fiscal conferences between the federal government and the provinces.
When I say "as such" I mean this, that the provinces have never been willing to concede that the federal government by any means, directly or indirectly, should have any control over their primary educational system. But what they have said is this: "We are addressing ourselves in this conference as to our

Education
educational needs to cover our whole budget. Here it is. We have to provide tor education and we have to provide for health. There it is." It is only in that sense that they have referred to education.
The whole consideration of the Rowell-Sirois commission report was with a view to reaching an agreement under which provincial budgets as a whole could be taken care of. And I am sure that every member will agree that they should have the right to decide, in respect of a matter which comes under their jurisdiction, as to whether they will spend their money upon primary education, or upon highways, or upon roads, or some other way. Surely that is a matter of ordinary common sense.
Surely, from the standpoint of just ordinary, proper administration, where you have three levels of authority, the school administration, the municipal and the provincial, with all their overhead, their rent, their stationery, and all that sort of thing, it is not a fair or prudent expenditure of the taxpayers' money that you should add a fourth level of government, and waste it in that way.
Surely it is a much more sensible arrangement, as the Rowell-Sirois commission recommended, that the provinces should be put in a position where they can arrange their own proper responsibilities, and then leave them there to mind their own business, and not attempt to interfere with them or to supervise them in any way.
Now, my hon. friend will say, "I do not want to supervise them". But does he think for one moment that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) can write out a cheque for, let us say, $50 million or $75 million-and at $5 a head in Canada, if it were at that rate, it would be $75 million-does he think that the Minister of Finance can just write out the cheque and say, "Here you go; you do not have to run your primary education. You do not have to take the responsibility for the expenditure of the money. Just go ahead and spend the money, and we will not take any further notice of the matter, at all."
He cannot do that. If he did, he would have to see that the money which was earmarked for primary education was spent for primary education. And I say again that in any of these schemes people who are said to know something about this matter have been opposed to earmarked grants. And one of the reasons is that it is only when you give a general grant that is not earmarked, a grant to be spent by the province as it, in its own judgment and within its own jurisdiction, chooses to spend it, that you are protecting provincial autonomy.
[Mr. Garson.l


Joseph William Noseworthy: On the point the minister has raised:	Has any province indicated that
it would not be willing to accept from the federal government a grant earmarked for education, to be spent on education?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am sure my hon. friend did not intend to cast any reflection upon my mental ability when he asked that question. But, had it not been he who asked it, I would have been almost insulted by it.
Now, I think for these reasons that in a matter which is regarded by many provinces as about as important a constitutional provision as there is in the British North America Act I, for one, would deprecate any interference with an arrangement which has worked very well for eighty years, since confederation. Perhaps my hon. friend might postpone his resolution, or any representations on this matter, until a later time when he would be in a better position-and I hope that time never comes-when he might be in a better position than he is now to say that the provinces are unable to cover these expenditures instead of the position now when, in point of fact, under the tax agreements they have been showing surpluses of something of the order of two-thirds of a billion dollars.


Gordon Graydon: Would the government do it then?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Might I ask a question before the hon. member proceeds? Is the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) aware that after his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), made a similar statement to the one the minister has made today, namely that there was no request from the provinces as such for federal aid to education, the Minister of National Health and Welfare-I will not say he was forced to do so-willingly retracted his statement publicly in the city of Regina because it was wrong?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: By being wrong, I suppose my hon. friend means that the provincial government of Saskatchewan had made a request?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I don't know.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It came from the minister's own* successor in Manitoba.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I shall supply one of my colleagues with the statement of Mr. Campbell, the premier of Manitoba.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In all fairness, Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend wishes to quote some general statement like that in rebuttal to

Education
something I have said, 1 think the proper thing to do is to bring along the statement and do so.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Yes.


Joseph William Noseworthy: You will get it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am exactly half an hour late now for my other engagement. I am sorry I cannot do my hon. friend the courtesy of remaining in the house.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Perhaps the Minister of
National Health and Welfare would put us right.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I will depute him to do that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would want to study that very carefully.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this motion, as I have in other sessions when such a motion has been before the house, I want to point out that there may be a difference of opinion as to the way in which words are to be interpreted when we are asked to support a motion that consideration should be given to the advisability of expanding and equalizing educational opportunities across Canada by the granting of financial assistance to the various provinces for that purpose. It does not seem to me that it is necessary to define in the most minute detail the manner in which the provinces are to be placed in a better position with respect to the financing of education. I take this motion as an attempt to obtain an expression of opinion from the members of the house that in the opinion of this house it is desirable to seek a way in which the provincial governments and the municipalities under them will find it possible to meet the increasing demands of education which are their responsibility.
While the motion does not specifically deal with the municipalities, I recognize that no hon. member can discuss this subject without a full understanding of the place of the municipalities in dealing with this problem.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) did not touch on it.


George Alexander Drew: As has been pointed out, that is where the pinch comes today. Unfortunately the whole speech of the Minister of Justice on this subject completely failed to deal with the position of the municipalities. That is where the problem really rests at this time. As I am sure every hon. member knows, there have been repeated requests from the representatives of the municipalities that in some way their plight with respect to mounting educational costs should be recognized and dealt with.
I propose to deal with the subject not so much from the point of view of the manner in which money might be made available but rather from the point of view of the need of some action to deal with the subject, particularly by the combined consideration of the dominion and provincial governments to find some way in which municipalities across Canada may be able to relieve the burden which is now imposed upon the municipal taxpayer and particularly upon home owners in those municipalities.
It is only necessary to mention the fact without enlarging upon it. The very foundation of our society, the society we seek to strengthen and build by education itself, rests upon the home.
In so far as governments at every level can by their action improve the position of the home owner, they should seek to encourage the owning and improvement of homes, pride in homes and the happiness that may be found in those homes because it is there that the real strength of our society will be found I was impressed by the fact that the Minister of Justice on a number of occasions spoke of the willingness or unwillingness of the federal taxpayer to meet this responsibility if any heavier burden were placed upon the federal taxpayer. Who is the federal taxpayer, Mr. Speaker? There is no such thing as a separate human entity. The federal taxpayer is the provincial taxpayer and the municipal ^ taxpayer. They are the same
+TSS' ln every immunity across anada those who pay taxes pay to the municipalities, the provinces and the dominion government.


George Alexander Drew: I do not feel it is necessary for me to suggest that the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) in presenting this motion contemplates the position of the municipalities. Everyone who has had any practical responsibility for education knows that it is at the municipal level that the basic responsibility rests.


Gordon Graydon: That is where the pinch comes.
68108-85J
So far as they are concerned it is only a question of whether the taxes are taken by one body or another, and most taxpayers from their own experience would prefer to see the larger amount being handled closer to home. They have found that the closer the collection and supervision is to their own point of payment the greater economy there is and the less extravagance of the nature we have seen so plainly exposed in the house during the past couple of weeks. After all it is not only the spending of money that is';

Education
important, it is how the money is spent. What we should be seeking is to get the money paid in a way that will produce the greatest economy and efficiency and the results that are most desirable for the Canadian taxpayer, federal, provincial, or municipal, but the Canadian taxpayer right across Canada who regards education and health as the two most important problems for governments at every level.	.
When the Minister of Justice speaks about the surpluses that have mounted year by year, he ignores the fact that this is very largely the result of the inflation which has been promoted in this country by the methods employed by the dominion government. That inflation has had a great deal to do with the mounting levels of receipts in dollars by the name of dollars. In real money the story is somewhat different, but the story is not different from the point of view of the necessity for increased facilities for education in each community.
I do not intend to engage in a debate as to the general financial methods of the dominion government, although the Minister of Justice has sought to place that before us as an issue at this time. Nor do I propose to extend the discussion that has taken place already so far as the Minister of Justice is concerned, about the comparative advantages of the dominion government's methods and those of the government of Saskatchewan or of any other province. I prefer to deal with this from the point of view of the importance of education, the needs of those who must accept this responsibility, and my own hope that members of this house will see fit to indicate their belief that there is an urgent need- and I repeat "urgent need"-for consideration of this subject which is certainly imposing very serious problems upon every municipal government and every school board in this country at this time.
I am glad that this debate has been brought on now, because it comes forward at a time when it is possible for us to express opinions in anticipation of education week which runs from March 1 to March 7 inclusive. That national effort to impress upon the people of Canada the fact that education is everybody's business does deserve our commendation and support. I believe it will be helpful to those behind that effort to know the attitude of the legislators in this house now in regard to this subject. Also it will be helpful to them to know the view of the provincial legislators and the municipal councils in regard to this subject.
The basic theme of education week, which will be recognized right across Canada in
about five weeks, is to impress upon all Canadians that education is everybody's business-not the business of the dominion government, the provincial government or the municipal government; not the business of the federal taxpayer, the provincial taxpayer, or the municipal taxpayer; but rather the business of every Canadian. And, as Canadians, we should co-operate in every way we can to advance the cause of education right across this country of ours.
No one recognizes better than I do, from personal experience and personal responsibility, the need for drawing a clear distinction between such measure of co-operation as may be extended by the dominion government and the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial governments and the provincial departments of education for the over-all policy of education within the provinces; and of the school boards and the municipal governments under the provincial governments for education at the local level. I may be forgiven for reminding hon. members that I had for some years direct responsibility as minister of education in one of our provinces.


Gordon Graydon: You did a good job, too.


George Alexander Drew: I had personal contact with the needs of the municipalities and the points of view they expressed. Without in any way raising this as an issue at this time, I need only remind hon. members that I demonstrated my own belief that the municipal taxpayer must be relieved of the burden for education in a very substantial measure.
It was while I was minister of education in one of our provinces that a very substantial part of the cost of education at the municipal level was assumed by that provincial government. I still hold the same opinion. I believe that one of the most important responsibilities of the combined levels of government at this time is to find a way in which the heavily burdened municipal taxpayer will be relieved of the crippling burden of taxation for education and health at the municipal level, which at this time must be placed so largely upon homes and real property.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: I believe this has two purposes, first of all to give flexibility in revenue, which cannot be possible when the position of the home owner is considered. He may not be a home owner but may be one who rents a home, because both are taxpayers. It should also be considered from the point of view of encouragement of a greater number of people to buy and own their own homes. I think it can be properly and safely said that the greatest protection of our concept of a free society is to have the largest possible number

of Canadians owning their own homes and having them as the centre of their whole social system. I might add that it is a way in which they have a stake in their community, which gives them an added interest in the efficiency and economy that will be practised by their local municipal government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this subject is assuming rapidly increasing importance. Right across Canada statements are being made by responsible citizens that there is immediately ahead of us the threat of a great shortage of qualified teachers for our schools. If that is so-and I find it difficult to doubt that it is so in view of the sources from which those statements come-then it is time for each one of us as a Canadian citizen, even if we completely divorce that position from our responsibility in this parliament, to take a very great and immediate interest in this subject.
The most important factor in education is the teacher. The most important factor in the development of the character of our youth, after the fundamental education which they receive at their mothers' knees and in the churches, is to be found in the standard of education given by teachers across Canada. I think every hon. member of this house will agree that there is a debt of gratitude owed by all Canadians to the unselfish service given to the cause of education by teachers who very often have not been recognized as they should be by the salaries they have received.
It is not merely the academic qualification of the teacher which is important in implanting in the minds of our youth the right approach to the life ahead of them, it is also the spirit and the character of the teacher. The character of our teachers has fully justified the confidence that has been placed in them. It would be impossible, however, for the spirit, the buoyancy and the confidence in our system not to be shaped in some measure by the extent to which those teachers feel that their great responsibility is appreciated by those who fix the level of their salaries.
I have said before in the discussion of this subject, and I do not apologize for repeating it now, that next to those who guide our religious faith there is no calling to which a Canadian can devote himself which plays a more vital part in the life, the character and future of our people, than does the teaching profession. It is many, many centuries ago since it was said by a very wise Greek that the foundation of every state is the education of its youth. Never was that more dramatically true than it is today. The kind of country that Canada is to be ten years, twenty-five years, one hundred years
Education
from now, is going to be determined in a very substantial measure by the kind of education we give our children in our schools.
May I emphasize one vitally important fact recognized by every educator and by everyone who understands the place of education, whether it be in the home, the church or the school. It is in the earliest years of receptive thought that some of the most important guiding principles of life will be established in the minds of our children. Very often in the distant years ahead it will be the principles implanted today in the mind of some young child which will determine whether or not that child will resist temptation, or will accept the responsibilities falling upon him in some great task, or will avoid the pitfalls that are bound to be before everyone. In giving education, we are not merely providing a means by which our children will earn a living and gain some measure of material happiness. We are shaping their whole future; we are shaping the way in which they will meet all the trials that every human being in this and other countries must face today, and will continue to face in the years ahead.
We are not just speaking of academic attainment as a result of education. We are speaking of the character of our people. When we talk of many other things, and seek legislative measures to deal with problems connected with them, we sometimes ignore the fact that most of these problems could be best dealt with by the fundamental education we give our youth. We will have before us shortly the new draft of the Criminal Code containing provisions in regard to offences by young offenders. We are in the habit of speaking of that problem as juvenile delinquency. The most effective way to tackle juvenile delinquency is to be sure that all children, wherever they live and whatever the circumstances of their parents may be, will receive the kind of education that will give them the ethical standards to resist the temptations that are bound to be in their path.
We shall be dealing also with a section of the Criminal Code concerning drunken driving. Far more effective than any law in determining the way in which our people will live, and the manner in which they will face problems of society in this and other respects, is the sense of obligation they will have developed in their own minds to their fellow citizens. The men and women who have been taught as children to remember their obligation to others will be much less likely to get behind the wheel of a car, with all its dreadful possibilities, in a condition that does not meet the responsibility imposed

Education
upon them by that simple act. The same thing is true of all the problems we meet in our daily life, and in respect of which we are called upon to deal from time to time by legislative action. All this I repeat because of the necessity of placing in the hands of municipal authorities and the school boards adequate revenues to bring into the teaching profession the very finest brains and the very best spirit to be found amongst the young people of Canada.
Then may I deal with another subject which is related to this; that is the excellent work being done by home and school organizations right across Canada. At this time over 200,000 Canadians are actively engaged, through this and related organizations, in advancing the cause of education in every province of Canada. There are also the parent-teacher organizations where, from the special knowledge gained by teachers in their own field, they are able to encourage a better understanding of this great problem. I point out also to the minister the importance of adult education in relation to this whole subject of education, because adult education is largely made possible by the broad standards of education developed at the primary level.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the question arises as to how we are to encourage into the ranks of the teaching profession the very best of our young university and high school graduates. The question arises also as to how we are to provide the very best educational facilities possible in this country of such tremendous opportunity. This afternoon the discussion has dealt in some measure with the difficulty of drawing the distinction between the provincial responsibility and the responsibility of the dominion government. I am not suggesting for one moment that anything should be done which will in any way, indirectly or directly, encourage the dominion government to invade the field of education. I agree with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), and others who have spoken on this subject on earlier occasions, as I have asserted at dominion-provincial conferences. I have attended, that there is no subject of provincial jurisdiction in regard to which the provincial governments will more jealously assert their prerogative. I hope they will continue to do so. Our unity as a nation depends upon the extent to which we recognize the position of the provincial government in the field of education and do not, directly or indirectly at any level, seek to interfere with that responsibility.
Education, for reasons so obvious they need not be repeated here, was left to the provincial governments at the time the provinces
fMr. Drew.]
of Canada joined to form one nation in 1867. When the Minister of Justice today warned us that we must be cautious in this respect and that it would be unwise to undertake a system of grants in aid which would force the dominion government to exercise some measure of control over the expenditure, I wonder whether that same observation applies with equal force to every other place where the dominion government is now making grants of one kind and another. That is exactly the point I have been seeking to make in this house on a number of occasions with regard to other grants. I believe that the best way for us to assure the continuing strength of our federal system is to make sure that the provincial governments and the municipal councils within those provinces have adequate revenues so they are able to carry out their tasks without any possibility of intervention at any time by the dominion government.
That was the concept of confederation that we accepted in 1867. It is the genius of our form of confederation. It is the basis upon which national unity has been established here. When the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) told us that at present there are agreements which have been found satisfactory to the provinces-and may I say that I realize why he is not now present; he indicated that it was necessary for him to keep some appointment-and that Ontario, which recently signed the agreement, finds it satisfactory, I would remind him of something which I hope he has not forgotten, namely that most of the provinces have stated-and certainly the government of the province of Ontario has done so in the most emphatic terms-that these agreements are not a satisfactory solution of the problem. In signing this agreement strictly as a temporary measure the premier of Ontario said that at best it was only a stopgap, and that steps should be taken immediately to find a system by which the provincial governments and the municipalities would have adequate sources of revenue.
Not long ago I saw the report of a speech by the premier of Nova Scotia to the bar association of that province in which he said that the time had come when the people in this country must decide whether there is going to continue to be a federal system in Canada. He left no doubt about his own belief that if we follow the present course of stripping the provinces of their real provincial authority, the federal system in Canada cannot continue. Similar statements in different words have been made by the heads of other provincial governments. My own belief is

that the one way in which to deal satisfactorily with this subject is to seek a reallocation of the taxes which are given to the provincial governments and to the municipalities under them, with independence of revenue which is consistent with their independent responsibilities in their own field, and that this be done without further delay.
It is all very well to point out that the provincial governments are receiving large sums of money from the dominion government under agreements whereby the provinces gave up, for the time being, their historic tax fields; I refer to the great basic fields of the personal income tax, the corporation tax and other taxes which have been the subject of agreement. What the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) refrained from dealing with was the fact that, having obtained agreements in this respect, the dominion government continues to invade still further the general field of taxation, so that the percentage of the tax dollar available to both the municipal and the provincial governments becomes smaller and smaller.
In 1951 the dominion government collected 77 per cent of every dollar paid in taxes by Canadian taxpayers. Last year it would appear that they collected 78 per cent. The figure is going up all the time. Year by year the percentage of the tax dollar available to the provincial and municipal governments becomes less and less. This fact has the effect of forcing back upon the home owner, the tenant and the small businessman in the municipality a larger and larger burden for education and health within the municipality. One of the most urgent needs of the Canadian taxpayer at this time is for governments at all levels to bring about a readjustment of taxation which will relieve the burden of the municipal taxpayer.
I support this motion not with the thought that there may be complete agreement as to the way in which this objective will be worked out. I thought the hon. member for Saskatoon was extremely fair in the way in which he placed before us his own belief that it was not necessary to define in too great detail the procedure by which this proposal is to be put into effect, but rather that we should seek from the members of this house an expression of opinion that at every level of government there be that appropriate consideration of this subject which will make it possible to provide the educational standards that we would wish to see in every part of Canada. He spoke about Canadian children in every part of this country. I believe that is the way in which we should approach the matter. I have indicated my own belief that nothing which is done here at any time must minimize in the slightest measure
Education
the full responsibility of the provincial governments for the vitally important subject of education and, under them, the municipal authorities who operate under provincial laws and who deal at the local level with this tremendously important subject in the building of a strong and good society.
Without seeking to draw differences between one party and another as to any political doctrine they may express from time to time with respect to financial or other matters, but having regard to the vital importance of education at this time, to the place of the teacher in the building of this nation, to the schools and the physical requirements of education itself I would therefore hope that all of us will say in no uncertain terms that, with a full recognition of the constitutional responsibilities of the provinces and the municipalities, we want the dominion government which now absorbs so much of every tax dollar to do what they can to bring the governments together to see whether there is not some way in which we can broaden the basis of education for the people of Canada.


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we have had the opportunity of debating this resolution on three previous occasions. Much credit is due the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) for the persistence which he has displayed in pressing toward a very important objective. In approaching the resolution, I should like to think in terms of an objective. The resolution is quite clear as far as I am concerned. It merely asks the government to take into consideration the advisability of expanding and equalizing educational opportunity across Canada by the granting of financial assistance to the various provinces for that purpose.
The hon. member for Saskatoon indicated clearly that across Canada from coast to coast support for the objective or the proposition is growing, and it is not support emanating merely from any one political party. It is a feeling which members of school boards are supporting. The ratepayers themselves generally are supporting it. Certainly the teachers are supporting it, as are all others who have given careful and serious consideration to the present problem which confronts us in connection with financing education.
I was rather amazed at some of the arguments advanced today by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) in an effort, I presume, to indicate to the Liberal membership in the house that they should not support the resolution at this time even though possibly the vast majority of them do in their own minds

Education
agree with it. As a matter of fact I was somewhat interested when the hon. member for Saskatoon indicated that certain persons who did not belong to his political party suggested that it might be wise to climb on the bandwagon at this time because this thing is going to happen sooner or later.
The Minister of Justice devoted considerable time last year to another resolution couched in the same language. At that time he made it perfectly clear that as far as certain truisms, as he called them, were concerned, all hon. members are in agreement. At page 616 of Hansard of March 20, 1952, he said:
From what has been said it is clear that certain points of agreement have emerged. It is hardly necessary for example to repeat all the truisms about the great importance of education in our national life.
Well, I would concede, Mr. Speaker, that there would be no disagreement among us in this house as far as that matter is concerned. He goes on to say:
Nor is it necessary to argue at great length that teachers' salaries in general are inadequate; for their inadequacy is clearly established by the relative economic unattractiveness of the teaching profession.
In the light of the information which was placed on Hansard on March 19 of last year by the hon. member for Saskatoon, I would doubt very much whether any hon. member would disagree with that assertion. I wonder how many hon. members gave consideration to the table which the house granted the hon. member permission to have included in Hansard. May I refer to one column, Mr. Speaker, headed "Median salaries of teachers in all schools, 1950." I know the general situation has improved somewhat since that time, as far as certain teachers are concerned, but there has not been any substantial improvement. In one province the median salary of teachers is $1,083; in another $1,341; in another $2,109; in still another $1,689; in another $1,580; in another $2,279, and the highest is $2,668. The last one I give is $966, which is the lowest. Surely, Mr. Speaker, there is not another professional group in Canada whose median salaries are anywhere near as low as those. There is no group in the country of organized labourers whose salaries are not substantially higher than those listed here; yet, Mr. Speaker, there is not a group of people in the country who are performing a more necessary or more important service for the country.
When speaking last year the Minister of Justice said at page 617 of Hansard:
It may be stated that the general agreement in this house upon most of the principles which have been enunciated so far in this debate affords a

much more satisfactory basis for examination of the facts than would be the case if we were in disagreement on those principles.
Well, that is fine. According to my way of thinking that is a statement of fact, but it is so significant that last year the Minister of Justice centred practically his entire argument upon what he called "a vital attack upon provincial autonomy." That seemed to be the keynote of the speech which he delivered on March 20 last. Well, it was a specious argument, Mr. Speaker, because there was no vital attack upon provincial autonomy at all, and it was asserted time and time again that there was no intention to interfere with provincial responsibility in the field of the administration of education.
I may also point out that last year the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) carried forward into his speech the keynote which was established by the Minister of Justice. The Minister of National Health and Welfare said in 1951, in referring to the constitutional position: "The provinces have been given exclusive jurisdiction in the field of education. National unity is predicated upon it."
I recall that in closing his speech the Minister of National Health and Welfare said that "we believe that the best way of giving every child in this country the best possible opportunity for education in accordance with her or his talent... is to do it within the terms of the constitution. We believe it is better to do it in that way than by following a suggestion which cannot be accepted"-he was very specific in that-"because it is a matter wholly within the competence of another legislative authority and alien to our own."
It was pointed out to the government last year, and it was also pointed out to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that under section 92, subsection 7, of the British North America Act the establishment, maintenance and management of all hospitals, outside of marine hospitals, falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provinces. Look at what has happened in that particular field, Mr. Speaker. The federal government is making grants to the provinces. It is true they are earned grants; in other words, they are matched dollar for dollar, and there has to be general agreement as to the nature of the edifice that is to be constructed. Those grants are performing a very valuable service. They are appreciated, and they enable the provinces to provide a much higher standard of hospitalization and general health service for the people. But the point is that we cannot forget that under the British North America Act the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Liberal government

could not have given one dollar in grants to the provinces to assist in hospital construction had they followed the argument used by the Minister of National Health and Welfare last year and the argument used by the Minister of Justice last year and referred to again today.
It is an established fact, the constitution to the contrary notwithstanding, that the provinces and the federal government have been able to get together, even where these fields of exclusive jurisdiction existed, to permit the federal government to make grants to the province to enable them to do certain desirable things. And it could be done just as effectively and as easily in this field as in the field of national health and welfare.
I was particularly interested in hearing what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said today about a grant that is being made for the construction of a school in Winnipeg. The minister appeared to be thrown back on his heels when that was brought to his attention. His "out" was: Well, after all, a certain amount of federal authority is bound to be exercised in connection with the construction of that school.
If the provinces and the federal authorities agree that that shall be the case so far as capital construction is concerned, then certainly the principle could very easily be carried into this general field of education. And may I assert that through grants for capital construction-call them earned grants if you will-the federal government could perform a most valuable function and be of inestimable assistance in this whole field of education by giving consideration to that very aspect of the matter.
This resolution does not tie the government down to any specific course of action. It does not bind the government to make grants for elementary education to provincial departments of education, in turn perhaps to be matched and turned over to local authorities. It does not fie the government down to that at all. Its objective could be reached, in part, through assistance in capital construction, as is the case with respect to hospitals, and with the same end result. This could be done without interference in the administration of schools, any more than today there is interference in the administration of hospitals because earned grants have been made for the construction of or for additions to hospitals.
Since the resolution does not tie the federal government down, I shall offer a suggestion we have offered on previous occasions, namely that it should remove the sales tax from vehicles used in conveying children to 68108-86
Education
schools. In other words it should remove that tax from school buses. Those buses would have to be used exclusively for the purpose intended. There, however, is an example of how the federal authorities could enable the provinces to move toward that objective.
Then of course we have the question of the sales tax and import duties on many of the publications used in the schools. Surely that would be one method of contributing toward the attainment of this objective. But today the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) developed another tack when he said that any move toward making grants to the provinces to effect the objective set forth in the resolution might create a serious unbalance so far as federal-provincial financial relationships are concerned.
Throughout the entire speech by the minister one would almost be obliged to assume, if he did not know otherwise, that the existing agreements between the federal government and the provinces are satisfactory, that they meet the requirements of the provinces, and that they are fair. I deny that suggestion most vehemently. All hon. members know that during the war the provinces willingly moved out of certain tax fields in an effort to achieve victory in military conflict. They were assured that this was but a temporary arrangement. Yet when the war was over they were pressured into a continuation of those agreements. And because the federal government can go into the entire tax field it has been able to pull a squeeze play on the provinces and, in cases, compel them to enter into agreements, even though the terms of those agreements were not satisfactory.
I was interested in a discussion which took place while the Minister of Justice was speaking. He referred to a cancellation of debt in Saskatchewan to the extent of $38,500,000. Of course my mind went back to the fact that we, in my province of Alberta, had also accumulated a huge debt as a consequence of drought and depression. The farmers of my province had accumulated terrific debts; but there was no federal cancellation of them. Perhaps this was because there had been a change of government in that province. The burden was left upon the provincial government in Alberta to cancel debt to the extent of $22 million. I well recall that in the report of the Bank of Canada for 1937 it was stated that the position in my province had improved so materially that the bank would not have been justified in recommending such cancellation. That was political hogwash; we know the reason for it. However, I mention that only in passing.

Education
Under the division of constitutional authority and responsibility as it existed at the time of confederation, things may have been reasonably fair. But as the years have gone by greater and greater responsibilities have been placed upon the shoulders of provincial and municipal governments. It is my conviction that where responsibility exists there should also exist the authority to carry out that responsibility.
The minister spoke in terms of high budgets in the provinces. That is true; but I know of no province in western Canada wherein the percentage increases in grants for education have not exceeded by far the percentage increases in provincial revenue.
Even though it annoys some people, I think I may be forgiven for referring to the province from which I come. It is as natural for me to do so as it was the other evening for the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald), when he referred to Alberta instead of Manitoba. After all, he comes from Alberta, and is presumed to be more familiar with it. I know that in my own province in the fiscal year 1935-36 the gross grant for education was approximately $1,450,000, whereas in the fiscal year 1952-53 it was approximately $9,850,000, or an increase of approximately seven and one-half times the figure for the first year. Yet in that period of time provincial revenues had increased by approximately only four and one-half times the former amount.
This specious argument about taking something away from one department and giving it to another is, as someone near me suggests, rather silly. One knows that provincial governments have minimum commitments to meet in every field and that, in respect of education, it is imperative that we acquire the best possible types of roads over which so many of our children are transported when moved to and from schools. Many of these things are interlocked. There are minimum requirements below which no provincial government could go in the provision of service to its people in any specific department. Let any government anywhere in Canada undertake to slash its public works appropriations by 50 per cent in order to provide these additional millions for education, and see what would happen. Let us be realistic about this sort of thing. The federal Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) will repeatedly stand up and defend his surpluses on the grounds that there is a national debt and it is necessary to make provision for it. Yet apparently the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) regards that type of argument, when applied to the provincial field, as being rather specious. To me it
[Mr. Shaw.l
is nonsense to say that the same principle that applies here does not apply in the case of the provinces.
I fully realized before this debate started that those in agreement with the resolution would advance substantially the same arguments they advanced last year. I think maybe those of us who have supported the resolution have in the main been arguing in much the same way as we did last year. There is good reason for that. I think the arguments we used last year were sound, and they are still sound. They were good enough for the debate last year, and they are equally good this year. I also assumed that those opposed would submit arguments very similar to those used last year. In the main that has been the case with the exception that the emphasis has been transferred from what was indicated as a vital attack upon provincial autonomy to this question of creating a financial unbalance under the present provincial-dominion tax transfer agreements.
When I approach the subject of federal aid to education I do not like to think of any part of Canada as such at all. To me it is a problem which we should be big enough to face objectively and in relation to Canada as a whole. It is quite true that one province may not receive very much in the way of grants. It would depend entirely upon the formula which was determined. But it may be that another province, for example the one that is paying a median average salary of $966 to its teachers, would be deserving of and would obtain a substantial grant. I would not object to that at all, because after all that is the basic fundamental in the process of endeavouring to establish the highest possible degree of equality of educational opportunity.
We have also referred to one or two other matters with respect to which we have endeavoured to tie in at least a certain degree of federal responsibility. Let us take the question of immigration. Immigration policy is in the main a federal matter. I put it that way because I fully realize that it is within the competence and jurisdiction of a province to facilitate the influx of immigrants provided they are of British origin. To that extent the provinces can enter that field. However, so far as those who are not British subjects are concerned, they are the responsibility of the federal government. That matter comes within the jurisdiction of the senior government. But once these immigrants enter Canada they are absolutely free to go to any part of Canada they desire to go to in order to settle. The consequence is-and I have seen it in effect-that for some particular reason you find a heavy influx of immigrants into a particular area. Did you ever stop to realize

the problem which is created in providing educational facilities for them? True, there is a lot of responsibility upon provincial governments to help to bear the burden created but, looking at it purely from the municipal point of view, in many cases it has become a burden of almost staggering proportions.
I have seen the mill rates paid by ratepayers in certain school districts in Canada, and it is an astonishing thing to me that people can continue to be home owners. In so many municipalities the item of school tax exceeds the combined total of hospital and municipal taxes. Sometimes it is almost double the levy for these other purposes. Therefore it is my contention that there is federal responsibility. Today we often hear it said that the population of Canada is bound to increase substantially, as it has already done as a result of federal immigration policies. Let me repeat that while a province has nothing to say about the number of such persons who may settle in any given area within the province, certainly there is a moral responsibility, anyway, upon the federal government to see to it that certain of the burdens created are met in part at least.
There is a second point that arises, and it certainly brings federal responsibility into sharp focus. I refer to the establishment of military installations in Canada and the bringing to local communities of the wives and families of many of the personnel serving at nearby stations. That has created a tremendous problem for some of our local municipalities. It is an unequal burden. Certainly a province can go so far in assisting to alleviate it, but I cannot see why the full responsibility should be upon the province when it has nothing to do with the location of the military installation, and more particularly because the defences of the nation are primarily a national responsibility.
A previous speaker referred to the limited field of taxation enjoyed by municipalities, and this matter is now developing into an extremely serious situation. It is my understanding that a municipality is limited to a property tax, business tax and poll tax. Many municipalities have presented figures indicating that they have just about reached the end of their rope. They must either acquire additional revenues from all senior governments or their field of authority must be extended within the municipality to enable them to acquire the finances necessary to carry out the responsibilities imposed upon them by law.
It has been said, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government has already gone into the field of education. That is true. It was interesting to hear the Minister of Justice 68108-86i
Education
skate around that. I realize fully that it is not too difficult to make almost any kind of argument that one may desire to make in support of or in opposition to a particular proposition. But I wondered what the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) was thinking as he sat behind the Minister of Justice and heard him advancing the arguments he put forward today. I have heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare take a stand diametrically opposed to that taken by the Minister of Justice when he was justifying federal participation in health services.
Apparently it all depends upon what you are trying to prove or disprove. I tried to analyse the expressions on the face of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I have known him for many years and have never yet been able to do so. However, when this particular argument was being developed before us today I thought I would be able to ascertain his thoughts. I think I know what they were.
You know, Mr. Speaker, speaking of going into this field of provincial government jurisdiction reminds me of certain debates I read in Hansard going back some years prior to the introduction of old age pensions, for example, and prior to the acceptance by the government of the day of any responsibility in that regard. They argued as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) argued today. But let me emphasize that in every case where the provinces and the federal government have agreed that a certain objective is desirable, where they have been able to come to an agreement as to the method of procedure in reaching that objective, they have been able to reach it. A lot of these problems are wholly imaginary, defences drawn upon to justify a certain course of action or failure to take a certain course of action.
We know, and Canada is appreciative of, what the federal government has done in the field of vocational training, for example, and what it has done by way of assistance to universities. True, those are all matters of assistance towards education. They were desirable and we supported them when they came before this house, and we will continue to support them. The very fine distinction which the minister tried to draw today between these expenditures and other expenditures for educational purposes to me just simply narrowed itself down to an argument that did not have any foundation at all.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is not very often that I finish a speech of mine by quoting a Liberal, but this particular Liberal happens to have some pretty good ideas sometimes and I think

Education
he has a better idea as far as this resolution is concerned than most other Liberals in this house. I speak of the hon. member for Spa-dina (Mr. Croll). I have always admired the hon. member for Spadina because it occurs to me that when he has an idea he has the courage of his convictions and is ready to express those convictions.


An hon. Member:: Apple-polishing.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I have always admired the hon. member for Spadina for many reasons, and particularly because he does not hesitate to take issue with his colleagues when he feels a certain conviction with respect to any proposition. I think it was in the debate last year that the hon. member for Spadina had this to say; I have the clipping out of Hansard but I have not the date marked on it. The resolution was exactly the same resolution that we now have before us. He said:
The resolution before us speaks of equalizing educational opportunity. The problem, as has already been stated by members in this house, arises because our country's wealth is unequally distributed. But we must not lose sight of the fact that education is no less a concern of the poorer provinces. Inequality of educational opportunity is the result of economic inequality and not inequality of will. In my opinion federal aid to education will make it possible to raise the salaries of some of the teachers who have been notoriously underpaid for a great length of time. I have always felt that the community should look to the teacher, and the teacher should be proud of her profession. Salary increases have been neglected for a long time. On the last occasion when this subject was before us, some of the figures that were given in this house as payment to teachers for years of service were almost scandalous.
I quote that paragraph, although in my view his whole speech was worthy of being repeated in this house. I trust that he feels the same way toward this subject now as he did then. After all, I do not think that throughout his whole speech last year the hon. member for Spadina bothered his head about going into all the details the Minister of Justice goes into and taking all of these devious trails which are, I think, designed to lose us in the underbrush. He just dealt with the proposition, and it was as clear as could be.
I think we would be well advised, Mr. Speaker, since this resolution does not commit the federal government anyway, to decide upon the broad objective. Is it desirable or is it not? I think we can leave out Saskatchewan and Meadow Lake and any of these other things that one might think savour of politics. Let us decide on the objective. The government are not comfMr. Shaw.]
mitted; and if they decide to go forward after all, they and the provinces will decide the method of approach.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that my colleagues and I in the Social Credit group support this resolution.
(Translation) :


Mr. J. H. Rousseau (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight); in fact, if I were living in his province I would vote in favour of his resolution.
However, since I live in the province of Quebec, I say immediately that I shall vote against the resolution.
In the province of Quebec, education comes under the sole jurisdiction of provincial, municipal and school authorities, and I could even add, religious authorities. It has been so from the very beginning of the province and that system has produced marvellous results if we compare the present situation with what it was in the early days.
In our province, education comes under the department of the provincial secretary, which has authority over the Public Education Council-Conseil de lTnstruction publique-made up of the superintendent, of one member of the government, of catholic bishops and of protestant clergymen. All that to show that in the province of Quebec the rights of everyone, whatever be his nationality or religion, are protected. By the way, I must say that protestant and English-speaking minorities of the province of Quebec are treated as fairly as the majority.
Am I saying these things to draw a comparison with what may have happened in the past in certain provinces with respect to my French-Canadian compatriots? Such a conclusion may be drawn from my remarks. However, I have always thought that generosity played a great part in the conduct of the affairs of the world, and if we, from the province of Quebec, have been generous towards certain elements, it is to be hoped that the same generosity may be displayed by other provinces, where sometimes our feelings have been hurt.
As I say, comparing the situation at the very beginning of the province, in the field of education, with what it is now, we find that we have now our universities, our colleges, the various business schools, schools of navigation, and so forth, as well as our primary schools.

At the beginning, salaries were extremely low; however, the standard of education has always been high. Why? Because we have always believed that when teachers fulfil their task through sheer devotion to duty, more skill is displayed and better results are obtained than when one's salary is the only incentive.
In 1760, after the conquest, though only
60,000	French Canadians remained in the country, education was essential for this nucleus of heroes wanted to remain alive as a racial group.
Have they succeeded? I answer yes. If teaching continued in Quebec in those days, it was thanks to women of gentle birth who had remained in this country and thanks, also, to our parish priests. I spoke of people of gentle birth. It has been claimed that none remained in the province of Quebec after the conquest, but the truth is that many had remained. In every family now, there is still some noble blood. In any event these gentlewomen taught without remuneration, as well as the priests who gave children lessons in arithmetic, grammar and catechism, not to speak of loyalty. Here is an example of this.
In 1866, during the Fenian raids, when the Americans had decided to capture Canada, had the French-Canadian clergy not enjoined the faithful to remain loyal to the British crown, Canada would no more be a jewel in this crown, but we would have been absorbed by the United States of America.
These facts were reported in 1916-17 by the then premier of Quebec, as guest of the Empire Club in Toronto. It was he who revealed these facts which were later repeated in another lecture. At that time it was seen that noble blood still flowed through the veins of every Quebec family. The people in Toronto said of our premier of the time that he knew what he was talking about, that he was an authority.
It was then that this famous Bonne Entente movement came into being and it has never ceased to gain ground. I do wish to pay this tribute to the Catholic clergy, without whom, as I say, we would have been absorbed by our great neighbour to the south.
And now, having managed to stay alive as a racial group we nevertheless live in complete amity with our English-speaking compatriots. As I was saying we are now beginning to understand each other better, so much so, in fact, that our English-speaking friends are now beginning to speak our language. As far as French is concerned,
Education
the results are so extraordinary that when prominent visitors come from France to visit us, they feel themselves to be in another France when they pass through the province of Quebec. Moreover, English visitors to our country are always glad to note that, for some years past, citizens of both nationalities have been walking hand in hand.
Mr. Speaker, those are the reasons why I shall vote against the resolution moved by the hon. member for Saskatoon, even though, as I said at the beginning, I congratulate him on his good intention. But in the province of Quebec, we are intent on keeping education under the exclusive direction of the governmental, municipal, school and religious authorities. Every government that has been at the helm in our province, regardless of party affiliation, has expressed the same view, and that is why I say again that I shall vote against the hon. member's motion.
(Text):


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker, will you call it six o'clock, or shall I proceed?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker, the resolution that is before us, which has been moved by my deskmate the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight), is extremely simple. One is really surprised! that such a simple resolution should call forth such great opposition from the government benches. All this resolution asks is that we in this house express an opinion as to whether or not the government should take into consideration the granting of financial assistance to the provinces for the purpose of expanding and equalizing educational opportunity. The resolution simply asks the house to express its opinion as to whether or not it is advisable for the government to consider the making of such financial grants to the provinces for the purpose specified.
That resolution is based: on the premise that every Canadian child has a birthright. That birthright is an educational opportunity equal to that of any other child in this country. That birthright is an equal educational opportunity whether that child be English or French; whether it be protestant, catholic, jew or gentile; and regardless of race, colour, the economic status of its parents or the part of Canada in which it is born. That is the premise upon which we ask this house?

Education
to consider whether or not this government should grant financial assistance to the provinces in order to enable them to give Canadian children what is their birthright.
The resolution is also based on the premise that today there exists a crisis in education. I do not need to emphasize the importance of education in the building of Canadian citizenship. Its importance, I take it for granted, is accepted by every member of this house. What we are faced with is a crisis. A conservative estimate prepared for Canadian education week shows that in 1955, two years hence, there will be a shortage of
25.000	teachers in Canada. The shortage of teachers in Canada has been increasing every year. By 1955 there will be need for another
1.000	schools to be built. Some municipalities are already finding it extremely difficult to build those schools. Classrooms are already overcrowded and the overcrowding is getting worse.
As has been pointed out by the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Drew) and others, some steps must be taken to meet this crisis. If we are to continue to provide educational opportunity for Canadian children we must take some steps which will enable us to staff the schools with properly qualified teachers and to provide sufficient classrooms to accommodate the pupils who are coming to our schools. There has already been pointed out in this house the difference which exists in educational opportunity as between the provinces, in so far as that equality or inequality of opportunity can be measured by the expenditures which have been made for education. In 1950 the median salary of teachers in all schools ranged, as has been pointed out, from $966 in Newfoundland to $2,668 in British Columbia. I think most of us will realize that so long as you have that difference between the salaries which are paid to teachers in different provinces, you are not going to have anything approximating equality of opportunity. You cannot secure in Newfoundland, for less than $1,000 a year, the best and brightest of the young people of that province that we require to enter the teaching profession. If the teaching profession is to attract our best young people, we must be prepared to do something in those provinces that are still paying in the vicinity of $1,000 to $1,500 for teachers.
There has been a persistent decrease in the number of teachers attending our training schools. Last year that decrease was shown in every province in Canada, and ranged from a drop of 10 per cent in Ontario to one of 37 per cent in Prince Edward Island. There was no single province in

Canada that was not affected by that reduction in the number of people attending the teacher training schools.
Those are the facts that we must face. In view of the importance of education, it would seem to me we should be able to face those facts without having regard for political expediency, without having regard for politics, race or religion. It would seem to me that in this house we ought to be able to put the interests of young Canadians first in our discussion of this subject; we should be able to rise above politics, above race, above religion in discussing this question.
In that respect the speech made this afternoon by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) was very disappointing. That speech will be a disappointment to everyone interested in education in this country. It will be a disappointment to the tens of thousands of school teachers across Canada from the provinces in the east to our province on the west coast. That speech will be a disappointment to every school board across this country. It will be a disappointment to a great many national organizations which over the years have been supporting federal aid to education.
The minister's speech this afternoon was based on one premise only, namely political expediency. The minister refused to face up to the crisis that confronts us in our educational systems across this country, and to place in paramount importance the needs of the young people of Canada. He raised a number of objections. It was interesting to find the minister going back to the Rowell-Sirois report and taking therefrom arguments to be used in his stand against this resolution. It is strange indeed how the minister and the government can use this report when it suits their purpose, and completely ignore it and other reports when that suits their purpose. The minister pulled out of the Rowell-Sirois report this afternoon the objections which the authors of that report made to federal aid for education. To my knowledge it is the only time the minister has ever gone to that report for any positive direction on any policy.
I know something about that report. I had the privilege of appearing before that commission, in my capacity as chairman of the Canadian Teachers' Federation, and presenting the opinions of the Canadian teachers. We were disappointed with the point of view expressed in that report; but times have changed since then, and in any case the authors of that report recognized the validity of some of our arguments. They recognized that the demands of education have gone far

Education
beyond those which existed when the British North America Act was adopted. They also pointed out the importance of equal educational opportunities, and at page 51 they said:
It is our hope that provision can be made for the fiscal needs of all provinces, including within those needs provision for the education of the young.
While the Rowell-Sirois report does not recommend specific grants for education, it does express the hope that the federal government will make available to the provinces such financial aid as will enable those provinces to meet the costs of education and provide equal educational opportunity within the provinces. That in reality is all that we ask in this resolution. All we ask is that the government give consideration to granting financial aid to the provinces to enable them in turn to provide equal educational opportunity to our Canadian children.
The minister placed a great deal of importance upon the fact that the federal government could not give grants to the provinces for education without at the same time exercising some control over education within the provinces. The federal government has been providing millions of dollars for education within the provinces in one way or another, and we have yet to hear in any province a single voice raised to the effect that the federal government is, by reason of those grants, interfering with provincial rights in the matter of education. The Minister of Justice was simply raising this argument because this government does not want to provide such federal assistance to the provinces; or is it, with a federal election in the offing, afraid of the political effects of any such grants?
If this government has the interest of young Canadians at heart it will consider ways and means by which it can come to the assistance of the provinces in this matter. The minister asked, where is the federal government going to get the money to pay for federal aid to education? During the war we never hesitated for a moment to find money to educate our soldiers. We had to open what amounted to public schools in some of the army camps in order to teach some of our young men to read and write so they might be able to follow the instructions which were handed out to them. We had to undertake the provision of elementary education in some of these camps. We never hesitated to train young people for work in the munition plants. When war comes we can find money for education or for any other purpose. If this government wanted to find
money and allocate it to assist the provinces in providing better education for the youth of this country, they could do so.
The minister tried to tell us that the provinces are able to provide better educational opportunities if they so desire. He may be in a much better position to judge that than I am. What I do know is that in the province of Ontario the municipal taxpayers are still called upon to bear a very large share of the cost of education. What I do know is that in some of the suburban municipalities of Toronto we have found it difficult to have new houses built because those municipalities were unable to bear the extra cost that would be involved if large numbers of new homes were to be built there. Upon occasions private contractors have been required by the municipalities to include in the cost of the homes the added cost of building schools, with the understanding that this would be added to the selling price of a home, so that a purchaser would absorb not only the cost of the land, the interest on his mortgage and local improvement charges but also the cost of building schools in the municipality.
It may be that provincial governments are in a better financial position than they were. But if they are, they are not coming to the relief of municipal taxpayers to an extent that will relieve those taxpayers of this overburden, and provide equal educational opportunity for all our children.
I pointed out that much is being done now by the federal government, and that it has been done without any interference with provincial rights. But we have had to have recourse to many subterfuges to obtain that assistance. We make large contributions to education through the Department of Labour, and try to kid ourselves into believing that this is not a contribution to education. We are told that because it is made through the Department of Labour, therefore it is a contribution to labour. The Department of Veterans Affairs makes heavy contributions to education. There again we are told this is not an assistance to education but that technically it is to assist our veterans. The Department of National Defence makes contributions to education, but we kid ourselves into believing that these are not educational grants, that they do not interfere with provincial rights, that they simply help our Department of National Defence.
The Department of National Health and Welfare contributes in a number of ways to educational projects. But we camouflage that by placing these expenditures under this department, and thereby convince ourselves that we are avoiding any interference with

Education
provincial rights in the field of education. The national research council, with its scholarships for educational purposes, enters the picture. Here again we are told this is not a direct aid to education. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration is also in the picture. This department finds it is quite constitutional to assist immigrant children and adults by helping to provide schools for them. Yet the department appears to take the view that it would not be constitutional for the government to assist native-born Canadian children through regular educational channels. The Department of Trade and Commerce, particularly through the educational division of the dominion bureau of statistics, makes its contribution. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and other activities connected with the federal government, either directly or indirectly make their contributions to education.
I have here the table referred to by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) which shows that all the provinces, through the Department of Labour, have accepted federal grants for youth training in the last three years in an amount well over a million dollars. Every province in Canada has taken advantage of this. I find, for instance, that Quebec took the largest share, amounting to $350,000. Ontario accepted $180,000. The truth is that every province accepts federal moneys for youth training. Yet we are asked to believe that, in some way, this differs from federal aid to be given to a regular school system.
While these large sums can be spent for youth training, apparently without any interference with provincial rights, if one suggests the making of grants to secondary or primary academic schools, then there is the suggestion that in some mysterious way there will be some interference with provincial control of education.
We give grants to train persons for gainful employment, and the provinces appear to have no objection to accepting federal moneys for this purpose-provided, of course, that such gainful employment is not such as would be secured from an academic course of studies. We are told that if the expenditure is for academic education then, on constitutional grounds, it must be ruled out. We see that in the last three years nearly $6 million has been paid out of the federal treasury to assist vocational schools, and these sums have been accepted by all the provinces Df Canada. I have not heard it suggested anywhere that the giving of this assistance for vocational education has interfered in any ivay with provincial rights. The suggestion
nwr. Noseworthy.]
is made that if the money came through the Department of Labour it could not be classified as educational aid.
Then in the last three years we have provided nearly $4 million in payments to provinces by way of capital expenditure on vocational schools. For the life of me I cannot see the difference between providing money to build vocational schools which train plumbers, automobile mechanics and the like, and making grants to schools that provide training so that one may become a lawyer, a doctor or a school teacher. These are some of the subterfuges we have to accept so that the federal government may make grants for education without, at the same time, appearing to interfere with provincial rights.
Education in Canada has suffered for a long time-as a matter of fact I suppose all through our history-because of the rivalry between race and race, religion and religion. I am told that the people of the province of Quebec do not want to accept federal aid. They fear that in some way the state will interfere with religious training in then-schools. I find that in Ontario a large section of the province is afraid that if federal aid for education is extended, the Roman Catholics in Ontario or Quebec are going to benefit by such assistance. What is happening in the province of Ontario is that in order that the province may take advantage of federal grants for vocational schools at the secondary school level, the standards and requirements have been lowered for entrance to such secondary schools. Thus each year thousands of pupils are entering the secondary schools who can thereby be assisted by the federal grants that are made at the secondary school level -I am referring to vocational schools- whereas if they were kept back in the grades below grade 9 they would not be assisted at all by federal grants.
Is it not time in this country that we should consider the question of educational opportunity on its own merits? Surely it is just as important to a French-speaking Roman Catholic child living in Quebec to have a good education as it is to an English-speaking Protestant child living in Ontario. Surely we are able to forget our political differences in this house on the question of education. Surely we are able to forget our language and religious differences and unite to give to every Canadian child what is his birthright, the best educational opportunity that Canada -not Ontario, not Quebec, not Newfoundland-can provide.


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, this is a most interesting and important subject,

and I feel that the time is fast approaching when we will have to do something about it besides just talk. The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) has brought this subject to our attention on a number of occasions, and each time it has been talked out. This afternoon the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) presented arguments which I assume he considered were strong enough to persuade the house not to pass the resolution now before us. He pointed out particularly, as we all know, that education is something which, under the British North America Act, belongs to the provinces. I believe he quoted section 93 which says in part:
In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education-
I am sure we all agree with that. That is as it should be. From reading our history books we know that if such an arrangement had not been made at the time of confederation by the fathers of confederation, it is very doubtful whether we would have the country that is Canada today. I know every hon. member here gives wholehearted support to the principle laid down at that time, and that no hon. member would wish to see it changed. However, I believe we can still support the resolution without feeling that it detracts in the slightest from the spirit or the letter of the British North America Act.
Hon. members who have spoken have pointed out that Canada is one country, and although we have ten different educational systems we all agree that equal opportunity should be given to each and every young Canadian. In the days of confederation education was not such a must as it is today. We remember that in the early days education was more or less looked upon as a sort of luxury for only the rich people, or for some of our professional people. It was felt that the majority of our citizens could very well get along without any advanced or even elementary education. As we progressed, elementary education in our schools took on the concept that there were three subjects which it was necessary for every child to know, reading, writing and arithmetic. I think this still should be the basis of our education in Canada today.
In addition, however, we all know that in the last twenty-five or thirty years we have advanced along technical lines. Today a boy or girl in a chosen walk of life must have a technical education. The farmer today must know far more than he knew a few years ago. The man who works in the forests, the mines or anywhere else must have a far better education today than twenty-five, thirty or forty years ago.
Education
This leads me to mention costs. If we are to have better education it means greater cost to the people, the provinces and the municipalities, and that has been the case. In the early days only a very small portion of our taxes went for education. Today education is the biggest problem with which provinces and municipalities have to deal. It has become such a problem in my own province of New Brunswick and its municipalities that it is practically impossible for the people to bear the burden that has been placed upon them.
Mention was made this afternoon of the training of teachers and the great scarcity of teachers in Canada today. Someone said there is a shortage of 2,500 teachers in our schools. We also have this problem in New Brunswick, and today in many schools we are using locally licensed teachers who are very poorly trained. We also are using married women who, I may say, deserve great credit for having responded to the call and given up their work in their homes to go out and help with our education.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that if this resolution passed and consideration were given by the federal government to the matter of education it would be of more benefit to some provinces than to others, particularly those which are known as the poorer provinces of Canada. I also feel, speaking for the maritime provinces if I may, that we have a special claim for more aid than the rest of Canada, aid from the federal treasury in the matter of education. It is a well-known fact that thousands of our young people who have attended our schools and universities have had to leave our province and go to other parts of Canada to make a living. We have no estimate of the cost of the loss of those young people to our part of the country but there is no question in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that it has cost the maritime provinces millions of dollars in the past to educate young men and young women who have gone to Ontario, Quebec and western Canada. As I say, I think for that reason we have a special claim against the rest of Canada in that regard.
I will just quote the resolution, Mr. Speaker:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of expanding and equalizing educational opportunity across Canada by the granting of financial assistance to the various provinces for that purpose.
I contend that the words "expanding and equalizing educational opportunity across Canada" presuppose that education in certain provinces is not as good as it is in others, and that educational opportunities in

Education
certain provinces are not as good as they are in other provinces. There is no doubt in my mind that some of the richer provinces of Canada could and should help themselves. There is no reason why the federal government should give much help to the rich province of Ontario or to the proportionately still richer province of Alberta; but there is every reason in the world why provinces like Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland should receive special attention in this regard.
I would also like to point out in this connection, Mr. Speaker, that I feel we in the east have another strong argument for more assistance in the matter of education. It will be remembered that since confederation the three maritime provinces have not been able to extend their boundaries. In 1867 when the act of confederation, the British North America Act, was passed there were great lands known as the public domain of this country which belonged, as we thought, to every province in Canada. Since confederation the boundaries of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and even British Columbia, have been extended away to the north. We all know the great and almost unlimited wealth that has flowed to those provinces as a result of this extension of their boundaries. I claim that is a second reason why we in the east, circumscribed as we are, who have contributed so much to the progress and development of this country, deserve special consideration in this regard.
I would also like to point out that in my opinion the federal government has a special responsibility and obligation in connection with education. The federal parliament is responsible for the defence of this country. We know that during the last war when they were seeking recruits for the armed farces, many of the young men in Canada were turned down because they did not have sufficient education. If the government of Canada is going to call on its young men to operate tanks, airplanes and any of the other technical equipment used in war today they should also be responsible in the same way for seeing that these young men are qualified from an educational standpoint. There is also the question of federal civil servants, many thousands of whom are recruited from different parts of Canada. The federal government requires quite exacting standards of education of its civil servants and, if all parts of Canada are to be equally represented in the civil service of this country, they must all have equal opportunity of providing themselves with that education.
I spoke a moment ago about the poorer provinces. There is no question in my mind that the time must come, and must come soon, when these provinces which are so heavily taxed at the present time will have to receive further assistance in order to carry on their different services. I might say that my own province of New Brunswick is the most heavily taxed province in Canada today. If you look at the statistics for 1950 you will find that the per capita debt of Quebec was only $92.24. The province of New Brunswick had a per capita debt of $286.62. Anyone can see the great disparity between those provinces in the matter of per capita debt. I could go on and quote figures for the other provinces to show that disparities exist between them.
There is also a comparison of debt charge to revenue in the different provinces. The figure for Alberta, for instance, was 6 * 6 per cent, and that was the lowest in Canada. The New Brunswick figure is 23-8 per cent, one of the highest in Canada. This great discrepancy is one of the reasons it is difficult for some of the provinces to bear the burden which they are trying to bear.
I said a moment ago, and I think I can repeat, that a rich province should not receive aid. The minister this afternoon mentioned something about an item of $5 per head of population, or some amount of that kind. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that money should be distributed in that manner. It should be distributed, if an act is put through this federal house, according to the needs of the different provinces. If one province needed $1 per head, that is the amount that should be paid to it. If some other province needs $5 that is what they should receive.
I might say that while we are having so much difficulty raising money to look after the schools in our province, I do not think our schools have been neglected. I know that in previous debates in this house the maritime provinces have been held up as a horrible example. Well, anyone who is acquainted with the educational history of this country knows that in years past we have made as good provision, if not better, for the education of our young as any other province in Canada. I might say that in recent years in the province of New Brunswick we have built many fine schools. There are no better schools in Canada than you will find in our province. We have also increased the salaries of our teachers, and today I think the minimum salary of a teacher in our province is $1,200 a year. I forget what the average salary is. We have

also improved the equipment in our schools. But in order to keep up the schools in the province it has been necessary to neglect some of our other services. For instance, our roads or some other public services of that kind have had to be neglected.
I do not believe it is necessary for me to labour this point, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) has pointed out that there are many precedents for assistance from the federal government to the provincial government. He spoke about the vocational school assistance, as well as the assistance for veterans and the money which is now being paid to the universities of our country as a result of the Massey report. To my mind this is indeed a responsibility which the federal government must assume within a short time. Again I say I do not believe there is any necessity at all for the federal government to interfere with the rights of the provinces in so far as schools are concerned. As a matter of fact the provinces would not stand for such a thing.
If we are to have well educated people in Canada, if we are going to give the boys and girls in Canada the education to which they are entitled, then the provinces must have the money to provide this education. How it is to be done I do not think poses any great problem of statesmanship. Surely in this House of Commons, in the government of this country, the means can be found. I am sure that if it is the will of this house, a way certainly can be found.
(Translation):


Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, the motion we are now debating surely has one good point, that is to bring the attention of members of the house to the important matter of education.
I understand that the majority of the previous speakers stressed particularly the dangers that may arise from the constitutional point of view. I have no intention of lengthening the debate on that aspect of the matter, although I may say a few words about it towards the end of my remarks.
I would like to digress for a moment and say something about the danger facing education as well as the way in which we seem to shrink away from our responsibilities towards the young people it is our duty to educate.
Education
I have here an item published in the Toronto Star, giving the results of a survey made in the United States regarding for instance the religious guidance given our youth. The man who made the survey found that 20 per cent of our young people are well educated, especially in the United States, while 20 per cent only are recognized as having religious principles.
This survey shows that, far from being radical, the young people seemed little concerned about giving their own opinion; they are especially, to a certain degree, and in the broader sense of the word, conservative with respect to the principles on which they could base their answers to the questions that were asked. According to the report, less than 20 per cent of those who were questioned, that is, 1,935, whose ages range from 18 to 29, answered that they found little guidance in religion in deciding either how to live, or what political principles to adopt, for instance, with regard to relations between races. This survey showed also that there is nothing to prove that those who believe in God will show more tolerance towards other races than those who have no religious principles, that is the agnostics; as a matter of fact, the latter are more inclined to think that all races should be considered equal. That certainly is not the Roman Catholic theory; we hold that the human being is a noble being, that every man is holy, be he white or black.
As far as opinions about sex are concerned it would seem that our young people tend to seek a better understanding of these matters. About one-third of those interviewed believe that there should be no hushing up of theories about sex. According to them this is neither necessary nor desirable.
I am still on the subject of education, Mr. Speaker. Here are some statistics because I do wish the house to understand that we have enormous responsibilities towards our young people, especially as concerns the guidance our teachers must give them. Our teachers must instruct our young people, they must take charge of them when our boys and girls leave home to go to school or college.
With regard to politics-still according to the inquiry-the more the young men get away from religion, the less they consider that the Democratic and Republican principles are adequate to meet the nation's

Education
needs. Of course, if on account of some shortcoming in our educational system, our professors do not attach enough importance to the advice they give to young people in regard to various forms of governments that may exist in the world, for instance in regard to social security, government controls or state paternalism, it is imperative that the competent authorities guide our professors in these particular fields, so that they may acquire a more detailed knowledge of the various kinds of governments and political theories, in order that they may be in a better position to show our young people how to be better able to judge the good or bad influence they may derive from certain political theories.
There are many who believe, for instance, that there is an enormous difference between the philosophy of nazism and the communist philosophy. I shall quote Marx and Hitler to prove that the difference exists rather as to details, but not as to principles.
According to Marx, the democratic concept of man is false because it is Christian. Democracy claims that each man is a sovereign being. That is the dream and illusion of Christianity.
As for Hitler, he says: to the Christian doctrine claiming that each man has an immortal soul, I oppose with perfect clarity the redeeming doctrine of the nullity and insignificance of the human being.
I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, that our education must absolutely be directed in such a way that our young men and women may have a more detailed knowledge of the different economic and philosophic systems, in order that they may profit from the benefits that our democratic institutions may provide them. It results therefrom that, in addition to the social science studies contained in our programs, some particular stress should be put on the study of social security, not only from a material point of view, but also from the intellectual, spiritual and moral angles. Indeed, these courses should only be taken after sound primary studies, during which priority must be given to spiritual and moral values.
To prove the point I have just made, that education should be as sound as possible, but chiefly to give a spiritual and moral trend to our education, I shall quote from a speech made by Dr. Jean Spekkens, a professor of French at the University of Ottawa, about

the 20th of March, 1952, I believe, before the members of the Richelieu club of Ottawa. Dr. Spekkens, a Dutchman who came to Canada not quite six months ago in order to teach French at the University of Ottawa, said: "The danger resulting from the too rapid growth of industry is that the student is taught too much practical knowledge, while not enough interest is taken in his intellect."
Dr. Spekkens sums up his remarks by saying that, on the whole, the teachings and advice given to students should lean towards the elimination of materialism and the raising of intellectual standards.
Consequently, even if we have to consider the constitutional aspects of our educational problem, one must consider also the result which it may bring forth in the minds of our youth, so that when these young people succeed us in the management not only of public affairs, but particularly of social security, they may be in a position to give that general leadership which can make a people good and strong and lead it towards a philosophic and moral system consistent with our institutions as we see them today.
It is my understanding that a member from the province of Quebec, speaking on this subject of education tonight, is bound to at least express his opinion on the motion now under consideration, which I shall read once more:
-the government should take into consideration the advisability of expanding and equalizing educational opportunity across Canada by the granting of financial assistance to the various provinces for that purpose.
If I am not mistaken, the general idea is that the provinces and the municipalities of the country need more money in order to devote greater amounts to education. Evidently, I am not in a position to know how critical the situation of the other provinces is: I am conversant only with the situation in my own province. My province benefits from the existence of a fund for education, a fund which is well-filled through the collecting of taxes which are supposed to be applied to education.
Under our federal system, the provinces are supposed to enjoy full autonomy in the important field of education. I think, and I suppose the majority of the members of this house share my view, that to act otherwise would be to sow seeds of discord among the population of our country and to endanger our nation itself.

The rights of the provinces are supreme in the field of education. The citizens of Canada ask but one thing, that the provincial authorities make an intelligent use of their rights and of their autonomy and that they keep politics out of that vital matter.
The word "education" should never be used to hide political motives. The money collected for education should never be used for any other government program, even though provincial authorities deem advisable to use the money for highway projects, as happened in the past. Should there be a surplus in the fund earmarked for education, let us give it to universities who need the money badly. I would like to quote an item from Le Devoir reproduced in Le Soleil of December 31, 1952. You will see what Le Devoir, which is an independent paper or, at least, is considered as such by the majority of the readers and of the people, has to say about the federal grants which were made last year and offered again this year to universities of the provinces. In quoting Le Devoir 'I do not believe that I am quoting a paper which gives its undivided support to the federal government.
To refuse such necessary assistance-
That is the grants which the federal government wants to give universities.
-would prejudice the very principle which we are seeking to uphold, i.e., autonomy in the field of education. If our universities were richly endowed -or if they had enough money to live instead of merely existing-the problem of federal aid might never have been raised. It is only after surveying the financial situation of the universities that the Massey commission asserted its conviction that the problem is one for the whole nation to consider. Had the universities not been so hungry, they undoubtedly would not have accepted, through sheer greediness, the gift offered by Ottawa. They would have repeated, "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes". Because one may be justified to steal to save one's life so our universities accepted the money which they needed. To solve the financial problem of the universities would be to safeguard autonomy against coercion. By allowing it to subsist we might ward off centralization for a time but we make it inevitable, because poverty is a bad counsellor.
The same paper, speaking of the question of pupils and teachers, said this-and I am again quoting the August 21 issue of Le Soleil:
If the provincial state does not wish to see the colleges take federal subsidies, it must immediately revise its system of grants and adapt it to changing times. Colleges, like everybody else, need money; whether they be in charge of the laity or the clergy. The state will soon have to help them out to a far greater degree that it does now.
Education
The Sherbrooke Tribune speaks in the same vein of rural schools. There is much talk nowadays of the pressing need of municipalities for provincial or federal grants in aid of education. The Tribune then says this:
Rural schools, like large urban institutions, will soon be reopened. It so happens though that, in a large number of places, there is a shortage of teachers. This shortage would certainly not exist if, in certain rural districts, there was not such an attempt to scrimp and save on the remuneration of those who, by taste as well as by special training, formerly looked to a teaching career.
The Three Rivers Nouvelliste, which is read by a great many members, wrote:
Many who remained faithful to the career (the teaching profession) are only too willing to desert it for better paid employment. Teaching is often in the English provinces only a stepping stone. Thousands of examples could be mentioned. The situation is not quite so critical in the province of Quebec. That is due mostly to the contribution of the teaching orders. But even the teaching orders admit that they have not enough members to comply with all the requests which are made to them.
Therefore, there are two things to remember: our educational institutions-our universities, our colleges and our rural schools- need much more money to increase their contribution to education. Besides, if the federal government cannot, as they did last year, extend grants to universities; if the universities cannot, for reasons that I do not wish to discuss here, accept federal grants, then let it be said, as Le Devoir has done. If our purpose is to preserve autonomy by opposing all federal grants to universities, then let the provinces themselves consider larger financial help to the universities. Our provincial educational fund is quite large and, if and when a surplus exists, we could offer more to universities which thus would no longer be obliged to accept federal money.
Clearly, as a representative of the province of Quebec and as an out-and-out autonomist, I cannot vote in favour of this resolution, whereby we are asked "to equalize educational opportunity across Canada by the granting of financial assistance to the various provinces for that purpose."
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, I believe in autonomy. My acts are in accordance with my words when I think of the autonomy of my province in the field of education, and if there is an autonomy which is to be respected, it is that one; if we want education to receive the grants it needs, let us be serious, so that the autonomy granted the provinces under our constitution may be well used, well felt; it should be considered and observed not through the glasses of politicians, but through those of citizens who really believe in provincial autonomy.

Education
We sometimes have some trouble; my French-speaking and Catholic compatriots sometimes have educational difficulties because of the provisions of our constitution. Tonight I shall not discuss the merits or demerits of certain claims made by my compatriots. The fact remains that they are in a difficult situation in certain districts as far as the teaching of French is concerned. That should not exist in a country like Canada. I believe it a fundamental principle that the taxpayer should have the right to enjoy whatever services are derived from the taxes he pays. Therefore, such a clause should be included in any declaration of human rights. We should also be determined to respect it and have it respected.
What purpose would there be in having a declaration of human rights, unless it embodies that fundamental principle, unless we are determined to enforce that fundamental right of the taxpayer to benefit from grants made by various governments. Such a situation should not be because the taxpayer has a right to his share. The province of Quebec gives a striking example of the fullest understanding of what should be an educational system in a province where there are rather marked ethnological differences.
A few years ago I quoted a statement from the secretary of the Protestant Board of Education of the province of Quebec, Mr. W. T. Percival, director of the Protestant schools in that province. He is reported by the Ensign as having said, on May 20, 1950, that education, in the province of Quebec, is just like a fairy tale. He was referring to the tolerance between Protestants and Catholics. He said that the development of Protestant schools in the province of Quebec could very well be likened to a fairy tale. Why is that so, Mr. Speaker? Because we respect the rights of minorities in the field of education and teaching. Therefore in a country such as ours our French-speaking citizens should really not have to press any claims with regard to their right to receive instruction in their own language and also to receive their part of grants in aid of education, whether their children go to public or denominational schools.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that, when we have any claims to press, or when we are in some trouble, some of our compatriots give up. I do not really know what to think about all this, and I will pass no judgment. It is sad to hear them, sometimes, not only in the field of education, but also when we meet with certain difficulties from a financial or constitutional point of view.

The other day we heard a lecture given by one of my compatriots who said: Must the province of Quebec leave confederation? I do not think that the province of Quebec must leave confederation; that would be the end of Canada and of confederation.
I do not wish to speak too much or elaborate too much on this lapse on the part of one of our public men.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we have here a striking example. When an army commander sees his army engaged in battle, no matter how serious the battle, no matter how numerous his enemies are, if he is courageous, he does not leave the battlefield, he does not ask his soldiers to leave the battlefield; on the contrary, he goes on fighting and, like Henry IV, he says: "Follow the plume of my helmet, it will always lead you to victory". This commander tells them not to leave the battlefield, but to go on fighting in order to achieve victory and "pour emporter le morceau" as we say in French.
The province of Quebec has been part of confederation since 1867. It has always played a leading role and it continues to do so. I would not like it to be said in any quarter that the French Canadians are quit-' ters, that the moment they meet with difficulties they are prone to say: We are going to secede from confederation.
Mr. Speaker, since 1867 this question of autonomy has always been discussed, and the province of Quebec has done so in the most objective way possible. We are still alive, we have kept our institutions, we speak, sing, discuss politics in French, and we speak English as well as French. We are still free. Since 1867, this question of autonomy has come up regularly.
Mr. Speaker, before speaking of autonomy we should begin by making good use of it. We should first know what it means. Tonight we are speaking of education, a matter that is closely connected with autonomy and in regard to which autonomists are always ready to uphold their rights.
Therefore, I cannot vote in favour of the motion, because I believe we should wait and see how the provinces will act, whether they will decide to accept federal grants to their universities, their colleges-grants to the educational fund as we say in my province. Let the provinces speak. It is not up to us to tell the provinces they should accept this or that arrangement. It is not up to us to tell them that we, in this house, have adopted a motion which would request the govern-

ment to distribute to our schools grants for educational purposes and see that these were properly apportioned. Consequently I am opposed to it. If there is one thing the people from the province of Quebec for the most part have no wish of doing it is to show signs of weakness by wanting to go their own way. If we have discussed the question, a thorny one admittedly, it is only because I and most of my compatriots do not fear to go forward. No, the province of Quebec entertains no thought of slacking. That is not her style, as she has always shown.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this motion will at least have one good effect. It will have enabled us to speak our minds clearly, fully, with no political reservations, to discuss objectively and ask our leaders in the province of Quebec to keep up the struggle from the point of view of autonomy, but on a higher plane. That is what this motion has allowed us to say in this house.
(Text):


Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak briefly on the resolution before us at this time, which envisages aid by the federal government to the provinces and therefore presumably would include aid in respect of education at all levels, from the secondary schools up to and including universities.
Although I could not follow the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) as well as I should have liked, I know he did cover educational problems at various levels, including those of the universities in his own province.
This afternoon the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) suggested that, in so far as the burden of education in respect of high schools and secondary schools is concerned, the cost must fall upon the municipalities and provinces, and that within the framework of the tax agreements the provinces will have to find the money with which to finance the necessary educational projects. In that connection I was struck by what is contained in the daily bulletin of the dominion bureau of statistics which, I have no doubt, was received by all hon. members this morning. Glancing over it, I saw on the first page this amazing statement, that the secondary school enrolment in Canada, exclusive of Quebec, is expected to double in the course of the next twelve years. In 1951 the number of students in the secondary schools of the nine provinces was 296,900. Last year it was 298,000. In 1953 it is expected to be from
Education
305,000 to 313,000, and in 1964 somewhere between 569,000 and 611,000.
If the bureau is correct in its estimate, and it usually is, we will see within the next few years a doubling of the school population in this country at the secondary school level.
I think every hon. member will admit that today municipalities and provinces are finding it most difficult to finance their present burdens. If the school population is to be doubled, how can they finance with the revenues now available to them?
I suggest that these figures in themselves show the absolute necessity for a reconsideration of this whole problem, and for intervention by the federal government to assist the provinces. I am not reiterating what was said today by my leader and others when I say that what I suggest would in no way impinge upon provincial autonomy. What is the use of provincial autonomy if the schools are so crowded, as they will be within the next few years, that they cannot provide the facilities with which to educate our children?
This is a time for vision, imagination and courage. Due to war conditions, increased marriages, heavy employment, and immigration policies, we are finding a tremendous increase in our population. Some means must be provided whereby this increased population can be served, and I suggest this resolution is one step in that direction.
I know that in my own province today teachers are not paid on the scale on which they should be paid, or a scale sufficient to attract the necessary number of men and women to that profession. Each one of them could earn more money in some other field. How can we have a strong and virile educational system when our school teachers do not earn as much money as mechanics or tradesmen who, entitled as they may be to a proper wage, do not have to spend the time required by teachers in acquiring professional knowledge, nor do they have to carry the same responsibilities. We must always keep in mind that we place the training of our youth upon the shoulders of our teachers. These are the statements we make so often and, while I do not wish to repeat old cliches, I do say it is time we did something more than repeat these statements. It is high time we did something to improve the situation.
In my province we pioneered in establishing the first free schools in this country. We blazed the trail in matters of education, and in many ways we are still doing it. I know one hon. member who now serves in this House of Commons who knows intimately the problems with which we in Nova Scotia are confronted. I say without hesitation that

Education
that problem cannot be solved unless we receive federal assistance at some level such as that proposed in the resolution.
I have already made reference to the grants to universities, and the basis of distribution of those grants. In that connection I should like to refer to an editorial which appeared the other day in the Halifax Herald. I do not propose to quote it at length but, inasmuch as other newspaper reports have been placed on the record to set out the educational problem, perhaps I might be permitted to quote briefly from this editorial. It says, in part:
As the days pass without a sign from the federal authorities, the anxiety of Nova Scotians over the distribution of federal aid for higher education naturally deepens. The fear is that, unless the authorities recognize the disparity which has existed and adopt a fairer system of distribution, our universities will have to operate for still another year with less assistance than those in other provinces.
And then it says:
Nova Scotian universities have not asked for special consideration, but merely for parity, for fair play.
Our universities are not subsidized by the state, but depend upon private support. In a relatively low-income area support should be forthcoming from the state, and those grants should be on a basis of a strict payment per student, rather than on a basis of 50 cents per head of population, as now obtains.
I dealt with this matter at some length on an earlier occasion and shall not go into it in detail now, more than to say that I hope when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) introduces his budget he will announce that a new system has been inaugurated whereby grants will be paid per head, per student, rather than on the basis of a certain amount per head of population as it is now. The method I suggest is the one that was followed by the government in financing the education of our veterans. I am sure it takes pride in its record in that regard, and I am sure, too, that the universities and students concerned found that it was a most satisfactory procedure.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Hear, hear.


George Clyde Nowlan: My hon. friend says "hear, hear". I hope he will say that to the government, and see to it that it changes the basis upon which it is now operating, so that it may give aid to students in the manner I have indicated. Certainly if that is not done, then the least that must be done is to change the provincial basis under which we now operate and with which I dealt a little while ago. The universities just cannot carry on today with the moneys that are available to them,

nor can students go to university. I have figures here taken quickly from the Massey report which show the situation so far as students are concerned in both secondary schools and universities. That report, as many of us will remember, stated that out of every 100 students entering common school only 22 finish high school and only three graduate from college. The report goes on to say that of those who dropped out, 54 per cent did so for economic reasons. In other words these students could not afford to finish high school and go on to college. That is a situation to which attention should be paid.
When you look at another table in the Massey report you find that so far as colleges are concerned-I only have the figures which the report uses, from 1943 to 1949; I have not gone beyond that-the income of universities derived from students increased from 34-3 per cent to 48 per cent, and it was still increasing. You find that the income derived from endowment had fallen from 15-9 per cent to 8 per cent, and that the income from provincial governments by way of grants had fallen from 40 [DOT] 5 per cent to 32 per cent. Yet at the same time the amount the universities were paying out per student had decreased from $515 in 1943 to $433 in 1949. Despite the depreciated value of the dollar and the lost purchasing power, the actual dollars spent by universities per student had fallen from $515 to $433. So you have the amazing situation that the students were paying more, that their actual proportion had increased from 34-3 per cent to 48 per cent, yet they were receiving substantially less. The reason for that of course is that the universities just could not get the money elsewhere. They have been raising fees and raising fees until students can scarcely pay them.
That brings into focus one particular matter which I should like to mention, the reference in the Massey report to scholarships for students. That is one way the government can aid the educational system at the moment. We will remember that the Massey report urges the government to inaugurate a system of national scholarships whereby worthy students can receive aid and go on to university. If that happened it would reduce the load of the universities because their plant and equipment are there, and the more students they get the easier it is for them to operate. Such scholarships would go a long way toward solving, at least on a university level, the problem to which the resolution refers. It is a direct recommendation of that report, Mr. Speaker.
This is a matter which demands immediate attention. When you scan the figures I have

given showing increased costs you realize how difficult it is for students to continue with their education today. As we are entering educational week and the attention of the nation is focused on that, I would suggest and urge that the government carry out that recommendation and announce this spring a system of national scholarships for students throughout the nation.


Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the day I was informed while in my office that some reference was made to me by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight).


John Lambert Gibson: Don't pay any attention.


John Hornby Harrison: At the time I was attending to certain matters of importance to some of my constituents, but I came down to the house to see what the-


Mr. Laing:: Fuss.


John Hornby Harrison: -trouble was all about. I was not able then to read a transcript of the hon. member's speech, and by the time I entered the house he had passed the point in his remarks where he was alluding to me. I was not able to see a transcript until after supper. However, I have now given it a cursory examination and I think it requires an answer. I think he found it to be somewhat a matter of mirth that I did not take his motion exactly at its face value, and that I had perhaps suggested in other places that there might be some political intent in addition to the very fine spirit conveyed by the wording of the actual resolution.
I am in complete agreement with the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) when he says that at some future time this very desirable resolution will likely be implemented, or that something will be done along this line. However, I have searched in vain in the remarks of the hon. member for Saskatoon and other members of his party for a solution to the problem and a way of making this most desirable motion effective. The only thing I have heard from any of these hon. gentlemen is that we should pass on some money from the federal treasury to the provincial governments and that they should be allowed to spend it without any supervision whatsoever.
I take issue with that, and I have certain reasons why I think it should be taken issue with. The principle of taxation without responsibility is not a very good one. The idea of asking the federal government to tax the people of the country and hand the money on to somebody else without any supervision of the spending is not a good thing whether the money is for education or something else.
Education
It has been suggested that we follow such a procedure in other cases, and that is quite correct. So far as health is concerned we hand money over without supervision, but education is something a little bit different. Education, particularly in the province of Quebec and in other parts of Canada as well, is very closely allied to religion. In fact I defy anybody to draw a distinct line between the two. In order to bring this matter to your attention a little more strongly, I should like to refer to an incident that occurred in my riding. I am trying to show why we cannot give money willy-nilly to the provinces. In my riding last year we had a teacher who was employed by the larger school unit as an extra teacher. He went around and filled in where teachers were absent from work for one reason or another. I was told by the parent of some children whom he went to teach one day, together with other children, in the town of Glenbush, that in the course of his remarks he told them there was no God, that they were wasting their time going to church, and that they could spend it much better in some other ways. Protests were made by the parents of these children, but apparently they were disregarded.
The point I wish to make is that if the federal government is going to tax the people of this country in order to be able to hand money over to a province which cares not whether that type of thing is taught to children in our schools, then I think the people who are paying federal taxes will rise up in arms before they will allow a thing of that kind.
The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) said he found some enjoyment in the fact that I had mentioned that I thought there was some political intent. Possibly we have not his developed sense of humour, but I gather that there was not any great applause or show of humour in this house at that remark. I would suggest that possibly the C.C.F. party is amenable to that idea, that that kind of thing should be taught in the schools. If they can show me otherwise; if they can show me any possible way this very desirable motion can be put into effect, I will be very pleased to support it; but I cannot support the idea that we pass money along to any province without some safeguards. I think the object lesson I have just quoted is a good case in point to show why we should not.
I might also add, concerning the particular remarks I mentioned, that the parent told me that the gentleman mentioned made a mockery of religion and a mockery of church with these children. The parent said his

Education
children were quite put out about it and so was he; and I do not blame him in the least.
With respect to the other allegation the hon. member for Saskatoon put on record this afternoon, I think perhaps I can find some further support. Certainly I am not the only person who thinks there might be some political intent. Just recently we have had some outbursts from the premier of Quebec, a gentleman who might have considerable to say before any changes are made in our educational set-up. Mr. Duplessis says:
Education has guaranteed survival of Quebec's religion and language traditions and could never be surrendered.
That is fairly emphatic. Another headline reads:
Duplessis says "Encroachments" question of "Life and Death".
Well, I think he has his eye on the motion of the hon. member when he says that; and I just wonder whether the hon. member for Saskatoon does not himself subscribe to the idea proposed by the school teacher in Glen-bush. Some weight might be lent to the suggestion that he does, because I have here a report from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix which says that the hon. member for Saskatoon went to the town of Meadow Lake and asked the people there to support that gentleman in the forthcoming election and elect him to this house. That would lend some support to the idea that possibly the hon. member for Saskatoon supports that gentleman's ideas. He at least supports him, although the latter is an avowed atheist. He picks this gentleman, or his convention does, and he immediately supports him and tells the people of Meadow Lake that he is the man they should send to this house.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John Hornby Harrison: You may ask it.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: First of all, has my hon. friend any evidence that this particular occurrence took place in the school, or is it merely gossip or hearsay? Secondly, has he any evidence to show that I have any acquaintance with the gentleman who was nominated and any acquaintance with his religious or other opinions?


John Hornby Harrison: I have no evidence that the hon. member knows what his religious beliefs are, but I have evidence here to show that the hon. member went to Meadow Lake to support the gentleman; and having been very closely allied-


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, the hon. gentleman is basing his

whole case on hearsay. In the first place he says that some gentleman was nominated-


An hon. Member:: That is not privilege.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: -at Meadow Lake. According to hearsay he told children somewhere that there was no God, or he made some other irreligious statement.


An hon. Member:: What is the question?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: My hon. friend presumes I knew of that, and he said that in spite of it I supported the gentleman. My only contact with him was because there was a convention there and I went to make the main speech in the evening after the people of Meadow Lake, constituents of my hon. friend, nominated their candidate. I have no idea of his religious views, any more than I have about the religious opinions of my hon. friend.


An hon. Member:: Tell them what you said about the maritimes.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I could tell you lots of hearsay and gossip but I would not think of doing so. I would not stoop to it.


John Hornby Harrison: The hon. gentleman wanted to know the name of the gentleman who was nominated. If he does not know who was nominated there, he should.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I don't want the name, I want evidence.


John Hornby Harrison: I want to make this speech now, and you can make yours tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not a speech, it is just gossip.


Mr. Riley:: Tell us what he said about the maritimes.


John Hornby Harrison: I want to explain again some of the humour of the member for Saskatoon. Here is an idea of it from a headline in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix:
Knight says maritimes fear-ridden.
Residents of the maritime provinces do not enjoy the right of free speech, according to R. R. Knight, C.C.F. member for parliament for Saskatoon.
Speaking at a public meeting of the Saskatchewan branch of the C.C.F.-
"I think in Saskatchewan today we are the freest people on the North American continent," declared Mr. Knight. "When I think of the state of political fear in which many people in eastern Canada live, I am thankful that I live in the west."


Daniel Aloysius Riley: We are thankful he lives there too.


John Hornby Harrison: It goes on:
-on many occasions-people would like to go to the C.C.F. meetings but the night is not dark enough-


Daniel Aloysius Riley: The night is not dark enough for us to listen to him.


John Hornby Harrison: That is some of the hon. gentleman's humour.
To deal somewhat one-sidedly with another matter with which he dealt-and it cannot be otherwise because he was a spectator on the sidelines-I will refer to a letter that was sent to me last year by the Saskatchewan school trustees association. I will also mention the very fine deal the hon. member said the Meadow Lake riding was getting in the way of educational grants from the provincial government. I think the hon. member for Saskatoon said we were getting 72 per cent of our educational cost from the provincial government. If those figures are correct there is some reason to question why the people of the town of Meadow Lake are called upon to pay 42 mills for educational purposes, while in the surrounding area they pay 38 mills on agricultural lands. Those are correct figures because I got them from a member of the larger unit board.
However, to put the record straight I will deal with the letter which the hon. gentleman quoted this afternoon. He said that 20 members of parliament had been sent this letter, and when I said I was waiting for my copy he could not understand it. The Saskatchewan school trustees association could not understand it either, and they know a lot more about it than the hon. member. I know a lot more about it, too, and I am the only one in possession of all the facts because the letter finally reached me and I know how it came here. The letter that he put on Hansard was dated March 25 at Regina. Oddly enough it reached here on March 24, a day ahead of the day it was written.


John Lambert Gibson: An advance copy.


John Hornby Harrison: This particular letter, Mr. Speaker, asked me to apologize in the house for something I had not said; and I think the school trustees association are convinced of that now. I wrote to them and cleared the record on it. I gave them chapter and verse, and so far all I have had from them is a very nice letter from the secretary saying he had received it, and taking no issue with it whatsoever. So I can take it from that, I think, that my letter was fairly correct.
The main reason that I did not get my copy of the letter was that they sent the other 19 Saskatchewan members' letters to the House of Commons. We were sitting at that time, and I had allegedly made this speech to which they took exception. My copy of the letter was sent to Meadow Lake, a place in which I do not live even when I am home. This letter went to Meadow Lake and then to Medstead, where I do live. It was then forwarded to the House of Commons, but by then I had gone
Education
home for the Easter recess so it followed me on to Medstead. I finally got this letter, which is dated March 25, 1952, on April 15.
I believe I covered the points fully in my reply to this letter. Since the hon. gentleman has put the other letter on the record, perhaps I had better read this reply into the record. It is addressed to Mr. Z. M. Hamilton, secretary treasurer, Saskatchewan school trustees association, and it reads:
Your letter of March 25 with copy of your press release of March 22, finally reached me on the 15th of April. A glance at your copy will immediately show the reason for the delay in its reaching me. Similar letters sent on the same day by your office to 19 Saskatchewan members were received here on the 24th of March, a day before they were officially written. In every one of these 19 cases they were addressed to the House of Commons- for some reason, best known to your office, mine was dispatched to the town of Meadow Lake-


Stanley Howard Knowles: They think you should not be here.


John Hornby Harrison: I am omitting some of the parts because this letter is lengthy.
After reading your press release here in the house on March 24, I waited patiently for your letter for a couple of weeks before I made any statement, as I did not want to be guilty of the same offence which you committed, namely, discussing something that I had never seen. At that time, however, seeing no letter had arrived, it was necessary for me to put the record straight in view of your hasty and incorrect conclusions drawn in your press release. Had you read my speech first, I have no doubt but that you would never have put out the press release that you did, because nowhere in my speech can you find anything, either directly or implied, as even remotely suggesting that the school trustees association had anything to do with the 1,558 schools either closed or without qualified teachers in Saskatchewan. I was attacking provincial government policy, and provincial government policy only, which basically was the inability of school boards to go out and bid for qualified teachers' services-in other words, by placing ceilings on the wages of various classes of teachers, they had short-circuited the system of "supply and demand" to the end that in six years time we had 558 school rooms open, which were without a qualified teacher, but instead, a sitter.
As a school trustees association, you are quite likely familiar with the conducting and marking of efficiency contests. In the light of this I would like you to assess the press release that was carried so unanimously by your executive meeting. The first essential in criticizing anyone or anything is to properly identify them so that people will know who or what you are talking about. The first thing your press report does is to identify one J. L. Harrison, as M.P. for Meadow Lake. No such man has ever sat for Meadow Lake or any other constituency in Canada since confederation. I trust that you will say that this is a typographical error. It is still an error, and error No. 1. Error number two, is your statement that my speech was false and malicious, causing great injustice to school trustees and teachers in Saskatchewan. As school trustees were never mentioned, and the only thing I suggested about teachers was that boards be allowed to compete for their services on a market of short supply, it is hard to imagine how anyone could construe this

Education
as being one detrimental to the teachers. Your third error is that. "Mr. Harrison is ignorant of the true situation of education in Saskatchewan and the benefits obtained by his home town of Meadow Lake". Meadow Lake is not my home town, but is 85 miles away from it. This you will also wish to claim as an error, and I am prepared to allow it as such. Assuming that Meadow Lake is my home town, however, as you do, the fourth error still remains, that I am ignorant of the benefits obtained by Meadow Lake. Let's just see who is ignorant here, or whether we both have the same understanding of the word "benefits". Certainly the people of Meadow Lake are not aware of these benefits; and far from being ignorant of the situation, I took the trouble to inquire, as late as February before coming down here, from a member of the larger unit board, as to the status quo in Meadow Lake, and got the following information: The town of Meadow Lake has a mill rate for school purposes only, of 42 mills. If this is beneficial, those members of your executive who are so unanimous about everything, should make it their business to go to Meadow Lake and explain it to the people there. For my part, I defy you to find any town in Canada outside the borders of Saskatchewan, that has a mill rate even approaching 42 mills for school assessment only. I was further informed by this member of the larger unit, that the surrounding hamlets were assessed at the rate of 40 mills for school purposes; and something which no one outside of Saskatchewan can believe, is that farm property owners are assessed 38 mills for school purposes. If you knew of these figures when you talked so glibly in the press of the beneficial situation existing in Meadow Lake, then you have a very different idea of what the word "beneficial" means, than I have. If you are going to tell me now that you did not know of these figures, then my question immediately is, who is really ignorant about the situation at Meadow Lake, myself, as you claim in the press, or your association? I think you had better justify the figures to the people of Meadow Lake or admit that you are ignorant of the situation. The fifth, and I think the worst error is, publicizing the fact all over the country that you are writing all Saskatchewan members of the House of Commons, including myself, asking me to apologize for something I have never said, and then shipping my letter off to Meadow Lake. I do not think that you would want to tell me that you did this intentionally, and I do not think you did, myself. The most charitable view of it that can be taken is, that it was another error.
If the foregoing had been entered in one of your efficiency contests, I have no doubt it would get a rating of zero. If not, I would be interested to learn what standards you use.
I am always quite ready to render apologies when I have mistakenly wronged someone, and I don't have to do that very often. Frankly, however, on the record, I ask you, who should apologize to who? If you are fair, your answer will be clear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it is not usually in order to read into the record such long quotations. I think the hon. member should perhaps give the general tenor of the arguments contained in that letter or document, and not put the whole of the document on Hansard.


John Hornby Harrison: The first letter, to which this is a reply, was placed on the record in its
entirety. Possibly there are some parts of this letter that I could skip, and quote the concluding paragraph. I am putting the letter on the record to keep the record straight, as it should be if the matter is to be discussed at all. I believe my hon. friends will agree with that. I shall quote the concluding paragraph:
In all the foregoing, sir, nothing is aimed at you personally, as I am quite aware that you are a hired secretary, and therefore have to do what you are told.
The letter finishes on that line of thought. He replies as follows:
I would like, at this time, to express to you my appreciation of the last paragraph of your letter where personal reference has been made to myself.
I believe that clears up the matter so far as we are concerned. The matter of federal aid is something which, on its face and as put on the order paper by the hon. member, is desirable. As soon as my hon. friends across the way will introduce some system of making it effective, other than just handing money over for someone to run around the country and preach atheism, I shall be glad to support the measure.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: That letter is proof that we need federal aid.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Tomorrow we will consider the following measures: First, the motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister relating to Mondays and Wednesdays; then the motion in the name of the Minister of National Revenue concerning the setting up of a committee on broadcasting; then third reading of Bill No. 45; then the resolution in the name of the Postmaster General to amend the Post Office Act; Bill No. 103, to amend the National Defence Act; Bill No. 102, respecting the royal style and titles; Bill No. 105, respecting the liability of the crown for torts and civil salvage; Bill No. 38, respecting the Saint John Bridge and Railway Extension Company; Bill No. 19, to amend the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act. These are small bills.
Then we shall take up Bill No. 39, to amend the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act; Bill No. 40, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways. If we have time left, we shall take up Bill No. 44, to protect the coastal fisheries.


Gordon Graydon: You may bring in the budget after eight o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are we to be dissolved tomorrow night?


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, January 27, 1953