1955-02-09

Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Has any assistance been given to the province of New Brunswick under the national health grants program to provide for expanded laboratory services for the testing of public supplies of milk and water?


Mr. Robertson:: Yes. As a part of the over-all program for the support of expanded laboratory services in New Brunswick, federal assistance has been given under the national health grants program for public health laboratory services in the established laboratories of the province where the testing of public supplies of milk and water is being carried out.
The latest project approved was in January, 1955, when $4,471 was approved to assist in the further extension of laboratory services for the testing of public supplies of milk and water.


LUMBER TRANSPORT LICENCES, BANFF NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: 1.	How many licences or permits have been issued during 1954 and 1955, to (a) residents living between Donald station and Wasa station; (b) non-residents living between Donald station and Wasa station, of the Columbia river valley in British Columbia, and others, for the purpose of transporting lumber over highways in Banff national park?
2.	To whom were such licences or permits issued?


Mr. Lesage:: 1.	(a) Approximately 225; (b) nil.
2.	No record available.
Note:	Under order in council P.C. 1953-
1612 of October 21, 1953, authority was granted for the issuance of transient motor licences for trucks owned by residents of the Columbia river valley between Donald station and Wasa station, B.C., for the purpose of carrying lumber and other produce from the said area across the trans-Canada highway in Banff and Yoho national parks and the Banff-Windermere highway in Kootenay national park during the months of November and December 1953 and January, February and March 1954. Similar authority for November and December 1954 and January, February and March 1955 was granted by P.C. 1954-1591 of October 19, 1954.
National parks records have not separated the trucks carrying lumber from those carrying other produce and the figures for licences given in answer to question 1 (a) is therefore an estimate. Almost all of these licences covered single return trips and it is probable that not more than about 25 different persons or firms were involved. The total number of licences issued under authority of the two orders in council during January, February and March, November and December of 1954, and up to January 24, 1955 was 362 which covered both lumber and other produce. During the period in question no records were kept of the names of those persons to whom licences were issued. They were issued to drivers of trucks by park authorities on production of satisfactory evidence that the trucks were owned by residents or established firms in the area.


DEFENCE CONTRACTS BY PROVINCES
Mr. Hahn:: What were the totals of all defence contracts let in each province in Canada, during each of the years 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954?


Mr. Dickey:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with this question orally, if I may. At various times in the past questions such as this have been placed on the order paper by hon. members, and the minister, the former parliamentary assistant, and I have explained to the house why it is not feasible to table an answer. The most recent statement of this position was made on January 28, 1953, and appears at page 1397 of Hansard when I quoted from a previous statement of the minister as follows:
A question has been raised as to why we do not publish figures showing the value of projects placed in the various provinces. The simple answer, which I have given on several occasions, is that we see no value in giving such figures inasmuch as they in no way reflect the impact of the defence program on the various sectors of the country. They do not take into account the large proportion of subcontracting which is inherent in this type of work. They make no allowance for the source of raw materials going into the contracts, and in many cases they are misleading because contracts placed at head offices in Ottawa or Montreal are often carried out in company plants which may be located as far away as the east coast or the west coast.
This explanation applies directly to the present question. I should also point out that full information regarding the letting of unclassified contracts over $10,000 is made public by the publication every two weeks

Questions
of complete lists of contracts awarded. This information is, of course, available to all hon. members.


DEFENCE PRODUCTION-MEAT
Mr. Fulton:: 1.	What was the total cost of meat and meat products contracted for by the Department of Defence Production, during the fiscal years 1953-54 and 1954-55 to date?
2.	What are the names of the firms to whom these contracts were let, and the total value of the purchases from each, in these years?
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I ask that this question be dropped without prejudice to the right to replace it at a later date in a somewhat different form?


Mr. Speaker:: Question dropped.


FREIGHT ASSISTANCE ON FEED GRAINS
Mr. Pommer:: What were the amounts paid out by the federal treasury on freight assistance on western feed grains shipped to (a) British Columbia; (b) Ontario; (c) Quebec; (d) maritime provinces, for each of the years from October 1, 1941 to 1954 inclusive?


Mr. McCubbin:: Amounts paid out in freight assistance on western feed grains for each year from October
1941 to December 31, 1954.
Year	British Columbia	Ontario1941	$ 135,096.06	$ 764,302.501942	
996,218.08	3,319,231.501943	
1,432,696.28	6,518,142.001944	
1,722,957.08	5,862,208.501945	
1,758,328.51	6,191,145.001946	
2,017,065.28	6,738,853.501947	
2,182,894.98	7,446,339.001948	
1,806,918.91	6,445,528.151949	
1,503,139.89	5,419,655.161950	
1,296,189.28	4,785,376.521951	
1,567,955.83	4.374,333.271952	
1,724,466.33	5,151,750.931953	
2,226,071.39	4,693,236.871954	
2,092,941.62	4,481,621.99
Quebec

Maritime Provinces $ 289,413.10 1,824,159.00 2,767,969.70 2,667,629.80
2.758.782.30 3,223,229.50
3.096.645.30 3,019,535.90 2,734,637.04 2,986,867.68 3,107,528.25 3,570,197.11 3,291,679.56 3,008,815.95


CANCER RESEARCH
Mrs. Shipley:: Aside from the assistance given under the national health grants program, is the Department of National Health and Welfare engaged at the present time or is it planning to engage in any aspects of cancer research?


Mr. Roberison:: Yes. Two years ago the Department of National Health and Welfare established at its laboratory of hygiene a tissue culture section, with the objective of studying the growth of normal and cancer cells outside the body. It was felt that such a program would help to fill the need, expressed by many investigators, for more specific knowledge on the growth and behaviour of body cells. Cancer is considered to be some form of abnormal cell growth and so it was felt that by undertaking these studies new facts might be discovered and thus provide new clues for other investigators in the cancer field. Since this type of research is of a long-term nature it can well be undertaken in the laboratories of the Department of National Health and Welfare in order to provide stability and continuity to the study. This program is now proceeding satisfactorily, and it is expected that

it will prove to be a useful contribution on the part of the department to the conquering of this disease.


CROWN COMPANIES
Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	How many crown companies are operated by the government?
2.	What are their names?
3.	Where is each located?
4.	What was the indebtedness of each on December 31, 1954?


Mr. Pinard:: If I may, I should like to answer this question orally. I should like to inform the hon. gentleman that this information is contained in volume II of the Public Accounts of Canada as issued by the Department of Finance, which contains the financial statements of all the crown corporations.


Mr. Speaker:: Answered.


HIGHWAY SAFETY
Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Does the dominion government have any information with regard to the proposal for a conference to be held in Ottawa in May, 1955, by the Canadian good roads association on the general subject of highway safety?

2.	If so, has the government or any department or agency thereof been invited to attend or to send a representative to the conference, and if so. is it planned to attend accordingly?
3.	Is the dominion government or any department or agency thereof actively assisting in preparations for this conference, and if so, in what way?
4.	If the government is not participating in any way in the conference, what steps does it propose to take, in conjunction with the provinces and/or other interested organizations, with respect to promoting a campaign for increasing safety on Canadian highways?


Mr. Bourgel:: 1.	Yes, there has been informal liaison between the Canadian Good Roads Association and the Minister of Public Works.
2.	Yes.
3.	The Canadian Good Roads Association has been informed that representatives of the Department of Public Works will participate in preparing the agenda and will attend the conference.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


CIVIL SERVICE
Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	Since the "suggestion award plan" for the civil service was adopted November 28, 1952, how many suggestions for making savings or improving efficiency have been received?
2.	What is the amount of money actually saved, so far, as a result of these proposals?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	5,800.
2.	While a number of suggestions are still under investigation, 243 suggestions have been implemented which have resulted in an estimated savings of $71,649.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Sluder:: What are the major functions of the new virus laboratory of the Department of National Health and Welfare which was recently opened in Ottawa?


Frederick Greystock Robertson: The new virus laboratory will serve as- (a) a centre for the provincial departments of health in providing their laboratories with standardized reagents for the diagnosis of virus diseases in man; (b) a reference laboratory to the provinces, for the identification of uncommon strains of viruses, for which difficult technical procedures are required; (c) a regional centre for the world health organization and in this connection will carry out identification of virus strains from current virus epidemics, such as influenza and poliomyelitis; (d) a training centre for members of provincial laboratories who wish to specialize in virus diagnostic methods.
The virus laboratory will also provide facilities for the testing and control of materials in the virus field under the terms of the Food
Orders for Returns
and Drugs Act. For example, the poliomyelitis vaccine now being produced at the Connaught medical research laboratories is being retested in the virus laboratory as a means of re-ensuring the safety of the product.


QUEBEC INCOME TAX
Mr. Argue:: 1.	What is the estimated revenue for 1954 resulting from the personal income tax levied by the province of Quebec?
2.	What is the estimated loss of revenue represented by a 10 per cent reduction in federal income tax in (a) Quebec; (b) each of the other provinces?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	The minister of finance for the province of Quebec, in his budget speech given on February 3, 1955, estimated the personal income tax levied by the province of Quebec would yield $25 million in the fiscal year 1954-55.
2.	On the basis of collections of personal income tax in 1953-54, the last year for which collection statistics are available, a 10 per cent reduction in federal income tax would result in a revenue loss as follows: (a) $28-4 million; (b) Newfoundland, $1-2 million; Prince Edward Island, $0 2 million; Nova Scotia, $2-1 million; New Brunswick, $19 million; Ontario, $62 3 million; Manitoba, $6 0 million; Saskatchewan, $4 7 million; Alberta, $81 million; British Columbia, $12'7 million.


CEREBRAL PALSY
Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Is any assistance being given by the federal government towards the care of children with cerebral palsy?


Frederick Greystock Robertson: Yes. Last year the national health grants program provided $150,000 under the crippled children's grant to assist in the provision of treatment services for children with cerebral palsy in Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.
An additional $110,000 was given under the same grant to assist centres in Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia in treating children with cerebral palsy and with other crippling conditions.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	Do Trans-Canada Air Lines planes approaching the Moose Jaw area normally contact the Royal Canadian Air Force station control tower, in order to permit the authorities to alert military planes?
2.	Do Trans-Canada Air Lines delayed flights approaching the Moose Jaw area notify the Royal Canadian Air Force station control tower?

Orders for Returns
3.	If not, has such a step been considered as a safety measure to prevent future air collisions?
4.	Have the responsible authorities considered requesting Trans-Canada Air Lines planes to increase their altitude from 6,000 feet to 7,000 or 8,000 feet over training areas, where Harvard or similar planes ordinarily would not be flying?
5.	Have the authorities considered asking Trans-Canada Air Lines to illuminate the exterior of their planes more clearly on night flights, as a safety measure?


Roch Pinard: Return tabled.



INCOME TAX BRANCH


Mr. Lennard:: 1.	How many chartered accountants are employed by the government in the income tax department?
2.	Who are they and where are they located?



STRIKES AND SICKNESS


Mr. Boisvert:: How many working days were lost in Canada in 1952, 1953 and 1954 on account of (a) strikes; (b) sickness?



REMISSION OF TAXES

Mr. Zapliiny:: 1.	Did any of the following firms receive remission of taxes in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1954: (a) Aluminum Company of Canada Limited; (b) Gatineau Power Company; (c) Saguenay Power Company Limited; (d) the Bell Telephone Company?
2.	If so. what was the amount in each case?
3.	What was the reason for the remission in each case?
4.	Under what authority were these remissions made?



REMISSIONS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

Mr. Zaplitny:: 1.	Did the following firms receive any remissions
of customs and excise duties and taxes, during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1954:	(a) Atlantic
Sugar Refineries Limited, Montreal; (b) Caland Ore Company Limited, Steep Rock, Ontario; (c) Ford Motor Company of Canada; (d) Iron Ore Company of Canada, Montreal; (e) Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company, Toronto?
2.	If so, what was the amount in each case?
3.	What was the reason for the remission in each case?
4.	Under what authority were these remissions made?



MENTAL HEALTH GRANTS

Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	What is the total amount of federal grants made available for mental health activities in Canada?
2.	How is this money distributed between the various provinces?
3.	What is the total cost of mental health programs in Canada?
4.	What is the breakdown in the expenditure of this money as between (a) provincial hospitals; (b) psychiatric clinics (private and public); (c) rest homes; (d) preventive work?



DIETHYLSTILBESTROL

Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	Is the importation into Canada of diethylstil-bestrol in any form permitted?
2.	If so, what quantities have been imported since January 1, 1953?
3.	By whom were the imports made, and under whose authority were permits issued?



CANADIAN FARM LOAN BOARD

Mr. Pommer:: 1.	By years and by provinces since 1950, how many loans were made by the Canadian farm loan board?
2.	In this period how many loans were paid up?
3.	How many are outstanding?


Mr. Benidickson:: Return tabled.



P.F.R.A.-P.F.A.A. EMPLOYEES, SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. Argue:: 1. What are the names and addresses of all persons employed in Saskatchewan in 1954 under (a) the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act; (b) the Prairie Farm Assistance Act?
2.	What sum of money was paid to each of these persons as (a) salary or wages; (b) sustenance; (c) mileage; (d) other allowances?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Knowles:: For a copy of any communications, memoranda or briefs received by the government, dated at any time since August 1, 1954, from or on behalf of any organizations, relating to the proposal to lease the new Queen Elizabeth hotel, in Montreal, to the Hilton Hotel chain of the United States.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memos of telephone conversations, in connection with the purchase of lumber and building material and supplies required by the Indian affairs branch in the city of Prince Albert and northern Saskatchewan, in the areas comprised in the federal constituencies of The Battlefords, Meadow Lake and Humboldt-Melfort, during the year 1954, and in particular, a copy of all letters sent to lumber or supply companies, wherein an opportunity to tender was given, and a copy of all tenders or contract offers for lumber and building material and supplies that were made to the department.


Mr. Pickersgill:: This motion quite obviously asks for all letters, telegrams, memos of telephone conversations and so forth which, if they existed, would in most cases be documents passing between members of the department which are always understood to be privileged documents. There could of course be no objection to going through all the files and looking for any letters from outsiders addressed to the department and no objection to producing them if the hon. member insists upon it. There would be no objection to

providing a copy of all letters sent to lumber or supply companies if the hon. gentleman insists, though it might take some considerable time to look through the various files to make sure they were all covered. Of course we would be very glad to provide a copy of all successful tenders. If, with suitable modifications such as I have suggested, I could meet the hon. member's wishes, I should be very glad to do so, but if there were any insistence upon privileged documents being produced I am afraid the motion would have to be opposed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is carried subject to the reservation made by the minister.



CUSTOMS TARIFF


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Trainor) raised a question with respect to the marking of imported toys with the country of origin and asked whether I had received complaints from Canadian toy manufacturers that the marking regulations were not being observed. In reply I should like to inform the hon. member that there is at present no marking requirement with respect to imported toys.
Representations have been received periodically for the application of marking regulations to toys, but it is quite a complicated matter because of the extensive variety of toys capable of importation, at least some of which could be practically prohibited importation because of insistence upon this requirement. The department already has the matter under study and it will continue to receive most careful consideration.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Mr. Mclvor-The following proposed resolution -That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the elections act so as to enable all qualified electors to use their franchise in federal elections.
Mr. Speaker:: I see that there is a resolution on the order paper preceding a bill to be introduced by the Secretary of State having to do with what is contemplated in this motion. Therefore the motion will have to be withdrawn from the order paper.
Education EDUCATION



EQUALIZING OF OPPORTUNITY


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of taking steps to relieve the financial crisis in education, without encroaching in any way on the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces in this field, by granting financial assistance to the various provinces for the expansion and equalization of educational opportunity across Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I need not attempt to impress upon the house the importance of education nor need I attempt to impress upon the house the need of having a high standard of education in Canada. Neither shall I attempt in my own words to define education, but I should like to quote the words of the essayist, Joseph Addison, who defined education in this way:
Education is a companion which no misfortune can depress, no crisis can destroy, no enemy can alienate, no despotism can enslave. At home a friend, abroad an introduction; in solitude a solace and in society an ornament. It chastens vice, it guides virtue, it gives, at once, grace and government to genius. Without it, what is man? A splendid slave, a reasoning savage.
These words were written about 1700, but I submit that they apply equally well today. This is not the first time that I have debated such a resolution as this in the house, but I intend today to use a somewhat different approach because what I have said before has been recorded many times in the records and it is there for anyone who cares to read.
Let me say at the outset that I advocate nothing here today which would in any way interfere with provincial jurisdiction over the administration or curriculum of education within the provinces. Let me say emphatically that I believe in complete control over education by the provinces, that each province shall set up within its own boundaries such a system of education as its people desire, and that it shall administer it in terms of the constitution without interference from outside. Believing this, and making a plea for federal aid, I have inserted in the body of the resolution itself the words, "without encroaching in any way on the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces in this field." With respect to previous debates I should like to give a quotation or two.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member allow me to interrupt him in order to ask all hon. members to remain as silent as possible. It is very difficult for a member to speak to his resolution when there is so much noise in the house. I am sure that hon. members will want to co-operate.

Education


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The first extract is one taken from a speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on October 19, 1949, as found at page 946 of Hansard, in which he said:
X am sure all hon. members have welcomed this opportunity of focusing their attention upon this assertion, one which certainly appeals to each and every one of us, that there should be across Canada the greatest possible degree of equality of opportunity for the education of our young Canadians, the Canadians of the next generation.
Since I am making this plea, in the nature of things, Mr. Speaker, to a Liberal government, I should like to use as my next quotation one from a speech by a distinguished member of the Liberal party, no less a person than the premier of Manitoba, Hon. Douglas Campbell, when speaking at the federal-provincial conference in 1950. He said:
Education is a subject which is of fundamental national concern because it far transcends the interest of any local community that the utmost use should be made of all our human resources, and that no child should be penalized as to the education which is available to him merely because he happens to live in one part of Canada rather than another. We therefore strongly advocate that the federal government should accept responsibility for a substantial part of the cost of education.
If I may, in all humility, add my own words to those of greater men, may I say that the birthright of every child is a minimum standard of education, based not upon the wealth of the parent or the local school district or even of the province but upon the wealth and resources of the whole nation. I hope, sir, and I believe that we are entering upon an era of peace. Even if we are not to be engaged in active war, even if we may be able to make some rents in the "curtains" that divide the peoples of the world and permit again free intercommunication and perhaps some trade, we shall be involved in a struggle of ideas. In that struggle the quality and universality of education in our own country may be an important factor. Given that, and given time, I think the ideas of freedom and democracy will ultimately prevail.
Perhaps we should consider education for a moment from that point of view. Such an examination will not justify any smugness upon our part. In my opinion we are falling steadily behind some of the other countries in the commonwealth of nations. Comparatively speaking, we have created no great Canadian literature, nor indeed are we a nation of great readers. Smugness might incline us to think that perhaps those with whom we differ ideologically are illiterate.

I refer you now to a startling article by Mr. Burke Stannard in the Financial Post of December 18 in which he says:
In 1918 Russia had one university for every 11 millions of its population, Canada had one for every 315,000. Today-
Not very many years afterwards.
-Russia has one university student for every 150 population; Canada has one for every 250. We might well inquire as to just what is holding up Canadian progress.
He answers his own question by saying, and I quote in part:
Personally, I believe the financial barrier to be the one which keeps the enrolment low.
Then he says the significant fact is that government support is not rising as rapidly as university costs. Two educators were asked to make some comment on this particular article. One was Dr. R. C. Wallace, whose recent decease has been such a loss to education and indeed to this country generally. The opening words of his comment were, and I quote:
The situation calls for additional scholarship assistance as well as additional grants to the universities.
Dr. F. Cyril James, the principal of McGill University, while advocating the need for scholarships said it would be necessary for each scholarship to carry with it the payment to the university attended by the student of a supplementary grant. These men speak from the university viewpoint. Since in this resolution I am rather considering the quality of education for the great masses of the public, my first plea to the government would be for the provision of a more generous scale of scholarships from national funds. Personally, I would request that in the granting a greater emphasis should be laid on the humanities. I contend, with all due deference to the technical and scientific specialists, that such studies in the humanities are the basis and foundation of any liberal education.
I am going to make another suggestion in the interests of education. Perhaps it is less important and perhaps I should not spend the time on it, but it is this idea. I heard of an unfortunate case where some applicants for posts, perhaps administrative, in the civil service were turned down with a great deal of scorn by certain members of the employing agency-I do not know whether or not it was the civil service commission-and were told that was not the type of education needed for this job. I am going to suggest to the government that, in the employment of civil servants, and goodness knows there is no place in the country where we can better use well educated men, they keep a long list of young men trained in the humanities.

The names for such a list could be obtained through competitive examination or from the heads of universities. The government could enable these men to proceed further with their education through government scholarships so that they could qualify themselves for the particular jobs for which the government needed them.
From my early youth, I recall there were appointments to be made to the consular service in Britain. A competitive examination was set up open to all students within the British Empire of a certain age. The top half dozen candidates in this examination were selected for a two-year scholarship at Cambridge to continue their studies, largely in the languages but generally in the subjects which they would need. I would suggest to the government that would be a good method to adopt here and might give us some of the best brains in the country, whose training would have been in the humanities rather than in the sciences, and who might with further training fit into a niche suitable to themselves and with benefit to the country as a whole.
For a long time Britain has recognized the need of such scholarships. Mr. Kenneth Lindsay, who was parliamentary secretary to the board of education in Britain from 1937 to 1940, a man with a long career in both government and education, stated recently as reported in Saturday Night of January 22:
At the university level we have a system of grants so extensive that there is nothing like it anywhere else.
He was referring, of course, to Britain. He stated that 75 per cent of the university students there are receiving grants from the state. The basis of entrance is entirely on merit, a fact which keeps down wastage. We all know there is no point in training people if they have not the ability to absorb such training. I quote again from Mr. Lindsay:
About 60 per cent of all British universities' money comes from the state through the university grants committee which gives something like 20 million pounds per year, with no questions asked.
My next plea to the government in the interests of education is that it proceed forthwith to set up the Canada Council, as recommended by the Massey commission. Not long ago the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) spoke in this city to a group of educators interested in the humanities. I was fortunate enough to receive an invitation to attend the meetings. In a very fine speech during one of our evening sessions the Prime Minister, with his usual caution, the caution which one can understand since it is the
Education
corollary of responsibility, did not commit himself to the setting up of that council but he did by his speech inspire hope in the breasts of those who heard him that such action would be taken at this session. Certainly those who were interested were keenly disappointed to learn there was no mention of it in the speech from the throne.
I do not know whether or not the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) had anything to do with putting the brake on the wheels of progress in that particular case, but he can answer for himself or to his own conscience. Canada is slowly and gradually emerging, Mr. Speaker, from the feeling of inferiority which has always bedevilled us in literature and the other arts. Perhaps our pioneer preoccupation with primitive things, or perhaps our progress towards our own independence and our progress in material wealth, has been so swift that our appreciation of Canada's greatness and the capabilities of her people has not kept pace. We, ourselves, are at last discovering that there is as much drama in the lives of native Canadians as a basis for literature as there is in other people's lives.
Our artists are beginning at last to realize that there is as much beauty in a prairie sunset or in the Quebec woods as there is in a European scene which it was once conventional to portray upon a canvas. And I pay my tribute here to the great advance made by French-Canadian culture. Investments in the promotion of Canadian arts, such as I suggest, would add to the enjoyment, the education and the culture of all Canadian people.
And now I come to my third request-and it is really the meat of my resolution. I had thought once of spending my whole time upon it, because I am well aware that there are a good many new members who have come to the house since I last spoke on the subject and since the last debate upon it occurred. But I would tell them that it is all on Hansard-and that it has been there for the last six or eight years. While I have not time to go into it in too much detail today, I shall take whatever time Mr. Speaker will allow me.
My request is for more support from the consolidated revenue fund of this country to the provinces for the support of such programs in general education as the provinces themselves desire to maintain. There should be some degree of equality of opportunity in education for all Canadian children, irrespective of the province from which they come, and irrespective of the

Education
economic status of their parents-and the last is very important. We know that high school education, while free in the sense that people do not have to pay fees for it, is not in fact free. There are such things as clothes and books, and members of large families who must go out to support others who are younger than themselves, and who are growing up.
There are many children who, through circumstances over which they have no control, are underprivileged in the matter of education. In the financial educational structure of Canada we want stability. When economic disaster comes in the form of a failure in the wheat crop, or floods, or any other circumstances of that kind, we do not want education to be the first casualty, as it usually is. And that is certainly true in times of war.
And may I say to some of my friends who like to turn this into a political dispute, who sneer and ask questions about the C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan, and all that sort of thing, that sincerely, so far as I am concerned, there is no political element whatsoever in this resolution. I move it simply in what I believe to be the interests of Canadian children. And I have not in mind the children in my own province any more than I have in mind the children of New Brunswick, Quebec, Alberta, or whatever province one may choose.
In view of the history of this country one can understand the fears held by some that federal aid might somehow imply or involve federal control. Well, one can understand that view; and one can understand, too, how politicians could have some success in promoting that fear for their own purposes. But for such fear in my opinion there is not the slightest shred of justification. The technique of federal grants in aid, without federal control, has already been well established. Consider the Agricultural Instruction Act, the Technical Education Act, the Youth Training Act, the Vocational Training Coordination Act, all providing financial assistance for education, without any control. Is there anyone in this house bold enough to get up and say that any federal control has been exerted in any of these spheres?
And then there are national research scholarships, D.V.A. university grants, direct grants to universities, grants to the research council for university research, the training of cadets at colleges, the maintenance of the education board of the bureau of statistics. And, by the way, while we are talking about constitutional matters, how about federal aid in matters of provincial control for family
IMr. Knight.]
allowances, or the national health program? I am not objecting to it, and I do not think anybody else is.
Perhaps I should explain what I mean by equality of educational opportunity. I remember one hon. member in one of the debates who certainly did not understand it. I suppose it is easier to say what it is not than to say what it is. It is not in any degree equality of education. It is not uniformity or standardization of education-for the first is impossible, human nature being what it is, and the second vvould certainly be undesirable and, if possible, would imply a control to which I personally, and everyone I know, would be opposed.
The idea of equality of opportunity is simply an attempt to give every Canadian child as good a chance to obtain an education as any other Canadian child. In my opinion that is his birthright in a civilized and democratic country.
It is not equality but inequality which prevails now, and its cause is almost entirely financial. The financial problem manifests itself in many ways, among others a shortage of teachers-and we see this all around us *-inadequately trained teachers, which we see in evidence everywhere, the lowering of standards, the lack of buildings and equipment, overcrowded classrooms, lack of transportation in outlying districts, unequal distribution of wealth as between provinces and districts and, in some places, a complete lack of educational facilities.
I have tried to avoid using statistics in this speech, but I would recommend for the reading of members in the house two reports which are the result of intensive research into this whole matter, and where comparisons as between province and province may be found. I refer to one report compiled by the Canadian teachers federation in December 1953, entitled "Educational Finance in Canada", and a report prepared by Dr. LaZerte under the sponsorship of the Canadian school trustees association, a body which I may add is completely in favour of federal aid.
We have reached almost an impasse in education in Canada. Education has always been almost entirely a charge upon real property. Well, I submit that cow has been milked dry. The municipalities, in desperation for funds, turn to the provinces, some of which at least have increased their grants, and most of which have reached the end of their ability to pay more.

The basis of taxation for general education must be broadened. I have seldom heard of bachelors or childless couples complaining about assessments for purposes of education of the children of others. And I have a better opinion of my fellow Canadians than to think that the wealthier provinces would complain if some of the funds they contribute to the consolidated revenue fund were used for grants to ensure education for the underprivileged children in other and less fortunate provinces.
This is a matter of vital public concern. Hundreds of organizations throughout the country have endorsed federal aid. I have not time to list them, but I do have a list a foot high. The only difficulty opposed to it is a political one, and that is based upon an unreasoning fear that somehow federal aid would imply federal control, and might involve interference with provincial jurisdiction or minority rights, a supposition I emphatically deny. However, I have already dealt with that phase of the subject.
The press of the country is full of articles setting out the difficulties faced in the educational system. I have before me a dozen or more clippings taken from the press in the last week or two. I find in one, for instance, that we are unable to train a sufficient number of Canadian teachers. I find that Ontario and Saskatchewan-and there may be other provinces-have actually been importing teachers from Great Britain. There may be good features in that. I know I favour the idea of exchange of teachers as between provinces and countries, but here is a compulsory one. While it may have its good features, I suggest to you that it is a sad commentary on our own system of training our teachers. What a blow to our national pride! This great country is looked up to for its wealth, but we cannot train our own school teachers. We have not the money to do it, so we take the ad hoc business of going out and grabbing them here and there wherever we can.
Here are a few pertinent things I picked up in the press recently. From the Globe and Mail I picked out the following:
Secondary school enrolment will increase in Ontario by more than 100,000 pupils in the next ten years and the province will require 4,000 more teachers.
This is a statement by Dr. Sidney Smith, president of the University of Toronto, as quoted in the paper I have mentioned. Here is another one:
In 1952-53 Canada had many unqualified persons substituting as teachers. Of these, 5,100 had no professional training, 3,700 had partial training and other thousands had poor qualifications.
Education
Dr. LaZerte in The Listening Post, as a result of a study he made of the situation for a full year, said this:
In 1951-52 the amount per pupil spent on a British Columbia child was over three times as high as in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island.
Well, sir, these little children are there. Is that justice? Surely it is for us to do something for them. The sum of $3 is spent in British Columbia on the education of a child, and the little child, because he has the fortune or misfortune-I leave it to the members from those provinces, I dare not express an opinion on it-to be born in Newfoundland or Prince Edward Island, has $1 spent on him.
I am asking you if that is justice. The child, of course, is not in a position to do anything about it, but I suggest to you, sir, that you and I ought to, and the government should, do something.
I picked another one from Le Nouvelliste of Three Rivers. The article pointed out the number of teachers working without teaching certificates or diplomas. It said:
Schools in rural areas have two choices, close down completely or employ untrained teachers.
We have substandard teachers in my own province and in Manitoba. As a matter of fact there are some in almost all the provinces. We ought to be ashamed. I saw another headline in a paper. Mr. Parker, a member of the Northwest Territories government, said that education is the territories' chief problem. It is one of Canada's chief problems. Education in Canada is big business and we should be concerned to see that we are getting value for our own money. I found statistics for 1953 which show that the percentage of teachers with university degrees is 24-6 in Ontario; 19-3 in Nova Scotia; 11-5 in New Brunswick; 5-1 in Prince Edward Island and 4-5 in Newfoundland. I am glad to be able to report that that is much better than it was at the last time a similar survey was made. We are making progress in that direction.
I have another heading which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen a few days ago as follows:
Soaring enrolment poses problem.
The article proceeds to discuss overcrowding in schools and shows it is a major problem in all provinces.
Then, Mr. J. Roger Pichette says that in his constituency of Restigouche county 1,600 school-age children "are not attending any school or at best attending one or two months a year". I do not know as to these facts. I am quoting them from what I consider to

Education
be reliable papers. This paper which states that to be a fact also makes the comment that the federal tax system's purpose is to make it financially possible for all the provinces, whatever their tax base, to perform their constitutional functions themselves and to provide a reasonable level of provincial services without an abnormal burden of taxation. I am suggesting that the burden of taxation on the municipalities and on many of the provinces of this country in respect of education is in fact abnormal.
A Canadian Press dispatch from the Vancouver Sun reports under this big headline: "Teachers blast Alberta scheme":
Dr. L. P. Patterson of Montreal speaking said it was a retrograde step of the worst kind.
I presume Dr. Patterson was a special speaker out there. When he said it was "a retrograde step" he was describing a plan to allow unmatriculated, grade 12 students, to go out and teach schools in the province of Alberta.
In picking out these press items, I have made no reflection upon any of the provinces, nor do 1 make any reflection on the school boards or on the teachers. They are caught up in the web of an impossible educational financial situation. The fact that there are 40 per cent of the teachers in one province with no professional qualifications or with less than the minimum requirements is no reflection on those people who day by day have to go into their school rooms and work in the face of those problems, sometimes for very small rewards, though I am pleased to note that that reward is now greater. But I say this: you can build a million dollar school with all the gimmicks-I hate that word, although I have used it-but if that school has not the prop of teachers of scholarship, ability, character and qualities of leadership, the whole edifice might as well educationally tumble down about your ears. Such people must be adequately trained and adequately paid, and their work must be adequately recognized. Sir, we do not submit the bodies of sick children to untrained or unskilled doctors. Is it not more important that we should make sure that we are not submitting their minds over a twelve-year period to unskilled, low-paid and inexperienced mentors?
The solution for this teacher problem, like others I have mentioned, is simply federal aid to education. True, education in its administration and curriculum is and must be, I insist, a provincial problem, but its results are national, especially in these days of easy communication, of quick transportation, of resettling as from one province to 
another, of Saskatchewan people moving to the Pacific coast to live in British Columbia, of Quebec people moving into Ontario and occupying lands and working in Ontario where they come under a different provincial jurisdiction. The education given in one province permeates the nation. As an instance of that, I would ask you to remember the great debt that we have owed for the last 50 years to educators from the maritimes who have come out to the west and assisted us with our teaching problems there.
In conclusion, let me return to my original theme, the building of a great and an educated nation. Our young men and women, as they traverse the world, will not be regarded as the products educationally of any particular province, but as products of this great free land, which is Canada. Let us use every means in our power to see to it that it also becomes an enlightened land.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to oppose this motion. Before I state the grounds for my opposition to it, I should like for a minute or two to indicate to you, sir, and to the house that in opposing the motion I am not and I do not want myself to be the cause of being represented as being opposed to many of the objectives outlined by the hon. member for Saskatoon.
I took a few notes while he was speaking. I doubt if there are any hon. members in this house who are so reactionary that they would quarrel with his view that it should be the desire of the Canadian nation to have as close an approach as we can get to equality of opportunity for the children of this country. If I were not restrained by the restraint shown by the hon. member, I would even go so far as to say that probably no government had done more toward achieving those objectives than the government which is now occupying the rather depleted treasury benches. I am going to state precisely why I have expressed that view.
In the days when I was making what I hope even the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will admit was an honest living as a teacher-and may I say that I am not pretending for a minute that I am a teacher any more-


Mr. Macdonnell:: What about an honest living?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope it is honest. In those days, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre knows, as everyone knows who comes from Manitoba where he and I were brought up, indeed as anyone who comes from any one of the western provinces or

from any of the Atlantic provinces knows, in those years we really did have a financial crisis about education in this country. We had a financial crisis about everything else the municipal and provincial governments had to do with. By the end of that period it was so great that it had affected even the wealthiest of the provinces.
Nothing that has been done since confederation has done so much to bring about equality of opportunity, or the possibility of equality of opportunity, for the children of this country as the policy of redistributing a portion of the national revenues so that the provincial governments will be in position to carry out their constitutional functions for themselves. That policy was recommended by the Rowell-Sirois commission, which as everyone knows was appointed in the summer of 1937 and made its report early in the years of the war. Despite a good deal of opposition from some prominent members of certain parties on the other side of the house, that policy was translated into an offer by which every provincial government was free to accept a tax rental agreement which would put it in a position to carry out its educational functions, which in my view is the most important of all its functions, for itself.
If the amount which the provinces receive under the tax rental agreements is not sufficient to enable the provincial and local authorities between them to provide equality of opportunity in the field of education, then I say right away that could be remedied through a redistribution of the national revenues so that might be possible. My own view is that the present tax rental agreements do redistribute the revenues of this country in such a fashion that it is quite possible in every province, I do not say to provide the kind of education all of us would like to see but to provide a real approximation to equality in all the provinces, provided the people of a province want it enough to elect the kind of provincial government that will insist upon providing it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us about Newfoundland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will tell you about Newfoundland. As a matter of fact that is why I intervened so early in this debate. I did want to say something about the particular relationship of Newfoundland to this motion.


Mr. Coldwell:: Has the hon. gentleman not thought that the present suggestions regarding tax agreements might undermine them seriously and prevent a further possibility of the provinces carrying out their responsibilities in this regard?
Education


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am pleased that the hon. gentleman has given me an excuse to say something which I rather hesitated to say. I was afraid that if I brought up that subject I would be accused by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight), who clothed himself in a non-partisan cloak, of introducing a partisan note. I do not think that anything will be found anywhere in any utterance from this side of the house that suggests that. It seems to me that the assurance which the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) gave in the letter which he addressed to the provincial governments, an assurance which he has given repeatedly in public, is the most complete answer to that.
It does seem to me that those people who are taking exception to the efforts which we are making to see that undue burdens are not placed upon one group of Canadian taxpayers because they happen to live in a province whose government does not want to have a tax rental agreement; it does seem to me that the continued attacks which are made upon these efforts to provide a reasonable equality for these Canadian citizens, are not helping to ensure the stability of this system.
If I may continue with the thought that I had started with, I am not saying that this redistribution must be done by means of tax rental agreements. Perhaps I had better quote from the letter which the Prime Minister addressed to all the premiers except the premier of Quebec, and something similar to the paragraph I intend to read was in the letter to that premier. The passage I have in mind will be found on page 281 of Hansard of January 17, 1955, and reads:
We did indicate, however, that the federal government was not wedded to the principle of tax rental agreements to the exclusion of any better alternative arrangement if one could be found. At the same time, we made it clear that the present government had no intention of abandoning the objective of the tax rental agreements which is to make it financially possible for all the provinces, whatever their tax base, to perform their constitutional functions themselves and to provide a reasonable Canadian level of provincial services without an abnormal burden of taxation.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said, that is the foundation of the policy of the federal government. I am going to make the statement right now, Mr. Speaker, that so long as I am a member of the government that is going to continue to be the foundation of the policy of the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You might find yourself incompetent one of these days.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite so. That is possible. We have a democratic system and some day. I suppose, the people of Canada will get tired of us.

Education


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But I do not think that day is dawning just yet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Major James William Coldwell: In a couple of years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is obvious you need to get back to education.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It perhaps would be
prudent for me to keep my hand in. Next to the tax rental agreements or the principle of the tax rental agreements to which I have just alluded, I do not think that any other measure that has ever been enacted by this parliament or by any provincial legislature has done more to bring about equality of opportunity for the children of this country than has the family allowance legislation which was introduced by my old chief, Mr. Mackenzie King. Of all his many achievements, it may be the one which will have been of the most enduring value.
There are many other ways in which the federal government can-as it has and as I hope it will continue to do-advance in a general sort of way the cause of education in this country. The hon. member for Saskatoon referred to several of these things. One could refer to a good many others such as the university grants, the scholarships provided by the research council, some of the appropriations provided by my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), some by my hon. friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) and a host of other particular things. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) does a good deal of this sort of thing. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) does something.


Major James William Coldwell: What about defence?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suppose half the departments of government do something of that sort. But that is not what the hon. member for Saskatoon really means by this motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Your own department does some of it too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nor is that what I mean when I oppose this motion. This is not strictly relevant, Mr. Speaker; in fact, I think it is strictly irrelevant, and if you call me to order I will not persist.


Mr. Nowlan:: We should appreciate that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman referred to the proposed Canada Council. I think he did a bad day's work for that project by his intervention in this debate today. I know that what he did was quite inadvertent, but there is no consideration that is
[Mr. Pickersgill.1
more apt to make this or any other government prudent about establishing a body like the Canada Council than to have it labelled as "educational" and to have it suggested that it is an intrusion into the field of education which, by the constitution-as the hon. gentleman pointed out four or five times in his remarks-is reserved to the provinces. I do not conceive of the Canada Council as recommended in the Massey commission's report as being in any sense-except the sense in which all life is education-an educational body at all. I do not think the establishment of such a body would be an intrusion in any way whatsoever into the field of education as defined in the British North America Act as a field of jurisdiction for the provinces. But when it is advocated in these terms misleading views are developed and disseminated and circulated.
As every hon. member knows, we in this house have to live or, as I have been reminded several times already, die by the votes that are cast by the electors. In other words, all of us here depend on public opinion. If it is established in the minds of the public that the Canada Council is primarily as an educational agency, I doubt if any government will ever establish it. That is all I intend to say about that subject now because I want to go on and deal with what the hon. gentleman himself said was the real point of this motion.
As I took down his words, he said that what he was really advocating was more support from the consolidated revenue for the provinces for education. If I have misrepresented his stand in any way I should be glad to be corrected before I proceed with my argument. He said this was necessary in order to provide stability in education. Then he went on to say that many people fear that federal aid of this description might involve federal control. I happen to be one of those many. I think any member of the House of Commons who would vote federal money to be spent by the provincial governments for education in general, without any kind of control upon the spending of that money or the use to which it was put, would be false to the trust that we have here as members of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now who is doing a bad day's work?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is my opinion. This is a free country and anybody who wishes to do so is at liberty to differ with me.


George Clyde Nowlan: We do it every day in the week.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure I will have one supporter in this house in the person of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdon-nell) because he, like me, believes that there should be some control of the way in which the taxpayers' money that we raise is spent; and he thinks it is our duty to control it. He said so yesterday in terms that I thought were quite eloquent and that were echoed, rather less eloquently I thought, by quite a number of other hon. gentlemen opposite.


Major James William Coldwell: What about the money that is now paid under the tax rental agreements or the numerous grants we make to voluntary organizations across the country? What about those?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is precisely the point I am coming to.


Major James William Coldwell: What about the tax rental agreements?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is precisely the point I am coming to and if I may foe permitted to proceed-


George Clyde Nowlan: What about the grants to universities?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman would like me to answer that question, I will answer it; but that will make my remarks a little bit longer. However, I think I would rather first make my main point and deal directly with the point raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) because, in my view, it is the nub of the whole matter and it is the point on which the hon. member for Saskatoon and I really differ. Just so that we may look at it I am going to read his resolution and from it I think I will be able to make quite clear the point of difference between us. It reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of the house,-
That is common coin.
-the government should take into consideration the advisability of taking steps to relieve the financial crisis in education,-
In the first place, I do not admit that there is a financial crisis in education, but that is another matter.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Read it all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There may be individual financial crises in many places but I do not think there is a national financial crisis in education at all. The resolution continues: -without encroaching in any way on the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces in this field, by granting financial assistance to the various provinces for the expansion and equalization of educational opportunity across Canada.
Now, I say, sir, that the motion is a contradiction in terms. Let me deal with the way 50433-63
Education
in which it differs from tax transfer payments or tax rental payments. Whichever hon. members prefer to call them, it seems to me there is not a great deal of difference between the two conceptions. They go right back to confederation. As every hon. member knows, though some people outside the house seem to have forgotten it, there would have been no confederation at all if there had not been subsidies paid to all the provinces in lieu of the revenues that those provinces received before confederation from customs duties and other forms of indirect taxes. Those subsidies were insisted upon by practically all the fathers of confederation from all the provinces but one, and of course, as everyone knows, George Brown was strongly opposed to these subsidies because he said that the jurisdiction that spends the money should raise it.
That is a fine principle, and I would agree with that if the wealth of the country were today or had been in 1867 uniformly spread across the country. But we all know it is not and that to have a united country, to have union in the first place, and to maintain it ever since, it has been absolutely imperative for the federal treasury to collect more money than the federal services require and to pay some of it to the provinces for their free and unfettered use for provincial purposes, and then to leave it to the provincial legislatures to decide how that money shall be used.
That is the system I am in favour of because it seems to me it is the only system that safeguards provincial autonomy. It leaves it to the people of the provinces to decide for themselves whether they want to spend that money for education, which is their responsibility, or for roads, which are their responsibility, or for any of the other provincial services. On the other hand, what the hon. gentleman is suggesting here is either one of two things. He is either suggesting that we just add to these tax transfer payments an additional sum, and if that is all he means I think it would be more honest to say so in plain language that would not permit of misunderstanding, or if that is not all he means, if he means we are going to pay this money over to the provinces and insist upon its being spent for education, then if that is not control by us of how the money is spent I do not know what it is. If that is not infringement of provincial autonomy, I do not know what would be infringement of provincial autonomy.


Major James William Coldwell: That is stretching the point.

Education


John Whitney Pickersgill: In a great many provinces, the one I represent in particular-and I leave it for members from other provinces to speak for themselves-that is why propositions such as this are viewed with such great suspicion. It is thought that behind these proposals lies some hidden design to take away the control from the people of these provinces and put it here in a place where some of us are supposed to think we know so much better than the people in these provinces how their affairs should be managed. I am not one of the people who think that.
As a matter of fact, it is only five and a half years since the province, a part of which has honoured me by electing me to this house, became a part of Canada. The province of Newfoundland-and I use the word "peculiar" in no invidious sense-has a peculiar educational system. It is peculiar in one sense only, in that it is different from the educational systems in all the other provinces. I am not going to say, because it is not my business to do so-I was not elected for the purpose; the members of the legislative assembly were elected for the purpose-whether I think that system is better than or as good or not as good as the system in any other province. But it is the system that up to now the people of Newfoundland have indicated they want to have. As most hon. members know, it is a denominational system with four different sets of schools, and the people have not indicated that they want to change that system.
I am not saying that for us to put a certain sum of money into the treasury of Newfoundland would necessarily change that system at all, but I am saying that I think it would not be a responsible thing for us simply to pay over that money without laying down certain conditions, and first of all the condition that it must be spent exclusively on education. That would be the first thing. May I say that I think some of the speeches made already in debates this session, speeches which have not contributed much to national unity, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and some people around him know very well, indicate what a dangerous thing it is for us here to be tampering with things which are not our constitutional business.


Major James William Coldwell: Just a moment. The minister speaks of people sitting around the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, but will he not agree that some of the people who sit around him have not been immune from raising difficulties in the same direction?


An hon. Member:: More so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not admit it, but if it
is true it only adds force to my argument that we should not be debating education in this house at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question on the point he has been discussing?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He knows of course that through the Department of National Defence federal money has been made available for the building of at least one school in the city of Winnipeg.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, quite.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The money was turned over to the school board of Winnipeg for the purpose of building a school, and it has happened in other places too. Does that interfere in any way whatsoever with the complete control of the province of Manitoba over education within that province?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir, I do not think it does.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think it interfered with the complete control of the government of Ontario over education when my own department provided money to build two extra rooms on one of the schools in the city of Sarnia so that Indian children could attend the ordinary school to which other children go. I do not think it interferes with education when we provide anything for a specific limited purpose that is agreed to with the province in advance and where we retain control of the purpose for which it is used. Nor does it contribute to the objective of the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight). He said his objective was equality of opportunity, not meeting particular situations.
To get any approach to equality of opportunity surely we have got to say that the money should be used not just anywhere but where it is needed to create that equality of opportunity. We know that there are greater inequalities within provinces than there are between one province and another. If we are going to try to get a better approach to equality of opportunity through the spending of federal money, if that is what we are really going to do, then we have got to say that it must be spent in the poorer parts of the provinces or in the parts that lack educational facilities or for some specific purpose. The moment we start doing that we interfere with education.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What if it were for the children of the men of the forces, which you have done?


John Whitney Pickersgill: For children of the members of the forces or for the children of Indians or when the federal government interferes with the normal course of activities or when it has a responsibility of its own, it seems to me it is not unreasonable for it to make a contribution just as we make a contribution to the finances of the city of Ottawa because we require so much of their services.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That does not give you control over Charlotte Whitton, does it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That really has nothing to do with this issue at all. I did not catch the hon. member's remark.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That does not give you control over Charlotte Whitton, does it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, it might be, sir, that despite the omnicompetence of parliament we here cannot perform miracles.


Mrs. Fairclough:: You have not enough money, either.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would not insult the lady that way. If I might return again to the motion and my objection to it, it is this. A grant for education may not accomplish its purpose unless we do exercise control over the spending of the money.
I should like to take the most extreme case. I do not know whether the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) mentioned just how much he thought these grants should be, but let us assume that in the province of Nova Scotia-I take that province particularly because the hon. member for Digby-Annap-olis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) has shown interest in this subject-the amount of money spent by the provincial treasurer on education is matched by a federal grant. Would we say that the grant was conditional upon Nova Scotia continuing to spend the amount of provincial funds it is now spending or would we not? If we did, we would be interfering with provincial autonomy; and if we did not, we would be leaving the provincial treasurer of that province, were he so minded, free to cut out the provincial appropriation and the cause of education would not be helped at all.


Major James William Coldwell: Does the dominion not state now, in connection with the health grants, that the federal grant should be matched by the province? Is that not exactly what you do?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Precisely; and in my
opinion, to the extent that these conditions are accepted we exercise control. If the hon.
50433-63J
Education
gentleman thinks that health is exclusively within provincial jurisdiction, then these conditions may be an infringement upon that jurisdiction.


Major James William Coldwell: Of course I do not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is certainly an intervention into the field of health.


Major James William Coldwell: To the benefit of the Canadian people generally?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


George Clyde Nowlan: Would it be an infringement of provincial autonomy if the federal government said that if the province reduced the amount spent on education the federal government would reduce its grant accordingly? Would that be an infringement of provincial autonomy?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I really value the hon. gentleman's question. I think it is a very serious one. I feel it would be productive, perhaps, of more disunity than anything else I could possibly think of. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings raises a very serious point. I am going to answer him, but a bit indirectly at first. I am going to say this. I do not believe there is anyone in this house who does not feel that the situation which has existed for the last few years, whereby we collect the same taxes right across this country, and where one provincial government for reasons of its own did not take advantage of the tax rentals available in that situation, has not contributed to the unity in the country.
It seems to me that if we started to make these so-called unconditional grants-I took down the words used by the hon. member for Saskatoon and he said that nothing should interfere with the administration or curriculum; he favoured complete control by the province. He said it three or four times What I am saying is this. If you say that if the provincial government reduces its appropriation we will reduce the federal appropriation accordingly, and if that happens in two or three provinces and does not happen in others, if the federal grants are proportionately much higher in provinces like Nova Scotia and Manitoba-I am just taking them at random-than in provinces like New Brunswick and Saskatchewan, is that result going to contribute either to equality of opportunity or to unity in the country?
It does not seem to me it is going to contribute to anything but a feeling, first of all that we are interfering with provincial matters and, second, that we are favouring provinces whose governments do things we want them to do and discriminating against provinces whose governments do not behave

Education
in the way we think is appropriate. In other words, we would be attempting indirectly to dictate the provincial budgets for education. For that reason, sir, I simply cannot support this motion.
Now, if the hon. gentleman instead had made a perfectly simple, honest and straightforward motion-


Major James William Coldwell: Well, he did; it is honest. I object. I do not think the minister has a right to describe it as not an honest motion. Surely that is not correct. I do not think the minister meant what he said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I meant precisely what I said.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I ask that this statement to the effect that in moving this motion I have been in any way dishonest should be withdrawn.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the first place, I did not say the hon. gentleman was dishonest.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: By implication, yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The motion, I said, was dishonest, and I repeat it was dishonest.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I listened carefully to the words which were used by the minister. He said that "if the hon. member had made an honest and straightforward resolution or motion"-I forget whether he used the word "resolution" or "motion"-and I do not think there was any implication against-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I do not think there was any implication against the hon. member who proposed the motion. If there was any implication against the hon. member who proposed the motion, then I must ask the minister to withdraw it. If there was no implication, then the remark need not be withdrawn.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, sir-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am quite willing to say, and I say without hesitation, that I do not think there was anything dishonest about the motives of the hon. member in putting this motion. But I do think, and I repeat-if the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) were here now he would agree with me, judging by what he said yesterday-that hon. members are becoming a little squeamish when they object to the suggestion that motions which they may make in good faith are, nonetheless, misleading.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, that is different.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I certainly think this
motion is misleading. Indeed, I think this motion is a fraud.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is this the expert who is talking?


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. gentleman is versed in the English language, and when he says that a motion is a fraud, he is going beyond what should be said in this house about any motion that is moved.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall withdraw the word "fraud", sir.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister let me tell him what the word "fraud" means?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I remind hon. members that the hon. member who has the floor cannot be interrupted without his consent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He has my consent, sir.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I wish to make it clear that the hon. minister, who has the floor, cannot impute motives to the proposer of the resolution, and it was to that aspect of the matter I directed my attention a few moments ago. I understood the minister's remarks to be directed to the resolution and to its wording. I could not find any objection to that. I understand the minister has withdrawn the word "fraud" so surely we can take the matter as being at an end.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I can confer in private with the hon. member for Greenwood and thereby improve my own education-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -because some day, as hon. members opposite have pointed out, I may need it.
However, I think no exception was taken to my statement that in my opinion this resolution is misleading; and I want to say why I think it is misleading. I think it is misleading because it recommends, to use the hon. member's own words, "more support from the consolidated revenue fund for the provinces". I do not think you could be sure of having in every province more support from the consolidated revenue fund for the provinces for purposes of education, unless you stipulated that the provinces had to continue to spend the amount they are spending now, and that whatever was contributed must be added to it.
I think the moment you did that you would be transgressing the other part of the resolution, which says that you must not interfere with provincial jurisdiction.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Even after granting a generous allowance to the minister for the time consumed by myself in discussing points of order, I must advise him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Major James William Coldwell: Finish it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there is unanimous consent the minister may proceed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the house for its indulgence. I was hoping, Mr. Speaker, to have finished in about two more sentences, but it may take three or four to get back to the thread of what I was saying.
The point I was really making was this; that it seems to me, as I said earlier, that in this motion we have a contradiction in terms. If, instead, the hon. member had moved a simple resolution-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You would have opposed it anyway.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -in which he said that because of the financial crisis in education- and I would not have agreed with him, but I would not have quarrelled with that phrase in the motion-the tax rental payments to the provinces should be increased so the provincial governments would be in a position to discharge their responsibilities properly, I would have thought that was a perfectly proper kind of suggestion for a member of parliament to make.
But when we try to make people think we are voting for more aid for education, when we have no way of making sure, if we did it, that it would go for education, then I think it is-I see the hon. member for Greenwood looking at me, and I am trying to think of a synonym for the word he and I cannot use-I think it is very misleading to the public.


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Acting Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to answer the arguments of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill), or to attempt to meet the variations and changes in his viewpoint from paragraph to paragraph.
The issue before the house is important, and I compliment the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) for having brought it to the attention of hon. members. I am sure he is conscious of the constitutional difficulties, but at least he has brought before us a problem that is close to the hearts of all Canadians today. I was somewhat interested in the speech just delivered by the minister. I listened, too, to the hon. member for Saskatoon. There is no doubt that the Minister of
Educatior
Citizenship and Immigration, while perhaps he did not intend to, could have provoked an interesting debate on many points if he had been permitted to deviate that far from the subject matter of the resolution.
However, I was glad to learn that the minister and the late Hon. George Brown were in agreement, even if each believed that he should not give any subsidies without having control; and yet we know that both did it. I do not see the great danger the minister has mentioned of infringing provincial rights. He says the only procedure would be by means of a redistribution of national revenue, but he says this could not be done unless it were followed up with controllers to look after it. The minister says it is all right to give aid to education to children in one district, because there has been common agreement in advance, but that it could not be granted in another district because control would be required. It seems to me that what he said could be summed up in this way. The minister seemed to say that what we want to do we can do constitutionally, but what we do not want to do we are afraid might not be constitutional.
I must say I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever taught school. But if I had been a school teacher and had offered the arguments he has offered concerning education I would be afraid that my students would doubt me. It is not my intention to get into any controversy with the minister, because he is still a young man. He says he has been in the House of Commons only about a year and a half, and I know he is associated with men who have had wide experience. We know, too, that the minister has had a colourful career in the civil service, and I hope his career in the House of Commons is equally colourful, even if I cannot understand exactly the direction in which he is going.
I do not wish to take up much time in this discussion because I know there are others in the house today who are keenly interested in this matter and who would not take kindly to my encroaching upon their time. Therefore I shall not repeat many of the statements that have been made. It will be recalled, however, that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) in 1952 and 1953, as well as on other occasions, emphasized where he stood on this issue, and pointed out the difficulties the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration touched upon today, and how they might be met. No one realized more than he did, when he was minister of education in Ontario, the importance of this growing problem, the education of our youth. But I submit that today it is even more vital, and that it grows more important as the years pass. As our national


John Whitney Pickersgill: One has been called.


William Earl Rowe: I am glad to know that. We have been pressing for it for four or five years. We have not had one for some years. I am glad to know that, and I am sure the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) will be glad to learn when he returns that somebody has announced it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Read the Prime Minister's letter.


William Earl Rowe: If you can give us the date, we shall be glad to know it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You will find it in Hansard
of January 17.


James Joseph McCann: It was mentioned in that letter.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: When is it to
be held?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.
Education


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, this is a clear-cut example that has developed steadily. I think it only fair to say that failure to co-operate with the provinces has already created a lack of educational facilities. The inability of the municipalities to meet this educational challenge already has had a serious effect upon the education of our youth in this country. Education should be advancing like everything else, but it is not advancing today because we are short of classrooms, we are short of teachers, and there are hundreds of children who are not getting a fair chance and opportunity in education.
I would urge the government to keep it upon their agenda, to not continue making the excuse that they cannot relieve the situation but give us some idea how the municipalities, the provinces and the dominion can sit down and revamp an outmoded taxation system so we can meet this situation because as I say even though we are members of this house we are all taxpayers whether municipally, provincially or federally. It is a problem which everybody must face, and it is something which far transcends politics. It is an issue upon which the whole life of this country depends.
We shall be no stronger, in the years that lie ahead, no matter how great may be our resources about which we boast, than the intelligent application of sound principles to our everyday affairs by educated scientists and educated leaders in church, school and society.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. member and the party for which he speaks in favour of making grants to the provinces for education?


William Earl Rowe: I said I was not going to take up too much of the time of the house, and I do not propose to take up time by answering questions which I have answered already. At the beginning of my remarks I pointed out the constitutional difficulty, and even the hon. member for Saskatoon has referred to that. Over the years the Leader of the Opposition has spoken on this matter and emphasized this problem. I say again that it could be handled by a dominion-provincial conference where everyone would sit around the table. In the meantime, whether controlled or uncontrolled, if the government is going to go through another period without dealing with this issue at the forthcoming dominion-provincial conference then we should approve grants in aid to the provinces and not seek to control them.
I am more concerned about the education of the children of this province than I am about the constitutionality of the matter or any precedent that might be established. I do

Education
not believe that one dollar should be granted by this government that has not provincial jurisdiction. The provinces must have full jurisdiction over their educational system. It is not our business, it is not our function to administer educational expenditures in the provinces. At the same time I think this can be worked out by a dominion-provincial conference; but in the interval, particularly in view of your delay in calling a dominion-provincial conference for the five years in which we have been pressing for it, this situation has developed to where it is now a serious national problem concerning the mothers and fathers in almost every home in this dominion.


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the house sets before us an important proposition in clear and understandable language. Its meaning is simple. It asks that the government should take steps to relieve the financial crisis in education by granting financial relief to the provinces for the expansion and equalization of educational opportunities. But it goes further and places emphasis on the fact that this should be accomplished without interference with the administration of education in the provinces. I wish to commend the hon. member for Saskatoon for moving this resolution. It is not the first time that he has sponsored a similar motion. In the face of considerable discouragement he has continued to press his point, and he has certainly had our support from the beginning.
I should like to make one or two points clear. I am sure the hon. member did not intend to leave an incorrect impression, but he referred to certain persons teaching school in Alberta as unmatriculated grade 12 students. He left it at that, suggesting that those persons were going forth to teach school without being given a certain amount of training. True, it is not very much, but they do get some training, and then they must come back during succeeding years and bring up their qualifications to acceptable standards.
I am not going to take up any time defending that particular action. Something was necessary under the circumstances to meet a shortage of teachers. It meant that either such persons were to teach or supervisors would be placed in the schools-persons without any teacher training whatsoever-or that the schools would be closed and correspondence courses only made available to the students.


Major James William Coldwell: I think there is something similar in my own province.


Frederick Davis Shaw: There is something similar in Saskatchewan. It is merely a stop-gap action.

As a former teacher I certainly regret that it seemed to be necessary, but certainly it is only temporary.
I listened carefully to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. On the basis of what he said I could cast aside all I had intended saying and spend a delightful 40 minutes analysing his remarks. However, I am just going to make one or two observations. He amazed me. If he did nothing else he displayed a superb skill in building up straw men and then knocking them down, in building up arguments and then almost immediately thereafter completely demolishing them. I suggest to the minister that some of the things he said in that speech of his today are going to come back to haunt him, not once or twice but many times. If I can help play the part of the ghost in the months ahead I shall probably do so.
I can say to the minister that had the government come forward with a proposition under which they would make available money under the terms and conditions as set forth in this resolution and for the same purpose, he could advance stronger arguments in support of it-and they would not have to be very strong to be better. He made reference to the foolhardiness of the federal government raising money and then handing it back to the provinces without conditions attached. He then turned around and put up the defence he did of the tax transfer agreements. To me it was completely ridiculous, regardless of how the minister may try to explain it away.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. member does not want to misrepresent me. I never said I thought it was foolhardy to make unconditional grants to the provinces. I think it is essential, and I defend them to the limit.


Frederick Davis Shaw: The minister seems to have misunderstood me as he did the hon. member's resolution. He advanced the argument, and he did not try to justify it in the light of anything else, that if the government were going to collect money through taxation then they would have to have some control over how that money was spent. He can read his own speech tomorrow and I am sure he will find that. Then with respect to the grants to the provinces under the tax transfer agreements he shifted his position and in my opinion advanced an entirely different set of arguments.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is not the money that is paid to the provinces under the tax rental agreements voted by this parliament precisely for that purpose and, therefore, is not that a controlled expenditure in precisely the sense I was arguing?


Frederick Davis Shaw: As far as I am concerned the question is wholly irrelevant. As a matter of fact the minister seems to be trying to explain away some of his own observations made during the course of his speech. I am suggesting to the minister that where the government of Canada-this government-has made it a matter of policy to make unconditional payments, they have always been able to find mighty good reasons for doing so. Minister after minister and private member after private member have managed to stand on the floor of this house and defend the action. All I am saying is that if they were to accept a proposition of this kind, the same strong arguments would be advanced.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not like to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I was interrupted a number of times and perhaps he would not mind.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I hope you do not take that as a precedent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the hon. member to name one other unconditional grant voted by this parliament except a few grants to voluntary organizations; one other unconditional grant to a provincial government except the tax transfer payments or statutory subsidies. I should like to ask him to name just one.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I would say that in itself is sufficient, if you want a precedent. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but when reference was made to moneys expended for the construction of a school in the city of Winnipeg, or for the construction of two classrooms in Sarnia, the minister was able to spring to his feet and advance very sound arguments.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Those were conditional grants.


Frederick Davis Shaw: They were conditional only in that they were for educational purposes. In this resolution we are not suggesting that grants advanced to the provinces to enable them to bring about a condition of equality of educational opportunity should be unconditional. It would be specified that they were educational grants. To that extent they are conditional grants, if the minister wants to carry the argument that far.
Mr. Speaker, I was intensely interested in some of the statistics brought forward today by the hon. member for Saskatoon. I too have a copy of the publication put out by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities in which there is a report of an address which Dr. M. E. LaZerte, research director for the Canadian school trustees association, delivered ini the city of Windsor 50433-64
Education
at the conference of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities. Among other things he stated this:
In 1951-52 the cost of educating 2,481,018 enrolled pupils was $432,824,000-87 cents per day per pupil enrolled or about one dollar per day per pupil in average daily attendance-cost here covering operation and maintenance, debt retirement charges and capital expenditures paid from current revenue.
Further on in this report Dr. LaZerte pointed out:
Education at 87 cents per pupil per day may be expensive if there are 35, 40 or 45 pupils per classroom, if schools are not suitably equipped and if the staff consists in large part of grade X, XI or XII youngsters with whatever professional training may be acquired in one or two summer sessions.
On the other hand, education at 87 cents per pupil per day would be surprisingly cheap if at that cost classes were small enough to permit teachers to direct and supervise the learning of individual pupils, if buildings and equipment met satisfactory standards and school boards engaged only educated teachers, preferably university graduates, whose mastery of subject matter is so thorough that they can use it to illustrate, teach and clarify the great truths buried in text books and courses of study.
Further on in this report he says:
In over 8,000 classrooms there were so many pupils that highly efficient teaching and supervision were impossible.
In dealing with the amounts spent in the provinces on education, the hon. member referred to the great spread between the minimum and the maximum. Dr. LaZerte has this to say with respect to that matter; and incidentally may I say that I thought the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was going to put up a much stronger defence than he did of the amount per pupil being spent in his own province for educational purposes. Dr. LaZerte said:
In 1951-52 per pupil costs in British Columbia were over three times as high as in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island; costs in the five provinces from Ontario west were, on a per pupil basis, 52 per cent higher than in the five provinces in the east. The median of provincial costs per classroom was $4,245 but in Alberta and British Columbia the average cost per classroom was 70 per cent higher than this, while in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick it was 11 per cent lower; in Newfoundland and New Brunswick 62 per cent lower. Per capita costs varied from $16.84 in one province to $45.34 in another ... in one province society will spend 43 cents per pupil per day; in another province $1.46.
I doubt, Mr. Speaker, whether one would require more evidence than that to convince him of the inequality in educational opportunity if the problem is considered from the national point of view.
One may argue that the federal authorities have no responsibility in this field. However, for several extremely important reasons I think they have a responsibility. In the first place we have the general problem arising

Education
from the fact that immigration comes under the federal government; that is non-British immigration, at least. Only today I was reading that, on the basis of the number of immigrants who came to Canada in 1951 alone, by 1960 there will be 10,000 additional students to be educated in Canada; that is just based on that one year and that one source. In the twelve-year period from 1948 to 1960, in secondary schools alone the population will increase from 305,200 students to 611,475. That is, I would say, a very accurate estimate since it originates with the national bureau of statistics.
As I said earlier, two major problems result as a consequence of this heavy influx into schools which, already so heavily crowded, will be literally swamped within a period of ten years. The teacher shortage, which is already extremely serious, will most certainly become critical, provided that certain definite steps are not taken.
Let us go back to our municipalities and our provinces. We might ask ourselves this question. Is there a desire on the part of a municipality-a school district, if you like; and most of them, in the west anyway, acquire their finances from the municipality -to provide a highly equalized system of education to the children of these areas? My answer is definitely yes; but they have gone just about as far as they are able to go in imposing taxes on the real estate to be found within their specific areas. Have the provinces assumed their responsibilities? Of course that is always a point that can be argued, but it cannot be argued that the provinces have closed their eyes to the problem. For example, I know that in my own province where many, of course, think more money should be devoted to educational purposes, the amount being paid today exceeds the total of the Alberta budget of 1935. Between 22 and 23 per cent of all revenues are going for educational purposes. I am sure that if you examine the budgets of the other provinces of Canada you will find that an extremely substantial proportion of their revenues is being made available for educational purposes.
But in spite of all that the problem is still not being solved. I think there are certain things beyond the control of the provinces themselves. We feel that national policy has had a lot to do with the creation of the problem which they face. In the first place, an extremely high level of national taxation naturally makes it more difficult for municipalities and provinces to secure adequate revenues, taxing within their own specific fields of jurisdiction. I would say that the

difficulty which they encounter is in direct proportion to the weight of the federal tax burden.
Second, we must never forget that federal taxation policy has in several other ways contributed toward the very high cost of education. Books and school supplies are 10 per cent higher in cost, and have been over the years, as a consequence of the imposition upon them of the federal sales tax. What has it meant to the school districts and divisions which in a great many cases today operate a number of buses to bring the children to the schools? The federal government has for a lengthy period of time imposed the sales tax upon these motor vehicles. I was reading only recently that a protest was made at the convention of the Canadian federation of school trustees about the federal income tax regulations with respect to those who purchase school bonds and debentures. The cost to the school board is very much higher as a consequence of the position in which purchasers are placed under the federal Income Tax Act. One could go on and give a good many illustrations to indicate why federal policy has made it more difficult for school boards to meet their financial obligations, and why it is absolutely necessary for the federal authorities to make grants without interfering with the administration of education within the provinces.
There were quite a number of other things which I had hoped to deal with, but previous speakers have indicated their desire to let as many as possible take part in the debate. We shall co-operate with hon. members and refrain from utilizing the time which one would normally be entitled to so that other hon. members may have an opportunity of expressing themselves.
We favour the resolution. We have heard nothing today which would change the views we have held for a long time. We think direct grants to the provinces for this purpose are necessary, desirable and possible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Frederick Davis Shaw: We feel that there need not be any interference in the administration of education within the provinces.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Frederick Davis Shaw: Perhaps I could.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. member think the government of Alberta needs a financial grant for this purpose at this time, in view of its present budget?


Mr. Wylie:: You are being silly.


Mr. Blackmore:: Surely it does.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I am always pleased to hear references to the province of Alberta, because I am sure the minister is one of those who have not contributed too much toward painting as bright a picture as should be painted of what has gone on in that province. What we are very anxious to have is equality of educational opportunity. If it is found upon examination that we have the highest desirable level of opportunity within the nation, then possibly more attention could be given to bringing others up to our level in that field.
I only offer that as a suggestion. I am not setting forth any formula at all, as the minister will understand. It is merely a matter of principle. We realize full well that a good deal of negotiation would have to be carried on in order to strike a formula, let us say, that might be satisfactory to all. But we must face up to the fact that we are not even approaching a condition of equality of educational opportunity. Certainly I think it is the desire of all hon. members to have that, even though we may disagree as to the method by which it can be accomplished. Various school trustee organizations across Canada have supported the proposition. Certainly the school teachers' organizations have supported it, and I believe that on a free vote in the house somebody would be absolutely amazed at how many hon. members would support the proposition.
(Translation):


Pierre Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, an English-speaking member having said recently that he would like to hear more speeches in French in the house, it is partly in deference to his wish that I do so now, in dealing with the motion under review.
I shall try to avoid controversial matters, because I neither want nor wish to raise any controversy. I shall try to be as objective as possible while speaking quite frankly.
Whenever grants to the provinces are mentioned in order to increase educational facilities, we Quebec people inevitably ask ourselves to what kind of education those grants could or should be applied. We respect -as we always did and always will-the rights of the provinces in that field. There can therefore be no controversy about our idea of provincial autonomy in the field of education.
I just said what we have in mind when we hear about grants to the provinces to promote education within their borders. We have a right to ask ourselves whether such grants to the provinces will be used, in this or that province in particular, or in the provinces in general, for the purpose of teaching in those 50433-64i
Education
schools a respect for minorities, as we have done and are still doing consistently in the province of Quebec.
We are wondering, and rightfully so, whether grants will be used for the purpose for which they are earmarked, that is, teaching the young people in other provinces who do not speak our language or profess our religious creed to respect minorities within the limits of their provinces.
While I was travelling through the dark continent with some of my friends from the House of Commons, it was always a real pleasure for me-and I could hardly repress a blush of pride-whenever someone, on seeing my badge, would say to me: "You are from Canada? A great country! A prosperous country! The land of freedom par excellence!" I used to answer: "That is true, it is in every sense of the word a land of freedom." And, rather than make mental reservations, as far as some zones of bigotry here and there were concerned, in my country, I added, quite frankly: "Apart from those small zones, in Canada, we do enjoy a liberty which can be held up as an example to every country in the world."
I will mention no place names in particular since I have said that I do not wish to raise any controversy, in the course of these remarks. I will say, though, as has already been said here, that I wonder how it is that in certain provinces there still is a lack of respect for the rights of minorities? It would seem to me that the example set by Quebec, in the field of education, is sufficiently fine and enduring to be followed everywhere in this country.
When we hear talk of federal grants to the provinces to increase educational facilities, we might also ask ourselves whether these grants will help to propagate free thinking, for instance.
Will those schools, that will benefit from federal moneys voted by representatives of all provinces, teach that the word broadmindedness or tolerance means the abandonment of our privileges and, particularly, the abandonment of the natural right of parents to have their children educated in their own language and in the religious principles of their own creed?
We have the right to ask that question. In 1950, I read in the Ensign an article signed by Miss Helen L. Todd, stating that if Catholic parents would only agree to yield to the will of others-that "others" was implied -and if this Catholic minority would only take advantage of the invaluable benefit of undenominational schools, we could cultivate

Education
in the minds of our youth the understanding and the tolerance with which we could build up this youth.
In short, the veiled meaning of these words is that Catholics should attend undenominational schools, whatever directives they receive from their spiritual leaders.
I mentioned just now the natural right of parents to have their children educated according to their own religious principles. That natural right cannot be denied in any province of this country.
I understand that outside of the province of Quebec certain provinces allow them more or less freedom to build schools and to apply part of public funds and taxes to the maintenance of their schools, and that goes for denominational schools as well. I think I am right in saying that such is the case, for instance, in the province of Saskatchewan. However, Mr. Speaker, coming back once more to that thought which is uppermost in our minds whenever grants are mentioned, I wish, if I may digress for a moment, to say something about our neighbours to the south who are faced with the same educational problem and who are certainly short of teachers in their schools, as shown by their statistics.
Two years ago, the Toronto Star published the report of a survey made in the United States on the moral and religious side of the young people. The investigator found out that 20 per cent of the young people had a thorough education, whereas only 20 per cent had any religious principles.
The survey also showed that, far from being radical the young people seemed to be little inclined to give their opinion; they were mainly, to a certain extent-and in a broad sense-conservative with regard to the principles that might help them to decide on the questions asked in the survey. The report says that less than 20 per cent of those questioned, or 1,935 teenagers from 18 to 19 years old, answered that they took little guidance from religion when they had to choose their way of life or the political principles they would adopt, for instance, in respect of interracial relations. The survey does not indicate that those who believe in God would be more tolerant of other races.
I cannot share the sentiments expressed in the findings of this survey since I am convinced that any faith which recognizes universality and respect due to the human being undoubtedly does far more and cannot fail

to recognize that the colour of the skin of any man cannot alter the fact that he has been created in the image of his Creator and endowed with a body and a soul.
I do not know who carried out this survey, but, in any event, I cannot share those feelings.
I repeat that I have no desire to enter into a controversy, but I would like to say just a word on the struggle which has been going on in the province of Quebec as far as federal grants to the universities of that province are concerned. I want to quote three different opinions from newspapers of my province, in order to put them on the record.
Le Devoir, as reported in the August 21, 1952, issue of Le Soleil, of Quebec, has this to say:
If the province does not want colleges to accept federal aid, it must immediately revise its grant system and adapt it to the new situation. Colleges, like everybody else, need money: whether they be directed by lay or religious teachers the government will soon have to help them more than it does now.
I understand that the government of my province have given grants to universities, grants provided by taxes paid by the taxpayers of the province of Quebec. I have no doubt that it was due to the fine example given one year by the federal government, an example that was followed by the premier and the provincial government when they gave our universities exclusively provincial grants.
The Sherbrooke Tribune went even further than Le Devoir and had this to say about rural schools:
Rural schools, like the large educational institutions in the cities, will soon reopen their doors, but it so happens that in fairly numerous places there is a shortage of female teachers. Such a shortage would certainly not be felt if certain rural districts were not so reluctant to pay adequate salaries to young women who, by inclination and training, had been thinking of taking up teaching as a career.
Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of this house for the last twenty years, after having been eight years a member of the legislative assembly, and I am happy to say- and this will show that I am not playing politics-that since I left the provincial legislature, the salaries of our men and women teachers in the province of Quebec have gone up considerably. I hope that they will go even higher because I know that many members who are listening to me are aware of the value of our teachers for the educational needs of our children.

Le Nouvelliste of Three Rivers wrote, somewhat along the same line:
Many of those who would have remained in the (teaching) profession hasten to leave it when offered better paid jobs.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that, as a result of salary increases, fewer teachers, in recent years, gave up the profession in favour of better paid jobs.
I could give other opinions showing that the situation also prevails in the province of Quebec, as far as our teachers are concerned. If we could pay higher salaries to those people who devote themselves to our children, they would not quit their jobs. Nevertheless, there has been a great improvement in our province and it is to the credit of the government, whatever its political trend.
A question rises in my mind when I look at the motion moved this afternoon, which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of taking steps to relieve the financial crisis in education, without encroaching in any way on the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces in this field, by granting financial assistance to the various provinces for the expansion and equalization of educational opportunity across Canada.
I don't know whether I should vote in favour of this motion, because, as stated by several members who spoke before me, it is a difficult and indeed a thorny matter to embark upon such a debate to decide how far those provincial rights go, and how far the federal rights can go without prejudicing the former. Secondly, I have a right to ask myself: How many provinces have made official requests to the federal government for one or more grants to increase the educational budget in those respective provinces? I would also like to know if other provinces have made similar requests, and, if so, how many? If the provinces have made no such requests, it means that they are able to provide for their own educational needs. However, if some requests have been made by the provinces, my mind is stirred and I wonder if they have specified the purpose for which those grants must be used, because I am of the opinion that all Canadians should be taught to respect minorities within the limits of their respective provinces.
If I often come back to this question of minorities, it is because we, in the province of Quebec, are in a good position to talk about it. In fact, we respect minorities, and have been doing it for a long time now.
Education
We have no ulterior motive, we are not going backwards, we do not let "the madcap in the house", as imagination is called in literature, run around and find reasons, very often bitter, that could make us go in the opposite direction.
We forget everything and we respect the minorities in our province. The natural right of parents is respected by the government and by the people. We would like all provinces to follow this example.
If someone came to me one day and told me that the grants given by the federal government to each province would bring about the disappearance of these small areas of bigotry that still exist though in very reduced numbers and quality, and if I could be assured that outside the country and particularly inside the country there would be regard for the privileges and rights of all, at the risk of being thought of as a more or less hardened autonomist, I would vote for this motion.
Still, before doing so, I shall have to wait until years and experience have shown me that federal grants would wipe out those few small areas of bigoted thinking, which, unless they soon disappear, will be regarded as oddities.
I do not wish unduly to extol my own province, but when education is being discussed and we see what is going on, we have a right to tell the other provinces: "There is an example which is easy to imitate. All you need is a little good will and true broadmindedness. Go ahead, we will be the first to approve!"
(Text):


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take only a few moments of the time of the house to discuss this very important matter. I do not intend to deal with it from the constitutional standpoint, because that has already been discussed this afternoon.
I should like to point out the great need that exists for assistance to the different provinces. May I congratulate the hon. member for Saskatoon upon having brought this matter to the attention of the house. I realize, as was pointed out by the minister this afternoon, that under the constitution of our country education is within the provincial field. I do not believe, however, that giving financial assistance to the provinces to assist

Education
directly in education would necessitate taking the control of education from them. Section 93 of the British North America Act says that-
In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education.
I do not think for one moment that the federal government could or would interfere with laws made by the provinces concerning education. It is my belief, however, that this provision in the British North America Act is concerned chiefly with the curriculum and administration of the schools. We can still give financial aid and in no way interfere with the administration of the laws of the provinces.
Perhaps in 1867 education was not the burning problem it is today, because in those days the situation was entirely different. At that time perhaps only one out of four or five children went to school. As a master of fact I do not think the adults saw the need of educating all the children as we see it today. Somewhat later in the development of our country the teaching of the three R's was stressed, and that was considered the ideal in education.
Today, however, the boy or girl who does not have at least a high school education does not seem to fit into the general economy of the country. It has been pointed out this afternoon that the federal government has already assumed responsibilities in education, and I do not believe this has interfered in any way with the responsibilities of the provinces. It has also been said that the need for greater education exists right across Canada.
I wish to refer particularly to the need in my own province, and in the maritime provinces in general. I was not able to follow what was said by the hon. member for Port-neuf (Mr. Gauthier) who immediately preceded me in the debate and is a member from the province of Quebec. But Quebec is considered as one of the richer provinces, and I doubt very much whether one would find there the great need for assistance to education that would be found, for instance, in New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island.


George Clyde Nowlan: Or Nova Scotia.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes, or Nova Scotia; in fact any of the maritime provinces. Quebec has a per capita debt of around $92-24; New Brunswick, $256-62, according to the last report I saw. I have not seen the most recent report. Nova Scotia's per capita debt is around $200. These figures show the difference in the burden which is carried by the different provinces.

The minister asked the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw), who made an excellent speech, whether or not Alberta would need the grant. The hon. member replied that Alberta would need the grant as would the other provinces, but perhaps not as much. The debt charges of Alberta as a percentage of revenue amount to 6.6 per cent. In my own province it is 23.8 per cent. Hon. members can see the great difference, and the need in these smaller provinces for more money in order to have what is known as equalization of educational opportunity.
As far as our maritime provinces are concerned, we have endeavoured within our limited means-and I think we have succeeded

to see that our children receive opportunities in education equal to those of the richer parts of this dominion. In the maritime provinces we have been educationconscious for a great many years, but this does not mean that we do not need more assistance at the present time. I feel that we are, to use a common expression, at the end of our tether as far as the maintenance of the standard of education that we desire in our schools is concerned.
I should like to read part of a letter I received in January of last year with reference to this matter from the chairman of the New Brunswick teachers' association. In speaking of the situation in New Brunswick he said:
During the last decade, the people of New Brunswick have made great progress in education. New buildings, a modernized curriculum, and a secondary training available to every child-all have placed our province in the forefront educationally. These necessary advances have added a great deal to the public debt, both provincially and at the local level; and the burden on property owners has now reached a point where, if federal assistance is not obtained, both our province and its municipalities will be faced with the grim necessity of curtailing their educational programs at a time when we are still lagging behind the wealthier areas of Canada and paying to educate a New Brunswick boy or girl less than half the amount some provinces are able to afford.
That explains in concise terms what the situation is in New Brunswick and what the great need is. The problem is there. I do not care what sort of specious argument any minister makes in this house, the great problem we have in Canada today is the education of our children. No argument by any minister is going to make me or the great majority of the people of Canada believe that there is not some responsibility placed upon the richer areas of this great country of ours. The crisis is very real.
Then there is the matter of teachers. One of the far-reaching results of this financial embarrassment is the fact that we cannot

get teachers for our schools. That point was emphasized by different speakers this afternoon. In New Brunswick it is a known fact that 60 per cent of the teachers in some areas are married women. The young men and young women are not going to our normal schools to take up the teaching profession because the salaries are not sufficient inducement for them to do so. Mention was made of the fact that hundreds of young boys and girls are taken out of school without any technical training at all and placed in charge of schools in the different provinces of Canada. That is a serious situation, and this government cannot wash its hands of all responsibility.
As I said before, the federal government has responsibilities. I do not use this as a strong argument, but during the war many boys came up for enlistment, and one of the great reasons they could not serve their country at that time was that their educational standard was so low that they were not qualified to do so. This country of ours employs many thousands of civil servants taken from all across Canada. The better education we can give the boys and girls who apply for positions as civil servants in Canada, the better that service will be.
I could go on and give many arguments which I believe would be pertinent to this question. The hon. member for Saskatoon mentioned scholarships this afternoon. I agree entirely with what he said about scholarships, and I would support any program which was initiated for further scholarships in this country; but I do not think that is the great problem. The great problem is assistance for elementary schools.
Mention was made of more help for universities. That also is one of the concurrent problems of education. Again I repeat, that is not the great problem in Canada today. The great problem is in the elementary schools. Someone mentioned the fact that 160 schools were closed in the county of Resti-gouche in New Brunswick. I did not know there were so many; but think of the hundreds of children who are not getting even an elementary education in a section like that, and that situation could be found also in many parts of this country. That figure of 160 schools seems to be pretty high. Perhaps it was 160 teachers; but if it is 160 or only 6, it is too many. So long as a situation like that persists, so long will there be a reflection upon the people of this country.


Mr. Gregg:: Would my hon. friend permit a comment? I would like to point out that that situation exists in only one county in New Brunswick.
Education


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I thank the minister for making that comment. I would not say it exists in only one county. I would say it exists only in one section. I take my own constituency of Royal. I am very proud of it. The minister knows it very well. In my own town of Sussex we take second place to none in this country as far as education is concerned. We have one of the finest schools to be found in any town of its size anywhere across Canada, and the same is true of other sections. We have more consolidated schools in my constituency than in any other constituency in the maritime provinces. We have rural high schools, and the situation is good as far as facilities for education are concerned. But when it comes to financing that is our problem. When it comes to supplying teachers for the schools, as someone said this afternoon, no matter what kind of school you have-you may have a million dollar school -if you have not well-qualified teachers in that school you will not get good education.
I do not think I should take any more of the time of the house this afternoon. This is a problem which is on the shoulders not only of the people of the provinces but of the whole dominion, because the people of the provinces are the people of the dominion. This is the sixth or seventh year that the hon. member has brought this question before the house. The people of my province believe that something should be done, and I hope this government will take the opportunity to do something which will be of great and lasting benefit to the people of this country.


Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the general desire of hon. members to have a decision today on this resolution I shall speak for only a brief time.
I would not like to let this opportunity go by without congratulating the hon. member for Saskatoon upon putting up what is in my opinion a splendid case for federal aid to education. It was my privilege to have a resolution somewhat the same in principle in my name before this house some nine years ago. At that time the debate was quite interesting, but it could not compare with what we have heard today. I feel that very definite progress has been made in favour of this proposition since it first came to the attention of the house.
At the outset I want to say that I do not view the proposal for federal aid to education primarily as an added expense, but rather as a shrewd investment. I doubt if we could make a better investment for the future of this country than to make sure that no stone

Education
is left unturned to provide the greatest opportunity for education to all children, regardless of where they may live.
Progress has been made in other directions. I can recall speaking to a similar resolution about eight years ago and making the suggestion that we would live to see the day when television would provide one of the means of education in our schools. At that time television was in its tiny infancy and there were some smiles around me as certain hon. members probably thought I was too visionary in expressing that opinion. I am gratified to learn, as, no doubt other hon. members have noted, that in many schools in this province television is being used as one of the mediums of visual education. This simply indicates that we cannot estimate the speed with which progress can be made provided we are prepared to help it along financially, as this resolution calls for.
I need not traverse the same ground which has been covered by several hon. members. I think it has been made sufficiently clear by the mover of this resolution and by several other hon. members that there is no intention, in fact no possibility, of interfering with the jurisdiction of the provinces in the field of education. There are splendid opportunities to assist the provinces in connection with education without in any way interfering with the curricula or the manner in which education is carried on.
To give only a few examples I would refer to the great need of greater facilities for education, better buildings and better equipment. There are many schools in every province in this country which should be rebuilt. All kinds of grants could be made to assist in providing facilities and physical equipment. Surely that would not interfere in any way with what was done in the schools.
In my opinion the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) made a good case when he pointed out the great burden which must be carried by the municipal governments. In my own province a great number of representations have been made and are still being made by municipalities to the provincial government in an effort to get a greater share of the tax dollar in order to relieve the burden which now falls upon real property. I am sure that is not exceptional; it is probably the general rule across Canada. I think the municipalities have done about as much as it is physically and financially possible for them to do in order to make their contribution to better education. It is not too much to ask that this parliament and this government, which control the lion's share of taxes of the Canadian people, make its contribution to meet that great need.

I could not overlook some of the comments made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. His argument was very strange to us. He started off by expressing smug complacency about the situation, and then out of hand he denied that there was anything like a financial crisis in education in Canada. He then went on to set out what he termed was the government's policy. After he had finished I must confess that his interpretation of government policy on this question was not any clearer to me than was his policy on immigration, and that is certainly far from being crystal clear.
To me his argument was a curious combination of complacency and deliberate pettifogging. In discussing the resolution before the house he dragged in all sorts of irrele-vancies, and then proceeded to show why this could not be done and that could not be done unless and until the government thought it should be done. There appeared to be no difficulty at all so far as the constitutional position was concerned if the government was inclined to do it, but if the government was not inclined to do it then of course he dragged in the British North America Act and all the other side arguments to prove why it should not be done.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My hon. friend keeps saying "to do it". What is "it"? What is it that he says I said the government could do if it wanted?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I thought that by this time the minister was aware of what we were discussing, but he still seems to be in a fog.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am in a complete fog about the hon. gentleman's point.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The resolution refers to federal grants in aid to be made to the provinces for the purposes of assisting in education. The minister gave his version of why in his opinion it could not or should not be done.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Should not.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The minister qualifies it by saying "should not". To me it is just like putting the whole government policy in one sentence. I think it can be described as saying that it is a policy of taking the line of least assistance. If any further argument is necessary to completely reply to what the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration attempted to describe today as government policy I should like to quote only one paragraph from a speech delivered in this house

Education
on February 24, 1937, in connection with scholarships. I quote from page 1190 of Hansard of that date:
It is true, as I said a moment ago, that education under the British North America Act was specifically and exclusively reserved to the provinces: but the term "exclusively" surely does not mean that the federal arm of government cannot extend to the provinces, by way of supplemental assistance, measures which properly come within the provincial sphere. If there should be disagreement with that statement, we have the precedent of our national research council scholarships, and if we want a further precedent, we have the grants in aid in respect of technical education, pursuant to the Technical Education Act of 1919. I am not particularly concerned in what form the federal government assists in furthering this proposal, but 1 am interested in having substantially the desired results, and if they are to be brought about by grants in aid to the provinces, definitely earmarked for that purpose. I do not see that there will be much to object to in the method.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I completely agree with the views which have just been read by the hon. gentleman. If they are specific grants for a specific purpose, I do not see any objection to them at all. It is this suggestion of a general grant without any control that I object to.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am pleased to note that the minister is now willing to recant.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was what I said in the first place.


Mr. Martin:: Those words are so interesting and so well chosen that I suspect they are my own.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The minister's suspicions are quite well founded because they are his words, or they were his words at the time. Of course at that time he was only the hon. member for Essex East. He is now the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And still the member for Essex East.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: And still, of course, the member for Essex East. But that process of coming up into the cabinet, into that rarefied atmosphere, quite often seems to affect the thinking and opinions of members on the opposite side of the house. I am therefore not prepared to say that that is still the opinion of the hon. member for Essex East. However, it may be. Certainly that statement sets out the position quite clearly. This motion is not attempting to impose anything upon anyone. It simply indicates recognition of a need and the willingness to take some action to provide a solution to that problem.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Red Deer put the case admirably for Social Credit. I crave a few moments of the time of the house to
say one or two things which I believe need to be said in addition to what he said.
In the first place I believe that much must be done on behalf of those who are attempting to go to university. We are giving far too little attention to that matter. I have an idea that is one reason we are having a teacher shortage. The cost of going to university is simply so great that, except in cases where a student's parents live in a university city, they are prohibitive, or except in the case of families which are in good financial circumstances; whereas in many cases the very ones who would go to university and qualify for training come from the poorer families, as was so well shown when we started to educate the boys who served in the forces by giving them an opportunity to go to university. We saw what happened there, how many of them qualified and how well they did.
From the national federation of Canadian university students I have a communication which was sent to me after this session began. I should like to draw the attention of the house and the country to some of the facts that are set forth in division 6 of their letter:
A survey recently conducted by the national federation of Canadian university students committee at the University of Alberta shows that the average university male student is able to earn only 51 per cent of the cost of his university year during the summer months;
As hon. members will realize, that is an extremely serious situation. The cost of going to university today is high. Everything is high. Rent is high. Food is high. Laundry is high. Clothing is high. In addition to that, the universities are charging much higher fees than they used to charge. That is true not only with regard to the general fee but with regard to the special fees attached to various courses. This statement then becomes extremely serious. It is based on a survey of the students consulted in the city of Edmonton. The statement goes on to say that female students were able to earn only 40 per cent of the cost of the university year during the holidays. What does that mean? It means that, as far as people coming from humble homes are concerned, a university course is simply unattainable.
There are a good many other statements which these people set forth in their letter to me but which I am not going to tell the house about. I believe that alone is sufficient to show that it is extremely important that we devise some way or other of assisting students to go through our universities. In his excellent talk the hon. member for Saskatoon mentioned the number of university students in Britain who receive assistance,

Education
and even referred to the assistance given to university students in Russia, all of which reflects no credit upon us.
I think I should give just a little bit of attention to one remark which was made or implied in a question by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. As I recall it, he asked the hon. member for Red Deer if he thought Alberta required any assistance for her schools. The answer is undoubtedly that Alberta requires a tremendous amount of assistance for her schools. These figures to which I have just referred apply to Alberta. It is supposed generally by most people that just because the province of Alberta has been particularly successful in making money and has been blessed with a good deal of income from the sale of oil and gas leases, the province should just go on a spending spree and spend that money as fast as it gets it. I am sure any thoughtful person would not agree that that ought to be done.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Should the federal government do that?


John Horne Blackmore: The federal government is in a different position because the federal government has unlimited access to the means of financing through use of the national credit. Let me repeat once more, for the benefit of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and every other minister, that there is only one government in the Dominion of Canada that has the power to monetize goods and services in this country; and that is the all-important power in respect of financing.
Certainly what the Dominion of Canada can do for its university students ought to depend directly on the goods and services which the Dominion of Canada can produce, and not on the amount of money that can be wrung from the taxpayers. The sooner the members of the house and the people in the country generally get that idea embedded in their thinking, the sooner they will be in a position to face the responsibilities which rest upon them in the matter of financing our various activities in this dominion. The Dominion of Canada has the power to monetize the goods and services produced in the Dominion of Canada; and certainly the only limit to the capacity of the Dominion of Canada to find money in that respect is the amount of goods and services we produce or can produce. The provinces have access to no such sources of revenue as that. Their revenues are distinctly limited.
I wish to say just a word along the line which I had indicated before I was interrupted by the hon. member. Anybody who

looks at conditions as they are today in a realistic manner must realize that unless we have another war or unless we are scared into much more costly preparations for war than we are making right now, this country is headed straight downward into a depression. There can be no question about that whatsoever. The fact that agricultural prices are falling as they are is one of the surest indications of that fact. If a depression comes on and a tremendous burden of unemployment is caused to rest upon the provinces, where are they going to get the money with which to finance relief comparable to the relief we had to finance during the thirties? Any realistic and responsible body of provincial officials certainly must be having that matter in mind.
Would the members of this house or would the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration suggest that the Alberta government should take all the money that comes into their hands from the various sources with which they are fairly well blessed and spend it on education, and have nothing left to cushion them against the contingencies of a depression? Surely we must be realistic in this matter. I hope the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration does not ask any more irresponsible questions like that in this house. He is young. We will allow for that fact, but we expect him to mature a little bit faster than he is maturing.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer and it is this. In respect of any province, the people of the province have a way of demanding services in relation to the income which the province has available to it. Here are some of the services which provinces must give. They have to service the debt. When the Social Credit government took over in Alberta we found that we had to pay 49 cents out of every dollar of revenue for interest on our debt. That is an important matter to bear in mind. The remarks of the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) indicate how serious an item is the matter of servicing the debt for his province of New Brunswick. The cost of roads has to be taken care of, and people simply demand roads. If there is anything like a reasonably good income available to the province, the people simply insist that roads be built. Public welfare is exceedingly costly. Health is extremely costly. Agricultural improvement is also extremely costly.
Education is only one of all the various things for which the provinces require to make provision. There are such things as forest conservation and conservation generally, public works and many other matters which the provinces have to take care of. In the light of all these things I hope the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and

all the other members of the cabinet do some good serious thinking for about three or four weeks and adopt a realistic attitude to the educational situation which faces the people of Canada.
How should the money granted provinces for aid to education be extended to the provinces? Of course there is considerable discussion concerning that matter. I agree there should be no means whereby the dominion government could even attempt to influence policy in respect of education in the provinces, but there are ways of getting around that difficulty. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration seems to feel that just to make a grant to the provinces in a general sort of way is quite unsound. That kind of thinking is typical of Rhodes scholars. It is typical of these bureaucrats whom we have in such great numbers-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, I am not and never was a Rhodes scholar.


John Horne Blackmore: I have given the minister the opportunity to make a statement which has released him from a good deal of suspicion, because he certainly has acted like an Oxford graduate, a Rhodes scholar. Generally speaking, men who have graduated from some of these universities, particularly from the London school of economics, have the idea in their narrow minds that they can tell anybody on the face of the earth how to live, that they know all about it and consequently we cannot have a country like Canada soundly governed unless all power centres right here in Ottawa where you can put these graduates of the London school of economics at work doing the job.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my hon. friend permit an interruption?


John Horne Blackmore: Very well.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is very kind of him to suggest that my colleague, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, was a Rhodes scholar. He is not a Rhodes scholar, but in fairness to him I think I should say that he enjoyed a scholarship provided by the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire. I am sure my hon. friend would not want to make any disparaging remarks in view of this information.


John Horne Blackmore: My remarks were not intended to disparage the source from which a man gets the money with which he goes to university, but to disparage the attitude which men are likely to acquire in some of the universities of Great Britain. One of them is Oxford, another is Cambridge and another is the London school of economics. Generally speaking, when a man has graduated from
Education
any one of these he is a socialist in his ideas; he is a centralizer; he thinks nobody in the world knows how to govern a country except his own particular class, and that the provinces cannot possibly produce people capable of governing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, I am not nor have I ever been a socialist. I am not a centralizer. I was arguing all afternoon against centralization, and the hon. member is now arguing for centralization.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think too in fairness-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -to the hon. member for Greenwood, who is not in the house, that I should say that he is a graduate of Oxford university-


John Whitney Pickersgill: And a Rhodes scholar.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And a Rhodes scholar; and no one can call the hon. member for Greenwood a socialist.


John Horne Blackmore: I will grant that there are exceptions to every rule, but once more I am glad I gave the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the chance to clear his name of a suspicion which lurks in many places.


Mr. Ellis:: You are opposed to people going to university?


John Horne Blackmore: That is just another foolish question like the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Ellis) always asks. He seems to have his mind short-circuited. He never can ask an intelligent question on the floor of the house and has not done so since coming here. I had been discussing and urging the advisability of helping people to become university graduates. I was at the moment, however, mentioning graduates of certain universities who are trained to believe in socialist thinking. You will find it manifested in everything they undertake to do.
As to how the money is to be given to the provinces, personally I think that a grant based upon need, population and various other factors which I will not go into at the present time, is probably the best way of approaching the problem; and then the provinces should be free to spend this money in the way they see fit. Let the people of the provinces hold their governments responsible for the way in which they spend the money, just as they do with respect to the revenues that the provinces have at the present time.
So I do not hesitate to urge that the federal government take steps at the very earliest moment to provide assistance to the provinces, every one of them, on a basis which will give the less favoured provinces such

Education
as New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and the others an opportunity to give their boys and girls something like a similar chance for education to that which the boys and girls of other provinces enjoy. I urge upon the government that they take that step, and I urge that we do not have to have another debate on this question of assistance to education but that something be done about it soon.
(Translation):


Mr. Maurice Breton (Jolieiie-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on the constitutional aspect of the resolution moved by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight). I shall readily show that although the resolution now before the house seems to overcome the obstacle of provincial autonomy, it does not do so at all, and that we must oppose the resolution to safeguard provincial rights in matters of education.
Last year, during debates on constitutional matters, I held that the federal government and the provincial governments should stick to their constitutional rights. I added that although some of my compatriots in the province of Quebec had taken a different position on this problem, I deemed it my duty, as a member of parliament, to defend the rights of the federal government when they were attacked; I now feel I must defend provincial rights when they are attacked.
I am of the opinion that the province of Quebec has shown in the past, and will continue to show, that it is willing to co-operate with the federal government in solving many problems. As regards the tax problem, so much discussed in our province and in all others in the past few months, I feel that Quebec is like any other province, but that it is altogether different from an educational point of view. And this point of view must be respected.
Mr. Speaker, section 91 of the British North America Act reads as follows:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces.
In other words, it will be possible for the federal government to legislate in the above mentioned fields which are not specifically reserved.
Section 93, on the other hand, reads as follows:
. . . the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the following provisions.

As drafted, this resolution would have us understand that in calling upon the federal government to make unconditional grants for educational purposes, it would not cause it to infringe upon provincial rights in this field. But this is counter to section 92 of the British North America Act, which states:
In each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated, that is to say,-
Please note the expression "may exclusively make laws". Then, in paragraph 2:
Direct taxation within the province in order to the raising of a revenue for provincial purposes.
Therefore, if the federal government were to use its revenue and redistribute part of it to the provinces, under the pretence of assistance to education, it is my opinion that the moneys thus raised within the provinces would be collected against the rights of the provinces to raise by themselves the revenue required for provincial purposes. The federal government would therefore infringe directly upon provincial rights. Consequently, the province of Quebec has the right to cling to this prerogative, for the reason which in fact directed the preparation of the Canadian constitution in the form of a federation is precisely the point of view of education. Other provinces also insist that their rights in the field of education be respected, as has been seen recently in this house, in debates dealing with the problem of minorities.
True it is that the problem of minorities is not one to be dealt with by the constitution but by principles which are the foundation of democracy, principles which need not be expressed in a bill of rights, because they are respected quite naturally by those who believe in liberty, in equality and in everything that makes a democratic constitution today.
But that, Mr. Speaker, is not quite the point that was brought up today. I realize that a motion of a general character has been used to try to get around the constitution which guards the infrangible rights of the province of Quebec. If constitutional amendments were moved in other fields-and I believe there are many fields where the constitution of 1867 should be changed for it is out of date-the province of Quebec would readily endorse such changes.
Amendments are needed in the fiscal field as well as in the highway and the public health fields. We find a juxtaposition of new problems which have come up since the last two wars and which conflict with our rigid constitution; these problems call for amendments which could be supported by the prov-

ince of Quebec. But, in the matter of education, I know that the province of Quebec will always be opposed to it.
When I heard the honourable representative of the Conservative party say that a dominion-provincial conference should be called in order to study the problem of educational grants, I thought it would be useless to hold such a conference, because the province of Quebec will always be formally opposed to such an idea.
Though we are willing to co-operate with every political party in view of Canadian unity, especially in the taxation field, we do not, where education is concerned, want to witness the disappearance of our own particular ways, nor do we want to see them attacked. And if the provinces were subsidized with regard to elementary and higher education, there would naturally be some conditions attached to the grants, so that there should be no more obstacles to a uniform standard of education.
This is precisely the reason why, at the time the Canadian constitution was drafted, the province of Quebec asked that a federal
Education
system be provided in preference to a unitary system.
That is all I wanted to say in opposition to those who are inclined to think that the constitution can be circumvented by more or less elastic means and that it is possible to tamper with the inviolability of provincial rights in the field of education. Those who represent the province of Quebec and who believe that a Canadian confederation is a necessity must safeguard our special way of life, so that we may develop in variety and diversity.
(Text):


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Is there still time for me to close the debate, Mr. Speaker, and suggest that we might have a vote at this time?


Mr. Habel:: I had in mind taking part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, but since it is six o'clock I move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Habel the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 10, 1955