1957-02-13

TRIBUTE BY MINISTER TO TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF LEDUC DISCOVERY

Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, today, February 13, 1957, commemorates the 10th anniversary of a significant step in the development of our mineral resources, the discovery of petroleum near Leduc in Alberta. The intensified search for oil which followed this discovery has resulted in the spectacular growth of Canada's petroleum production from 20,000 barrels a day in 1946 to 467,000 barrels a day in 1956.
I think it is fitting that we pay tribute to those in private industry and government services whose foresight and tenacity have made possible this remarkable achievement and the opening up of important new areas of this country for development and production. These ten years of industrial achievement have added greatly to our national energy reserves, as well as bringing closer the day when Canada will be self-sufficient in petroleum and natural gas.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Knowles: 1.	Has consideration been given to requiring manufacturers of electric light bulbs to indicate thereon the hours of life of such bulbs?
2.	If so, what is the result of such consideration?
3.	If not, will this matter be considered?
Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce:	The
answer to the first part of this question is no. The second part is answered by the answer to No. 1. The answer to the third part is that there is no federal legislation which can be used for this purpose.



BREWERIES AND DISTILLERIES


Mr. Knowles: In each of the last five taxation years, what was the total amount claimed as a deduction for corporation income tax purposes by all breweries and distilleries in Canada with respect to advertising costs?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman asked this question:
In each of the last five taxation years, what was the total amount claimed as a deduction for corporation income tax purposes by all breweries and distilleries in Canada with respect to advertising costs?
The factual answer is that there is no statistical information available. I might say the question might be worded better, because there are many different types of advertising, including promotional advertising and newspaper advertising, for the products. To answer the question would require a great amount of work, because it would be necessary to go over all the corporation returns of people in this business in all the offices to which they make returns.


Mr. Knowles:: I wonder whether the minister would care to indicate to me, perhaps privately, the type of question which it might be possible to answer.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, that is very much up to the hon. member to know what kind of information he seeks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right. I will try again.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


INCOME TAX


Mr. Knowles: 1.	Have representations been received regarding the taxation of per diem and other allowances since the issuing of information bulletin No. 10, dated July 10, 1956, by the taxation division of the Department of National Revenue, urging that all workers in the construction and other industries be allowed income tax deductibility with respect to transportation and living allowances where such allowances are provided to cover expenditures necessary to the earning of an income?
2.	If so, from whom have such representations been received?
3.	Has consideration been given to such representations?
4.	If so, has it been decided to take any action on this matter?



AVRO AIRCRAFT AND A. V. ROE  FEDERAL PAYMENTS

Mr. Michener: 1.	Since 1949, how much has the government of Canada paid to each of Avro Aircraft Limited and A. V. Roe of Canada Limited, and to any company in Canada controlled by either of them?

Orders jor Returns
2.	For these payments what types of aircraft and how many of each type have been delivered to or for the account of the government of Canada, stating total or unit price paid for each type?
3.	How much of these payments was made for other purposes and for what purposes?
4.	For what amount is the government of Canada committed to these companies for uncompleted projects?


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that question No. 89 was made an order for return, may I say that the hon. member for St. Paul's has agreed that this question should be dropped if it is the pleasure of the house, reserving the right to resubmit it in a slightly different form.



J. H. TURVEY ELECTRIC LIMITED-FEDERAL CONTRACTS

Mr. Regier: 1.	Has J. H. Turvey Electric Limited of Brantford, Ontario, been awarded any contracts by the federal government in any of the fiscal years ending on March 31 of 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, and of December 31, 1956?
2.	If so, what was the total amount of payments made in each of these years to this company?



MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Zaplilny: 1.	How many copies of each of the following were printed at government expense? (a) Values of Oort's Constant A derived from some B stars. (No. 48). Published by Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, (b) The Northern Red-backed Mouse, clethrionomys rutilus (Pallas), in Canada. (No. 144). Published by Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, (c) The Cretaceous Reptile Champsosaurus Natator Parks. (No. 145). Published by Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
2.	What was the cost of preparation and printing in each case?
3.	How much of this cost has been recovered by sales of this material in each case?
4.	How many copies of each of the above are still on hand?



THE MINISTRY


Mr. Knowles: 1.	Are any cabinet ministers now directors of any companies, corporations, etc.?
2.	If so, which ministers, of what companies or corporations, and on what dates were any directorships presently held by cabinet ministers assumed?
3.	Have any cabinet ministers resigned any directorships since being sworn of the privy council?
4.	If so, which ministers, on what dates and from what companies or corporations?



GORDON COMMISSION COSTS

Mr. Hodgson: What amounts have been paid by the government, since January, 1951, to the following: (a) Walter Gordon, chairman of the economic commission: (b) Clarkson, Gordon & Co., accountants; (c) J. D. Woods & Gordon, Ltd., management consultants?



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether the Prime Minister of Great Britain or any member of the British government has been in communication with the government of Canada with reference to the convening of a conference of commonwealth prime ministers and whether, if that is so, his attention has been directed to a Canadian Press dispatch to the effect that it is hoped to organize one shortly despite the reluctance of Canada. Is Canada reluctant with regard to the convening of such a conference? If so, why?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is not reluctant with regard to the convening of a conference at any time that can be arranged that will not interfere with the essential business that has to be done here. There is usually correspondence among the prime ministers when a conference is being arranged but, to my knowledge, there has been no correspondence up to the present time.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. I regret that I was not able to give him too much notice of it. My question arises out of a telegram I received that an official of the Post Office Department is in the New Westminster area and has instructed the parcel post carriers to work for Mr. Hatch in the delivery of parcel post in the metropolitan area of Vancouver or get out. In view of his statement to the house the other day, would the Postmaster General clarify this directive?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, it is rather difficult for me to clarify this directive as requested by my hon. friend since, to my knowledge, no such directive has been issued either from the minister's office or from any branch at head office of the Post Office Department. I would have serious doubt that the information which my hon. friend has received is correct. However, I will inquire into the matter.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: On February 11 the hon. member for Hamilton West asked if I was aware there was a serious situation existing in Hamilton with regard to delay in providing insurance benefits, particularly to workers in the automobile industry. Since the hon. member's question was asked the situation in Hamilton has been looked into.
During the month of January there were 7,162 claims for insurance made at the Hamilton office of the unemployment insurance commission and from 1st February to 7th February 1,102 claims were received. Out of this total of 8,264 claims made since the first of the year, I am informed that on 7th February 141 of such claims had payments due. Of these 141 claims due on February 7, there were 121 with one payment due; there were 8 with two payments due; there were 12 with more than two payments due. Of the 121 claims with one payment due just mentioned, 54 are labour dispute cases. Of the 8 claims with two payments due, there is one labour dispute case and there are 4 where the insurance book has not been provided by the claimant. Of the 12 claims with over two payments due, there are 4 where the books have not been provided by the claimants.


Mrs. Fairclough:: May I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, did I understand him to say that out of 8,000 claims only 141 qualified?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, Mr. Speaker. I am sure if my hon. friend will read this in Hansard she will recall that I said there were 7,162 claims in the Hamilton office up to the end of January and another 1,102 claims in the first week in February, and that all of these have been dealt with, with the exception of 141 which I broke down as indicated.



STATEMENT ON REPORTED DELAY IN ISSUING OF CHEQUES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Milton Fowler Gregg: On Wednesday, February 6, the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska asked whether I was aware that thousands of claimants for unemployment insurance benefit had been waiting up to six weeks for their payments. I said then that I would look into the matter. I have assumed, though it was not stated, that the hon. member was referring to the Atlantic region.
Inquiries of the Ministry
The unemployment insurance commission informs me that 51,541 claims were received in the Atlantic region in the month of January and on February 7 there were 108 claims on which three or more weekly payments were due. These 108 are comprised mostly of claims on which the claimant failed to deposit his insurance book; awaiting credits for service in the armed forces and contentious claims that have to be referred to the regional or head office for rulings. I am assured that any unusual delays have been caused by circumstances beyond the commission's control.



STATEMENT ON ALLEGED VARIATIONS IN BENEFIT PAYMENTS TO RAILWAYMEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Milton Fowler Gregg: On Thursday, February 7, the hon. member for Peterborough drew to my attention a letter published in the press concerning the varying amounts of benefit paid to railway employees as a result of layoffs occasioned by the recent strike. The varying amounts of benefit paid to employees having the same rates of wages are due to two factors-the rate of benefit authorized and the earnings during the two weeks of the layoff.
The differences in the benefit rates authorized arise from the fact that two persons having the same wage rates do not necessarily have the same earnings; and, as contributions are based on earnings, the rates of benefit are not identical. One person may have had time off for illness or other reasons, whilst the other had full-time employment. One might have had overtime and the other straight time, and so on. This, of course, affected the earnings, which was in turn reflected in the rate of benefit when a claim was made.
Regarding the variations in the amounts of benefit received due to earnings during the weeks of layoff, somewhat the same circumstances prevailed. Some employees worked or had earnings for one day in the week of December 30, 1956, the first week in which the layoff occurred; others had two days' earnings; whilst yet others had three and four days' earnings. Again, in the week of January 6, 1957, which is the week in which the strike ended, some men went back to work on Friday, others on Saturday, and the bulk on the following Monday or Tuesday. The earnings of a claimant during a calendar week must be taken into account in determining the amount of benefit to which he is entitled for that week-the benefit being reduced when the earnings exceed the amount permitted.

Inquiries of the Ministry
It is, therefore, largely because of the varying amounts of earnings both prior to and during the two weeks of the layoff that misunderstandings have arisen. This has been explained to officers of the railway brotherhoods, who have expressed satisfaction with the explanations given.
To clarify what I know has sounded like a very involved matter, I think it might help if I could place on Hansard some detailed information that has been prepared, together with schedules indicating how the amounts of benefit paid have been arrived at.
If I have permission to do that I shall be glad if it could be printed as part of my answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the minister place this material on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The rate of benefit is established on the average of the 30 most recent weekly contributions prior to the date of application. A railway employee paid at the rate of $1.50 per hour and working a 40-hour week would contribute 60 cents per week as his unemployment insurance deduction. If no time was lost and his wages continued at $60 per week his benefit rate would be $30 and his allowable earnings $13.
Examples:
(Benefit	(Allowable
rate $30)	earnings $13)
		Benefit Excess	Benefit
		Rate Earnings	Paid
1 day's earnings .	. $12	$30 less -	$302 days' earnings .	. $24	$30 less $11	$193 days' earnings .	. $36	$30 less $23	$ 74 days' earnings .	. $48	$30 less $35	$ 0However, if a railway worker had	time off
for illness or other reasons resulting in parttime employment for 10 weeks-that is, his wages reduced to $40 per week-his benefit rate would be reduced to $28 and his allowable earnings would be $11.
Examples:
(Benefit	(Allowable
rate $28)	earnings $11)
Benefit	Excess	BenefitRate	Earnings	Paid1	day's	earnings .	. $12	$28 less $ 1	$272	days'	earnings .	. $24	$28 less $13	$153	days'	earnings .	. $36	$28 less $25	$ 34 days'	earnings .	. $48	$28 less $37	$ 0



INQUIRY AS TO APPLICATION TO INLAND FISHERMEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Will unemployment insurance for fishermen apply to fishermen on the prairie lakes, such as lake Winnipeg and lake Manitoba?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I can answer my hon. friend's question now, Mr. Speaker. It will apply to fishermen, that is commercial fishermen, not the kind with rod and fly but to commercial inland fishermen, just as to commercial fishermen on the two coasts.



DISQUALIFICATION OF CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY FIREMEN AND ENGINEERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, could I have permission to reply to a question which has not been asked in the house but which a number of members on both sides of the house have asked me, having to do with disqualification under the Unemployment Insurance Act of firemen and engineers arising out of the strike on the Canadian Pacific Railway?
Disqualifications were imposed on all firemen and all engineers of the C.P.R. in respect of the recent labour dispute under section 63 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, which reads as follows. I think I have to read this extract, sir, to make my reply adequate:
63. (1) An insured person who has lost his employment by reason of a stoppage of work attributable to a labour dispute at the factory, workshop or other premises at which he was employed, is disqualified from receiving benefit until
(a)	the termination of the stoppage of work,
(b)	he becomes bona fide employed elsewhere in the occupation that he usually follows, or
(c)	he has become regularly engaged in some other occupation,
whichever event first occurs.
(2) An insured person is not disqualified under this section if he proves that
(a)	he is not participating in, or financing or directly interested in the labour dispute that caused the stoppage of work, and
(b)	he does not belong to a grade or class of workers that, immediately before the commencement of the stoppage, included members who were employed at the premises at which the stoppage is taking place and are participating in, financing or directly interested in the dispute.
(3 Where separate branches of work that are commonly carried on as separate businesses in separate premises are carried on in separate departments on the same premises, each department shall, for the purpose of this section, be deemed to be a separate factory or workshop.
Under subsection 2 of this section a claimant who has lost his employment owing to a labour dispute is disqualified from the receipt of benefit for so long as the stoppage of work continues unless he proves that (a) he is not participating in, or financing or directly interested in the dispute; and (b) he is not a member of a grade or class of workers, any of whom are participating in, financing or directly interested in the dispute.
Under the collective bargaining agreements between the respective brotherhoods and the

railway, determination of whether an employee is a fireman or an engineer is made on what he was doing at 12.01 a.m. on the first day of each month. This basis was used by the unemployment insurance commission and the status as at January 1, 1957, so established.
Those who were classed as firemen on this basis were disqualified as participating, and being directly interested, in the dispute.
It was found that some engineers who are members of the firemen's brotherhood and are office bearers of that body pay full union dues to the firemen's brotherhood even when acting as engineers. As the strike pay disbursed to the firemen was paid from a fund to which these engineers were contributing they were considered as financing the dispute and so were disqualified. Since there were some engineers, members of the firemen's brotherhood, who thus financed the dispute then all of the engineers, because they belong to the same grade or class of workers as those financing, were subject to disqualification. It is understood that some 3,300 engineers were involved. Officials of the unemployment insurance commission have discussed the decision to disqualify the engineers with representatives of the railway brotherhood concerned and the latter have intimated their intention to appeal the decision to the board of referees and the umpire.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Milton Fowler Gregg: In a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) he asked the Prime Minister to bring him up to date with regard to the dispute at the Polymer Corporation in Sarnia. On Sunday last a strike vote was held and a strike was decided on by that vote. No date for the strike was indicated. I have appointed a mediator in the person of Mr. Eric Taylor, and he is in touch with the situation at the present time.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I regret that I have not sent him notice of it and if he is not prepared to answer my question now perhaps he will take this as notice.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Has the Prime Minister's attention been called to the report of the exchange between the governments of Japan and the United Kingdom on the suspension of nuclear tests in the Pacific, and can the Prime Minister inform the house if he and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom at their forthcoming meeting in Bermuda will discuss the suspension of these tests, which are described by every reputable scientist as dangerous and useless?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member suggests, I will take his question as notice and endeavour to obtain the information.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In his absence I should direct my question to the house leader, but as he is also absent I shall direct my question to the Prime Minister and he may take it as notice. Is the minister aware of a statement made recently in Toronto by Mr. George Nagy, secretary general of the Hungarian federation of Canada, to the effect that among the Hungarian refugees who have entered Canada recently are a number of communist agents whose aim is to create discontent among the refugees and prevent the happy integration of these same refugees into Canadian society? Will the minister tell the house what are his comments on this statement and what action, if any, has been taken to investigate this matter?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I will draw the
minister's attention to the question for such answer as may be appropriate.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge) addressed the following question to the Prime Minister:
Was the Canadian government consulted concerning the appointment of Lieutenant General Hans Speidel as commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization central European land forces? If so, did the government express its approval of this appointment?

Inquiries of the Ministry
The answer to both questions is yes. On January 4 a message was received from General Norstad of NATO, the supreme allied commander, Europe, stating that the post of commanding general, allied land forces, central Europe, had been vacated by General Marcel Carpentier of the French army, and that the minister of defence of France, in concert with his Belgian and Netherlands colleagues, was proposing that the post should be allocated to a German officer of appropriate rank and experience. As Minister of National Defence I indicated approval in principle on behalf of Canada.
On January 24 General Norstad informed me that the West German national authorities, on being consulted, had nominated Lieutenant General Hans Speidel for the position. Canada, like all the other NATO countries concerned, agreed to the appointment.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Can
I ask a supplementary question? Has the minister ever heard of a report made from Paris by Lieutenant General Speidel, chief of the general staff, dated February 28, 1942, on internal security with respect to the German army, which indicated the arrest of many Jews? Does the minister also know that 1,000 of these Jews were sent by special train to Auschwitz, one of the most notorious gas factories in Poland?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that I have. I am aware, however, that General Speidel was arrested because he was alleged to have been a party to the plot on the life of Hitler.


WEST GERMANY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: May I
ask the Prime Minister if the government intends to invite President Heuss of the West German Federal Republic to visit Canada during the course of his forthcoming visit to the United States?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes, Mr. Speaker, an invitation has already been transmitted to the president of West Germany, and we are hopeful that the invitation will be accepted.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Can the Prime Minister inform the house if the preliminary studies which the Gordon

commission proposes to publish in connection with this report will soon be available, or whether they are going to be withheld until the publication of the final version of the report?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: None of these publications are
going to be withheld. Some of them are being printed and translated at the present time, and as soon as they are available for distribution it is intended to see that they are distributed.



REQUEST TO CHANGE MEASURE FROM BUSHEL TO HUNDREDWEIGHT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister inform the house, in view of requests by western farmers' associations, whether consideration has been given to the use of the hundredweight as a measure of grain rather than the bushel, which is at present being used? If so, can he report what progress is being made?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Certain representations
have been received in the department favouring conversion from the bushel to the hundredweight as a measure of grain. The department is continuing to watch the development of this proposal.
It is hardly the function of the government, on its own initiative, to change a form of measurement that has always been in force in Canada, but if we are satisfied that it is the unanimous wish of those who produce and handle grain in this country that the basis of measurement should be changed along such lines, the government will give serious consideration to taking appropriate action.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Is the minister aware that the Saskatchewan wheat pool has passed a resolution to this effect?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question in view of the speech he made to the annual meeting of the Canadian Lumbermen's Association as

reported in this morning's Montreal Gazette. Does the minister consider that house construction should be limited to the number of new families formed each year and, if so, what about the slums of Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. No suggestion of that kind was contained in my speech.


Erhart Regier: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister contend, then, that the report in the Montreal Gazette is a false report?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I read the report in the Montreal Gazette, and it made no such statement.



CAMP GAGETOWN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: May I ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister say what housing provision is being made for the civilian employees of ordnance who will be transferred from the depot at Saint John to Camp Gagetown in the near future?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the hon. gentleman's question as notice.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Watson MacNaughi (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) asked if it would be possible to table a copy of the protocol referred to in the resolution on the order paper standing in the name of the Minister of Fisheries. At that time I told him that if there were no procedural difficulties involved it would be tabled. I have looked into the matter, and the document will be tabled either today or tomorrow.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister make a statement in connection with the discussions he has had in the last day or two with representatives of the government of Ontario
Inquiries of the Ministry regarding hospital insurance? Can he assure the house that an attempt is being made to reach agreement without backing away from the principle of universal coverage?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows that the government is not backing up in any way from the implications of the proposal which it made to the provinces through the Prime Minister in this house last January.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On Monday and Tuesday I did confer with the premier of Ontario and some of his officials and I think I can say, as the premier said, that undoubtedly as the result of our meetings clarifications have been brought about and great progress in this matter is being made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister whether he has any reports of a similarly hopeful nature with respect to any other provinces?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend should know that any report that I would have to make would certainly be of a hopeful nature.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those rare occasions when I address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I know he enjoys answering questions. Has the minister received any requests for research to be done on the use of aluminum dust therapy for the treatment of silicosis? If so, what was the minister's response to these requests?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not aware that we have received any requests. We may have, but I can assure my hon. friend that research is being undertaken in this country, with the assistance provided under the national health program, into the problem of silicosis generally. However, to give a more specific reply I will have to wait until I have had an opportunity to give further consideration to my hon. friend's very friendly question.



REPORTED STATEMENT BY MINISTER ON DECLINE IN EXPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. If

Canada Council
the minister is correctly reported in this morning's Gazette that a decline in lumber exports is to be expected in the coming year, would he consider suggesting to the Prime Minister that he have discussions with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom at their forthcoming meeting on the subject of increasing two-way trade between ourselves and the United Kingdom in order that we may offset the anticipated decline in lumber exports?
Right Hon.	L.	S. St.	Laurent	(Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that no such suggestion is necessary.



CANADA COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon.	L.	S. St.	Laurent	(Prime
Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 47, for the establishment of a Canada Council for the encouragement of the arts, humanities and social sciences.
He said: Mr. Speaker, you will have seen from the Hansard	reports	that we	had incommittee on	the	resolution quite	a protracted and very interesting discussion of the general purposes of the legislation to be introduced following the resolution, and I do not think I could say anything at this time on the general purposes of the legislation that would not be a repetition of what I said at the resolution stage. When the bill, the general principles of which seemed to meet with very wide approval by the house, is before the committee I have no doubt that hon. gentlemen will wish to give very careful consideration to the various provisions of the bill and at that time I will endeavour to answer any questions that they may feel arise out of the various provisions contained in the bill.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime
Minister has stated at the resolution stage, the principle of the resolution, and now of the bill before the house, met with general acceptance. We of the official opposition indicated our support for the principle of the bill and for the setting up of the Canada Council. However, there were one or two matters upon which we made suggestions and upon a perusal of the bill we find that those suggestions have in no way been accepted, particularly the suggestion of the hon. member for Vaneouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) that provision should be made in the bill for an examination by parliament.
When the matter was before the committee I referred to the fact that in general the

resolution, and now the bill, follow the line indicated by the Massey commission except in one major particular, the degree to which parliamentary control has not been assured either by the representations made by the Prime Minister during debate on the resolution or in the bill itself. At the expense of reiterating what I said previously, I again bring to the attention of the house the recommendation of that commission as set out on page 382 of their report. The commission said:
The development of the council's work would naturally depend upon the extent to which it would he able to satisfy with wisdom and moderation a real public need, and, if successful in this, we do not doubt that there would be public support of parliamentary action in making adequate funds available to it. We do not find it possible to propose specific sums; we should, however, imagine that the council would find it possible to perform its varied duties effectively with an annual budget which would constitute a very slight charge upon all members of the Canadian population.
Had provision been made to incorporate in the bill this major recommendation of the commission there would have been preserved to parliament its right to an examination of the disposition made of the funds voted by parliament, whether through the medium of endowments or through annual grants. Again, I repeat that the commission made the point that it would be dangerous if this Canada Council became in any sense a department of government, and went on to say:
. . . but we realize that since this body will be spending public money it must be in an effective manner responsible to the government and hence to parliament.
In the United Kingdom they have had experience with a similar council and I have before me the report of the first ten years. At page 16 the following appears:
The grant which parliament annually votes to the arts council is determined by several procedural checks. The council each year presents the chancellor with an itemized account of the subsidies which it believes necessary for maintaining the many organizations it supports. These figures are further examined in the treasury and finally, by a process more usually subject to subtraction than addition, the art council is voted a grant for the year.
Then it goes on to point out that while it was hoped at one time that there might be a quinquennial grant the country's fortunes have obstructed that aspiration. However, whether it be an annual grant or a quinquennial grant, the fact remains that there is a control on the expenditures made by that council in Britain which I believe should be incorporated in the bill now before us. As things now stand, there is nothing

whatsoever in the bill to maintain parliamentary control over the moneys of the Canadian people to be expended by the council to be set up.
I realize I am not permitted to refer to the sections of the bill by number, but there is only one provision that even in the slightest degree maintains anything in the nature of parliamentary responsibility over the moneys that are to be expended.
The only provision is simply that within three months after the termination of each fiscal year there is to be submitted to the member of the Queen's privy council for Canada designated for the purpose a report of all proceedings, including the financial statements of the council and the Auditor General's report thereon. Then it goes on to indicate that the report shall be laid before parliament within 15 days after the receipt thereof or, if parliament is not then sitting, within 15 days next thereafter. In other words, there is merely a formality provided for. A tremendous amount of money is being placed in the hands of the council independent of parliament. In no portion of the bill that is before us is there anything to assure and maintain the right of parliament to an examination of the disposal made of the moneys voted by parliament.
In the second place, under the investments section there is nothing to prevent the Canada Council from investing in common stocks. I know there are some who believe that the provision for investment has its beneficial aspects in that, if common stocks were purchased on a rising market, the amount of the endowment would be greatly increased, nonetheless, the experience of Canadians and in particular the experience of one insurance company in the late twenties must place Canadians on guard against the danger of these moneys being invested by the council in common stock. Under the bill as it is now before the house, what control is there to deny to the council the opportunity to make expenditures which are dangerous and improvident. They are dangerous and improvident not because of the condition of the companies in which the investments are made at the time but dangerous in so far as future probabilities are concerned. I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) whether or not, even at this date, consideration should not be given to assuring that the moneys placed in the hands of this council shall be expended in a manner maintained by the responsibility of the council to parliament in an annual examination of the accounts of that council.
No one suggests that the personnel of the council may not be of the highest. Everyone expects that the members chosen shall
Canada Council
be above any suggestion of political partisanship. Yet for some reason the Prime Minister has not seen fit to give to the house and the country that assurance. When day by day press references lead us to believe that the identity of the chairman is already assured, I think that we have the right to ask that the Prime Minister today reveal to the house in committee whom he has in mind for this appointment and not leave it to the conjecture of press dispatches. If the person in question is the one he has in mind, regardless of the high regard that I have for that gentleman may I say that the Canada Council is, I believe, entitled to have as its chairman someone with a national reputation who in no way by the remotest suggestion can be accused of political influences as he administers that council.
Those are but one or two matters that I again bring to the Prime Minister's attention. We in this party are giving our support to the setting up of the council and to the principle of the bill. Over the years we have advocated the need for action along the lines suggested by the Massey commission. Frequently we have inquired as to when this council would be set up. It was only last June, as I recall it, that the Prime Minister gave as an explanation for delay the difficulty of securing the type of person requisite to the maintenance of the integrity and prestige of this council. What has taken place since then? Whom has the Prime Minister been in touch with? Who were those with whom he was in touch prior to June of last year when he felt impelled to explain, as the reason for the delay in setting up the council, that there were not available Canadians with the necessary ability for acceptance of positions on that council?
As I say, with the general principles of the bill we are in accord. We believe in the need for the extension of the humanities and the development of the things of the mind. We as Canadian citizens believe that a greater knowledge of our past achievements and of our history; the nourishing value of goodness; the lives of great men and women; the thoughts of those who changed the course of mankind; the experiences of recorded history; and the characters of literature and of works of art are of the essence of good citizenship. These things I believe will receive encouragement from the setting up of this council so that in the years ahead we in Canada may look back with pride on what is now being done and be able to give to the world renowned artists who will owe their opportunities for service in the arts to the patronage which will be given to them by the council and by the provision of assistance,

Canada Council
both by scholarship and by direct encouragement of the arts. However, in accepting the general principle of the bill and in giving it our support I say to the Prime Minister that we at the same time want to assure that the rights and privileges of parliament shall be maintained and that an organization set-up such as this shall, in the experience of Great Britain which has been found to be beneficial, require that parliament shall not by the simple expedient of passing legislation disavow its responsibility to assure that the expenditures made by the council shall be in the best interests of the Canadian people.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I agree that this matter received a thorough and wide discussion at the resolution stage and that it is therefore unnecessary to make any prolonged speeches on the second reading of the bill. However, I am rising to say that we are unanimous as a party in the support of this measure. We believe that this is something that is long overdue. A council of this description can do a great deal to assist in the development of Canada in a field other than that which we have been discussing for the last couple of days. We have been discussing the economic development of Canada, and now we have before us a bill which will assist in the development of Canada in the field of culture.
I am not forgetting that with the inadequate resources at the disposal of organizations across the country a great deal has been done already in the promotion of a distinctly Canadian culture. Sometimes when I listen to the people who have been brought into prominence on television and on the radio, when I see the fine productions that are made by Canadian artists, I am quite proud. Last Wednesday evening, I think it was, I saw a fine production on television of the story of Sir John A. Macdonald. I was greatly interested, greatly taken, and I am glad indeed to be able to say I should like to compliment the people who were responsible for that production. The same thing could be said of some of the other productions we have seen on television and heard over the radio from time to time, particularly on Wednesday evenings. I think the Wednesday evening program of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has done much to encourage the love of good music, the understanding of Canadian drama and to encourage young writers and artists in the development of their talents in these fields. I think that the Canada Council can do very much more along these lines.
Some years ago I suggested we might appropriate some money to be used for the purchase of pictures from Canadian artists
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
for the national gallery. I believe that, to some extent, that is being done today. It is true, we have purchased some other pictures that have been more costly, but they have added to the art treasures that Canada has collected over the years. I do not feel that parliament is wasting any money when it invests in that kind of cultural activity. I am pleased, too, to see that some arrangement is being made for scholarships and bursaries for the young men and women of Canada. We do not think enough is being done, even under this bill, or by any organizations in Canada to that end. However, to the extent we are doing something, I heartily welcome what is being done.
Of course, I agree that there should be a report made to parliament, and that we should be very careful with regard to the investments that are to be made. I am not going into the provisions of the bill because that would be improper but my reading of the bill is such that I think if the government of Canada appoints three of the five people who direct the investments that should give fairly complete control of the investments and ensure the people of Canada that these investments would not be made in stocks and other securities that might be subject to severe fluctuations and loss. If I know anything about the officials of the treasury department who, I imagine, would be obligated to do this kind of job or to give supervision to it, they would exercise every care. I am not gainsaying the argument that parliament should have the right to acquire knowledge of what is being done. A report is to be made to parliament 15 days after the session opens, but that might not be sufficient. However, one can go into that when we get into committee. But at least if the report is placed on the table of the house, it seems to me members would have the right to pick that report off the table and discuss it under one or the other of the opportunities we have for raising grievances or bringing before the house matters that require our attention.
I am not a bit nervous, of course, that this Canada Council is going to promote any subversive ideas across the country; quite the contrary. I am sure the people who will be appointed will be responsible people who can command the respect of this house and of the country. I think that to suggest this is going to be some sort of a cloak under which some strange ideas may infiltrate the culture of Canada is something that is not worth even discussing, indeed not worth mentioning. I am pleased indeed, on behalf of those associated with me, to give all the support we can to the second reading of this bill. I am hopeful that sooner or later satisfactory development will take place, and one day we

shall have in the capital cities of all the provinces-perhaps setting an example in this capital-cultural centres which will involve in Ottawa a national gallery and a national library. I look forward to the day when we may have a nationally subsidized auditorium or theatre in which we may be able to enjoy the best of Canadian talent in drama, music and art.
I want to say again that I am one of those who appreciate what is being done in some of the other places. Montreal, for instance, has become more or less a centre for certain types of music, opera and culture. I am glad to see that Toronto is doing the same thing. I am delighted with what is being done in Winnipeg in the realm of music, and what is being done in the city of Vancouver also. I hope that, sooner or later, the people of Canada will support expenditures which will give to this country a national theatre, and will incline them to subsidize opera, ballet and symphony orchestras. I want to add, if I may use a partial text from scripture, that man does not live by bread alone.


Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Since one week ago today, Mr. Speaker, when we last considered this measure we have heard nothing and seen nothing that would cause us to change our minds on this great question. We have read the bill and we find no solace in that.
First, I should like to say that we agree wholeheartedly with what the Leader of the Opposition has just said when he bemoans the fact that there is no opportunity for parliamentary supervision of this organization. We maintain that, considering the needs of this country on a priority basis, the time has not yet come for spending $100 million in this manner. As I said, there has been no reason advanced to cause us to change our thinking.
I am going to offer a suggestion right here, Mr. Speaker. Provided that the government is determined to spend this amount of money to promote culture rather than to provide a climate, as we maintain, in which culture can flourish and grow, we would ask the government to economize and forget setting up the council.
At the present time we have many organizations in this country that are doing a wonderful job in promoting culture throughout Canada. Some of them have been mentioned and I am not going to recall them at this time. But why not spend the $50 million in assistance to those very worthy and worthwhile organizations that are doing such a good job at the present time?
In my speech on February 6 I mentioned that we find it difficult to locate a definition
Canada Council
for the word "culture". An internationally-minded friend in New York wrote me a few days ago and provided me with an answer to my puzzle. The definition is provided in an anthology of Alfred North Whitehead published by Macmillan, New York, in 1953. Under the chapter, "The Aims of Education", you will find this definition of culture. I might mention that Mr. Whitehead is an English mathematician and a noted Harvard philosopher. This is his definition of culture:
Culture is activity of thought and receptiveness to beauty and humane feeling.
You will recall that during my few words of a week ago my whole argument was that one of the basic needs of this country was to provide a field in which culture could grow and flourish; in other words, to provide what this definition calls for, namely, receptiveness to beauty and humane feeling.
Then, I noticed in a paper published in New York, the New York Times, the heading "State of Culture Concerns Canada". A column was devoted to the debates on this question in the house. To a degree I would find fault with the heading, because those of us who are greatly concerned about this question of culture say that our concern is based on the fact that we see in this a method of promoting state culture. Therefore, we would agree with the heading 100 per cent if the word "of" were eliminated and the heading of the column became, "State Culture Concerns Canada". That is the phrase that is causing us great concern in this part of the house at the present time.
I believe I mentioned before the phrases that the Prime Minister used in explaining the possibilities as he saw them in this bill. He used the words "spiritual development" and the phrase "intellectual world brotherhood". Mr. Speaker, we are alarmed when we hear such words used as the aims of a national organization that is being set up to oversee the entire question of promoting culture in this country. I am sure that much opposition will develop in the minds of Canadians, especially Canadians with strong religious beliefs, and more especially of Canadians who are opposed to many of the state cultures that are rampant in the world today. I am sure that when this is publicized and brought home to some of the people in this country they will see an inherent danger in the promotion of a council whose aims are spiritual development and an intellectual world brotherhood. I am thinking of the people of Quebec, and the premier of that province who has steadfastly refused to accept grants from this government in aid of education. Those grants have amounted to millions of dollars, Mr. Speaker, and it may

Canada Council
not be amiss for me to say that I thought he was making a grave mistake. Possibly the premier of that province, though, is looking a little farther into the future than some of us are at the present time.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: He wants to keep our culture.


George William McLeod: Perhaps he sees in this policy that is now being developed the culmination of all his fears and the threat that he has felt may be attached to grants from the federal government. Therefore, he may be a smarter man than many of us have thought. Perhaps our criticism of his refusal to accept this money and to use it for educational purposes in his own province has been unfounded.
Then I recall that the Prime Minister attended a meeting in Quebec last summer. If I am wrong in this my excuse is that I am speaking from memory. I have a press clipping at home. As I recall it, our Prime Minister spoke in Quebec and dealt with the increasing demands for federal financial assistance. He propounded a theory along this line. The more financial assistance was demanded from the central government the more control would be exercised by the federal government over these matters to which financial assistance was given. In other words, we come back to the old adage, he who pays the piper calls the tune. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in these grants from the central authority, with the strings attached as provided in this bill, we see nothing but cause for alarm and cause for fear.
In the past, Mr. Speaker, we have consistently demanded that in all federal-provincial relations grants be given absolutely without strings, and we have not changed our opinion because of expediency.
As I said earlier, the provinces have many organizations. Our own province of British Columbia has an organization which is doing an excellent job# in promoting recreation commissions throughout the province. I am given to understand that in a very short time a new department will be set up under a minister of the crown which will have charge of the development of recreation and culture in the province of British Columbia. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, there are many worthwhile organizations that could profitably use some of this $50 million that the central government is now providing, and they could use it more economically.
The council which is to be set up will cost money. We shall have salaried officials. There will be a permanent staff and there will be travelling expenses. Why the duplication? If we are really serious in this question of promoting culture why not make every dollar

possible available under the plan to the organizations which exist at the present time instead of duplicating the expenses and the services that are already provided in this country?
The various groups have cut short their remarks and I am going to do the same. However, I cannot let this opportunity pass without referring to a speech made by the hon. member for Nanaimo on February 6. It is not my habit, Mr. Speaker, to take a fellow member to task, if I may put it that way, or to criticize his efforts in this house. However, the hon. member made some remarks which I think are worthy of a moment's notice. I will say this, according to the definition of the word "culture", activity of thought, the hon. member is quite well imbued with that attribute. I believe that in his thinking he is placing the wrong construction upon much of the work that is done by the Social Credit group and many of the ideas that have been expressed in this house by members of that party. I am rather glad that he does this, Mr. Speaker, because I would be the first one to become a little suspicious if we in this group promoted any policy that received the full personal endorsement of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron). He stated that we were "agin" sin.


Mr. Monieiih:: Well, aren't you?


George William McLeod: That is a rather flippant expression and it was perhaps meant as a joke, but I am not afraid to say that we are "agin" sin, and the sins to which I am going to refer at the present time are national sins. I intend to mention only a few of them. We are against the sin of state monopoly, for instance. We are against the sin of private enterprise monopoly. We are against subversive action directed toward the state. We are against the subversion of individual rights to the will of the state. I could go on enumerating the type of sin we are opposed to.


Mr. Byrne:: Be careful that you do not cast the first stone.


George William McLeod: However, Mr. Speaker, we in this group are not "agin" culture.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the hon. member would recall that we are discussing the principle of Bill No. 47 and if he would explain the things which he finds favourable or unfavourable in that bill?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: He was just reviewing his catechism.


George William McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I was merely reviewing some of the phrases used by a previous speaker and I was endeavouring to

refute some of his expressions and the arguments he advanced. We are not against culture.


Mr. Ellis:: This speech proves that you are.


Mr. Wylie:: Be quiet.


George William McLeod: I want to say to the hon. member for Nanaimo and to every member of this house and to everyone in the country that we are not against culture.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Methinks the lady doth protest too much.


George William McLeod: In order to establish an enduring culture it must be based on Christian principles. We in this group believe that Christian principles can be applied to everyday living and to government-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Even to politics?


George William McLeod: -and we believe that
Christian principles have as their foundation a deep abiding belief in spiritual authority. I would like to stress that last phrase for the benefit of the hon. member for Nanaimo.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to close with a warning to the government. I know they will not pay attention to it but like other hon. members in this group I would warn the government to be mighty wary of any legislation that meets the personal and wholehearted approval of the hon. member for Nanaimo.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago my leader said we were not going to delay the proceedings on second reading of this bill and I do not propose to do so. However, I would like to make reference to a statement which the Prime Minister made on January 18 when he was introducing the resolution for the establishment of the Canada Council. At that time the Prime Minister paid tribute to the courageous venture at Stratford, Ontario. He was, of course, referring to the Stratford Shakespearean festival. As this venture has undoubtedly been the greatest achievement of its kind on the North American continent, I feel I should mention briefly some of its accomplishments.
This undertaking originated in the mind of a Stratford man, Tom Patterson, who is now internationally known in this field. From that seed of imagination and through the untiring efforts of successive boards of governors and the contributions of individuals and business the Stratford festival has grown in stature to the point where it takes second place to no similar project in the world.
The first performance in 1953 took place under canvas. Today a new permanent theatre is being constructed at a cost of
Canada Council
$1,500,000. This new theatre will be completed in time to house the 1957 plays. I know I am prejudiced and I presume others will agree that I am but at the same time it occurs to me that this is the type of venture to which the Canada Council might well consider giving some assistance in the future. I would like to take a few moments to indicate just what the combined efforts in Stratford really accomplished during 1956 as a consequence of which I am led to believe that the Canada Council can contribute much to the welfare of Canada and to our national unity. I would impress upon the house that one of the main objectives of the festival is that it aspires to be a national enterprise.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am extremely sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I have listened to him for several minutes and he is directing his remarks to a particular venture which in my opinion does not come within the terms of this bill. As I say, I am exceedingly sorry to interrupt the hon. member in his very interesting discussion but we are discussing the principle of the establishment of the Canada Council and I do not think a particular discussion of this nature is quite in order.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that I hope my words will indicate that the establishment of the Canada Council will be of some benefit to all of Canada and will make a valid contribution to national unity. I really mean what I have said and I do not know what more I can say. I would like to continue my remarks very briefly. I feel that I am on the right track and that my comments relate to the principle of the bill. Certain clauses of the bill do refer to the theatre and to assistance to the theatre. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will illustrate just what I mean.
One of the main objectives of the festival is that it aspires to be a national enterprise. In 1956 that objective was accomplished. As we know there are two great cultures in Canada, one rooted in the English tongue and one in the French tongue. Of course other cultures do exist in this country but not in such strength. One of the plays produced at Stratford in 1956 was Henry V. In this play there are many French-speaking characters. The Stratford company received an invitation to perform at the Edinburgh festival in Scotland and partly for the sake of the play but also to make the company more representative than hitherto of all Canada the Frenchspeaking characters in the play were cast with French Canadian actors. As a result of this casting the English-French conflict of the play was developed with perhaps more

Canada Council
meaning than ever before. Canada is probably the only country in the world that could stage such an interpretation of Henry V.
This undertaking was a considerable gamble and the French Canadian actors were required to portray difficult parts in English.
I might point out that failure of the play would have harmed the reputation of French Canadian actors more than the Stratford foundation. The actors went to great pains to master, appreciate and enjoy the different language in its Shakespearean form. Their courage, hard work and artistry won the deep respect and admiration not only of the Canadian and United States press but also, and perhaps this is of more importance, the respect and admiration of their fellow English-speaking artists.
These artists from Quebec were also invited by the foundation to provide Englishspeaking Canadians with a taste of French culture during the festival last year by performing in French the three Moliere farces with which they had been so successful in Paris the previous summer. I am convinced it was not dollars that attracted these French-Canadian artists to Stratford last summer. They could have found more lucrative jobs in television studios in Montreal than the Stratford festival could afford. I am sure they admired what had been achieved by English-speaking Canadians in Stratford. I am also convinced that they considered the whole project a challenge.
Probably the acceptance of this challenge by the French-Canadian artists was more especially due to the fact that they realized, as did the Stratford foundation, the dangers of some of the prejudices which exist between English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians. They realized further that in a world which is struggling for amicable understanding between nations, if within one of the nations concerned there are two groups unwilling to respect and learn from each other's differences of character, taste and culture, there can be little hope for a wider understanding being created on an international scale.
Any hindrance to a mutual understanding between French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians seems to these artists and to the Stratford foundation to deny to the inhabitants of Canada one of her greatest nonmaterial riches. Art is an international rather than a national affair, and it is mainly through the interchange of cultural expressions that one country can come to understand and appreciate another. If, through a modest example of such artistic interchange, some of the unhappy prejudices existing between different parts of Canada can be exposed for

what they are really worth, a definite contribution has been made to national unity.
Mr. Speaker, I have talked to many of these artists from Montreal's Theatre du Nouveau Monde and I have talked to many of the English-speaking actors and actresses.
I have also discussed the whole venture with the producer of Henry Y, Mr. Michael Lang-ham. In fact it was Mr. Langham who drove home to me just how much this mingling of the two cultures has meant and could mean to a more clear understanding of each other.
I believe last summer's experiment in Stratford has served to create a health invigorating stimulus to Canada's maturing character.
I believe the formation of a Canada Council, Mr. Speaker, will further any original progress in this respect made last year in Stratford.
Might I say a word about an organization which has developed in Stratford subsequent to the success of the festival? This organization, known as "Canadian Players", is now for the third year touring Canada and the United States, employing, practically, 100 per cent professional Canadian artists. Employment is being provided for these people for several months of the year. A very important point is that they have provided enjoyment for thousands of people in remote parts of nine provinces of Canada.
There are, I think, several important questions to be asked when we are dealing with the various sections of the bill, but within the over-all picture I do believe the existence of a Canada Council will result in more of our people enjoying the various arts.
Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier that the new permanent theatre in Stratford will be opened to house this year's Shakespearean festival. The traditional ceremony of laying the corner stone was performed by His Excellency the Governor General some two and a half weeks ago. It is proposed to continue the national character of the productions.
As any election will, no doubt, be over by the opening date of the Stratford festival 1957 season, I would certainly suggest to the house that attendance at the plays would be a very desirable method of relaxing after a strenuous campaign. And, of course, the excellent entertainment would drive away any disconsolate thoughts in the minds of those of us who may not be returning to the house.


Mr. Ray Thomas (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) introduced this legislation some days ago I found there were a good many things he said with which I agreed wholeheartedly. I certainly have no quarrel with

the statement that there is a part which the federal government can play in the cultural field, and 1 cannot find any quarrel with the idea of awarding scholarships or with the idea of public funds being devoted to the assistance of culture or of grants being made to the universities.
As far as grants to universities are concerned, I think everyone in this house knows that we have always supported assistance of this sort being given. We have supported increases in the amount of these grants; as a matter of fact during this present session we supported the doubling of grants to universities. So, with regard to all these suggestions, we have no quarrel whatsoever.
There are, nevertheless, a few questions which do concern us with regard to the Canada Council. Many of them, possibly all of them, have been mentioned before by members of this group. The first question is: Is there a need for this Canada Council? The leader of this group some time ago questioned whether or not we did need the Canada Council, bearing in mind, among other things, the initial expense that would be involved in setting up the organization, paying its staff and so on. We already have here in Canada cultural groups which, with a little financial assistance from the government, could carry on any of the duties which would be performed by the Canada Council. We have also the cultural branches set up by the various provincial governments. I do not know what the names of these branches are in all the different provinces, but in the province of Alberta the department which deals with this is called the cultural branch and is looked after by the minister of economic affairs. These branches concern themselves with the cultural needs and requirements of the various provinces, and I think they do so very adequately. We have a Canadian conference of universities which certainly knows the needs of the universities as far as grants and scholarships are concerned.
All the proposals which have been advocated could certainly be accomplished by the work of these groups, or a combination of these groups, grants being made available to these organizations and scholarships given to the universities. It could be done without any centralization whatsoever, and done as well as and possibly better than it would be under the scheme now proposed.
Another point which has worried me is whether or not there is to be a clearly recognized priority with regard to scholarships and a recognized priority of art patronage. What guarantee would we have that "handouts" would not go to well-organized pressure
Canada Council
groups which, as far as culture is concerned, may have little or no value to this country.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: What groups would that be?


Ray Thomas: How would the council deal with claims for patronage made by various organizations? We realize that as soon as money is made available there will be any number of organizations sponsoring culture across the country who will ask for their share. The job of the Canada Council in this respect is going to be extremely difficult.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he mind informing the house what pressure groups he has in mind in the phrase he just used?


Ray Thomas: I have no particular pressure groups in mind, but the minute you set up any fund for distribution you are going to have pressure groups working. There is no doubt about that. For $100 million a lot of people can exert a lot of pressure.


Alfred Claude Ellis: May I ask a question. The hon. member spoke earlier of a number of groups throughout the country who could get along if they got grants from the government. Is he suggesting that the government should make direct grants rather than through the Canada Council?


Ray Thomas: Certainly, to provincial governments, to the various organizations that are in existence at the present time.


Mr. Hansell:: Universities and so forth.


Ray Thomas: As far as the scholarship angle is concerned, in my opinion one of the first things that should have consideration is the field of science, and that should come before scholarships are meted out for the advancement of the arts. Many times during various debates in the house-and we have seen many reports on the matter in the press of the country-we have heard about the tremendous shortage of skilled workers, engineers, etc. Comparisons have been given as to the number of engineers being graduated behind the iron curtain and the number being graduated in the western democratic countries. Certainly if there is a shortage of such persons they are the first who should have access to any scholarships that are being handed out.
At the present time the western nations are involved in a production race against the forces of world communism, and if the reports we have received and the comparisons we have seen are true we are being out-produced because of our failure to graduate sufficient skilled workers to keep abreast. If that is so, the first thing we should do is see that people of this type are given an education

Canada Council
in order to protect our very existence as a democratic country, and then give scholarships for the arts once we have assured ourselves that we are going to be able to compete and exist in this world.
I should also like to know what guarantee there will be that the council, if it is politically loaded, will not be able to circumvent parliament. It was said the other day that if it appeared to be necessary a nominal amount could be put in the estimates in order to allow parliament to discuss the Canada Council. I suggest that there be an amount right from the first year. It does not matter what it is. It can be the traditional one dollar, but at least that would give us an opportunity to wage a full-scale debate concerning the affairs of the Canada Council at every session of parliament.
Another thing that has been bothering me is the personnel of the council. What qualifications will be sought and required in the appointment of the members of the council? I ask the Prime Minister whether he can give the house the assurance that the government in making these appointments will steer clear of former cabinet ministers and others closely and actively associated with politics. As one of the leading Liberal newspapers in Alberta has put it, stay clear of the culture vultures. In that regard can we be given the assurance that the council will not become a haven for retired and tired politicians, or a means of repaying political favours? If appointments are going to be made on a political basis, then this thing can become the sweetest pork barrel the country has known in quite a long time.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Any other silly things to say?


Ray Thomas: I should think the hon. member for Kootenay East would be the last one to refer to saying silly things. Without mentioning any other debate, I would ask him to read his own remarks of yesterday in Hansard.


Mr. Gaulhier (Portneuf):: The hon. member gave an example just now of saying silly things.


Ray Thomas: I have been in the house long enough to know that when something hurts, some of the junior members on the other side of the house make an attempt to ridicule anything that is said and also make no attempt to get up and justify their own stand. As a matter of fact some of them get up, state their stand, and then vote against the measure.


Mr. Dickey:: Not on this side of the house; your side.


Ray Thomas: I have also been here long enough to know that certain members are extremely adept at mangling the truth, and some of them have very little respect for the truth. As far as I am concerned, such conduct reflects nothing other than acute political frustration.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Who is frustrated?


Pierre Gauthier: Talk about being frustrated.


Ray Thomas: As has been indicated by others in this group who have spoken, and personally I feel very strongly on this point, we cannot support anything which will force the ideas of a group of people or any person on the people of Canada, and the Canada Council can do just that.


Mr. Knight:: You would not close the schools, would you?


Ray Thomas: The Canada Council will be in a position, particularly if its members are political appointees, to give grants to cultural organizations which they know can slant public opinion in a certain direction. As one man said to me not too long ago, "If I like to sit down and listen to Elvis Presley, why should I spend the money I pay in taxes to have somebody tell me that I should listen to Beethoven?" I can also say that if some of the cultural programs that have been put on by the C.B.C. are any indication of the type of culture the government envisions as being fostered by the Canada Council, I certainly would have nothing to do with it whatsoever.


Alfred Claude Ellis: You prefer Elvis Presley.


Ray Thomas: Even though some of the C.B.C. programs are good and the artists generally play their parts very well, some of the drama seen by television viewers is an actual disgrace.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am again extremely sorry to interrupt but I am afraid I must do so. I realize that a short discussion of certain matters pertaining to the C.B.C. crept into our debate at the resolution stage, but may I remind the hon. member that we are discussing the principle of this bill to establish the Canada Council. I do not think extended remarks in connection with the C.B.C. could, by any stretch of the imagination, come within the scope of the principle of this bill.


Ray Thomas: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker, that any extended remarks with regard to the C.B.C. would certainly be out of order. However, what I pointed out here was that if the type of culture envisioned is the same type of culture as that being thrown at us on

the C.B.C. drama, I certainly could not support it. As far as the drama is concerned, practically every play you see deals with psychopaths or neurotics. It is certainly anything but the type of thing that I want seen on television.
I do not think it is possible, Mr. Speaker, to legislate culture. Culture is something that has to grow in the minds of people and that is projected outward from people. It must come from the people. Surely we cannot legislate a true Canadian culture and foist it on the Canadian people. I am always a little bit suspicious of a state culture. It smacks of what they have in Russia and it could easily be used-I am not saying it will be used but that it could easily be used-to slant people's minds in almost any direction when the policy is put into the hands of a small group of people who are apparently to determine who is going to formulate the culture.
Rather than all these things I would say this to the government. When you bear in mind the fact that the people themselves are the ones who bring forth the culture, the proper thing for the government to do would be to institute fiscal and financial policies which would make it possible for Canadians to afford to go to those cultural centres that are now in existence. We have high-class forms of cultural entertainment here in this country. They have all been named. There is the Winnipeg ballet, the various operatic companies across the country, and the symphony orchestras which exist in practically every city. I want to mention also, when they speak of making centres available for all these activities, that the province of Alberta is now constructing two auditoriums costing approximately $3 million each, one in the city of Edmonton and one in the city of Calgary, in which all these things can be done.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Is not the state doing that? Is not the state providing that service actually?


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: It is under the control of the province. Probably you would not know the difference.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Ray Thomas: These things are being done certainly by the provincial governments.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Are they not states?


Charles Edward Johnston: No, they are provinces. Don't you know the difference?


Ray Thomas: There is a big difference between building an auditorium so the cultural desires of the people can be projected forward, and a state trying to tell the people what kind of culture they should have.
Canada Council


Colin Cameron: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Ray Thomas: Yes.


Colin Cameron: What does the cultural activities branch of the department of economic affairs in Alberta do?


Ray Thomas: The hon. member asked me for the information. Now he is going to get it. The cultural activities branch of the province of Alberta-


An hon. Member:: What are you reading from?


Ray Thomas: This is from a government publication.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Again may I interrupt, with regret. Perhaps we would be better advised to discuss the activities of the Canada Council rather than those of some other organization.


Ray Thomas: I can agree-


Ernest George Hansell: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you kindly rule that the question asked by the hon. member for Nanaimo is out of order? Then my friend the hon. member for Wetaskiwin will not be obliged to answer it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes. Perhaps I should have risen earlier. I believe the question is out of order also.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Who raised the question about auditoriums in the first place?


Charles Edward Johnston: Because you talked of culture.


Ray Thomas: I will close, Mr. Speaker, by simply saying two things. These interjections prove one thing. They prove that those in the house who make every attempt to be the most violent in their objections and in their arguments are the ones who cry the most when they are touched just a little bit. My closing remark is this. Give the people of Canada the opportunity to build their own culture by the application of sound financial policies which give them the money with which to carry on and attain these things, and they will achieve their own culture without any direction from any government.


Mr. Crestohl:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Would he kindly inform the house whether during the course of his remarks he said that he has a preference for Elvis Presley over Beethoven?


An hon. Member:: Don't be silly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I do not think I should allow that question.

Canada Council


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should not like this debate to close without saying a brief word. I recognize the dangers which have been outlined by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. I recognize that there is a danger of trying to slant views, and that eventually the time may come when I may be accusing the Canada Council of trying to do that. But at the moment it seems to me that the matter is very simple, and I should like in a word to say why I shall vote for this bill.
It is inevitable that in this house we spend nearly all our time dealing with what I shall call the means of life. I refer to wheat; coal; money, much money, much money as the versifier of the Globe and Mail said; uranium, and all the other things we know about. That is what we are obliged to spend our time on, and it is essential that we do so. What I like about this bill is that for a moment we are addressing our minds to what seem to me to be the ends of life-I refer to beauty and truth-and we are trying to do our best to assist the things which promote them, such as good literature, painting, good music and drama, all the things that we know in our hearts are much more important than are the things upon which we are forced to spend our time day by day.
It is for that reason that I shall vote for this bill. In spite of all the difficulties that exist I hope it may do a great deal to promote those things which after all lie behind the things we deal with from day to day.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Greenwood in his few remarks has done a great deal to bring this debate back into its proper perspective. As I listened to the hon. member for Wetaskiwin I must say that I was impressed by the fact that he must have, in general, a very low opinion of Canadians.


Ray Thomas: The government have that, or they would not try to do this.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I would be the last one in this house to suggest that the Liberal party has never done anything for political motives or political reasons, but I am quite prepared to go so far as to admit-I take it the hon. member for Wetaskiwin is not-that even Liberals are Canadians.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: When we move into the realm of discussing such things as the arts, humanities and social sciences I have some conviction and some hope that in these areas the things which tend to unite us as Canadians run deeper than loyalty to the political expediency of any particular party in this

country. Perhaps for that reason, while I would not want to say that some of the terrible things the hon. member for Wetaskiwin was suggesting could not happen, I think as long as we have a parliament in Canada responsible to the people, if that sort of situation should arise that will be the time for parliament to deal with it. I have enough confidence in the basic good sense in matters of this kind of the majority of members who are elected to parliament to feel that if that situation does arise it will be dealt with by parliament.
In his speech the hon. member for Wetaskiwin made some reference to what he described as the cultural activities branch of the department of economic affairs of the province of Alberta. While Your Honour has suggested that we cannot go into any extended discussion of the activities of the branch involved, nevertheless I assume that it has some functions related to those which may be carried on by the Canada Council when it is established. I would assume that since the hon. member for Wetaskiwin comes from the province of Alberta he probably has a little more intimate knowledge of the activities of that branch than most of the other members of the house. I must say that the only logical conclusion to which I can come, in view of the forebodings he has about the political misuse of the Canada Council-


Charles Edward Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker -


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I was about to rise myself a few minutes ago when the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, who was apparently in the house at the time I stopped the hon. member for Wetaskiwin from answering a question about an Alberta organization, started to mention this organization. I indicated also that I had been slow in rising to my feet to indicate that the question which had been asked by the hon. member for Nanaimo was out of order, and having done so I was about to rise to suggest that the present remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni are also out of order. I would ask him to co-operate by directing his remarks to the bill which we are discussing.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I thought I tried to make clear, I had no intention of discussing this unmentionable branch as such; but I was about to say that I had come to the conclusion, from the manner in which the hon. member for Wetaskiwin had judged the approach that he felt the government was making in setting up a Canada Council, that it could only have arisen out of his experience with the manner

in which that particular cultural branch was used by the government of the province from which he comes.
If one were to judge from the discussion, Mr. Speaker, one would think this bill was going to set up some super organization that would rule the thinking and cultural activities of the Canadian people with an iron hand. I think there might be some point in reminding the house at this stage of the description that is given of the purpose of this bill in the explanatory note. After reading the bill clause by clause it seems to me that note sets forth the purpose of the bill fairly well. The explanatory note reads:
The purpose of this bill is to authorize the establishment of a Canada Council for the encouragement of the arts, humanities and social sciences in Canada. For this purpose the council will assist, co-operate with and enlist the aid of organizations the objects of which are similar to any of the objects of the council.
Perhaps it might be well to interject that, as I understand it, the fact that the government has seen fit to take action by introducing this bill has resulted largely from the representations that have been made from time to time by some of the organizations referred to in the explanatory note which, as the hon. member for Wetaskiwin suggested, are engaged in various activities along the lines the council will seek to follow. The explanatory note goes on:
The work of the council will be financed from the earnings of an endowment fund to be established by this bill. In assisting Canadian universities in their building construction projects, however, the council will be authorized, after certain conditions have been met, to use a second sum of money to be known as the university capital grants fund.
Provision is also made for the council to receive, expend and administer any gifts and bequests that may be made to it.
Possibly the reading of that explanatory note may be repetitious in the over-all debate, but I have read it because I think it does, by its very wording, bring into some reasonable perspective some of the outlandish claims to which we have just been listening in respect of the things the council will do and will not do. Do not expect to see, as a result of the passage of this bill, any great change in the cultural life or activities of Canadian people overnight. But I think the basic purpose which is set forth shows that it is designed to foster growth, which must -and here I agree with the hon. member for Wetaskiwin-come from the lives of the individual people. It is something which we can and should support. The suggestion that because this bill happens to be introduced in the federal parliament of Canada rather than under the auspices of one of our provincial governments that makes it any more a state venture is, on the face of it, absurd.
82715-80i
Canada Council
Apparently the leader of the Social Credit party has attempted to sum up in two words what his group thinks of the idea of the Canada Council. The expression he used was that it is to provide canned culture.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is only your interpretation.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Well, I am taking his words.


Charles Edward Johnston: You are taking them out of context entirely.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Here is the record, on page 1164 of Hansard for February 11, 1957. The hon. member interjected into the speech the leader of the C.C.F. was making on another matter-


Charles Edward Johnston: How could it refer to this if it was referring to another matter?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: -these words:
And then spend it on canned culture.


Charles Edward Johnston: He was referring to another matter.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: If the hon. member for Peace River was not there referring to the Canada Council I would suggest he might, on some occasion, get up and explain to what he was referring.
I have been giving a little thought to how our life in this country is enriched in the field of the arts, the social sciences and the humanities. Perhaps because of the fact that certain remarks such as "canned culture" have been made by one of the members representing an Alberta constituency I have cast my mind back to the situation that prevailed when my mother came with her parents to what is now central Alberta, somewhere around the year 1889. I have been wondering whether because my grandfather saw fit to bring with him a few boxes of books so he might give something beyond the daily toil of farming to his children who were growing up, he was thereby importing canned culture into Canada.
I have wondered, too, whether when my grandfather and some of his neighbours got together and organized a form of government which built those little square frame school houses out there in the middle of the farming country, because of the fact that they had taken what amounted to governmental action to provide the opportunity for the children to go to school and acquire a little more than what they might learn by milking cows, they were introducing canned culture into Canada. I have also wondered whether because of the fact that certain government agencies took the steps that were necessary to provide a normal school in the

Canada Council
city of Regina to which my mother might go to train to be a teacher, we were getting closer to complete control by canned culture in Canada.
When the citizens of the province of Alberta in due course got around to establishing an institution on the banks of the North Saskatchewan river, which is known as the University of Alberta, were they by that action introducing canned culture into Canada? You know, it is quite surprising to me to hear anybody who comes from western Canada, where almost everything we have in the way of opportunities of learning anything more than the things that were required to make a living, has been the result of initiative taken by governments, oppose a measure of this kind.
When the government of the province of British Columbia went to the point of expanding a college, which had sprung out of McGill University, into a state university in that province, was it by that action introducing canned culture into the province of British Columbia? And so it goes. Let us keep this thing in perspective. Let us recognize that anything in the field of the social sciences, the humanities or the arts comes as a result of knowledge and experience gained by individual human beings, and all that any collective agency can do is to foster it.
That is the purpose set out in this bill, to encourage, to assist, to co-operate with, to enlist the aid of. If this bill purported to do anything more than that, then I would agree it would be something that might be of questionable value. Of course, those of us who are prepared to support the bill recognize that its value will depend largely upon the use made of it; but let us not attempt to trample it into the dust before it has had a chance to show its first bud.
There is a certain disposition in some quarters, Mr. Speaker, to think that culture is for the millionaires or for the sons of millionaires, and for that reason I should like to put on the record what the Canadian Labour Congress had to say about the Canada Council in its memorandum to the government on January 23, 1957:
We wish to commend the Prime Minister on his announcement that parliament will be asked to approve the creation of the Canada Council. We believe that such encouragement in the field of arts and letters is long overdue. The Canadian Labour Congress would like to remind the government that within the affiliated membership of the congress there are many who will be directly affected by the activities of the Canada Council. We suggest that representation from these areas of the population be considered when the members of the council are named.
Now, Mr. Speaker, while we are on this point may I say I certainly hope that the

recommendations of the Canadian Labour Congress in this connection will be given due consideration because, as I sense the feeling of the working people of Canada today, more and more they are coming to realize that, if not for themselves, as least for their sons and daughters they want much greater opportunities in the fields that will be supported by the Canada Council than they have had heretofore.
I must say that in reading the brief submission on the subject of the Canada Council from the Canadian Labour Congress I am proud that I am a member of one of the constituent organizations of that congress, and that I can stand up here in parliament with considerable confidence, in the knowledge that as far as the responsible members of my trade union organization are concerned we will back this Canada Council idea right down the line, and do everything we can to assist and foster it into a long and useful life in Canada.
The intentions along that line are becoming more and more apparent all the time. It is only within the last week or two that I saw a report of a certain trade union institute which was held on Vancouver island, in one of the centres of my own constituency. Trade union representatives came to that institute from quite a wide area. One of the people with whom they had discussion and to whom they listened was one of the professors of the University of British Columbia. This question of support for the area of activity which it is envisaged the Canada Council will foster was to the fore in that discussion.
I also noticed in the last issue of the B.C. Lumber Worker two or three full pages of pictures devoted to a visit by one of the members of my local union to the University of British Columbia, which his two sons are attending, and the tour that was made in connection with the plea that is being put forward by the students for more accommodation at the university. The reason that was given that sort of play in the B. C. Lumber Worker was that the people who work in the logging camps, in the sawmills and in the plywood plants in British Columbia know they want something more than the jobs from which they earn their daily bread, not only for themselves but for their sons and daughters. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I feel that we should not pay too much attention to the dire forebodings we have been hearing from some of the members of the Social Credit group. If they have those fears let them keep an eagle eye on the activities of the council, and if they can find legitimate grounds for criticism of its activities by all means let them sound forth with them.


Ernest George Hansell: Hear, hear. We will.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: But for them to get up and suggest in advance that the whole idea behind the establishment of the Canada Council is simply to create some sort of scheming political tool I think is unworthy of the approach that should be taken by the parliament of Canada to a question of this kind.
(Translation):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, when I rose in this house on January 15, to take part in the debate on the address, here is what I said:
In regard to university grants, I shall have the privilege of discussing them when the bill is before us.
We have now reached the second reading of the bill submitted by the Prime Minister himself (Mr. St. Laurent), whereby we were asked to approve grants amounting to $50 million to assist Canadian universities.
All members in this house without exception, whatever their political affiliation, recognize the precarious financial situation of our institutions of higher learning and know how great are the needs of our universities. The creation of new faculties is necessary, indeed it is essential, in this modern world in which we live and in which science, in all its aspects, plays a leading part. For that, new buildings must be erected and equipped at a cost of millions of dollars; teachers are increasing in numbers all the time and their ability, in their respective fields, must be reasonably rewarded. It is evident, Mr. Speaker, that if our universities had waited for assistance from the federal government to do their job, to diffuse science and to educate our youth, our country would surely not be at the intellectual level that can be pridefully credited to it today.
Other organizations, since confederation, have looked after that problem of higher education, and their work in that field can really be called sublime. All our admiration should go to those who have in turn run universities and who have made almost heroical sacrifices.
On the other hand, the provinces have, since 1867, in spite of low budgets and pressure from all sides by countless requests due to the rapid development of a modern world, constantly earmarked large amounts for primary and higher education.
In this way, they fulfilled an obligation conferred upon them by the Canadian constitution, which placed education at every level under exclusive provincial jurisdiction and gave the provinces the sole right to levy taxes to this effect.
Canada Council
The province of Quebec has always jealously preserved the exclusive right to legislate on educational matters, and in spite of numerous and repeated attempts by the federal government to intervene in this field, its position has remained unaltered to this day.
The present head of the Quebec government, and those who work with him, are not the first to oppose federal encroachment in the academic field. Their opposition is therefore nothing new. The present government in my province vigorously follows a noble tradition initiated by its predecessors and ever since observed. All the former governments, Liberal and Conservative, and more particularly those headed by men like Gouin, Mercier and Taschereau, have led a fierce battle against any attempts by Ottawa at centralization in the educational field.
The leaders of yesterday, as well as today, saw and still look upon federalism as conceived by the fathers of confederation- according to the expression used by the chief editor of the Quebec Action Catholique, Dr. Louis-Philippe Roy, "... as the only one to offer sufficient guarantees to the French ethnical element, with its culture, its language, its way of life and its most cherished institutions."
Why has the Prime Minister of Canada abandoned such well-established tradition initiated by the great Liberal leaders of his province, if not to satisfy the greed of those who, like himself, are promoting a dangerous centralization in the hands of a single authority.
The Prime Minister can in no way deny that education in all its forms is the exclusive responsibility of the provincial legislatures, according to the terms of the constitution. The fathers of confederation knew in 1867 that Quebec was to become the heart and soul of French Canada and that, such being the case, the control of our education had to be left to the sole jurisdiction of the government of our province.
It must not be forgotten that if, prior to 1867, there had been no French Canada, this precious and indispensable document we call the Canadian constitution would never have been written. In other words, if there had not been French-speaking Canadians in Canada in 1867, with a religion differing from that of the majority, with a culture of their own and a way of life that was not that of other Canadians, there would have been no confederation. In brief, had it not been for this duality of culture, language, religion and customs, we would now be living in a legislative union and not in a confederation.
And if at that moment the province of Quebec, then called Lower Canada, had been

Canada Council
refused guarantees according to which education would be exclusively reserved to it our illustrious French-speaking ancestors would have categorically rejected the Canadian confederation.
It must then be recognized that 90 years ago it was admitted that the province of Quebec would not be just one province among others. That explains the step taken at the time to protect its peculiar character and ensure its survival. The fathers of confederation desired Canada to possess two distinct cultures, those that make our country what it has become today. That is why they took the action necessary to preserve these cultures and guarantee their survival.
When the Prime Minister of Canada suggests to universities of the province of Quebec that they accept money from the federal government without paying any attention to the opposition of the provincial authorities I say that he is setting a very bad example for all his fellow citizens. Not only does his behaviour come as a challenge to a democratically established provincial authority, but such an attitude constitutes a new and flagrant violation of the Canadian constitution. The Prime Minister should stop talking to us about his favourite topic, Canadian unity, because his repeated assaults against the constitution have largely contributed to the setting up of disagreements in this country and to rousing the rest of Canada against the province of Quebec.
His repeated attacks against Quebec are designed to lead those who live outside of my province into believing that its leaders are not doing their duty in the field of education, and more particularly, perhaps, as far as university education is concerned.
Therefore I deem it my duty to tell the Canadian people today that the province of Quebec has done more for education, in proportion to her population, than any other province of confederation. Again this year, the Quebec provincial legislature has provided an appropriation of $106,812,000 for all levels and all forms of education. It is worth pointing out that the huge amount of $13,153,700 is provided for assistance to Quebec universities; that is an increase of $5,063,133 over the previous fiscal year. Thus my province has earmarked for education 22.6 per cent of her budget; all reasonable Canadians will admit that this high percentage is unprecedented in our history.
How can the federal government, on the eve of a general election, decide to offer this year $50 million to the Canadian universities, thus invading a field where it has no jurisdiction?
It is because it takes in revenue which does not belong to it, which it retains in

spite of its wartime promises and which it wishes to retain at all costs in spite of the energetic protests of those who still respect the Canadian constitution.


Pierre Gauthier: And autonomy too, no doubt?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Autonomy too.


Pierre Gauthier: And that of the city of Montreal also?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: If my hon. friend from Portneuf wishes to discuss questions relating to the municipality of Montreal I will give him one piece of advice. Elections are coming. He may then resign his seat and seek an aldermanic nomination in Montreal.
The Liberal government will try to make voters believe that it is distributing those gifts out of its own revenue, whereas the people of this country know full well that those grants to universities as well as the hundreds of millions of dollars paid out in family allowances, old age pensions, pensions to the blind and disabled are financed by funds which have been taken from the provinces and are being used today to delude the people in order that the Liberals may remain in power.
Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of denying the other provinces the right to accept federal grants for their universities. Their position is different from that of Quebec. The autonomy of these other provinces is no less in jeopardy but federal interference in their educational responsibilities is not attended by such serious consequences. As for us, in Quebec, we must preserve our culture and we will do so in spite of the repeated attacks of the centralizers who insult us by pretending to believe that our province stands in the way of progress of Canada and of national unity.
Should we remove from our country this duality of cultures which is so characteristic of it, should we attempt to assimilate or destroy one of them, we would find that we destroyed the glory of our ancestors and the pride of our history.
How can we settle the disagreement between Quebec and Ottawa which creates so much confusion in the minds of people? How are we to face that problem and how are we to solve it? How are we to allow Quebec to satisfy the immense needs of our universities without infringement upon our autonomy in the field of education, an autonomy of which we are rightly so mindful? The answer is quite simple. Let the federal government put an end to its centralizing ambitions, let it put an end to its invasion of the taxation fields reserved to the provinces, let it cease

collecting direct taxes for provincial purposes which are the exclusive field of the provinces. In brief, let it respect fully the Canadian constitution.
It is imperative that there be a new federal-provincial conference in the shortest possible delay, that is to say before the dissolution of this parliament, in order to determine once and for all the taxation powers of the federal and provincial governments. As long as the central power invades the taxation fields which are exclusively reserved to the provinces for provincial purposes, such as education and many other fields, it can expect stubborn resistance from all those who claim no special privilege but demand respect for their rights.
What the federal government is doing now is wrong; it is creating a dangerous precedent, which will have serious repercussions.
If ever Canada falls under a Socialist government, what will happen to French culture in our country? These proponents of centralization would soon crush our constitution, as the Liberals are doing today, and would standardize Canadian culture. We must prevent that danger and it is our duty in Quebec to fight by all constitutional means at our disposal the invasion of the field of education by the central power. He who pays the piper calls the tune. The French minority rightly fears that this is what will happen in the future.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion may I say that it is highly regrettable to find that the man who, more than any other, has encroached upon the Canadian constitution and has thus helped most to reduce the influence which should be exercised by French-speaking Canadians is himself a French-speaking Prime Minister coming from the province of Quebec. His actions and his attitude, ever since he has been at the head of the government, have been in complete contradiction with his words. The Prime Minister of Canada could certainly never boast of having promoted unity. His greatest contribution will have been to national disunity.


Pierre Gauthier: How silly and unfair can you be!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Instead of interrupting,
stand up and make a speech.
(Text):


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker-
Canada Council


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. If the Prime Minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, I really do not have any desire to lengthen the debate or anything of that kind, but I do rise to say a word or two with respect to a false impression that perhaps has been left by some speakers with respect to the position this group takes on the measure now before us. It appears that we have been charged directly and indirectly by inference as being against culture because we are opposed to the bill. Let me make it perfectly clear now that none of us in this group is against culture in any possible way. When we think of culture and the arts we think of human behaviour, and we think of the arts such as opera, music, the symphony, ballet, painting and so forth and so on. None of us is against these things.
This afternoon the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar spent a good deal of time in extolling the virtues of these arts and then left the impression that we saw something sinister in them. He may not have intended to do that; nevertheless that was the impression he left. We find nothing subversive in these arts and sciences.
Not many years ago it was my privilege to be in Paris, and at nearly every opportunity I had I went to the opera there, which I understand is subsidized by the state. I am not an opera fiend. I have read the stories of the operas. I do not understand the Italian language in which the operas are usually sung, but I sat there in that great auditorium, and with the beauty of the scene and the rich voices of the singers and actors on the stage I found that my eyes filled with tears and a lump came in my throat more than once because of the terrific effect those operas had upon me. Yet I did not understand the words that were being sung.
The same thing is true of some of the other arts. I do not understand very much about ballet, but I saw the C.B.C. ballet program, "The Swan", put on some weeks ago, which has already been mentioned-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Swan Lake.


Ernest George Hansell: -and I thought that was a terrific production. There was beauty and grace in it. I have nothing against that. I enjoyed it. I am not a painter. I have taken one or two courses in art, but I know

Canada Council
that the painter in placing his brush upon the canvas attempts to express not only a scene but himself and his emotions. I know all these things. 1 say now, and let it be understood and let no one try to say differently, that we find nothing sinister in these things. We find nothing subversive in them. If they were all that the bill is concerned with I think we would all be in favour of it. We have the Banff school of fine arts in the province of Alberta. It is doing a wonderful job, and we are in favour of any assistance that might be given to it. We find nothing subversive in these things.
But the bill goes much further than that, and it is some of the further things that we find are of a sinister character. I am not going to discuss them now. I had enough to say about that the other day, and perhaps when the particular sections of the bill are discussed we may elaborate somewhat on what was said, at that time. I asked the Prime Minister if the council would be publishing any literature. Of course we are just projecting our thoughts into the future. I cannot see the council performing its work without the publication of certain types of literature.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar fears nothing. Perhaps he has nothing to fear, because I am quite aware of his mentality and views on certain matters. But let me say that if he thought for a moment that some of the literature that might be published by the council would extol nationalism and urge people to national patriotism; if he thought some of the literature would extol the virtues of private enterprise and the values of individualism, I am quite certain the tone of his speech would have been different.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Oh, nonsense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps it will, but we believe in freedom.


Alfred Claude Ellis: We believe in freedom.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not know why he would not oppose the bill. Well, I am saying that. Perhaps he would think such literature had some sinister or subversive principles in it. We see the other side of this thing. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has said that we will always be able to keep our eagle eye watching for these things if there is anything of a subversive nature. That is perfectly true. We will keep an eagle eye upon the council, but sometimes the damage is done before one can expose what is going on.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I wonder whether I might ask a question.


Ernest George Hansell: No, you cannot ask any questions. I am not going to answer them. I do not believe they would be very intelligent anyway, and I am going to proceed with what I have to say. We will keep an eagle eye on things, and if what we expect to happen does happen we will read from Hansard the debate at the resolution stage and on the bill and we will turn around and say, "We told you so."
I am one of those who hope we will not have to do that. I am one of those who hope that when the council pursues its duties along a proper course it will give every encouragement to the arts and sciences. I hope I am wrong in thinking it may do otherwise. I hope I am wrong; but believing as I do and with the way things are going in the world, with the way people are encouraged to consider their national patriotism as secondary- I believe it is one of the things we must put first-and seeing the way things are going these days I cannot help taking the attitude I do toward these things.
On the other hand, as has already been said by members of this group, we see no reason why the cultural arts and sciences cannot be encouraged through machinery already set up in Canada today throughout the various provinces, without setting up further machinery to put into operation what is already being done, perhaps to a somewhat limited extent.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say anything further at the moment. When we are discussing the sections of the bill we shall have something further to say. Personally I cannot support the measure. That is all there is to it. I do not want to be an alarmist, but I would rather go out forearmed and guard what I believe are the interests of this country now than later.
Let me say this also. When we speak in this house, we do not only speak in debate in saying why we are opposed to or why we favour this measure. We represent the people of Canada. As we speak in this house we attempt to reflect what we believe is the mind of the people we represent. When we speak in this house we are speaking to this country. That is the reason we have Hansard printed, namely so the people of Canada may know what we say. We have a responsibility to them.
Some of us in this part of the house have minds of our own. I do not think we are exactly stupid. If we are stupid, then the people have elected some stupid persons here in no less than five elections, and some of us are coming back after the sixth one. I do not believe we are exactly stupid. We may

not be particularly brilliant either. However, I think we have average common sense. We see things in a certain way. We have certain views on certain things. We have certain views which we believe should be expressed on a measure of this kind. We are in favour of culture, we are in favour of encouraging the arts and the sciences, but we are not in favour of attempting to mould the thinking of this country as one mind. The greatest things that have ever been done in' the world have been done by individual thinking done by absolutely free minds. We believe that situation should be continued.
I am not going to say anything further at this time, Mr. Speaker, but I thought I should just keep the record straight with respect to that matter.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: May I ask the hon. member one question, Mr. Speaker, and I ask it of him in all sincerity.


Ernest George Hansell: Your questions are usually intelligent, and I will try to answer it.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Thank you very much. I hope this one is intelligent. My hon. friend is worried about one thing. He is worried that the people who are going to administer this Canada Council would perhaps put out certain literature of some sort. I should like to ask him what his reason is for supposing that would be done by these people, who are the people who are interested in this thing called culture or whatever it is, I refer to the arts, drama, literature and all the rest of it. Why is he afraid that any literature they might put out would be subversive or would encourage subversion? I do not understand that point of view.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, I will answer that question. I believe the hon. member for Saskatoon had some other duties to attend to when I spoke the other day at the resolution stage. The bill itself ties the council to the program of UNESCO, and UNESCO has put out literature which I read into the record-and I could read a great deal more into it-which I believe is sinister and subversive.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago I sought to inquire of the hon. member for Macleod whether, in view of the very gloomy predictions made by some of his colleagues as to the future of the Canada Council, he would suggest that the experience of the arts council in Great Britain would lead him to believe that the prediction that has been made, particularly by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, would be borne out. If the hon. member considers that to be a foolish question, that is his privilege, but I have noted the reluctance of the hon. member 82715-81
Canada Council
to answer questions, and I have noted that if he desires not to answer a question he usually shrugs it off with a remark of the type he made just a few moments ago.


Ernest George Hansell: Just your questions.


Alfred Claude Ellis: During the course of this debate, Mr. Speaker, I think we have seen a good deal of fancy footwork on the part of hon. members to our left. We have had speeches in which they protest very vehemently that they are in favour of culture, and then in the next breath they do a great disservice to the cause of the Canada Council. In the last remarks made by the hon. member for Macleod just before he resumed his seat I think he made the statement that they are not in favour of anything which would mould the thinking of Canadians into one mind. I think a statement like that in itself indicates a lack of appreciation of what is meant by the Canada Council.
I have read the report of the Massey commission over very carefully, and I am satisfied that the Canada Council which is being set up is in line with the recommendations of that commission. I have a great deal of respect for the personnel of that commission. I had the opportunity of sitting in on some of the hearings in the city of Saskatoon while I was attending the University of Saskatchewan. I feel that the recommendations of that commission which led to the introduction of this legislation give the lie to any of the suggestions that have been raised by those who are in outright opposition to the setting up of the council.
The royal commission states that there are in Canada many voluntary organizations whose work is of national importance. It goes on to point out that there does not exist in Canada any board or council to advise the government in this matter. If we are going to give any assistance to the arts, I prefer to see that assistance given through a body such as the Canada Council rather than through the government itself. I asked the hon. member for Wetaskiwin an hour ago whether he would prefer that the government be called upon to make grants to the various cultural organizations in Canada rather than having those grants made part of an over-all policy directed by a body such as the Canada Council, which I presume will have representation from various parts of Canada. In line with the recommendation made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, I would certainly impress upon the government the necessity of appointing as a member of the council a representative of the Canadian Labour Congress.
I was rather perturbed at some of the remarks made this afternoon, particularly

Canada Council
those to the effect that we have in Canada today certain voluntary organizations which are well able to carry on this work. As is well known to all members of this house, those voluntary organizations referred to are indeed carrying on extremely important work in this country. But I think we will also agree that they are starved for funds. I noted a press report the other day to the effect that the Stratford festival was approaching the federal government with a request for some financial assistance to enable it to complete the capital construction of a theatre in the city of Stratford so the festival might be carried on as the closest thing to a national theatre that we have in Canada.
We know the story about the dominion drama festival. Apparently it found it very difficult to carry on, and this has been made possible only through the contributions made by a distillery in this country. I do not know whether or not my hon. friends to the left would prefer to have these voluntary organizations going around begging for funds and depending upon distilleries in order to carry on their operations. I would think the Canadian people would much rather provide for those things themselves through their government and through a body such as the Canada Council.
The same could be said about travelling art exhibitions. A couple of years ago I went to the fair in Regina and noticed a lot of young people coming out of a building carrying booklets of reproductions of fine paintings of Canadian cities. I noticed also very prominently displayed on the covers of those booklets the name of a very well known Canadian distillery. It seems to me these organizations about which my hon. friends to the left have been very much concerned are the very organizations that have been asking for the Canada Council. They are the very organizations that have been asking the government for some form of assistance.
I suggest it is not the concern for these voluntary organizations expressed by the Social Credit group that brings them into opposition to the measure now before the house. While they claim in the speeches they have given that they are in favour of culture, they have done everything within their power to sow the seeds of suspicion and discord, and make the task of the Canada Council much more difficult.
This afternoon there were insinuations about state culture. I think Russia was mentioned. This has been an attempt to smear the Canada Council before it is set up. It seems to me you cannot prejudge a body of this kind. I am certain that we in
[Mr. Ellis.1
this group are going to be very watchful of the activities of the Canada Council, and if the council is not doing the type of work which I am sure all hon. members who have read the Massey report believe it should be undertaking, then we will have something to say at that time. We are certainly not going to prejudge the Canada Council and oppose it simply because of some vague fears which have never materialized in the United Kingdom, or in any part of the free world in which a body such as this has been established.
There have been a number of references, and there was a little skirmish a while ago, on this question of canned culture. I believe the Canada Council will be one of the most effective means of combating canned culture. I envisage it as a body which will encourage the development of Canadian talent. I want to see Canadian actors on Canadian stages. I want to hear an allCanadian symphony orchestra. I want to see a truly national ballet. These are the things to which a Canada Council can lead. This is not canned culture, it is the reverse of it. I suggest that expressions like "canned culture" are the worst expressions which could be used by anyone who pretends to be interested in the development of the arts in this country.
It seems to me that these voluntary bodies that are going to be incorporated into the structure of the Canada Council are going to be able to do a more effective job through the creation of the council itself, because it is a body which has been needed for a long time. Yet we find the rather ridiculous situation of people who oppose the Canada Council out of hand pretending to be concerned about the voluntary bodies, when these same voluntary bodies are the ones who have been promoting the Canada Council. In my view it is not the government that is pushing the Canada Council, it is the voluntary organizations who have been pushing the government. It is these bodies who have been persistent in getting the government to follow the recommendations of the Massey commission with respect to the Canada Council.
I suggest that the reason this has been the case is that they realize that is the best method of granting assistance, through a body under which there can be some coordination. I do not know what other means could be used. I understand there are a few bodies in Canada that have been receiving some small grants from the government and, as the Massey commission suggests, that is not a good practice.
I would say that I would much prefer to see any grants made by a government

handled by an all-inclusive representative body such as the Canada Council because, oddly enough, I think the government would be far more prone to take into account political considerations than any body such as the Canada Council.


Frederick George Hahn: Before the hon. member takes his seat, I should like to ask him a question. Is he not aware that the breweries pay corporation taxes to the federal government and would thereby, be paying their share of the cost of the Canada Council?


Alfred Claude Ellis: We of the C.C.F. group believe the answer to that is to tax the distilleries more in order that we can provide more funds for the Canada Council and for the arts in this country. I realize my friends to the left do not believe in that. They are the champions of big business in this country, and they would much prefer having these companies pose as great benefactors by providing direct grants which are, of course, in the main deductible in some form from corporation taxes.


Mr. B. R. Leboe (Cariboo):: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of innuendo here today. I rise to speak for only a few moments because I am going to defend my position when I am out of the house, and I feel it only fair that I should state my position. in the house. Any interpretation or implication can be made in the house or out of the house from what has been said by the Social Credit members, but the facts remain and our position has been clearly stated throughout the debate on this bill. The things that have been said and the implications that have been taken from what has been said do not alter the facts; the facts remain.
I am opposed to this Canada Council being set up at this time. I would have you note that this is the tone we have taken throughout the debate, and the record shows that we are against the setting up of the Canada Council at this time. There are a number of reasons why we are opposed to it being set up at this time. I do not believe the people generally across this country understand fully what the council is or what it pretends to be. I am sure the people are not aware of the amount of money that is involved in this bill. I do not believe the Massey report envisaged a large amount of money such as $100 million dropped in in one splash.
We feel we represent the views of the people when our leader mentioned that there should be priorities. Now, "priority" means there is something that is going to take place before something else takes place, so this 82715-81J
Canada Council
does not preclude the establishment at some time of a Canada Council.
I was interested in some statements concerning this bill that were recorded in Hansard during the resolution stage. I should like to comment just briefly on one or two of them.
The Prime Minister said, on January 18, as found at page 392 of Hansard:
In Canada our spiritual growth must naturally be drawn from the traditional cultures of the two peoples that mainly make up the Canadian nation and from the cultures that many other groups have brought to us.
Personally I do not believe the Prime Minister meant just that. As a matter of fact it is my belief-and he can correct me if I am wrong-that he meant exactly the reverse of what he said. It is my belief that culture is drawn from the spiritual experiences of man and his relation to those things which are natural, rather than vice versa. I may be wrong, but I certainly believe that it is out of the heart of man and his spiritual experiences that real culture develops.
At page 396 of Hansard the Prime Minister quoted a resolution adopted by the university representatives at their meeting last fall, as follows:
Their considered opinion that it was their urgent duty to warn the people of Canada that the problem of universities has become an emergency of national concern to the certain disadvantage of our progress and standing as a nation, and can only be solved by the energetic and immediate assistance and co-operation of all governments in Canada, of business and industry and of private benefactors.
In commenting on this resolution the Prime Minister had this to say:
It seems to me that the Canadian government and the Canadian parliament should not ignore such a serious warning and should be prepared to make a contribution, which can be made through the Canada Council to meet this emergency.
It is my feeling, Mr. Speaker, that while what the Prime Minister said is correct, the Canada Council does not meet the need that is envisioned in his statement. It is my understanding that the $50 million is for capital expenditure for the purpose of making more people aware of the work being done in the arts, humanities and social sciences. If that is true, then it is an addition to what we already have and not a help to meet the need that is expressed in the quotation I have just read.
I should like to make one other comment on what the Prime Minister had to say on pages 977 and 988 of Hansard of February 5. I do not think I need to read the quotation on the last page I mentioned, as the second

Canada Council
quotation is an enlargement of the first. The first quotation reads:
It was for the purpose of creating this hody in such a way that it would not be subject to frequent pressures in the allocation of the funds which would be placed at its disposal.
The Prime Minister enlarged on that by saying that this government, or any other government to follow, should not be in a position to say:
Well, now, this is the situation. You get nothing unless our views are met.
It is my feeling that this is a reflection on "the Canadian voters who return a government, whether it be a Liberal government, a Conservative government, a C.C.F. government or a Social Credit government. The people vote them in, and I think it is a reflection on any government, even that under the leadership of somebody else following the Prime Minister, to make the suggestion he did, namely that someone who is going to follow is not going to be as true to his country as the Prime Minister himself is. I may be wrong in that, and if so the Prime Minister can correct me when he speaks.
I wish to say one other thing, and then I shall finish. I should like to quote from Hansard at page 1009, where the Prime Minister said:
But it was felt it would be a good, proper stimulus to provide an initial endowment fund amounting to as much as $100 million and created at the expense of the whole Canadian public.
I do feel that the Prime Minister tried to soften that statement when he mentioned the two windfalls, and tried to leave the impression with the country that this extra money was not taxpayers' money although it came in large amounts. I do not think we should differentiate between the small amount that comes from the small taxpayer and the large amount that comes from the large taxpayer. I agree that the question of taxation came into the picture because of the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, but it is my opinion that there was no reason for believing this money was not as much the taxpayers' money as the small amount of taxes paid by the small taxpayer.
I was also interested to note what the Leader of the Opposition said in respect of the fathers of confederation leaving the business of education to the provinces. I believe he should have followed along that same line of thinking a little farther than he did.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take very much time to add to what I had to say the other day, but there are one or two things that I think may be said. There does seem to be a rather widespread idea that that particular
[Mr. Leboe.l
phase of human life that comes under the name of culture is something added, a sort of decoration, an adornment, perhaps, in the way in which a woman adorns a fashionable hat. I think something much more profound has to be considered; that is the effect of the arts, social sciences and humanities on the fundamental thinking of human beings, publicly and privately. I believe that a wider acceptance and understanding of the best expressions of the human mind and spirit may very well affect the conduct of people in their private lives, and might even affect governments in their public actions.
I understand that a representative of the Social Credit party took occasion this afternoon to warn the government against endorsing anything which I endorse. I feel flattered that my opinion was thought of such importance; but he also went on to suggest- and he was quite right-that they were against sin, that they were against the sin of state monopoly and against the sin of private monopoly. Now I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if perhaps the Canada Council had been established 20 or 30 years ago it might be that yesterday in the legislature of British Columbia there would not have been tabled a letter of intent by which the Social Credit government of British Columbia proposes to give away more than one-tenth of the province of British Columbia to a notorious international financier.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to the hon. gentleman that we should not go into any of the matters that are being dealt with in provincial legislatures. It seems to me that if we do that we are going to embark upon irrelevant matters which should not be taken up at this moment.


Ernest George Hansell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Colin Cameron: I was just suggesting, Mr. Speaker-


Ernest George Hansell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that remark is now on Hansard and it has not been answered. I am not going to take the time to answer it, but I am going to say that the hon. member has stated something which is not true.


Colin Cameron: Well, Mr. Speaker, I understand that now it is apparently in order to make such reflections on the veracity of other members in the house. I am merely quoting what was told me over the telephone today from Victoria, and I have been merely attempting to draw a connection between a wide acceptance of what is known as culture and the standards of ethical behaviour of individuals in their private and public undertakings.


Mr. F. S. Zaplilny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take only a few minutes to deal with one specific phase of this legislation. So far, as the Prime Minister mentioned, there has been very general approval of the legislation before us this afternoon with the exception of one party. I shall not enter into the controversy concerning the attitude taken by my Social Credit friends, which has been dealt with by other members in this group, except to say that I am disturbed by their attitude.
I am not disturbed because they are opposing this bill because that is their right and privilege, and they may have some reasons for opposing it other than those stated so far. I was disturbed, however, and I think many Canadians will be disturbed, by the attitude they have adopted in attempting to arouse a suspicion and in attempting to make this bill appear as something sinister which in my opinion it is not. I am also disturbed at their attempt to inject political motives into a body which if it is going to be effective should be above partisan considerations.
My purpose in rising is simply to place before the Prime Minister a request which I think is urgent, and it relates to the way in which the Canada Council and its activities will bear upon what are known as the ethnic groups in Canada. The term "ethnic groups" is I think now well known, and refers to those language groups other than English and French which are the two main language groups in Canada.
Yesterday a group called the Canadian ethnic press club visited Ottawa and presented a statement to the minister and his colleagues. I had the opportunity along with my leader to meet this body and address them, as I am sure many hon. members did. In their submission they set out certain recommendations in connection with what they term the integration of new Canadians into our Canadian way of life.
In that same connection I find that on February 6 of this year a statement was made to the Prime Minister by the Ukrainian Canadian committee, which represents a large body of people in this country. I would like to place on the record one or two paragraphs from that statement, because I think it sets out clearly the attitude taken by this ethnic group and I believe it accurately describes the attitude of all ethnic groups in Canada. In their letter to the Prime Minister of February 6, after commenting on his speech of January 10 when he introduced the resolution, the Ukrainian Canadian committee said: The Ukrainian Canadian committee representing all Ukrainian democratic organizations, heartily supports that resolution, in which we see an earnest effort to assure a brilliant future for the cultural development of Canada. We' recognize that even
Canada Council
the greatest material resources that our country is endowed with, cannot adequately fulfil the great mission of Canada, if we do not provide for the development of the spiritual and cultural values of the Canadian people. Individuals and nations are principally spiritual beings and shallow indeed are those countries in which there is no spiritual food for their citizens.
I place that on the record because I think it is an excellent way to illustrate the attitude taken by this particular group, and in this instance I think it speaks in the true voice of all ethnic groups in Canada. I am skipping parts of the letter in the interests of saving time, but it proceeds to request that the Ukrainian Canadians be represented on the Canada Council. I think I should place their request on the record in their own words. The paragraph setting out the request reads as follows:
The Ukrainian Canadians fully realize the fact that there are two principal cultures in this country. We recognize, however, that there is also a large, though miscellaneous third element that is not represented by these cultures. It is logical, therefore, that Ukrainians, with their colourful cultural heritage, should seek representation on the Canada Council, in view of the fact that they form a substantial proportion of our population in western Canada.
The Ukrainian Canadians would greatly value your sympathetic attitude to our suggestions and your support for them when the time for their realization will come.
I hope the Prime Minister will not consider it too strong a term if I say that I think to some extent he committed himself in a speech he made on July 8, 1953, in the city of Winnipeg, when he addressed the all-Canada congress of Ukrainian Canadians, in which he made reference to the culture of this and other ethnic groups and concluded by saying, and I quote his own words:
It is only by taking an active part in all aspects of Canadian life, of giving as well as receiving, that any group can make a contribution to that Canadian life.
I could quote other parts of the Prime Minister's speech which are equally interesting and informative, but I think the right hon. gentleman will recall that he did say on that occasion that all ethnic groups in Canada should make their contribution to the Canadian culture we hope will evolve as a synthesis reflecting the new way of life of people of our nation.
I recommend these requests to the Prime Minister. I suggest to him that in some way, which of course cannot be placed in the bill itself, the requests of the Ukrainian Canadians be realized. They will be glad to lend their assistance in working closely with the Canada Council so that the information which as a matter of course will go to the English and French language press and other facilities for publication and publicity will also be

Canada Council
made available to foreign language newspapers, which are quite numerous and influential and are read in one language or another by approximately 20 per cent of the Canadian population. One person out of every five reads one or another of these foreign language newspapers.
I hope the Prime Minister will find a way of making use of this ethnic press club and the newspapers represented by them for the dissemination of information to the general reading public to whom they address themselves.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to discuss this bill at this time, but in view of the many charges which have been hurled at members of this group I feel it is necessary for me to take some part in the discussion.
I would first question the members who have charged that we are opposed to culture. It is my understanding that to live is culture. I do not know how any man or woman in this house or in this country could be here and not have imbued in him or her some form of culture, whether it be representative of the ethnic culture we heard about a moment ago or the culture of the labourer from Regina city or the culture of any home in which we live or which we have occasion to visit.
Sometimes the culture within this house drops to a very low ebb indeed. I might speak for myself, as somebody suggests, but if I have in any way brought discredit on the house I would be the first to regret and acknowledge it. However, I do not think such is the case. Nevertheless, we have here an indication that nobody in this nouse requires subsidized culture. We do not require a culture that is fostered from without but, rather, a culture that is fostered from within.
The hon. member for Greenwood earlier today referred to what are, I believe, two of the most important factors with respect to culture; that is, truth and beauty. As I listened to him I wondered if we were prepared to recognize that what there is in art, what there is behind art itself, stems from the climate and events of ordinary life. We have heard a reference to Elvis Presley, and there was a reference made to abstract art. I believe that culture represents truth and beauty, but these are qualities in the abstract rather than tangible qualities because I must ask myself, "What is truth?" and "What is beauty?" Is an abstract painting beautiful? It may be beautiful to some members of this house, while others may hold up their hands in horror at this form of art. Yet it depicts a truth, a truth of the age in which we live, a truth of the atomic age, of
[Mr. Zaplitny.I
the fly by night efforts we have in this country today, of the disturbances which we see everywhere about us. Maybe that is what the abstract artist tries to capture and put on his canvas for all to see.
The question was raised by one of the hon. members of the Liberal party, are the antics of Elvis Presley culture? Certainly they are. They are culture, to some of us, of a low type; others of us, possibly not here, would consider them fine. Certainly they depict, just as abstract painting does, the age in which we live, the wild orgies that we read about in newspapers. And again we find that this is culture as an expression of life.
We in this group have been said to be opposed to culture. We are not opposed to culture. We just want the people of this country to have the privilege of developing their own culture. Our country is some 90 years old, now, and still we have not a flag. That is a form of culture; it is a part of culture, certainly. Money cannot buy a flag; it cannot buy devotion to duty or to a country. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that there are those who would see no beauty or truth in a dust storm. Yet if they had seen such a storm, as I have, they might be able to appreciate the horrible beauty and the terrible truth of the disaster which it can wreak upon prairie farms.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what kind of culture are we going to promote? That is the question which puzzles each and every one in this group. There are those in this country who have no desire to live hemmed in by mountains. There are others, myself included, who can appreciate the beauty of mountains. To one person they are beautiful; to another they may represent something quite different.
I have here, Mr. Speaker, an editorial from the Edmonton Journal based on a report by the Canadian Press and copied from the Vancouver Sun, dated October 30, 1956. The heading reads "Thriving Cultural Growth Shows Government 'Nursemaid' Not Essential". It is possible that the Prime Minister has seen this editorial, but maybe other members of the house have not, and there are parts of it which I believe to be worthy of consideration. The article says in part:
The council would apparently be a nursemaid for Canadian culture, empowered by the government to distribute money drawn from the taxpayers' pockets. The report is that it would have an endowment of between $50 million and $100 million-no mean sums even on a national scale.
While the project is favoured in some circles in Canada there will be grave misgivings about it in many minds. This applies particularly to the plan for distributing money to aid the development of Canadian arts.
This editorial was written considerably before the beginning of this debate. Surely,

Mr. Speaker, we must recognize in this portion of the editorial the fact that the people of this country as a whole are disturbed to think that this or any government would set itself out to decide what should be promoted in the way of culture. Reference has been made to the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, and to other provinces, and to the institutions they have set up. But none of them has proposed in any way to determine what should or should not be done in the direction of fostering culture.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does this bill?


Mr. Argue:: What do they do, then?


Frederick George Hahn: They have merely indicated that they would allocate money to these various groups, drama festivals and so on, in order to assist them.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is this bill any different?
Canada Council


Frederick George Hahn: Yes. Mr. Speaker, I will call it six o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Hahn the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, the business of the house tomorrow will be as follows: first, continuation of the debate on second reading of the bill now before the house; second, the resolution to bring in a measure to extend the benefits of the Municipal Grants Act; third, the second reading of Bill No. 46, to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act; and fourth, the resolution that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Nicholson: 1.	What is the highest monthly pension paid by the government of Canada?
2.	How many are receiving monthly pensions of (a) $1,000 or more; (b) between $500 and $999; (c) between $100 and $499; (d) between $40 and $99; (e) less than $40?
3.	What is the average pension paid in each of these groups?
Answer by: Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):
1.	Under Superannuation Act, $875.
2.	(a) Nil; (b) 28; (c) 7,067; (d) 8,618; (e) 5,644.
3.	(a) Nil; (b) $601.14; (c) $165.59; (d) $67.61; (e) $21.03.


NAIL IMPORTS
Mr. Bell: 1.	Are nails being imported into Canada?
2.	If so, what are the amounts, and from what countries, in each year or part of a year, since 1950?
Answer by: Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
1.	Yes.
2.	See statement on following page.
2. Imports, by countries, of nails as specified, cleared through customs ports in Canada during the calendar years 1950 to 1955, and the period January 1st to
October 31st, 1956 (latest figures available)
Item	Country	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	Jan.1 to Oct. 31, 1956cwt.	cwt.	cwt.	cwt.	cwt.	cwt.	cwt.Cut nails, of iron or steel, coated or not.	United Kingdom	
6,116	8,395	345	1,892	1,150	4,736	2,058Belgium	
-	-	-	-	450	300	-Germany West	-	-	-	707	450	175Japan	-	-	-	-	500	400United States	
6,005	4,270	1,025	3,268	2,304	5,159	2,912Totals	
12,121	12,665	1,370	5,160	4,611	11,145	5,545Wire roofing nails of all sizes and wire	United Kingdom	
18,758	41,731	1,053	24,223	48,626	37,308	32,421nails, 1 inch or more in length, of iron	Austria	
2,100	2,263	1,100	1,050	200	-	-or steel, coated or not.	Belgium	
1,440	28,652	1,700	1,514	3,301	2,009	8,250Czechoslovakia	-	-	50	-	-	-	-France	-	3,816	-	-	-	-	1,674Germany West	
5,032	40,800	131	495	22,493	2,770	24,559Japan	
6,146	980	1,013	, 109	19,601	56,141	133,979Netherlands	
345	4,311	922	4,151	6,642	2,226	4,044Poland	
2,210	500	16,848	-	-	-	-Sweden	7,854	-	2,965	1,288	1,494	-Switzerland	-	-	-	-	-	-	52United States	
33,368	71,107	57,995	41,835	36,550	21,929	24,150Totals	
69,399	202,014	80,812	92,142	138,701	123,877	229,129Wire nails less than 1 inch in length, and	United Kingdom	
1,063	3,965	1,060	1,007	1,102	1,048	805nails and brads, n.o.p., of iron or steel,	Belgium	-	-	220	-	-	-coated or not.	Germany West	
74	129	134	190	300	523	253Japan	-	-	-	-	-	2Sweden	-	-	-	56	182	46Switzerland	-	-	-	-	-	-	15United States	
1,910	2,632	1,790	1,946	1,705	2,119	1,923Totals	
3,047	6,726	2,984	3,363	3,163	3,872	3,044$	$	$	$	$	$	$(value shown for this item, quantity is not available)	Nails and tacks, brass or copper.	United Kingdom	
416	2,501	828	636	1,033	773	347United States	
4,748	7,519	12,319	23,915	14,851	20,212	17,4015,164	10,020	13,147	24,551	15,884	20,985	17,748
Totals

Questions

Questions


BREWERIES AND DISTILLERIES
Mr. Knowles: 1. Have representations been received by the government urging that consideration be given to eliminating advertising costs by breweries and distilleries as a deductible item for corporation income tax purposes?
2.	Has consideration been given thereto?
3.	If so, what is the result of such consideration?
4.	If not, will consideration be given thereto?
Answer by: Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of
Finance):
1.	Yes.
2,	3 and 4. This representation is receiving careful consideration.

Thursday, February 14, 1957