1957-02-05

NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the report which appeared in the paper yesterday to the effect that a Canadian armoured unit is to be sent to the United Nations emergency force is correct? If so, may we have a statement concerning the proposal?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I will answer that question. We have had a request from the United Nations emergency force for a reconnaissance unit with scout cars and wireless vehicles and about 110 personnel and also for a number of other personnel, about 60 of the types already in Egypt. This request is under consideration and is being processed now. I will make a statement when it has been decided what action will be taken. As I have said the request is for a reconnaissance unit, not an armoured regiment.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Prime Minister or one of the other ministers whether any other nations are sending additional troops to this force; whether any of the nations that already have troops there are withdrawing them, and also in what locality these troops are supposed to serve?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I do not know of any troops that are being withdrawn. I noticed in the press, I think it was yesterday, that the Brazilian government is sending 400 or 500 further troops. A few days ago I gave a statement to the house indicating where the Canadians are located. So far as I know, there has been no change since.


Howard Charles Green: Are these troops going to the same place as the other Canadian troops?


Ralph Osborne Campney: They will go first, if they go, to the base. The decision as to where they will be deployed from there will rest with General Burns.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: May I ask a supplementary question. Has the government cleared with Colonel Nasser to see whether or not these troops will be acceptable?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, we have had no communication with Colonel Nasser.



CAMP IPPERWASH - INQUIRY AS TO REMOVAL OF GUARDS REGIMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence if he has received any telegrams protesting the removal of the fourth battalion of the Canadian Guards from Camp Ipperwash. If so, will the minister tell the house what is being done about it. If the Guards are removed from Camp Ipperwash will other troops be moved in?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, before the 4th Guards battalion was moved to Camp Ipperwash it was used as a militia camp, as a cadet camp and in various other ways. Once the Guards are removed it will again be used for such purposes. There is no present intention of moving any other regular unit into the camp but the matter is being given consideration to see if this might be possible.


Joseph Warner Murphy: May I ask
the minister a supplementary question. Is it a fact that the Guards are being removed from Camp Ipperwash?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The battalion at Camp Ipperwash is not being moved. It is one of the two regular battalions being run down.



INQUIRY AS TO FURTHER REDUCTION IN INFANTRY BATTALIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: May I ask the Minister of National Defence whether it is the intention of the government to make any further reduction in the number of infantry battalions in the Canadian army which are on active service?


Ralph Osborne Campney: If and when any further reductions are made they will be announced in the same way I announced the last one.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the minister answer a supplementary question? Is the 13th infantry battalion part of any brigade, or has it been given an independent role?


Ralph Osborne Campney: It remains part of the 4th brigade.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Irvin Sluder (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: If I am now in order I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I should like to ask if the provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan, Mr. Fines, has communicated with the government of Canada to say that the Saskatchewan government is now prepared to consider paying 25 per cent of the cost of the South Saskatchewan dam in cash as the work progresses?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I notice a report in the press that the provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan was reported to have made a statement in a press conference to the effect indicated by the hon. gentleman's question, but to my knowledge no such communication has ever been made by the government of Saskatchewan to the government of Canada.


Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: May I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Since the press has indicated that the provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan has stated that the provincial government is prepared to finance the $20 million without reference to the federal government, can the Prime Minister say now whether or not the federal government is prepared to proceed with the dam?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not
think any hon. member would expect the federal government to act upon newspaper reports in a matter that would involve a contract between the government of a province and the government of Canada. I can say that no consideration has been given to that project on the strength of the newspaper report of this statement to the press by the provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Is
it not a fact that the statement made by the provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan is entirely along the same lines as the proposal discussed between the government of Saskatchewan and the Minister of Agriculture some time ago? That was my understanding on Saturday when I heard of it from the provincial treasurer himself.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I cannot say, Mr. Speaker, that it is entirely along the lines that were discussed. Up to the present time my understanding has been that the attitude of the provincial treasurer was that they should not be called upon to pay anything until there were earnings out of the power plants and that payments would be made out of those earnings.
1Later:!


Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question supplementary to those asked by the hon. members for Swift Current-Maple Creek and Moose Mountain. In view of statements appearing in the press concerning the South Saskatchewan river dam, is the Prime Minister aware of any conditions laid down by the federal government which have not been met by the provincial government in an effort to begin immediate construction on the South Saskatchewan dam?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, it has already been stated in the house several times that the federal government laid down no other conditions but taking the responsibility when it was convinced that such was the fact that the construction of the South Saskatchewan dam would add more to the revenue of the national economy than it would take out of the revenue of the national economy in interest charges and amortization charges.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister aware that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has been making statements in the province of Saskatchewan to the effect that in some way the provincial government is holding up the construction of the South Saskatchewan dam?


An hon. Member:: If they changed their provincial government it would be all right.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not accompanied the Minister of Agriculture in his visits to the province of Saskatchewan and would not be in a position to answer the hon. gentleman's question from his personal knowledge.



CANADA-UNITED STATES-REFERENCE TO REPORTED RECORD DEFICIT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Would the Minister of Trade and Commerce care to comment to the house on the report by the dominion bureau of statistics, issued yesterday, showing that during 1956 this country had a record trade deficit with the United

States amounting to $1,290 million and a record over-all deficit with all countries amounting to $848 million?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker, my comment is that exports were up about 11 per cent and imports were up about the same amount. There is an over-all trade deficit which is due wholly to the present abnormal rate of capital investment and that imbalance will tend to correct itself as soon as the capital program drops back to something like normal proportions.


George Harris Hees: In view of the over-all trade deficit which established a record for all time for last year, and in view of the record trade deficit with the United States, will the Prime Minister now give consideration to initiating a British commonwealth trade conference so that an attempt may be made to improve Canada's trade position?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There has been no consideration given to initiating a commonwealth trade conference, and there is no present intention of doing so.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Having regard to the two resolutions which were passed on Saturday and Sunday by the United Nations, will he consider having two days set aside as soon as possible for the discussion particularly of external affairs?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing I myself would like better but I shall have to discuss the matter with the Prime Minister and the leader of the house to make sure that time is available, having regard to the other business before us.
[Later: 1


Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelsloke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of press news items such as "Israeli refuses to withdraw troops as requested by U.N."; "India refuses to allow plebiscite to determine the future status of Kashmir as ordered by U.N."; "France refuses
Inquiries of the Ministry to yield power in Algiers to U.N.", would the Secretary of State for External Affairs advise the house if this government will advocate steps to strengthen the hand of the U.N. in world affairs or is its policy to support the reconstitution of the U.N. as an advisory council acting in world disputes only with the approval of all parties concerned?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if we have that debate on external affairs to which the Leader of the Opposition referred, this would be one of the matters I should like to deal with.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Would the minister be willing to tell the house of any progress he may have made in evolving a plan to apply unemployment insurance to fishermen?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Gloucester told me that he intended to ask a question on this subject, and I think I should also say that the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart), the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Cannon) and the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) also spoke to me.


An hon. Member:: Put them all in.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I hope I have.


George Harris Hees: And the hon. member for
Restigouche-Madawaska.


An hon. Member:: Where is he?


Milton Fowler Gregg: In accordance with the forecast I made when the act was amended last session, an unemployment insurance plan for fishermen has been worked out and approved by the government.
The commission is now taking the necessary steps through its regional and appropriate local offices to have the plan commence on April 1 next for the collection of contributions into the fund, and to commence on January 1 next for a consideration of applications for benefit.
Under this plan commercial fishermen will be covered regardless of whether they are wage earners, or work on shares as coadventurers, or carry on their fishing operations alone. For those who are paid wages, the employer and the employee will, of course, make the contributions in the regular way.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Fishermen who do not work for wages have no employer in the ordinary sense. It will be necessary in their case for the person who first buys or acquires a fisherman's catch to be treated as the employer for the purpose of making the contributions and keeping the records.
In general, the rates of contributions and benefits will be the same as those applying to all other insured workers.
The period when benefit may be paid will be restricted to the time of year when most fishermen are unemployed. The plan, therefore, provides for the payment of benefit only between the beginning of January and the middle of April, for such number of weeks as the claimant may be entitled to, with a minimum of 10. Provision is made for integrating fishing contributions with contributions from other insured employment.
Contributions into the fund will commence as from April 1 next, but I wish to make it clear that these contributions will not count for any benefit until the beginning of January 1, 1958.
What I have given, Mr. Speaker, is just a general outline of the plan. I would be glad to give further details when my estimates are before the house.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour supplementary to the statement he made earlier on unemployment insurance benefits for fishermen. My question is this. Will contributions to the fund made while fishing prior to the effective date of fishermen's benefits count toward qualification for regular benefits if their addition to contributions made in other employment would qualify the applicant?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I think I should like to take notice of that question. Questions in that category I would prefer to leave until this matter is discussed in detail when my estimates for the unemployment insurance commission come before the house.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: May I ask a supplementary
question. Would the minister tell the house, in view of his answer, when copies of the regulations will be available to members of the house?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The regulations are now under preparation. As my hon. friend realizes, the first phase has to do with regulations covering contributions into the fund. These will be completed and will be made known to the offices affected before the opening date of


April 1. The other regulations which have to do with the benefits will not be completed until after that date, so there will be a series of regulations and as they are completed they will be made available.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question asked on January 24 last, as recorded at page 594 of Hansard. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) asked for the total number of man working days lost through illness as a supplement to the information that 1,261,400 man working days were lost through industrial disputes in 1956.
I said at the time that only an estimate could be given, and this is it. The best means of providing such an estimate appears to be through the monthly labour force survey. From this survey, information is obtained as to the number of persons with jobs who did not work during the survey week because of illness, and also the number of persons with jobs who worked less than 35 hours during the week because of illness. In the year 1956 the average number of persons who did not work at all during the survey week because of illness was 57,250 per week; the average who worked less than 35 hours because of illness was 26,750. Assuming that persons in the first category lost five days per week and persons in the second category lost two days per week, it has been estimated that in the year 1956 just under 17 million man days were lost owing to illness. The corresponding figure for 1955 would be just over 16 million.
In addition to this labour force survey the dominion bureau of statistics have crosschecked through other surveys which seem to indicate that the figures I have given may be slightly low.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
40-HOUR week for civilian employees
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister's department co-operating with the Department of National Defence to assure civilian employees in the national defence establishments the five-day 40-hour week as enjoyed by the employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, the appropriate branch of my department co-operates at all times with the

Department of National Defence and other departments to see to it that those civilian employees receive proper wages and to give information on hours of work. If my hon. friend has any special cases in mind I should be happy if he brought them to my attention.


Harry Oliver White: I was thinking particularly of 27 C.O.D. at London and the national defence establishment at Hagers-ville.


Milton Fowler Gregg: If my hon. friend will send
me the details I shall be glad to see that they are studied.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the Toronto city council yesterday endorsed an agreement to transfer the title to Malton airport to the government as soon as work begins on improvement of the Toronto island airport, could the minister advise the house, first, when such work will commence and, second, when work will commence at Malton on the new terminal facilities?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to examine the estimates for the coming year to know what is provided for of the work to which the hon. gentleman just referred and to ascertain, too, at what time it is proposed to make a start on a new terminal building at Toronto. I shall try to answer the hon. gentleman tomorrow.

Mr. John Pallet! (Peel): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport a question supplementary to the questions asked by the member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) with respect to Malton airport. When the minister is making his investigation would he also ascertain that the transfer of the property from the city of Toronto to the Department of Transport will not deprive the township of Toronto of municipal taxes that have been collected on that land so far?



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if he will make a 82715-62
Inquiries of the Ministry statement regarding negotiations between this government and the government of Ontario as to the apportionment of the cost of caring for Hungarian refugees coming to Canada and going to Ontario?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) intends to make a statement on this matter at the earliest opportunity.



POTATOES


[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 Minister of Finance. Would the minister elaborate on a statement carried in today's Globe and Mail, datelined Washington, February 4, to the effect that the potato tariff may be raised?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I said in the house last week that we had entered into negotiations with the United States with respect to the tariff on potatoes, which is of course a tariff that applies in some respects on both sides of the border, but I would not want to give any indication of what the outcome might be. This is a negotiation which has not actually started, in the sense that the parties are not together. The report must have been based upon a notice given by the United States government to the persons interested in the tariff to see the government of the United States first with respect to their interests. After this process has been carried on for I think three or four weeks a decision is taken with the United States government apprized of the thoughts of their producers on the subject.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. N. A. Matheson (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister say what his department is doing to determine the feasibility of the proposed causeway between Borden, Prince Edward Island, and cape Jourimain, New Brunswick?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, may I take that
question as notice?
970	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT



REPORT OF RESTRICTIVE TRADE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the merger between the British Columbia Sugar Refining Company Limited and the Manitoba Sugar Company Limited, which the report of the restrictive trade practices commission recommended should not take place, has already come into effect, what action does the government propose to take to break up this combine in the sugar industry in western Canada?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I am sure that my hon. friend is aware that all these combines cases involve as a rule very intricate facts and the conclusions arising out of these facts are complex. This report which has been received quite recently is being studied by the department and in due course I will be making a statement concerning it. Until this study is completed I have nothing to say in the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. When he is making that study will the minister ascertain whether or not the price increases made recently by the Manitoba Sugar Company were made on the initiative of that company itself or were they made at the dictation of the combine in western Canada which is headed by this British Columbia company?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is the practice in all of these cases to go over all the relevant material which is available and if this particular supposition which my hon. friend voices is the fact we will certainly endeavour to confirm it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Am I correct in saying that this transaction just referred to is much similar to a transaction in the brewing industry about which similar warnings or cautions were sounded by the department? If so, what is the situation in that respect? Is the government taking any action, because I understand that that merger is now complete.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Any similarity between these two I should think would be rather superficial. In the case of the sugar merger the completed merger is alleged by the report to give the resulting corporation control of a large area of the trade. It was found in the beer report, as I am sure my hon. friend who asked the question is aware, that that result did not obtain after the transactions reported in the report had been completed. In that respect the two are quite different.



BEER-ACTION TO BE TAKEN ON ALLEGED COMBINE IN WESTERN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the recommendation of the restrictive trade practices commission that the government should take steps to prevent Canadian Breweries Limited from acquiring control over Western Canada Brewers Limited, and in view of the action of Canadian Breweries Limited in extending its control over Western Canada Brewers, what action is the minister taking to carry out the recommendation of the restrictive trade practices commission in order to prevent the formation of a brewery monopoly in western Canada?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wish to thank my hon. friend for having given me notice of his question. The report of the restrictive trade practices commission expressed the opinion that the merger program of Canadian Breweries Limited had been monopolistic in nature and not in the public interest. It also came to the conclusion, however, that Canadian Breweries Limited had not acquired complete or substantial control over the industry in any part of Canada.
Since then, that is since the delivery of the report, the court of appeal in British Columbia has handed down a decision in a Vancouver gasoline case which, if correct, would appear to cast some doubt on whether there is a good case for prosecution in the beer case. The Department of Justice immediately applied to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal against the British Columbia decision, but the application was refused in October last. A similar point, however, is before the Supreme Court of Canada in the fine paper case. The point is, however, generally speaking, whether substantial elimination of competition constitutes injury to the public under the anti-combines legislation. This is one of the points upon which our decision as to what to do in the beer case turns, and we would prefer not to come to a conclusion in the beer case upon the other point until the fine papers case shall have been decided.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. On January 31 I asked the

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a question which he answered by stating that he was seeking advice on this subject. Sufficient time having elapsed for his advisers to have given him certain information, would the Prime Minister care to answer the question in the absence of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration?
The question is this. By what authority, and on whose instructions, was a petition from the Indian Association of Alberta, addressed to the Queen, transferred from the office of the Governor General to that of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and will the Prime Minister now state whether or not his government will send this petition to Her Majesty, to whom it is addressed?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have not gone into that question at all, Mr. Speaker. I have received no advice from the legal advisers of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and I am informed that their report has not yet been completed.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is not a fact that one of the vestigial rights which Indians enjoy by reason of the fact that they entered into a treaty with the British crown is the right to direct petitions to the Queen, and that it cannot in any way be interfered with, regardless of the relationship which Her Majesty's government in Canada bears to her.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the hon. gentleman has examined those treaties and ascertained that that is the situation, he is further advanced than I am. I have not examined them.


John George Diefenbaker: Have you looked into it?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, I have not looked into that question.


Carl Olof Nickle: Since the Prime Minister has not himself looked into the Indian Act of 1951 and the present case in Alberta, may I ask him, in view of that, who is going to decide this particular question?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I hope, Mr. Speaker, the question of fact as to whether certain people who have been residing on this reserve are entitled to remain there will be decided by the courts.


Carl Olof Nickle: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Prime Minister is apparently not prepared to speak for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on this question or on questions related to it, 82715-62J
Inquiries of the Ministry can he indicate when the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will be returning to the house so these questions may be directed to him?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I understand that the appeal to put this case before the appropriate district judge has been entered and that it will be dealt with by the appropriate court. As to what day or what hour the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will be back, I am unable at this moment to say. I will inquire and will supply the information to my hon. friend as soon as I get it.



HOBBEMA INDIAN RESERVE, ALBERTA    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 26

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ray Thomas (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the callous treatment of 118 human beings through the expulsion of 23 families of the Samson Indian band from the Hobbema Indian reserve in Wetaskiwin riding.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to allow his motion to stand for the time being, as I perceive that there are hon. gentlemen who have questions to ask of the ministry at this time.
[Later:l


Mr. Speaker:: All questions have now been asked. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Thomas) has placed before me a motion in which he asked leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26. Now, the definite matter of urgent public importance is defined in the following matter:
. . . the callous treatment of 118 human beings through the expulsion of 23 families of the Samson Indian band from the Hobbema Indian reserve in the Wetaskiwin riding.
I am not very familiar with the subject matter referred to by the hon. gentleman in his motion except through what I have heard in this house at question time. It was indicated by answers to questions that there were matters with respect to this problem that were at the moment being considered by our courts. I do not know whether we are talking about the same thing, but I distinctly recall having heard the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration indicate that some of these matters were now before the courts. If that is so, it would not be debatable at this time.


Ray Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I understood the Prime Minister to say a few minutes ago that he understood it was before the courts. My

Inquiries of the Ministry understanding is that there has not been an appeal launched up to the present time.


Walter Edward Harris: May I interrupt to say that is incorrect. At least we received the notice of the appeal on Friday, I think it was.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This department is always before the courts because of the wrongful action of the minister. A too strict application of this rule would make it virtually impossible to discuss anything coming under the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I hope you will consider that point.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. gentleman says, "I hope you will consider that point". Would he be good enough to make his point again, because I have not heard it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My point was that, as Your Honour has remarked, on this and on other occasions when matters concerning this department were raised at the question period, the answer of the minister was that this matter is before the courts. It seems to be a fact that owing to the method of administration followed by the minister his department is frequently before the courts. My suggestion was that a too strict interpretation of the application of the rule that you referred to would virtually preclude any discussion of that department. I hope, therefore, that Your Honour might see that there is room for a distinction here and also that the question to come before the courts need not be discussed, but the position of the Indians themselves might without doing any violence to the rule.


Mr. Speaker:: It would be very difficult to administer some of these rules if it happens, as the hon. gentleman says, that the department is often before the courts. In that case the rule would have to be by-passed with respect to that department but enforced when another department is concerned with a motion of this kind. But, having had on two separate occasions since the beginning of this session to reject some of these motions because at the time the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne was currently going on, and having made the statement that whenever some of these debates on a motion to go into supply and the debate on the budget are currently going on the practice of Speakers has always been not to accept these motions, I was quite satisfied that whenever a matter appeared to be definite and of sufficient importance I would be inclined to accept them because otherwise I felt that standing order 26 would soon become almost devoid of any sense whatever.


But, on the other hand, there are other rules which must be considered. At the moment I am looking at citation 173 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, which reads:
The Speaker Is bound to apply to motions made under standing order 31 the established rules of debate, and to enforce the principle that subjects excluded by those rules cannot be brought forward thereon, such as a matter under adjudication by a court of law, or matters already discussed during the current session, whether upon a substantive motion, upon an amendment, or upon an order of the day.
Now, it appears from the information given to the house by the Minister of Finance, which seemed to be acceptable to the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, that the matter referred to in his motion is now, as citation 173 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms says, "under adjudication by a court of law", and in such circumstances I cannot accept the motion. Orders of the day.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, just so that I shall be correctly reported, I think I said we had received the notice on Friday. I meant yesterday. The notice was received on Monday.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I
would like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works before the orders of the day are called.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid that is not possible at this time because I took up the motion moved by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin after I had understood that all questions had been asked. We have now reached the orders of the day.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. Huffman (Kenf, Onl.):: I would like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Can the minister indicate to the house if the committee on the personnel of the Post Office Department has examined the many requests made by the mail couriers for an upward revision of their contract?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no committee, as such, doing the survey which my hon. friend has inquired about, but I did give instructions to the officers of the transportation branch of the department during the course of last fall-I think it was the end of November or the beginning of December -to make a survey of rural mail contracts now existing between the Post Office Department and rural mail couriers with a view

to making recommendations as to increases in the amounts of those contracts where deemed necessary, and if the hon. member will look at the estimates which were tabled in this house a few weeks ago he will see that the item concerning transportation of mail mentions that it will include an amount to permit increasing such contracts.
I might add that when my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), tables the final supplementary estimates for this year a similar item will be included so that those contracts which have already been processed can be dealt with immediately.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Have any tenders been called in connection with the construction of the new post office in Quebec city? If so, when is construction expected to begin? If the minister does not know, I can ask the parliamentary assistant.
Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the developments there. We are still engaged in negotiations for property and final determination has not yet been made.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to know quite a bit. Maybe he knows a little bit more than does the Minister of Transport. Can he give me any information about the exchange of lots between the Canadian National Railways and the authorities of the city of Quebec?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, a number of meetings have been held between the officials of the Department of Public Works, the city of Quebec and the Canadian National Railways-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I do not think so. He was not there. He does not know.


Robert Henry Winters: -to arrive at a basis for exchanging property. The situation is that the Department of Public Works acquired a property in Quebec which was quite suitable for our purpose, which was the erection of a new post office building. When we were just about ready to proceed, the city asked us to desist on that particular site and to consider another site so that they could develop the site we had in the best interests of the traffic of the city.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: That was a year ago.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Henry Winters: We told the city we would agree if they would exchange with us another suitable site for the one we now own. That involved negotiations between the Canadian National Railways, the city and ourselves. There are also private property owners involved. The negotiations have become protracted. I can assure my hon. friend that we are following them closely and that I myself was in communication with the mayor within the last few days. I am also aware that the Prime Minister as well has again had conversations with the mayor within the past few days.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: When was ithat? On Saturday last?

(Translation):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Transport. Can the minister tell us what progress has been made in the negotiations that were started more than a year ago by Quebec city authorities and the Canadian National Railways for an exchange of lots as a building site for a new post office building in that city?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any negotiations between the authorities of the Canadian National Railways and the city of Quebec, but I shall look into the matter and reply later to the hon. member.
(Text):



CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING-ERECTION OF NEW ONTARIO REGIONAL OFFICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Pallell (Peel):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the government's tight money policy, which is designed to restrict home construction, would the minister advise the house what the purpose is in building a new Ontario regional office for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at this time, when they already occupy adequate accommodation?


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member has made two assertions, both of which are incorrect.


John Cameron Pallett: Would the Minister of Public Works advise the house what is the purpose at this time in building a new central Ontario office for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, that is a fair question, and the answer is to provide adequate accommodation.
974	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Peel. Does his answer indicate that his department has made an exhaustive survey of all accommodation and that the only way they could provide adequate accommodation was to erect a new building themselves?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, a survey was made. This survey was made some time ago. Those plans were prepared in 1955, and the building was commenced in June, 1956.


John Borden Hamilton: May I ask a
further supplementary question? In view of the fact that the government's policy dealing with inflation has changed, has the minister given any thought to changing those plans?


Robert Henry Winters: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not.


John Borden Hamilton: If the minister has not given any thought to it, does he expect private business to continue to give thought to it?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Answer next week.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like
to direct a question to the Postmaster General which I hope he will take as notice. Has the Post Office Department as yet completed its survey of the town of Ingersoll with a view to instituting letter carrier delivery in that town? If so, how soon may letter carrier delivery be expected to commence in Ingersoll?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I think I would have to inquire with regard to that matter. I know the survey was taking place. I believe I communicated with the hon. member and informed him to that effect. As yet, however, I have not had the results of it.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. B. R. Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport of which I sent him notice. Would the minister make a report to the house in respect of the strong protests submitted by amateur radio stations in the Peace river area regarding the suggested change in amateur radio station call letters?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I understand that a telegram was sent to one of the officials of my department complaining about a change which was proposed to be made in the Peace river district. I do not think that the term "protest" should be used because I do not think there is any cause for protest. The situation is that the district has announced that on new applications for shortwave radio stations the call letters VE-7, ATA to ATZ are to be made available but will be obligatory only for new applicants. Those who already have licences and call letters will have the opportunity of changing but no obligation to do so. I would tell the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that if there are in the Peace river district operators who are now using call letters such as PC, SC, or CCF they will now have the opportunity of changing.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Will we get "L" in place
of it?


George Carlyle Marler: Yes, Mr. Speaker, "L" will
be a very popular letter this year.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of National Health and Welfare based upon the correspondence between the Prime Minister and the premier of Ontario, which the Prime Minister tabled yesterday. Are arrangements being made for an immediate conference between the two governments to try to reach agreement on matters of detail so that action might soon be taken regarding hospital insurance?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister
suggests that I might deal with this question. The answer is yes. While I am on my feet, I should like to add a word. I hope the hon. gentleman will share my pleasure in knowing that the government of Newfoundland has accepted the federal government's proposal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I, in expressing my pleasure at the announcement the minister has made, ask him whether he has anything further to say regarding consultations with the government of the province of Manitoba? Are there any discussions between Manitoba and this government with reference to something closer to the federal

government's plan than the disaster plan proposed in Manitoba last week?


Paul Joseph James Martin: WJiile I suppose it is understandable that my hon. friend should be curious about his own province, I hope he will be pleased also to know that this morning I had a telephone conversation with the minister of health for Manitoba.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What did he tell you?


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: I should like to satisfy my curiosity also by asking the minister a question. Press reports indicate that Nova Scotia is willing to accept a national health plan when it is available. Has any official decision been given to the minister's department indicating the wishes of Nova Scotia in the matter?


Mr. Marlin:: Mr. Speaker, I indicated, I think, a few days ago that the premier of Nova Scotia had been in Ottawa and that this question, amongst others, was the subject of discussion. I did see a press statement some days later attributing to him the observation that when the federal hospital insurance proposal became available he would give it his consideration. Well, of course, the federal proposal has been available now for many months.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: May I ask
a supplementary question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister say whether, after a majority of the provinces indicate their willingness to go ahead with the hospitalization plan, at that point the federal government will be prepared to participate in plans that are already in effect in some of the provinces?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This question has been discussed in this house so often that my hon. friend knows that when the government makes a proposal, which it has made after careful consideration, it does not seek any excuse for not carrying out the implications of that proposal. No one knows that better than the hon. gentleman who asks the question.


Hazen Robert Argue: I take it from the minister's very involved answer that means the federal government would be prepared to participate with the governments of Saskatchewan and British Columbia immediately in their hospital plans.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Last January the Prime Minister of Canada made a statement in this house in which he outlined the proposals of the federal government. I do not think I need add that the Prime Minister, the head of this government, is not the kind of man who,
Canada Council
under any circumstances, would shirk from the proposals which he has made.


Hazen Robert Argue: A good thing he made them, then.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What my hon. friend is seeking to do is to give the impression that the federal government is not sincerely disposed in the proposal which it made to the provinces. I have indicated today the progress we are making in this matter. I would call to my hon. friend's attention also what the Prime Minister said when speaking to the people of Canada last night about this proposal.


George Harris Hees: If the
first assertion is true, that the government has sought no excuse for avoiding health insurance, why is it that health insurance has not been introduced since 1919 when it first appeared in the Liberal platform? May we have an answer to that, Mr. Speaker?


Paul Joseph James Martin: One of the obvious answers is that in the government of one of the larger provinces there was not the disposition to accede to a proposal, and we are happy that now progress on the part of one of those larger provinces has been made possible.


Mr. Rowe:: Is ahead of you.


George Harris Hees: You are hoping. Thank God somebody is progressive in this country.



CANADA COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, January 18, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East)-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair:
f: " is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the establishment of a Canada Council for the encouragement of the arts, humanities and social sciences and further to provide inter alia that
(a)	the Minister of Finance may, out of the
rcY.enue fund' Pay to the council the sum of fifty million dollars to constitute an endow-for t.he PurP°ses of the act, and
(b)	the council shall establish a fund to be called the university capital grants fund, to which shall
naidrtendlthd the ST °f fifty	doUars to be
p?'f, to the council by the Minister of Finance out of the consolidated revenue fund.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, there are three or four questions I should like to ask the Prime Minister concerning this resolution, and the first is this. In 1953 when we had some discussion about the functions of the Canada Council the Prime Minister said, as reported at page 4431 of Hansard for April 27 of that year:
There are other matters, too. At one time consideration was given to a Canadian order or medal.

Canada Council
I think the Canada Council, if there should come to be one, should have the initiative of recommendations in that regard . . .
It would be interesting if the Prime Minister would tell the committee today whether it is the intention of the government to make provision for the Canada medal and whether one of the functions of this council would be to make the awards. Also would he tell us what type of scholarships the government has in mind? The Massey commission as I read their report recommended that there should be post-graduate scholarships, fellowships, exchange scholarships presumably for graduates from other countries and, finally, undergraduate scholarships. In at least two of those recommendations mention was made of scholarships in the humanities, the social sciences and law. Is it the intention that there shall be these four different types of scholarships or even more and are they to be restricted to the humanities, the social sciences and the law?
The third question is this. What if any provision is made for advancing the training of engineers and scientists under the work of this council? And finally, would the Prime Minister explain why there is to be a fund set up of $50 million rather than an annual grant? He did deal with that briefly when he spoke on January 18 and I am referring to page 396 of Hansard for that date, but I think it would be helpful if we were told in more detail just why the system of setting aside a large sum of money is being followed. I ask that particularly because, as the Prime Minister knows the Massey commission did not make a recommendation of that kind but on the contrary recommended an annual grant. At page 382 of the report of the Massey commission we find these words:
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. We venture to believe that our fellow-citizens would find this investment modest in relation to the returns which, we are confident, they could reasonably expect.
If that recommendation had been followed the result would be to keep parliament and through parliament the Canadian people much more directly in touch with the work of the council. This system of making an annual grant has been adopted in other cases. I think that is what is done in the case of the national research council. I believe they make provision for their scholarships out of their annual vote so there can be a discussion in parliament each session as that money is voted on the question of the scholarships that are being awarded by the national research council.

There seems to be a good deal of questioning as to the wisdom of simply setting aside the sum of $50 million. Once that is done then it passes right beyond the reach of parliament. I submit that Mr. Massey and his fellow commissioners had in mind throughout the report having an annual payment. Perhaps the Prime Minister would be good enough to explain why the other system is being adopted.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Chairman, I welcome-


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could have an answer to my questions.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, Mr. Chairman, I know that the hon. member is not the only one who intends to speak and I can imagine there will be other questions. I have no objection to answering right away those questions which he has raised but I thought perhaps they could all be dealt with at the same time. However, if the hon. member prefers that I answer his questions right away and if others who wish to speak have no objection to my taking the floor at this time I will do so.


Howard Charles Green: I do suggest, Mr. Chairman, it would simplify the handling of the resolution if we could have these answers.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, there will be no provision in the bill that will be introduced if and when this resolution is adopted that has anything to do with the Canada medal.
The second question was, will there be any determination in the bill of the kind of scholarships that will be provided. There are no provisions or limitations in the bill in that regard except that there will have to be scholarships for the furthering of the objectives of the Canada Council which are to promote the development of the humanities and social sciences and there will be no scholarships for the development or promotion of engineering and scientific research. That is already being done and if it requires to be increased it should continue to be done through the national research council.


Howard Charles Green: Of course, the national research council does not train engineers.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, the
national research council does not train engineers and we should not set up the Canada Council as a university to train engineers or to train any others. It is to give assistance to the institutions that do that work or through scholarships to those who would be benefiting from that work. It is not intended that the Canada Council should establish a school to train any person for advanced studies.

The fourth question was, why is there a fund of $50 million being appropriated at this time whilst that had not been a recommendation made by the Massey commission. That is probably something that went beyond what the Massey commission recommended at that time. It was for the purpose of creating this body 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.
I might say that one of the considerations which I had in mind-it was not the governing consideration-was the fact that there had been at the time we were preparing this recommendation for parliament two very unusually large estates from which the collections of succession duties had been made in amounts that could not be considered to be recurring amounts. In connection with one estate the statement had been made more than once by the deceased during his lifetime that he was not making provision during his lifetime or apt to make any under his will for benefactions to public institutions because the succession duties were so high, the proportion of his estate which would be taken in succession duties, if it were thought fit, could be employed on the recommendation of the government by parliament for like purposes.
In the case of the other estate it is not to my knowledge that the deceased had made a similar declaration, but it is to my knowledge that he had made modest contributions to institutions of the character of those envisaged by this legislation. But they were amounts that were quite abnormal and that came into the revenues or incomes of the year when these matters were being considered. That was one of the factors which influenced my judgment in making the recommendation to my colleagues that the Canada Council be provided with this endowment which I hope rather confidently will be substantially increased by endowments from well-to-do Canadians, either as gifts or as a result of testamentary dispositions.


Howard Charles Green: Would they not be tax exempt?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: They would be tax exempt, yes. That was the rationalizing of the first of the two deceased I have mentioned who left abnormally large estates.


Howard Charles Green: To what estates is the Prime Minister referring?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is well known that they are the Killam and the Sir James Dunn estates. They were abnormally large estates. Mr. Killam had stated that if there was a bequest for one of these benefactions it would not incur succession duties,
Canada Council
but that if there was not the whole estate would incur succession duties and the government might appropriate such portion as it saw fit to the furtherance of the objectives of these foundations or endowments or institutions which had received consideration from wealthy citizens who felt that they were thus making some return to the Canadian society for the benefits they had reaped from the functioning of Canadian institutions.


John Borden Hamilton: Does the Prime Minister not think that this is setting a dangerous precedent? Are we to be led to believe that if anyone puts a provision in his will that he expects the proceeds of succession duties to go to a certain place the government, having acted in this way, would be under an obligation to do it again?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government would be under no obligation; the government was under no obligation to do it. It did provide a sort of windfall which came I think at a most opportune time. I suppose there will be other windfalls because in spite of the rates of taxation there are growing fortunes in the hands of Canadian individuals, as the hon. gentleman well knows, although that is not based on his or my experience.
There are also other occasions of that kind, but the reason was that I did not feel that the list of those who might be getting scholarships should be a matter for discussion in any kind of political arena and the choice of the kind of scholarships that would be first provided would I hope be wisely made by those who would be selected to become members of this council. Personally I would feel that it was post-graduate work which was most urgent at the present time. The greatest need at the present time in the humanities and social sciences is to prepare a larger number of qualified professors to teach these sciences in our universities. The other measure providing for annual aid of $16 million to the universities might be of some assistance in making university professorships more attractive to the people who would give the best kind of service in professorships in universities.
I would hope that originally a large part of the revenue which would be produced by this endowment would be devoted to the purposes of providing a considerably larger number of qualified professors for the universities because there is going to be a considerably larger number of young men and women looking for the kind of higher education which the universities can provide. Still it was felt that that might not always be the case, that there might be some consideration given to whether or not in certain cases

Canada Council
there should be undergraduate scholarships. It must be remembered that while an endowment of $50 million may look to be quite substantial the revenue from it will not provide a large number of undergraduate scholarships in proportion to the number of undergraduates who will be frequenting our universities.
While the smaller number of scholarships for post-graduate work or even for fellowship scholarships or exchange scholarships with other universities might not loom very large, it might be percentagewise considerable when compared with the total number of qualified professors there are in Canadian universities for the teaching of these sciences. I am disclosing some of the provisions which will be in the bill. I hope it will not be very long before the bill is available to hon. members and I see no point in not doing so when members are personally interested in receiving that information.


Mr. Fleming:: May I ask the Prime Minister a question on that point? May we take it from the statement he has made that it is the intention to appropriate the $50 million endowment fund, indeed, both of the $50 million endowment funds, aggregating $100 million, in the course of the present fiscal year, that is to say, that this sum would be in the accounts for the fiscal year ending March 31 next?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would not like to make any commitment in that regard, because that will not be possible unless the council is set up and is operating before the expiry of the fiscal year. The fiscal year expires on March 31. It will not be possible to turn this money over until the bill has been passed and until the council has been appointed and is in a position to receive it, and to accept it under the terms of the act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I suppose that is a matter of the terms of the bill. But what is the government's purpose? Is it the hope and intention of the government that the bill will have been passed and the council appointed by the 31st of March, and that the $100 million will therefore be appropriated on account to the financial operation for the present fiscal year?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I must confess I have not discussed with the Minister of Finance, when, and from what source, the $100 million would come, but I hope that the bill will be passed and that it will be possible for us to secure the acceptance of the required number of members of the council in order that the council may exist as a corporate body before March 31. As I say,

I have not discussed with the Minister of Finance where or how the amount would be provided, but I did have in the back of my mind this notion that two unusual windfalls in the form of succession duties occurred toward the end of the last fiscal year and in this year-I do not know whether any of the succession duties were paid before the beginning of this year or not, but I know that a large portion of those succession duties was paid in the course of the present fiscal year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the Prime Minister indicate the amount, so that we might have some conception of the relationship between the amount of these duties and the amount to be incorporated in the bill?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: My understanding is that it is less than $100 million for the two.


John George Diefenbaker: I have just one question arising regarding these estates-these two large estates, duties from which constituted the windfall; everyone knows what they were without our having to identify them. Has the amount of succession duty been determined in these two cases, and has the amount of that succession duty been shown in the surplus for the last year, or is it still to be determined.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I know that there has been over $50 million paid in; that is reflected in the so-called surpluses which are shown in the monthly statements issued by the Department of Finance. Those statements include all the receipts from taxation.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that one of the estates, or both?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not
have the information with respect to one of them, but I understand that with respect to one something over $50 million has been received in the receipts for the current year.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few remarks at this time, though I am not going to become involved in the type of discussion which has been going on; I think that can be left until the bill is before the house and the committee, and we know precisely what we are discussing so far as details are concerned.
I want to welcome the announcement by the government that it is now prepared to proceed with the creation of the Canada Council. I believe that such a council is long overdue, and I feel that the results of its work will fully justify the effort involved in setting it up, because we have a number

of examples of similar bodies which have brought about considerable benefits at other levels of government.
In Great Britain, of course, a similar body was set up several years ago. It is not my intention to refer, except in passing, to the Arts Council of Great Britain, but I do want to suggest that we in Saskatchewan have been fortunate in enjoying the work of the Saskatchewan Arts Board since 1947, and I feel that the type of work carried on by that board could well set an example to a federal body. I do not wish to go into any details with regard to the many activities carried on by the Saskatchewan Arts Board, but I may say that the board has concerned itself with providing opportunities for Saskatchewan talent to be enjoyed by Saskatchewan people. With that end in mind, concert tours were arranged in order to enable Saskatchewan musicians who had distinguished themselves in other parts of Canada, and, indeed, beyond Canada, to return to their native province and allow their fellow citizens in that province to enjoy their music.
Tours were also arranged for drama groups. A number of years ago the University Players were sponsored by that organization, and these players took good drama into many areas of the province which in normal circumstances would never have had the chance of seeing "live" stage productions. The board has also done considerable work in the field of the visual arts, in crafts and in literature. As one example of the work they carried on, I may say that they conducted a "writers' workshop" a number of years ago under the direction of the famous Canadian author W. O. Mitchell. This was, of course, designed to provide some opportunity for young people who desired to make a career in this field to obtain some of the knowledge required in order to pursue that endeavour.
I think the Saskatchewan Ants Board has *more than proven itself as a valuable contribution to the welfare of the province, and I would like to point this out: the people who oppose the idea of the Canada Council are very much inclined to talk about "forcing culture down people's throats" or to make such statements as: "You cannot buy culture." No one is going to disagree with regard to that. It is not a question of trying to "buy culture"; it is a question of providing a climate which will encourage the development of the artist, and this is essentially what the Saskatchewan Arts Board has sought to do during the years of its existence.
I believe this is something which we have to recognize at the present time in this modern industrial age when we are thinking in terms of automation and in terms of making proper use of leisure time; and I believe
Canada Council
that as part of our education we should develop the capacity to use this leisure time to the best possible advantage. Certainly, any move which will encourage the development of the artist in Canada is going to enable Canadians to take advantage of such opportunities to enjoy a richer and a fuller life.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the government has indicated some awareness of the need but I am not satisfied that it is fully cognizant of all that is involved in this question. It is all very well to talk about encouraging the arts. It is all very well to talk about the type of program about which the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) spoke when he introduced this resolution. But it seems to me that we must be prepared to get down to practical cases. We must do something for these people whose services are indispensable in such a program.
I am just going to refer to one specific example of what I mean. I received something in the mail a few weeks ago. I am sure all hon. members received it. I refer to bulletins from the Civil Service Commission of Canada. These two bulletins happened to be in the same envelope. That is the only reason I am using these two for purposes of comparison. I note that one of these bulletins is headed "Civil Service of Canada Requires Librarians". What are the salaries offered? They are $3,180 to $3,780. They are the salaries offered to graduate librarians. Here is what they require of these people who enter the government service:
Duties (Librarian 1)
Under supervision, to perform professional librarian duties such as reference work, cataloguing and classifying material, compilation of bibliographies, supervision of preparation of material for binding, obtaining data for requisitioning of new material, preparation of reports and correspondence; to train and supervise non-professional library employees; and to perform other related duties as required.
That is quite a tall order, Mr. Chairman. I am sure that we want to get the best people into that field of work. Then the bulletin goes on to describe the qualifications: Qualifications
A Bachelor's degree in Library Science in a course of recognized standing;
Personal suitability; satisfactory physical condition.
The latter is common in most of these requirements. Then the bulletin goes on to say this:
Note: A certificate or diploma in library science is not considered as the equivalent of degree standing in Library Science.
He must take a degree course which is a post-graduate course after the Bachelor's degree in arts. Then the note continues:
For some positions a knowledge of French and/or one or more foreign languages may be required.

Canada Council
I think you will agree, Mr. Chairman, that the requirements for this job are quite high. Yet for this position the government is offering to pay the miserable pittance of $3,180 to $3,780. They want graduate librarians, persons who have gone through university and obtained their Bachelor's degree, who have gone through a school of library science and all they are offering such people is $3,180.
The other bulletin to which I referred a moment ago is here in my hand. I have no particular reason for picking this one out other than the fact that the two came together but I think it makes a startling contrast. This one is headed "Civil Service of Canada requires Real Estate Assessor". For one classification they offer $3,900 to $4,500 and for another classification, namely technical officer 3, they offer $4,710 to $5,310. What are the requirements for this particular job? They are stated here as follows:
A good general education acquired as a result of general training and experience; . . .
There is no talk of university degrees. There are no great requirements in so far as academic standing is concerned. Yet the salaries are vastly higher than are those offered to people whom we require to have a degree in library science.
If the government is going to indicate its sincerity in its desire to improve conditions in this field, the field with which we are concerned in this resolution, it seems to me that the government must take some cognizance of the need for bringing into line with present realities the salaries of the people who are needed to carry on this program. It seems to me that you cannot expect to undertake the program as envisaged in this resolution if you are not prepared to do the right thing by the type of people you want to attract into the government service. In this field of the Canada Council and the whole related field I cannot think of any more important personnel than the librarians because certainly the library is the focal point of any program which might be envisaged under this plan. In all sincerity I suggest to the government that if they are willing to face up to the need for doing something in this field, it is time they did something about these miserably low salaries.
I realize that we perhaps get applicants for these jobs. In spite of the fact that the salaries are so low, I think these people apply because they are intensely interested in this work. But in order to be fair I think we should not take advantage of them and ask these people to subsidize any program by taking wages which are materially lower than those which they could receive if they

entered into other fields of endeavour with the same amount of university training. I think it is a fair request to make that if we are really prepared to go ahead with such a program we must recognize the role which the library plays. Here is one instance in which I think the government could indicate its awareness of the problem before us.
There are other aspects of this matter with which I should like to deal in a general way but I do not want to take up too much of the time of the committee this afternoon. However, I want to make one reference to the question of assistance to the universities. I realize that in the estimates the other day there was an item dealing with an increase in the per capita grant from 50 cents to one dollar. I realize that in this resolution there is some reference to the establishment of the university capital grant fund. But I think there must be some recognition of the need for an over-all program to assist our universities, not a piece-meal sort of arrangement where there is a little bit of assistance granted in this particular field and further assistance granted in some other field. I think there must be a general recognition of the role played by the university in our modern society. I do not think that the government have indicated that they are fully aware of the extent of the problem. I would also say this. You cannot isolate the university from the other fields of education. No matter how much assistance might be granted to the universities, if there is not some recognition of the need for assistance to the elementary and the secondary schools, then of course that program is not going to bring about the maximum results.
I think that the Canadian Labour Congress, in the brief presented to the cabinet the other day, referred to that question quite accurately when, under the heading of "Education", they stated as follows:
The situation in education in Canada at all levels from kindergarten to university has reached the proportions of a national emergency. The problems are acute. If the needs of a growing population requiring more and more education and training in an expanding economy are to be met adequately, the government of Canada will have to share the responsibility with the provinces for marshalling the necessary resources.
Then the congress sums the matter up by suggesting a practical method of going about meeting this problem. They do it in this
way:
We ask the government of Canada to convene a dominion-provincial conference on education to consider the problem and possible ways in which federal assistance can be provided.
We have been discussing the universities as though they are a problem apart. I think the number of youngsters who go through

our elementary schools, the quality of the education they receive and the number of graduates from our secondary schools, of course, will determine the effectiveness of any university program in the years which lie ahead. The problem is an immense one.
I think we must consider the proposal which is now before the house in terms of the problem which it professes to meet in part at least. As far as the universities are concerned, we now know that the annual operating costs are about $105 million in terms of increased population. We know that over the next ten years there is going to be required over $300 million in new construction and for operating costs an amount of $1,800 million. That, of course, is based on the assumption that the university population as a ratio to the general population has not increased. But-and this is very important-if we are going to keep pace in the modern world we must increase the number of young people who go on to university.
In order to do that it would require a still further expansion in the plant facilities throughout this country. The university population now stands at about 70,000, and it has been estimated that by 1966, on the present ratio of students to the rest of the population, the university population would amount to about 130,000. If we are going to keep pace with the rest of the world we have to increase that number to something in the neighbourhood of 300,000 students. This will require further construction costing around $850 million and, of course, further extensive operating costs.
When one considers the problem facing our universities, one comes to the conclusion we have to dismiss from our minds any suggestion that by granting the type of assistance outlined in this resolution or even including the increase in the per capita grant from 50 cents to $1 per capita, as outlined in the supplementary estimates the other day, we are going to meet the problem. The government has to face up to the whole problem and that problem has to be met by a comprehensive program aimed at granting assistance to education at all levels. If we do not do that, if we simply go about attacking the problem in a piecemeal fashion, we are going to find ourselves falling farther behind in the output of university graduates. In so far as the resolution does provide for the setting up of the Canada Council which will bring about many of the benefits we desire, and because there is at least an increased measure of assistance to education at the university level, the resolution certainly deserves the support of all members of the house.
Canada Council


George William McLeod: I have a few general remarks I wish to make on this resolution. It is some time since it was first introduced to the house, and I have been giving the subject considerable thought since that time. I must say that it is one of those things that the more a person thinks about it the less he thinks of it. I have read with a great deal of interest the introductory speeches, you might call them, by the leaders of the various groups. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition has taken the usual stand that the opposition is there to out liberal the Liberals. We have seen the socialists take a stand at which we are not surprised.
In dealing with this matter there are many avenues from which we could approach it. We hear quite a lot about culture. I must admit that it is something about which I know very little. If I were asked to give a definition of culture, I am sure that I would be at a loss. However, I profess to be an average Canadian with an average education. I like to read some good books and occasionally I do not mind reading one of those paperbacked novels. I enjoy a work of art. I must say that so far as modern art is concerned-I think they call it abstract or something of that nature-I do not understand it. I must admit, therefore, I am not very well steeped in culture.
However, there is one avenue from which we can approach the subject, but I am not going to devote much time to it. There were a couple of phrases which the Prime Minister used in his speech the other day and, to use a slang expression, they made me sit up and take notice. One of those phrases was "spiritual development". I would hesitate to think that we in this country are going to set up an organization that will usurp the functions of the various churches and spiritual organizations that we have. Another phrase that he used was "intellectual world brotherhood". Brotherhood, Mr. Chairman, suggests to me unity and harmony. Putting those phrases together, it would appear that we are going to try to develop harmony with the various other cultures in different parts of the world. We might say that some of these other cultures are not intellectual. Then, we say, who is to say, and what is the definition that will be given?
Are we in harmony, for instance, with the culture in Russia? If we are going to have a world brotherhood, can we eliminate part of the world or are we going to be in harmony with cultures throughout the world and in all their different phases? We can also think of the experiments in state culture. In the not too distant past we had one experiment which was spelled with a "K",

Canada Council
in a country that prided itself on culture. Yet, when the culture came under the control of the state we know that millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives were sacrificed to try to eradicate the effect of that culture from the face of the globe. However, I am not going to labour that because I have a lot of faith in the people of Canada. I believe they will not be led too far afield in their ideologies or too far from their love and respect for personal freedom.
Then, reference was made to the humanities. I tried to ascertain what the Prime Minister meant the other day by his definition of the humanities, but I am afraid I am not much wiser. However, I should like to think of it more as humanitarian. The social sciences I should like to think of as engendering policies that would promote social welfare, family unity, family associations and all those things that go to build up a better way of life for the people of our country.
We heard something about a proper climate from the speaker who just took his seat. He made a worth-while contribution in telling us that we have to have the proper climate before a thing can flourish and grow. He mentioned the Saskatchewan Arts Board, I believe it was, the chief function of which was arranging tours for the works of the artists of that province. In other words, the Saskatchewan Arts Board was making it possible for the artists of Saskatchewan to earn a livelihood. The other day the hon. member for Mackenzie was quite concerned about the number of Canadian artists who were forced to leave this land of ours and go to the south or to Europe because they were unable to earn a living in this country. I would say; if those people are unable to earn a living in this country, then why promote more artists? Why spend money in educating more artists when you have not got a climate in this country at the present time to support those artists? I am sure that we could spend our money to much better advantage than putting through our education mills a number of people in excess of those who can earn a living in this country today.
I say that the holding of a diploma from an arts school or being a qualified dancer will not make your living any less costly or keep you from suffering the pangs of hunger. You must have the dollars and cents to buy the wherewithal on which to live and you must get it from the climate or from the field which is created in the country. In other words, the people of this country, the common Joes who go to the concerts and who listen to these people, have to contribute the livelihood that these people

require and to which they are entitled. I do not deny that fact. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would say that the first duty of this government is to create in Canada a field in which artists can grow, flourish and prosper. In order to do that I think it will require three steps. We must have assistance given to our whole educational program, starting right at the very bottom. I am surprised that many of the speakers in the debate thus far have coupled with this resolution assistance to universities on a general basis. Yet I know they must know by reading the resolution, that the assistance is certainly going to be very narrow. They speak of university extension, of university bursaries, fellowships, and so on, but they do not couple with that the fact that the bursaries and the assistance the government is going to give will create more artists which the climate of this country cannot support. They also fail to take into consideration the fact that the $50 million to be given to universities is to go for extensions not for dental colleges, or colleges that will turn out trained professional men who are badly needed in medicine and iri other professions. It will not turn out engineers. It will build additions and provide equipment that will promote the furtherance of the education of those taking courses in the fine arts. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I say that the first of the three steps that we must consider is assistance to basic education. Our people must have a general education. I maintain that is the first requisite in order to give our citizens a little better appreciation of the finer things of life. This will require financial and advisory assistance and it will take all the resources this country can provide. It could start with the little red school house and follow up through all the levels of education, riot excluding the universities.
I do not want any person to misunderstand me. I am not opposed to university education. We are sadly lacking in it at the present time and we are lacking in facilities. When I speak of education in that sense I am more concerned with general education than with the narrow limits prescribed by this resolution.
I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar refer in his speech the other day to auditoriums that are so widely built in England. Anyway, I would agree with him that the finest addition to a public school building is an auditorium. I say to the committee it is rather strange that we have to go to the west to cite these examples, but the two western provinces are perhaps leading the way in providing auditoriums for our public schools. It is a good thing and I would

very much favour seeing an auditorium in every one of our schools, in the community centres at least.
I now come to step No. 2. I would say that the next important thing, or possibly just as important as a good general educational program, is a health program. I maintain, Mr. Chairman, that in order to have the field and climate in which our artists can prosper and make a living we must have a group of healthy and happy Canadians who can enjoy the work of those artists when it is made available. We look around us and we see the need for research in arthritis, for example, and the need for research in the field of cancer and the fields of heart trouble. I am not belittling what this government is doing at the present time but I think we all agree that they are not doing enough. If we stop and look sanely at this I think most of us would say that until we have reached the stage where we can say to ourselves, we are taking advantage of all the research facilities that we have or that are necessary in this country, we should not be spending the people's money in the promotion of the fine arts.
In my third step I should like to come to something else. In order to give to those artists the security and the opportunities they require, we as individuals must attend concerts. These concerts cost money. You cannot go to hear a great violinist or go to see the Winnipeg ballet, for instance, for 60 cents or 75 cents. Therefore, my third requisite is that we must have economic and financial policies in this country which will assure to our people a way of life which will provide them with sufficient money to patronize the work of those artists, to attend the concerts of those great artists and to give them the encouragement and financial support which is necessary to enable them to stay in this country.
I would stress these things, Mr. Chairman: Assistance and a program of education from the schoolhouse to the university and beyond; a health program that will satisfy all the needs of research in this country; and, lastly, economic policies which will guarantee to each one of us a way of life and an income which will enable us to spend a part of that income to assist financially those artists in earning their own living.
I maintain, as our leader said the other day, that in considering the over-all picture in this country priorities must play a very important part. The things I have mentioned, Mr. Chairman, are priorities which I maintain should be given first consideration. If we reach a stage where we are satisfied that
Canada Council
we have provided our people with these three basic needs, then, and then only, should we proceed to spend $50 million to promote artists who at the present time, by admission of the various speakers, have been forced to leave our shores for the financial support they find in other parts of the world.
I just want to say a word or two on clause (b) of the resolution. Under this clause, Mr. Chairman, $50 million will be made available for assistance to the universities. Looking at it from that point of view, a rather noble one, nothing is more needed by the universities of this country. There is not a university in Canada which is able to provide the facilities it would like to provide and which the people are demanding, not for fine arts but to further the basic education which is required by Canadians to lead them to a better way of life and higher standards of health, to prepare them to go into industrial, research and developmental fields and those areas of endeavour which will provide those things to which the people of Canada are entitled and which our great resources and the ability of our people to exploit them entitle us to enjoy. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am not against voting $50 million for our universities, but when the $50 million is to be narrowed to capital expenditures for the promotion of the fine arts then I say, in the words of our leader, that we must consider the matter of priorities.
I would say that dental colleges, engineering schools and various other schools and faculties which each hon. member of this house could mention are more entitled to consideration from this government at the present time. And yet, when we ask for these things, we are frequently told, "Oh no, we do not have the money for that; we would infringe on the rights of the provinces."
While I welcome the grant of $50 million to universities I must say I cannot see the need of putting it in the hands of a council. Why cannot it go to the national conference of Canadian universities; are they not able to spend this amount of money? Must we set up another board? I think it is ridiculous, Mr. Chairman, and if it were not such a serious matter in the minds of the people of Canada I think we should laugh the establishment of a council out of existence.
I am not going to belabour you further with my comments, Mr. Chairman, but I have simply attempted to express the idea that in order for culture to flourish, grow and achieve proper fruition we must provide the proper climate in which it can develop.

Canada Council


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, as one who has
been urging the formation of the Canada Council for some time, and asking the Prime Minister over a period of two or three years when we might expect its appearance, I am naturally very glad to see the Canada Council become a reality. I am happy, as I am sure all of us are, to see that part of the first $50 million will be used to provide scholarships to make it possible for additional students to become trained in the arts, humanities and social sciences. It seems to me, however, that four categories of people who are urgently needed in this country at this time are not going to receive any help through the Canada Council. I am wondering from where assistance is going to come to train the many additional scientists, engineers, doctors and dentists which this country is in need of now, and will be in need of in the years ahead, in order that our development will not be hampered.
One has only to read any scientific, engineering, medical or dental periodical to learn how short the country is of people in these categories of employment today. I believe that additional technicians and scientists can be trained only if additional training facilities are made available through capital grants, and only if it is made possible for more students to take these courses through scholarships. I want to ask the Prime Minister what plans the government has for making it possible for a greatly increased number of students to take courses in the various sciences, engineering, medicine and dentistry. I would also like to know if the second $50 million mentioned for the use of the proposed council will be available for use by the universities to build additional facilities for the training of scientists, engineers, doctors and dentists, or if that sum will be restricted to the building of additional facilities for training only those interested in studying the arts, humanities and social sciences. I wonder if the Prime Minister would be kind enough to answer those questions now.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, this resolution is not intended to provide for the establishment of increased facilities for a greatly increased number of students in engineering, medicine, dentistry and sciences. Under the bill that would be introduced if and when this resolution is adopted the $50 million would be for capital assistance to projects that the council would determine to be in furtherance of the general objectives of the council. That would probably be construed as relating to other than specifically engineering, medical, dental or scientific faculties. It would probably be construed as limiting the participation within

this $50 million to projects for the furtherance of the study and promotion of the humanities, the social sciences and the arts generally. That was the general instruction given to the draftsmen of the bill and I think hon. members will feel that the general instruction has been implemented, although of course in quite general language, in the bill itself.


George Harris Hees: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Prime
Minister has made quite clear the purpose of this bill and how the money will be used. I think we all agree that it is desirable to give this assistance and I do not think any of us are claiming that the proposed assistance is by any means too great to further studies in the arts, humanities and social sciences, and also to help symphony orchestras, ballet companies, art galleries and other cultural activities. I believe we would all agree that this is a good objective, but in view of the demonstrated shortage in this country today of scientists, engineers, doctors and dentists, does the Prime Minister not believe it is desirable that the government should also indicate its willingness to assist in a similar way the training of additional scientists, engineers, doctors and dentists?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Of course the making of grants for any of the development work required in the universities eases the situation for all departments. I am sure the hon. member will agree that even if one were to think principally of engineering, medicine, dentistry and scientific research, in expanding in that direction the university would also have to expand its general courses in the humanities and social sciences in order to maintain a proper balance in the curriculum and that assistance given in that special field would ease the situation generally.
I recognize the objective of the hon. gentleman's question. The national research council has not been doing exactly what is to be provided for under this bill, but it is pursuing a similar objective in the scientific field by ways that were, at the time the council was set up, felt to be appropriate. I think it will be necessary to continue and expand the encouragement given in the scientific field, including the four branches the hon. gentleman has mentioned, in order to provide adequately for the material progress which is taking place in this country.
The hon. gentleman will have noticed that the appropriations for the national research council have been steadily increasing and that they have contributed to capital investment of some universities because there were special things required to carry out the kind of research work which the national council wished them to do for the general benefit of

the Canadian economy. That will have to be continued, but that is a field where appeals to private enterprise and private industry have been much more effective than appeals for the development of the facilities for the humanities and social sciences in our universities.
I know of cases, and I am sure the hon. member does also, where pledges for the establishment of what was required in the form of buildings and equipment for engineering have been obtained readily from those who recognize that the companies for which they are responsible will not be able to prosper and develop if there is not that kind of executive ability available for them in succeeding generations. The general tenor of the Massey commission report was that that side of university work has found it much easier to develop than the side devoted strictly to the humanities and social sciences and favouring the development of the arts.
I am sure that everyone agrees the other is very important, but where there is included, for instance, in the general term "social sciences", reference to the law, that is not the law in the form in which it is taught to make a practising barrister, that is the scientific aspect of the law as the rule for proper human behaviour at large, in relations between individuals, in relations between groups of individuals and even in relations between nations or groups of nations.
The same with respect to sociology-it is not for the purpose of giving advice to one little group; it is the general theory of the best way to organize co-operative effort between human beings to produce the best results and have them widely distributed.
There is another aspect, psychology, which is assuming a recognized importance in many fields of human endeavour, particularly in the treatment of some forms of mental disturbance and of habits that are detrimental to the individual and embarrassing to society at large. I think a nation making the material progress that our nation is making at the present time owes it to itself and to the world community to be doing its part in the development of these general sciences that know no national border and that will become available to humanity at large.
Of course everything cannot be done at once. In another zone that is one of the worrisome things at the present time. Perhaps there are too many things in the way of capital investment and capital increment being attempted to be done at once, but here is something which the hon. gentleman who has just spoken will recognize as being of real value. Perhaps in his view the timing
Canada Council
is not of the best, nor is the order of priority, but I know from the attitude the hon. gentleman has manifested in the house over the years that he does not think it is too soon to bring in this resolution for the establishment of a Canada Council.
(Translation):


Mr. Leduc (Verdun):: Mr. Chairman, since the beginning of the present session several members have dealt with our educational problems from various angles and occasionally in unusual ways. In doing so, they chose to repeat in their own way the cries of alarm being raised by educationists, students and even ordinary mortals in expressions of views which are sometimes modest, sometimes unusual but always significant.
Mr. Chairman, anyone closely or even remotely interested in the things of the mind sadly but undespairingly recognizes the existence of a crisis in higher learning in this country.
All right-thinking people, and particularly the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), know that our cultural progress must be on a par with the advances we have made in the economic field.
Thus it is recognized that there is a crisis on the one hand and that, on the other hand, it is urgent to stimulate the two main cultures of Canada, the sources of its influence, its wealth and its continued well-being.
All who deal with the subject strive to outdo one another. Public opinion is aroused, pressures are exerted, influences and interventions are being felt from all sides, ink flows, tongues loosen, deeds multiply, a state of emergency is declared, there is a rush towards public powers, and, as a last resort, an appeal to the Sovereign, because private enterprise cannot do any more.
Fortunately the government of this country has long realized the seriousness of the problem. With cautious reserve and wisdom, it made known its cultural policy. While recognizing to the provinces the exclusive right to legislate in the working out of the school curriculums, in the establishment of the administrative system and school attendance, and in the provision of appropriate sanctions for the application of their legislation in the areas under their jurisdiction, the federal government, for its part, has persistently asserted its absolute right to levy indirect taxes for all purposes, and direct taxes designed to supplement the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
The consolidated revenue fund is surely not created and maintained for the purpose of hoarding public funds. On the contrary, the

Canada Council
duty of the state is to contribute to general welfare and to provide for the material, intellectual and moral needs of the nation.
So, Mr. Chairman, it was in that spirit and in the fulfilment of its primary duty that, among other substantial and traditional contributions, the federal government established the National Museum and intends to create additional ones at this very session; that it established the National Research Council through which it has helped and continues to help individuals and private institutions anxious to make scientific discoveries; that each year the departments of Agriculture, of Labour, of Fisheries and of Transports distribute grants, subsidies and scholarships for cultural purposes; that the department of National Health and Social Welfare helps to produce and improve laboratory equipment, to pay tuition fees in connection with training courses in public health or for research purposes in that same field; that grants to voluntary groups as well as scholarships for studies in Europe have been paid and that the subsidies granted to the conference of universities have been increased from $8 to $16 million.
It is still for the sake of culture and for the common good that our government submits today to the consideration of the house its resolution for the establishment in Canada of a Council of arts, humanities and social sciences provided with an endowment fund and with the money necessary for the expansion of our universities until 1967.
All this, Mr. Chairman, is a practical answer to the expressions of alarm to which I referred at the beginning of my remarks on the crisis in higher education in Canada. All this, Mr. Chairman, proves that our country, which has become an international power, does not wish to be solely an economic power but entertains the legitimate ambition, one formally recommended by the papacy, to become a spiritual power among the free nations. It is proud to do this for the good of the world and for the sake of universal peace.
In its declaration published on the 20th of November 1956 on good citizenship and Christianity, the Canadian hierarchy, dealing with the civil power and common good, stated:
Leaders responsible for political society must therefore not attempt to ensure the particular good of everyone, but to establish external and social conditions which will allow everyone to attain, through his own efforts, that degree of human perfection to which he may legitimately aspire.
Mr. Chairman, in the name of an enlightened patriotism, it is time, indeed it is urgent that a change of attitude take place in some quarters which give signs of what

I would call a baneful emotionalism, detrimental to the physical, moral and intellectual development of our student population. If it is true that the federal government has no right to control (and I do say control) education, we must recognize that, under the Canadian constitution of 1867, the federal government has the duty, and even the obligation, to take an interest in education and adequately to promote a higher level of education, of teaching, of instruction and of culture in the various provinces which make up our Canadian nation.
No one can question in good faith the power of the federal parliament to allot, as it sees fit, the general public funds. In fact, our constitutional jurists made the necessary distinction between the power to legislate and the power to spend money.
It is in the light of that essential and basic distinction that the classical colleges for young men and young women of the province of Quebec made the following submission in their brief to the Royal commission on constitutional problems:
If the various governments provided by the Canadian constitution-federal and provincial governments-are both autonomous, they are also co-ordinated in the achievement of a single objective, in that they are complementary to each other and that only the co-ordination of their activities can result in the general welfare of the Canadian people.
Mr. Chairman, how is that co-ordination of activities to be achieved when, for unavowed and unavowable purposes, provincial authorities are too often prone to complain that their autonomy is being encroached upon? After all, what is autonomy if not, as stated in the dictionary, "the freedom left to the provinces by the central power to administer their internal affairs according to their own laws"?
Now then, is there in Quebec provincial legislation prohibiting the central power from spending part of its public moneys to the benefit of universities and other institutions of cultural or scientific learning? No, Mr. Chairman, there is no such legislation. Besides, according to the constitution, it could not remain on the statute books.
On the contrary, the school code of the province of Quebec, which contains the public education act, provides in section 236 that:
236. It shall be the duty of the school boards In each municipality:
2. to acquire and hold for the corporation all movable and immovable property, moneys or income, and to apply the same for the purposes for which they are intended.
And further on, section 461 of this act provides:
461. In every municipality, all sums of money which have not been specially appropriated by provision of the donors, vendors, or others, shall form S common fund for all the schools . . .

It will be seen, Mr. Chairman, that provincial autonomy allows administrators to accept not only those moneys provided by all sources but makes it a duty for them to acquire, to possess and to use them to the ends provided.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock.
(Text):


Joseph Gérard Yves Leduc: One minute more, please.
(Translation):
Now, the parliament of Canada by its grants to universities, by the setting up of the Canada Council, by its tangible assistance to arts, humanities and social sciences, not only does not infringe upon elementary education at the primary, complementary or secondary levels, but remains well within the limits of its constitutional jurisdiction which is to have nothing to do with the establishment of curriculums nor with the administration of schools. It concerns itself only with the sphere of higher culture which is of national importance.
I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that if the cultural progress with which the government is concerned infringed in any way on provincial autonomy, I would be among those who would oppose the legislation under consideration at this time.
But that is not my view. Following the expressions of alarm to which I referred a while ago, I am aware-as are our leaders who deserve to be congratulated on their courage, broad-mindedness and sympathetic understanding of our crucial problems-that action is necessary in the field of culture and that, given co-operation, success cannot fail to crown our efforts.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
(Text):



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Donald D. Carrick (Trinity) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 14, respecting the Life Underwriters Association of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Donald D. Carrick: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to amend the act incorporating the Life Underwriters Association of Canada which was passed in 1924. The bill relates to only one matter, namely the removal of the dollar maximum value on the property that the association is entitled to hold. In the act of incorporation a maximum value of $100,000 was set.
The bill arises out of the purchase by the association in 1955 of a piece of property in Toronto at 224-226 Richmond street west.
Private Bills
The property was purchased for $85,000. Since that time there has been a considerable rise in real estate values in many areas in Toronto, particularly in this area; and there are indications that if certain large companies obtain permission to construct on University avenue, which is only one block away, there will be a still further rise.
The bill is not prejudicial or objectionable to the province of Ontario because this association, as is required of all dominion corporations, has obtained a licence in mortmain to hold the land in question. The licence obtained in this case is a specific licence so that no matter what the value of the property may be at the present time, the holding of the property is not invalidated by its exceeding the value on which the fee was based. It only means that if the value of the property goes up, the association will be obliged to pay an additional fee.
Hon. members may note that the bill is retroactive in effect. The reason for this is that it is considered desirable to cover any possibility that the value of the property at the present time exceeds the $100,000 maximum set. No one knows precisely what the value of the property is because there has been no valuation made at the present time but it was thought that it could do no harm to put in the provision which in effect made the amendment retroactive.
Hon. members will also note that in the proposed bill there is no maximum value set on the property that the association may hold. That matter was considered and I think principally for three reasons it was decided to submit to this house the provision which does not fix the maximum value. One reason was that it would provide a little bit of difficulty to know what proper maximum should be set. The association does not wish to be obliged to come back to this house and to make another application, with the expense and time involved. In addition, it was considered that there were sufficient safeguards in the act of incorporation itself to make it unnecessary to fix a maximum. The corporation is limited to holding land required for the actual use and occupation of the association or necessary or requisite for the carrying out of its objectives. It was thought that would effectively prevent the corporation from acquiring land for speculative purposes.
I should perhaps have mentioned the fact that the property in question was acquired for the use of the association itself as an office building. In recent years there have been a number of acts passed by this house in which there was no maximum limitation set on the value of the land to be held. I mention the Canadian Nurses' Association act

Private Bills
of 1947, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association act of 1948. The latest act which I have been able to find was the North American Baptists incorporation act of 1954. I believe there are other examples that might be cited. If hon. members feel that the bill is not objectionable in principle, it will be referred to the appropriate committee. At that time hon. members will have the opportunity of obtaining any additional information they may desire from Mrs. Helen Tedman who is the solicitor for the association and Mr. Leslie W. Dunstall, the executive vice president and from any others the committee may desire to hear.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the situation here as outlined by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Carrick) seems to be clear. You have a simple situation where property bought for a certain purpose a good many years ago and still proposed to be used for that purpose-a purpose of which I think we all approve-has probably appreciated in value to the point where it may infringe a provision in the original act which provided that property should not be held to a vhlue in excess of $100,000. I do not think it is necessary to labour the matter further. I think the situation has been made clear by the hon. member for Trinity. He has pointed out to us that the bill will go to a committee in any event. It looks to me like the proper place for it to go.


Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I believe this property in question is in the riding which I have the honour to represent. I am glad to hear that the association's investment in an office building in that constituency is worth more today than it was when they bought it. I see no objection to the purpose of the bill and certainly there is no objection to the purposes of the corporation itself.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is
it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



TRANS MOUNTAIN OIL PIPE LINE COMPANY

Mr. F. T. Fairey (Victoria, B.C.) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 15, respecting Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Francis Thrower Fairey: Mr. Speaker, this is an act respecting the capital structure of the Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company which was incorporated in 1951. At that time the act provided for the issue of 5 million shares

without nominal or par value which would constitute the capital stock of the company. As everybody knows, this company has been extremely successful, so much so that whereas the stock was originally issued at $10, it is now quoted on the stock exchange at something over $100. It is felt by the directors that it is most desirable to try to effect a wider distribution of the stock of the company throughout the country. It is therefore proposed to change the number of shares from 5 million shares to 25 million shares or in other words to provide for a stock split of five to one.
This bill is a simple one. If there are any questions hon. members desire to ask, I shall be glad to try to answer them. However, I am sure that this bill will be examined by the appropriate committee.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has said, this company was incorporated a few years ago. I presume that this bill amending their charter will go to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. At the moment we should like to reserve our judgment on the merits of the bill until we have heard from the officers of the company something of the story of what has been done in the intervening years. We should also like to have the opportunity to question them on this proposal to divide each share into five. For the time being we are satisfied to allow the bill to have second reading in order that it may go to the committee.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: noted very carefully, Mr. Speaker, the words of the sponsor of this bill when he described the amendment as a very simple one. I noticed also that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), I assume speaking on behalf of his group in the house, said that they were prepared to endorse the bill at this stage in order that it could be referred to a committee for further study. When we endorse a bill on second reading, I have always understood that to mean we are endorsing the principle of the bill, and the group with which I am associated, the C.C.F. group in this house, does not believe this is a very simple amendment in any way, shape or form and we are not, in any way, shape or form, prepared at this time to endorse the principle of the bill.
In order to have everything on the record, I should like to read the amendment into the record. It says:
Each of the five million shares without nominal or par value constituting the capital stock of Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company, whether such share is issued or unissued, is hereby subdivided into five shares without nominal or par value, so that henceforth the capital stock of Trans Mountain

Private Bills
Oil Pipe Line Company shall consist of twenty-five million shares without nominal or par value.
I am particularly interested in the explanatory note. I feel that for the purpose of presenting our argument we should pay rather close attention to the explanatory note that is offered. It says:
The purpose of this bill is to subdivide each of the shares without nominal or par value into five shares without nominal or par value. The reason for the proposed subdivision is that the company wishes to achieve a wide distribution of its stock among investors in Canada. At January 8, 1957, the shares of the company had a market value of approximately $115 each. This relatively high market price discourages investment by small investors.
I hope to be able to show that the explanatory note is not valid. We cannot agree that the expressed reason is the real reason for seeking permission to subdivide the shares. We are a little surprised, Mr. Speaker, when we note that this pipe line begins in Edmonton and ends in Burnaby, that the government's supporter, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode), is not the sponsor of this amendment. The company evidently saw fit to go over to the island for a sponsor. I certainly hope that before this debate is concluded the other member for Burnaby is going to rise in his place and express his opinion on this amendment.
I notice that when the company was first incorporated in 1951 the then member for Vancouver South, Mr. Laing, was the sponsor of the bill. The amendment took very little time in the other place, this time as well as last. This time I believe a matter of three or four minutes is all that was needed in the other place. However, the last time we had the hour for private and public bills in this house we came very close to being asked to endorse the principle of this very important amendment without even having an opportunity of seeing it. Had it not been for the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra's objections, that might have happened. This might be understandable if the government regards the amendment as a very simple one, but we think it is one of major importance.
The arguments this group advanced in 1951, I think, bear some attention at this time. I might say that 1951 was not the first time these arguments were advanced. An amendment moved as far back as 1949 by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) called upon this government to build public pipe lines in Canada rather than aid in the development of private pipe lines. On March 6, 1951, the C.C.F. member for Melfort, Mr. Wright, had this to say, as recorded on page 971 of Hansard for March 6, 1951:
It would seem to me, judging by the number of groups who are coming forward and asking for
charters to distribute the oil, that those people think there is a lot of money to be made in the distribution of oil in Canada. They are quite right, because experience in the United States has shown over the last number of years that the ownership of pipe lines in that country has been one of the most lucrative parts of the oil business. Tremendous profits have been made from investments in oil lines in that country.
My reason for referring to what the hon. member had to say at that time is the last sentence, that tremendous profits have been made from investments in oil lines in that country. Since Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company began operations it also has made tremendous profits, and we in this group feel that it is the tremendous earnings of the company that are the real cause of the request to parliament for permission to split these five million shares to become 25 million shares. At that time Mr. Wright moved an amendment calling for public ownership of this pipe line. The C.C.F. group and the independent member for Comox-Alberni were the only ones who rose in their places to vote for public ownership of this pipe line. All the other parties in the house voted against it.
Now, what are the events that have taken place since that time? They have really borne out the prediction of the C.C.F. in 1951 that the profits would be very handsome indeed. The events since that have shown that in its initial stages the company did lose money. In 1953 they lost $246,366; in 1954 they lost $1,038,100. However, in 1955 they made a profit of $3,086,172. If one made a careful analysis of the depreciation allowances, which in the first year were $600,000 and in the second year were $3,200,000, one is bound to wonder whether the company ever really lost any money at all.
The great earnings of the company are responsible for the rise in the value of the shares on the market. It has been a real bonanza for one company at least which, in the initial stages, bought a million dollars' worth of shares. They bought 100,000 shares at $10 each and, Mr. Speaker, before one barrel of oil flowed through this pipe line that company sold these shares for $4 million, four times the price that had been paid for the shares, and that was before the company had taken delivery of any oil whatever.
The shares today, as has been mentioned, are quoted in the neighbourhood of $115. That is a very handsome rise in a matter of a few years. If shares can go up 11 times and you multiply your capital 11 times in a few years, you might have very good reasons for approaching parliament and asking for an amendment such as is now being asked for.
I intend to offer an amendment to the bill later on. However, before I do that I should


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Erhart Regier: With respect to a gallon of crude oil they charge an import tariff of one-eighth of 1 cent per United States gallon; however, when we attempt to export refined gasoline to them the tariff is increased to 1| cents per United States gallon.


Mr. Byrne:: What is the difference in price?


Erhart Regier: The refining of more of this oil in Canada would help us offset to some degree the growing trade deficit we have with the United States. If instead of allowing this further exploitation and further profit-making by foreigners on one of our natural resources the people of Canada as a whole, through the government, owned the line we could plan the operations of the pipe line so as to develop industrial life in Canada. It could be planned to provide needed employment in Canada, which in turn would create additional purchasing power in our country. It would also help to level out our improper trade balance. The fantastic earnings that we have every reason to expect from this company would belong to the people of Canada, either through reduced prices for the finished product or in earnings from the transport of the fuel. Mr. Speaker, this oil belongs to the people of Canada.
We in this group are not opposed to having those who look for oil and who run the risks involved in bringing it to the surface receive a fair share of profit both for the

Private Bills
risks they take and tor the investment of their capital. We have never seriously objected to that, nor have we objected to those who are engaged in refining or retailing oil and its products receiving a fair and decent living, which would include a fair rate of return for their investment and risk. However, we have here a responsibility to the people of Canada when we are dealing with the exploitation of a natural resource that basically belongs to the people of Canada. This oil is their heritage. We also have a responsibility to the national economic development of this country. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron):
That Bill No. 15 be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the advisability of bringing the ownership and operation of the Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company under a public agency owned and controlled by the government of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not wish to make a definite ruling at this moment, but in fairness to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam I should point out that this bill is merely an amending bill which deals with the subdivision of shares. It is not like the bill incorporating the company in 1951. At that time the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre moved a motion declaratory of a principle different from that which emanated from the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I may have had something to do with that motion, Mr. Speaker, but I believe it was the then hon. member for Melfort, Mr. Wright, who moved it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre seconded the motion moved by Mr. Wright, the then hon. member for Melfort, whose amendment, as it appears in the Journals of 1951 at page 142, read as follows:
That this bill be not now read a second time but that further consideration thereof be deferred until this house has had an opportunity to record its opinion that consideration should be given to the construction and operation of pipe lines by a crown corporation, or by a public agency owned and controlled by the government of Canada.
That referred to a bill entitled "An Act to Incorporate Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company." This is merely an amending bill which deals exclusively with a subdivision of the shares.
Although by virtue of citation 657 it is competent for an hon. member to move an amendment to the second reading of a private bill, it would appear that the other rules relating to relevancy and principle and not going beyond the scope of a bill have to be considered.

As I say, I shall allow the amendment to stand until the bill is called again. I hope in the meantime the hon. member will be able to think of some good reasons why his amendment should be considered to be in order. At the moment I do not think it is.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to delay the house on this bill because we have been given the assurance that it will be referred to a committee, where hon. members will be able to obtain detailed information. It has always been the custom on an occasion like this that even though a bill may be given second reading and the principle agreed to, when it comes before a committee it is possible to get definite information.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has given quite a long talk on this bill and has quoted figures which no doubt he assumes are correct. However, I think it would be wrong for hon. members of this house to take everything the hon. member has said as being the actual fact. The only place we can get this information is from the company when we are in committee. I am sure everyone in this house will be as interested as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam in seeing that a fair deal is given.
It seems amazing to me that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam should be so concerned about a company making a profit. He did point out in the latter part of his remarks that the C.C.F. group were not against a company attempting to bring oil or gas to the surface and they would permit them a fair profit, but he did not say anything about a company which might have a heavy loss in attempting to do that. Would the hon. member and his party be agreeable to compensating a company for the loss it might take in its efforts to bring oil and gas to the surface?
I do not think they would. They would say, "That is a capitalist venture and it must assume that responsibility." It does seem to be a socialist principle that when a product is brought to the surface and there is an assured profit, according to the hon. member-I assume he was speaking for his party -there should be an immediate nationalization of the whole thing. He is saying that they will jump on this because it is a going concern.
It is odd that the socialist government in Saskatchewan does not follow that practice. In the development of oil and gas reserves in that province the premier has given the companies written assurances that there will be no nationalization. If the premier of Saskatchewan, who indicated on occasions

in this house that he was an avowed socialist, has not found it practical to nationalize the oil industry in that province, why should the federal group here be so anxious to nationalize everything once it is a going concern?
There are none of us in this house, and certainly I am not one, who would permit for one moment the exploitation of the public in the development of our natural resources. The fact is that the only resource in me province of Saskatchewan that has made any success is the oil, and that has not been done under socialist practices. In fact they have abandoned all their socialist practices. As I said a moment ago, there would have been no development of these resources if the premier of the province had not given assurances that there would be no socialization or nationalization of those products. It is evident that the socialist program has not been found satisfactory in the province of Saskatchewan. That industry is going to make some progress in spite of their nationalization policies.
The hon. member would lead us to believe that they are the ones who are concerned solely with their responsibilities to the people of Canada. I do not think that can be said in all fairness. Members of other parties in this house are just as concerned as they are with the development of our natural resources. As a matter of fact the one province which has lagged is the one which is under a socialist regime. Any progress that has been made has been due to the assurances of a non-nationalization policy.
The hon. member referred to the tariff regulations. If the tariff on the export of oil is as small as he indicates, why should the company be blamed? If that is so, and we can only assume it is so from the figures quoted, why should the company be penalized? That is a government responsibility, and if that is the case the government should assume its responsibility.
I am informed that this company are exporting manufactured products to the United States. My information is that their refined gasoline is being shipped to the United States to the capacity of their refining facilities. If that is the case that is certainly bringing business to Canada, something that I agree should be done to the greatest possible extent. We should develop our natural resources in this country right through to the finished product wherever possible, and then export those finished products rather than our raw material. However, there is a limit to the extent to which you can go in that regard.
With all the innuendos the hon. member has made he has not produced any facts- 82715-63
Private Bills


Alfred Claude Ellis: What facts have you?


Charles Edward Johnston: The difference between the hon. member and myself is that I am going to reserve my judgment until I know the facts. I am not going to go around blarneying when I do not know the facts. That is why I say-I hope I have been somewhat successful in convincing the C.C.F. members in this regard-we should reserve our judgment until this bill goes to committee, where we will be able to get the facts. The bill would then come back to the house, and hon. members would be in position to say what they wished to say and form their own judgments on facts rather than on suspicion and innuendo.
They do not even know what the profit has been. They are only assuming that if so much has been taken for depreciation, if so much has been taken for this or that, if the profits were such and such, then tremendous profits were made. Surely you cannot judge a business on such flimsy evidence as that. I think they would do well if they would give a little more consideration to the development of our resources rather than jumping to hasty conclusions and then having to reverse their stand later on.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has continuously indicated that I have not placed certain facts on the record. I did place a considerable number of facts on record, including the annual recorded earnings of this company and I believe by the rules of this house, the hon. member is bound to accept that until he can produce any evidence in committee to the contrary.


Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: Mr. Speaker. I have been in this house too long-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Edward Johnston: -to take for granted, or to take as fact, anything which is said by some members of this house, and my experience has been that in a case like this the proper source from which to get the facts is not from a member who stands up here and says, "If this is so, and that is so, and something else is so, we can come to a conclusion." Rather, the proper place to get these facts is in the committee, where the persons concerned know the actual position. We can then base our judgment on that.
In the light of these circumstances we are going to reserve our judgment on this bill until we get the facts in committee, and then we will be able to make a very good estimate of the situation.

Private Bills


Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in 1951 I stood in my place in this house and gave my impression of what the people of Burnaby would think of the Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company. Perhaps it was not done very well, but it was loud at the time.
What seems strange to me now is the fact that not one hon. gentleman from the C.C.F. group or from the Social Credit ranks rose in his place to support me. At that time I argued that the Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company had told this house, through the appropriate committee, that it would not sell gasoline or oil through a pipe line to the United States. I brought facts into the house which proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the pipe-line company had told a committee of this house that they would not ship oil to the United States through a pipe line. At that time I said the company had asked the board of transport commissioners to allow them to operate a 24-inch pipe line from South Sumas, British Columbia, to the border to provide oil to a refinery in Ferndale, Washington.
These facts were put on record in this house in the course of a 40-minute speech. In that speech I did the best I could, but not one hon. member, except the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) who spoke, I believe, for two minutes, supported me in that argument. Now, all of a sudden, because the company is a success in western Canada, these gentlemen rise in their might and say what should have been done years ago.


Mr. Nicholson:: I was not here then.


Tom Goode: You should not be here now. On top of that, the hon. gentleman from Burnaby-Coquitlam expecting he could take political advantage from my absence, mentioned in his speech that I was not sitting in my place-


Erhart Regier: No, I did not. Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege may I say that I did not indicate in any manner that the hon. member was absent from the house. He himself has placed that on the record.


Tom Goode: Then, Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member. I was informed by an hon. member that he had said that.


Erhart Regier: You are misinformed.


Tom Goode: I have apologized, and I hope the hon. gentleman will accept the apology.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Tom Goode: I was informed that that was what the hon. gentleman had said. But, Mr. Speaker, after this speech was made in the

house, and after these years have passed during which oil has gone from the oil fields of Alberta to Washington to provide employment for United States citizens- employment that should have gone to British Columbia-all of a sudden these gentlemen in the opposition take the view that everything regarding Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, they should have risen at that time and supported me in the argument I put forward. It was a good argument; it was placed on record here, and the facts were straight. Now, all of a sudden, we are going to decide, it seems, in a debate of this kind that the C.C.F. are right and that the gentlemen on this side are wrong. In my view there is only one way in which to find out the facts of this case. I do not know whether I am going along with this bill or not, but there is one place to find out the facts, and that is in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I reserve my judgment on this bill until I have sat on that committee.


Carl Olof Nickle: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to what has been said, particularly to the words of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. May I say that I admire his efforts, because very rarely have I heard so well presented such a combination of a little fact, a fair amount of fiction and a good deal of drivel.
My party, Mr. Speaker, has already expressed its views with regard to this pipe line-


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.
Other hon. Members: It is not six o'clock.


Carl Olof Nickle: I would like to devote such time as the house will permit to commenting specifically on some of the points which were raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. As to the immense profits from the pipe line which he refers to-and I am not a shareholder in this company-I would say this. It did operate at a loss for two years, and it made a profit in the third. The company made a loss on the first years of operation because it could not move enough oil to a large enough number of customers. In the third year it made a profit because, in the interim, a number of the shareholders discovered more oil fields in Alberta from which to provide a product which could be marketed, and two other shareholders decided to go into the refining business in the Pacific northwestern states. Other shareholders decided to embark on a modernization and refinery expansion program that, in five years, has more than doubled the refining

capacity of British Columbia. This is a program which has made your own province- and I address the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam

self-sufficient in petroleum, and has more than doubled the employment and revenue attributable to this industry. The same is true south of the border, yes, but it was mentioned that this pipe line-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I was going by another clock, because there are two clocks which are not in accordance with the one in the centre of the chamber. The Clerk's watch is always right, so the time is now six o'clock. Shall the house revert to the business it was conducting before five o'clock?



CANADA COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East)-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the establishment of a Canada Council for the encouragement of the arts, humanities and social sciences and further to provide inter alia that
(a)	the Minister of Finance may, out of the consolidated revenue fund, pay to the council the sum of fifty million dollars to constitute an endowment fund for the purposes of the act, and
(b)	the council shall establish a fund to be called the university capital grants fund, to which shall be credited the sum of fifty million dollars, to be paid to the council by the Minister of Finance out of the consolidated revenue fund.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon the Prime Minister explained the thinking behind the setting up of this fund. There was one point that I wish he would clarify to some degree. He said there would be this $50 million put into what is known as the endowment fund for the council, and another $50 million put into the university capital grants fund, both funds to be administered by the council. Then he went on to say that he hoped private individuals would contribute during their lifetime or leave money to these funds. He did not make it clear whether he had in mind that this would apply to the two funds on the same basis, or whether it was only for the endowment fund for the use of the council as distinguished from the university capital grants fund. I wish he would clear up that point and one other.
82715-63J
Canada Council
As I pointed out this afternoon, there has been some criticism because there is not an annual grant. In order to get around that problem, would it not be possible to have some sum put into the estimates each year, even though it were a comparatively small sum, and shown as a grant to the council? That would enable parliament to keep in touch with what the council is doing, and to make suggestions. I think it also would be more nearly in line with proper parliamentary government than is the present plan, which is exclusively one of setting aside a sum, a procedure which takes parliament right out of the picture unless the council should come back for further capital funds. I should like to have the Prime Minister's reaction to a suggestion of that kind.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the first question may I say this. The bill will provide that the council may receive donations or legacies; and if it accepts them, it will be bound to comply with the terms set out by the donor or testator as to the use that should be made of those funds. What place the donations or legacies will occupy will depend upon their terms. Of course, if it were a donation or a legacy to do something foreign to the objectives of the council I assume the council would decline to take the responsibility of administering the amount involved. However, it will be bound to comply with the terms fixed by the donor or testator in respect of the amount comprised in the donation or legacy.


Howard Charles Green: Suppose a testator merely leaves $500,000 or $1 million to the council. Would that money be divided equally between those two funds?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No. I
assume the council would treat anything it received in general terms as something to be added to its endowment fund.


Howard Charles Green: And not to the university capital grants fund?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: And not to
the capital grants fund for assistance during the period of 10 years in the provision of capital improvements to the university plant, if I may use that kind of a word in connection with a university campus and the establishment.
The bill will also provide that these accounts are to be audited by the Auditor General, and he is required to submit a report of his audit to the council and to give a copy to the minister designated by the governor in council as the minister who will report to parliament on the activities of the

Canada Council
council. It will, of course, be within the power of parliament to make any supplementary additions that may afterwards be found to be in the public interest to the funds placed at the disposal of the council; and it will always be possible-as is done, for example, in connection with the reports of the railways or other transportation companies-to ask to have the reports referred to one of the standing committees of the house or to a special committee set up for that purpose.


Howard Charles Green: It is extremely unlikely, though, is it not?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@Quebec East: It may seem to be unlikely, but I would not want to predict that the situation in Canada will not develop so rapidly that there will be a feeling among the public that something additional should be done. When dealing with the university grants, that will be an annual item in the estimates, or at least I hope it will be an annual item in the estimates. I am sure there will be references to this audit of accounts of the Canada Council which is to be tabled within 15 days of its reception or, if it is received when parliament is not in session, within 15 days after the opening of the session.
I think a proper balance has to be maintained between the very proper concern parliament will have about the activities of this Canada Council and the degree of freedom in administration that I think is desirable in order to get people to serve. There will be no pecuniary remuneration for the services rendered other than to the chairman, the vice chairman, the director and the assistant director. The others will receive merely their travelling expenses in attending the meetings. It will be a service that I think the Canadians who will be invited by the government to form part of the council will feel is of real value to their fellow citizens, and of such a character that it will be a tribute to them to be invited to perform it. I think the activities of the council will be activities of value and concern to the Canadian population generally, and that those who will be invited to perform this service will feel that way about it.
I want to renew the assurance that the selection of those who will serve will be made without any consideration being given to party political affiliations. I want to assure the house that I will do my best to see that we get the kind of council that will have real prestige with the Canadian public, and will provide a very convenient channel for those who feel they will want to make some substantial contribution to the furtherance of the objectives for which the council is

created. I would hope to see this endowment grow, and perhaps in the first years I would hope some would feel that, instead of adding to the permanent endowment, they should add to the income of the endowment for expenditure in the current year or years.
I am sure we all feel there could be used to the real and lasting advantage of the Canadian nation more than the income the $50 million endowment will provide. There are a great many public spirited citizens of Canada who, I think, share the views to which I am giving imperfect expression, and who feel that there is the need for attention being given to that phase of Canadian development. We know that at the present time the prestige of Canada throughout the world stands at a high level because no one has any misgivings about our ambitions or about the possibility of our wishing to exercise undue influence over others.
I think the development that will be brought about by stimulating this phase of Canadian activities will not fail to add to the prestige of Canada. I am not speaking of the prestige of Canada because of any pride or anything of that kind, but I think the prestige of Canada is something that is useful in the political atmosphere of the whole world, because it so happens that in no part of the world are there misgivings about the ambitions of Canada as a nation.


Howard Charles Green: The feature of the plan which worries me is the fact that parliament is to have no control over these activities for a period of some years. The Prime Minister has just said that when the grants to universities are under consideration he hopes there will be a discussion of the work of the Canada Council, but I point out to him that the ordinary yearly grants to universities have nothing to do with the Canada Council. They are made direct to the national conference of universities, and I feel we would find we would be out of order in discussing the activities of the Canada Council under that vote.
Once more I suggest to the Prime Minister that the problem could be met by having a vote, even though it is a small vote, brought in each year in the estimates. This would make it possible to have a discussion of this matter. The Prime Minister seems to be afraid that the appointees to this council will not wish to accept appointments if parliament is to review every year what they do. I believe their reaction will be just the opposite. They will like to have their work made known in parliament and made known across the country as the result of discussion here.

After all, there is no reason why they should be above having their work discussed in parliament. The Prime Minister will, I feel, admit that in the case of all boards or bodies of this kind, their work is reviewed in parliament each year in a very sympathetic and understanding way. I feel confident that men of the calibre who will serve on this council will be only too glad to have their work reviewed here every year and to get suggestions from the members of the house. I hope the government will give consideration to some plan of that kind, which will make it possible to have a discussion every year on the floor of this house concerning the activities of this council.


John George Diefenbaker: I have listened to the explanation of the Prime Minister concerning the reason the present system of endowment is being set up rather than provision for an annual budget being presented to parliament. Frankly, I am not impressed with the reasons given by the Prime Minister. They seem to lack cogency and force, and they are certainly not based on the experience Britain has had in connection with a similar body.
As the Prime Minister mentioned the other day, Britain set up an arts council. It was established in 1946 by royal charter, and consists of not more than 16 honorary members appointed by the chancellor of the exchequer in consultation with the minister of education and the secretary of state for Scotland. Its main duties are to increase the accessibility of fine arts to the public; to improve the standards in the fine arts, and to advise and co-operate with government departments and other organizations in any way connected directly or indirectly with these projects. There is an amount annually voted to the British council by parliament. It amounts, at the present time, to some $2.5 million a year, and is determined afresh every year. The council presents to the chancellor itemized accounts of the subsidies believed necessary to maintain the organizations and carry into effect the responsibilities of the council.
When the Massey commission made its report, above everything else it demanded, in effect, that parliament should not be circumvented by setting up an organization which would have no direct responsibility to parliament. At page 377, without quoting again this part in its entirety, the report says:
We should also consider it a misfortune if this Canada council became in any sense a department of government, 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.
Canada Council
Then a little later on, at page 382, it says 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 . . .
I cannot appreciate the explanation given by the Prime Minister. It looks very much as if the government finds itself more or less embarrassed by the size of the surplus it has this year, and is taking this means of disposing of it to the extent of $50 million.
In so far as this council is concerned, I can see no reason why parliament should be denied, as it will be denied, control year by year over the expenditure, and any say whatsoever over the conduct of the council in the discharge of its responsibilities. Certainly our experience in recent years in the setting up of crown corporations and the like has been that more and more of those crown corporations become independent of parliament and make but a perfunctory report either through the instrumentality of the examination by the Auditor General or in the form of an annual report.
The result is that parliament more and more ceases to have the power and authority to examine the expenditures of money advanced by the people of Canada. Certainly the trend that has been so apparent in recent years toward circumventing parliamentary control by the setting up of governmental bodies ostensibly responsible to the government and to parliament, but in effect not responsible to parliament, must have been in the minds of the Massey commission. After extensive consideration that commission recommended that this council should be required by annual grants to owe a responsibility to parliament.
I can see nothing in the arguments advanced by the Prime Minister that in any way detracts from, or lessens the need, of parliament having an overriding control by examination and consideration of the estimates year by year. I certainly am in favour of the setting up of this council. It is needed. The work it will do is necessary for Canada and its prestige; but there is no need, however beneficial the organization may be and will be, to set aside parliamentary control. This is but another example of the accelerating rate at which parliament more and more becomes less and less important as organizations are set up that become little governments unto themselves.
I ask the Prime Minister to give reconsideration to this. The Massey commission

Canada Council
considered it at length. Five years have gone by without action. Now when action is taken one of the major recommendations of that commission is being ignored. Why should the government in its wisdom that parliamentary control, indirect as well as direct, will be restored by the simple expedient of requiring the council each year to place before the house and the country a statement of its stewardship and its requirements for the ensuing year. Certainly the fortuitous circumstance of the death of very wealthy men is no answer. Parliament of its own volition should not cancel out its duty of making careful examination of moneys voted by parliament to assure that they are satisfactorily expended and are subject to the examination of the people's representatives.


Mr. St. Laurent (Cuebec East):: On reflection I do not think the hon. gentleman will consider that his first remark, that this was probably done because the government felt that it was going to be embarrassed with a surplus-


John George Diefenbaker: You waited for five years.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -and had
to tuck it away somewhere, was fair. I do not think it is worthy of the discussion on this Canada Council.


John George Diefenbaker: Why did you wait five years?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We waited five years because we did not think the time was appropriate to find the kind of a body that would respond to the desires of the public, and five years ago there was not the general realization that there is today of the utility and permanent value to the Canadian nation of the work that will be done by this council.
Good things are not always recognized as good things by everybody at the same time. It takes some time for public opinion to bring itself to realize that and to support them. I would imagine that there would now be almost universal support for the council. We have heard some criticism in this house; but there will be the same percentage of support for this council among the Canadian public, whether that part of the public calls itself Liberal, Progressive Conservative or C.C.F. It may not be so with the other group, if we are to judge by the opinions we have heard expressed here; but this is something to be regarded not as a political question in the ordinary sense. It is going to be regarded as something that parliament generally, in its appreciation of the circumstances of the day, looks upon as a wise step to take at this period of our development.

Why should there be this endowment instead of the requirement of having an annual vote recommended? The hon. gentleman must remember that no vote can be considered by parliament unless it is first recommended to parliament by the government. Personally I did not feel that the members of this council should be in the position where the government of the day-whether it be this government or a government formed by my hon. friend, if that ever happens, or formed by some other group in the house- would be able to say, "Well, now, this is the situation. You get nothing unless our views are met".
We will give careful consideration to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra; and if it becomes necessary, in order that there may be a discussion every year of the activities of the council, to do as the hon. gentleman has said, have a small vote that will make it a proper subject for discussion. I think it will be a good thing for the council and a good thing for Canada that the interest of the public be maintained in the activities of the council by having a discussion in this forum. I would be surprised, though, if even in discussing the university grants hon. gentlemen did not find, with their usual ingenuity, that it was possible to make what was taking place in the whole university world in Canada a part of the discussion.


Howard Charles Green: Some of this money is not being spent in universities.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: 
Stanley Howard Knowles: What about secretarial expenses and that sort of thing; might not some vote for that purpose be necessary?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The bill provides, of course, that their administrative expenses are taken out of their own funds, but there could be something of that kind. There are a dozen ways in which some special vote could be provided if it is found that it is required in order to make it proper that there be a discussion of their activities as disclosed by their own report and by the report of the Auditor General.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, according to the discussion which has taken place in the committee the resolution before us appears to be generally acceptable, but that does not mean to say it should pass without full examination which will perhaps bring out other facets of the subject under discussion.
The resolution of the Prime Minister to establish a Canada Council for the encouragement of the arts, humanities and social sciences appears to embrace a considerable amount of territory. I am not convinced that
Canada Council
the people of Canada as a whole are too well informed about what it all means. I think perhaps the people as a whole understand the phraseology used respecting the arts.
I believe it would be correct to say that nearly everyone understands that the arts include such things as literature, painting, music, the opera, the ballet and other cultural activities. When it comes to the terminology "social sciences," I am not sure that the general public readily understands what is meant by that term. If one has had anything to do with education, with public school life, high school life or university life, one would perhaps readily recognize what is meant by the social sciences.
I have one or two comments to make with respect to the social sciences that are taught under what is known as the system of progressive education. I hold in my hand a book which was given to me entitled "Education or Indoctrination" by Mary L. Allen. The story was written as the result of considerable discussion that took place in the city of Pasadena, California, concerning their local educational activities; and the book itself, of course, lays the foundation for the story. It appears that the people of the city of Pasadena became so incensed at the inroads socialist thought was making into their educational system that they made an issue of it, the result of which was that many educationists had to resign their posts. I may say something about that a little later.
In reading this book through I came to a very pertinent paragraph in respect to what are termed the social sciences, generally speaking. The paragraph appears at page 24 and reads:
In 1940 Dr. Ralph Robey made an examination of 600 social science textbooks in high schools. He declared, "A substantial portion of the social science textbooks now used in high schools tend to criticize our form of government and hold in derision or contempt the system of private enterprise. . . . There is a notable tendency in the books to play down what has been accomplished in this country and to stress the defects of our democracy.
In that paragraph lies a great story. I agree with that definition, for I personally have read some of the social science textbooks which my children have brought home from high school and public school, though in the public schools the subject is much more simplified. It is a subtle sort of thing; it is something that is difficult to combat. Nevertheless in principle that paragraph gives the explanation of what I would call the damage that can be done by a type of socialist thinking that is beginning to permeate our educational institutions.
So much for the arts and so much for the social sciences. How about the humanities?

Canada Council
I doubt very much whether there is one person in a thousand in Canada who can define what that means. In fact when the Prime Minister was introducing his resolution the other day and referred to the humanities the leader of this group asked him just what he meant by the humanities. The Prime Minister replied, and I quote from page 398 of Hansard of January 18, as follows:
What I refer to is the study and, I hope as a result of the study, the acquired knowledge of the treasures that have been provided by the experience, studies and philosophies of past generations. When I say "past generations" I mean the generations that have succeeded each other for many thousands of years in the world. I mean that general knowledge of proper human behaviour that results from the accumulated experience of mankind since history has commenced to be written and not those special things that prepare for the exercise of a special avocation or profession. I mean the general broadening and training of the human mind so that the human individual whose mind it is may have as great benefit as one can derive from the accumulation of lore and knowledge over the centuries.
That is quite a definition, but I doubt if one in a thousand could decipher it. In fact, in giving that definition the Prime Minister had to repeat three times the words "I mean". I am going to suggest what he meant, and I am not putting words into the Prime Minister's mouth. I can puzzle my way through the definition and perhaps understand it. The Prime Minister is a very able gentleman; no one will doubt that. I will tell you what I think it means. It means rewriting history.


An hon. Member:: No.


Ernest George Hansell: I will tell you before I get through why I say that is what it means. What is the historical background of this proposal for a Canada Council? I ask that question and I am going to attempt to answer it myself. It goes back to the bringing into existence of the United Nations at San Francisco in 1954,-I mean, 1945.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member has not even read history.


An hon. Member:: Rewriting history.


Ernest George Hansell: I can wait just as long as I am being interrupted. I do not care how long it takes me, I am going to say what I have to say. When the charter of the United Nations was adopted certain specialized agencies were set up. These agencies have played their parts throughout the years and have done some considerable and good work. One of the specialized agencies was UNESCO. What has it been doing? What has it attempted to do? I turn now to the report of the Massey commission, and I read at page 246 what is said to be the objective of 
UNESCO. It is most admirable. I quote from the report as follows:
UNESCO has as its objective a peaceful world, to be made a reality by peaceful means.
I must say that is commendable, and I think all will agree. But let us look a little further down on the same page of this report, where it refers to UNESCO again and says:
The enthusiasm of its promoters, convinced that "wars begin in the minds of men", took the minds of men as UNESCO's area of activity.
I want hon. members to notice that. In the first place UNESCO had as promoters men who laid down as a fact, which I claim is not necessarily a fact, that wars begin in the minds of men. The report says that on the basis of that bit of philosophy UNESCO took the minds of men as its area of activity. That is most important. When the Prime Minister introduced this resolution we listened carefully to what he had to say, but it is rather significant that in his speech he made no mention whatever of UNESCO. It was not until the hon. member for Saskatoon attempted to elicit from the Prime Minister the relationship between UNESCO and the Canada Council that the Prime Minister broke his silence on that particular point. Let me read what the leader of the Social Credit group said in his reply, and I quote from page 409 of Hansard of January 18, as follows:
May X suggest that the original purpose for which UNESCO was set up was, perhaps, praiseworthy, and its objectives were praiseworthy, but I am going to say to you that men and women of dishonesty of purpose got hold of it, and they have made use of it as an instrument of subversion and brainwashing.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if there is any evidence to prove a statement of that kind. I think there is. I think there is plenty of evidence that UNESCO is the instrument used by intellectual socialists in their planning to indoctrinate the minds of men in order that they may expedite what they visualize as a new world socialistic order. I am as convinced of that as I am of anything I can be convinced of, and that is why our good neighbours to the south have had considerable trouble in their educational system respecting this very matter.
I have an article here which I cut out of the Christian Science Monitor some while back, in which the writer gives the story of an upheaval which took place in the state of Texas because the UNESCO program was beginning to infiltrate the school curricula of that state. And, I may say, the writer of that article was complimented later in a letter written to the Christian Science Monitor by a judge who had examined the whole story very closely. This is something that

happened in the city of Dallas. What does this article say? I will quote only a little of it:
Meanwhile, the Dallas school board, taking cognizance of the increasing attacks on textbooks, has urged that specific books be identified. The board has assured Dallas parents that if they consider any textbook subversive, the board will make a thorough investigation. . . .
In Houston, the dispute over school curriculums played a big part in the school board election last November 4. An anti-UNESCO group, the Houston committee for sound American education, put up four candidates. Its platform was committed to "save the schools from socialism".
The committee was made up of business and professional men, minute women, and others. It circulated literature charging that "there is a conspiracy spreading throughout .	.	. the United
States which bodes evil to your child" and that "this conspiracy bears all the evidence of capturing the child's mind by indoctrinating him with ideals foreign to the American way of life."
The windows of offices were placarded with a message which read: "Citizens of Houston, save your schools from the dangerous influence of UNESCO".
And note this, Mr. Chairman:
Two of the committee's candidates were elected to the school board. One of them unseated a member who had served for 22 years.
I could read a good deal more from that article, Mr. Chairman. Not only were the citizens of the state of Texas incensed by the inroads that UNESCO influence was making into their educational system, but the cities of Pasadena and Los Angeles became so outraged that they got the state legislature of California to set up a special committee to investigate the sort of thing that was going on in their schools.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let me read you one or two more things in connection with this. I may say that the committee of the California state legislature which was chosen to investigate this matter published several reports. The eleventh report of the California committee on education contains some 200 pages of rather revealing material.


The Chairman:: Order. I am extremely sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I have been following him quite carefully. I understood him to say that he intended to trace the history of the Canada Council, but I am afraid that for the past several minutes he has been dealing almost entirely with UNESCO which, of course, is strictly irrelevant to this resolution, and I would be much obliged if the hon. gentleman would co-operate by dealing with the resolution which is before the committee at this time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He is down in California now.


Mr. Harkness:: I thought he was talking about the pyramids.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.
Canada Council


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I was attempting to trace the history of the Canada Council by taking it back to the United Nations.
The United Nations, you will recall, established several agencies, one of which was UNESCO. I then went forward and said that UNESCO had been attempting to establish certain commissions and agencies in various member nations; and this Canada Council is the body that is to be established in Canada to help to promote the UNESCO program as far as Canada is concerned.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Ernest George Hansell: You may shake your heads,
but it is in the Massey report, and the answer the Prime Minister gave is exactly that.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It's in the book.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Ernest George Hansell: We are not going to conclude this debate, Mr. Chairman, I don't care what happens, without having all the cards put on the table. I am just attempting to put a few of them on, and put them on face up.


Hazen Robert Argue: Another witch hunt.


Ernest George Hansell: A witch hunt? The hon. member for Saskatoon said the other day that no one wants to be looking under every bed to see whether there is a communist there. No. That is all right. But it would appear to be perfectly all right to look under the bed if you can find a capitalist there. That is what my socialist friend back there was doing this afternoon when he was talking on another bill; he did not know much about the bill, but he saw something there. It is popular, you see, to look under the bed if you can find a capitalist there-


Lester Bowles Pearson: They would own the bed.
They would not be under it.


Ernest George Hansell: -but it is a witch hunt if
you look under the bed to find a communist. I am not impressed one bit with that kind of remark. As a matter of fact, I would rather look under the bed and find there is no communist there than refuse to look under the bed, close my eyes to what' might be there, and then find there is a communist there.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What would the hon. gentleman do if he found the usual thing under the bed?


Ernest George Hansell: I will tell the hon. member
for Kamloops what I would do if I found the usual thing there. I would simply pour it on him.


An hon. Member:: For shame.

Canada Council


Edmund Davie Fulton: That would not be much
different from the usual line you produce.


Ernest George Hansell: Now, Mr. Chairman, to get
back to this question of UNESCO, I say to you that it is an evil thing.
I hold in my hand a copy of the American Mercury for February, 1954, in which there is an article by Mr. Harold Lord Varney. In it he goes into the history of UNESCO and also comments on some of its literature.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Who is the author?


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Harold Lord Varney.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Who is he?


John Horne Blackmore: Go and find out.


Ernest George Hansell: He states:
One particular target of UNESCO has been the youngest age group of children. As pointed out in the UNESCO teacher-training booklet, "In the Classroom with Children under 13 Years of Age": "These earlier years may be indispensable to the education of children for world citizenship . . . UNESCO points out that-
And he quotes again.
-"the narrow family spirit of the parents may, in fact, not only compromise indirectly, and in some degree, unconsciously, the eventual integration of the child in the human community, but it may also cultivate attitudes running directly counter to the development of international understanding."
Mr. Chairman, on that point the committee set up by the state legislature of California, in handing down their eleventh report, cites another excerpt from a United Nations publication. This is the citation:
"As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness can produce only precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The school should therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes that favour jingoism."
I suppose by jingoism they mean the patriotism that one has toward one's country. Mr. Chairman, the whole idea behind this is so to mould men's minds as to create a mass thinking as though it were the thinking of one man-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Twenty-five dollars a month.


Ernest George Hansell: -and by doing that sort of thing, do away with individual thinking. To my mind, to do away with individual thinking and to try to stereotype the minds of men is one of the most insidious types of brainwashing we can have.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Twenty-five dollars a month.


Alfred Claude Ellis: That is what the Social Crediters are trying all the time.


An hon. Member:: You are doing fairly well yourself.


Ernest George Hansell: It is the difference between having individual thinking which has produced some of the greatest men and ideas of the ages, and having the minds of men conform to one idea, the idea rather of a world government where individual thinking can never be permitted, where an individual may never be permitted to think his way through to any new idea whatsoever.
My time is fairly well gone, Mr. Chairman. I shall have something more to say at a later time. Here we are asked to approve the spending of $100 million of the taxpayers' money on a Canada Council. It is a doublebarrelled resolution. One part of it sets up the council and gives it $50 million. The other part of it hands over $50 million for it to distribute to universities.
I am in full agreement with the speech made by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke this afternoon, in which he said we are in favour of the one but not of the other. We have always favoured aid to universities. The other day we voted nearly $8 million in a supplementary estimate for aid to universities. To a man this group voted for it. We are all in favour of that. But as far as I am personally concerned-I have not talked with my colleagues-I cannot vote for the setting up of this Canada Council and for handing over to it $100 million. I cannot do that when I have old age pensioners in my own constituency who are on the starvation list. I could not go back and face some of those people who have asked me to handle their applications if I now turned around and voted for the expenditure of $100 million for this Canada Council.
I will close, Mr. Chairman, by making this suggestion to the Prime Minister. I know, of course, that it will not be acceptable. I doubt greatly whether the people of Canada want $100 million of their money spent on this thing. We are to have an election this coming spring. All right. In all probability the bill will be passed before the election. I will challenge the Prime Minister to include in that election a plebiscite so that people may vote and say whether or not they want $100 million of their money spent on this Canada Council. It is ail right to talk here, to interject and to waste time. If a plebiscite were included in the election we could go through this country, and we would surely slay somebody if we went through it with the evidence we have concerning what is going on in the world and what the big idea is behind this whole socialist trend.
I will challenge the Prime Minister to do that. This thing has never been submitted to the people. Tonight the Prime Minister

said, "We want to get the reaction of the people" and "It seems to be very well received." You haven't talked with 15 million people and cannot say it has been well received just because there are a few people who might say so, and just because certain authorities might agree with it.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am sorry to be obliged to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I must inform him that his time expired about three minutes ago.


Ernest George Hansell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that consideration.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to go back to the needs of the student. I take it that this Canada Council is to make it possible for more students to go through university. It is a great experience for a young man to have the opportunity of go'n through university, because it broadens and deepens him and he meets many of the brightest minds in the country.
I am not going to say much on this matter. However, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. College fees have doubled and redoubled. I used to be able to earn my college fees in six weeks in the summertime. What do we find today? We find that the increase in those fees is such that a medical student will have to pay in the neighbourhood of $1,000 yearly. My question of the Prime Minister is, will this Canada Council help out with the fees?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, Mr. Chairman, the bill will provide that the endowment will be permanent, and that the income only can be used for the objectives of the council. One of those objectives is scholarships, without there being any limitation put upon that word. I would not expect that, at the start, the council would find that, in the income from this endowment, it had sufficient money to provide undergraduate scholarships.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Thank you; that is good news.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A few minutes ago the Prime Minister stated that those serving on the council would serve in an honorary capacity. May I ask him if that applies to the chairman and vice chairman of the council?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I stated at the time that the chairman, vice chairman, director and assistant director would receive remuneration, but that the others would be serving in an honorary capacity.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask if the chairman and vice chairman will be serving full time or part time?
82715-64i
Canada Council


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: At the start the director and assistant director will be serving in a full-time capacity, and the chairman and vice chairman in a part-time capacity only.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I take it from that statement that in that respect there has been another departure from the recommendations of the Massey commission.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There has been a departure, yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the reason that justifies the departure?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@Quebec Easi: It was felt that the council would be set up with a parttime chairman and part-time vice chairman, and that experience would demonstrate whether or not it was necessary for its proper functioning that the chairman and vice chairman be full-time administrators. It is not expected that at first there will be the amount of work to be done that would justify having four full-time officials.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is one other point in connection with the matter of the chairmanship and vice chairmanship. We remember that when the Prime Minister made his opening statement on January 18, at page 397 of Hansard, he said:
It will be our endeavour to compose the council of such persons as will give that confidence to the Canadian public generally, and I can assure the house that there will be no considerations of partisan politics that will influence us in the choice of those who will make up the council.
I am quite sure those sentiments are shared by all members of the house, because there is nothing that -could more completely or more swiftly subvert or pervert the whole purpose of such a council than to have appointments made to serve partisan purposes.
There was a question raised by the Leader of the Opposition that same day, when he referred to rumours that were current that a very honourable gentleman who had held a portfolio in the government was being mentioned as a likely incumbent of the chairmanship. The Prime Minister did not deal with the point in making some comment on the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition on that date. Could he make some comment on that subject now?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The comment I would make is that my idea of making appointments irrespective of political partisanship does not mean that anyone who has belonged to the party of the government should be excluded.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is that to be taken as confirmation of the rumours?
10G4

Canada Council


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, but it
is to be taken as a denial of the suggestion that this government cannot make nonpolitical appointments unless it chooses persons who have been obviously members of other parties than its own.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is a different kind of note the Prime Minister has introduced now. No one was saying that such an appointment to be non-partisan, so far as the government is concerned, must be a selection from some other political party. One was just testing what the Prime Minister meant in stressing the importance of making selections on such a basis that not only will partisan considerations not enter into the appointments, but I trust that the appointments will be made on such a basis that there will be no suspicion of partisanship in the making of such selections.
I take it we are all agreed that nothing would be more harmful to the Canada Council than to have any such suspicions in relation to the selection of those who discharge the important functions of chairman and vice chairman. There is nothing personal in this as regards the hon. gentleman whose name was mentioned in the press. His name has not been put on the record here for that reason. I take it that he is regarded by practically all members of this house as a personal friend; but I think we are entitled to know, now that the point has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to what has been freely discussed in the press, whether there is any truth, to the knowledge of the Prime Minister, in these stories that were widely current in the press?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not
going to undertake at this time to tell the members of the house what recommendations I propose to make to my colleagues as to appointments on the council. Unfortunately it is a fact that no matter how careful we may try to be there are some who still suspect the honesty of our intentions; that is unfortunate, but it is something that is inevitable. I can give the hon. gentleman the assurance that no one will be appointed because of his connections with the Liberal party or because of his connections with any other political party, but purely upon the best appraisal we can make as to his fitness or unfitness to occupy that kind of position.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Prime Minister mentioned earlier that the appointment will not be on a full-time basis, at least in the early stages. Has the government arrived at any estimate as to what proportion of his time the chairman will be required to give to his duties in the early stages? It seems to be the 
thought of the Prime Minister-at least so I gather from what he has said-that in the early stages the burdens that will be cast upon the chairman are not likely to be as onerous as they might be later.
I wonder if that is a sound view, and if there is not going to be a great deal of work to be done in the early stages in setting up this council and launching it on its tasks, so much so that the burdens in the early days may be even heavier than they will be later when the council is well launched on its way.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It may well be that for the first few weeks there will be quite a lot of time required, while the council, with the assistance of the investment committee, will be determining what investments should be made of the endowment. I expect that those who will have the responsibility of making the investments, when there will not be the usual restrictions that are placed upon trust companies, will want to give the matter very careful consideration and will endeavour to spread the investments over a pretty wide field so that anything happening in one field will not have the result of a jolt against someone who is carrying all his eggs in one basket. This will probably be quite a serious job that might take quite a lot of time until the investments have been made.
As to the amount to be treated as university grants, that will be only in security funds or securities guaranteed by the government of Canada.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I and my colleagues in this group are pleased that at long last the government has decided to take some action to establish the Canada Council. I am a little bit surprised that the chairman has allowed the debate to range as widely as it has. We have had debates under this resolution on federal aid for all sorts of things in the field of education, many of which have had very little to do with the resolution which is now before the committee. This resolution certainly has very little indeed to do with the subject of federal aid for education, or even federal grants to universities in the field of education.
I was, therefore, very pleased to hear the answer the Prime Minister gave to the hon. member for Fort William. When the hon. member for Fort William rose in his place he seemed to indicate that the resolution had something to do with reducing the fees that ordinary university students would be paying. The resolution has nothing whatsoever to do with that, and I was very pleased to hear the Prime Minister so inform the hon. member for Fort William.
However, we welcome the resolution. For many years now the people of this new

nation of ours, the people of Canada, have learned how to earn a living, and I think we have done remarkably well at that. At least, in relation to other peoples of the world, we certainly know how to earn a living. Now we have decided at long last to spend a little bit of money on learning how to live. We have the book which I am sure we all read which says that man does not live by bread alone.
All of us have met many immigrants in recent years, and those immigrants are the first to admit that the people in Canada certainly know how to earn a living. However, in relation to the peoples of western Europe, at least the peoples of the Mediterranean area, the Canadian people have yet to learn the art of living. We have one major conflict of two ideologies in the world today, the ideology of the communist world and the ideology of the capitalist world, both of which have their basis in materialism. To the philosopher there is very little difference basically between the two. The worship of the dollar is not much above the worship of a political machine.
The amount that is being recommended in the resolution is not as much as it seems. I know $100 million sounds like a lot of money in many parts of Canada and to many of the people of Canada. We must remember that half of it is to go for the erection of university buildings; the other half is to be put into a fund. When you look at the income the Canada Council will have from this $50 million a year you will see that it amounts to only slightly over 10 cents per capita per year. I do not think the average Canadian will resent overly much being taxed to the extent of having 10 cents of his income spent by the federal government on the encouragement of the arts, the humanities and the social sciences.
I regret that in the speeches I have heard so far from the government benches all indications are that the breadth of the effort upon which we are about to embark is to be rather limited. The Prime Minister himself, I think for some reasons maybe known only to himself, emphasized a week or so ago that in years gone by those who had patronized the arts were also those who, to use his words, "knew the value of gold coins".
I read a lot into that sentence of the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister meant by it that the men in days gone by who had gold coins were the ones who had the leisure to interest themselves in the arts, I can agree with him. However, if the Prime Minister meant that there was any correlation at all between the ability to acquire money and the ability to appreciate the worth-while
Canada Council
things in life, I must take exception; because even among the limited number of people whom I know are people who know something of the art of living, but they are not at all necessarily those who know something of the art of how to climb onto the backs of their fellow men and get a free ride.
The Prime Minister also referred to his desire not to establish a Canada arts council which would be superimposing itself upon some of the efforts which are being made in the field of the development of the arts in Canada. Once again I must give him the benefit of the doubt. If the Prime Minister meant by the word "superimposing" that he did not like the idea of superimposing something upon organizations which were already well established, and that he did not feel the new Canada Council should attempt to shove any form of culture down the throats of Canadian people, of course I must agree with him. However, if he meant that the whole of the energies of the Canada Council to be established were to be devoted only to assisting those major national organizations which now exist, then once again I have to take exception to that.
In its report at page 373 the Massey commission had this to say:
We are faced, it seems to us, by a threefold problem: cultural activity within Canada, cultural relations abroad, Canada's relationship with UNESCO.
Well, Mr. Chairman, in the minutes left to me I mean to devote my thoughts to cultural activity within Canada. As far as cultural relations abroad and Canada's relationship with UNESCO are concerned, I must admit that I know very little indeed about this matter; and unlike some of the "socreds" in this house I am unwilling to look for communist-makers under every bedspread that we may have in Canada.


John Horne Blackmore: You are just blind like that.


Erhart Regier: With respect to cultural activity in Canada the royal commission went on to say:
When national policy for development of the arts, letters and sciences in Canada is devised, first consideration should be given to the specific and peculiar needs of Canada, and only secondary consideration should be given to the application of policies and methods adopted by other countries for the solution of their specific and peculiar cultural problems.
I would like to say "amen" to that recommendation. I heartily agree that in the development of Canadian culture very serious attention should be paid to the peculiar problems we have in Canada, and we should not simply ape the efforts of western European nations.

Canada Council
I referred a moment ago to those of my colleagues in the house who belong to the Social Credit party. I can well remember as a young man listening to the ranting and raving of the late Premier William Aberhart-


John Horne Blackmore: No ranting, no raving.


Erhart Regier: -about the 50 big shots of Canada. I was extremely amazed the other day in listening to the remarks of the Social Credit leader in this debate. I thought the Prime Minister made a very sensible contribution when he offered for our consideration the thought that in centuries gone by there had been many men of wealth who had agreed to be patrons of the arts.


Charles Edward Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. You will recall, sir, that not long ago the chairman referred to the wide field over which this debate was ranging. He said that in his judgment we should not refer even to UNESCO. I wonder what this particular line of thinking has to do with the resolution we are considering. I have no objection, sir, to allowing this discussion to go as far afield as you like; but I would suggest that if you are going to allow the hon. member to address his remarks in a purely provincial political atmosphere, then you should not try to prevent others from extending the scope of the debate, too,


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I was just about to refer to the contribution to this debate made by the leader of the Social Credit party on January 18 last, when he expressed regret that there were not more extremely wealthy people in this country. I shall quote the remarks of the hon. member as reported at page 407 of Hansard for that date:
I am going to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that if we had in our country more people of material substance I am quite satisfied that they would be just as generous as the people in the United States have been, but one of the great reasons why we do not have as many wealthy people here, and I think we should begin looking into this, is that we have followed taxation policies that have taken the material substance away from people who would be patrons of the arts and sciences and have left them with little or nothing with which to endow. It is high time we began to take a careful look at what the real effects of our taxation policies have been.
Well, Mr. Chairman, here we have inside of 22 years a complete turnabout. In 1935 their leader ranted and raved about the 50 [DOT]big shots and-


John Horne Blackmore: No ranting, no raving.


Erhart Regier: -today their leader complains that we have not enough multimillionaires in Canada to patronize the arts.


Charles Edward Johnston: Of course that is entirely wrong.


Erhart Regier: The hon. member for Bow River, who is interrupting, comes from Alberta and I think I can readily understand his thinking. I come from British Columbia, where we are used to the fact that multimillionaires have found their way into the Social Credit party.


An hon. Member:: What about Alberta?


Erhart Regier: In Alberta they may not have any multimillionaires.


An hon. Member:: What about the oil rights the Saskatchewan C.C.F.'ers have?


Charles Edward Johnston: Let us not mention that.


An hon. Member:: They have all kinds of oil rights.


Erhart Regier: Culture is something that
cannot be bought. I was very pleased indeed to see that the Prime Minister used the word "encouragement" in the resolution. The purpose of the council is for the encouragement of the arts, humanities and social sciences. The main theme of my contribution is a plea that this effort be spread for the benefit of the masses of the people of Canada. I regret very much that most of the addresses I have heard in this debate so far from almost all sections of the house have created in me the impression that most hon. members seem to think this $100 million is going to be spent on the experts in the arts in Canada. I think the need existing among the masses of the people is much more urgent than the need existing among the experts.
In most parts of industrialized Canada we have the 40-hour week. When we read the report of the Gordon commission and the representations made by the labour unions of Canada we realize the day is not far distant when we will be talking about a 30-hour week, and that causes me some serious concern.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Not me; I would love it.


Erhart Regier: I know the hon. member for Kootenay East, being a so-called union leader, pretends not to be afraid of this; however, I know that upon serious and sober reflection even he will consider as serious a matter which I think ought to be raised in this debate. If we are going to reduce the 40-hour work week to a 30-hour work week we have to be sure that the Canadian people can absorb all the effects created by a 30-hour work week.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Keep socialism out of it and it will be all right.


Erhart Regier: We are today a nation of sitters and a nation of viewers. As far as the

development of the individual is concerned, television can be a curse as well as a blessing. The people of Canada will sit and listen to the radio and will watch sports rather than participating in sports. The people of Canada will watch drama on television rather than participating in human life. I submit once again, Mr. Chairman, there is a responsibility which this parliament must face in this regard. It is for that reason I sincerely welcome this effort by the government to help the Canadian people to learn how to live.
I deeply regret that in my home city of New Westminster, British Columbia, on a single night more people will attend one hockey game than you will find the following Sunday at all the churches in the whole city combined, and at all the political meetings for a 10-year period combined.
I think it is high time we paid some serious attention to these problems. When we spend $100 million of the taxpayers' money for the encouragement of the arts, the humanities and the social sciences let us make sure that at least some of that money is spent for the benefit of the broad masses of the Canadian people. I submit that the people who get themselves elected to this parliament should have some understanding of the problems which I am attempting to outline at this time.
In my riding of Burnaby-Coquitlam there are many cultural activities being carried on. In Burnaby, loco, Port Moody and Coquitlam there are hundreds of small groups of people working together in order to raise the cultural level of our society. At the present time these people are receiving no national direction, guidance or encouragement. I hope when the bill which will follow this resolution passes it will provide for the giving to my people back home of a little of the encouragement, leadership and guidance for which they are looking.
I am thinking also of the broad picture of Canada. Canada is made up of people who speak two main languages, but dozens of other racial groups are making their contributions. If the Canada Council could broaden its concept of its responsibilities it could do much toward promoting the idea of national unity, and at the same time ensure that many of the contributions which these people have to make will not be lost.
I am thinking also of the field of adult education, and am hoping that it will not be relegated to a secondary position. In the area I represent I think I am safe in saying that there are practically as many people taking part in adult education at the present time as there are pupils in the elementary and high schools. Vancouver is fast gaining
Canada Council
a world-wide reputation for its adult education program. Largely responsible for the progressive outlook of the people of the Scandinavian countries is the fact that in many of those countries the people never stop going to school, and are still learning even when they become grandfathers and grandmothers.
I should like to refer to the second section of the resolution, and note that when the Prime Minister spoke on January 18, as reported on page 397 of Hansard of that date, he said that the contribution would be not more than 50 per cent in any case. He was referring to the capital grants to universities. The other day, and again today, the Prime Minister made it perfectly clear that these capital grants have nothing whatsoever to do with the ordinary functions of our Canadian universities.
If the Canada Council should find it expedient to utilize a Canadian university in order to accomplish or further one of its aims or objectives and a building were needed, then the Canada Council would be able to say, "We will pay half the capital expenditure." I find that most regrettable, because there are many areas in Canada which are particularly in need of added sources of supply, if you like to put it that way, of economic well-being.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Will the hon. gentleman permit me? If I gave the impression that the capital fund could be used only for special projects which the council wanted to have carried out I misled the house, because the bill as drafted provides that the council can make grants of half the cost of any building or capital equipment required to promote the study and enjoyment of the arts, the humanities and the social sciences.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Prime Minister for clarifying his statement somewhat, but I still must point out that even in the statement the Prime Minister made just now he has made it clear that the 50 per cent will have nothing whatsoever to do with what are considered by most people of Canada to be the ordinary functions of a university.
If the Canada Council should desire that certain projects be undertaken at a certain university which involved certain capital expenditures, then the council might contribute 50 per cent of those expenditures. I hope I am being fair to the sentiments of the Prime Minister. I read carefully what he said the other day; but I have noticed, as I said when I began my remarks, that much of the debate has run far afield from the

Canada Council
limitations set by the resolution and by what the Prime Minister said. However, that is beside the point.
The main point I wanted to make with the Prime Minister was that this idea of matching grants works a hardship on many of the provinces. It works a hardship on all the have-not provinces, which include four Atlantic provinces and perhaps the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I submit that basically this principle of matching grants-and I submit that is what he did propose-perpetuates an evil which already exists in connection with our university grants, and we should not compound that evil by making it applicable in this particular field. If we want to develop the arts, humanities and social sciences I cannot think of a more suitable place than some of the universities in some of the have-not provinces.
I should like to pose this question to the Prime Minister. Why 50 per cent? Why not 100 per cent? If a need is recognized by the to be established Canada Council,. why should not the council assume the whole cost? Why should not the council have the right to determine where in Canada would be the most suitable location? As the Prime Minister has put it, I can very well see the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia obtaining concessions by way of capital grants while the other provinces, because they have not the matching money, would be denied that benefit'.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Not the province of Quebec.


Erhart Regier: The hon. member for Quebec
West says "Not the province of Quebec". I speak subject to correction, but I have always assumed that Quebec was one of the three rich provinces. I know that the living conditions of the people are not as good as in some of the other provinces, but I always thought it was one of the big three in wealth.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am sorry to have to interrupt again, but I must advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Frederick George Hahn: I rise on a question of privilege. In view of the statement the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has just made, that the people in his home city of New Westminster do not attend church-


Erhart Regier: I never said that.


Frederick George Hahn: -I wish to draw to the attention of the house the fact that the hon. member is not a resident of the city of New Westminster, and therefore I suggest that this might be a reflection-


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a further question of privilege. I think you, Mr. 
Chairman, will know that I never said the people of New Westminster do not attend church. I did say that more people attend one hockey game than attend all the churches on one Sunday.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I would ask the hon. gentleman not to require the chair to decide whether or not it is a privilege to live in New Westminster.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Go north, young man.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to ask a question of the Prime Minister. I suppose, in every organization, the man who heads it is of great importance, and I cannot imagine an organization where the top man would be of greater importance than in the case of the Canada Council. Is it possible for the Prime Minister to answer this question? In his thinking about the qualifications desirable for this position, does it seem to him that executive and administrative qualities are required, or is he looking for a man who would give the council intellectual and, shall I say, aesthetic leadership? I realize that one cannot divide men sharply into two classes, and I realize that the Prime Minister may get a man who, happily, combines both qualities; but certainly it is of importance, and it would be of great interest to me, to know whether the Prime Minister in approaching the search for this man has in mind rather the one type or the other.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: What I had in mind, Mr. Chairman, was this; a man who would have drive, energy and vision; a man who would make the project active and see to it that the whole council got the benefit of the wisdom that each of its members could contribute to its deliberations. And I would be pleased, too, if it were someone who could take his part of the responsibility in making investments with endowment dollars in a wise way during this period of rapid development of Canadian enterprise, and who could also visualize the effect upon the Canadian nation of a stimulus to these-I use the word which the hon. gentleman does not like any better than I do-so-called cultural activities; and he would be a means of bringing out the intellectual contribution that each and every member of the council could make to the conduct of its general affairs.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The Prime Minister has
used the words "drive, energy and wisdom" which, I am sure, we would all expect to find in regard to any good man. He has given me the impression that what he is really looking for is what may be called an executive type.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I was not
thinking of someone who would be a specialist in any one of the fields of art, but of one who would have an appreciation of all the contributions that could be made in that field.


Daniel Roland Michener: May I ask the Prime Minister a question. In my limited experience in the granting of public funds for charitable, artistic and other purposes, it has always seemed to me that the best use was made of those funds if it was a requirement that the persons or organizations to whom they were granted were required to put up a corresponding amount; in other words, that government funds were granted to match funds put up by private individuals and associations who were interested in the same purpose. This seems to give an assurance that the best use will be made not only of private funds but of the additional moneys put up by the government. I wonder if that principle is given any place in the disposition of funds by the Canada Council, apart from the capital grants to universities.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is, Mr. Chairman, in the case of the capital grants. With respect to the other field, it was felt that there should be a certain income assured every year, and that the members of the council would constitute the kind of body which would be able to suggest, to those having the means, how useful it might be if there were contributions provided by them. But it was felt it would be a good, proper stimulus to provide an initial endowment fund amounting to as much as $50 million and created at the expense of the whole Canadian public.


Daniel Roland Michener: I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, whether the Prime Minister understood my point. If, say, a ballet company which is struggling to establish itself were to ask the Canada Council for a grant, it occurs to me tnat a sound basis of operations would be for the Canada Council to say, "Yes, if you believe sufficiently in this work of yours to provide part of the funds, we will then meet your needs as to the other part of the funds." I suggest this is a much better policy than being too free with public money where there are no private funds ready to support the purpose in hand, and I wonder
Canada Council
if that principle has been given effect to in any way in the present proposals.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think, Mr. Chairman, that contributions out of the income of the endowment will be only a fraction of what it will be necessary to have spent for the purpose for which these contributions from the endowment will be made. For instance, if there is a question of a postgraduate scholarship, the fact that it is a post-graduate scholarship probably means that more than the amount of the scholarship has already been spent in reaching that point of personal development.


Daniel Roland Michener: There is no limitation on the council as to how the money should be applied?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, none; but the fact that they will be operating in public and that their operations will be reported upon annually by the Auditor General in a report that will be tabled in parliament will ensure that the council is very conscious that the Canadian public will feel that it is their money that is being administered by this council; and they will want, I think, to use it in a manner that will commend itself to the majority of the Canadian people.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hugues Lapointe: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will continue with this debate, after which we will proceed with the debate on second reading of the bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. This business having been terminated, we shall take up the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources concerning the establishment of two national museums, to be followed by the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Finance with respect to amendments to the Canadian Farm Loan Act, to be followed by the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance concerning the Municipal Grants Act.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS	trans mountain oil pipe line co. directors
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Matheson: 1.	Are tenders being called for the construction of a causeway and bridge across the Hillsboro river, Queens, Prince Edward Island?
2.	If so, on what date and in what manner?
3.	What type of bridge will be built, of what length and with what type of piers?
4.	Will separate tenders be called for the causeway fill and for the bridge?
5.	When is it expected steel will be available for this bridge?
Answer by: Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister
of Public Works):
1 and 2. Tenders will be called by the government of Prince Edward Island as this project will be constructed under the trans-Canada highway agreement. Specifications are now being prepared for the causeway portion for which tenders will be invited by April, 1957. The bridge design is expected to be ready in April, 1957, preparatory to tender call.
3.	It is proposed to construct a continuous steel deck truss of five spans totalling 800 feet, resting on concrete piers and abutments. The approach to the bridge section from both ends will be causeway.
4.	Yes.
5.	Latter part of 1957 or in 1958.

Question No. 97-Mr. Goode:
1.	Who are the present directors of the Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company?
2.	What are their official positions on the board of directors?
Answer by: Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of
Stale):
1.	Names and addresses of the directors according to the annual summary filed with this department pursuant to the provisions of section 125 of the Companies Act:
Ash, William Mathews Yacy, 76 Old Forest Hill road, Toronto, Ontario.
Baker, Ralph Douglas, 3820 Grandview Douglas highway, Burnaby, B.C.
Bridges, Robert Lysle, 3972 Happy Valley road, Lafayette, Calif., U.S.A.
Day, David E., 116 South La Senda, South Laguna, Calif., U.S.A.
Hamilton, John Williamson, 68 Highland crescent, York Mills, Ontario.
Jamieson, John Kenneth, 169 Old Yonge street, Toronto, Ontario.
Morrison, Donald Mackay, 400 East Broadway, Vancouver, B.C.
Wahn, Ian Grant, 243 Dawlish avenue, Toronto, Ontario.
2.	Donald Mackay Morrison completed the return in the capacity of president and Jack Hymers McQuarrie of the city of Vancouver as secretary.
There is no information available as to the official positions held by the persons other than Mr. Morrison on the board of directors.

Wednesday, February 6, 1957