1957-01-29

SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister give any report to the house in connection with the investigation into the connections or ramifications disclosed by the Soble spy ring in the United States? What is the present position in Canada as to any connection between the operations of the Sobles in Canada with those carried on in the United States?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I understood that in my absence some interest was taken in this matter and in anticipation of a question such as that asked by the Leader of the Opposition I have prepared the following statements:
Hon. members will have read in the newspapers that the United States federal bureau of investigation has recently made several arrests charging residents of the United States with espionage. Under arrest are Jack and Myra Soble and Jacob Albam. As the members are aware, the policy of the Department of Justice is carefully to refrain from disclosing information relating to security matters, and the department is especially careful in this regard when the security matter concerned involves the security services of friendly nations with which we co-operate in security work. The federal bureau of investigation of the United States is one of such security services and naturally we have been co-operating with it in this case in question by investigating Canadian aspects of the case.
For obvious reasons it is quite impossible for me to disclose any facts revealed by our investigation, since these may relate to the security both of Canada and the United States; and, in addition, the members no doubt have noted that this case is sub judice in the United States courts at the present time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, could the minister go so far as to say whether or not any investigation that has taken place-as revealed in the United States press-in which 82715-47i
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were cooperating with the federal bureau of investigation indicates that any of the activities of the Sobles in connection with their business operations in this country were found to emanate from or to be connected with the U.S.S.R. or its embassy here?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, Mr. Speaker, in line with, the position that we have always taken, I am sure my hon. friend upon reflection will consider that the question he has just asked seeks to elicit information of precisely the kind* that we avoid giving. In other words,, the information which he seeks if given might, conceivably be of more value to those who are not friendly with us than any possible value it could have in satisfying my hon. friend's curiosity.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would be the last to want to prejudice in any way the investigation but the information is available in the United States press and I am wondering why parliament should be denied information as to whether or not the U.S.S.R. embassy is involved in this matter.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, Canada in common with other free countries of the world pursues the same policy, I believe, with regard to the maintaining of secrecy in relation to security matters.
Now, as my hon. friend correctly points out, when prosecutions take place in a free country the trial has to be in public, and in due course, in order to meet the necessities of these prosecutions, information has to be made public which up until that time has been kept secret. I am sure my hon. friend will agree that until the time comes when it is necessary to disclose it for the purpose of a public prosecution it is very much in the interests of ourselves and our allies that security should be maintained in relation to it.



DISABLED PERSONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Can the minister tell the house when we may expect some change for the better in the

Inquiries of the Ministry definition of total and permanent disability contained in the regulations under the disabled persons pension act?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend last Friday gave me notice of his intention to ask this question. He will recall that late last fall there was a meeting between the provincial departments concerned and the federal government regarding regulations which have to do with the disability pensions legislation to which the hon. gentleman has drawn my attention. I can tell my hon. friend that following that meeting a revised definition was drafted and sent to all the provinces for their consideration. As soon as the provinces advise us that this and other proposed changes in the regulations are acceptable to them we will lose no time in our turn as a government in dealing witfl the proposed revision of the regulations.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. He will have read in the press over the week end the reports of the statement made by Mr. Dulles before a Senate committee in Washington to this effect:
If I were an American boy, as you call it, going to fight in the Middle East, I would rather not have a French and British soldier, one at my left hand and one at my right. I think I would feel a lot safer.
Is there not some protest the Canadian government could make to Washington which would have the effect of stopping these provocative statements?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows as all hon. members of the house know that this statement attributed to Mr. Dulles taken out of its context has been interpreted as reflecting upon the valour of French and British soldiers, and he knows that there have been given complete explanations to the effect that nothing of the kind was intended and all that was intended was to imply that, because of the feelings in the Middle East toward the British and the French arising out of the crisis connected with the Suez incident, their presence with United States troops might be more provocative than the presence of United States troops alone. I think that an expression like that taken out of its context is subject to misinterpretation. I think it is fortunate that there have been serious attempts made to clear up the misinterpretations placed upon those words.


Howard Charles Green: Does the Prime Minister not realize that this statement has already caused grave concern in Great Britain and in France? Surely Canada, trying to get these nations together again, could help by making some protest to Washington against any such further statements being made.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not
agree that a diplomatic protest by Canada to Washington would have the effect desired by my hon. friend.


KASHMIR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the Canadian government has expressed any view or indicated any policy with respect to the Kashmir situation and the action of the government of India. Have there been any discussions with other commonwealth countries as a result of this situation?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I understand that there have been discussions as late as yesterday between the under-secretary of state for external affairs and the high commissioner of the United Kingdom, and I know there have been other discussions. I am sure the hon. gentleman appreciates, as we do, the importance of this matter and shares the hope that there will be a solution found that will not cause any serious disturbance in the relations between the various members of the commonwealth. Of course the hon. gentleman would, I am sure, agree that it is a matter about which it is difficult for other members of the commonwealth to do more than express their keen desire to be as helpful as possible to the parties in reaching an amicable settlement and that they all deplore the state of affairs that has gone on since 1947 in connection with this area of what was previously known as India.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then are we to understand that these discussions are continuing and that the matter is still the subject of negotiation, in which case I would imagine that most hon. members might feel we should not ask for a report until the negotiations are concluded; or is it just a matter of representations having been made and the matter resting there, in which case I think we would be entitled to press to know what the representations were?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I should not like to use the word "negotiations" because these discussions have been matters of consultation between the members of the commonwealth other than India and

Pakistan as to what each or all of them could do to help in bringing about an amicable settlement of the issue. From that I would not want hon. members of the house to take it that there have been no discussions of it with the representatives of both India and Pakistan. I can assure the hon. gentleman that it has been the subject of very earnest conversations along the lines, of course, that it was a matter that had to be primarily settled by those two governments but that its settlement was of great interest to all the members of the commonwealth.

Mr. John Pallet! (Peel): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister supplementary to that addressed to him by the hon. member for Kamloops. Would the Prime Minister advise the house whether or not the Kashmir situation was the subject of discussions between the Prime Minister and Prime Minister Nehru when he was in this country? If so, would he tell us what was that discussion and advise us if any correspondence has been exchanged between him and Prime Minister Nehru since the recent taking over by India of Kashmir?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, there has been no correspondence exchanged on the subject of Kashmir with the Prime Minister of India since his visit to Ottawa. As to my confidential conversations with him, I do not think it would be proper for me to attempt to disclose them here in the house.


STATELESS PERSONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister now give the house a definite answer to the question to which he gave a tentative answer on Friday, namely, is Canada yet a signatory to the United Nations convention on the status of stateless persons?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, Canada is not a signatory. The matter is under consideration and study.


Colin Cameron: I have a supplementary question. How much longer than 2J years does the minister think he and his colleagues will require before they come to a decision?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think my hon. friend will find that the length of time he has indicated is not in harmony with the facts.
Inquiries of the Ministry


KING SAUD
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government given consideration to extending an invitation to His Majesty King Saud of Saudi Arabia to pay a visit to Canada during the time His Majesty is visiting in North America?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, that matter has not yet received consideration.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Charlton (Brant-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the government any new marketing legislation to present to the house at this session following a recent ruling by the supreme court of Ontario?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the government has not yet given full consideration to this question and, when it has, a report will be made to the house.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister now in a position to make a statement to the house on the present state of negotiations between the province of Ontario and the federal government with respect to health or hospitalization insurance? In particular will he comment on the Ontario government's confidence that tuberculosis and mental cases will be included in the proposed plan?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I dealt with this matter on Friday last. There is nothing more I can add following the announcement made in the speech from the throne yesterday in the Ontario legislature that the government of the province of Ontario is tabling today in the legislature its plan which it anticipates might come within the ambit of the proposal made by the federal government for a system of hospital insurance. I cannot add anything more at this time to what I have already said.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the minister has tabled the correspondence between the federal government and the governments of the three western provinces regarding this matter, will he make public or will he table the correspondence with the Ontario government regarding this same matter?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will be very glad to suggest to the premier of the province of Ontario at the earliest possible moment that this correspondence should be tabled; but I will have to wait until I hear from the premier of Ontario pursuant to the arrangements which we have made with him.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance or perhaps in his absence to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the headlines in the Montreal Gazette where the Minister of Finance is urging the Canadian people to help defeat inflation. Would the Prime Minister care to tell the house what difference there is, so far as inflation is concerned, between people spending their own money and the government spending it for them?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That would depend entirely upon the purpose for which money was expended.



TORONTO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Ont.):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Does the minister know if it is legal for firms in Toronto to buy from producers grade A large eggs at 30 cents and grade down to an average price across the board of 23J cents?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I do not know from any information which has come to my attention that such a transaction has taken place. I only know, looking at the prices this morning, that they are as high as 39 cents for grade A large on the market in Toronto. I cannot understand why anybody would sell them for less.



REFERENCE TO REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO PRICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mouniain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister inform the house whether he has investigated the situation with regard to egg prices, something which, according to recent press reports, the minister undertook to do at a meeting with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture? Can the minister say whether he is prepared to recommend a change in the present method of support prices for eggs which will result in the producer receiving greater benefits from the price support than is at present the case?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call your attention to the fact that this question is in a form which is condemned by the rules of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend is giving information rather than asking for it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the only way we can get any information.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the information were correct there could not be any objection to it. As a matter of fact I was in Winnipeg last week attending the annual meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the question asked me was as to whether I knew that' eggs were selling that day in Toronto at from 33 cents to 34 cents a dozen. I said, "Yes, I knew". I had received information the day before that eggs were selling at that price and I said that it would be necessary for me to take the plane that night at 6.10, irrespective of what question period there might be, in order to be here on Thursday morning to deal with it. I did not say, "to make investigations"; those investigations had been made and were continually made from December up to that time and I dealt with it in the manner that was reported in this house a few days ago, namely, to indicate that we were prepared to take delivery of oil-dipped grade A large eggs at 38 cents a dozen as from that time, an hour before the session opened last Thursday. Those eggs, of course, had to be oil-dipped. The oil dipping costs a cent a dozen, so that we were prepared to cover the cost of the extra cent, making it 39 cents on the basis of the program which has been carried on for the last five or six years.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to clear up this egg situation with the Minister of Agriculture. In my riding producers shipping eggs to Toronto

find that after the eggs have been delivered and the return comes back they are in this situation. One return came back from the Dominion Stores which paid an average price across the board of 23J cents a dozen. Is that legal?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, it depends on the situation. As far as the legality is concerned, I do not want to discuss that question because I am not an authority on it. But' it is possible that certain grades of eggs might average out at 23 cents a dozen back at the point of delivery. I am not sure about that. If it is a nest run of eggs I certainly could. If they are medium size eggs I would have to examine the records very carefully in order to find out what the price would be. It has been running 7 cents, 8 cents or 9 cents below the grade A large at times but the eggs which are guaranteed are grade A large eggs, and the prices which I quoted are for grade A large eggs.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The grade A large eggs in this case were 30 cent's a dozen.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is possible.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the question asked last Wednesday regarding the Combines Investigation Act, in connection with the recent increase in the price of gasoline?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it has been. The question which the hon. member for Mackenzie asked on that occasion was: Has the minister's attention been drawn to the items in this morning's papers reporting that five of the major oil companies in Canada yesterday announced price increases in gasoline and fuel oil of about a cent a gallon at the wholesale level; and will the minister consider ordering an inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act with a view to determining whether or not there is a combine which resulted in these price increases being announced at the same time.
My answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is as follows:
As I have already explained on several recent occasions, it is the practice of the combines branch to observe notable price changes and to consider carefully whether
Inquiries of the Ministry they raise any reasonable suspicion of a combine. The combines branch has, accordingly, been noting price changes in the petroleum market since they began early this month.
Whether or not this attention will lead to any formal inquiries is a matter which is not known at the present time, and if it were known I would not be in a position to discuss it further unless and until a report were made to me by the restrictive trade practices commission in the usual way.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Justice, one which I have been pursuing now for a couple of years, on probation. The minister has encouraged me to wait for the report of the Fauteux commission. This report has now been produced, and my question is whether the government has reached any decision with regard to carrying out the recommendations of this commission for action at the dominion' level.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member has been good enough to give my secretary oral notice of the question he has asked today, I have been able to prepare in reply a statement which I now present.
On July 20 last, shortly after the Fauteux report was made public, I wrote to the provincial attorneys general pointing out that the Fauteux recommendations would require for their implementation action by the parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures of Canada; and that I therefore thought that the federal and provincial ministers should consider the report in a joint conference to this end.
In their replies to this letter the provincial authorities indicated dates for such a meeting that varied from early in the month of October to as late as mid-January of this year.
Meanwhile, we had been getting ready for such a conference and, in this connection, gathering together all the available, relevant data. This proved to be a bigger task than we had anticipated, so on October 18 I wrote to the provincial ministers to suggest that the best way of arriving at an accurate set of comparable figures for both federal and provincial ministers would be to have a meeting in Ottawa of senior federal and provincial officials for the exchange of the necessary statistical information. A meeting of senior

Inquiries of the Ministry federal and provincial officials was accordingly held in Ottawa on November 14 and 15 last, attended by representatives of all of the provinces except two.
The proceedings of this conference have been transcribed by the reporter who was in attendance. It was agreed by the meeting that the provinces would supply us with 100 copies of the statistical information which they had sent to this conference in order that we might redistribute this among the other provinces concerned.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that we received the last of this material from the last province to report within the past 48 hours and these copies are now on their way to the provinces concerned.
The deliberations of the federal and provincial senior officials have made it clear that a large amount of work is still required to be done before either the provincial or federal governments can be in a position to discuss in any adequate manner the policy decisions that would be involved in considering the implementation of the Fauteux report.
Forthwith, after the conference at Ottawa in November last with the federal and provincial officials, the officers of the Department of Justice began work on the preparation of proposals covering the entire field of corrections which will be submitted for approval to the federal cabinet and then to a conference of federal and provincial ministers for consideration. I have already pointed out to the provincial ministers that it is difficult to predict at this time how long it will take for the proposals of the government of Canada to be placed in final form for their consideration, but that in view of the fact that we do not as yet have all of the provincial material before us-we have not had any reply from two of the provinces- and considering the multiplicity and magnitude of the problems involved, I did not see at that time how this could be done in less than five to six months.
I have informed the provincial ministers that as soon as our work is completed it is my hope that we would be able to send our proposals by mail to the provincial governments and that after they had had an opportunity to consider them, I will ask the provincial ministers concerned to meet with us in Ottawa, at a mutually acceptable time, for a discussion of the issues involved.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to ask a supplementary question. I must say that the minister's report sounds to me like the old slogan from the child's game, "this year, 
next year, some time, never." I want to ask the minister whether there has been any offer made to the provinces along the lines of the recommendation of the Archambault report nearly 20 years ago which, as the minister very well knows, recommended in item 74 that "the pay and duties of probation officers should be the subject of an agreement between the provincial and federal authorities." Was any offer made pursuant to that at this meeting? Was there any indication given of co-operation or was it just an exercise in putting off?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I must repudiate in as forceful language as I can command any suggestion of my hon. friend, which I think is quite unworthy of him, that this was a put-off performance. If my hon. friend, who I understand has given this matter a good deal of study and who, I gather, is the expert of his party upon this subject-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Not an expert.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -has any comprehension of the subject matter at all, he will know that it is quite impossible for a conference of federal and provincial ministers to gather together to discuss policy decisions unless they have all of the available data before them. All the provincial ministers were of the same view, and it was with that in mind that this conference of senior civil service officials was arranged. We were all agreed that this was the proper procedure to follow, and they on their side and we on our side are going forward with the matter as quickly as circumstances will permit.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister has not answered my question.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister has not yet answered my question, which is very simple.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Did the government give any indication of assistance under the recommendation of the Archambault report of 1938 that the pay and duties of probation officers should be the subject of an agreement between the provincial and federal authorities?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In reply to my hon. friend's second question, may I say that in all of our discussions with the provincial ministers, having regard to the fact that we met to discuss the Fauteux report, no reference was made by any of us to the Archambault report.



DORCHESTER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) addressed a question in my absence which my colleague, the Minister of Finance, agreed to take as notice. The question read:
Has the minister heard of the disturbance at Dorchester penitentiary in New Brunswick and, if so, is he in a position to give any details?
I am informed that on Thursday evening last a small group of inmates at Dorchester penitentiary, about 25 in number, refused to eat their evening meal and threw their trays over the landing, causing some disturbance. The situation was quickly brought under control by the officers of the institution without the general population of the institution becoming involved. The meals served had previously been examined by senior officers of the institution in accordance with the usual practice and they report that there was no just cause for complaint. The meal consisted of scrambled eggs, French fried potatoes, wax beans, a large cup cake, bread and butter and tea with milk.



MERCHANDISING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Did the Canadian association of consumers draw to the attention of the minister the circulation of these trading stamps by some of the food stores, and did the minister inform the association that the matter would be looked into with a view to finding whether any legislation covered it? If so, has any conclusion been reached by the minister with regard to this matter?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In reply to my hon. friend's question, Mr. Speaker, I may say that I received representations with regard to this subject matter from a large number of individuals and associations. My recollection is that I received a communication from the Canadian association of consumers but I should not like to undertake now to repeat, with any pretence to accuracy, the nature of my reply.


Major James William Coldwell: I think I saw it. That is why I am asking the question.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend saw it, he can read it. The situation is that we have, as my hon. friend knows, upon the books now a law against trading stamps which has been 82715-48
Inquiries of the Ministry in existence since 1905. It was continued at the last consolidation of the Criminal Code notwithstanding the fact that we received representations upon behalf of the trading stamp companies to have it repealed. This law is still in existence. The position that we have taken is that we should like to have this law tested before we ask parliament to consider any amendment to it if for no other reason than to know with greater assurance the nature of the amendment that might be required.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Casileden (Yorkion):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Are treaty Indians allowed access to the records of the Indian affairs branch in order to defend themselves against eviction proceedings?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minisier of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it would be quite impossible to answer this question intelligibly or intelligently in the form in which it is asked because there is no such thing as an eviction proceeding applied to treaty Indians. I presume what the hon. gentleman means is, are persons living on Indian reserves, whose status as Indians has been protested, allowed access to the records of the department in order to help them establish their claim that they are Indians. If that is what this question means the answer is, most certainly they are.



INDIAN AFFAIRS-SITUATION ON HOBBEMA RESERVE, ALBERTA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, reverting to Indians, may I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the minister been informed that Chief Walking Eagle of the Stony band has, in relation to the Hobbema situation, suggested that Indians in the Rocky Mountain House section of my constituency are talking of the possibility of resorting to the old practice of scalping their enemies, and has the government taken any steps to evacuate the few remaining government supporters from possible danger?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that this subject has been talked about, and I trust that in this case, as in others, it will end where it began, in talk.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary Soulh):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. To correct the injustice being suffered by the 118 members of the Hobbema Indian band in Alberta, is the minister giving consideration to the resolution passed by the Alberta bar association that section 12 of the Indian Act of 1951 be repealed on a retroactive basis? Will such an amendment to the act be proposed at the current session of parliament?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, the minister is not giving consideration to recommending any such amendment. The minister wishes to reiterate his hope that the persons who feel aggrieved and their solicitors will enter an appeal so that the courts may decide the issue.


Carl Olof Nickle: I have a supplementary question. Can the minister indicate what action will be taken by his department in connection with the petition to Her Majesty the Queen sent forward by members of the Hobbema band? Will this petition go from Ottawa to its destination in London?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand, sir, the petition has been directed to me as the responsible minister and I shall have to give consideration to what is the proper course to take from that point on.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, will the minister not go farther than that and say that action will be taken to remove the injustice that is being done to these Indians? Is there not some course that he intends to follow other than passing the buck in connection with this matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, it does seem to me in the first place that this is not a question. What strikes me as a simple layman to be much worse about it is that a barrister should rise in the house and suggest that when an appeal to the courts is provided by law something else should be substituted for that appeal.



BOX CAR DISTRIBUTION AND GRAIN MOVEMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Has the conference recommended by the agricultural committee during the last session of parliament to deal with improvements in box car distribution and grain transportation been called together as yet?
(Mr. Pickersgill.]


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the distribution of box cars is not under the administration of my department.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, if that is so I should like to direct the same question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the conference recommended by the agricultural committee to deal with grain transportation and box car distribution been called together?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, not to my
knowledge. As I recall the recommendation, it was not suggested that the department call the meeting together. I do not remember who was to call it, but I have not heard that it has been arranged.



CRIMINAL LAW


[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 Justice. This appears to be his day, too. Since last asked in the house, has the minister discussed or had any correspondence with the chief justice of the Ontario high court division with reference to the possibility of speeding up the report on sex criminals? If so, when might the report be expected?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, when in my absence in western Canada last week my hon. friend from York West asked this question in the house my deputy was diligent in the matter and telephoned Chief Justice McRuer and received this reply:
Members of the commission are finding the problem extremely difficult but are exercising the utmost diligence in the preparation of their report which will be delivered just as soon as it is possible.
The chief justice was unwilling to be more definite than that.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the very unsatisfactory answer received from the chief justice of the high court division of Ontario with respect to the time of bringing in his report would the minister consider fixing a date at which time if the report does not materialize someone else would be appointed to complete

the work who would have more time to devote to the subject matter?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, my answer to my hon. friend is "No, sir."


John Borden Hamilton: A further supplementary question. Since there is every indication that nothing is going to be done about this problem until the report is in, does it mean that the government is giving no thought to taking some action in the near future?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am trying to be as courteous as I can to my hon. friend.


John Borden Hamilton: My questions were courteous.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am not suggesting that my hon. friend's questions were not courteous, but the amount of knowledge he brings to the subject produces a result which is not very courteous to those who know something about it. When the hon. member implies by his question that the chief justice of Ontario and his colleagues upon this commission have been remiss in not producing a report before now in respect to a subject matter which if I am not mistaken has not been very successfully reported upon by any human being, no matter how learned upon the subject, he is making an insinuation which is quite undeserved and against which I must protest.
In so far as the government are concerned, we appointed the members of that body because we had confidence in them and we have confidence in the expedition with which they are carrying on their work. Having some knowledge of its difficulty we are prepared to wait for their report until they can produce one for which they wish to vouch, and upon the basis of which we can produce legislation to this house for which we can vouch.


John Borden Hamilton: On a question of privilege, I should like to point out that there is definitely no reason why the minister should draw the inference which he has in making the political speech he has just made.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is it the intention of the Canadian National Railways to write a contract with the Hilton hotel company for a transfer of the administration of the Chateau Laurier hotel in Ottawa along the lines of the contract for the new Canadian National hotel 82715-481
Inquiries of the Ministry in Montreal between the railways and this United States company? If the minister answers in the affirmative, is it the intention of the government to keep this new contract as secret as the previous one?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am most interested in the question the hon. member has just asked. This is the first time I have heard any such suggestion made concerning the transfer of the administration of the Chateau Laurier, and having regard to the source of this information which has just come to me, Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much whether it is accurate.


Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that the president of the Canadian National Railways when appearing before the railway committee two years ago indicated that his company would consider a management agreement with other C.N.R. hotels similar to that which exists with the Queen Elizabeth hotel in Montreal?


George Carlyle Marler: No. Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the president made that statement and I would have to reread the evidence taken before the committee to see what was said on the subject.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister care to comment on the report written by Vic Mackie which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press last Friday, to the effect that prairie farm assistance payments would be increased from a maximum of $2.50 to $4 an acre?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member sent over to me this newspaper file which has on the front of it a statement written by Mr. Mackie, the press gallery representative of the Free Press. The article runs over from the front page to page 14 and I have not yet been able to find page 14 in this large file so I am not going to attempt to reply to all that may be contained in the article. I shall simply say that last Friday a resolution appeared in Votes and Proceedings which set out practically all that is contained in the part of the article which appears on the front page of the Free Press with the exception of a reference to $4, which of course would not be included, and I presume from what has been said that there is a reference to $2.50 in the

Inquiries of the Ministry continuation of the article on page 14. All I can say is that the writer of the article apparently has read the resolution very carefully and he has done some guessing on his own part which may be more or less close to what will be contained in the bill when it is brought down.



OLD AGE ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister received any representations requesting the reduction from 20 to 10 years of the residence requirement under the Old Age Assistance Act? If so, is the government prepared to give favourable consideration to such an amendment?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of my hon. friend's question is yes. The government, as he knows, is always giving consideration to any matter that has to do with the welfare of the people of Canada.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister been informed by the minister of public welfare of Ontario that the government of that province is prepared to agree to such an amendment at this time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot recall that that is the case but I would be pleased to look at my files and see whether or not that is the situation.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, may I direct another question to the Prime Minister. Evidently in the British House of Commons late last week the under-secretary for commonwealth relations, Mr. Alport, told that house that the British government was considering approaching Canada with a view to working out some form of reciprocal agreement regarding pension rights and other benefits for persons moving between the two countries, the idea apparently being to further migration. Could the Prime Minister tell the house whether the Canadian government has any such plan in


mind and whether it would be willing to enter into an agreement of that nature?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, if the government of the United Kingdom wants to make any suggestion about an agreement to the government of Canada the suggestion will receive consideration, but no suggestions concerning pensions have yet come to our attention.


Howard Charles Green: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Canadian government ever given any thought to an agreement of this type?


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@Quebec Easl: Well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak with authority for all the members of the government. I have never personally given any study to such a proposal.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resligouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Boo.


Ralph Byron Horner: Mr. Speaker, when will your government finally decide to implement the recommendations of the Gordon commission relative to the backward economy of the maritime provinces?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have no government. The hon. member is addressing himself to the Chair at all times, and when he prefaces a question with the words, "When will your government," my answer to him is that I have no government.


Ralph Byron Horner: When will the Prime Minister-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, whenever there is any implementation to be made of the Gordon report the government will make the proper recommendations to the House of Commons.


Ralph Byron Horner: When does your government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ralph Byron Horner: Does the government intend to take the same sit-down strike attitude it took with regard to the recommendations of the Rowell-Sirois commission?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government would be quite delighted if the hon. gentleman would stage a sit-down strike himself.


Ralph Byron Horner: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Ralph Byron Horner: A supplementary question. Why do you object-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. These questions are all of great interest to me and I should like to be able to hear them.


Ralph Byron Horner: A supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Why does the Prime Minister object to answering the question when his very refusal indicates inaction, indifference and traitorship toward the people of the maritime provinces?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I do submit that these are not questions that should be asked on the orders of the day.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. He has not yet had one today. This question arises out of press reports concerning a contractor who paid $12,500 in order to obtain a contract to do certain work on a highway in northwestern Ontario. Can the minister say whether any portion of that highway was part of the trans-Canada highway system? If not, does he know whether this practice has been followed in relation to work on any portion of the trans-Canada highway?
Hon. Robert H. V/inters (Minister of Public Works): I have not seen the report in question. If the hon. member will bring it to my attention I shall look into it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is on the front page of this morning's Globe and Mail.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Carl Olof Nickle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. What development is planned by Polymer Corporation on certain lands adjacent to Red Deer, Alberta, and when can some action be expected in this regard?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, plans are being developed by Polymer for a location in
Inquiries of the Ministry Alberta. At the moment progress in planning has not reached the point where an announcement can be made. When that point has been reached, I shall be glad to make an announcement to the house.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to-, the Minister of Transport. Will the minister report to the house the results of a conference held yesterday between the chairman and officials of the workmen's compensation, board of British Columbia and officials of his: department on ways and means of reducing the accident rate on ships loading in British Columbia ports?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to report to the house the results of the discussions which have been going on between officials of my department and officials of the workmen's compensation board of British Columbia. I can tell the hon. gentleman that the discussions began only this morning. I have not had any report of them and I think it would be more appropriate to discuss the subject when my estimates are before the house.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resiigouche-
Madawaska): Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the Prime Minister for his compliment. May I now direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. When will the government announce that it has finally acceded to our demands that old age pensions be increased?
Paul Joseph James Martin: Apparently the hon. gentleman is not aware that all that has been done in this field has been done on this side.


Ralph Byron Horner: A supplementary question. Does the minister want any proof that he is absolutely wrong?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The proof that I am absolutely right is the hon. gentleman himself.

Inquiries of the Ministry CRIMINAL CODE



STATEMENT ON ENFORCEMENT BY PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last on the orders of the day the hon. member for Hamilton South (Mr. Reinke) asked if I could comment on the question whether there are any steps which the federal government might be able to take to ensure a more rigid enforcement by the provincial governments of the Criminal Code, in view of certain representations that the hon. member stated he had received from the parents' action league in Hamilton and also in view of what he referred to as recent tragedies.
I should say at the outset that I am not aware of any failure on the part of any provincial government to enforce the Criminal Code. Be that as it may, under our system of law it is the responsibility of this parliament to enact the criminal law and it is the responsibility of the provincial governments to see to the due enforcement of that law. I can only suggest that if in any province any person considers that the criminal law should in any respect be more rigidly enforced his representations in this respect should be made to the attorney general of the province concerned.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Hark-ness) asked if I would inform the house as to the present location of Canadian troops serving with the United Nations emergency force in the Middle East and report on their present activities. There are at present approximately 1,100 Canadian service personnel in Italy and the Middle East. Of the approximately 800 Canadian army personnel in the Middle East, roughly 600 are stationed at the United Nations emergency force base at Abu Suweir in Egypt, and approximately 200 at the United Nations emergency force headquarters at El Ballah, 30 miles south of Port Said on the Suez canal.
In accordance with the request of the United Nations our soldiers are providing communications, engineering and administrative support to the whole emergency force. The activities of these troops are, I think, sufficiently indicated by the names of the units into which they are organized. These are the Canadian

base unit, Middle East, comprising some 252 personnel; a signal squadron, composed of 182 personnel; a transport company with 208 personnel, and an infantry workshop consisting of 149 R.C.E.M.E. personnel.
I might mention that the base unit contains an engineering detachment which has been engaged in clearing mine fields, repairing roads and bridges, etc.; a detachment of medical personnel who operate a small hospital, and an ordnance detachment which handles and accounts for stores for the whole United Nations emergency force, and small detachments of other services.
The Royal Canadian Air Force now has four Otter aircraft and one Dakota stationed at Abu Suweir at the disposal of the United Nations commander, and four C-119's based at Capodichino in Italy.
The number of air force personnel presently in Italy and Egypt varies from day to day, but runs to about 220 in Italy and 80 in Abu Suweir in Egypt. It might interest hon. members to know that since the establishment of No. 435 squadron at Capodichino on November 25, 1956, a total of 106 trips has been made to Abu Suweir, and 2,932 personnel and 764,722 pounds of freight have been carried without incident or accident.
Since the departure of H.M.C.S. Magnificent, no naval personnel are now in the area.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: May
I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, with regard to Canadian troops in Egypt? From whom are our troops presently in the Middle East, and particularly, in Egypt, drawing their rations and what is the line of supply?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think the United Nations has set up its own line of supply and, like most of the features which go to make up this new force, it is different in its composition and nature from anything we have had before; I cannot give details of the supply line. I know, however, that the troops have expressed themselves as being very satisfied with the whole supply system. It is being carried on by our own troops, but just where the sources of supply are I cannot say.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: May I ask a supplementary question arising from the minister's first statement. Can the minister inform the house what welfare services are available to our troops in the Middle East?


Ralph Osborne Campney: We have a small welfare unit in the Middle East ourselves; I have made inquiries from time to time and I understand the amenities are all being satisfactorily taken care of, except that there was

some dearth of Canadian news but we have taken steps in an effort to rectify that. Otherwise we have had no complaints at all.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Has the minister received any offer of services from a voluntary organization?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, none as yet.


Léon Balcer: May I put
a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister tell us where Canadian troops buy their food stores-is it from the Egyptian government, or from Israel or from Italy?


Ralph Osborne Campney: They are being supplied by the United Nations from various United Nations sources.



STATEMENT ON SELECTION OF NEW ARMOURED REGIMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ralph Osborne Campney: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might make a short statement in relation to the armoured regiment which is being made part of the regular army. On Friday last, I think, I stated in the house that I would be able to make an announcement shortly in that regard.
I may say that the selection of this regiment has not been an easy task, because there are a large number of armoured units in the Canadian militia which have long and distinguished histories.
The matter of seniority in the militia list, the geographical location of the unit, the intended location of the new regular unit, the location of the two existing regular armoured units, the areas of Canada now represented by units in the Canadian regular army, and a suitable national name were all factors that had to be considered.
After giving careful thought to all these factors, the decision has been taken to select the 8th Princess Louise's (New Brunswick) Hussars.
As it is considered essential that any unit selected should have a name indicating that it is a unit of the Canadian army, preferably without other local or provincial geographical connotation, the 8th Princess Louise's (New Brunswick) Hussars has been redesignated as the 8th Canadian Hussars (Princess Louise's), and the regiment, under this name, will be brought into the regular army. The regular unit will be known as the First 8th Canadian Hussars (Princess Louise's) and the militia unit will be known as the 2/8th.
The new armoured regiment will be located at Camp Gagetown, with one squadron at Valcartier, Quebec.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimali-Saanich):: May
I ask the Minister of National Defence what reduction in personnel is indicated by the disbandment of two infantry battalions and the formation of the new armoured regiment; secondly, will the men of this disbanded infantry battalion be given the opportunity to transfer to other units of the active army if they so desire.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, it is not felt that on balance there will be any reduction in the over-all number of personnel in the army, because, first of all, the personnel of the two battalions which are being run down will be used to strengthen the other two battalions of the Canadian Guards, and to provide reinforcements for the various units which need to be expanded in order to serve the new armoured regiment. Some may, of course, elect to go into the new armoured regiment. As I say, I think that on balance the total number will be about the same.


George Randolph Pearkes: And they will all have the opportunity to transfer to other units?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I would not like to say how wide that opportunity would be, but I presume an opportunity will be given them; they will select what they want to do, and effect will be given to their wishes.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, regarding the announcement which the minister made respecting the Princess Louise's Hussars. What preference will be given to the officers and men who are already serving in the present militia unit of the same name?


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is a matter of internal arrangement. I presume the staff will have worked out a system of handling the new officers and personnel. Just what the position of the militia personnel will be in that arrangement, I would not attempt to say.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on January 16 the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) asked a series of questions, and the answers are necessarily long. In view of the fact that the hon. member who asked the questions cannot be in the house today, perhaps, in order to save time, the house would agree that1 the answers be printed in Hansard or in Votes and Proceedings rather than that I should read them.

Supply-Finance


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the reply which the parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs is prepared to give at the moment be printed in Hansard as if it had actually been given in the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Would it not suffice that it be appended to the written answers merely with a statement that the following is an answer to an oral question reported at such and such a page in Hansard'!


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is better.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of hon. members that this be done?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For text of answers referred to above, see pages 789-90.)

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE University grants-[DOT]
541. To authorize payments to the national conference of Canadian universities (hereinafter called ''the conference") for the purpose of making grants to institutions of higher learning in accordance with an agreement entered into or to be entered into, with the approval of the governor in council, between the Minister of Finance and the conference, such agreement to include, inter alia, provision that the total amount of grants to all the institutions of higher learning in any one province be calculated by multiplying the population of the province by $1, and that any amount payable to an institution of higher learning and not paid by the conference in the present fiscal year may be retained by the conference until such time as the institution to which the money is payable claims the payment from the conference or parliament provides otherwise for the disposal thereof; the amount appropriated under vote 132 of the Appropriation Act No. 6, 1956 to be applied to the purposes of this vote; additional amount required, $7,986,000.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, this vote represents a recommendation by the government that the grants that have been made since 1951 to aid universities in the discharge of their increasing responsibilities to the Canadian public be increased, in fact, be doubled and be calculated on the basis of $1 per capita of the Canadian population instead of 50 cents per capita of the Canadian population, as has been the case heretofore. Hon. members will remember that when the Massey commission held its hearings throughout the country all Canadian universities asked for special financial assistance from the federal government and that several organizations supported that claim. The Massey commission itself felt

that such assistance was not only needed but urgent, and recommended:
That . . . the federal government make annual contributions to support the work of the universities on the basis of the population of each of the provinces of Canada.
The commission further recommended:
That these contributions be made after consultation with the government and the universities of each province, to be distributed to each university proportionately to the student enrolment.
The basis used by the commission as an illustration to determine the level of these contributions was 50 cents per head of population. It will be remembered that in 1951, after further representations from the Canadian universities and consultations with provincial governments, it was decided to recommend to parliament that that recommendation of the Massey commission be implemented. I am under the impression that it was the kind of recommendation that commended itself to practically all hon. members of the house, and an amount calculated on the basis of 50 cents per head of population has been included in the estimates ever since.
These payments were distributed directly to the institutions recognized by the provincial authorities as of university level in each province. The total amount was divided in proportion to the whole population of each province and within the province was divided among the institutions in proportion to the student enrolment in the courses leading to university degrees.
In the province of Quebec the authorities saw fit to allow this aid to be accepted for the first year only because it was stated that they feared that this was a first step towards encroachment on the exclusive jurisdiction of provincial legislatures in the field of education. I am sorry that that position was taken because I think that the institutions in Quebec could have made as good use of their share of this grant in past years as we know was made by the institutions of university level in the other provinces of Canada. I am sure that the work of the universities has been materially assisted by these grants and I do not think that their freedom and independence have been jeopardized in any way by the acceptance and use of the grants thus provided out of the appropriations made by the parliament of Canada.
In the meantime the situation of our universities has probably worsened. The most tragic aspect of this situation is undoubtedly the economic insecurity of the teaching profession. In its preliminary report the Gordon commission has stated the problem as follows:
University salaries have barely kept pace with the changes which have occurred in the price level since pre-war days. Living standards of university

teachers, especially of those in the higher ranks, have not increased with the general prosperity of the country as a whole. In fact, they have declined, and declined substantially, in relative terms.
Then a little further on:
These salaries do not bear comparison with the scales of remuneration which able men can command in business or in the professions or even with the earnings of some skilled workmen.
They go on to say:
The total annual cost of all salaries paid to assistant, associate and full professors in Canada at the present time, including deans and heads of departments, is about $12 million. As already stated we believe that it is important that the salaries of university teachers be increased very considerably.
Recently the executive council of the Canadian association of university teachers adopted unanimously a national salary scale of $8,000, $11,000 and $14,000 for assistant, associate and full professors. This scale is intended to secure to university teachers today their pre-war status and is based on 1938 average salaries multiplied by 3.5 which represents the composite increase in the cost of living and in the average real product of the Canadian worker since 1938.
The application of that new scale of salaries will involve the doubling of present salaries in central and western Canada and would require an additional annual expenditure by universities of approximately $12 million. Moreover, university enrolments are now rapidly increasing and it is expected that they will double by about 1965 which means, according to reliable estimates, that the staff of the universities should also be twice as large as it is now if young Canadians are to receive proper attention from the teaching staffs of the universities. This means that to meet our needs in this field our universities will have to devote about four times as much money on the salaries of teachers as they spend now.
We are now facing a dilemma which may be defined in simple terms. If the universities cannot spend more than at present on salaries, they will not only be unable to attract more teachers but they will be apt to lose more of the good ones they now have as, unfortunately, has been going on for some time past. In view of our rapidly increasing needs, I think this would have a pretty tragic effect on the development of Canada as a nation and I feel that all Canadians would not want such a crisis to take place. On the other hand, if universities are to fulfil their important role they must attract an increasing number of competent teachers and to do this they must be able to spend much more on salaries by 1965 than they spend at the present time.
Supply-Finance
The Gordon commission concludes its appraisal of this problem as follows:
In this connection it must suffice for us to express the strong opinion that no government which bears any share of responsibility for the future economic development of this country can allow a solution to the pressing financial problems of the universities to go by default.
That is pretty strong language but I think it is language that is fully justified by the situation facing us. According to the provisions of our constitution, it is clear that provincial governments have the main responsibilities in this field, and I think we are all confident that they will continue to meet that challenge and devote an increasing share of their rising revenues to assist Canadian universities in fulfilling their very necessary and important tasks. However, this has not been regarded in the past as their exclusive responsibility and I hope it will not be regarded in the future as their exclusive responsibility. Private foundations in industry, both in Canada and from abroad, have made important contributions in the past to help our universities arid the teachers in them. While we hope that private contribution's from other countries, especially those with which we have the closest relations, will be continued,-perhaps even that they might be increased-I am sure that hon. members have noted with great satisfaction the active interest which Canadian industry has shown more recently in this field. Our business men realize more and more that they can no longer afford to be indifferent to the financial problems of our universities, and they have initiated projects which, if fully implemented, will have most beneficial effects. These developments will be most reassuring for all of us-and I am sure that is the overwhelming majority -who want to see not only the survival but the expansion of private institutions of higher learning in Canada and who believe that the diversification of sources of revenue is the best method by which our universities can achieve and maintain the highest degree of intellectual freedom and intellectual independence.
While there is general agreement that provincial governments and private industry should increase their assistance to universities, there are Canadians who feel that the Canadian government should not intervene in this field. I cannot share that view. I believe that the Canadian government has the constitutional right to offer assistance to universities and that it is its duty and responsibility to do so. After all the Canadian people through their elected representatives are the greatest consumer in numbers of the training that is given to our young people in

Supply-Finance
our Canadian universities. If we did not have the Canadian universities to give them that training, we might be in the same position as that in which we find ourselves with respect to the training of officers and directors of our armed forces and be obliged to establish, maintain and operate special schools for their training. I think that would be a great misfortune. I think it would be a great misfortune if the civil servants in the ordinary administration of their fellow citizens' affairs were not trained in the same way and were not regarded as part of the general public about whose affairs they are obliged to busy themselves.
I have seen countries where there seemed to be one group that was the government group, going from the prime minister right down through every degree of civil servant, whilst the governed were another group. That is not the way in which we have been brought up. That is not our way of life. In our democratic institutions it is the people themselves who select from among themselves, directly or through their representatives, those who are entrusted with the administration of such of their affairs as must be administered for the group at large. I think that is a more healthy situation than would be the case if we trained a certain number of young Canadian citizens for the occupancy of any ivory towers of civil administration.
It is on the same general basis of its constitutional right to devote funds from the consolidated revenue fund to national needs that the federal government has distributed, through the national research council, an amount of approximately $25 million since 1917 for postgraduate research in the field of the national sciences, these amounts being distributed to individuals and to universities. A great number of other federal programs have the same constitutional basis. Family allowances; the national health program; our financial contributions to pensions for the blind and for disabled persons; our assistance to technical and vocational training and to the unemployed; our equalization payments to the provinces; our contributions under the Canada Forestry Act and the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act, as well as others, belong to the same category of services which are primarily a provincial responsibility but which are of national concern and have benefited from the appropriations by this parliament to assist in carrying them out. All these programs have common features. They are financed through the consolidated revenue fund. They do not involve any element of compulsion and they

apply to classes of responsibilities which relate to matters within the legislative jurisdiction of the provinces but they do not amount to legislation controlling the administration or the operations of these functions.
From the origin of confederation provincial governments have accepted most of these programs and have participated in the financing of some of them without questioning their constitutional validity. They themselves have used the same continuation of the royal prerogative to apply public funds to matters that would be of value to the national development or to the welfare of the nation as a whole. In my own province where there have been these fears expressed about the constitutional right to make these grants the government, with the authority of the legislature itself, has made similar grants to educational institutions outside the limits of the province. I think the first was made for the University of Ottawa many many years ago, and they have continued to be made. I think they have helped to develop this feeling of interdependence of the people of one area and the people of another area. We feel-and I think parliament has accepted that provision-that it was proper to make grants in aid to further the good work of the universities. Of course, no one is obliged to accept these grants. But their acceptance has not in the past led to any undermining of the legislative jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures in respect of such activities, and I do not think it will do so in the future.
Federal assistance to the universities also raises the question of policy. I think that policy has been, six times already, decided by this house in respect of the earlier grants. I hope an increase, which will amount to approximately one dollar per head in all of the Canadian population, will be regarded as a proper contribution to make to their work.
In order to try to make it appear more obvious that there was no attempt whatsoever to control the activities of or to legislate with respect to the operations of the universities we are making the following recommendation instead of making direct payments to the individual institutions. We are not concerned with the individual institutions as individual institutions. We are concerned nationally with the effect of the university services to the Canadian nation. We are now recommending that instead of having cheques written out by the Department of Finance to each individual institution, the total amount appropriated by parliament for aid to the universities will be turned over to the National Council of Canadian Universities which has been incorporated recently and which, through

its appointees, has agreed that it would accept the duty of receiving this amount en bloc from the federal treasury and of apportioning it on the basis as between provinces of the population of each province and on the basis within the province of the number of student enrolments in each institution recognized as being of university level in that province.
Hon. members will have noted that the item in the estimates provides that the amount which had been previously voted in the general estimates under vote 132 of the Appropriation Act No. 6, 1956, will be applied in the same way. In the past these votes, though made during the winter season, were not paid to the universities until late January or in the course of the month of February of the next calendar year. It was felt that if parliament were to consider that it was proper to increase the amount of the aid to the universities to an amount equal to $1 per capita of the Canadian population in view of the existing circumstances, it would not be proper to wait to give effect to that decision until the month of February, 1958. For that reason, this additional amount which will bring the vote up to practically $16 million is set out in language which will make it the duty of the Minister of Finance, after entering into a contract with the incorporated body, the National Council of Canadian Universities, to pay the whole amount over almost at once, as soon as the legislation becomes effective, so that it will be available for use in this calendar year and will not be retarded until the calendar year 1958.
I have been asked why there was this system of turning the grant over to the National Council of Canadian Universities instead of continuing to make the payments to each insitution individually. Well, I had hoped, and I still hope, that ultimately it will convince the people who require university services throughout the whole of Canada that there is no intention and no possibility of this impinging upon the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the respective provinces; that it is something which the Canadian government feels, in the interests of the Canadian people represented by the Canadian government, ought to be done in order to compensate for the direct value it receives from those university services in the training of the personnel fitted to occupy the offices in the administration which as the population increases and as the economy becomes more productive, are increasing in responsibilities and do require trained minds properly to administer the legislation which the representatives of the people adopt in their parliament.
So that there may be no suggestion that the whole Canadian people are being taxed for
Supply-Finance
the benefit of only a portion or only certain regions of the country we want to provide that these amounts, if they are not taken immediately, will remain as a trust in the hands of the National Council of Canadian Universities to be applied for whenever the institution to which they would have been allocated sees fit to apply for them or until parliament sees fit to dispose of them otherwise. These are the terms that are set out in this vote.
Hon. members will recall that in the other votes it was the Minister of Finance who was to determine by regulations the various details that would go to fix what would be the meaning of university level and such other details. Well, all this will be set out in the contract entered into between the government and the National Council of Canadian Universities. As soon as that contract is entered into it will be tabled here and hon. members will see that the draft that is being discussed makes no change in the manner in which the calculations were to be made for the appropriate allocation as between provinces and as between institutions within the provinces in the previous votes for the lesser amounts.
I trust that any misgivings which may exist anywhere as to the possibility of the Canadian parliament wishing to trespass on the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures in respect of education will disappear and that it will be recognized that this is something that is in the interests of the nation as a whole, that is almost indispensable to the proper development of the nation as a whole, and that it will not in any way lessen the feeling of responsibility of the provincial governments or of those other employers of trained minds whether they be industrial or commercial firms or be other like organizations which are beginning to recognize-and I trust they will continue in their recognition -their responsibility-to do their share so that we may continue to have-I think we have had it in the past-university service of which we shall have every reason to be satisfied and be proud; that we shall continue to have the kind of university services that are necessary for the proper development of a nation that has tremendous natural resources, that has been very benevolently blessed by Providence in the area and richness of its land, and which I feel is to be the earthly home of an increasing number of reasonable-minded, well-trained members of the human family who will not only provide good living conditions for themselves in their own land but will continue to make their contribution to the welfare and improvement of human life throughout

Supply-Finance
as large an area of the terrestrial globe as their influence may happen to reach.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister has been at pains to give us a very full and clear exposition of the reasons underlying the grants to universities and the change in the routing of the money, so to speak. I think there will be the widest measure of agreement in this house as to the desirability of assisting universities. That was covered in considerable detail the other day and I shall pause only for a moment or two to comment on what the Prime Minister said about the teaching profession. I think we will all agree with that.
I suppose it may be said that the manner in which those in the teaching profession are treated in a country is a sign of the degree of its civilization and I have sometimes been worried that in our own country we do not treat those in the teaching profession as we should, and this is particularly true in times of great prosperity. It was true in the gay twenties, in the thirties things levelled up better, and now again there has been a falling behind.
It is not disagreeing in the least with what the Prime Minister said concerning what is needed to be done if one offers one or two comments about the teaching profession. There are, of course, those dedicated spirits who regard the teaching profession as a way of life and who would be in it even if it involved something approaching starvation. I remember a professor of mine who sought my assistance one day in the preparation of his income tax. This was a good many years ago and at that time he was earning the munificent salary of $6,000 a year which he thought was a very good salary. I said that I did not agree with him and that he ought to receive the same amount of remuneration as a successful businessman. "Oh," he said, "but look at the kind of work I am doing. Why, if I were a man of means I would be ready to put down a premium to be allowed to do it". Well, Mr. Chairman, there are not many people like that, although there are some and in varying degrees there are dedicated spirits who would teach even though they had to suffer in order to do so. Also as a way of life we must not forget it has great attractions. It offers leisure which the rest of us do not enjoy and I say that not in order to disagree with what has been put forward as to the need but merely to draw attention to these aspects.
We come now to the actual grants. The Prime Minister has explained in considerable detail the reasons for the new method of routing the money. The Prime Minister

very naturally is interested in the constitutional aspect of it which is seriously regarded in certain quarters and he has been at pains to explain it to us. Then we come to the national conference of Canadian universities. I suppose it would be a fairly accurate description of the use of the conference if I said it is to be used rather like a conduit pipe for the transfer of the money from the government to the universities. Well, a conduit pipe has not a very elevated function but it is useful and therefore I do not see that it is of vital importance whether the national conference of Canadian universities or the present system is used. I somewhat regret that the national conference will be used because it does not seem to me to be a natural function for it. I do not believe it is incorporated although it will become incorporated.


Mr. SI. Laurent (Quebec East):: The letters patent under part 2, I think it is, of the Companies Act were issued on January 18.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Thank you. The Prime Minister has I think covered one point which is necessary to be covered. I think it is clear from what he said that the national conference is not to have any discretion whatsoever in the matter of apportioning the funds. I think it would be not only unfortunate but most undesirable if any discretion were left, and that leads me to express the hope that the Prime Minister will give us some indication of the agreement which is to be entered into and which I assume will give definite directions to the national conference as to how the money is to be paid.
I have already said I rather regret that this method is to be used. In the first place it seems to me it is introducing a piece of machinery which we could very well have done without. Nevertheless I do not think it is a matter one should take too seriously and on the understanding which I got from the Prime Minister's speech that there will be no discretion left to the conference and that it will merely pass this money on, then it seems to me we come to the question as to whether or not we are prepared to increase the grants to the universities from 50 cents per head of population to $1; in other words, to double the grants. As I understand it, these grants go to the universities free of strings of any kind and I can speak for one university which has received its grant with very great thankfulness.
I do not think there is anything I need to add. Other grants for universities with a view to capital expenditures will be discussed and that need not be gone into now.

As I said, Mr. Chairman, I am not following the Prime Minister in discussing the constitutional details of the situation because that is a matter that concerns him and the government, and I can understand how much it does concern them; I think I shall content myself with what I have said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, we welcome this supplementary estimate which is now before us. We welcome the decision of the government to double the amount of money to be paid by way of grants to our Canadian universities. We also welcome most heartily the speech that has been made today by the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I note that it is welcomed in all quarters of the house. I merely want to say, Mr. Chairman, that it is a speech that would have been most welcome yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Nowlan:: The Minister of Justice is not listening.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a matter of fact I noticed that part of the speech the Prime Minister made today was from a manuscript and I think it is unfortunate that he had not shown a copy of that manuscript to the Minister of Justice before that hon. gentleman made the speech he gave us last evening.


George Clyde Nowlan: The Minister of Justice is looking very busy now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, the Canadian people are going to be somewhat confused by the news that is coming out of Ottawa these days with respect to the question of education. One day the news is that the government is all for the assisting of education in this country. On another day the news is that the government is against it, that the Minister of Justice has pronounced upon the subject and has said it is contrary to the constitution. Come another day and the Prime Minister says that education is something that is in the interest of the nation as a whole and that it is almost indispensable, in the interests of the nation as a whole, that something should be done about its financial support. I know that a line is drawn by the government between university education and general education at other levels, and the Minister of Justice is slightly on one side of it and the Prime Minister is slightly on the other side. Surely any reasonable person in Canada who is interested in the welfare of this country would agree that what the Prime Minister said today about the importance of education and about the concern of the nation as a whole in education
Supply-Finance
applies to all levels of education just as much as it applies to university education. I say again that we welcome most heartily the excellent speech the Prime Minister made today. I am only sorry the Minister of Justice did not know that this speech was going to be made before he presented the remarks which he placed on the record last night.
In connection with this attempt to draw the line between university education and education generally may I remind the Minister of Justice of something with which he must be familiar, coming as he does from the same province which I have the honour to represent. He knows that in Manitoba grade 12 in high school is the equivalent of first year in our universities. As a matter of fact many of the courses taught in the first year of university, in both arts and science, are almost identical with some of the courses taught in grade 12. Boys and girls of around 17 years of age going to grade 12 in the high schools of Manitoba are in an educational system which according to the Minister of Justice cannot receive any financial assistance from the federal treasury because the constitution stands in the way, but other young men and women of the same age are going to the University of Manitoba or its affiliated colleges and taking exactly the same courses and according to the Prime Minister it is in the national interest that those institutions be assisted financially out of the federal treasury. I agree with the Prime Minister and I disagree thoroughly with the position taken yesterday by the Minister of Justice.
I hope that the growing interest in the importance of this question which was evinced by the excellent speech made today by the Prime Minister means that what we know is true will soon come to pass, that the day will come when out of the federal treasury there will be substantial grants of money for this important national interest, the interest of the education of our people.
The Prime Minister put it very well in what he said today about what education means to the community, to the government, to the civil service and to our people generally. If education means all of that to this nation and requires that the federal government find ways and means to provide financial aid at the university level, we submit that it applies to education generally. The only criticism I have to make of the Prime Minister's speech is that he did not rise in his place yesterday and make the same speech on the motion moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon.
The Prime Minister has been confronted with the difficulty of finding some way in

Supply-Finance
which to make these grants to universities without paying them to the provincial governments or directly to the universities themselves. He has come up with this very interesting device-I have no quarrel with it at all-of paying the money to the National Conference of Canadian Universities so that that body may in turn channel it along to the universities themselves.
I was interested in the exchange which took place a moment ago between the hon. member for Greenwood and the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Greenwood thought that the National Conference of Canadian Universities was not an incorporated organization, but the Prime Minister came right back to say that letters patent had been issued recently putting that organization in the position where it could receive and handle this money. If the government is to be logical in this and recognize the importance which education generally plays in the life of this country it could probably suggest that letters patent be issued to the Canadian association of school trustees so that federal money could be made available to assist education down the line.
We welcome the education which is taking place on the other side of the house. We welcome the realization which is growing, as expressed in the Prime Minister's speech, of the importance of this question and we hope that it will not be long until we see a real extension of this principle in terms of the precepts laid down today by the Prime Minister.
I want to say just a few words with particular reference to the province from which I come. Thus far I have been speaking on behalf of our entire group in welcoming what the Prime Minister has said today, but as one coming from Manitoba I wish to point out that in our province there is a particular need for increased financial aid at the university level. All of us in Manitoba will be delighted that the amount to be made available to our institutions at the university level will be doubled as far as our province is concerned. As other hon. members from my province know, some months ago we lost from our university the entire staff of teachers in the faculty of education. Those teachers were lost to a university which was able to pay higher salaries.


Mr. Sinclair:: They were attracted there.4 It was not a matter of salaries at all, it was the better working conditions and the fact that it is a nicer province.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Fisheries never misses a chance to put in a plug for the climate and some of the other advantages

of the province of British Columbia, but some of the rest of us feel that there is nothing like the invigorating effect of life on the prairies. As I was saying, a year ago we lost the teaching staff of an entire faculty because of the inability of the University of Manitoba to pay salaries equal to those that could be paid somewhere else. In recent weeks there has been great concern at the University of Manitoba with respect to another faculty, the faculty of engineering. There is grave danger that some of the professors in that faculty may leave for the very same reason, because the salary scale at the University of Manitoba is inadequate.
Strong representations have been made to the university and the provincial authorities in Manitoba by representatives of the students. I am sure all of us who recall our college and university days will be interested in reading of this delegation of students going to the university authorities. I remember some strange things we went to the authorities about in my day but I do not recall that we ever urged that the professors should receive higher pay. Such is the state of university salaries at the present time, such is the seriousness of the situation created by the possible loss of professors by certain universities that that is what students are organizing for at the present time. They are trying to persuade the authorities to pay a higher scale of salaries to the professors in the engineering and other faculties in the University of Manitoba.
I could go on and speak of other difficulties facing the University of Manitoba. A minor tragedy occurred during the early part of the winter when a chemistry laboratory was destroyed by fire. This was just an old hut in which chemistry experiments were being carried on, but its loss underlines the need, not only for paying adequate salaries to professors but for providing buildings and other capital equipment.
So I say that in Manitoba, and I know the same is true in some other provinces, the need is very great. There is a crisis at the university level just as there is a crisis in education generally, as was indicated yesterday by the hon. member for Saskatoon. We feel that very serious attention must be given to this matter.
We do not want the government to take the view that because we welcome this larger grant, that so far as we are concerned it is the end of the story. We feel that sooner or later there will have to be a real grappling by all governments in this country with this problem. They will have to sit down together and consider the whole problem of the financing of education. At its very

beginning this country made the decision that in terms of education we would be a democracy, we would make education available to everyone. I for one do not think that we made a mistake. However, if we are going to continue to adhere to the principle that education should be made available to everyone we are going to have to face these increasing costs. We are going to have to provide for them in ways that are sensible, in ways that relate to the nature of our economy at the present time. I am glad to hear the Prime Minister say that the federal government has the prerogative of making grants wherever it feels that the making of such grants is in the national interest. I am glad, too, that he underlined the right of the provincial governments to make grants wherever they feel that they are in the interests of the community generally. Nothing could be of greater interest to life in this country, and to the future of Canada, than the channelling into education of the proportion of our total national wealth that it needs and deserves. Toward that end I hope there will be further progress in the near future. Again, I say, we welcome this estimate; we shall vote for it gladly. We also welcome the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). We regret he did not make it yesterday. We hope he will make it the next time the broader question of aid to education, without-in his own terms-interfering with exclusive provincial jurisdiction, comes before this house, as come it will.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, I intend to
take just a minute on this item. I appreciate the views that have just been expressed with respect to the Prime Minister's speech this afternoon, and how appropriate it would have been had he made the same speech yesterday on a previous resolution, even though that resolution was sponsored by a private member. I may say that I am alarmed, however, that the government, with its huge majority, voted against that resolution yesterday-


Stanley Howard Knowles: They talked it out.


Ernest George Hansell: They talked it out, yes, but
if they had voted on it the effect would have been the same, because the Minister of Justice himself gave the lead in one of the closing speeches. I am surprised at that, because the whole tenor of the speeches made yesterday by those on the government side of the house was to the effect that they were not in favour of the motion as proposed by the hon. member for Saskatoon.
I noted, Mr. Chairman, that the Prime Minister made reference in his speech to certain regulations which must be laid down,
Supply-Finance
and in accordance with which the council of universities will administer this money. I agree that there must be some sort of regulations governing this matter; I do not know what those regulations are going to be. It occurs to me that we might have been given some elaboration of that subject; I am inclined to think that, perhaps, the small colleges may be left out in the cold.
I am a believer in the small college; I believe the small college is of great value to the general educational progress of our nation. I have been connected with small colleges during part of my life-time experience, and I believe they have a very important part to play in our national life. I am sometimes amazed at the way in which we grind out the students who go forth from our high schools and universities-it is just like grinding them out of a mill. I wonder sometimes if they do not leave our schools of higher learning as if they had been turned out by an assembly line process which results in all of them knowing and believing the same things. I wonder if there is any real individual thinking among them.
I believe that the smaller college gives more personal attention to the student, and for that reason alone such colleges are of particular value. It is one thing to educate a mind; it is another thing to educate the personality. There is a difference between loading the mind with figures and facts and teaching the mind to think for itself. I am a great believer in individual freedom, and I believe the best possible education that can be given to our young people, and the most valuable education to provide for the nation, is the production of minds trained to think for themselves. When this is the object of education you do not get the stereotyped mind; you get independent thinking-and independent thinking is that which has made history. I make a plea for the smaller colleges on that account.
I suppose, Mr. Chairman, that there are a good many small colleges which are affiliated to universities, but there may be other types of colleges which are not. Let us remember this; education does not come only through a recognized university. Some of our young people, while desiring to think properly, also desire to use their hands. I do not know whether there will be any assistance here for some of our technical colleges. Some of our young people like to go in for agriculture. I know there are agricultural subjects taught in some of our universities, but I would be interested to know whether certain of our agricultural colleges may gain assistance from these grants. Then, again,

Supply-Finance
there are religious colleges. There are a good many young people who wish to enter a school of religion, and there are some , independent colleges connected with churches of one kind or another. All these things constitute what I would call a proper educational system for the nation as a whole, yet a lot of these smaller colleges have to go begging for money. Some of them are organized on a voluntary basis; some of them have to go out and appeal for funds from their congregations or from donors who may be particularly interested in an individual organization. I wonder whether any assistance would be given to such colleges as these from the funds which will be made available.
It is no mean fund; it is $7,986,000 a year, plus what has already been appropriated.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think I wish to say anything else. We are in favour of the appropriation, but I would just voice this plea for the smaller colleges.


Mr. MacEachen:: I want to make a few remarks on this important subject, to express, particularly, my own pleasure at the increased support to the universities which this item represents. After listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I am inclined to suggest that in this field of support to university education we have come a great distance in a relatively short time, and I believe, personally, that the wide public support which has been given to this assistance to the universities is the result, primarily, of the sympathy with which the Prime Minister has presented this problem not only to the house but to the people of Canada.
Before coming to the house as a member I had the opportunity to teach at a university in Nova Scotia and since that time I have been rather close to the administration, and have learned the very wholesome effects which have followed from this assistance. Now the assistance is to be doubled and further beneficial effects will flow. Several years ago St. Francis Xavier University at Antigonish opened a junior college in Sydney which now gives the first year in university education, particularly to the sons of coal miners, steel workers and others in the area Who might not be able to leave their homes to go to a distant place. Just a year ago I had the opportunity of talking to the principal of Xavier junior college and he gave me a very vivid and impressive account of the good work that was being done not only in the academic field but also in other adult classes and he suggested that without the assistance provided through these university grants it would be next to impossible

for this small community college to carry on this very useful work.
I believe further that the assistance now given in Nova Scotia and the maritimes generally, despite certain improvements that some of us would like to see, has meant a great deal to the smaller colleges to which the hon. member for Macleod has made reference. Twenty years ago there was a greater crisis in education in the maritime provinces than there is today in the sense that a great discussion took place on the desirability of university centralization. The advocates of centralization were unable to achieve their objective and the result is that we have in many parts of Nova Scotia today outstanding smaller universities which are giving not only good academic courses but are providing outstanding community and cultural leadership in various parts of the province. I do know that eastern Nova Scotia would be much poorer without the existence of St. Francis Xavier and I do know that the Annapolis valley would be much poorer without the existence of Acadia university.
The system of university assistance now in vogue permits a continued decentralization policy and does not in any sense attempt to centralize or bring together the whole university community into one locality as used to be advocated. It is very interesting also to observe that the trend today, as reflected in the remarks of the hon. member for Macleod, is towards a greater emphasis on the smaller community college, and this trend has reached its greatest development in the United States. I believe that the system of making these payments adopted by the House of Commons is helpful to the small liberal arts college and university and, indeed, some of the apprehensions expressed by the hon. member for Macleod do not come about because all of the church supported universities, provided they meet the required qualifications, receive assistance. There is certainly no effort to make a choice as between church schools and secular schools.
I was particularly pleased with the emphasis that the Prime Minister placed on the salary schedules existing in Canadian universities. There is an emphasis, sometimes too great, on building programs and on the development of great physical plants. But no matter what buildings are erected on university campuses, a university is still made up of professors, books and now, in a technical era, laboratories, and no great expansion of physical plant will replace the quality of professors who are the human medium of instruction.
I know it has been very difficult for young men in this country to continue their

academic careers in the universities because of the lower salary schedules and because of the greater inducements offered by industrial and other occupations in the country. No single feature of this item appeals to me more than the capacity which it provides to Canadian universities to spend more money on the very indispensable part of a university, namely, its professors.
It is true that the assistance herein provided is not a final answer to the financing of universities. Universities will be expected to continue to cultivate their own private sources of assistance. That is all to the good because it is important that voluntary agencies and private individuals through their personal connection with the universities continue their interest in the cause of higher education.
I do not intend to go into the constitutional aspect of the problem but no matter what can be said on the constitutional phase it is still a truism that the universities are national institutions. If you consider, for example, the total number of graduates from any of the universities in Nova Scotia you will find that about 35 per cent serve in other provinces of Canada. Even if you consider the graduates of the larger universities in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec you will also find that many of these graduates do not remain in their own provinces but go and offer their services in the other provinces of Canada. Therefore there is a great and very wide circulation of graduates from provincial universities throughout the whole of Canada. These services are offered everywhere and point up very clearly that the universities of our country are national institutions and are deserving of national support.
I certainly welcome this particular item and I am sure that if this session is not notable for anything else it will be notable in the university communities of Canada for the very great strides made by parliament and the government in giving practical form to the great desire we all have to support the universities and the students of Canada.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I have been
thinking exactly as the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond has been thinking, that whatever else may be said of this session or whatever else may be said before we are through and possibly experience a more tumultuous atmosphere than has heretofore characterized this chamber, no session has ever had so much to do with education as the present one since we opened on January 8. With the cultural council, with the resolution of the hon. member for Saskatoon, with the philosophical and learned address
Supply-Finance
with which the Prime Minister opened the debate this afternoon, certainly this is a most unique session. I am sure there are those in the house, including myself in the very short time I have been here, who remember that when we started to discuss this item in 1951 we were told by some gentlemen who occupy rather prominent positions in the house: You should not urge that, do not ask for anything more, you know, it is such a risky proposition, the government is on such dangerous ground that the subject is very likely to be dropped, and please say nothing about it or else that will happen to it.
When we hear the forthright, intelligent and able presentation of the Prime Minister this afternoon with respect to this question we can realize how far the house and the government have progressed along this line in the days since the item was first introduced in 1951, I believe the Prime Minister said. Certainly we can all heartily agree with all that he said.
I am not going to take the time to discuss the matter at any length now. I have expressed my opinion on it in times gone by. I gather from the Prime Minister that we are going to operate under exactly the same formulas as have prevailed heretofore except that the amount will be $1 instead of 50 cents and the amount will be paid to the council or conference rather than paid to the universities by the Department of Finance. I am sure we all welcome very heartily the 100 per cent increase in the contribution.
I do not have to emphasize the problems of the universities today. The hon. member for Inverness-Richmond suggested that the problems were not as great as they were at one time.
That is possibly true, Mr. Chairman, though I doubt it. The one thing I would regret most in the Prime Minister's speech this afternoon was the reading of the salary scale which has now been suggested and approved for university professors across Canada. I can imagine the reactions of certain university professors. I am sure if our friend the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond were still carrying on as a professor at St. Francis Xavier and saw that salary scale, he would be discussing that night with his wife whether he should remain or whether he should seek those western fields where salary scales are much higher. I am sure the same thing would prevail in other places in Canada.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is only an objective.


George Clyde Nowlan: My friend from Queens University is issuing a warning to his faculty members that it is only an objective.

Supply-Finance
One thing I would say seriously in connection with this matter is this. I regret again, as I have expressed regret previously, that this system cannot be so administered as to take care of some of the inequalities which exist and which will continue to exist between universities because of the mechanical basis on which the grant is made.
We welcome the grant. I agree with the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond that it is going a substantial distance or at least some distance in meeting the problems of the universities. But those problems are increasing so rapidly, as the Prime Minister himself intimated, that I doubt if this has gone far in solving problems that were in existence even 10 or 15 years ago.
In the east, in our own maritime provinces, we have the situation of the small college to which my friend referred. I certainly cannot forgo the opportunity of returning the compliment and saying that eastern Nova Scotia and in fact all Nova Scotia and the maritimes would be much poorer if it were not for the leadership given in the past and still being given by St. Francis Xavier in the eastern part of the province. Everyone in the east and I think everyone in Canada knows of the contribution that university has made to the educational and social problems of Canada.
I must not take more time, except to say again that I welcome the making of this grant; but because of the fact that we have a large number of universities, a relatively small population and a very large student population coming from all over Canada, the same disparity will exist. I think of my own university, for instance. I am not trying to quote the figures correctly but roughly $94, I think, was received last year in our case as compared with over $200 in other institutions.
I have expressed the hope and I am confident-that is why I am happy to see it- that this is another step along the road upon which we are just now starting. That is why I welcome this step. I am confident' that sooner or later you are going to build into this machinery an equalization arrangement so there will be a minimum per student, at any rate, such as that used during the war in connection with the veterans, when I think it was $125 per student or something of the kind. If that were done it would be a big improvement. The cost to the treasury would be relatively small, and it would be of assistance to the smaller universities which do not receive provincial grants. There are no provincial universities in Nova Scotia. They are all privately financed. If an arrangement such as this were made it would go a long way toward rectifying the situation. Hence we welcome this grant. As I said, the students of

history will look back at this as the year in which the government and the parliament of Canada embarked upon the new road in so far as education is concerned.


Mr. Leboe:: I have three questions. The first is this. Does the one dollar per capita represent a relative amount compared to the costs of operating universities at the time the 50 cent grant was made? The second question is this. Is there any other reason why the grants are not made on a per capita basis to the provinces instead of to the national council of Canadian universities? The third question is, will these grants from the national council of Canadian universities be free of all obligations as to standards, curriculum or the hiring of the teaching personnel?
One other suggestion I should like to make is this. I wonder if it would be possible in any way to direct some of this grant to a revolving fund which would assist underprivileged students to get to university. I think a student who is worth his salt would like to pay his own way and, if it were possible for him to do so after he had taken his university training, pay back that amount of money so it would leave the way open for some underprivileged person to follow in his wake and take the university training he so greatly desires.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, like all other hon. members who have spoken on this subject, I am greatly alarmed by the difficult situation which the Canadian universities are in at the present time. Like all other hon. members in this	house I have	the	greatestrespect for my	own	alma	mater,	namelyLaval University. I can easily picture all the problems that face this great institution at the present time, having regard to the increase in the cost of living, the increase in the cost of materials, and various other difficulties which the authorities of this great university	must	face	at	the	presenttime. However,	I am	sorry	to	be the only
voice so far which has been raised against this vote.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to be obliged to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but it is five o'clock. Perhaps this would be a convenient time for me to interrupt him. It being five o'clock the house will proceed to consideration of public and private bills.
At five o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. 4, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it will be unnecessary for me to speak for more than a few minutes in moving the second reading of this bill, which has been before the house every year since 1948. In most sessions it has been debated, so the arguments for and against it have been presented a number of times. It is, of course, my hope that since all political parties in this country have gone on record as favouring the principle which underlies this bill, since three of the parties in this house, together with individual members on the government side, have voted for it a number of times, one of these times the bill will pass and its principle will be written into our federal statutes.
The purpose of the bill is to incorporate what is known as the voluntary revocable check-off into the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. The voluntary revocable check-off is a provision that makes it possible for any union that has been certified according to law to request of the employer that deductions be made from the wages of the employees in the bargaining unit to apply toward their union dues. The provision is a standard one which includes the requirement that even after a certified union makes its request it shall apply only to those members of the union who personally sign such a request, with the understanding that any such member may at any time revoke that request if he wishes to do so. That is the reason for this provision being styled as the voluntary revocable check-off of trade union dues.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that a provision similar to this one is in the labour codes of a number of the provinces of this country and, as I have already indicated, the principle of union security, of which this is the barest minimum, has been supported at political conventions by all the major parties of this country.
The wording of my bill is taken from wording which was written into the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act when that bill was in the hands of the industrial relations committee back in 1948. I must make it clear that the provision was not in the bill when the government brought it in, but it was put in by the committee on the motion of the then member for Spadina
Industrial Relations
who is now a member of the other place. However, despite the majority vote of the industrial relations committee of that parliament for this provision, it was struck out by a majority vote of the house when the bill came back to committee of the whole. Since that time quite a number of Liberal members on occasion have spoken and voted for this provision, along with members of the three parties on this side of the house. This is what leads me to hope that one of these days parliament as a whole will recognize that this tribute to the position of organized labour in our economy should be included in our labour laws.
Not only has there been all kinds of support for this principle to which I have already referred but I would point out that in 1953 the house, while refusing to give second reading to Bill No. 2 of that year, it being identical with Bill No. 4 which is now before us, nevertheless referred its subject matter to the committee on industrial relations. I have before me the second report of the committee on industrial relations which was presented to the house on Tuesday, April 28, 1953. It is not very long. I should like, therefore, to read it to the house:
The standing committee on industrial relations begs leave to present the following as its second report.
Your committee has considered the subject matter of Bill No. 2, "An act to amend Ithe Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (voluntary revocable check-off)", and has agreed to report as follows:
Your committee endorses the principle of Bill No. 2 and recommends that the principle of the said bill, together with the submissions included in the printed minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee on the subject matter of this bill, be considered by the government in its review and proposed revision of the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, which the committee is informed is now under study.
A copy of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of your committee is appended.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
It is signed by the chairman of the committee of that session.
I would point out also, Mr. Speaker, that on May 5, 1953, the chairman of that committee moved in the House of Commons that the report of the committee be concurred in by the house. There was a short debate which is recorded on about a page or so of Hansard, at the end of which that motion for concurrence was adopted.
I mention the fact that there was a short debate just to make it clear that it was not one of those pro forma votes. The house, I suggest, knew what it was doing when it concurred in this report, and thus made it the view of the house as a whole that the principle of Bill No. 2 of that year was endorsed and its study recommended to the

Industrial Relations
government in its review and proposed revision of the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we learned later that study, of course, was given by the government, and no doubt it is still being given, to the subject matter of the bill, the principle underlying it, but that seems to be as far as the government has gone in relation to this pretty clear-cut recommendation which was made to it by the House of Commons in 1953, just before an election, of course, with respect to a report made to the house by a committee.
I mention that, Mr. Speaker, in support of my contention that this principle of having the check-off of trade union dues is something to which a great deal of thought and study have been given, something which has wide support and something which many of us feel should be put on the statute books as a recognition of the important and rightful place the trade union movement has in the economy of our country.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, the arguments for this proposal are on the pages of Hansard of the past eight or nine years and therefore it is not necessary for me to speak at any greater length. However, I have pleasure once again in presenting to the house this bill to provide for the voluntary revocable check-off of trade union dues.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that it is at least eight years since this legislation was proposed. I recall suffering some measure of embarrassment in the second session of 1949, when I was somewhat of a novice in the House of Commons and the hon. member introduced this measure which I supported wholeheartedly, to find out later that it was regarded as a want of confidence motion in the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The government of the day had been elected, I believe, in June of that year with perhaps the largest majority that any government had ever had in the House of Commons. For that reason I found it impossible to vote for the measure at that time. As I said, it was the cause of a considerable measure of embarrassment for me, but when explained to reasonable thinking people they understood my position. I mention this simply to substantiate what the hon. member said regarding the length of time it has been before the house.
I would say this legislation would not have far-reaching consequences in this day and

age, because most locals covered by union agreements already have the check-off or a greater measure of union security. If I recall correctly the figures given by the Minister of Labour on a previous occasion, approximately 85 or 90 per cent of those who come directly under the federal Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act already have some measure of union security, either check-off, closed shop or union shop; therefore it would not have a far-reaching effect. However, the principle is one to which I personally subscribe and am certainly willing to support.
I believe it was back in 1946 that I took part in a labour lobby which appeared before the cabinet of the legislature of the province of British Columbia, and we put forth very strong arguments in favour of check-off being written into the labour act of that province. If my memory serves me correctly it was the following year that legislation was presented in the provincial legislature providing for the deduction of union dues. Many companies have strongly opposed this measure and I have never been able to understand the reasoning they pursue, when it is understood that almost every other conceivable project has been accepted. Many large groups of employees have made declarations to their employers, sometimes without having given notice, requesting that the company make deductions for specific purposes.
In reality the unions are entities and play an important role in our economy. More and more people are coming to realize that unions are an essential part of our economic life. Many large industries now appreciate the importance of the unions in providing bona fide agreements under which the settlement of disputes is simplified, and security and other matters are provided for in writing and followed to the letter. There is every evidence that unions are working in the best interests of everyone concerned.
Despite this increasing recognition of the value of unions, some large corporations still maintain that it is not a part of their social welfare responsibility to make deductions for union dues as they do with regard to other matters. This voluntary revocable check-off represents the very minimum form of union security. I can recall a company with which I negotiated almost going to the point of allowing the operation to be closed down over this very question of accepting the demand for voluntary revocable checkoff. After having accepted the principle of the voluntary revocable check-off the company submitted the question to a board of arbitration, the findings of which were binding on both sides. I believe the chairman

[DOT]of that board of arbitration was Chief Justice Sloan, and the decision of that board has now come to be known as the Sloan formula.
Under the Sloan formula everyone in the bargaining unit is required to pay union dues to the local by which they are represented, whether or not they are members of the organization, and the company is required to deduct union dues from the salary of each employee so designated. There is a slight difference between the Sloan formula and the Rand formula. In the Sloan formula the arbitrator gave the right to those employees who were not members of the union but who were paying union dues to vote on important union questions such as the election of officers. This represented a departure from general procedure, but it was accepted by the union, which felt that those employees who were not registered members of the local but who were paying dues should have some right to determine the course to be followed by the union. This is a form of union security which is certainly a step ahead of the voluntary revocable check-off, and there are many more demanding types of union security with which even many union officers do not agree, such as the closed shop and others.
It has been the argument of the government that the question of voluntary revocable check-off should remain a matter for negotiation. It should be remembered that the questions of wages, job evaluation and the determination of the amount to be paid for each job, are union responsibilities. Many unions have negotiated with employers what is known as job evaluation. Under job evaluation the job carries the rate and the man, woman or juvenile-that would be unusual- would receive that rate of pay. The rates of pay with respect to individuals have been a union-management measure of settlement.
Only last year we brought in legislation providing equal pay for women performing equal work. It could be said also that this should be a matter for discussion between union and management, having regard to what is done in the case of job evaluation. If the legislation concerning equal pay for women performing equal work was good legislation, was legislation that eliminated discrimination, I would point out that these are matters which have been attended to in large measure by way of negotiation. Where there still appears to be some discrimination on the part of employers in what we deem to be a refusal to accept authorization for the deduction of union dues, it would be quite appropriate that this should be covered by legislation of this kind.
Industrial Relations
I have not a great deal more to say. I have supported this legislation in the past, occasionally to my own embarrassment. Down through the years I have supported it, and I hope the Minister of Labour will see his way clear, if not at this session at least in the near future, to accept this principle of the voluntary revocable check-off.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to say very much on this bill on this occasion, because I have expressed my views quite fully several times. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has had this resolution on the order paper for a number of years, and I think he deserves credit for his persistence.
One reason we have always supported this bill is the fact that the Alberta government has recognized this principle for some time. The same type of legislation applies to many industries and professions in our province. Another reasop I think this bill should be accepted by the government and made part of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act is that it constitutes a form of union security. The money belongs to the individual, and it seems to me that from the standpoint, I was going to say of human rights, he should have the right to dispose of his own income in the way he sees fit, particularly as this is on a voluntary basis. Any time he wishes to cancel his contract he can do so. That is as it should be, on a voluntary revocable basis.
Having said that, I do not think it is necessary for me to say any more, as this is the same bill which has been introduced on many occasions. I see no reason why we should take up the time of the house in going over the arguments that have been presented in past years. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has expressed the same sentiments. He felt that as he had gone over this so thoroughly on many previous occasions he did not need to dwell at any great length on this measure at this time. Having said that, I trust that the minister will give some consideration to this bill.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at length, because my views are well known. May I say to the minister before he speaks that I cannot understand how the federal government can oppose this legislation. Every province in Canada has similar legislation, and there have been no revolutions nor has any province been damaged. We have had it in Nova Scotia since the early part of the century.
We should stop to consider how deeply the federal government are concerned with the check-off. That being so, I cannot see how

Industrial Relations
they can oppose this. I would remind the minister that just recently the Canadian Labour Congress presented a brief in which they asked for the granting of collective bargaining rights to civil servants. According to press reports the Prime Minister said the matter was under consideration. The different civil service associations now enjoy what this bill is asking for; they have a check-off for their dues. In effect these associations are the civil servants' unions.
I caution the minister as to the results if he opposes this bill and then grants collective bargaining rights to the civil service associations. He would then be taking away the right of check-off which they now enjoy. The federal government check off for many things. They check off for income tax, and I do not know how they would get it if they did not. They check off for contributions to the Red Cross and other charitable organizations, and for the purchase of Canada savings bonds.
As far as the rest of CanadJt is concerned, with the exception of our end of the country, the federal government really paved the way for those provinces which have adopted this type of legislation since 1940. The industrial relations committee recommended almost unanimously that this type of check-off be adopted; therefore I urge the minister to support this bill.
The bill would affect only those employed under federal jurisdiction. As I say, all provinces have this type of legislation, some legislation being stronger than others. The provisions of this bill would apply only to crown companies and organizations under the jurisdiction of the federal government. This legislation should have been passed long ago and I do ask the minister to remember that the civil service associations carry out very much the same functions as trade unions, and they now enjoy the check-off. The federal government is considering changing their status and granting them collective bargaining rights.
Unless this bill is passed, unless government employees are to benefit from this type of legislation, which is a form of union security, the civil servants may lose the privilege they now enjoy, not only of having their association dues collected by this method but also contributions toward their large recreational association.


Mr. A. H. Hollingworih (York Cenire):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in connection with the bill introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I have voted in favour of this bill in the past, and I would like to say a few words in its support. Briefly, of course, labour relations come under provincial jurisdiction for the

most part, excluding those matters which are the concern of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, and they are largely confined to such groups as railway employees, employees of shipping, radio, television and air transport concerns, and those who work for the federal public works department.


Mr, Knowles:: And in banks.


Allan Henry Hollingworth: According to a return tabled on February 8, 1955, there were 392,500 employees under federal jurisdiction, exclusive of civil servants, 277,800 of whom were covered by collective agreements. Of this number 223,400 were covered by the check-off. Therefore only 54,000 employees, or 20 per cent, are not covered by the checkoff. It may be that the number is even less today; certainly there are relatively few employees who are concerned and, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South has just mentioned, civil servants are now covered by a form of check-off. Surely, therefore, it is important as a matter of principle that the voluntary revocable check-off be extended to the remaining federal government employees.
Of course the meaning of the bill in itself is that there is no compulsion here at all. The person concerned has his fees deducted, and at any time he may ask that the union should not receive his fees. In other words this is a voluntary principle, and I think that answers the argument which certain hon. members may put forward, that they do not like the compulsory feature. I do not think there is a compulsory feature in this bill. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I for one do not see why an employee who does not join a union should receive the protection of the union without paying his fair share. In other words I personally am opposed to the so-called "free-loader".
The other question concerns so-called collective bargaining. Some people would say this should be a matter of collective bargaining, and leave it at that. I wonder how they can say this, after they have thought about it for a minute, because when I am talking about federal employees I am usually talking about employees who are working for crown corporations, for the most part, or for industries which are controlled by the federal government. In other words we are dealing, in a sense, with an emanation of the crown, and surely public policy as well as private policy should be considered. I submit that is another reason why the government should support this bill in principle.
Finally, I may say that this measure has been approved by six provinces, British

Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Of course we are all aware that during wartime there was an order in council

P.C. 1003, I believe-which controlled labour relations and which worked out very satisfactorily. After the war I recall that the national labour code incorporated this principle of the voluntary revocable check-off, until it was deleted by parliament.
I think the time has now come when this clause should be reincorporated into legislation. I think this should be done as a matter of principle, and as a recognition of the role which trade unions play in this country. I, for one, would be very happy to support the bill which has been introduced.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, like the sponsor of this Bill No. 4 and those who have spoken in its support this afternoon, I do not propose to take too much of the time of the house, nor do I propose to cover the ground which has been so thoroughly covered over the past several years in the course of arguments both for and against this measure. I must repeat, however, what I have said in more recent years, and that is that the importance of this matter is gradually dwindling in the public mind, not only on the part of the employers but also on the part of the workers, as far as I am able to determine.
I know that my hon. friend who sponsored this bill will have in his office or in his desk three very carefully prepared brochures containing the briefs of the three great labour arganizations, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour, and the legislative committee of the arotherhoods of the railways. If he has read ;hose briefs this year very carefully, as I am sure he has, he will have found that in none af them has reference been made to the voluntary revocable check-off or to check-off af any kind.
Mr. Speaker, in saying that I must be aerfectly fair and state, too, that one of the 'entlemen presenting his congress' brief last week interjected these words into the midst
Industrial Relations
of the reading. He said-and it would not be stating the case fairly if I did not refer to this interjection:
I would like to say a word here about check-off of dues. This is a very important question which was overlooked in preparing the document which is now in front of you. My face is certainly a little red at the moment, and I do not mean com-munistically.
Mr. Speaker, I do not mean in any sense to try to lessen the importance of this measure in the minds of hon. members of this house. It is an important matter even though its importance now in the federal field is certainly not equal to the importance it had even as late as 1953. My hon. friend from Cape Breton South has said that the civil service associations would lose the rights they now possess to have membership dues deducted at the source if such a measure as this were not passed. That would not happen at all. Whatever rights these associations have with regard to the deduction of their dues were arrived at by discussion and negotiation on the part of their authorized representatives at the time they made the arrangements with regard to them, and as they go on to enter new discussions or new negotiations, whatever you may call them, they will be quite free, as crown companies have been free, to utilize the check-off in some form or other as a factor in the negotiations.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to put on record the results of a survey of the numbers employed under federal jurisdiction who are affected by the check-off or who might be affected by this measure introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; and since this is a fairly long schedule I would like to suggest, if I have the unanimous consent of the house, that I place it on Hansard and have the situation brought up to date.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to place this on record in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Then I will do so. The table is as follows:

Industrial Relations



ESTIMATED NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES UNDER FEDERAL JURISDICTION

[Stage Direction]
Numbers under collective agreement; numbers under agreement providing check-off; numbers under agreement providing for voluntary revocable check-off:
I	II	III	IV-	Total employees under federal jurisdiction (a)	Total employees under agreement	Total employees under agreement providing for check-off	Total employees under agreement providing for voluntary revocable check-off (f)Transportation- . . Railroads (including express and excluding commercial telegraph operations)	185,600	173,400	138,600	1,000Shipping (including stevedoring)	38,900	32,000(5;	10,900	3,600Air	13,200	7,700	6,800	100Mbtor and all other	10,700	10,000	9,400	1,200Communications- Telephone (d)	
Telegraph and cable	
Broadcasting	40.900 10.900 10,500	35,300 6,300 3,900	34,900 6,200 3,900	34,900Terminal elevators	5,300	4,600	4,200	3005,200	4,200	3,400	1,600Manufacturing	8,400	5,500	5,400	1,700Construction (c)	3,000	3,000	3,000	200Service (C.N.R.hotels)	2,300	2,300	2,300	nilOther government enterprises (e)	13,700	1,300	1,300	nilBanks	47,100	nil	nil	nilTotals	395,700	289,500	230,300	44,600(a)	Estimated. (b)	Insofar as some longshore workers move from summer to winter ports, they may be counted twice as employees under agreement. (c)	Number under agreement; total figure for employment would be somewhere higher. (d)	Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia only. (e)	Includes Canadian Arsenals Ltd. (f)	Figures in column IV are also included in figures shown in column III.	
In order that this may have some meaning, may I point out that it will be seen that a total of approximately 395,700 persons are employed in industries which come under federal jurisdiction. This total, of course, includes crown companies. It does not include classified civil servants. This figure should be reduced by a total of approximately 100,800 employees who do not come within the scope of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and comprise managers, supervisory employees or others who are employed in banks or in some government enterprises where employees are not yet organized and are not covered by collective agreements.

Of the remaining 294,900 employees who are employed in industries where there is an established pattern of organized bargaining, the table shows that 289,500 are covered by collective agreements. Of this total, 230,300 are covered by agreements which have some form of check-off. In other words approximately 80 per cent of the employees who are covered by collective agreements have the check-off in some form or other. It is also revealing to know that of the 230,300 employees who have some form of check-off, only 44,600 are subject to the voluntary-revocable check-off.
That brings the record up to date, and it is a little different from what it was a year

ago. The remaining 81 per cent were covered by check-offs of one kind or another-the Rand formula has been mentioned-which the employees concerned apparently felt were of more value to them than the voluntary revocable check-off.
I have been accused of bringing forward the argument from year to year that this is a matter that should be dealt with by collective bargaining, and I feel that is true. We have had a great deal of discussion in the last few weeks about what should happen with respect to collective bargaining in the federal field. I believe that in that field the policy of the government should be more and more to promote that kind of climate which will encourage responsible and healthy industrial relations.
We have some small element of compulsion in our Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. We say that certain conciliation procedures shall take place. We say that every collective agreement for a term of less than one year or for an indeterminate term will be looked upon as being for a term of one year. Those are points which have compulsory features, but they are quite different from what is contained in the bill. They help to make up that framework in which collective bargaining can be well and effectively carried out, and the moment parliament begins to legislate even in a small way in favour of one side of the bargaining table and does not provide something of an equivalent nature for the other side, then I contend we are taking unto ourselves some of those matters that are important in reaching a sound and useful agreement between the two parties concerned.
While the Minister of Labour and the government are in favour of union security, and are in favour of the principle contained here when it is reached by collective bargaining, for the reasons I have given I will vote against the bill today as I did last year. Many of the crown companies referred to now have some kind of check-off, but they have achieved it with the tacit agreement of the government. They have achieved it through collective bargaining and so should those very few others who desire it and who come under federal jurisdiction.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, as on previous occasions when this subject matter has been before the house at the instigation of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I have listened with a good deal of interest to some of the remarks that have been made, and in particular to remarks made from that side of the house which supports the government. Certainly I 82715-49
Industrial Relations
was pleased to hear my fellow British Columbia member from Kootenay East speak, as he has done on previous occasions, in favour of the bill.
In my opinion the minister has not presented any more convincing a case today than he has on previous occasions for maintaining the position that he takes. I suggest to him that if in the labour briefs submitted to the government no great emphasis was placed upon the matter, it may be that the labour congresses are beginning to give up hope that they will ever persuade the government to make a move in this direction, and are relying upon the persistent efforts of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to keep the matter alive as far as parliament is concerned.
I know the sort of recognition given to the new Canadian Labour Congress in this building by the members of the cabinet, and I also recall that the Speaker saw fit to entertain in honour of the new president of that congress. However, I suggest that as far as the thousands of members of trade unions across the country are concerned, a much more tangible and realistic recognition of the trade union movement on the part of parliament would be the adoption of the bill now before the house.
Actually I would have much preferred to hear the Minister of Finance speak today on the bill, much as I enjoy listening to the Minister of Labour, because I suggest that the Minister of Finance is perhaps the outstanding authority in the country on the subject of a check-off which, unfortunately, some people may consider as not revocable. Possibly he could give us an interesting exposition as to why he is prepared to support an irrevocable check-off with respect to some of the money he collects, yet is not prepared to support the much milder form of check-off proposed by the bill.
I felt I should like to say a few words in support of the bill introduced by my colleague, and at the same time express my appreciation of the fact that I have heard some voices on the other side of the house also giving support to the principle of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If the hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre speaks now he will conclude the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the hour 1 shall make my remarks very blief, so that if a vote has to be called on the bill it will not take us too long into the supper hour. I welcome the support of those who

Industrial Relations
have spoken in favour of the bill, including my colleagues of my own party, as well as the hon. member for Bow River, the hon. member for Kootenay East and the hon. member for York Centre. I had hoped that some member representing the Progressive Conservative party would speak on the bill. They have spoken on previous occasions, and I trust if a vote is called it will still be their policy to vote for the bill.
The Minister of Labour sought to answer some of the arguments for this bill. In the main I felt that he was answering the arguments from his own side of the house. Indeed, the hon. member for Kootenay East answered in advance, very effectively I thought, the argument that this was a matter that should be left to collective bargaining.
The minister also suggested that the number of employees who would be affected by a measure of this kind is not great, in view of the prevalence of some form of the checkoff. I am sure he recognized that the answer to that argument is that a right such as that needs to be protected by legislation. It is also true that if it has been established by collective bargaining as a right enjoyed by the large percentage of those who come under federal labour jurisdiction, surely it should be extended to all those who come under such federal labour jurisdiction.
The minister enjoyed a bit the fact that I could not pick up one of the briefs presented to the cabinet recently by the various labour bodies and read from it a current appeal for the check-off. I would simply say to him that apparently those bodies were more concerned at this particular moment about some other matters which I hope the government across the way is considering, such as health insurance, an increase in the old age pension, and matters of that kind. May I remind him that the Canadian Labour Congress at its founding convention in Toronto last April adopted a 29-point program setting out all the things it feels should be attended to by the federal government. One of the points in that 29-point program was the establishment of the check-off.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I admit that at once.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since it is evident that the minister and I are agreed, perhaps this is a good point at which to call a halt to my remarks. May I express the hope that the vote to be taken on this bill will be in proportion to the way in which the speeches have been made. There have been six for the proposal and one against. I trust the house will give approval to second reading of this bill.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How would he have voted?



SUPPLY .

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE University grants-
541. To authorize payments to the national conference of Canadian universities (hereinafter called "the conference") for the purpose of making grants to institutions of higher learning in accordance with an agreement entered into or to be entered into, with the approval of the governor in council, between the Minister of Finance and the conference, such agreement to include, inter alia, provision that the total amount of grants to all the institutions of higher learning in any one province be calculated by multiplying the population of the province by $1, and that any amount payable to an institution of higher learning and not paid by the conference in the present fiscal year may be retained by the conference until such time as the institution to which the money is payable claims the payment from the conference or parliament provides otherwise for the disposal thereof; the amount appropriated under vote 132 of the Appropriation Act No. 6, 1956 to be applied to the purposes of this vote; additional amount required, $7,986,000.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
(Translation):
Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, before recess I was stating my opposition to this item although, like other members of the house, I recognize the difficulties faced by Canadian universities. Quebec universities face such difficulties as do those of other provinces, and provincial governments have to make 82715-49J
Supp ly-Finance
great efforts to help them. For its part, the Quebec government is making a tremendous effort in that field in authorizing an expenditure of nearly 82 million dollars over a period of 12 years; to help universities. However, I realize like the other members that even this effort is not sufficient to solve all the problems which beset our universities.
I do not think that we can solve the problem by creating other problems, and the measure now being considered is a clumsy measure, one which leans towards centralization.
The government can certainly not claim this to be a very great find, since this formula is unacceptable not only to the Quebec provincial government but also to the universities of that province. It seems to me that surely the government could have found a more readily acceptable solution to the problem. I think that the difficulty is that the people of my province, at any rate, are simply convinced that this proposal is but another step, on the part of the federal government towards centralization, a centralization which has intensified since the war.
True, this afternoon, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) did point out other spheres of activity upon which the federal government had encroached without eliciting any protests from the provinces. However, in most cases, the provinces could not do otherwise. Education, though, is another matter since this is a field which is basically provincial. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) said yesterday, if education had not been reserved to the provinces, the British North America Act would never have been ratified and confederation would never have come about. Our constitution would not have been accepted if education had not been protected by those very clear sections of that pact.
Besides, only the provinces are in a position to face the technical problems of education, having departments of education whose officials have the experience required to deal with matters of such complexity. We, in Quebec, who constitute the French minority of this country, feel that the sections of the constitution dealing with education are the most vital ones, and that, in this respect, we cannot yield any ground.
If the federal government is now offering those grants to universities, it is simply because, with the amount of income tax it is collecting, it has accumulated huge surpluses and the federal government alone can afford to be generous in fields of activity from which, according to the constitution, it is barred.

Supply-Finance
I am not surprised that some people are asking, as was done yesterday in this house, for grants to assist elementary education, because, among all governments, the federal government is the only one with such money surpluses, and is the only one which could afford the luxury of invading fields of activity from which it has been excluded by the constitution.
The federal government has such surpluses simply because it taxes too heavily. I therefore would suggest that the best way for the present government to assist in the field of education at every level, and particularly to assist universities which need it so badly, is to give up a part of its taxation fields. This year, its surplus might run close to 700 million-


George Carlyle Marler: How much?


Léon Balcer: -unless it finds ways to hand money around, so it will not have to blush about all that accumulated money derived from its reckless taxation over the last four years.
I know that my colleagues from other provinces who are not as scrupulous or as touchy as I am, because they do not belong to a minority, are ready to welcome that federal assistance to universities, because they are thinking only of the problems of those institutions. This is also the case of other provincial governments and universities in other provinces which are also prepared to accept federal grants and even urge that they be made larger.
Consequently, I do not want to insist that the universities of other provinces be penalized, but I do not believe that Quebec itself should be penalized because it attaches greater importance to the constitution than do the other provinces. Therefore, I ask the federal government to add an income tax deductibility clause proportionate to the amount which the Quebec institutions would have received if they all had accepted the offer of the federal government. The deductibility has already been considered in the past for other reasons, and I believe it might be possible in this way to help universities without encroaching upon the constitution.
In this way the concern shown by the government and Quebec institutions for the letter of the constitution would be respected, and all the universities of this country would be treated on an equal basis.
Without the addition of such a section, and in its present form, I believe that the item now under consideration is unacceptable. Consequently, I will have to vote against this item.

(Text):


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, first I would like to join those who have complimented the Prime Minister upon the realistic speech on this subject he made this afternoon. I should like also to mention the fact that during this session, particularly the last couple of weeks, the question of education has received a lot of attention from all quarters. This indicates that the problem is becoming a pertinent one in all provinces.
While we welcome the increase in the grants to the provinces, as far as I am concerned, coming from Nova Scotia, I want to indicate that this does not eliminate the fact that we are below the other provinces in the grant per student. I shall say more about this later, but I would just like to mention the fact, that in Nova Scotia we elected a new government recently, and the premier of that province is also the minister of education. They have not, so far, held a session of the legislature, but I have read a statement he made to the press that so far as that province was concerned their policy with respect to education was retrenchment; in other words, they could not continue to pour the money into education that is, perhaps, needed, because they do not have it.
Second, he said, grants to the municipalities were to be curtailed. This indicates that as far as education is concerned that province is in great difficulties. I am not quarrelling with the statement made by the premier of Nova Scotia, but I would point out that in the speech from the throne in the province of Ontario, where the government is of the same complexion, much additional expenditure on education is forecast, together with increased expenditure on such ancillaries to education as assistance to the municipalities, the building of schools and so forth. So the matter is not a political one; it is an economic question.
In every second newspaper one picks up there seems to be a statement by some eminent person on the present requirements of education and its future needs. Only this afternoon I was reading in the Ottawa Journal the report of a speech by Mr. Crump, of the C.P.R., in which he pointed out the growing need for teachers and staff in the universities. He stressed that the salaries of university teachers should be increased by 100 per cent in order to make the vocation more attractive to entrants, and to hold those for whom industry may be fishing. Of course these statements go on to forecast what the student population will be

10 years from now, and to emphasize the need for funds in order to expand facilities for accommodating these students. The fact of the matter is that according to the forecast the number will be doubled, and it all adds up to the need for more money.
Now, Mr. Chairman, with provincial incomes as they are today, there is no possibility, with the system of straight grants, of getting equality in education as between province and province. The federal government will, in my judgment have to take a greater interest and provide more funds in future if we are to meet the requirements of the universities. When I say that, I realize the difficulties with which the federal government has to contend. The British North America Act makes education the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, and any changes with respect to entering this field, financially or otherwise, have to be made by agreement with the province or by changes in the act itself. I think it is time the provincial governments, if they are all Canadian and if they want equality of opportunity as between province and province, will have to begin to realize that they are living in 1957, not in 1867, and changed conditions will have to be brought about.
I have argued from time to time in this house that rather than the grant being made to a university on the basis of the number of students in that university, the fact that it is related to the population works a hardship on some of the provinces which are not so wealthy, and I have suggested from time to time that grants should be made on the basis of the student population. In other words the number of students in the university should be the guide as to the amount of the grant.
Since this matter was last discussed in the house some of our people have been doing some "homework". Getting the figures, province by province, with respect to the student population as related to the general population in the particular province, or the number of students from other provinces who are in the universities of a neighbouring province, was not easy. The figures go back pretty far; they go back to 1951 and 1952, and the best examples we could find were put on record by the Minister of Finance on August 14, 1956. They are in Hansard at page 7591. The minister sets out there the grant per student from province to province, and I am just going to recite these figures for the purpose of my argument.
In Newfoundland the grant per student was $357.64; in Prince Edward Island, $207.69; in New Brunswick, $112.36; Ontario, $137.84;
Supply-Finance
Manitoba, $101.55; Saskatchewan, $151.97; Alberta, $149.80; British Columbia, $99.42; Nova Scotia, $80.85.
These figures, the latest we could get, show definitely that Nova Scotia is away below all the other provinces. The reason for that is, of course, that the student population of the universities in relation to the population of that province is so much higher than in the other provinces. That situation arises because the province of Nova Scotia has facilities for the study of such subjects as medicine and dentistry, which do not exist in the other maritime provinces. Thus a large number of students from Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island who require this type of training are obliged to go to Nova Scotia in order to enter these particular fields, with the result that in the matter of grants Nova Scotia is being penalized because it was farsighted enough to establish the facilities which were required in that part of the country for instruction in these professions.
I have argued from time to time that the grants should be made by reference to the size of the student body and without reference to the population figure; but after looking over this matter with some of our experts I find that this suggestion, if applied literally as I have presented it in the past, would result in hardship to other provinces. The other three maritime provinces, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Newfoundland, would lose considerably by an arrangement of that kind. That would also be true of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. They would lose; and as far as I am concerned and, I think, as far as the people of Nova Scotia are concerned, we are not prepared to do injury to any other province in order to better our own position.
We have come to the conclusion-and when I say "we" I mean the members of this group who have been studying the question-that it is not good enough just to argue against something; there should be some alternative proposal, and I think the fairest solution we could arrive at would be one which recognized the fact that Nova Scotia is in her present position because she provided facilities which are being made use of by students from neighbouring provinces, where the opportunity for such studies does not at present exist.
Instead of a formula whereby the grant is made on the basis of the student population, we felt it would be fairer to suggest to the government that in the circumstances in which that province finds itself or, for that matter, if any other province finds itself in a similar position in the not too

Supply-Finance
distant future, the government should consider, in addition to the grants now provided under the present formula which results in Nova Scotia definitely being placed at a great disadvantage, the possibility of establishing under the Canada Council additional grants to universities providing the type of education that has resulted in Nova Scotia finding herself in the position in which she is today. Such additional grants should be provided to schools which are turning out specialists where such schools are not available in other provinces.
I leave that thought with the Prime Minister because I do not believe he, the government or anyone else who has given any thought to the matter would want to continue to keep that province in its present position of, on the one hand, providing the facilities and accepting students from all over the country and, on the other hand, being so low down in the scale so far as grants to the universities are concerned. I think the matter calls for some additional thinking and some special arrangement on the part of the government to assist schools that are providing such special training. There should be an additional grant to enable them to expand in the future without the handicap from which they are now suffering.
Of course, education is going to cost a great deal of money. If the forecasts the experts are making today are correct, then the amount of money that will be needed for capital expansion of the universities, which are expected to have double the present student population in 10 or 15 years time, will mean that someone else is going to have to help to share the burden.
I have heard it stated on many occasions in the house that the U.S.S.R. is far ahead of Canada and the United States with respect to education. I have said before and I repeat that we must remember that in that country there are no companies, corporations or anyone else making any money. The profits that go to private industry in this country go to the state in Russia, and the state uses them for whatever purpose it wishes. They are pouring a lot of money into education, and if we are going to meet that challenge I think industries making fair profits in Canada will have to begin to think in terms of endowment funds for universities in order to enable us to meet the educational needs of the future.
Recently I noticed that some of the big companies are making pretty substantial contributions to some of our universities. I hope they will continue to do so, because with our population, the need of education as indicated

by everyone who speaks on the subject, and the huge sums of money required, we cannot keep on dumping the cost on the taxpayers all the time because many taxpayers can ill afford the taxes they are paying today. But I do think that corporations making profits running into the hundreds of millions might very well consider it a good insurance policy for the future to assist in meeting the huge outlays that are going to be necessary in the field of education in the future. In my opinion they should look upon it as one of the best forms of insurance available to them to guarantee that the system under which they now operate and the freedom they enjoy will continue to be moulded to a considerable extent by the architects of the future, the citizens of this continent. That does not only apply to universities but also to primary education.
I hope the Prime Minister and particularly the Minister of Finance will give some consideration to the proposal that there should be an additional grant payable to universities in some provinces which are providing certain types of education that are not available in other provinces.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, along with other members of this group who have already expressed their opinions may I say I listened with a great deal of interest to the words of the Prime Minister this afternoon when speaking on this subject. From what he said I believe we can come to the conclusion that he has quite a good grasp of the need to deal with the crisis in university education.
He emphasized, and I think all of us could bear this in mind, that one of the first requirements to improve the status of university education is to see that the professors and other teachers in these institutions of higher learning receive adequate salaries. Until people throughout the nation generally recognize that our university teachers are performing services on a par with the most valuable service performed by other Canadians, and recognize that fact by way of adequate salary schedules, we will continue to debate the subject of a crisis in our institutions of higher learning.
From what little study I have made of the problem it seems that we have been slipping over the years. In the 1920's it is probable that in relation to the needs of the country at that time we were farther ahead than we are today. I have noticed figures indicating that in 1926 grants from governments generally to universities were 130 per cent greater than the cost to the university students. By 1950 grants from governments to universities were only 10 per cent in

excess of the cost to the students. Following a contribution by the people of Canada through an item of some $7 million in the estimates the gap was partially closed, and it is estimated that with the item under discussion we shall be approximately back to the 1926 position in this regard.
It seems to me that if we are to meet the need of our universities brought about by the natural increase in enrolment resulting from our growing population and the need for greater numbers of university graduates, we as a nation are going to have to raise our sights. The Financial Post gave a good deal of attention to this subject in its issue of August 25, 1956. In an article in that issue Mr. Burke Stannard points out the large sums of money that will be needed in the future to take care of education in our country. He points out that while today we are spending approximately $800 million per year on education at all levels, this amount will require to be increased to $15 billion spread over the next ten years; and that if university enrolment increases to 300,000 the amount of $15,120 million will need to be increased to $17,500 million. Therefore any additional expenditure passed by the house at this time is a small sum in relation to this very large undertaking.	'
I have in my hand a statement giving amounts to be spent by various levels of government on education in this country- these are estimates-for the fiscal year 195556. They were prepared by the federal government some time ago for discussions with the provinces. These figures show that the federal government in that year would spend approximately $25 million in grants to education of all types; that the provincial governments of this nation would spend just under $300 million and that the municipalities, the local levels of government, would spend approximately $457 million, making total expenditures in this nation for that period of time of some $782 million.
If one breaks down those figures on a percentage basis, then to each education dollar the federal government is now contributing at the rate of 3 cents; the provinces combined are contributing 38 cents, and the municipalities and school districts, the local levels of government, are providing 58 cents. Even if as a result of this and other action the expenditure of $25 million by the federal government should be increased to $40 million, then the federal percentage would be up to only 5 per cent. If, as we hope, along with increased expenditures by the federal government, there will be increased expenditures by provincial
Supply-Finance
governments and undoubtedly by governments at the municipal level, then the federal percentage may drop back again to near the current rate of just 3 per cent.
I think Mr. James S. Duncan, former president and general manager of the Massey-Harris-Ferguson corporation, has performed a useful service for the people of Canada in the study he has given to the educational system of our country and the educational systems and their results in other nations in the world. I think Canada's record is something of which no member of this house is proud, because not a member of this house can be proud of the comparison, having regard to the emphasis we are placing on education in this country compared to what is being done in the United States or in the U.S.S.R.
This evening we are discussing the passing of this further supplementary estimate. The Financial Post of the same date points out that for each 1,000 of population in Canada there are just 4.94 students enrolled in universities. In the United States the figure is 15. In the U.S.S.R. the figure is 19.6. Mr. Duncan and others have pointed out how necessary it will be to the future technological development of this country that we close soon at least a substantial part of this gap. It has already been pointed out that in 1954 in Russia there were graduated some 53,000 engineers. In the United States in the same year there were graduated just 23,000 engineers. In Canada the figure is running at approximately 2,000 engineers per year.
Some may say that our engineers have a broader education. That is probably true. Some may think they are even better qualified in a very specialized field. But here again it is pointed out that the graduate engineer in the Soviet union has spent 50 per cent more study hours than has an engineer in the United States, and I presume the same statement would apply to Canada. Of the engineers graduated in the United States, experience has shown that some 35 per cent are lost to engineering because they go into some other profession. Hence even these figures do not show the true preponderance in the engineers that are available to industry in the Soviet union as compared with the number available to industry in the United States.
I notice some amazing figures of the number of medical doctors being graduated. According to these figures, in 1955 the Soviet union graduated 27,000 medical doctors as compared to 7,000 in the United States. We graduate approximately 900 per year. Surely the medical field is deserving of greater effort by the people of Canada. I am afraid that

Supply-Finance
when the Soviet union has this great preponderance in graduate engineers, medical men and scientists, they may make available such a large number to assist underdeveloped countries that, by comparison, in this field also we may be far behind.
Mr. Duncan says that the U.S.S.R. in 1955 graduated 120,000 scientists and engineers, against the figure of 70,000 in the United States. Of course Russia is attempting to build her nation as the technological capital of the world, as the area of the world with the greatest number of scientists and skilled professional people. Because she is graduating such a large number of scientists and is so determined to out-bid the western world, one finds that Russia is now undertaking very substantial loans to underdeveloped countries. Mr. Philander P. Claxton, Jr., special assistant to the assistant secretary for congressional relations, points out that $1-3 billion is being made available by the Soviet union by way of low-interest loans to assist 11 underdeveloped countries.
I am sure Canadians generally feel that we in this nation must come to grips with the question of the crisis in higher education; and that if this government takes the lead, as it now appears to be doing, the day will and must come when this great difference between what we are accomplishing and what is being accomplished in other nations is overcome. I look forward to the day when every young Canadian who has the ability to take advantage of a university education will have that opportunity irrespective of the amount of money that his parents, relatives or friends may be able to advance to him toward that end. I believe that we in this nation must work toward the time when Canadians have this opportunity. If they have the opportunity-irrespective of their individual ability to pay at the moment-of obtaining a university education, I am sure we will lead in this field.
(Translation):


Mr. Ralelle:: Mr. Chairman, I should not like to see this item carry before I have had an opportunity to say a few words about it.
While listening very carefully to the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), I was under the impression that, besides representing here a federal constituency the hon. member was also a spokesman for the provincial government. It is something which I do not like. I am not in the habit of discussing provincial matters and I never did so outside of this house. However, tonight, speaking for the first time in this house, I wish to say that, in my opinion, we must express our views on the matter submitted to us by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent)

who is as free to introduce it as we are free to accept or reject it. As far and as long as there is no encroachment upon any section of the British North America Act, I will not hesitate to approve the item now submitted to the house by the right hon. Prime Minister and the members of his cabinet.
If the British North America Act were threatened, the Prime Minister would not have considered the matter now before the house and I can say quite clearly, that no government could induce me to vote in favor of such a measure. I am a good Canadian; I live in the province of Quebec and I mean to be a Canadian citizen in the full sense of that word since I have the honour to sit in the parliament of a country made up of ten provinces. It is only right that we should be interested in our own province but we must also, as a matter of principle, show some interest for anything which may happen in other provinces.
I noticed that, in his remarks, the hon. member for Three Rivers has said that the house was being presented with a clumsy measure.


An hon. Member:: He is the one who is
clumsy.


J.-Georges Ratelle: But, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I do not share his opinion. The hon. member has adopted an attitude which I am at a loss to understand.
I have had more than one opportunity to discuss this matter with a certain number of people and never have I met anybody, outside of political life, who has not recognized that this proposal was the best solution that the Prime Minister could adopt in order to make peace between the province of Quebec and the other provinces and ensure the respect of the privileges of all the provinces.
Since the hon. member is now at his desk, Mr. Chairman, I want to say to him that he could have talked about the grants which the provincial government does accept. He could have told us if the construction of vocational schools by the Liberal government in the province of Quebec, 50 per cent of the cost of these schools having been met by the federal government, has meant any lessening of the rights of the provinces in educational matters?
Since that time Mr. Duplessis has come into power and a number of similar schools have been built with federal and provincial funds. Has this step meant that a single boy or girl or even a single teacher has changed his or her way of thinking, has become anglicized or anything of the sort? I have never heard it said, and I do not believe that anything like that has ever happened.

It is an admitted fact that we have several provinces, whose approach to various matters can differ, but it is high time that we should be able to discuss national interest with frankness without being told we are encroaching upon the authority of the provincial governments, whether it be that of Ontario or that of Quebec. We sit here as representatives of the country as a whole; we represent ten provinces and not one.
We must protect the interests of the ten provinces while safeguarding the rights granted the citizens of Quebec by the British North America Act. I am sure that no one would want to violate the British North America Act because, if this should happen, it would mean war and I would be the first one to shed my blood in the defence of my fellow citizens.
If there has been no change since the building of the vocational schools was started, and if the Prime Minister gives me the assurance that the grants will be distributed to the universities by an independent council of the federal government, I wonder why some would make petty politics out of it while pretending to defend interests which do not exist.
As I say, I am a Canadian and I challenge anyone to say that I have not always done my duty in whatever field it be. I have read the bill several times, as many times as did the hon. member. I am not a lawyer but I have more confidence in a man whose competence is certainly as great as that of the hon. member for Three Rivers, and I refer to the Prime Minister. Both belong to the legal profession, and if the Prime Minister had thought for a moment that the measure would be harmful to the province of Quebec, I am sure that he would not have submitted it.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to speak too long on this matter but, as the hon. member for Three Rivers is back in his seat, I want to tell him that we are good friends but also that we are here to speak our minds. I like to believe that he is sincere as I am myself. For twelve years I sat on the council of my municipality and not one of my fellow councillors can say that I even once mixed provincial politics with municipal administration, whether under the Duplessis or the Godbout administration. Not only that, but I asserted the rights of my municipality, under the Godbout administration, which was Liberal, and I even asserted them under the Duplessis regime, as I was a member of the council until 1950.
In proposing this measure, the government shows a remarkable broadness of outlook. Yet, there is still opposition to it.
Supply-Finance
A while ago the hon. member for Three Rivers spoke of taxes. I am going to do so myself, and it is time to settle all these little problems.
When Mr. Duplessis came to power in Quebec, the provincial budget at that time was of the order of 72 million dollars, if I remember well, whereas today it amounts to more than 400 million dollars. Where did he find this revenue in the province of Quebec? And this year, if I am well informed, the Quebec provincial government will collect 24 million dollars in income tax, plus 48 million dollars in equalization grants, or, in other words, 72 million dollars. We in the province of Quebec pay more income tax than in any other province and, with the sole exception of two provinces, we pay more sales tax than is paid anywhere else. And we are still asked whether we want one government especially for Ottawa and another for the province of Quebec! Well, if that is the case, let us come right out and say it, let us not beat around the bush. We might be able to understand one another better, and get along better too.
We cannot give everything to the province of Quebec, no more than to any other province, since we have to meet national defence expenditures, extremely heavy ones too. The premier of Quebec should be quite happy over this item which is used to preserve peace in the world since, in this way, his own security is assured as well as that of everybody else.
If we had that money, we could do much more. Unfortunately we cannot go any further for the time being. Besides, our citizens are willingly assuming their responsibilities as they are enjoying a freedom which the other countries do not know now and may never have known. We want a stronger country, a happier country, so that we may feel happy here in Canada.
Why not do away with petty politics and work in the interest both of the whole of Canada and of the province of Quebec!
That is what I have to say to the hon. member for Three Rivers; I hope that I have not hurt his feelings. I simply wanted to make things clear, once and for all.
(Text):


Mr. Hosking:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad the supplementary estimate of the Prime Minister regarding aid to universities is now before the committee, so I may say a few words on behalf of the universities. We are living in a remarkable era in Canadian development; it does not require any great knowledge of history to recognize this fact, and we are prepared to admit it without argument. The evidence is somewhat more striking in some parts of the country than

Supply-Finance
in others, but there is scarcely a community in which people are not conscious of it. It is not only that the great cities are becoming monstrous in size and the smaller cities are astonishing themselves with their growth, but the quiet countrysides are being uprooted. In remote areas from Labrador to Aklavik which have lain undisturbed century after century the age-old remains of the glaciers are being rudely pushed aside by bulldozers.
Let me remind the committee of that period from 1900 to 1913 which came under the direction of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the prime minister who said, and believed, that the twentieth century belongs to Canada. During this period the rate of growth was even greater than it has been in the last decade. The relative increase in population was greater, and the number of immigrants reached very much higher figures. We then received from abroad relatively much higher these facts to the attention of the committee imports of capital than we do now. I recall because we have a tendency to forget our history. However, we have to admit that under the Prime Minister and his leadership the whole Canadian nation is on the move.
There is one thing we need to remember if we are to see our own time in proper perspective. Because our school histories tell us that the settlement of Canada began at Port Royal in 1603 or at Quebec in 1608 we can appreciate that the experiment in colonizing this northern half of the continent has been going on for about 350 years. It began at least as early as the settlement of the United States, and one might argue that it began a year or two earlier. We tend to forget in our present excitement just how long we and former generations of Canadians have been engaged in the business of developing Canada. We are prone to forget what long periods of waiting and discouragement there have been in our history. We are inclined to ignore questions as to why development in the United States has been much more rapid.
Generally speaking, the experience of history yields the very clear conclusion that the kind of resources we have in Canada, rendered less accessible by climate and dispersed population, made it necessary to wait until the western world had developed an industrial civilization with the need for our resources and with the technical means of uncovering and exploiting them. This was

what was in the mind of Sir Wilfrid Laurier when he said that the twentieth century belonged to Canada. He obviously did not mean that other countries had not a share in it. Having the whole history of this country in his blood and anticipating the long periods of waiting, he meant that the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had passed Canada by in a certain measure, but that she would enter the full stream of world development in the twentieth century.
Until about 40 years ago, save for the closed chapter of the fur trade, Canadian development had been largely the application of industry to limited resources similar to those of the United States. Our farming areas in the east were similar to those in the eastern part of the United States. Our prairies were just the last of the North American prairies. Forestry was no different in Maine, Michigan and Washington from what it was in New Brunswick, Ontario and British Columbia. Our mining was an extension of United States mining. When we became engaged in the automobile industry Windsor and Oshawa were just much smaller versions of Detroit and Flint.
Today our current economic developments are much more distinctive. Despite large investments of United States capital many of our developments have a recognizably Canadian colour. At least some of the resources now being developed are distinctively Canadian. There is also apparent in this country a buoyant spirit of confidence and initiative and a sense of pride in what is Canadian. This notable period of national development has been stimulated by a coincidence of favourable influences. Our ship has moved out of the shallows; wind, tide and current speed us on our way.
One thing which has happened is that with the great spread and expansion of industry throughout the world and particularly in the United States the industrial intake of materials and particularly of metals and energy has increased enormously. It seems almost impossible to fill the machines which we have created with the amount and variety of materials they demand. With industrialization has come, also, a phenomenal increase in urbanization, in city and suburban living. On this continent this seems in part to be based on the greater economy of purchasing services, for example frozen foods and automatic dishwashers, as opposed

to hiring services in the form of domestic and other help. Cost has forced us to get our services from the factory.
As industry multiplies and cities spread, new methods have become available for the discovery and exploitation of natural resources. The aeroplane has replaced the canoe in transporting the prospector. A whole series of instruments ranging from magnetometers to geiger counters can discover beneath heavy overburden the likely places for drilling. Modern earth-moving equipment has made possible exploitation with a speed which would have been incredible even 25 years ago. Changing methods of manufacture and use have given special importance to light metals, chemicals and synthetics, and the use of power, other than from coal, just at the time when we were tapping our oil resources and were capable of developing the last and remote sources of waterpower.
In the changes that are taking place capital and industrial knowledge from the United States are playing an important part, but though United States capital has been of decisive significance in many industries, it has in the over-all picture supplied not more than about 15 per cent of the total investment. Along with these revolutionary changes there has come, of course, growth in all sorts of other industries and areas for which these changes have created larger markets and more profitable opportunities for investment.
One of the most notable features of this period of our growth has been its persistence. Beginning as a period of active reconstruction, it proceeded through the Korean war boom, ran through two mild recessions, and in the past few months has shown remarkable vigour and expansive power. Ultimately the Conservatives and the C.C.F.'ers, the type of people who refer to the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce as an optimist and who continually predict that the boom will come to an end, assuredly will be right; but so far the fulfilment of their predictions has been postponed year by year.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I should like to ask the hon. member from what document he is reading.


Hazen Robert Argue: The one he wrote for use at the Rotary club meeting next week.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I am just using some extensive notes, as the hon. member who interrupted me has done on previous occasions.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: As the hon. member has been interrupted, I think perhaps I should point out to him that we are discussing one 82715-50J
Supply-Finance
specific item in the supplementary estimates. I have no desire to stop the hon. member laying such foundation as he thinks necessary to lay in order to discuss the item, but we are discussing solely a vote of some $7 million to be made under certain circumstances to universities. I think I should ask the hon. member to come to the point of the resolution with reasonable speed.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I am just laying the foundation as to why it is necessary to assist the universities. It has now become a sort of national occupation to attempt to predict what the national product of this country will be in 10 or 20 years' time, or to stake one's reputation upon the prediction that the population will be 22 million or 25 million by 1975.
With these industrial changes has come a great increase in population, helped by moderate immigration but arising mainly from a high birth rate. We have to cope at present with a population which has in it an unusually large number of children and a growing proportion of older, retired people. The number of dependents per income earner is at present abnormally large. In a few years, however, this will begin to change, as a larger number of the children born since 1945 or a little earlier enter the working force.
One of the interesting things that is happening is that because of resources and power and with the help of more effective transportation, a number of great industries are being established much further to the north than hitherto. Areas unfit for agriculture and producing little in the way of forest wealth have become the base for large industries. One of the constricting factors in our history hitherto has been the irregular, thin band of population never more than a few hundred miles from the United States border. It seems possible that we are now developing much more in depth, and much more in those parts of the country which are peculiarly and exclusively Canadian. There is here an interesting basis for conjecture for all who are concerned about the gradual development of distinctive Canadian characteristics in our culture and way of life.
All this is a pleasant, rather exhilarating success story, in which there have been relatively few disappointments and surprisingly few delays. True, the growth has brought with it difficult and wearisome problems of enlarging our living space and extending the whole apparatus of transportation and community living. Whether these problems involve gas pipe lines, a new and mammoth highway system or the provision of sewers and waters for swollen urban populations, the federal, provincial and municipal governments are wearily grappling with problems of

Supply-Finance
growth, and are concerned with many others with which they have not yet come to grips.
We are stimulated by the experience of our material progress, and we are engrossed with the problems of resources, transportation and the capital investment which confront us. I am not one who deprecates either the importance of material progress or the sense of achievement which goes with the conversion of the forces of nature to man's purposes. The sense of achievement in mastering and using resources is something that goes deep into the consciousness of the people who have confronted this problem for the past 300 years.
We are spending enormous sums in the development of our material resources, and already we are beginning to ask ourselves searching questions as to whether we are giving enough attention to the conservation of our sources of pulp and metals, oil and gas and water. We are asking ourselves whether in the physical development of our country we are becoming more Canadian, and whether we are making it more worth-while to be a Canadian.
As soon as we look beyond the stock market and beyond the pressing daily problems that confront us, we all know that these material resources and the great industries and cities which are being built up will in themselves neither create a distinctive Canada nor make it a truly great nation. We may acquire something which imitates other countries, or might have been made from a department store pattern. There are, however, resources which are more important than oil, metals, spruce and water. They call for the boldest investment; they require the shrewdest selection; they need the most thrifty and long-sighted conservation. It is the human resources of a nation which give it distinction and guarantee its future.
Thus I am pleased that the Prime Minister has introduced a bill which will assist the universities in developing the people of this country so they can use the great natural resources which we have in such large quantities. It is the people who will put to work the things God has given to this country, who will help Canada take its place as a first-class power in the world.


Howard Charles Green: Will the Prime Minister bring us up to date concerning the situation with regard to engineers and scientists? We all realize that this vote provides for payments without any conditions direct to universities, but we hear most alarming reports from time to time about the great shortage of scientists and engineers. For example, there was a report published last week by the Engineering Institute of Canada with reference to the

alarming current and prospective shortage of Canadian engineers and scientists. This paragraph appeared in the press report:
More words have been spoken and printed about this situation than about almost anything else. Many voices have proclaimed the urgency, but after years of talk no one has done anything of consequence that will improve the situation quickly.
And again:
There is some promise now that government and industry will help, but the needs appear to be away beyond any sums that are being mentioned as available shortly.
We all know how important scientists and engineers are to Canada at present and in the years immediately ahead. Can the Prime Minister tell us what is the opinion of the government with regard to all this talk of an acute shortage, and if there is such a shortage whether any steps are being taken to meet it?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I cannot give any precise figures to the hon. gentleman. At the present time there are indications of intentions to provide structures of various kinds to a total amount that would be beyond the capabilities of the available scientific or engineering or skilled or unskilled manpower, and greater than the materials available. There is a certainty that not everything can be accomplished that Canadians and Canadian corporations would like to do or have expressed intentions of trying to do during 1957.


Howard Charles Green: Because of the shortage of trained men?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Because the total is greater than the population of this country, with its savings and even the savings that come from abroad, with its manpower and its materials, can realize in the one year. During last year I understand the amount of capital investment was of the order of about $7.75 billion. Estimates that have been gathered for what I believe are called intentions for the present year would indicate an increase of as much as 12J per cent over what was realized in 1956. Of course that would not necessarily be 12J per cent in actual volume because there is an expectation that prices over the year in the construction trades-the capital investment trades- are apt to be as much as 5 per cent higher than in 1956. That would still leave an actual physical increase of 7J per cent over what was realized in 1956, and my information from the data available to our experts, and their best estimates, is that this is more than the economy can produce.
Now, with respect to the so-called shortage of engineers, I know there is a greater demand for engineers than there was when

either the hon. gentleman or I were at university. Just as one illustration of what I have in mind let me mention this. The hon. gentleman knows the reputation of the Taschereau family in the province of Quebec; it was always producing either clergymen or lawyers or judges. That family has supplied Canada with a number of very distinguished clergymen. The first cardinal was a Taschereau. They have supplied a number of very distinguished judges, and a still larger number of brilliant members of the bar in the province of Quebec. A Taschereau was my partner when I was at the bar. He has only one son, and the son, instead of following in his father's footsteps as has been done for generations by male members of that family, is studying to be an engineer.
This is because there is now a realization among the young people that there is a greater demand for engineers, and consequently there are more young people adopting that vocation than formerly. I feel, therefore, that there will be a greater number of engineers in the future. There will be a greater demand upon the universities to train engineers, and I know that right here in Ottawa there has been a very substantially filled subscription list in response to an invitation to Quebec and Ontario industrialists to contribute to the establishment of an engineering faculty at the University of Ottawa. They are doing this because they feel their businesses will require that kind of equipment. It is just as essential to their businesses to have trained staff as it is to have the machines which they instal in their plants. It is, I think, a very encouraging sign that our industrialists should be realizing, as I said a moment ago, that the greatest of our natural resources are our human resources, and that these human resources have to be developed and cultivated if we want to make full use of the other material resources with which our land is blessed.
I do not wish to expand upon that subject, but I do wish to answer, or try to answer, four questions which were submitted by the hon. member for Cariboo. As for the first question, I am not in a position to answer it with accurate statistical information. The hon. member inquired whether $1 per capita would represent, now, the same proportion of university expenditure as 50 cents per capita represented in 1951. I think it would, perhaps, represent rather more than the same proportion, because I do not think there has been an increase of 100 per cent since 1951 in university expenditures.
The second question was, why are these grants not just turned over to the provincial governments? Well, the equalization
Supply-Finance
grants will be turned over to the provincial governments, but the provincial governments have a great many calls upon their finances, and these grants are recommended to parliament so they may go to the universities and to no other quarter; and we think that by placing them in the hands of the national conference of Canadian universities they will go to those universities. There may be other very desirable purposes to which these amounts could be applied if they were just handed over for general application by the provincial governments, but I think it is the desire of most members of this house that these grants should go specifically to the universities.
The third question was, will the grants be free of restriction with regard to curricula, salaries and so forth? The federal government does not wish to establish any kind of control over the freedom of the universities. The amounts are to be turned over to the national council and, in turn, by the national council to the particular institutions which are recognized by the provincial governments as being of university level, and I am confident that the authorities in those university institutions will make good use of the money available.
I think it would be an attempt to exercise some jurisdiction over educational affairs to tell the council that it might, as our agent, say to them what the curricula of their studies should be. That is something which is within provincial jurisdiction and which should remain within provincial jurisdiction.
Another question was, would it be possible for this aid to constitute a sort of revolving fund which beneficiaries would return to the university in order that it might be used to help other promising students to whom it might be of use. Well, the amounts are not very considerable with respect to each individual university, but if a university chose to use the whole of what it received, or a certain portion of that amount, for the purpose of making advances to promising students on the understanding that the amount would be returned, that would be something which would be quite within the discretion of the university concerned to decide. All we are asking parliament to do is to say that the government of Canada should contribute to the work of the universities an annual sum of the order, at the present time, of about $16 million a year, or $1 per head of the Canadian population, and distribute it in proportion to the population of each province, as between the provinces, and in proportion to the student enrolment within each province.
In that respect, the hon. member for Cape Breton South-he is not here at the moment

Supply-Finance
-recited figures that were put on record in Hansard last August. But I am informed that those figures do not tell the whole story. I am not making any assertion as to what are the facts, but the very fact that there is some controversy as to whether this is or is not the fairest way to distribute the amount that we are asking parliament to appropriate for the Canadian universities is a reason I had in the back of my mind when making the suggestion that this fund should be turned over to the national conference of Canadian universities.
Of course they will not have any discretion under the contract to depart from the formula that will be set down, but they will have the right-and I feel quite certain they will exercise that right-to make recommendations as to what should be the terms of subsequent votes of this amount, and their suggestions to the government will be brought to the attention of the House of Commons with such recommendations about them as we may feel would be in the best interests of university activities throughout the country.
I am not making any assertion as to what are the facts but I have been told that, although it is true that in Nova Scotia there are quite a number of students enrolled who come from other provinces, the universities they attend are paid quite substantial additional fees because these students come from other provinces. I have been told, with respect to those who come from Newfoundland, that additional fees are provided by the government of Newfoundland or by the institutions in Newfoundland that participate in this grant. They are not able themselves to supply all the forms of university training their people require and there is a transfer of funds by them to the universities of Nova Scotia which perform the job for them.
These institutions, especially in the maritime provinces, are private enterprise institutions, and can fix and adjust their fees according to the localities from which their students come. That is one reason why there may apparently be less paid per capita of student enrolment than there is paid in Newfoundland, for example, where student enrolments in their institutions are much fewer per 100,000 of population than in the case of Nova Scotia. I am told that another reason for the difference is that in Nova Scotia a student who continues beyond the 11th grade is treated as of university level, while in Ontario only students who continue beyond the 13th grade are treated as of university level. That would affect the number of student enrolments.

These are matters about which I know very little, but they are matters which the members of the national conference of Canadian universities can inquire into very pertinently. I discussed with several members of the conference whether it would be appropriate at this time to try to devise some other formula that would not leave discrepancies that look so large, and I was told that many of them believed that this was the fairest formula but that these were matters that could be discussed by their conference.
The people who form this conference are all dedicated men and women. They are devoting their lives to a job they think is in the interests of their fellow citizens, and they can make observations. If as a result of their observations there is another formula that will serve better the desire of the house that the best possible use be made of the money appropriated by parliament to aid universities, their recommendations will be brought to the attention of the house. Every year there will have to be a vote in terms that will in substance be similar to the terms used in the item in the present supplementary estimate. If on their report it appears desirable that there be some change in the formula incorporated in the expressions used for that vote, those changes can be made.
I am sure that all those connected with the matter are sincerely and genuinely concerned that the amounts voted by parliament be used in the best possible way for the necessary aid to the continuance and, I hope, the progressive development of our university institutions. I do not think there is anything else I need to add. I noted the remarks of the hon. member for Three Rivers. He is one of those who fear that from this there would flow some intervention that would lessen in some degree the practical effect of the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature over universities. I am sorry I cannot convince him that he is wrong, but I must tell him that he cannot convince me that I am wrong, and I am submitting the item to the judgment of the house.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, it is very reassuring, I am sure, to hear the Prime Minister say there will be no interference with provincial autonomy in the matter of education. I suppose we will have to take his word for it, but I am still at a loss to know what difference there is between this principle as enunciated by the Prime Minister tonight and in a previous speech, and that enunciated by the Minister of Justice yesterday. I have here today's Ottawa Citizen. We know what the Minister of Justice said yesterday, but here in glaring headlines it says: "Federal Grants Would Cost Provinces Their Autonomy

in Education-Garson." Here is the smiling gentleman's picture and under it the words, "Hon. Stuart Garson-Autonomy Would End."
I know the Minister of Justice was speaking in a different debate. I know the subject may have been technically different, but in principle I cannot see how there can be any difference. The resolution under debate yesterday called for assistance to the provinces by way of federal grants, and the principle involved in the present debate is also grants to the provinces. The only difference is in the mechanics by which the money travels, but the principle is the same. I wish the Prime Minister could give us an explanation of that. It would be more reassuring if he could explain what difference there is in the principle; or perhaps the Minister of Justice would care to take the ball and handle it for a while.


John Borden Hamilton: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not
think the hon. gentleman needs any reassurance that the application of the money involved in this item is not going to interfere with provincial jurisdiction over the universities.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Prime Minister permit a supplementary question? Will he not agree that just as it is not in his mind at all that this item would interfere with provincial jurisdiction over education, so it is not in the mind of the hon. member for Saskatoon that his proposal would in any way interfere with provincial jurisdiction over education?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: When the other question arises it can be dealt with. I do not think the situation is the same. In the one case the matter of education is handled by I do not know how many thousand boards throughout the country. In the case of universities it is handled by the national conference of Canadian universities, made up of a small body of really dedicated men and women who have no taxing powers, who have only the right to expend what they can get without exercising any taxing powers.
I think the other proposition would mean either adding to the equalization funds that are handed over to the provinces to do whatever they like with, or the setting up of some machinery to look after the proper administration of I do not know how many thousands of elementary and high schools throughout the nation. That would certainly be a form of centralization that would make a considerable change in the way the system has been and is being handled.
Supp ly-Finance


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. What the Prime Minister has been saying in the last few minutes has given me a somewhat different view of the national conference of Canadian universities, which we discussed this afternoon. I thought they entered into this situation purely as a mechanical agency conveying money as the agent of the government to the universities on a basis to be outlined by agreement, and that there would be an agreement to that effect entered into. This evening it has seemed to me that the Prime Minister was outlining for them a function that goes considerably beyond that.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: An advisory function.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I understand the Prime Minister to say that they might see fit, as time went on, to make suggestions as to the method of distribution or as to certain courses-I do not mean courses in the sense of courses in study-certain of the functions of the universities. In answering the suggestion that the government might come forward and deal with secondary schools, the Prime Minister pointed out that there were thousands of boards dealing with secondary schools, and that that would be a matter of great complication.
I come back to this point, and it is my question. It is true that the university conference does not deal with thousands; it deals, I suppose, only with several score of universities. Nevertheless I should like to be clearer than I am at the moment as to just how far the government envisages this conference will undertake to recommend to the government different methods of distributing money; in other words how far it will go beyond the purely mechanical role which it is now being asked to undertake.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No more after this item is passed than they have been able to do in the past. They have frequently made recommendations to me as to what might be helpful in the prosecution of university work. Realizing that we are all interested in the successful prosecution of university work, 1 think they will not hesitate to tender such advice as may appear to them to be well founded. I sought advice from several of them as to the possibility of removing this complaint that has been made for the last six years by Nova Scotia authorities, about the fact that their per capita per student grant was smaller than that of the other provinces.
My first answer was this. If you have a larger proportion of students who are getting university training, is that not evidence that

Supply-Health and Welfare in the other provinces where the proportion is smaller the need is even greater as in Nova Scotia? But then gradually I received other assertions-ones that I did not feel I was competent to verify-that the whole story did not appear in this apparent discrepancy between the per student grant in each province.
As I mentioned before, in Ontario it is only after the 13th grade that one is treated under provincial jurisdiction as being a student of university level, whilst in Nova Scotia I was told that under the provincial legislation the one who went beyond the 11th grade is counted-if he is doing the work that is appropriate to the 12th grade-as a student of university level. That would affect the total number; and the total number being affected, it would affect the per capita grant that would result from dividing the whole of the provincial grant by the total number of students regarded in that province as being of university level.
Then I was told that in addition special payments were made to the Nova Scotia universities for students who were taking special courses but who were not residents of that province. I was not surprised at that, because they are private institutions supported in part at least by the contributions of the people of their own localities. Here I understand that in the elementary and secondary schools there is a difference in the fees that are charged to the children of ratepayers of Ottawa and those charged to children of ratepayers of adjoining municipalities who are admitted to courses in Ottawa. When I was told by several of the members of this conference that they thought this was the fairest scheme I said to them, "You will have an opportunity of discussing the matter again, and if you can agree that there is a fairer scheme, do not hesitate to tell us about it; and if we are impressed, we will tell parliament about it and parliament may take some action upon it. In the meantime we are going to recommend that the apportionment be the same as that of the previous grants that have been distributed up to the present time".


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have one further question. As I understand it, the grant is to be made subject to the terms of an agreement to be entered into between the government and the conference of universities. Will that agreement, either now or at some other time, be before this house? The Prime Minister nods.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I stated earlier-perhaps the hon. gentleman may not have been listening at that moment-that the draft which has been prepared and which is to be discussed with the national conference of Canadian universities embodies the same terms as were in the regulations that were made by the Minister of Finance under the previous votes. I stated that as soon as that agreement was completed it would be tabled in parliament so parliament could see that it was in exactly the same terms or, if there were any slight variations, could see what those variations were. The draft that has been prepared by our officials is an exact reproduction of the terms that were in the regulations.


John Borden Hamilton: After making two false starts, Mr. Chairman, I have almost forgotten my question. It seems that great reluctance to interfere with provincial rights has kept down the amount here. I am hoping that this may be considered to be an experimental year and that, as it works out, there may be a greater chance for additional assistance along these lines. But I am wondering whether the Prime Minister would tell us whether, in his discussions with the provincial premiers and at dominion-provincial conferences, there was any exploration of any other method that might have been used whereby some type of undertaking might have been given by provincial authorities that if sums of money were handed to them in a division of the tax base, we could have been assured that it would have gone to educational institutions. I should like to know whether any items of that kind were on the agenda at the conferences that have been held.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Chairman. To the best of my recollection the questions were never raised at any of the provincial conferences in public. They have been raised in private discussions between me and the premier of Quebec, as well as in correspondence, most of which I think has already been tabled in this house.
The position is, "Well, here you are occupying too large a place in the field. Let us have the whole of direct taxes and you will not have to do anything for any of these things to which you have been contributing in the past".


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OP NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE National health branch-
Health services-
542.	Immigration medical services-further amount required, $225,000.
Mr. Blair:: I have a question on this item. Will the Minister of Finance explain why this additional amount of money is required, and for what services?


Mr. Harris:: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The additional money is required because I found it possible to convince my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare a year ago that he would not need as much money as it now turns out he does need for the purpose of carrying out medical examination of immigrants in the normal course of the business of that department.


William Gourlay Blair: Have the services been enlarged, and is additional accommodation needed?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, there has been a slight enlargement in the United Kingdom and, of course, some temporary enlargement in connection with the Hungarian refugee problem, where we need additional doctors-not so much additional doctors as paying additional fees to doctors for examination of those people in Europe.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Can the minister tell me whether the immigrants are being medically examined before they leave?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, Mr. Chairman; those persons who are in Europe and are not coming forward immediately are being examined there, of course, as they normally are. Most of the immigrants are examined medically there. The exemption applies only to those who it was announced we would bring forward without medical examination for the purpose of easing the burden on Austria and who have, in fact, come forward. Where any refugee is proposing to come to Canada and there is time to examine him, of course the examination is made there.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Are those who were examined in Europe examined again after they arrive in Canada?


Walter Edward Harris: Well, all the cost of examining in Canada is part of this Canadian service rather than of the service abroad. We examine them, of course, along with the provincial governments if there is an understanding between the governments.


Mr. Quelch:: For how many months after [DOT] the arrival of the immigrant does the federal government assume responsibility for medical attention, where they land and where they eventually settle?


Walter Edward Harris: I think my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration made a rather lengthy explanation of that the other day. We have an agreement, as I recall it, with Saskatchewan, that we would look after the medical expenses for one year afterwards,
Supply-Transport
and I believe that offer was made to all the provinces and perhaps accepted by most. I am not sure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT A-Department-
Railway and steamship services-
543.	Construction or acquisition of auto-ferry vessels and equipment-further amount required for the auto-ferry vessel for service between Wood Islands, Prince Edward Island and Caribou, Nova Scotia, $600,000.
Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few brief remarks on this item. I presume it means that the construction of this ferry is being expedited in every possible way. There are a couple of changes and circumstances that have taken place since the regular item was passed at the last session that I would like to point out to the minister. The first is that the traffic on this service has continued to increase.


Walter Edward Harris: This has nothing to do with the service; it is an expenditure for the building of the ferry.


John Angus MacLean: The service has to do with the building of the accommodation.


Walter Edward Harris: This ferry is being built to accommodate the ferry service, yes. You can ask a question only on the building of the boat, not on the service.


John Angus MacLean: My point is this. If not at the present time, then very shortly even this ferry will prove inadequate because of the very sharp increase in passenger service offering on this route. At the present time the ferries operating are very inadequate.


Walter Edward Harris: Does the hon. member want to stop the expenditure on this one so we shall build it over again?


John Angus MacLean: No, I do not.


Walter Edward Harris: Then let us get on with spending the money on this one.


John Angus MacLean: My point is this. I presume this supplementary estimate is to expedite the building of this ferry as rapidly as possible. I presume it is going forward at a more rapid rate than was expected when the main estimate was passed last year.


Walter Edward Harris: That is correct.


John Angus MacLean: When is it expected that this new ferry will be brought into service? What will be the increase in capacity when this new ferry is brought into service?


Walter Edward Harris: At the present time the best estimate that can be given of when the new

Supply-Veterans Affairs ferry will be brought into service is about the middle of the summer.


John Borden Hamilton: Is this amount for some unforeseen costs in construction?


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Queens was aware the construction of the vessel has proceeded at a faster rate than we had anticipated. The money is due for the progress payments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Treatment services-
544.	Hospital construction, improvements, equipment and acquisition of land-further amount required, $435,000.
Howard Charles Green: Can we have an explanation of this item?


Walter Edward Harris: This item is much the same, Mr. Chairman. This is an expenditure on Deer Lodge for construction purposes, brought about by the progress of the work, which has advanced faster than we expected; and this will be progress payments on the contract.


Howard Charles Green: There is one point I should like to place before the minister in the hope that he will take it up with the Prime Minister. This is the first item we have had today on veterans affairs, and we find that we are still in the position that the Minister of Veterans Affairs is also the Postmaster General.


Walter Edward Harris: And doing a good job.


Howard Charles Green: I raised the point last year.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Howard Charles Green: And the Prime Minister had this to say on August 9.
The. Chairman: Order. May I remind the hon. member that we are discussing a specific item in the supplementary estimates having to do with hospital construction. I really feel the remarks he is attempting to make are somewhat far from that point.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I submit to you-


Walter Edward Harris: On a point of order-


Howard Charles Green: I have the floor-


Walter Edward Harris: I am rising on a point of order.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Walter Edward Harris: I am going to raise a point of order at once on the pursuit of this-


Howard Charles Green: I had the floor.


William Alfred Robinson: As I understand it, the Minister of Finance is rising on a point of order.


Howard Charles Green: That is what I was doing, too.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra on a point of order.


Howard Charles Green: I submit that when an estimate having to do with a department comes up for consideration in this committee a member is in order in raising something, as I have done, having to do with the minister of that department. After all, he is the man who will be responsible for the expenditure of this sum of money, and I think I am perfectly in order in pointing out that this minister, no matter how capable he may be-and I am not questioning his ability for a minute-should not have these two departments.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am quite sure the hon. member will realize he has now finished his point of order and is attempting to go back to the remarks he was making when I rose. I think I can deal with that without hearing anything further.
This is an item in the supplementary estimates dealing with hospital construction, improvements, equipment and acquisition of land, and I feel that remarks with regard to the, let us say, dual capacity of the minister would be entirely out of order on this item and I would be prepared so to rule.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Chairman, I think what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. A few moments ago the hon. member for Wellington South spoke on everything beside the item under discussion and was not called to order.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, does this item refer to one particular job, or does it cover several buildings in the course of construction? Can the minister tell us what are the hospitals that are involved in this total amount?


Walter Edward Harris: I did. I said it referred to Deer Lodge, which is the only one.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Loans, investments and advances-
545.	Loan to the United Nations Organization to help finance the clearing of the Suez canal, $1,000,000.
George Randolph Pearkes: Will the minister explain this item?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I will make a brief explanation and give a more detailed one later if it is desirable. Briefly the United Nations, as the committee knows, is now clearing the Suez canal of the obstructions which were placed there during the late fall. That work is estimated to cost somewhere between $30 and $40 million. That is a very

preliminary and tentative estimate, of course As I have said, the work is being done under the direction of the United Nations and the UN has no money for this particular work. Consequently the secretary general of the United Nations asked that he have put in hand the sum of $10 million as soon as possible by those nations which would find it possible to advance that sum in order to pay the cost of the job from day to day and from week to week.
After considering the matter it was decided to recommend to the committee and to the house that we should advance $1 million on a temporary loan basis to the secretary general of the United Nations to help finance the job that has to be done before the canal can be put in use again. I stress that this is a temporary advance by this country to put the secretary general in funds for the purpose of paying the cost of the job from week to week as it proceeds. This is not a contribution for that purpose. It is merely that we are acting, if you will, as temporary bankers to this extent. The United States has contributed $5 million of the $10 million that was asked for; other European countries are contributing various sums of money and, as I say, we decided we ought to make this advance.
I used the word "contribute" and I excuse myself, Mr. Chairman, by saying I did not mean that; I meant an advance. All the questions having to do with the cost of clearing the canal or any other questions in connection with this are left in abeyance so far as this item is concerned, in the sense that by making this advance we are not committed to make any further payments nor is this an assessment of any contribution we should make to the United Nations toward the final cost of the job of clearing the canal, the total cost of which, as I said a moment ago, has been tentatively fixed at between $30 and $40 million.
I hope the committee will take the view that this is merely a response to the request of the secretary general for temporary financial assistance under the circumstances, and that there is nothing in the item other than the simple wording we now have before the committee in the printed vote.


George Randolph Pearkes: Could the minister say
whether Canada is sharing in any part of the work of moving obstacles out of the canal, or could he give any indication as to how long that work will likely take and when this loan may be repaid?


Walter Edward Harris: We are not doing any particular work in connection with the clearing of the canal. It is expected that the work might
Supply-External Affairs take three or four months from the time it commenced some two or three weeks ago. The advance will be dealt with during the current session of the United Nations, when it will be decided how the cost of the clearing of the canal will be borne by the members of the United Nations. When it is decided and the assessments are made and the contributions are then fixed we will know about the return of the $1 million or any part thereof which may be our share.


George Randolph Pearkes: Does this loan in any way cover the expenses connected with the Canadian forces now serving with the United Nations emergency force located in the canal zone-


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Chairman.


George Randolph Pearkes: -and who in many respects, I presume, would be connected with the clearing of the canal?


Walter Edward Harris: That is not what I was asked, Mr. Chairman. I was asked whether Canadians were participating in the clearing of the canal. I took that to mean physically working at clearing the canal.


George Randolph Pearkes: Perhaps I used the word "contributing" wrongly, meaning a physical contribution to the clearing of the canal zone. If I recall correctly the Minister of National Defence in the statement he made this afternoon referred to the fact that there were minesweepers. I do not think he was referring to vessels, though he did not make that clear. I believe he referred to minesweeping equipment located in the canal zone being manned by Canadians. Does that refer to the actual clearing of obstructions from the canal?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, I was referring entirely to land mines and to the work of the engineers.


George Randolph Pearkes: Does this not include also a loan for the removal of land obstacles in the canal zone, or does it refer only to submerged obstructions?


Walter Edward Harris: It refers to those in the canal itself, Mr. Chairman.


George Randolph Pearkes: The submerged obstacles?


Walter Edward Harris: That is right.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact the minister said he had a more complete statement to make, may I call it ten o'clock.


Walter Edward Harris: I hope my words were not misunderstood. I was asked for a brief statement and I gave it. What I meant to indicate

Supply-External Affairs was that I would be glad to answer questions, but it is not my purpose to make any further statement in addition to what I have said up to this point.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, I think there are other questions which will have to be asked on this very important subject. It is now ten o'clock.
Progress reported.
Resolutions reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, we shall continue with this tomorrow.


Howard Charles Green: What will be taken up once this item is passed?


Walter Edward Harris: The same order of business I indicated last Friday: the Canada Council legislation and the Canadian wheat board bill.


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

[Stage Direction]
The following is the answer to an oral question asked on January 16 by the hon. member for Lambton West, which appeared at page 298 of Hansard.


[Stage Direction]
1.	How did it become possible for the United States supreme court to determine the flow of water through the Chicago drainage canal?
2.	In his veto of the bill for increasing diversion of water from lake Michigan, did President Eisenhower state that he would not permit more water to go through the Chicago drainage canal?
3.	Did the Secretary of State for External Affairs make a statement that the Chicago diversion was a matter for the international joint commission?
4.	Would our supreme court or any judicial body in this country be empowered to permit a similar diversion from lake Huron or lake Erie?
Answer by:	Mr. Cardin, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Secretary of State for
External Affairs:
1.	This is a matter of United States domestic law and accordingly is outside our competence to answer. However, the following outline of my understanding of the situation may be helpful. A United States statute of 1890 forbids the alteration or modification of the course of any navigable waters of the United States without authorization by the Secretary of War. In 1899 the Secretary of War granted permission to the Chicago sanitary district to divert a certain quantity of water from lake Michigan into the Chicago drainage canal. Litigation concerning this authorization came before the Supreme Court of the United States which issued a formal order on April 21, 1930, limiting the volume of water which might be diverted at Chicago to an annual average of 1,500 cubic feet per second in addition to domestic pumpage of some 1,700 cubic feet per second. The order apparently is of a continuing nature and to obtain authority to divert a greater amount of water, an application must be made to the Supreme Court of the United States to vary its order of 1930. On December 17, 1956, the United States Supreme Court varied its order to increase the flow from 1,500 to 8,500 cubic feet per second (in addition to domestic pumpage) beginning immediately and continuing until January 31, 1957. The representations on the basis of which the court made its order were that, as a result of a serious drought in the American middle west, navigation on the Mississippi river had been seriously affected and that emergency conditions existed.
2.	No. In his memorandum of disapproval dated August 9, 1956, President Eisenhower states that he has withheld his approval of House of Representatives Bill 3210. This bill
Question
proposed to increase the diversion of water from lake Michigan by 1,000 cubic feet per second for a three-year test period. I suppose, as legislation, it would in effect override the court order. In part, the President's memorandum says: "A comprehensive report by the corps of engineers which will include consideration of the best methods of obtaining improved control of the levels of the great lakes and of preventing recurrence of damage along the shores is nearing completion. I am asking the Secretary of Defence to expedite completion of this report. This report is in addition to the technical report on the effects of an increased diversion into the Illinois waterway which has been made by the joint lake Ontario engineering board to the international joint commission. I think it would be unwise to proceed with the diversion in the manner proposed in H.R. 3210 until all relevant information has been obtained, particularly since objections to the proposed diversion have been registered by the Canadian government in its note dated February 13, 1956, and additional objections filed by legal advisers of the states of Wisconsin, Ohio, and New York. ... I am asking the state department to engage in discussions with the Canadian government in an attempt to work out a solution to these problems as soon as all pertinent facts are available." I may add that the Canadian government has not yet been approached by the state department, although recent newspaper reports indicate that such action may be expected soon.
3.	No. On the contrary, on August 2, 1956, in replying to a question from the hon. member for Lambton West, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is quoted in Hansard, at page 6844: "It appears that the proposed diversion of the waters of lake Michigan would not come under the jurisdiction of the international joint commission unless it were referred specifically to it."
4.	No. Lake Huron and lake Erie are boundary waters and article III of the boundary waters treaty provides that no "diversions, whether temporary or permanent, of boundary waters on either side of the line, affecting the natural level or flow of boundary waters on the other side of the line, shall be made except by authority of the United States or the Dominion of Canada within their respective jurisdictions and with the approval, as hereinafter provided, of a joint commission, to be known as the international joint commission." The article goes on to explain that this provision is not intended to limit the right of each government to undertake certain governmental works in boundary waters which "do not
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
materially affect the level or flow of the boundary waters on the other (side of the line), nor are such provisions intended to interfere with the ordinary use of such waters for domestic and sanitary purposes". A diversion from lake Huron or lake Erie would not be similar to a diversion of water from lake Michigan because the latter is not a boundary water. Diversion of waters from lake Michigan comes under article II of the treaty, in which each government reserves to itself ''the exclusive jurisdiction and control over the use and diversion, whether temporary or permanent, of all waters on its own side of the line, which in their natural channels would flow across the boundary or into boundary waters".
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
University grants-
541.	To authorize payments to the national conference of Canadian universities (hereinafter called "the conference") for the purpose of making grants to institutions of higher learning in accordance with an agreement entered into or to be entered into, with the approval of the governor in council, between the Minister of Finance and the
conference, such agreement to include, inter alia, provision that the total amount of grants to all the institutions of higher learning in any one province be calculated by multiplying the population of the province by $1, and that any amount payable to an institution of higher learning and not paid by the conference in the present fiscal year may be retained by the conference until such time as the institution to which the money is payable claims the payment from the conference or parliament provides otherwise for the disposal thereof; the amount appropriated under vote 132 of the Appropriation Act No. 6, 1956 to be applied to the purposes of this vote; additional amount required, $7,986,000.

[Stage Direction]
National health branch-
Health services-
542.	Immigration medical services-further amount required, $225,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
Railway and steamship services-
543.	Construction or acquisition of auto-ferry vessels and equipment-further amount required for the auto-ferry vessel for service between Wood Islands, Prince Edward Island and Caribou, Nova Scotia, $600,000.

[Stage Direction]
Treatment services-
544.	Hospital construction, improvements, equipment and acquisition of land-further amount required, $435,000.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, January 30, 1957