1957-01-18

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. It arises out of the rather optimistic statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare yesterday that the amount of old age pensions might be increased. Can the Prime Minister assure the house that any increase in that regard to meet the continuing depreciated value of the dollar will be extended to the superannuation payments to retired civil servants, members of the armed forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition is a little bit premature in expressing his curiosity about what will be the decisions of the government and the recommendations it will make to parliament. I can assure him that all matters of public interest receive careful consideration, and when decisions have been reached they are announced in the forms that are traditional in constitutional assemblies.


John George Diefenbaker: I then ask the Prime Minister whether the interpretation placed on the optimistic words of the Minister of National Health and Welfare yesterday is well founded because, after all, the minister chose to indicate that something was going to be done; and he having indicated that, certainly I think I have the right to ask whether similar treatment is going to be extended to those whom I have mentioned that find themselves in a serious plight.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. gentleman heard the minister's words and he is entitled to whatever interpretation he feels he should put upon them. I am not going to attempt to interpret them at this time because I do not think that would be proper.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the answer he gave to a question asked by the
82715-25J
Leader of the Opposition. Is it not true that an indication has been given to Liberal members that an increase will be put through and was the suggestion not made that they make speeches asking for an increase for use in the election campaign?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether Christian G. Hanna has been permitted to land in Canada, and is the minister prepared to give further consideration to his desire to become a resident of this country?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that a lawyer in British Columbia has applied for a writ of habeas corpus, addressed to the master of the vessel on which this man is, and the application for the writ is to be heard, I believe, today. We thought it desirable to have my department represented by counsel as an observer.



EAST ASIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. L. Jones (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Could the minister inform the house if an agreement has been reached between Canada and East Asian governments on future policy in regard to admitting immigrants from those countries to Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member's question relates to the revision of the agreement with India, that matter is still under negotiation and I hope will be settled very shortly.



OLD ORDER AMISH SETTLERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Would the minister clarify the situation regarding the subject matter of a news report from Washington, D.C., to the effect that a group of Old Order Amish settlers from the United States who had planned to buy farms and settle in Prince Edward Island have had their applications for entry into Canada rejected?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As far as I know there has been no such group. There was an individual case of one of these people who was not able to satisfy the immigration requirements.



HUNGARIAN REFUGEES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lamblon West):: I think my question is quite timely in view of the publicity in the United States that several refugees from Hungary have been returned. May I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if any of these immigrants to Canada have been returned and, if so, how many and for what reason?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir. We gave an undertaking we would not return any of these people to Austria, and it is the custom of the present government of Canada to keep its word.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he has yet had time to consider that portion of the Gordon commission report which suggests that further study be given to the whole question of combines legislation and if so whether he has had an opportunity to make a decision and whether it is likely that some such inquiry will be made in the near future.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice and I regret not having sent him notice of my intention to do so, although I do not think he will need
[Mr. MacLean.l
it. Could the minister report any progress on his efforts to prevent juvenile offenders from being sentenced to Canadian penitentiaries and also can he report any progress or advise as to the present status of the Clifford Williams case?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the second question first I might say the Clifford Williams case, in view of the representations which have been made, has been under almost constant consideration by my colleague the Solicitor General since the matter was raised in this house and I believe that Mr. Williams will be released as soon as his degree of rehabilitation warrants that course.
With regard to the first question, I think I should take my hon. friend's question as notice.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister assure the house that a full scale public inquiry will be conducted in connection with the most serious loss of life as a result of the sinking of the pilot boat outside Saint John harbour?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, a preliminary investigation has been made by one of the senior officials of my department. I have not yet received his report but unless his report discloses reasons which would seem to make such an inquiry unnecessary it would be my intention to order an inquiry as soon as I have had an opportunity of seeing the report to which I have just referred.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is the government planning any action as the result of the report of the restrictive trade practices commission concerning the production, purchase and sale of flue-cured tobacco in Ontario?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, the government has that report under active consideration at the present time, but we have not yet reached an opinion which would require to be communicated to the house.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Michael Slarr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Can the minister advise what action is being taken and what orders, if any, have been given to customs officers at the border between the United States and Canada to stop the entry of salacious and indecent literature into Canada?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter which comes under section 1201 of the Customs Act which will be continuously applied as it has been for years. As you know, the procedure is that when salacious literature of any kind seeks entry at a port it is sent on here to Ottawa where it is reviewed and a decision is made concerning whether or not it comes within the prohibition in seotion 1201.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is that rule strictly adhered to and carried out?


James Joseph McCann: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: May I ask who
reviews it here?


James Joseph McCann: There is a committee of the department which makes the first review, and it is then passed on to the deputy minister, and the final decision is made by the minister.


Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. This question of salacious literature is a question of continuing interest in the country. When a particular publication is sent to Ottawa for review, is its import prevented while that review takes place? I would also like to invite the minister to present to the house at a later date information as to how many prosecutions have taken place and what results have been obtained.


James Joseph McCann: With reference to the first question, the invoiced goods would be retained if there were any quantity at the port of entry, and a sample would be sent on to Ottawa. In the meantime entry is prohibited entirely. With reference to the second question, I shall take it as notice.


Mr. R. R. Knighi (Saskaioon):: Mr. Speaker, while not committing myself at the moment to any general views on censorship, in view of the fact that a voluntary committee of some sort has been operating in Ottawa in the scrutiny of various publications at places
Inquiries of the Ministry where these things are sold, would the minister inform me if that committee has ahy authority from the dominion government or anyone else to prevent people from displaying such literature upon their counters?


James Joseph McCann: There are two different sets of circumstances involved in that question. The matter of entry into Canada of literature which is sexual or salacious comes under the Department of National Revenue, customs; the matter of literature which is on sale in stores and which is circulated through the Post Office Department comes within the jurisdiction of that department. I presume that any prosecutions made are probably made in the first instance because the mails are being used for the circulation and transportation of such literature and would come under some other regulation with respect to the exposure and sale. That does not have to do with the Department of National Revenue.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Apparently the minister did not hear my question, at least he did not answer it. I asked specifically if the voluntary committee or committees which I understand are operating in Ottawa at the moment in examining certain types of literature at the places where such items are sold have any authority from anyone to say to the dealer that he must not exhibit such publications for sale.


James Joseph McCann: I am unable to answer that question because I do not know under what authority that committee acts. If it is a voluntary committee I would think that it has no authority and should bring any such matters to the attention of whatever department is concerned, either the Department of National Revenue, customs and excise, or the Post Office Department.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: I would like, Mr. Speaker, to address a question to the Postmaster General.
What precautions, if any, are taken by the Post Office Department to prevent entry into Canada of salacious and indecent literature?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the Post Office Department does not set itself up as a censoring body. Such literature, or objects in parcels, found to be passing through the mails would be stopped, and are not delivered should the matter come
390	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry to the attention of the post office. The literature would be destroyed and so would certain objects for whose carriage the mails are being used. But there is no body in the Post Office Department which is set up particularly to exercise censorship of the mails. It must be understood that most of this type of material would arrive under seal and could not be observed by the post office unless the parcel or envelope were opened. In many cases this is done at the port of entry by the customs officers in the normal exercise of their duties, and when it is found to be that type of material it is then referred to the Post Office Department and we do the investigation as to the source and the addressee.

( Translation):


Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General another question. Does the minister intend to rid us of that mass of literature and propaganda which clutters our postal boxes every day and comes from the Russian embassy?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will allow me, as Postmaster General, to open his mail, particularly his first class mail which is sealed and stamped, I shall be very happy to make sure that no propaganda reaches him.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Another question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister keep an eye on the Russian embassy's propaganda which we receive every day in sealed envelopes? The hon. minister knows perfectly well what I mean.
{ Text):



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: Yesterday the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) asked whether the bilateral agreement between Canada and Mexico required a pilot to land in the United States should one or more of his engines fail to operate. The answer to the question is that the bilateral agreement contains no such requirement.


Joseph Warner Murphy: May I
address a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport with regard to the arrangements made when planes fly from Canada to a foreign country across another foreign country? In the event of motors going out of commission or other mechanical


trouble, and the aircraft being required to land, are the passengers obliged to stay in the plane?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I think that question involves the regulations of the country in which the plane would be compelled to land. I think I should tell the hon. member that practically all the western nations permit aircraft to land when they are in distress. I take it, however, that entry into that country is provided for by its own immigration laws.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: Yesterday the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace (Mr. Hamilton) asked if I could inform the house when construction is expected to begin on the Nuns' island bridge in the Nlontreal area.
I have made inquiries of the national harbours board and it is not possible to specify the date when construction is expected to begin but the board advises that the surveys and the preparation of plans have reached a point which will permit tenders to be called this spring for the first stage of the construction of the bridge.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Parliamentary Assisianf io the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) asked the Minister of Finance whether stockbrokers are required to maintain deposits with the superintendent of insurance, the Department of Finance or with the Bank of Canada as required in the case of banks or insurance companies.
No deposits are required by the federal government from stockbrokers or investment dealers, but a large number of these are provincially incorporated and all are subject to the various securities commissions provided by the laws of a number of the provincial governments.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Secretary of State? Can the Secretary

of State tell us what is the present position with respect to the study of redistribution recommended by the committee on privileges and elections the year before last? Is the minister aware that redistribution by an independent commission has now been effected by the province of Manitoba? Will something be done about this matter by this parliament at this session?


Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the factual report which the committee asked the government to prepare was sent to me at the end of the last session. It was not tabled then because it was received in the dying days of the session. I do not think it will be the view of the government that this matter should be considered this year by the committee on privileges and elections.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I
direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State? In the light of the view frequently expressed by the former member for Quebec South and others that redistribution should be studied well in advance of the decennial redistribution, why does the government not feel that something should be done about this matter at this session rather than leaving it until closer to the actual time of the next decennial redistribution?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, do you think that is a question that should be asked on the orders of the day? It seems to me we are taking a great deal of time with matters that are not urgent and that do not seem to be directly suggested for the purpose of really eliciting information.


John George Diefenbaker: We are not getting very much.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does that prevent the Secretary of State from answering my question?


Mr. Speaker:: I think great latitude has been taken by hon. members who have been asking questions. There is a great tendency on the part of hon. members to initiate miniature debates on certain matters at question time, but I have always felt, especially recently, that as long as the house bears with the type of question that is being asked and ministers provide the replies it is better to leave it at that without any intervention on my part. But any hon. member who takes an honest look at the rules will see that our question period transgresses the rules as they are today and as they perhaps should be applied. If they were applied the question period would be a very short period indeed.
Canada Council
(Translation):



INQUIRY AS TO DELAY IN TRANSLATING COMMITTEE REPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resfigouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Secretary of State. Would the minister tell us if steps have been taken this year to expedite the translation into French of committee reports, so as to avoid the six to seven weeks' delay which occurred in former years?


Mr. Robichaud:: You were hardly ever here; how can you know about it?


Roch Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I will treat the question as a notice. I will check whether the delay of which my hon. friend complains has in fact occurred, and shall inform the house of my findings.
(Text):



PASSAMAQUODDY PROJECT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the recent announcement which has been made of President Eisenhower's recommendation to congress of a large appropriation of over $1 million with respect to the Passamaquoddy project, will the government make a statement on Canada's up-to-date position with respect to this development in New Brunswick?


Mr. Lucien Cardin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I am sure the hon. member desires to have as complete an answer to the question as possible. I shall be happy to take it as notice.



CANADA COUNCIL


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the establishment of a Canada Council for the encouragement of the arts, humanities and social sciences and further to provide inter alia that
(a)	the Minister of Finance may, out of the consolidated revenue fund, pay to the council the sum of fifty million dollars to constitute an endowment fund for the purposes of the act, and
(b)	the council shall establish a fund to be called the university capital grants fund, to which

Canada Council
shall be credited the sum of fifty million dollars, to be paid to the council by the Minister of Finance out of the consolidated revenue fund.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Canada Council
These I consider to be the most immediate needs which Canada has for the encouragement of her arts, humanities and social sciences. We have, therefore, to consider how these requirements can be best fulfilled. I believe that hon. members will agree that a federal department of the fine arts, or some such governmental authority, is not the best answer to the problem. Nothing, I think, could be more detrimental to our real purpose if we were to limit or hamper the work of organizations already in existence by superimposing some central authority which could not have the experience and the knowledge in a particular field which existing societies already possess.
I do not believe that the liberal arts can or should be controlled or directed by the state if they are to remain healthy and continue to flourish. The scholar and the artist, like the scientist, require the wide horizon of freedom as the only border within which they can do their best work. The organizations and the individuals do need some assistance and encouragement in the tasks already in hand. It is this encouragement to perform the tasks already in hand which it should be our purpose to provide, but without any undue interference.
There is another urgent need which will partially be met by the adoption of this resolution and by the creation of the Canada council. That has to do with the capital requirements of our universities. The Gordon report states that universities will require substantial capital grants, if they are to take care of the very large increase in the anticipated enrolment. It is estimated that capital expenditure of about $1 billion will be required for these purposes over the period of the next 25 years. This means that universities will have to spend about $40 million per annum on the average to provide for capital expansion. And at a national conference on "Canada's Crisis in Higher Education" held in Ottawa last November the representatives of the universities of Canada expressed through a resolution adopted unanimously:
Their considered opinion that it was their urgent duty to warn the people of Canada that the problem of universities has become an emergency of national concern to the certain disadvantage of our progress and standing as a nation, and can only be solved by the energetic and immediate assistance and co-operation of all governments in Canada, of business and industry and of private benefactors.
It seems to me that the Canadian government and the Canadian parliament should not ignore such a serious warning and should be prepared to make a contribution, which can be made through the Canada council to meet this emergency.

Our main object in recommending the establishment of the Canada council is to provide some assistance to universities, to the arts, humanities and social sciences as well as to students in those fields without attempting in any way to control their activities or to tamper with their freedom. Governments should, I feel, support the cultural development of the nation but not attempt to control it. This sector of our national life perhaps more than any other must rely on the efficiency of private initiative.
It is our intention that this council should be composed of distinguished men and women who will represent the cultures and regions of Canada-men and women whose interest in and devotion to the universities, the arts and social sciences will induce them to serve on a voluntary basis. Thus we hope that their views and the measures which they will recommend will be as freely given as will be their services. Our wish is that the Canada council should be a body as free from state control as it is prudent for anybody entrusted with public funds to be. It is not to the government that this council is to look for control and direction, though of course it will be free to consult when occasion may arise, with appropriate government departments with which it may, in certain fields, wish to establish a measure of co-operation.
But it is under what I think will be the discerning eye of those people throughout this country who interest themselves in these matters that the council will in effect conduct its work. Hence it will report annually to the representatives of those people in this house where there will be, I am sure, a continuing and freely expressed interest in its stewardship.
I trust that our intention that the council shall be largely independent and shall have a wide measure of autonomy will be made clear by the methods which are proposed for financing its work. It is, in effect, to be endowed with freedom to carry on its work in the light of its own wisdom and with the advice of existing organizations whose cooperation it may wish to enlist as, in its turn, it may help them.
It is with this in mind that we ask for an endowment fund of $50 million to be provided from the consolidated revenue fund. From this sum the council will be permitted to use income after investment, but not the capital. The income only will be available for disbursement. The income will nevertheless be quite substantial and will be continually devoted to the continuance of scholarships, grants, loans and awards in the fields of the arts, humanities and social

sciences. The bill will provide that the council shall be assisted by an investment committee; it will not be confined in its investments to the trustee restrictions which exist in Canadian legislation. It will be the council's duty, with the assistance of this investment committee, to make the wisest possible investment of this endowment in order to secure from it as much income as they and the investment committee think can be secured with safety from the capital.
I anticipate that a large part of these income funds will be administered through existing organizations which have objects similar to those of the council itself. However this may be, the council itself will be solely responsible to parliament for utilizing the funds at its disposal in such a way that the maximum benefit to the country as a whole will result.
We shall also be asking parliament to provide from the consolidated revenue fund a further sum of $50 million to be known as "The University Capital Grants Fund" to be distributed by the council as a contribution toward the financing of specific building projects of which it may approve in the furthering of its general objectives to the extent of not more than 50 per cent in any one case, the contributions to be expended over a period of years-not necessarily in equal instalments of an equal fraction each year but by apportionment generally, to the institutions of the various provinces in proportion to their population. That would not mean that the institutions of one province could not get in one, two or three years, the portion of the fund that would be allocated to them because of the population of their province while others might not for one, two, three or four years be prepared to match or to ask that their institutions' funds be matched from this fund.
Although these two financial provisions will help to meet our most immediate needs, they will not meet, and are not intended to meet, all our requirements. The federal government does not feel that it should be the sole patron of the arts, the humanities and the social sciences or the only source of capital for the universities. Provincial governments have clear and important responsibilities in those fields and I am sure they will want to assume an increasing share of the financial assistance which is required. I also feel that private industry and private persons of means will feel that they have definite financial responsibilities in this respect in compensation for the advantages which will have accrued to them from the Canadian economy. There is evidence that they are already more aware
Canada Council
than ever before of this moral obligation to their fellow citizens and that they also realize more concretely that in the long run, at least, their own prosperity, or the prosperity of the organizations they have set up, will depend to a large extent on the expansion of our universities and on our cultural progress.
However, it has not been easy up to now for them to know how, to whom and for what specific purpose assistance could best be provided. There was no proper channel to ensure that donations would be utilized most effectively and it would have been both costly and very wasteful for each industry or private benefactor willing to provide assistance to set up in each case a special foundation for that purpose.
In establishing the council as an autonomous body, our intention is also to fill that gap and to provide an adequate channel which will have, I hope, the complete confidence of private industry and private benefactors and which they will feel they can use to administer and distribute the assistance they want to make available. We are proposing, therefore, that the council be authorized to accept gifts and bequests from private sources and to dispose of them according to the terms, if any, determined by the donors.
With this provision we are convinced that the contribution made by the government through the Canada council to foster our cultural development will not prevent private contributions but, on the contrary, will provide a new opportunity for private benefactors to make donations and to feel that their money will be well spent for worthwhile purposes. It will be our endeavour to compose the council of such persons as will give that confidence to the Canadian public generally, and I can assure the house that there will be no considerations of partisan politics that will influence us in the choice of those who will make up the council. I trust that private individuals will find it in their hearts to assist in the requirements to be met by the council because, although it may seem that these are large appropriations to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund, I feel and I am sure many in the house will feel that much more than the revenue from $50 million could, with advantage, be used for the purposes for which the council will be set up. I also feel that the availability of $50 million to match other contributions to the capital expansion of Canadian universities will leave it necessary that very much more be obtained from other sources, either provincial and municipal governmental bodies or individuals or private organizations.
It has been reported that the nazi leader, Hermann Goering, said many years ago that.

Canada Council
whenever he heard the word "culture" he reached for his pistol. This statement may-have been fairly representative of a condition of human society against which we fought and won a long and costly war. Now that war is over. But I think we must recognize that our western civilizations, upon which we base all our hopes for the future, are founded to a large extent upon the arts, humanities and social sciences as well as upon material progress and development and that these civilizations may be in some jeopardy from an ideology that threatens to destroy them.
I have used the word "culture", perhaps not for the first time in what I have had to say. It is a word which has been subject to a great deal of misunderstanding and, indeed, to misinterpretation. Since it is a word that has become linked to the name of the Canada council, perhaps I might be permitted to say what I believe it means when used in that sense. I believe that in that sense culture is simply an ability to enjoy those things which succeeding generations of thoughtful men have agreed provide the most profound and lasting pleasures of the mind.
In the past men and institutions of great wealth and power have provided means by which these pleasures could be created so that they might enjoy them. They were men who recognized things of great and abiding value. They -were men who, incidentally, also knew the value of gold coins.
In the past these pleasures were often reserved to the fortunate few who could afford them. In a modern society men of such wealth and power have almost disappeared, and it must be recognized that it is more difficult to amass great fortunes than it was when there was no conception of income taxes, excess profits taxes and things of that kind. But at the same time we recognize that the wealth of the mind expressed in the arts, humanities and social sciences is not a private prerogative but may rightfully belong to all people who wish to seek for it. Therefore it seems to me that governments have a duty to assume some responsibility of providing not control and direction of the arts but leadership in making available the assistance which is so greatly needed. I trust that parliament is prepared to have that duty assumed by the national government and will feel, as we do, that it can best be discharged through an organism such as that which will be provided in the bill which, if this house sees fit, will follow the adoption of the resolution.


Mr. Low:: Before the Leader of the Opposition speaks, I wonder whether I could ask the Prime Minister one question. I was very

much interested in his statement but he did not make clear to us exactly what he meant when he used the term "humanities". I think it would be useful to us in the debate if we knew exactly what he has reference to when he uses the term "humanities".


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: What I refer to is the study and, I hope as a result of the study, the acquired knowledge of the treasures that have been provided by the experience, studies and philosophies of past generations. When I say "past generations" I mean the generations that have succeeded each other for many thousands of years in the world. I mean that general knowledge of proper human behaviour that results from the accumulated experience of mankind since history has commenced to be written and not those special things that prepare for the exercise of a special avocation or profession. I mean the general broadening and training of the human mind so that the human individual whose mind it is may have as great benefit as one can derive from the accumulation of lore and knowledge over the centuries.


John George Diefenbaker: Canada Council
financing, and the fact that today the provinces and the municipalities are denied their fair share of the national taxation dollar.
What is envisaged here will simply postpone the day. The whole question of dominion-provincial relations will have to be faced; for the provinces and the municipalities more and more find themselves hampered and hamstrung by the failure of this government to face this major problem.
However estimable the purpose is, and however proper is the need in view, we simply postpone again facing the problem that must be faced in this country, a problem that cannot be faced by bits and pieces, but which must be faced at an early date.
I mentioned the need of Canadian universities. The need is becoming greater as the days go by. A survey was recently made to ascertain the degree to which universities in other parts of the world are dependent on grants from the state. In Great Britain 73.6 per cent of college income is from government grants. In the United States it is 58.6 per cent, and in Canada it is 42 per cent. More and more young and worthy students are being denied admission to university because they are unable to meet the ever-rising costs of tuition. In Canadian universities, of the total income today, or until the recent increase announced by the Prime Minister in November, 30 per cent comes from student fees. In the United Kingdom it is 10.7 per cent and in the United States it is 21.4 per cent. Unless action is taken to meet that situation it cannot but result in many outstanding and potential leaders in the sciences, in the arts, and in all the different phases of living, being denied an education; for more and more tuition rates are being raised and worthy students are finding greater and greater difficulty in proceeding to senior education.
That brings out one other phase, namely, the question of providing scholarships. In British universities and colleges 72 per cent of the students registered receive financial assistance from scholarships or bursaries. The income from the $50 million endowment, if invested at 3| per cent, will amount to only $1,750,000, a small amount when compared with the need of providing financial assistance through scholarships and bursaries. In Canada today only 14 per cent of the students receive that assistance.
Then, too, as far as the universities are concerned there is the tremendous magnetic influence of scientific organizations and of business on the staffs of universities. University professors in general are notoriously underpaid in comparison with other professions. There is a shortage of university

teachers. According to the estimate made at the recent national conference on manpower held at St. Andrews, New Brunswick, there is a shortage of some 3,700 teachers at the present time. There is a need for the expansion of facilities, buildings and the like, in universities. Will this need be met by the amount set up here as an endowment fund? I ask that and point out, as the Prime Minister did, that the Gordon commission estimated that in the next 25 years Canadian universities would have to spend over $1 billion in the provision of new facilities and the like. All these facts compel us to ask ourselves whether some action should be taken.
Should there be a Canada council? Well, I think, generally speaking-and I know of no serious opposition to it-people as a whole are very much in favour of a Canada council. Indeed, the question has been asked on numerous occasions since 1951, why has the government delayed so long in the setting up of this council? Some of us have come to the conclusion that this council was in much the same position as the Canada medal. When questions were asked as to when it would be set up, invariably the answer was that there were difficulties in the way. One naturally asks this question, when were those difficulties resolved? What has taken place recently that has changed the government's diffidence and delay since 1951?
The recommendation made was this, and I shall quote only a part of it:
That a body be created to be known as the Canada Council for the encouragement of the arts, letters, humanities and social sciences to stimulate and to help voluntary organizations within these fields, to foster Canada's cultural relations abroad, to perform the functions of a national commission for UNESCO, and to devise and administer a system of scholarships as recommended in chapter XXII.
However, there is also a further portion of this section on page 377 of the report which deserves to be brought to the attention of the Prime Minister and the government and it is this:
We should also consider it a misfortune if this Canada Council became in any sense a department of government, but we realize that since this body will be spending public money it must be in an effective manner responsible to the government and hence to parliament.
I ask these questions at this time because the bill is not before us. This gives us an opportunity to ask questions and to ascertain the general plan the government has in mind. I also point out that there is no suggestion anywhere in this report that the method should be the setting up of an endowment fund consisting of a bulk sum. The sum of $50 million will be taken and placed in a fund this year. Was that method chosen because of the fact that the government this

year has a surplus which is embarrassing and has provided this means of taking away a portion of it? Why was not the recommendation of the Massey commission followed? This commission brought forth a report that met with universal acceptance. At page 382 the following recommendation is made with regard to financing:
The development of the council's work would naturally depend upon the extent to which it would be able to satisfy with wisdom and moderation a real public need, and, if successful in this, we do not doubt that there would be public support of parliamentary action in making adequate funds available to it. We do not find it possible to propose specific sums; we should, however, imagine that the council would find it possible to perform its varied duties effectively with an annual budget which would constitute a very slight charge upon all members of the Canadian population. We venture to believe that our fellow-citizens would find this investment modest in relation to the returns which, we are confident, they could reasonably expect.
Why were these changes made? Having regard to the fact that this endowment will provide only approximately $1,375,000 for the purpose of expanding the facilities of universities and for the provision of scholarships and the like, and especially in view of the estimate of the Gordon commission that in turn reinforced the earlier representations made by the university committee as to the tremendous future demands if our higher educational system is to be preserved to a degree commensurate with Canada's national and international responsibility, why was the recommendation made by the Massey commission departed from?
In committee it is not the object, as I see it, to have hon. members make lengthy speeches. We are here for the purpose of securing information. Then, having before us the bill in question, we are able to deal with it in particular, section by section, and examine into its purposes on the basis of the information we have obtained. As far as the setting up of the council and its objectives are concerned, this represents something that has been generally asked for and I think the Prime Minister owes it to the committee and to the country to outline the reasons which brought about these changes which while not representing a change in direction are of more significance than meets the eye.
The Prime Minister also dealt with the personnel of this body and said it would be free of any partisan consideration. What the Prime Minister envisages is both laudable and necessary, but I would ask him whether or not there is any foundation for what is generally believed to be the course which the government has in mind, that the chairman of this committee will be one who was connected with this government over the years.
Canada Council
However estimable that gentleman is, and may I say I have a high regard for him, his appointment would not result in a complete divorcement from any suggestion of the possibility of government influence. I say that the chairman of this body should be one who in no way possible will be subject to any suggestion that in the slightest degree the council might be subject to outside influences. Following any other course would, in my opinion, strike a blow at the validity and prestige of this council even before it became operative.
The Prime Minister also spoke in strong support of the need of private individuals and organizations to make their contributions to the endowment fund to be administered by this council. He referred to various foundations in the United States such as the Carnegie trust, the Rockefeller foundation, the Ford foundation and the Mellon foundation. These foundations were set up in those halcyon days, which the Prime Minister himself has not forgotten, because he spoke of that time when income tax and corporation taxes and the like were non-existent. There are many today who have amassed wealth who might be inclined to do their part in contributing to this endowment if encouragement was given to them. I think it is a most desirable end that funds be made available but I am thinking now of this one particular phase of the use of those funds to provide scholarships. I would ask the Prime Minister if in order to encourage and ensure an increasing flow of private bequests consideration has been given to the deductibility to a large extent of amounts so contributed in determining the net valuation of estates for succession duty purposes. If we want to encourage contributions of such funds to ensure that sufficient money will be available, then I ask the Prime Minister to consider if the government does not have a responsibility to make possible by way of encouraging legislation the deduction of bequests to this endowment fund. These are but one or two of the questions which I have to ask. Later on when these questions have been answered we will be in a position to discuss various other phases of this resolution.
Again I say that the objective in the setting up of the council must receive the support of all. However, we want to know why there was such a manifest departure from the general plan which is set out in detail by the Massey commission after sitting for a very considerable length of time and being representative of outstanding Canadians. We want to know why the recommendations have been disallowed and why it has seemed expedient not to include them in the general purview of the resolution.

Canada Council


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: May I say
a word or two about the questions which the hon. gentleman has raised. The last question I understand had to do with the character of the council in respect of the deductibility for income tax purposes and for succession duty purposes. I think that that is amply provided for in the terms of the bill in the form in which it will be introduced after the resolution has been discussed.
As to the suggestion that there is a fundamental change in the recommendations of the Massey commission, I do not consider that there is any change at all. I think perhaps we are going somewhat further than they ventured to recommend. We felt that it would be very desirable that the council be able to plan for a number of years. In establishing scholarships for instance you cannot rely merely on the income of one year. In establishing a scholarship you create a situation which has continuing responsibilities. We felt that it would be very desirable to have the council in a position where it would have a certain income upon which it could count year after year. The accounts are to be subject to audit by the Auditor General, and there is required to be submitted to parliament each year a full report of the activities of the council.


Mr. Fleming:: May I ask the Prime Minister if the bill spells out precisely the formula which is to guide the Canada council in the distribution of the proceeds of the second $50 million endowment fund among the universities for construction purposes?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The terms are not determined in full detail, but it is provided that the contribution on the part of the council will not be more than 50 per cent of the cost of the building or the equipment being provided, and it will be for the kind of buildings required to carry out the objectives for which the council is established. If buildings are required for other purposes in the university they should be provided for otherwise than through the Canada council, the objective of which is to foster these developments of studies in the humanities, social sciences and arts. For instance, if an engineering faculty were required in a university it would be expected that those who are dependent upon the sufficiency and numbers and proper training of engineers would themselves do, as I understand they have done quite recently for a faculty of engineering of the University of Ottawa, pledge themselves to substantial contributions to that end.
The council would not under the terms of the bill make contributions out of this fund
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
to other capital expansion than that required to further the general objects for which the council is established. It would be provided that the total would be allocated in proportion to the respective population of the provinces and would be available for disbursement during a period of years. That would not mean that each year each province would have to receive its part of its total proportion because, as I said, it may very well be that in one province the institutions of that province would in two or three years receive the whole of what they might be entitled to receive for the full period, while in others it might be two or three or five years before they would take any portion of the fund which would be attributable to them in relation to their population.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: Canada Council
acquiring for the people of Canada some of the beautiful pictures that were painted by the masters of the past. I think that those appropriations are well worth while. After all, we can spend hundreds of millions of dollars in the building of armaments which are obsolete in some instances even before they come off the assembly line, but when we acquire a beautiful picture, when we build up a beautiful ballet company, when we build up drama, when we encourage literature, we are doing something that is not of passing interest but will remain in the hearts and minds of our people not only in this generation but for generations to come.
Through the Stratford theatre, through the musical organizations in Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver, through the various dramatic productions of the C.B.C. and many drama leagues, we have unearthed in this country over the past few years talent that we did not know existed until very recently. That, I say, is a major gain for Canada, a gain not to be expressed in dollars and cents but a gain in our cultural level that will pay rich dividends in the days to come. I wanted to say these things at the outset of my remarks this afternoon.
We are very pleased indeed that the government has set up this council and that it is appropriating substantial sums for the development of our universities. I agree that today the building of our universities is essential to the future well-being of Canada. We are a country with tremendous resources that will eventually be developed, and with the coming of new skills, with the coming of automation, it is more than ever necessary that we shall have a group of young men and young women well educated and well trained in order that they may give of their best to the development of these great resources under the new plans and with the new machines and so on that are going to be at the disposal of the nation within a very short time indeed.
What we invest today in our schools, in our colleges, in our universities, is an investment in the future. I have been rather disturbed at times-I understand that the reason of course is shortage of funds-to see reports in the newspapers of some of our new schools being deprived of some of the facilities that modern schools require. I am thinking of auditoria where students may assemble, where they may enjoy good music, where they may participate in dramatics and so on. I say I know the reason why these facilities have been curtailed or eliminated in the plans for many of our new schools but I think it is a mistake because these institutions are being built not for today or tomorrow but for a long time to come.

When I was overseas and had the opportunity to visit some of our NATO installations in Europe I was pleased indeed to see the schools that were being built there for the very large number of Canadian children who are temporary exiles from our country. I did not know, of course, that there were such large numbers of them until I saw them. We have something like 13,000 troops overseas matched by something like 13,000 women and children. Those children are entitled to the very best that we can give them so that they can come back and enter into our schools, our colleges and our life later on. I was pleased to see that there were either assembly auditoria in these schools or if they were not in the schools then adjacent to them there would be a gymnasium or a cinema where the children overseas can assemble and participate in the kind of activities that I believe are a part of a modern education for the children of our land.
We need more facilities. We need more university facilities. When I visit some of the universities of the country and see the temporary buildings that are being used today I realize that they must be replaced with buildings which will be functional and which will afford our young men and women the opportunities that they need. Not only do we need the buildings but we need to give opportunities for our young men and women to benefit from these institutions. As has already been said today, with the increased university fees many of our younger men and women who have the ability are being denied the right that they should have to a full education because they or their parents cannot afford to meet the costs of university education.
The Leader of the Opposition gave some figures today as to the number of young people in Britain who are being educated in the colleges and universities largely at public expense through bursaries and scholarships. I believe that the number is something over 70 per cent. I think he said 72 per cent. I thought it was about 75 per cent. But I was told over and over again when I was in the United Kingdom both last year and two years ago that today no boy or girl of ability can be denied the education which his or her ability demands because of economic circumstances, that through the system of bursaries and scholarships young men and young women coming from the most humble of homes economically can proceed to a university education. That is as it should be.
We have been told that in some fields of modern education we are being outstripped by Russia and her satellites. I do not know

what kind of educational institutions they have. I know, of course, that a good deal of the time is spent in' indoctrination of the students in those institutions. But nonetheless we are told, by people who should know, that an extremely high level of scientific education is given to the students in the Soviet union. In the forthcoming days the contest in the world will probably not be decided on the battlefields of the world but will be decided by the extent to which one or the other of us can contribute more and more to the well-being of men and women everywhere in the world.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Will the hon. member
permit a question?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does the hon. member
know, even approximately, what is the percentage of the population in the United Kingdom attending universities as compared with the percentage say in Canada and in the United States? Does he know that percentage, however roughly?


Major James William Coldwell: No. I am going to rely on
the figure given by the Leader of the Opposition this morning.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Was that figure not
showing how many were assisted? I am asking the other question. I was under the impression that the percentage in the United Kingdom is low as compared with ours.


Major James William Coldwell: If my hon. friend knows he can give that figure. I do not know the figure. I think it would be interesting if, when he rises to participate in the debate, -as I imagine he will-he would give us this figure, for frankly I do not know it. However, I know this. In the past number of years-the past 20 years at least-in the United Kingdom new universities have been chartered and new secondary schools have been built as well as grammar schools that are available to the boys and girls in districts that I knew as a lad. As a matter of fact, if I may give my own experience, I was obliged to travel every morning some 30 miles by train to school in order to get a grammar school education whereas today there are three grammar schools within easy reach, one within the borders of the area where I was born. I notice that they have much greater opportunities for both secondary education and university education now than then. As I say, however, I have not the percentage. I know that it is much easier for a boy or girl today to get a university education in the United Kingdom because
Canada Council
there are so many more bursaries and scholarships available than in our country. Whereas some 30 years ago or more a young man or woman desiring a university education could work during the summer holiday period and often earn enough to get through, today, of course, with the increase in the cost of board, the cost of fees, books and so on, it is more difficult than it was years ago. But as I say, I have not the comparable figures that my hon. friend asks me to produce.
I am not going to say a great deal more because when the bill comes down we shall be able to find out exactly what the government has in mind. I am happy to know that the government intends to appoint a council that will be representative of all parts of Canada and of the citizens of Canada without regard to partisan considerations. That is as it should be. I am not going to make to the Prime Minister or to the government this afternoon any suggestions as to who should or should not be members of such a council. We welcome this resolution. We shall welcome the legislation when it comes down. We shall give it our consideration and, in the respects in which we think it is worthy of support,-and I believe generally that it will be worthy of support-we shall support it. This is something that we have needed for a long time. I am happy to see that at last we are going to get this forward step. On behalf of my colleagues as -well as myself I welcome this resolution.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, as I listened to the Prime Minister this morning and to the other speakers who have dealt with the proposal that the Canada Council be appointed, I thought of what my father told me when I was a boy. I think he had read it from Hugh Walpole's writings. It went something like this: The whole secret of living is to be interested in one thing profoundly and in a thousand things well. My father in my early youth said to me, "I believe that is quite true and I would suggest that during your life you learn to be an apostle of abundant living." Mr. Chairman, I have consciously attempted to fulfil what my father suggested was a good way of life. As a consequence I have deliberately sought the art of diversified living. Here I must confess that it has been most delightful and that I have found that happiness which has come through knowing at least one thing profoundly and in being acquainted with a thousand things well.
I would take it that the meaning of that advice is the pursuit of culture. I listened carefully to what the Prime Minister said

Canada Council
this morning and I deliberately asked him a question about the humanities in order to get exactly what was in his mind with regard to the matter. From what he said I believe that the thing which I have consciously attempted to do was to set out to find culture. I do not profess to be cultured. I am afraid that I have missed it by a good long way. However, there are many things that I appreciate of the finer things of life. I also agree that we in this country, should do everything we possibly can to nourish and to sustain the arts, to borrow words used by the Prime Minister in his speech this morning, and to encourage everybody in our land to try to find that art of diversified and abundant living. It is satisfying, it is zestful; it makes people happy and it makes them understand one another much better than they have ever understood one another before.
I remember a journey which I took quite a number of years ago before the time of common travel by aeroplane. I found myself in the middle of a desert in the state of Nevada in the United States. Nightfall came on. We had been travelling across the trackless wastes for many hours without seeing anything but an occasional sign of life. Finally we came to what later proved to be an oasis. We were invited in to spend the evening by the people who lived in the home there. To our delight we discovered something that has remained with us, or at least it has with me, over all these years. I discovered a marvellous family. It was a family poor in this world's goods, struggling to make a living, not certain of the future or of the security that so many of us seek. However, I found that it had a well-stocked library that had been gathered together at great pains and great cost, perhaps through the sacrifice of other things. In the home I saw a piano and other musical instruments. I saw the children performing on them for our entertainment that night. They were self-taught or practically so, the mother and father having given every encouragement to the development of musical talent.
I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that in the course of the evening, as I listened to their entertainment and as I listened to the stimulating conversation that went on amongst the members of that family and with others, I could not help coming to the conclusion that here in the middle of a desert, isolated from all of the advantages that people normally enjoy these days, we found real culture. Here we found happiness and abundant living. I could not help but conclude also, as I listened to what went on today, that it was not government subsidized. It grew spontaneously out of a desire to excel, to develop.
IMr. Low.]
I must say, Mr. Chairman, to me it was stimulating because of the very spontaneity with which it came about. It was done by individuals for their own enlightenment, their own progress, and for the entertainment and delight of their fellow men as they came by. They were veritably dwellers by the side of the road where the race of men go by, not in great numbers; but it was a delight, I tell you, to spend an evening with these people.
I am thinking also of the southern negro of the United States. Nobody can ever claim that those people enjoyed many amenities of life; no one ever thought of subsidizing them or of giving them government assistance in the development of their culture. Just the same, Mr. Chairman, the negroes of the south did, by their won spontaneity and their own hard work, develop a culture that stimulated such great men as Stephen Foster in the writing of his operettas and those lovely songs. Then, there are the negro spirituals and the blues. Some of us do not like the blues, but there are a good many intellectuals who do. Jazz, all of these things, originated with the negro in the southern states. Some of us do not like jazz, perhaps, but I know a great many intellectuals who do and who get a great deal of satisfaction out of it. Mr. Chairman, the negro developed his culture out of his sufferings, out of his triumphs, out of his hard life, and it came as a spontaneous expression of that which was in him. He did not need any encouragement by endowment from the government of the United States to do it, and it enriched the life of the United States as it has enriched the lives of people all over the world.
I am thinking also of the Eskimo of the far north. I read a good deal about the Eskimo, I have talked to people who have worked amongst them, doctors and nurses of the United States who years ago first went amongst the Eskimo in Alaska to try to help those people into a better way of life. Many of those doctors and nurses confessed to me that they had learned from the Eskimo more than they had ever known about culture. They confessed that the Eskimo had developed one of the highest cultures known to civilization. They did it by their own hard work, out of the inspiration within their own souls to excel, to achieve, to develop skills. They did not need any government subsidization to do it. Therefore, I have to wonder just what we are doing when we suggest the setting up of a Canada Council for the purpose of buying culture, subsidizing culture. Mr. Chairman, you cannot buy culture; you cannot get it through the expenditure of money alone. There has to be the will on the part of the people to develop their skills and

achievements. Let us remember that culture is the sum total of the achievements in the physical, the mental, the spiritual, the scientific, the artistic fields. There has to be that will and it seems to me that depends to a very large degree upon heart education. We can accomplish that sort of thing. If you mean, by a Canada Council to encourage and sustain and nourish the arts, helping our Canadian people to understand through needs of the heart, then perhaps some of us might change our views in regard to it.
This morning the Prime Minister spoke of the needs of cultural education. I do not look upon them as needs at all; I think they are desires, and that is all they are. We all desire to see greater achievements in all of these wonderful fields that enrich our life and make it worth while and make it zestful, but they are not really needs by any means. I say we have to consider this whole matter in that light.
I want to pay a tribute to the voluntary bodies that have encouraged and sponsored the arts over the years, bodies like the dominion drama festival, the little theatre movement, the various foundations sponsored by philanthropic people in this land and in other lands. I think they have done a splendid job; but, Mr. Chairman, what has been achieved certainly is not a discredit to the people of Canada, is it? Not by any means.
If we take careful stock of what has been accomplished by the Canadian people in relation to our population we shall find that we have not lagged behind other countries in culture. I have in mind journeys that I have taken through the province of Quebec. I have been in homes where the people have been completely isolated for years from very much connection with the people outside. I refer to the back concessions of the province. I have found real culture in those families, with great devotion to family life, devotion to their religion, devotion to the soil and their country. These things inspired them to develop. When I sat on the front verandas of some of those homes, beautifully whitewashed and kept clean as they were, and watched the family on a Sunday afternoon working together doing splendid things such as wonderful handiwork, singing songs, developing skills and using them, I could not help thinking that there we had a spontaneous expression of the desires and the wills and the hopes. That amounts to culture. That is what it is. And so they too, the families of the country, have done much to help to achieve the standards of culture that we have achieved in this country.
Canada Council
When we speak about the need or the necessity of government subsidization I have wondered, what about Shakespeare, one of the greatest writers of all time, the greatest dramatist. Did he have to depend upon subsidy? Not by any means. He had to depend upon the patronage of Essex and upon what he could get from the Globe theatre, but he developed just the same, and became the greatest writer of all time in the field of drama.
What about some of our great Canadians? What about Raymond Massey? What about Mary Pickford and various others who have become leaders in the field of drama? I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that these people are only representative of many others who have excelled, and they did not have to depend upon government subsidy by any means. They achieved what they did through hard work and through the patronage of people who were prepared to pay for what they had to give. Certainly, I say that what we have achieved has been true culture, and it is no discredit to us as a country.
This morning the Prime Minister mentioned what had been accomplished in other countries. He mentioned what they have done in Great Britain and he also mentioned what the United States had accomplished.
Pie suggested that there were certain reasons why the United States did not have a counterpart to the Canada Council. He suggested that in the United States there were a great many philanthropists and wealthy people who became patrons of the arts and scientists. I am going to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that if we had in our country more people of material substance I am quite satisfied that they would be just as generous as the people in the United States have been, but one of the great reasons why we do not have as many wealthy people here, and I think we should begin looking into this, is that we have followed taxation policies that have taken the material substance away from people who would be patrons of the arts and sciences and have left them with little or nothing with which to endow. It is high time we began to take a careful look at what the real effects of our taxation policies have been.
I think we sometimes appear to be a little too anxious. It should be remembered we are still a young country and we have plenty of time in which to develop. I am not suggesting by any means that we lag behind in the development of our arts and sciences but I do think there are priorities as I said the other day; and it seems to me that one of those priorities for claims on any money there is available to be spent is the situation

Canada Council
of those people in our country who are forced to live below the borderline of poverty, the old age pensioners, those who are in receipt of war veterans' allowance and other pensioners. I do not think for one moment that it is going to help an old age pensioner to be cultured prior to the time he is given something to eat. Does the government think, for example, that having culture before we give him something to eat will help him to better appreciate what it means to starve?
I say we ought to be giving greater consideration to those priorities. Old age pensioners constitute one of those priorities and another important one is cancer research. Cancer is one of the great killers and we have found no remedy for it. We ought to devote our energy and resources to finding a cure. I am going to hang my head in shame if we say to the people of this country, "We cannot afford to do these things but we can afford to put up $50 million or $100 million for the purpose of bringing culture to you people." That is putting it in a direct form and those words express exactly the way I feel about this.
I do not for one moment feel that it is unwise to have such a thing as a Canada Council eventually for the development of the arts, letters and sciences. As I have already said, I am devoted to discovering expressions of art through diversified living and all the joys it brings; but I do not know for certain that this is the time for it to emerge as a priority and I doubt very much that this is so.
Let me make it abundantly clear, however, that I find myself if not in complete agreement, at least in substantial agreement, with the second part of the Prime Minister's resolution. Anyone who takes the trouble to examine into the needs of our universities, school divisions and municipalities cannot help but agree with what the Prime Minister said this morning concerning these needs. Not only are our universities overcrowded now but they face an extremely dark future unless something is done to help them achieve the physical plan that is required. The enrolment in our universities is going to be multiplied three or four times prior to 1980. There will be a tremendous influx of students who were the children born just at the end of the war. Within a very few years the universities will not have the physical facilities necessary to take care of this additional enrolment. The burden of supplying this huge capital outlay is too great for the municipalities and school divisions of the provinces to meet. Some means must be found by which they can be assisted.

I know what it means to support children in schools of higher education. I have two children attending university today, one in his third year in the school of medicine and one in second year arts. I have no hesitation in saying it is a heavy drain on the pocket-book as many of you will have experienced. These are not the only children I have sent to university but these two are attending simultaneously. I often think how fortunate I am to be in a position to send them because I know of a great many deserving students whose worthy parents have not been able to send them to school.
The son of a neighbour of mine recently graduated with an outstanding record from one of the local high schools. This worthy young man should have been granted an opportunity of going to university but he was not able to attend simply because his parents did not have sufficient money and he could not find a means of raising it. Worthy students like him should not be deprived of a higher education for monetary reasons and should be given the highest education they are prepared to accept, because every time we graduate a student and equip him with skills and degrees we have enriched not only his life but our nation, and at the same time have given impetus to his desire to achieve and excel, which means so much in the development of any country.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: May I ask
the hon. member a question?


Solon Earl Low: Yes.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I approve of what the hon. member has said but I am wondering if he realizes that he is urging in this particular area a large measure of state subsidization?


Solon Earl Low: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I realize that, and that is exactly the point to which I am coming in this connection, but I think this is quite a different matter from what I read in connection with the first part of the resolution. What I read about in the first part of the resolution will affect comparatively few people and will give direct comfort and enjoyment to comparatively few. What I am talking about at this time is something that will help many people and we have accepted that principle, of course. The fact that one accepts the principle of subsidization for a purpose that is universal does not mean that one has also to accept the principle where the results will not be universal, and so I have to distinguish between them.
If I may proceed, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that I am not certain in my mind that it is necessary to set up the Canada

Council for the second purpose. The fact is that we already have institutions and mechanisms in the country with which to deal with this sort of thing, that is improvements in university education, improvements in capital equipment at the university and so on, without the establishment of a Canada Council. Is it necessary for us to multiply our institutions every time we try to help a worthy cause? I say that if the government had wanted to do so they could easily have made this money available to the universities and the provinces that are charged under our constitution with the responsibility of providing education for our people. It is not necessary to have a Canada Council to do that.
I would like to see this help given to the universities, municipalities and the provinces in order that they may carry their burdens. As the Leader of the Opposition so aptly said this morning, the Canada Council proposal is not necessary; this is only chipping away at the block, and a mighty small chip it is too. We will have to see to it that our provinces and municipalities are provided with a fairer share of the government's revenue, and when this is done they will look after education and will do it well. When this government takes that view of things and is seized with the importance of decentralization in these matters, then I am satisfied they will begin to see the truth ahead of them and will be able to find their way through the shoals of the difficulty we face. This resolution does not point the way and it will not provide a lasting solution and it is because I feel that way about it that I speak with some feeling.
I would like to say, in bringing my remarks to a close, I feel that this is not the time to implement the demand that has been made quite vocal by a few people in our country to set up the Canada Council and endow it as is suggested, but that I believe it would be wise for us to scrutinize most carefully the policy under which it will be set up. I agree with what the Prime Minister said this morning in the house in regard to having men and women of absolute integrity head the Canada Council. I do not think that we can be too careful about that. I believe that we must make certain that we place in those positions now men and women of complete honesty of purpose. Why do I say that? Because, Mr. Chairman, we have had such things as this set up before, perhaps not internally, but I notice in the Massey report that the writers of that report suggest that this Canada Council will be the national counterpart of UNESCO. May I suggest that the original purpose for which UNESCO was set up was perhaps praiseworthy, and its objectives were praiseworthy, but I am going
Canada Council
to say to you that men and women of dishonesty of purpose got hold of it and they have made use of it as an instrument of subversion and brainwashing. Some of the people who escaped from this country who were suspect in the field of communism found their way into UNESCO and were given places of importance and authority. May I point out that for this reason there sometimes are dangers in these concepts, dangers which we do not see or guard against. One of those dangers is that an instrument of this kind, although it can be an instrument of good, can be made, on the other hand, if it falls into the wrong hands, an instrument of evil. That is to say, we have to be very careful. I go along with the Prime Minister and others in saying that we must make certain if we are to go along with the Canada Council people that we see to it that people of absolute integrity and honesty of purpose, people free of any entanglements in these suspect movements, are put into those positions.
I want to see the bill and give it very careful study. I would issue a word of warning that we ought not to rush headlong into this thing without a careful study because when we go to the country the people are going to ask us why we rushed into this thing and put up $100 million for it and at the same time said that we could not help those people who have been living at or below the borderline cases which I have seen. I am going to reserve my decision as to whether or not I shall support the bill.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Chairman, on this matter I could not disagree more with my hon. friend to my left, the hon. member for Peace River, than I could disagree with anyone on this particular issue.


Mr. Blackmore:: We expected that from you.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I take that as a compliment.


John Horne Blackmore: You may look at it that
way, but I do not.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: May I continue after these interruptions. My hon. friend says that he is against the setting up of this Canada Council because for one thing it has been set up too soon. I had intended to say in opening my remarks that my criticism would be that it has been set up much too late.


Solon Earl Low: I said it was a matter of priorities.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I submit that it should have been set up long ago. I am in complete agreement with the Social Credit leader when he says that he would like to see more assistance and more money given to the municipalities with which to carry on their

Canada Council
purposes, including the provision of educational facilities, but I am not at all convinced that, if the Canada Council is not set up, a corresponding amount of money will be given for that purpose. So I am prepared to accept the setting up of this Canada Council as a step in the right direction.
While I am talking about my hon. friend the leader of the Social Credit party I may as well take up this question of UNESCO which he has just mentioned. This UNESCO is not the bogey he seems to think it is. My hon. friends seem to be constantly worrying that they will find communists under the bed, and they are always looking for them.


John Horne Blackmore: You do not have to look for them.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I would suggest that if my hon. friend's assertion is right, and if some communists have got into UNESCO, as they got into other places, one of the ways to have seen that that would not happen was for Canada to have taken the proper action under the UNESCO charter. That charter is now ten years old and we were one of the original signatories. I believe that at the original meeting it was agreed or certainly it was understood when the people who signed that charter went home to their respective countries, that a national commission on UNESCO was going to be set up. For some strange reason that national commission was not set up.
One reason why I am in favour of the setting up of this Canada Council is that although the Prime Minister did not mention it this morning I understand he is following along the general lines of the Massey commission report. If he is, that would involve, not the setting up, as I have pleaded with the Prime Minister on many occasions to set up, of a national commission on UNESCO; it would mean that the Canada Council which he proposes to set up would be in effect, or an advisory committee to that council would be in effect, this national commission to UNESCO, something for which I have long pleaded. If I am mistaken the Prime Minister can correct me; if I am right he can corroborate what I have said.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I just wish to clarify what the hon. gentleman is saying. If he will read the provisions with respect to the establishment of UNESCO he will find that this kind of body could not be a national commission of the kind envisaged as one of the alternatives under UNESCO, but many countries have convened national conferences prior to the UNESCO meetings. The bill will orovide that the government can delegate to

the council the responsibility for the convening of these conferences that do comply with the provisions of the UNESCO charter.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am glad to have that bit of information. I have given it as my opinion that Canada has not filled its commitments to UNESCO in order to take advantage of it. I think that has been a disadvantage, not only to the other national members of UNESCO but to Canada, which has been the chief loser. Since the setting up of UNESCO Canada has done very little to take part in the original scheme except to send year after year whenever conferences were held delegates of a sort. In saying that I cast no reflection upon the hon. member for Victoria. I have criticized the government for their choice of people to send to these conferences. Generally they have been civil servants connected with the Department of External Affairs, having their headquarters at Ottawa. They go to these conferences and return and the people in the rest of the country know nothing about it except when they see a notice in the newspaper saying that they have been there and have come back.
Now that, to me, was not the carrying out of the original intention. These people, on a national commission or on the Canada Council, should be people who are interested, first of all, in the matter in hand. They should be chosen on a geographical basis. They should be delegates like my hon. friend the member for Victoria B.C. (Mr. Fairey)- men of his type, not civil servants connected with any department of government, and by that method the UNESCO ideal-by which I mean not only the promotion of national culture but the promotion of culture and understanding throughout the world among educated people who have the responsibility for doing a lot of the thinking of the world- would thereby be promoted and strengthened. That is my idea of the function of UNESCO; it is an institution that may be and should be a society for the promotion of sound ideals, peace and understanding.
I was glad to hear the announcement that the Prime Minister has made. There were one or two things which my hon. friend from Peace River said in which I could not see any sense. He talked about Shakespeare, and indicated that there was a Shakespeare in the world without the aid of a Canada Council. Of course there was. But how many Shakespeares have we had? One every three or four hundred years, I suppose. My hon. friend did admit that Shakespeare did not simply come from nowhere; he said he had a patron who gave him an opportunity to achieve what he did and I suggest that

Canada Council
what the government is doing now is going to provide an opportunity for many unfound Shakespeares to be,-not Shakespeares, of course, but I think my meaning is fairly clear. In other words, if in the past these advantages of which I have been speaking have been for a privileged few; my plea is that they should now be extended to the many. That is the point I would like to make.
I am not going to say very much about the council itself because I do not know what is going to happen until I see the bill, but I am going on to express one or two general ideas on the subject. I had intended to defer these remarks until the bill was discussed, but since others have expressed opinions I will make them now. I said at the beginning of my speech that my original criticism would be that the government's action is not too soon but that it is too late. I do not mean by that that it is irrevocably too late; I do not mean it in the sense that any particular damage has been done. Nevertheless I do think we have been wasting an opportunity of doing something we should have done years ago. There has been no action. I expected action in 1955 when I had the good fortune-I do not know why they chose me-to attend a meeting together with some of the educators in this country at a special council; I think it was a council of the humanities held in' Ottawa early in 1955. There I heard one of the finest speeches I have ever heard the Prime Minister make and we all came out of the banquet held after that conference thinking: "We are going to get it; it's in the bag". I am not, of course, a mind reader, and I cannot ask the Prime Minister to disclose what was in his mind at the time, but we all felt it was in the Prime Minister's mind in 1955 to bring in some legislation similar to that which is being brought in now. Certain friends of mine, particularly in university circles in my city, were keenly disappointed that the speech from the throne that year contained generally almost as little as it does this year, and that there was in particular no mention in it of a Canada Council. However, it is in the speech from the throne this year, and I am glad of it.
I think the time has come when we should have some scheme of the kind proposed by the government. After all, we are a pioneer country. We have been in the earlier stages of our development and we have been concerned, probably of necessity, with material things; we had to dig the stones and cut the stumps, and I think we have perhaps failed to develop our human capabilities as efficiently as we have developed our material
and natural resources. For some reason Canada stands alone in this. We have shown a strange hesitation and diffidence in artistic and literary fields. In the early stages, at least, we have been imitative. Perhaps this is because we are a nation of immigrants; we have come here imbued with ideas which are connected with the countries from which we came.
And so our culture and the folklore of which one of my hon. friends has spoken has really been the culture of the French Canadian race which has been established so long on the banks of the St. Lawrence river. My hon. friend has paid tribute to that culture, and I do, too. But the rest of the country is not getting any benefit from it. It is an individual culture of people who meet together to enjoy their little dramatic performances or whatever else they arrange. I would like to see that sort of thing spread across this whole nation and if that is to be done we shall need some medium through which it can be spread.
Now we are learning, as the Prime Minister has said, that we must depend on ourselves. We have begun to realize that art and literature must draw upon the Canadian scene if we are to have a national culture of any distinctiveness, and surely the creation of this Canada Council will inspire, encourage and create a climate in which this kind of thing can take place.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What kind of thing?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: My hon. friend can make his speech, with such inspiration as he possesses, after I have finished.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Now I would like to paraphrase something I said some time ago because I think it is, perhaps, worthy of a reference even if I was the author.
Perhaps our pioneer preoccupation with primitive things or perhaps our progress towards our own independence and in material wealth has been so swift that our appreciation of Canadian greatness and the capabilities of her people has not kept pace. We ourselves are at last discovering that there is as much drama in the lives of the native Canadians as a basis for literature as there is in other people's lives. Our artists are beginning at last to realize that there is as much beauty in a prairie sunset or in the Quebec woods as there is in a European scene which it was once conventional to portray upon canvas.
And I pay here my tribute to the great advance made by French Canadian culture.
Investment in the promotion of Canadian arts- for as such I see the setting up of this Canada Council-would add to the enjoyment, the education and the culture of all Canadian people.
I can subscribe to that today just as well as on the day on which I said the words just quoted. One phase that I think is important is that some people who have had some

Canada Council
opportunities to allow their genius to grow have been drawn away from us by the lure of extra monetary reward in the United States, and that has meant a great national loss to us. They have been drawn away by the lack in Canada of high monetary reward and the lack of an opportunity to practice their profession under good conditions at home.
The Canada Council can do for the humanities and the arts what the national research council has done for the sciences. To my mind, the humanities have been neglected. I have always maintained that and I still do so. As far as specialization is concerned, I should like to say this to the government if I may presume to advise them. When they are looking for men for the foreign service, when they are looking for men to administer departments at home, I say to the government that the best and soundest education with which these people can start is an education in the humanities. I hope that it will then happen that these young men so equipped by their studies of the humanities will be able to take advantage of government scholarships so that they may be trained in those functions for which the government wants to make use of them later.
These are ideas that I have upon the question. There has been opposition. We have seen an example of it here today from the leader of the Social Credit party and their former leader, the senior member of that group. Personally I cannot understand their attitude. No man has ever accused me of communist tendencies or even near communist tendencies. If they did I would repudiate them as I have repudiated the communists publicly. Communists have opposed me in every election in which I have run and not even my hon. friends will find a communist under my bed.
I do not know what this fear is based upon. Perhaps it may be based upon fear of interference by governments with our intellectual freedom. Let us admit that there is a risk, but even if that is so we will have to take the risk. We cannot hold back progress forever because somebody suspects something about a communist having infiltrated or being mixed up with an organization. If we are going to abandon all our good works because a handful of communists may get into these organizations we are not going to progress very far. We cannot hold back on account of fear.
It surely will be admitted that there has been no interference with intellectual freedom produced by the federal grants to our universities. If there is, I have never even heard a suspicion or a word about it.

I have never even heard the subject mentioned. As far as I know, the federal authorities impose no conditions with regard to the spending of the money which they hand to the universities. I am not going to deal further with that argument.
I of course have claimed with respect to other types of education that there would be absolutely no interference in the curriculum or the administration of education where such grants were received, but that is not my subject today. I think there would be equal risk in taking money for the sponsorship of education or the sponsorship of culture-I do not like the word "culture" -from a private institution. I must say that I am glad that from now on the existence of drama festivals is not going to have to depend upon grants from the liquor interests of this country, something that we have seen happen in the past. Mind you, I do not wish to discourage the giving of grants by private industries or private philanthropists, but now we have got a medium through which these grants can be assigned to the place or places where they are most needed. I hope that this plan will not only not stop the intention to give such grants but will be an inspiration for private industry or philanthropists to put more money into a good cause.
Another disadvantage I can see with respect to private grants is that such grants are liable to come with some strings attached, although perhaps not very substantial strings. However, I can see that some firm that uses a great number of engineers, for instance, would pour money into a university or other institution of learning with the hope at least-and I would not be surprised that they would express it-that the money would be used to produce men whose services they could then use with great profit. I think that is natural. In other words, these grants would be made to students in a specialized field.
I have been saying for 12 years, and perhaps I do not need to tell hon. members again, that what we want is national sponsorship and effort. Another thing that occurs to me is that we need steady and continuous support of this sort of thing and not a spasmodic effort such as perhaps would be the result of private givings. A firm might give a quarter of a million dollars this year but you might not get any more for years to come. When we have a basis of continuous support we may hope to get somewhere.
I have already spoken much longer than I had expected to but the hon. member for

Peace River will have to take the responsibility for my wearying him to this extent. I am thinking now of how this council may be a potential means for the granting of scholarships. Throughout my life I have had a steady connection with the land that gave me birth. I have visited it a good many times and have kept in touch with people there, now, alas, too few. I have been convinced that no country in the world has made a finer contribution to its young people than has Great Britain so far as scholarships are concerned. Whether the figure is 70 per cent or 75 per cent is immaterial. My recollection is that in 1955 75 per cent of the students in the British universities were taking their studies with government support-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Seventy-four per cent.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: -and that 70 per cent of the total amount of money spent by the universities in Great Britain was provided by the government. That still does not clear up the question asked by the hon. member for Greenwood.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Seventy-four per cent is the exact percentage.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The arts council in Great Britain has been a great success. There is no doubt about that. From the point of view of my philosophy and the philosophy of this C.C.F. group one important feature that I like is that bright young people, no matter what their financial circumstances, are provided with an opportunity to obtain an education. May I say that these scholarships have been given on only one basis, the basis of merit. They have a rigid system of competitive examinations, and it is a particular source of satisfaction to me that bright children of what are sometimes called humble families, who never could have hoped to get to university on their own resources, have been helped to go there and as a result Great Britain has the advantage of some of the brightest minds in that country. Their plan has brought benefits to many.
I said before that perhaps it is our newness that has been the cause of the disastrous neglect of the humanities and the social sciences. The government has been much more generous with purely scientific research. The need for defence programs may have had something to do with it. I am sure it has something to do with that tendency. We may be excused perhaps for being more impressed by the need for preserving our lives than by the need for the enrichment of our living. In my opinion we shall be obliged to strike a balance; and I think we can have some realization of both aims.
Canada Council
(Translation):


Mr. Gauthier (Porineuf):: Mr. Chairman, I have a few words to say to indicate my support, modest as it might be, of the measure introduced this afternoon by the government. Somebody said this morning that it has been brought up rather abruptly; yet, everyone had heard about it for quite some time, had read much about it in the newspapers, so that members of this house should have expected that one day or the other, they would be called upon to consider this measure. Indeed, everyone had plenty of time to get ready, judging from the very interesting speeches I have heard here this afternoon.
I am convinced that the first concern of the government will not be, as our Conservative friends seem to fear, to appoint a Liberal as chairman of this council, just because he is a Liberal.
Too well do I know the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and his government to dread a political appointment to that position. I am always amused when my hon. friends opposite express fear of political influence in government appointments.
I have a pretty fair knowledge of political history since I have been sitting for already 30 years either in this house or in the provincial legislature; I know too well that party considerations are foremost in the minds of my hon. friends opposite when they are in power. The old story of the mote in one's brother's eye seems to apply in this case. Mr. Chairman . . .


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You do not believe that it is the primary concern of the Liberal party?


André Gauthier: It has not been half as much the concern of the Liberal party as it has been that of the Conservative party throughout its history. If the hon. member would only read history, instead of taking up time to interrupt me, he would know a lot more about it and he would be able to speak far more intelligently than he does now.
Mr. Chairman, I felt that it was fitting to express a French Canadian point of view here this afternoon. I know some who would have been far better qualified than I am. Nevertheless, I have summoned forth all my courage in order to say something interesting, even though there may be some who will not find my remarks to their liking.
414	HOUSE OF
Canada Council
The Canada Council, to my mind is timely. We could hardly have had it a hundred years ago. We could hardly have had it even twenty-five years ago because we were not yet ready for it.
Character and mentality must have reached maturity in certain fields before talent can find self-expression. Such endeavours should not be attempted too early. Consequently, I do believe that this measure is timely.
As regards French-speaking Canadians, it is true that our development in the arts has been gradual. I am thinking here of drama, music and the humanities. However I pay special tribute to commercial and classical colleges for the good education they have given us in these three fields, especially in that of the humanities. Quite often in the course of controversies in newspapers and magazines, some writers who do not see the use of studying dead languages blame our seminaries for clinging to the teaching of Greek and Latin. However, knowing languages and specially the roots of the French language, our educators are well aware that, in order to have a good knowledge of French, one must also have a knowledge of Greek and Latin roots. Even for English-speaking people, specially those whose origin goes back to Normandy, it is certain that the knowledge of Greek and Latin roots is a great help to anyone who wishes to understand and speak English really well.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, we should pay a well-deserved tribute to our classical colleges for continuing to teach the so-called dead languages, and be grateful to them for developing among French Canadians able talents which would probably have remained dormant. It is in the seminaries and the classical colleges that we see certain talents blossom out thanks to the vigilant and solicitous care of teachers in our classical colleges, thanks to the attention they give to the education of youth, and especially, to their great learning.
The mention of a few names should be sufficient. For instance in my district, that of Mgr. Camille Roy, and in the Montreal district those of Canons Chartier and Groulx, are examples in support of my statement. There are others, of course, but those are the three which come to my mind at this time. Those people are educators who have helped a great number of French Canadians gain a high degree of proficiency in the dramatic arts. More recently, there has been Rev. Father Legault, who trained the famous Compagnons de Saint-Laurent, a group that has won medals in all Canadian festivals and from which have come such distinguished actors as Gascon, Coutu and Groulx.


We even had, in the theatre, Fiench Canadian actors whose great talents have enabled them to grace the English stage. I shall mention only one, Paul Dupuis, who for years played on the stage in London. He is now back in Montreal and we have been very pleased to welcome him. Here is a man with a latin culture, with a French culture, who, nonetheless, has brought enjoyment, relaxation and satisfaction to a great number of English people who saw him on the stage or on films, or heard him on the radio.
I could mention a host of other artists, people like Plamondon, Jobin, Mercier, Simoneau, the Alaries and I take care not to forget a name for ever famous, a name whose renown has never been surpassed in the whole world, that of Madame Albani.
Ladies and Gentlemen-
Mr. Chairman, excuse me, it's a force of habit. Elections are coming and this most likely explains my lapsus linguae.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the French Canadian people will be pleased at the establishment of the Canada Council. I easily imagine that somewhere certain clouds will show up, bearing the words: "Keep watch upon autonomy, federal government should not interfere with education, and if song, the drama, the fiddle and the piano are part of education, there is danger that the federal government will interfere in the field of education."
I do not fear at all the interference of the federal government in the field of education; I can say so, I think, without causing offence to anyone, even the staunchest partisans of provincial autonomy.
I do not see either any danger in the payment, to universities, of grants such as have been offered by the Right Hon. Prime Minister in the speech he delivered not long ago. It is therefore my contention that the universities of the province of Quebec should accept those grants. I do not know why they did refuse them. They have no doubt their reasons; they may have excellent arguments but I think that we have, in the person of the Prime Minister and of the present members of his cabinet, strong enough arguments and a consistent enough record to be in a position to tell them that their fears are groundless. Universities should accept those grants which would help them go on with their magnificent work in the field to which they have devoted their efforts for such a long time in order to ensure the ever-growing success of education in the province of Quebec.

Oh, as somebody has said, I do know that the primary school may seem to be the solid foundation for the education of our young French Canadians. However, there is not only one stone in a building; there are several and all must be placed solidly and normally on top of one another, not only in the field of university education but also in the fields of primary and secondary education. When our universities and colleges need money, no autonomist outcry will be strong, powerful or sincere enough to prevent them from accepting the grants which the federal government wishes to make without any condition whatever.
A moment ago I was listening to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) and the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) exchange a few pleasantries with regard to the danger of communist infiltration in this council which the federal government proposes to establish. I am convinced that we can make progress in the arts, social sciences and the humanities without any danger of communist deviation. I do know for a fact that the communist leaders a few years ago had asked some musicians to change their style of composition because it was not close enough to materialistic ideals. I do know too that certain historians or certain scientists such as Lysenko, have attempted to destroy some theories such as the Mendelian theory since they went against communist ideology and more especially communist dialectics. I hardly think that that is a danger at the present time in this country with regard to the Council which the federal government proposes to establish, since our leaders are not communists but good democrats. I know also that Canadians are at present sufficiently warned against communist dangers, possibly not all but most dangers, so that there will always be among us people who are sufficiently wide awake to prevent such an infiltration in a Council such as this.
(Text):


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I would not have felt it to be unavoidable that the hon. member for Peace River and I should disagree as much on what he said this afternoon as we usually do on matters of financial discussion, but such was in fact the case. Yet there was one thing he said with which I found myself greatly in sympathy. In fact, there were two things. He said that you cannot buy culture. With that statement we can all agree.
Incidentally, I agree with the hon. member for Saskatoon in wishing that we could get another word. The word "culture" seems to have become highbrow. I have been looking up the dictionary to see whether we could get another word for it. There is a definition
Canada Council
which is not so exciting but which satisfies me much better; I refer to the expression "intellectual development". Incidentally, I was glad to hear the interesting definition of the word "humanities" that the Prime Minister gave us this morning, because it is not a word that carries its own meaning with it. I think it is well that we should have it in our minds.
The other thing in which I agree with the hon. member for Peace River is this. He seemed to fear, and I think it is a valid fear, that by stepping in with government funds we might blunt individual effort. I am quite sure that is not the intention at all, and I hope it will be possible to avoid completely such a danger because as we look about I think we shall agree that we find a good many instances in the world where a very high state of true culture has been arrived at with precious little money.
I was interested in what the Prime Minister said this morning, that in France, even before the revolution, they had the matter very much in their minds. I propose to read just a sentence from a speech made years ago by Sir James Barrie to the students at St. Andrews University. It is in praise of the Scots and, perhaps before reading it, I had better say I can do it without embarrassment because I myself am only 25 per cent genuine Scottish. He was speaking to the students and he was talking about the universities, and then he added this. I find it very interesting and I find it very true, because we all know that education in Scotland, largely due to the efforts of that very controversial character, John Knox, got right down to the grass roots, so to speak. This is what Barrie had to say to the students whom he was addressing, as recorded in a little book called "Courage". He said:
You come of a race of men the very wind of whose name has swept to the ultimate seas. Remember-
"Heaven doth with us as we with torches do,
Not light them for themselves ..."
Then he adds this:
Mighty are the universities of Scotland, and they will prevail. But even in your highest exaltations never forget that there are not four, but five. The greatest of them is the poor, proud homes you come out of, which said so long ago: "There shall be education in this land." She, not St. Andrews, is the oldest university in Scotland, and all the other are her whelps.
We will all agree that effort should not be blunted. I find myself sometimes questioning a little the tremendous obstacles that are pictured as facing the individual seeking education unless he is assisted by scholarships. I do not entirely accept that. I think there are a very great many people who can still do it for themselves, but I do remember this. I remember when I myself was an

Canada Council
undergraduate and had to go out for five months each summer to get the wherewithal to come back next winter. I remember that a man who was himself a real scholar, not just a make-believe, said "We will never have real scholars in this country while students have to take six months of the year away from their studies in order to get the means to come back to their studies."
I have always remembered that. I think it is true; and therefore, while I repeat that the doors will always be open to any man of sufficient energy-and of course genius triumphs over everything-nevertheless legislation and our ordinary way of life have to try to deal with those of us who are about the average. I think therefore we are entitled to take anxious thought to facilitate people in their efforts to reach university.
I want to say a word or two about universities. Of course it is commonplace to say that all of us who are concerned with university administration are greatly perplexed and sometimes even alarmed at the stories we have heard of the impending flood that is going to descend on us before long. One occasionally gets qualifications to that statement. I have run into two or three industrialists who have said to me, "You know, we have a lot of people working in our plants and doing jobs for which they do not need a full engineering course; not that the engineering course hurts them, but the jobs could be done very adequately by people with considerably less technical training." It is probably well known here that in the province of Ontario, at any rate, considerable progress has been made in setting up those technical schools. I think I am correct in saying there are four or five of them now, and the intention is to develop them still further.
Another stretching of our resources which is possible is the use of present buildings, using them not on a 4-hour or 5-hour a day basis, but on a 12-hour basis and 12 months of the year. I believe that studies to that end are going forward and that no doubt will affect the situation considerably.
I now want to ask two or three questions which the Prime Minister will perhaps answer later. We have been given very interesting and impressive figures as to the increase in the university population but that, of course, as has been pointed out, implies a very much larger increase in the population of secondary schools, that is to say a grade below. If we are going to have twice as many in the universities I presume that means we are going to have far more than twice as many in our secondary schools. I would like the Prime Minister to tell us something about that and whether that problem
[Mr. Macdonnell.l
has been taken into account, because it seems to me it will add vastly to the responsibilities of the universities themselves.
I noted also what the Prime Minister had to say about the limitation on the percentage of federal grant money which was to go into the construction of any one building, and that leads me to ask a broader question. I am reading now from paragraph (b):
The council shall establish a fund to be called the university capital grants fund, to which shall be credited the sum of $50 million, to be paid to the council by the Minister of Finance out of the consolidated revenue fund.
I take it that it is correct to say that in the past, apart perhaps from some cases of special buildings, for example astronomy or other special purpose buildings which were really federal buildings located on university grounds, any capital assistance to universities has come almost wholly from the provinces. That is true, I think, of the university with [DOT]which I am connected; and the question I wish to ask is where will the provinces come in in connection with these construction projects? Although I am subject to correction, of course, I got the impression as I listened to the Prime Minister this morning that the question of construction would be a matter between the university itself and this university capital grants fund.
The Prime Minister looks doubtful and perhaps he is going to correct that, but in any event I shall continue with my question and it is this. The council establishes this fund which will be called the university capital grants fund; that I take it is just a convenient means of crediting a separate fund. I am not quite clear in my own mind how far the council goes in decisions with regard to the nature of buildings, whether it is entirely a matter for the university, or whether the province comes in in any way. I think that will indicate the question in my mind, and perhaps it can be answered later on when the Prime Minister will no doubt have other questions to answer, too.


Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Chairman, before the resolution passes I want to express support for the important step it represents. I think the provision is not adequate, considering the problem confronting us, but having recognized the need for some action I know it will be possible for the government to increase the amount. I think the proposal that we should establish a Canada Council for the encouragement of the arts, humanities and social sciences is one which hon. members in this house should support.
I was interested in the comments made by the Prime Minister to the effect that we should look forward not only to Canadians going

abroad but to people from other lands coming to Canada. I am thinking of Terrance Gabora of Mikado, Saskatchewan. His grandparents came to Canada from the Ukraine at the beginning of the century and homesteaded out in the Canora district. At a very early age the grandson displayed an interest in the violin. His classmates and neighbours always received a great deal of pleasure every time this young chap had an opportunity of playing his instrument. At university he continued to devote time to his music and won a scholarship which took him to Paris and then to Vienna. He is now back in Austria in the general area where his grandparents and great grandparents lived. Last autumn he and his charming wife Gail Craig, who is a very accomplished singer, made a tour of the small communities in Saskatchewan that Terrance knew as a boy, and it gave our people a great lift to have these young Canadians coming back as such accomplished artists.
But the point I want to make is that the relatively poor people of Austria are providing a scholarship for this young Canadian to enable him to continue perfecting his art as a violinist, and I think most Canadians would agree that with our great resources we should not expect charity from the people of Austria to assist our young musicians to continue their studies.
When I think of these young people with their wonderful gifts I am disturbed about the prospects of their having to go to countries other than Canada in order to make a living, and I am hoping that the establishment of a Canada Council will result in encouraging many more young people like the Gaboras to go abroad to study. I also hope we will make plans to see that there is a place in the Canadian scene for such people when they have completed their training. I hope that a much larger number will be able to study abroad in addition to those who benefit from the generosity of people like Sir Cecil Rhodes.
This matter is perhaps of more interest to us in this parliament because the hon. member for Greenwood many years ago was a Rhodes scholar, as was the hon. member for St. Paul's, the hon. member for Kamloops and the Minister of Fisheries. They were all selected by the appropriate committees as the outstanding male students of the year, and had the privilege of three or four years of study in a very interesting centre of the world. I think we should look forward to a much larger number of young Canadians having the opportunities which these hon. members had when they were somewhat younger than they are today. I believe we 82715-27
Canada Council
should also make funds available so that students from other countries may come to Canada.
In the discussion on this resolution I do not think enough attention has been focused on the serious crisis that confronts us in Canada in connection with maintaining our universities. I have before me the November 17, 1956, issue of the Financial Post, and in it I find an interesting report on the conference held in Ottawa last November. The Prime Minister made a reference to it, and I would like to comment on the dispatch written by J. B. McGeachy, the associate editor. I realize that the hon. member for Lethbridge has accused Mr. McGeachy of using the facilities of the C.B.C. to put across communist propaganda, but I do not think there is anything in this article with which the hon. member would seriously quarrel.


John Horne Blackmore: Perhaps he is mending his ways a little.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I do not think the hon. member for Lethbridge will quarrel with the claim of Mr. McGeachy contained in the first paragraph of the report:
Canadian universities are starved tor funds, supported in too niggardly a fashion by both governments and private givers. Their staffs are overworked and underpaid. Their buildings and equipment are inadequate or soon will be. They have too few students who qualify intellectually and too many who don't.
Mr. McGeachy goes on to present some disturbing statistics. He estimates that 25 out of every 100 pupils in Canadian schools are mentally capable of deriving benefit from higher education, but points out that only 7 out of every 100 actually reach university. He explains this is a figure well below the United States average and still further below the Soviet level.
Of the seven only five belong to the abler 25 per cent minority.
In other words, two of the seven (or about 30 per cent of enrolment in the freshman year) come from the 75 per cent majority who would be classified as not suitable candidates for university degrees.
I suggest that this is a very serious Canadian problem, when we only have 5 of the 25 students in Canadian schools who have the mental qualifications permitted to proceed to university, while the other 20 are denied that right.
Mr. McGeachy says that everyone will accept, that it is not necessary, even desirable, that all the brightest minds of any era should go to university. He mentioned Henry Ford, Bernard Shaw and Sir Winston Churchill; none of them ever attended university. He suggests probably they would have flunked because of excessive originality. I think there

Canada Council
is no good reason why 20 out of 25 students in our schools who might become doctors, dentists or engineers, or take any other courses, should be denied the right to proceed to university.
Mr. McGeachy mentions Dr. MacKenzie, president of the University of British Columbia, who is one of the three university chiefs who tackled the financial problem in addresses, the other two being Principal Cyril James of McGill and Monsignor H. J. Somers of St. Francis Xavier. A good deal of space is devoted to the speeches of these three, but I will not take time to discuss them at the moment. It so happens that in the same issue of the Financial Post there is an article, the fourth in a series on Russia, by the editor, Ronald McEachern, this one dealing with education. I am sure the hon. member for Lethbridge will not suggest that the editor of the Financial Post is a communist or is trying to put across communist propaganda. I think that we should look at what Mr. McEachern says.
The tallest building in Europe is Moscow's university.
It isn't only tall. It's an enormous place stretching over a big land area.
He goes on to describe the laboratories, lecture halls, and various places of interest. The article continues:
Professors are heroes in Soviet society and the head of a university department is paid as much as the head of a big industry or a senior government official. Those are symbolic facts. Because the biggest industry in the Soviet today is education-not just education for children, youths and maidens, but education as a continuing process for adults.
About one fourth of the whole Soviet nation is studying-studying full-time in schools or engaged in formal part-time educational activity. About 30 million are in primary and secondary schools. About 2 million are in advanced specialist and technical schools. Another 2 million are in universities. And about 50 million adults were last year formally participating in some kind of education through night schools, university extension courses, and so forth.
For a nation which only 40 years ago was about half completely illiterate, this is quite an achievement.
Then he gives some other figures which are worth looking at. He gives the percentage in the universities in the U.S.S.R., Canada and the United States. In Canada, according to Mr. McEachern, we have 4.9 university students per thousand population; in the United States, 15, and in the U.S.S.R. 19.6. The hon. member for Greenwood asked my leader earlier today about the figures for the United Kingdom. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar did not have those figures available, but I contacted our bureau of statistics and found that they had figures for the United Kingdom. Their figures for Canada for 1953-54 were a bit lower than

those given by Mr. McEachern. Our bureau gave our percentage in 1953-54 as 4.2, and in the same year the percentage in the United Kingdom as 1.6.
He explained that in the United Kingdom quite a large number of students go to technical schools which are not included in the university statistics but I submit that we should have a look at these figures, 1.6 students per thousand in the United Kingdom and 4.2 or 4.9-we have two different sets of figures-for Canada, 15 for the United States and 19.6 for the U.S.S.R.
The hon. member for Saskatoon and the leader of this party stressed the fact that a much higher percentage of students in the United Kingdom than in Canada receive financial assistance. However, since only 1.6 per cent of your total population get to university, the fact that a larger percentage of those receive financial assistance than is the case in Canada does not get around the fact that a very large number of students in the United Kingdom never get a chance to go to university.
Mr. McEachern in this very interesting article on education in Russia is saying what others have said. Many hon. members heard the speech delivered by Mr. J. S. Duncan, then chairman and president of Massey-Harris-Ferguson Limited, when he spoke to the Canadian Club last year. A most interesting section of his speech was his discussion on education. He told us about his visit to the University of Moscow, and he was quite as extravagant as was Mr. McEachern when he described the central building as being 32 stories high with two other buildings 20 stories high on either side, and about their clearing away of 1100 acres of the slums in Moscow to build their university. He told about the accommodation for 8,000 students in residence and the meeting hall for 5,000.
Mr. Duncan then told us about visiting the Stalin works in Moscow. He joked about the name of the works, saying that he was not sure whether now it might be the Khrushchev works or the Bulganin works. He said that 40,000 men and women worked there, and that 10,000 or one-quarter of them, after working an 8-hour day, came back at 6.30 and studied until 10.30, three nights a week. Both Mr. McEachern and Mr. Duncan stress the fact that every place you went there was a feeling that education was going to be of great help. Mr. McEachern pointed out:
People of the western world may not like the creed that Soviet students are taught. We may find abhorrent some of the objectives of this giant educational machine.
But any candid look at the Soviet today demands attention to this phenomenon which is in many respects the most important activity in the U.S.S.R. today.

The getting of higher education is the best hope a Soviet citizen has of achieving an agreeable way of life and winning honour in the eyes of his fellow men.
There is a driving dedication to the idea of education as the most desirable of attainments that has seldom been equalled in any society unless perhaps in Scotland in the mid-19th century.
I think we have to recognize that the Canadian scene has changed a great deal since the act of confederation assigned responsibilities to the federal and provincial governments. At the time of confederation no one anticipated that the airplane, radio and television would change the complexion of our country as they have done, and certain responsibilities were given to the provinces without thinking very far into the future. But I think when we realize now-and these figures have been compiled by the Canadian Bank of Commerce-that out of every tax dollar we pay 12 cents to the municipality, 14 cents to the province and 74 cents to Ottawa it is fairly obvious that the provinces and municipalities are not able to cope with present-day demands in the field of university training.
I think it is also obvious that the Canadian people, when they turn in their tax dollars, seem to agree that the Minister of Finance should be placed in a position where he can have a very large surplus, though municipal and provincial governments have been turned out by electors who felt that the 12 or 14 cents out of each dollar that was made available were not being wisely spent. It seems to me that there is not a great deal of interest in how we spend the 74 cents.
However, I believe the fact that the federal government is spending so much money and providing such attractive returns to people in government service, or to people who are engaged in cost-price contracts for government projects, is having this effect; that our universities are finding it very difficult to retain personnel. It is also very difficult to encourage our students in high schools to proceed to university.
During the recess I visited one of the establishments on the mid-Canada line at Cranberry Portage, and while I was there I met the trustees of the school. This is typical of the problem which is being encountered. The principal was being paid $3,200 a year. If he would give up his job, change his profession and take a job on the construction project, accepting the lowest rate paid, he would get his board and room-and better board and better accommodation than was ever available to him in Cranberry Portage -free, and he would have at least $500 more than he would be getting as a school principal. The work he would have to do would 82715-274
Canada Council
not be more difficult than teaching. It would consist of washing dishes, peeling potatoes and other such tasks, all very necessary for the running of any establishment, but it does not require a university training for a man to be able to learn this type of job quickly.
I know a boy from my constituency who instead of going to university served an apprenticeship as a machinist. After five years he emerged as a very well qualified machinist. I am sure he is a very good worker, but his friends who went to university are aware of the fact that by the time they have finished their studies they have spent, a great deal more but he will be earning very considerably more than they; in fact he was able to pay income taxes last year on an income of over $8,000 and in the last calendar year his best return for one month was over $800.
Members may ask what this young man does in order to get that sort of salary. He is working up in the Uranium City area doing a very important service which the Canadian taxpayers are going to settle for in the long run. But if one young Canadian is able to look forward to receiving $8,000 a year without going to a university, it discourages his friends from going into debt for a few years to attend university.
Many people in this country are seriously concerned about this problem. On this point I would refer if I may to an article entitled "Science and Mathematics Teaching in our Secondary Schools" by Mr. Garnet T. Page, general manager and secretary of the chemical institute of Canada. Mr. Page points out in this article that this is a national problem. I am not going to take the time of the house by reading the article, but the author has some suggestions to make as to how the situation may be remedied; what professional technical societies can do, what industry can do, what governments can do. He closes by saying that this involves a question of survival. I think it is plain that if we are going to spend $200 million on the building of a mid-Canada line as part of our defence against communism, we must also take all possible steps to increase the numbers of young students who go on to a university level of education.
Dr. Page has also written an article on education and professional manpower in the Soviet union. It is obvious in the light of the very large number of technically trained people turned out every year in the Soviet union that it is not going to be very long before these people go into the underdeveloped areas of the world to help the people in these areas fight the battle against poverty, disease and ignorance; and I think

Canada Council
we should be prepared to make a more generous allowance for the very important objectives outlined in this resolution than has so far been proposed by the Prime Minister.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Greenwood asked two questions in the course of his remarks, the second of which was, what will be the position of the provinces in connection with the construction projects for which funds may be available through the council.
It is not intended that the Canada Council should initiate any building program. It is going to have a fund available, and universities will come to the council and say, "We have a certain project which we want to realize, a project that will further the general objectives of the Canada Council, and we would like to have a grant from this fund". The council will have the responsibility of examining the project which is brought forth, and if they come to the conclusion that it is really a capital expansion project that will further the general objectives of the council they will have the responsibility of deciding whether that is one of the things to which they should contribute 50 per cent of the cost.
But the university authorities will not go to the council unless they are prepared to finance the other 50 per cent of the cost in some other way, either through a grant by the province or through donations or subscriptions from private individuals or out of reserves, if it is possible for universities to accumulate reserves. There is no intention of substituting the council for the governing bodies of the universities in the responsibility for deciding what expansion they should try to make in their capital facilities for the promotion of the studies of the humanities, social sciences or appropriate studies for the progress of artistic development.
I am not sure that I understood exactly what the second question was; I believe it asked for statistical information with regard to the student population in secondary schools and the number who might be expected to go to universities.
I have not that statistical information, because we took it for granted that with the growing population of Canada the estimates that had been made by the university people themselves as to what their problem was going to be were sufficient to make it advisable at least, if not necessary, for the government and parliament to take some serious notice of their warning that a serious situation was developing and required prompt attention.
I will endeavour to get the statistical information from the dominion bureau of

statistics though, of course, it is not something with respect to which we feel at great ease in inquiring about too directly. Secondary education is part of the educational system under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial authorities, and there are some places where it is resented that any close attention should be paid by the federal authorities to the way in which the provincial authorities are discharging their responsibilities in that field.
There will be opportunities, of course, for many more contributions to the discussion of this important problem when the bill is before the house for second reading and for study in committee, and perhaps now that we have had these general views expressed-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not a chance.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the hon. gentleman feels that he would prefer to make a speech on the resolution before seeing the bill we will be quite prepared to listen to it, but I had thought that possibly members would like to have the bill at the earliest possible moment so their discussion would be adapted to the exact proposals the bill will contain, and so they might not feel that they would have to repeat themselves at the later stage when they will have the bill in their possession.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Prime Minister's speech on the resolution was so informative as to the position of the right hon. gentleman that other speeches are called for before we get the bill.


Daniel Roland Michener: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to discuss the principles involved, but I believe there is one matter which should be raised at this stage rather than later. First of all may I say that I enjoyed greatly the Prime Minister's discussion of the problem of the encouragement of the arts and sciences in Canada. It was the sort of speech one would expect from a man of his classical training, a type of training which is still prevalent in the province of Quebec and which seems to be lapsing in some other parts of the world.
Like him, I am one who is concerned about the place of the humanities, as they are called for lack of a better word. There is ample support for the application of knowledge to material things and well-being through technological education and that kind of thing, but we must not overlook the need for the growth of the capacity to understand ourselves and society at the same time we achieve greater control and power over material things.

What I want to bring to the Prime Minister's attention is briefly this. The resolution contains three items, and I assume they will all be incorporated and discussed as one bill. That seems to me to raise a problem which is quite difficult. There are three distinct ideas. The first is that of the council for the encouragement of the arts, humanities and social sciences. I think a council of that kind will commend itself generally. How it might be established and with how much money it might be endowed might be subjects giving rise to very different opinions.
It seems to me that if the bill set up the council and gave it the capacity to act, to receive money from the public funds and to receive private funds, as the Prime Minister has suggested it might have, then you would have done one thing which carries out one idea. But the second paragraph of the resolution then goes on to provide $50 million for purposes not limited to the immediate requirements of a council of that kind but for the encouragement of the arts and sciences, for scholarships and for other purposes. The amount and its purposes seem to me to be a second distinct idea which might very well be dealt with as a question of supply and granting of funds to the council which has been established by law.
Then there is a third string to this well-equipped bow, namely that the council shall establish a fund to be called the university capital grants fund. There another $50 million is appropriated for a quite distinct purpose, and one which might give rise to considerations very different from those raised by the first two parts of the resolution.
I am not expressing opinions at this stage, but it is quite conceivable that one would wish to support some aspect of these three matters and not others, and if the whole bill comes forward as a government measure it seems to me it will be rather difficult for hon. members who hold differing opinions on different aspects of this matter to express them in any intelligent way.
Therefore I ask the Prime Minister to consider when the bill is introduced-I assume it has been prepared already-whether the first item might not constitute the bill, and the question of voting funds be separated from the bill so the judgment of the house can be expressed correctly on these items.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That matter was considered, and I will say at once to the committee that the reason we felt there should be an endowment provided in the same bill is that we want to get the right kind of people to act on this council. We wanted them to have the assurance that it was something serious, and that they were
Canada Council
going to have at the very outset an endowment fund that would lead them to believe they were going to have the funds required to carry out this important task in the interests of the Canadian people.
With respect to the third portion, the university grants fund, the bill will provide that they can make these grants for capital purposes in furtherance of the general objectives of the council, and it will be a matter for the consideration of the house as to where and how the universities will be able to carry on the basic work with respect to this intellectual development, to use the term suggested by the hon. member for Greenwood. If, as I believe, there will have to be an expansion of the capital equipment in the form of buildings and other capital equipment to enable the universities to do their part in this intellectual development, then it seems that the council might be the appropriate body to make the allocation of such funds as would be available from the vote of parliament.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am rather surprised at the Prime Minister suggesting that the only way he can get sufficiently satisfactory members of the council is to give them an endowment of $50 million, the income from which they could then administer.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I did not
say that was the only way, but I thought that would be a desirable way to convince them that it was a serious and very useful undertaking in the interests of the people that they were being asked to perform.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will accept the Prime Minister's modification of his earlier statement that he thought that was the only way in which he could convince them.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. gentleman misunderstood me if he understood me to say that I thought that was the only way. The record will show whether or not I am right in my recollection of what I said.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the hon. gentleman say "one way in which to convince them"? Whatever the hon. gentleman said, it seemed to me inherent that somehow or other a large capital fund was necessary in order to persuade the gentlemen he had in mind to serve as trustees or members of this council. That is a proposition with which I am in entire disagreement because I should think, in fact I am quite convinced of it, that if the objectives of the Canada Council as envisaged by the government are worthy ones, Canadians will be found to serve on that council whether the claim of the council

Canada Council
for $50 million of capital is by way of annual grant by parliament or some modification as between the two methods. If the objectives are worthy, people can be found to serve upon the council.
But inherent in the proposal in this resolution are a number of issues which have not been dealt with and which I think must be dealt with before this committee is called upon to express its opinion for or against the resolution. With the idea that it is expedient to encourage the arts, humanities and social sciences I am quite certain no one in this house will be in disagreement. But as to the methods by which that encouragement should be provided I think there is room for a measure of disagreement, and particularly as to the methods by which the government proposes to further that encouragement, as embodied in the resolution now before the house.
There are two operative parts of the resolution, namely the one to provide an endowment of $50 million for the encouragement of the arts, humanities and sciences, and the other to provide a capital sum of $50 million for contribution to the capital costs of universities. It is with the second branch of the proposal that I should like to deal first. I do not suppose that anyone in this house would disagree-in fact I am quite certain of it-with the statement that our universities in Canada are faced with increasing difficulty with respect to providing the capital plant and equipment with which to carry on their job of higher education. To that extent no one can be opposed to measures which will contribute to the solution of that problem for our universities. But by the same token no one can deny the fact that this is but one aspect of the whole educational problem in Canada.
I would imagine the Prime Minister would agree with me when I say that one of the reasons this measure is presented to the house at this time is that it is generally agreed that over the next 11 years-I think that is the figure by common agreement- the population of Canadian universities is expected to increase by some 100 per cent. That situation is going to present an enormous problem to our universities in terms of physical plant and equipment just to accommodate, house and provide the facilities for teaching that increased university population, not only with respect to the arts, letters and sciences, but with respect to the engineering faculties particularly, including the provision of laboratories and so on. To that extent it is undeniable that some such measure as this to provide funds for the universities to meet the demands made upon them is essential.

We surely cannot lose sight of the fact that this is but one aspect of the general educational problem today. If, Mr. Chairman, as is the case, the population of our universities is going to increase to such an extent as to make this demand, that increase is but the result of the fact that our primary school population is going to increase by a number far and away beyond that increase in university population. I should think it would probably increase by something like 400 per cent to 500 per cent. We therefore must face the fact that this measure to provide $50 million for the provision of capital plant and equipment for universities does not go anywhere in dealing with the far more fundamental problem of how we are going to enable the provinces and municipalities to meet the increased costs which are going to be presented to them by the increase in the school population.
One is therefore left with this question. Why does this government single out one aspect, and one aspect only, of the educational problem in Canada today, namely the university problem, for a partial measure of remedy, and to that extent increase the problem of the provinces and the municipalities in dealing with their responsibility of providing the plant and facilities for primary education? If it is right that the federal government should make grants to university education, why is it not right that the federal government should offer some measure of assistance to the provinces and the municipalities in providing for their much greater and more pressing demand, namely the provision of plant and facilities in the field of primary education?
On that subject the right hon. gentleman is entirely silent. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that he is silent because he realizes that you cannot divorce one aspect of the field of education from the other. This whole situation is inescapably and irretrievably bound up in the question of fiscal relations between the dominion and the province. Because this government refuses to face that larger problem the Prime Minister is silent as to the question which I have just voiced.
It now being five o'clock, Mr. Chairman, this might be an opportune time to adjourn this discussion.


The Chairman:: Shall I rise and report progress and request leave to sit later this day or next sitting, as the case may be?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed,
Progress reported.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. 2, to provide for annual vacations with pay for employees.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it would seem that today parliament is facing the fact that there is more to life than its material aspects. Some hon. members might feel that we are making a sharp turn in switching from a discussion of cultural matters to a bill having to do with an aspect of industrial relations. However, I suggest that the matters are not unrelated. We have been dealing with the fact that it is desirable that a portion of the wealth we produce might be dedicated to the arts, humanities and social sciences. We now turn to legislation which seeks to lay down the principle that those who toil are entitled to time off for rest and recreation.
Bill No. 2, which is now before this House of Commons, is a bill which seeks to provide all workers who come under federal labour jurisdiction with a minimum of two weeks' vacation with pay after one year's employment. There are other details covered in the bill which I shall come to in the course of my remarks, but that is the general principle contained in this bill: two weeks' annual vacation with pay to all employees under federal labour jurisdiction after one year of employment.
I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that this bill, Bill No. 2, is very similar to Bill No. 211 of last year, even as Bill No. 3, the next one on the order paper having to do with statutory holidays with pay, is similar to Bill No. 441 of last year. Indeed, the only difference between Bill No. 2, which is now before us, and Bill No. 211 of last year is a change in the title and the consequent change with regard to one word that appears throughout the bill.
Last year I gave to Bill No. 211 the title, "Canada Annual Holidays With Pay Act". I propose to change that title now so it will read, "Canada Annual Vacations With Pay Act". The reason for that change, Mr. Speaker, is to avoid any confusion between annual vacations with pay and statutory holidays with pay. These terms appear in collective agreements and in various items of legislation across the country, and in some instances confusion does arise when the word "holiday" is used both with respect to the annual week or two that a person gets off and with respect to statutory holidays such as New Years' day, Good Friday, Christ-
Industrial Relations
mas, and so on. Therefore I suggest that we could avoid this confusion by using the term "annual vacations" to cover the provisions set out in this bill and by using the term "statutory holidays" to cover the holidays with pay referred to in Bill No. 3.
Since I have changed the wording of the title, using "vacations" instead of "holidays", I have made a corresponding change wherever the word "holidays" appeared in Bill No. 211 of last year. The only other change, of course, is the change of the effective date. Bill No. 211 did not get passed last year, so one has to change the date in this bill to make it come into effect this year. I make these comments in case anyone has compared this bill with the bill of last year. There are no changes of substance; indeed, there are no changes other than the ones to which I have referred.
I believe hon. members generally will agree with the proposition I made last year when I submitted this bill to the house, that it is becoming pretty generally recognized that the working people of this country are entitled to a decent annual vacation, and that they are entitled to have that vacation with their regular remuneration so they can enjoy it.
It is not many years since large numbers of our workers went through the whole of their lives without enjoying vacations with pay, but it is a matter of gratitude that we have moved from that situation considerably. Now, in collective agreements and by virtue of the legislation in a number of the provinces, a very large number of our people do get annual vacations with pay. However, there are still many who do not get such vacations, and there are many who do not get an annual vacation of the length which is specified in this bill, namely at least two weeks every year. Since it has been established in the minds of our people that it is a good thing, that it is right for our people to have annual vacations with pay, we feel very strongly that this should be made a matter of legislation in so far as this parliament has legislative authority.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that for many years the trade union movement has been struggling to win this point, namely the right of workers to annual vacations with pay. The trade union movement carries on that struggle, as it has done for many years, on two fronts. On the one hand it seeks collective agreements which include proper and adequate vacation provisions, but in addition it is seeking for vacations with pay as a matter of legislation. The trade union movement has for years sought legislation on this point.
The trade unions of this country, along with those of us in this house who press for

Industrial Relations
this kind of legislation, recognize that labour matters in Canada come under two jurisdictions. There are over five million workers in Canada, the greater number of whom are covered by provincial labour jurisdiction. Only about 400,000-but it is a substantial number-are under federal labour jurisdiction. It is with respect to these 400,000 under federal labour jurisdiction that this legislation deals. However, Mr. Speaker, in addition to providing coverage for those who come under federal labour jurisdiction, legislation of this kind does lay down a principle, does give a lead to the provinces that we hope will hasten the day when it will be a matter of universal practice that all our Canadian people are provided with adequate vacations with adequate pay so they might enjoy the advantages of such vacations.
I made reference to the fact that there is some legislation in this field in a number of the provinces. I gave a general summary of the provincial picture last year. So far as I can ascertain there has been no change in legislation since that time, though in the case of one province legislation which had been passed at that time has since come into effect. The result is that at the present time there are six provinces in Canada in which there is general legislation regarding vacations with pay. By "general legislation" I mean legislation that covers most of the workers in the province. In addition to these six, there is one other province that has some kind of legislation in this field. That one other province provides vacations with pay for two groups of workers, namely those in mining and construction.
Perhaps it would be well once again to summarize briefly the position of these seven provinces. The six that have general legislation are British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. Two of these provinces, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, provide what this bill seeks, namely two weeks' vacation after one year of employment. The other four, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, provide for only one week's vacation after one year's employment.
Last year when I spoke on this matter my friend the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) regretted that I had not paid the appropriate tribute to the province of Ontario for having been the first province, as indeed it was, to introduce vacations with pay legislation. I am glad to pay Ontario that tribute which I neglected to include in my remarks last year; but I am afraid I must at the same time point out that although Ontario was the first to put such legislation on the statute books it has not improved it

in any way since that time, and it still provides for only one week's vacation after one year's employment; whereas two other provinces in Canada, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, have gone further and provided for two weeks' vacation with pay after one year's service. I hope Ontario, which had the honour of putting the first legislation of this kind on the statute books, will soon bring that legislation up to date.
I should add that two of the provinces that provide for only one week after one year, namely Alberta and Manitoba, do provide for two weeks' vacation with pay later on. In the case of Alberta two weeks' vacation with pay comes after two years' employment, and in the case of Manitoba it comes after three years' employment. To complete the picture the seventh province, the one that has limited coverage in this field, is the province of New Brunswick, where there is provision for one week's vacation with pay after one year to those engaged in the mining and construction industries.
That summary of the picture in the provinces indicates that in seven out of ten provinces-and this brings to mind a formula which the Minister of National Health and Welfare will recognize-some provision for vacation with pay is made, and those seven certainly represent not only a substantial majority of the provinces but a substantial majority of the population of Canada. In that regard I might point out that the provinces have moved pretty far in the direction of making it a matter of law that workers are to have adequate vacations with pay, but I would also point out that this bill which I presented last year and which I present again this year matches the best of the provisions in any of the provincial legislation, in that it provides for two weeks' vacation with pay after one year.
I point out, Mr. Speaker, that in this respect my bill is exactly in line with the proposals made for a number of years by the labour movement in this country, proposals carried forward by the new Canadian Labour Congress when it was organized as a result of the merger last year. That request for federal legislation providing for two weeks' vacation with pay after one year's employment is one of the requests the Canadian Labour Congress makes to the government and the parliament of this country.
This bill has in it a provision which makes it clear that it supersedes any collective agreement or arrangement of any kind that provides for less than two weeks' vacation with pay after one year. It also has a provision that it does not interfere with any arrangement that is better than that provided in this bill.

Once again I would point out that although I have tried to do the responsible thing and present a bill which has worked out full details, including arrangements for the administration of a provision such as this, I hope hon. members of the house will recognize that on second reading we are debating the principle of this measure, and that we will not divide over some of the details of the administration. If the bill receives approval on second reading, which I hope it will, it will be my purpose to move its reference to the committee on industrial relations, where details of administration and arrangements for carrying out the principle might be considered and even altered or amended; but I would hope that on second reading the house would be prepared in this year 1957 to go along with the basic principle that the working people in this country are entitled after one year's employment to two weeks' vacation with pay.
One of the arguments that is sometimes put up against legislation of this kind is that it should be left to collective bargaining. Mr. Speaker, that is an argument that can be found on the pages of Hansard across the years. Whenever the government is dragging its feet; whenever the government is moving slowly in the labour field with respect to any particular matter, it says, "Leave this to collective bargaining". But the day comes when the government recognizes that the things that have been won by collective bargaining have to be established and held by legislative pegs. The day comes when the government recognizes that the unorganized deserve protection as well, and in that day the government actually supports measures which in years or decades gone by it said should be left to collective bargaining.
The labour movement is clear on this matter; it knows you have to fight for these things on both fronts. So the labour movement of this country does its best to win these things at the collective bargaining table, and the labour movement also seeks to protect these things by getting legislation both at the provincial level and here at the federal level. I hope this year, now that the Canadian Labour Congress is nearly a year old and is well established as a part of the life of this country, and now that hon. members have had more time to think over the principle involved in this legislation, in view of the fact that it was presented last year, it will receive the support of the house as a whole.
One of the arguments put up last year by the Minister of Labour in discussing this bill was to the effect that a very large percentage of workers who come under federal labour jurisdiction already have two weeks' vacation 82715-28
Industrial Relations
with pay, and therefore this legislation would not affect very many people. In support of that proposition the minister gave us certain tables which were placed on the pages of Hansard, but of course tables and figures always bear looking into. As a matter of fact the tables the minister gave in support of the contention he made in my view actually support our contention that legislation in this field is needed in order to extend the benefit of two weeks' vacation with pay to a large number of employees under federal labour jurisdiction who do not now have this protection.
While it is true, according to the tables, that a very large percentage of the employees who come under federal labour jurisdiction do receive annual holidays with pay, in most cases they have to wait for a longer time than is set out in this bill. Actually only 46.7 per cent of the employees who come under federal labour jurisdiction now enjoy two weeks' holidays with pay after one year's employment. That means that this bill if it is adopted will extend this privilege of two weeks' vacation with pay after one year to something over 50 per cent of those covered by federal labour jurisdiction.
Even that figure of 46.7 per cent is somewhat misleading, because it is an over-all figure, and in the categories included in arriving at that percentage are three groups who might be referred to as preferred groups, namely those employed in air transport, in banks and in certain government enterprises. According to the tables presented by the minister last year these three groups all have two weeks' vacation with pay after one year to the extent of 100 per cent. Therefore if you remove those three preferred categories and look at the rest of the employees covered in the table given by the minister last year you will find with respect to the rest that only 35 per cent now enjoy two weeks' vacation with pay after one year's employment.
Therefore the bill is something more than an academic exercise, something more than the simple laying down of the principle of vacations with pay, important though that may be. It is a bill which would actually extend the privilege of two weeks' vacation with pay after one year of employment to a large number of employees.
Because this bill represents the best that now obtains in many provinces of this country; because it implements the request made to the government and to parliament by the Canadian Labour Congress, and because I believe it is in keeping with the thinking of the Canadian people today that with our wealth and our capacity for production our workers should have time off for

Industrial Relations
rest and recreation, I urge that this house support Bill No. 2, calling as it does for a minimum of two weeks' annual vacation with pay after one year's employment for all workers under federal labour jurisdiction.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in anticipation of this particular bill coming up at this time it was pointed out that the Minister of Labour was absent on public business, and has been so absent for the past few days. I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat what he said at this particular juncture of the discussion of the bill a year ago, as I think the hon. member who has introduced the bill has fairly well given most of the facts in connection with the matter under discussion. I would not want to try to reinterpret the figures he mentioned, though I think he rather minimized the number of persons who do have benefits similar to those proposed in the bill.


Mrs. Fairclough:: He used the minister's own figures.


Walter Edward Harris: Excuse me if I may go on. While it is quite true that approximately 47 per cent of the workers of Canada are presently enjoying benefits such as would be conferred by the bill as presented, the fact of the matter is that another 46 per cent do enjoy similar benefits after a longer period of service with the company for which they are working, up to I think three years' employment instead of one.
As I say, I do not wish to engage in any dispute about the facts. However, I would not think the house would like to go forward with the discussion without the Minister of Labour being in position to say something. I am quite aware of the fact that he deliberately put a great many tables on the record last year in order to aid discussion of the principle of the bill. In concluding his remarks at that time he gave certain reasons why he could not approve of the bill. I would like to suggest to the house that we proceed to another item of business, having in mind the fact that almost eight months or perhaps ten months have gone by since that discussion and it may well be that the Minister of Labour would like to add something to the remarks he made at that time.
It is not intended to suggest that he told me that he intended to do so, but I have reason to believe that he keeps these things in mind at all times and, as I say, might very well wish to add to the discussion of the bill. Therefore, unless there is any objection, I would hope we could allow this matter to stand for the moment by a motion to adjourn the debate.

On motion of Mr. Harris the debate was-adjourned.




Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. 3, to provide for pay for statutory holidays for employees and for pay for work performed on statutory holidays.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 3 is a companion bill to the one we were discussing just a moment ago, and even as I offered no objection to the course suggested by the Minister of Finance with respect to Bill No. 2, I would have no objection if he asked the house to do the same with respect to this bill if discussion is not concluded before this hour expires. I was aware, of course, of the absence of the Minister of Labour on public business, but it did seem to me that it would be a good idea to have the propositions contained in both these bills laid before the house early in the session so thought might be given to them, in the hope that the bills might be approved before this session ends.
I have already made some remarks in connection with the previous bill which relate to this one. Even as the other bill provided that all workers under federal labour jurisdiction should have at least two weeks' annual vacation with pay, so this bill provides that all workers in Canada who come under federal jurisdiction should have at least eight statutory holidays with pay a year.
The eight statutory holidays set out in the bill are those one would expect to be there, as they are holidays which are common to all the provinces of Canada. As set out in one of the clauses of the bill they are: New Year's day, Good Friday, Victoria day, July 1, Labour day, Thanksgiving day, Remembrance day and Christmas day. The bill provides that all employees under federal labour jurisdiction shall be given these eight days off work with their full or regular pay for that day. It provides also that if any employee is required to work on any of these eight days he is to receive his regular pay for that day, which he would get if he were not working, plus double time for working on that day.
This bill, like Bill No. 2, has in it a elapse which makes it clear that it supersedes any provision in any agreement or arrangement that is less favourable to the employee than the provisions of the bill, but that it does not affect any provision or arrangement which is better than what is set out in this bill.

There are various other details in the bill, but I hardly think I need to go into them now except to point out that in this bill, as in the other one, I have tried to present to the House of Commons not just a resolution or an expression of principle but the fact that this kind of arrangement can be worked out in precise detail. The bill is fully drawn, and by accepting it parliament will make this principle of statutory holidays with pay along with annual vacations with pay the law of this country.
The provision of annual vacations with pay and the provision of statutory holidays with pay are both reasonably new. There are still in our midst many people who have known in years gone by what it was not to get statutory holidays with pay. Today there are many who do not get those holidays with pay, or if they do the benefits are much less than we feel they should be.
Again I would point out that what is sought in this bill is in line with the request made to the federal government and to this parliament by the Canadian Labour Congress, and I hope serious consideration will be given to what this bill seeks.
Actually for some time the idea of statutory holidays with pay has been established for those who are known as salaried employees, those who are paid by the month, and we feel that this principle should be extended to all workers in this country. With respect to this phase of labour policy I may point out that the provinces are not as advanced as they are in the matter of annual vacations with pay. As a matter of fact there are very few provinces which make adequate provision, or even very specific provision, for statutory holidays with pay. In most instances it is simply a matter of some incidental provision tucked away in a minimum wage act or legislation of that kind.
Nevertheless, if one does ferret out sections of various provincial statutes that bear on these matters one discovers that there is some statutory holiday provision on the statute books of six provinces, namely British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. In some of these provinces the legislation merely states that certain days shall be recognized as statutory or public holidays. I regret to say that in the provinces which go only that far no provision is made for the payment of overtime rates to employees who may have to work on those days, nor is there any provision that they should receive pay if they do not work.
There are some provinces which go beyond this first step of declaring that certain days
82715-28J
Industrial Relations
shall be holidays, and which provide what the rate of pay shall be for an employee who is required to work on a public or statutory holiday. That rate of pay varies from straight time to time and a half in the provinces which legislate on that point. There is only one province which takes the third step of providing that, on these holidays, in addition to the prescribed rate of pay for those who must work, those who are not required to work on these statutory holidays should also get paid their regular wages. The one province which goes all the way in this matter is the province of Saskatchewan, where eight statutory holidays are set out; and in that province workers must receive their pay in respect of these holidays even if they are not required to work. If they do work they are to receive, according to the legislation of that province, a rate of pay at a premium of time and a half in addition to their regular pay for that day.
However, surveying the picture again and using statistics which one obtains from the efficient statisticians in the Department of Labour, I discovered that those people who do get paid for statutory holidays, not so much by reason of legislation as by reason of collective ageeements, do fare much better in terms of rates of pay than would seem to be indicated by such legislation as we now have. One set of tables which I obtained from the Department of Labour indicates that of those people who get paid for statutory holidays-and in these instances one is thinking of all employees across Canada, not just of employees under federal jurisdiction-32.9 per cent receive premium rates of double time. In addition to that, 39.1 per cent receive premium rates of more than double time. That seems to me to add up to about 72 per cent of those who receive pay for working on statutory holidays whose premium rate amounts to double time or better.
I do not want these figures to be misleading. I cannot seem to find any figures which indicate the percentage of our workers who get paid in respect of statutory holidays. All I can find is this set of figures which indicates that of those who do get paid a very large percentage are paid a premium rate of double time or better. In most instances that is because of provisions in collective agreements, but at any rate the principle that there should be statutory holidays with pay is becoming fairly well recognized and in addition, I suggest, the principle is becoming recognized that those who are required to work on a statutory holiday should get a substantial premium rate. Hence my bill proposes that the

Industrial Relations
premium rate should be double time in addition to regular pay for that day.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am free to admit that in recommending this piece of legislation I must use a slightly different argument from the one I used in respect of my earlier proposal. In the case of annual vacations with pay I suggested that the provinces have moved along a bit-seven of them have some kind of legislation on that subject-and that it was time the federal government got into the picture and established federal legislation in that field. In this instance the provinces have not moved very far yet. The trade union movement has made progress in seeking to get this question of statutory holidays incorporated into collective agreements, and I think here is an instance where the federal government could give a lead to the provinces.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I return to the remarks I made when I began at five o'clock. This is a very interesting day in the House of Commons. We have been thinking all day in terms of life as being more than meat. We have been thinking of the fact that men live not by bread alone. We have been facing the fact that a proportion of our wealth should be used to encourage the creative capacities of our people. We have been thinking in terms of a portion of our wealth being used to encourage the arts, humanities and social sciences for the benefit of mankind. I suggest it is not inappropriate that on the same day we have been discussing these matters there should be before the House of Commons these two bills which seek to establish the principle that those who engage in toil and undergo the drudgery of manual work in this country are entitled to time off, entitled to recreation, and entitled to receive pay in respect of the time they are off work whether on annual vacation or statutory holidays.
I have no objection to the Minister of Finance proposing that our handling of this bill should follow the same course he suggested with regard to the other, but I hope that as a result of the study of these two bills by the Minister of Labour and the House of Commons, both pieces of legislation will appear on the statute books before this session ends so that our workers under federal jurisdiction will have as their right eight statutory holidays each year, with appropriate pay in respect of those holidays, and likewise two weeks' vacation with pay each year.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, needless to say I support the arguments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I do believe it would be unfair at this time either to talk the bills out or to force a decision on them in the absence

of the Minister of Labour. I believe they are too important, and after the minister gets a chance to look at them it might not be a bad idea for the industrial relations committee to be set up to examine them and get the opinions of organized labour on the desirability of such legislation. I think the matter is too important to rush it in any way, and we should take our time and make a careful examination. I believe the Minister of Finance would be well advised to take the same course with this bill as he did with the last one.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to both hon. gentlemen for the suggestion that the matter might go over. I am fortified in asking that this might be done by reading what the Minister of Labour said at the conclusion of his remarks on a similar bill a year ago. I think I can quote his remarks without offending him in any way. He said as found at page 6264 of Hansard of July 20, 1956:
... I can tell my hon. friend that my department will continue to study that matter.
That is, the principle of the bill.
The possible need for legislation such as the bill presents will be looked into. I welcome the fact that the hon. member has brought the matter before the house at the present time-
Then he went on to say why at that time he could not support the bill. I take this to mean that the Minister of Labour intended to make and has since made a study of not only the principle but the details of the bill which was similar to the one now before us.
I should like, however, to comment on just a few points made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I think he has been very modest and moderate in what he has said, but it should not be thought that there are not statutory holidays with pay at the present time. Nor should the impression be taken from what he said that this government-and I must say he did not press this point-has not been most careful about labour legislation in Canada.
I am not going to speak of our past record in the labour field but he knows, as every other hon. member does, that our record has been such that we have commanded support from labour people over a great many years, much more than in the case of any other party. However, the bill does present, as the former one did, a conclusion to a certain class of collective bargaining, if you will, so that if passed it would move into a certain area of advantage all those persons who for one reason or another do not now enjoy this benefit, whether by choice, whether by

inability to negotiate for it or perhaps for reasons of preference for other benefits on their own part. I am not sure what it might be.
I am quite satisfied from reading what the Minister of Labour said that he had at that time and I know has since given careful consideration to the principle involved in the bill. I know in this case, which I did not in the former, that he does intend to make some remarks on this subject at a fairly early time. Therefore under these conditions I gratefully accept the suggestion made and move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Harris the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The business under public bills having been exhausted, the house will resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



CANADA COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East)-Mr. Robinson (Sim-coe East) in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the establishment of a Canada Council for the encouragement of the arts, humanities and social sciences and further to provide inter alia that
(a)	the Minister of Finance may, out of the consolidated revenue fund, pay to the Council the sum of fifty million dollars to constitute an endowment fund for the purposes of the act, and
(b)	the council shall establish a fund to be called the university capital grants fund, to which shall be credited the sum of fifty million dollars, to be paid to the council by the Minister of Finance out of the consolidated revenue fund.
Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, at five o'clock I was about to make a small contribution to this discussion. I realize there . is not too much we can do in a concrete way with respect to this subject at the resolution stage. However, while there seemed to be general agreement during the course of the discussion this afternoon on the desirability of establishing a Canada Council, there was some doubt whether this was the suitable time for the establishment of such a council. As I recall, several hon. members raised that particular point.
During recent years I have been quite interested in the activities of several voluntary groups that have been operating in the field of the promotion of research and interest in the arts, humanities and social sciences. Only the other day the annual reports of the humanities research council and the social science research council came into my hands.
Canada Council
I was very interested to find in these reports that the secretary treasurer, who in each case is Dr. John Robbins, emphasized the fact that during the past two years it had become increasingly difficult to provide sufficient funds to meet the research scholarship program that has been carried on for a considerable number of years now by both these bodies.
In 1951 the Massey report was brought down in the house, and it made no bones about recommending the desirability and necessity of the establishment of a Canada Council to encourage interest in the arts, humanities and sciences. That same report also emphasized the fact that one of the purposes of such a council-this was not the only recommendation in this respect-would be to-encourage the development of a national culture.
Up until that time the funds for the activities carried on by the two organizations to which I have referred had largely been obtained from United States sources, in one case the Rockefeller grants and in the other case the Carnegie fellowships. During 16 years of operation the social science research council, for example, had received some $600,000 in grants from the Rockefeller foundation. By contrast, contributions from private Canadian foundations during that period of 16 years only totalled $30,000.
Two years ago the two bodies reached a crisis because the authorities managing the Rockefeller foundation indicated that they were no longer willing to support this activity in Canada.
That introduced a real crisis into the activities of voluntary groups. It was only after considerable extra trouble that they were able to persuade these United States sources of funds to carry on with their work, and then only on the guarantee that an equivalent amount would be subscribed from Canadian sources.
In reference to the humanities council, I believe it was Mr. Walter Gordon, who was active at the time and still is in compiling economic data concerning the future prospects of Canada, who was prevailed upon to undertake the solicitation of such funds from private sources. I merely mention these details. I am sorry that I have not the reports before me at the moment; I could have quoted directly from them. But what I have said gives a general summary of the situation. I mention these details to point out that there is a real urgency at the present time, at least with regard with these two important fields of activity, that some additional financial sustenance be obtained with which to carry on this important work.

Canada Council
This is not the first time the Canadian government has encouraged research or has participated in the promotion of what we call culture in this country. Admittedly the participation in that respect has been much less than has been the participation in the promotion of the activities of the national research council. Recognizing the need for stimulation of scientific research during world war I, the government of Canada established the national research council. That was a body which was largely devoted to research in the arts of war. In this day and age after two tragic world wars, when we are much more concerned about promoting the pursuits and the arts of peace, I think it is high time that we did something in this tangible form represented by the establishment of the Canada Council.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I want to raise one or two questions. I think the committee stage is the time to raise them. Whenever government assumes responsibility in activities of this kind there is always reason to be somewhat suspicious and to have certain reservations. Of course the only guarantee that public corruption will be avoided is some assurance that parliament will be able to maintain eternal vigilance over the activity of this body. When we have the bill before us, Mr. Chairman, I trust we shall find that it indicates that parliament is going to have some continuing control over the functions of the Canada Council.
In presenting this legislation to the committee today the Prime Minister made vague references to the personnel who will be making up the council, and he stressed the point that political partisanship would be avoided in the selection of the people who make up the council. With that point I heartily agree. I am just wondering how the appointments are going to be made. Will they be made by the governor in council, by order in council, or will they be made in consultation with the voluntary groups which are already operating in this important field of Canadian activity?
This afternoon the suggestion was put forward that this is going to mark a new era in the development of the arts, humanities, letters and social sciences. I think that is going a bit too far. Actually we have already come a long way in what we might call the cultural field. There are any number of voluntary groups which are operating in this area. They have established strong committees of their own. I imagine that the money that is provided through the grant that will come from parliament or from this house will be administered largely through the voluntary committees already operating in the field.
It also seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that these groups should be in an excellent position to make recommendations concerning the people best qualified to serve Canada as members of the Canada Council. I have in mind one excellent representative from this area of activity. I have already mentioned his name. I refer to Dr. John Robbins, who for the past few years has been engaged in the important work of compiling or revising the Encyclopaedia Canadiana.
Here is a man who has been intimately associated with the whole field of the arts, letters, humanities and sciences in Canada. I understand that his work is coming to a conclusion very shortly. I feel that he would make an ideal chairman for this particular body. He is from the keystone province of Canada. Being a Manitoban, he is representative of all influences in the Canadian body politic, and I am sure is eminently qualified in all respects.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, on Monday we shall continue with the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.


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