1957-02-14

HON. MEMBER FOR FORT WILLIAM  CON- GRATULATIONS ON BIRTHDAY ANNIVERSARY

Mr. Speaker:: I am sure hon. members will not want to allow the opportunity to pass tor all of us to extend our best wishes to the member who is the dean of the house and who perhaps in many ways is the youngest member of it. Certainly he is the youngest at heart. I am referring, of course, to the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) who is celebrating a birthday today -I have not yet ascertained which one.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your extreme kindness and generosity. My better half and I enjoy living very much. In order to keep the record straight may I say this. As long as the Divine Father permits it and Fort William says yes, I am going to occupy this seat beside this distinguished minister and holder of the Victoria Cross. I refer to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg).



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Could the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, now tell the house whether Canada will waive the interest due on December 31, 1956, under the United Kingdom loan of 1946? He made a statement on this question on January 11, in which he intimated that the matter was still under consideration.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The matter is still under active consideration. As the hon. gentleman knows, the terms of the agreement that afford a possibility of there being waivers do not fit the present situation, and there is under active consideration recommending to parliament an amendment to that agreement.


Howard Charles Green: Will the Prime Minister assure the house that the government is not waiting until the United States first takes action in the matter?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the house that this was, at the time, a joint undertaking by the United States and Canada to improve the trading situation of the United Kingdom, and though the arrangement was evidenced by two separate agreements they were tied together, in effect, by terms in each of the two separate agreements. It is my hope an arrangement that will be satisfactory to the United Kingdom authorities will be arrived at both by Canada and the United States.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask a supplementary question. Is it not possible for Canada to act alone in this matter, and probably in so doing give impetus to similar action by the United States? I point out to him that on December 6 the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as acting prime minister, said that Canada could act alone. Is that or is it not the fact?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Canada could act alone, but had Canada acted alone originally the effect upon the economy of the United Kingdom would have been quite insufficient. Canada provided 25 per cent of the loan that was made at that time, and it was felt that the effect of the 100 per cent, namely $5 billion, would be substantial in improving the trading position of the United Kingdom. Canada could act alone, but my information leads me to believe that better results will be achieved by continuing these negotiations that are proceeding at the present time than would be achieved by taking separate action just now. The negotiations are proceeding, and I hope it will not be very long before a satisfactory arrangement agreed to by the three governments will be announced.



INQUIRY AS TO ESTABLISHMENT OF FUND FOR MUNICIPAL BORROWINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister advise whether he is giving consideration to the establishment of a fund from which municipalities can borrow at a low rate of interest for necessary capital expenditures because, being unable to sell their debentures in

Inquiries of the Ministry Canada, municipalities must of necessity sell them in the United States at a high rate of interest.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is grossly inaccurate in the statement he has made. My understanding is that if there is any complaint about municipal financing in the United States it is not because they have to go to the United States rather than Canada to get money, but the reason they are going there is that they get lower rates than in Canada.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister give his reasons for not giving consideration to this important and serious problem, because the debentures being sold in the United States are being sold at a much higher rate.


Walter Edward Harris: I think the reason is equally obvious, Mr. Speaker. Practically every provincial government has a fund for this purpose and the mechanism set up to assist the municipalities, which are their creatures.


Mr. John Pallell (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance supplementary to the question asked by the member for Ontario. Will the minister advise what steps, if any, are being taken by him so that the Canadian municipalities may borrow Canadian money so their future repayments will not be subject to the vagaries of international exchange rates?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I think I made it quite clear that it is not the intention of the government to force upon municipalities any particular course of action.



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulion (Kamloops):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he or any member of the government has any information concerning a deal between the government of British Columbia and the Wenner-Gren B.C. Development Company Limited, as reported in yesterday's press. If so, could the Prime Minister say whether the reports are correct, that the arrangements contemplate the handing over to this company of exclusive first rights to all minerals, timber and water power resources of immense potential value now belonging to the province within an area of approximately 25 million acres of land?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The only information I have about this is that which the hon. gentleman himself has, though I have seen it in more than one newspaper. I have no other information but the information contained in newspaper reports, and it is not to my knowledge that the matter has ever been brought to the attention of any of my colleagues otherwise than through these newspaper reports.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the Minister of
Transport a question regarding the same matter. If the minister has seen the reports, can he say whether the construction of the proposed line of railway, if proceeded with, would require approval under the Railway Act?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, all I shall tell the hon. gentleman is that I have not seen the reports in the first place; consequently, I am unable to comment on the question which he has just raised.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister take the question as notice?


George Carlyle Marler: No; I do not think I should take the question as notice. I do not see any reason why purely speculative reports should occupy the time of my officials to find out whether they have any foundation and, if they have any foundation, whether something should be done before the procedure laid down in the statutes is followed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the minister whether he is aware that this is not a speculative report? The report appears to be based on facts, as reported in the press, and my question did not ask the minister to determine anything, but whether, if the facts as reported are correct, construction of the railway would require approval under the Railway Act.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Kamloops, in asking his question, also made a very serious implication which casts some reflection upon the provincial government of British Columbia-


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: And on members of this house.


Ernest George Hansell: -namely that the proposal to build this railway was on the basis of giving away some of the natural resources of British Columbia. That implication is entirely untrue. I was in touch with the premier of British Columbia yesterday by telephone-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The matter raised by the hon. member for Macleod is, I submit, not a proper question of privilege. The hon.

member for Kamloops put a question which was based on a newspaper report. If there is to be a correction of the newspaper report I suggest that it should be done by the premier of British Columbia in his own legislature. The hon. member for Nanaimo.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: I have a question on the same matter which I should like to address to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Since it is reported that the plans of this group headed by this notorious international financier include the diversion of the waters of an international river, would the minister care to comment on the possible position of the government in regard to this scheme?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am in the
same position as that stated by the Prime Minister. I have read the newspaper reports; I have also met Mr. Wenner-Gren and know something about his activities in the past. I know nothing about the transaction referred to by the hon. member other than what I have read in the newspaper, and that is not sufficient to draw any comment from me at this time.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: should like to address a question to the Prime Minister based on the statement he has already made. Is he aware that the statement in respect of this matter is that the company has asked for no special concessions other than protection covering their proposed right of way, as was indicated by the minister of trade and industry for the province of British Columbia?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I know nothing whatsoever about this project beyond what I have read in the newspapers.



BANK OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that I understand the Bank of Canada report for 1956 will be down shortly, will the minister be able to tell us that the banking and commerce committee will have an opportunity of having the report presented and discussed by the governor of the bank, as was done last year?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I shall give consideration to what appears to be a request.
Inquiries of the Ministry OLD AGE PENSIONS



REFERENCE TO REPORTED AMOUNT OF INCREASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Dickey:: Here is the cheer leader again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the press report correct that the increase in the old age pension to be made at this session may be only $5 a month? Is the minister aware that such a small increase would be an insult to the good name of Canada, and will he assure us that the increase will be much more substantial?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This was not a question. This was merely a comment on a very hypothetical subject.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I put my question to the minister in a different way?


Mr. Speaker:: I am now giving the floor to the hon. member for Middlesex East.


John Horace Dickey: I should think so.



REQUEST FOR CORRELATION OF PENSIONS AND COST OF LIVING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister's department give consideration to the suggestion I made on several occasions that old age pensions and other pensions be so hooked to the cost of living index that as the cost of living goes up so would old age and other pensions?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Answer.


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether or not you regard that as a proper question, but I assume by your attitude that you do. I can only say that my hon. friend is aware, of course, that the government takes into account all these matters.



REPORTED DISCOVERY OF NEW METHOD OF GASIFYING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. R. Lusby (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.

Inquiries of the Ministry I regret that I have not given him notice of my question, and possibly he will wish to accept this as notice. Would the minister comment upon the claim of Russian experts, which was reported in yesterday's newspapers, that they have perfected a feasible method of gasifying coal by igniting it underground and piping the resulting gases to the surface, to provide in addition to by-products a source of cheap power in place of coal?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member wishes to ask a question of that lengthy character for which he has to lay a foundation which is almost interminable, why does he not go and see the minister and have a chat with him?



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I apologize in that it was not possible for me to give him notice, so I presume he will accept this as notice. Has the minister heard any suggestions that miners working in uranium mines may be subject to radiation? If so, is any research work being done to establish the facts in this matter?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could give a more detailed answer to this question later.



SILICOSIS-RESEARCH ON USE OF ALUMINUM DUST THERAPY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: With regard to the question raised by the hon. member yesterday concerning silicosis and research on the use of aluminum dust therapy, I can say that under the national health program a research project in the matter of aluminum and silicosis is under way at the school of hygiene at the University of Toronto.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. I regret that I have not given him notice of my question. It relates to the minister's statement as reported at pages 1244 and 1245 of Hansard of
	0 'I33H1S

February 13. Would the minister make inquiries as to the number of Canadian Pacific Railway engineers involved? I understand the figure is somewhat less than that mentioned in the statement. Would the minister also ascertain the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. One of the very
elementary rules of this house is that when the Speaker rises the hon. member who has the floor must resume his seat. The question the hon. member is asking is one that is too long to be asked at this time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the reduction in expenditures for conventional weapons and increased emphasis on nuclear weapons approved yesterday by the United Kingdom, is the Canadian government giving consideration to a similar reduction in expenditures for conventional weapons? Is Canada at the present time either acquiring or developing any thermonuclear weapons or guided missiles?


An hon. Member:: The hon. member should have a chat with the minister.


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, if I can dissect out the hon. member's question, I would say in reply that we are studying our own military situation and are making such changes as the facts appear to warrant. As I have said before, we have good liaison with the United States and with Great Britain with respect to missiles and other types of weapons. I am not prepared to make a statement on defence policy at this time, if that is what my hon. friend is seeking.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister a reply to the question I asked on February 6, relating to the universal application of the five-day 40-hour week to the employees of the Department of National Defence?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No. I have asked for a report on the matter and I hope to have a statement shortly.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Revenue if he is in a position to reply to the question I asked on February 8.


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: The question was asked on Friday, February 8, and reads:
Will the minister say if it Is the policy of the Department of National Revenue to keep the door open on assessments of 1950 and 1951 income tax returns by reassessing taxpayers before January 1, 1957, when the revision of section 46 (4) (b) came into effect?
Then a further question was asked of the Minister of Finance. His answer was one which I took for granted would be sufficient for the hon. member for Hamilton West. The question asked of the Minister of Finance was:
. . . whether, when presenting the amendment to section 46 (4)	(b), he had any idea that the
department would adopt some measure for circumventing the effectiveness of the amendment?
The Minister of Finance said at that time:
No, Mr. Speaker. I am firmly convinced that the department does not take action to circumvent the action of parliament.
I reiterate that answer and I would also say that it is not the policy of the department to keep the door open on the assessments of 1950-51 by reassessing. It was in the ordinary course of work, which came at the end of the year, and assessments were put out at that particular time.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. I take it that the assessments did go out. When may I expect an answer to the questions I placed on the order paper under date of February 11 with reference to the details of such an assessment?


James Joseph McCann: If the answer is not already given I will see that it is brought down almost immediately.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does the federal government make the appointments, or have anything to do with the appointment, of members of the municipal and public utility board of Manitoba?
Inquiries of the Ministry
Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime
Minister):	No, Mr. Speaker, the federal
government does not make the appointments, and has nothing whatever to do with the appointment of the members of the municipal and public utility board of Manitoba.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary
question of the Prime Minister. Is it clear, then, that this board is not a court under the meaning of section 96 of the British North America Act?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: This board is certainly not a court to which members are appointed as judges by the federal government.
,	CANADA COUNCIL



INQUIRY AS TO PROCESS OF APPOINTING MEMBERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Has the Prime Minister had conversations with anyone regarding appointments to the Canada Council?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I did not hear the hon. gentleman's question.


William McLean Hamilton: Has the Prime Minister had-


Mr. Speaker:: If I heard the	question
correctly, it is not one asking for information of the type that should be asked for at this time.


William McLean Hamilton: It is possible, Mr. Speaker, that you did not hear the question.


Mr. Speaker:: I did.	The hon.	member
asked whether the Prime Minister has had any conversations with anyone with respect to certain appointments. That is not asking for information about administration which is the responsibility of the various departments. If we were to ask, here, what conversations a minister has had with another, the answer, even if it were to be yes-


An hon. Member:: Means "sit down".


Mr. Speaker:: -might not be of the type
that could be communicated until these appointments are made. Let us face it. If we are going to begin to ask this type of question-"Has the minister had any conversations?"-there is no limit to any imagination in this house.


William McLean Hamilton: Do ministers talk that much? Mr. Speaker, has the Prime Minister agreed to the appointment of anyone to the Canada Council?

Canada Council


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The
Prime Minister does not "agree" to appointments. The Prime Minister sometimes makes recommendations for appointments, and when they are made they are announced.



CANADA COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, February 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East) for the second reading of Bill No. 47, for the establishment of a Canada Council for the encouragement of the arts, humanities and social sciences.
Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, I consider that Bill No. 47 is most important. I consider it to be more important even than the Trans-Canada pipeline bill, by reason of the fact that if it is passed, and if it has the effect which all hon. members, including the Prime Minister, say it will have upon our people, then it will influence not just this present generation but many generations of Canadians to come. The effects of this bill could outlast the life of a gas line and, maybe, the lifetime of the oil wells themselves.
It is very important, and I am somewhat surprised to find that so few have risen to take part in the debate on the government side.


Mr. Byrne:: It is so good it needs no
defence.


Frederick George Hahn: The hon. member said it is so good it needs no defence. There is no doubt that some members consider it good.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I said "so good". That is a different word.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Frederick George Hahn: I said "so good". Mr. Speaker, yesterday I spoke somewhat along the line that was suggested by the hon. member for Greenwood when he used the term "truth and beauty". I do not wish to proceed with that subject any further. However, I was somewhat interested in noting two newspaper articles. They were both in the Toronto Globe and Mail. One of them was a picture from Sydney, Australia, depicting a winning design which was called "A joke for a masterpiece". It brought to my mind exactly what we have here today. Does the fact that this council is going to be set up mean it is going to try to set down exactly what culture is and what the government, or let us say the council itself as it will be instituted, decides

the people should have in their best interests in so far as the arts and humanities are concerned?
In that same paper was another heading about Regina's new art gallery. I did not take the time to read all about those two new enterprises in the world today, but I was much interested to find that in Saskatchewan apparently, as well as in other provinces- and I can see the reason for it-they have institutions which have been set up for the promotion of the arts. Certainly we have institutions today which are set up for the purpose of doing just what this Canada Council is apparently being established to do. It makes me wonder why we must have a centralized organization whose main purpose apparently is to do the same thing that is being done by the provinces at this time. I am not opposed to, nor do I suggest for one moment that our government should not set up, a fund to assist the provinces in this work or in this type of work, particularly in the educative field. However, I say that here we are going to have an additional cost of administration which is only going to take away from the needy causes themselves.
I have a few further personal observations to make with respect to this matter. I feel that culture, in order to endure, must be given a place in the hearts and the minds of Canadians. We must exemplify our way of life. It must not be an artificial way of life that might be propounded by a certain group of 19 or by some individuals, as the case might be. I am satisfied that the Canadian people who have clamoured for the setting up of the Canada Council certainly did not have that in mind. It is with a great deal of trepidation that I view the thought that possibly we are going to foist upon our people an organization whose main objective is going to be to see to it that a certain line of culture is promoted.
I believe that the arts today are not in the same need of financial assistance as they were some years ago. I am not denying that there are certain ones, and they are excellent-such as the Stratford theatre and others, the drama festivals included-that need help. The fact is that I am satisfied they do need help. But we have organizations set up whereby they can be helped; and I would prefer that the money be transferred to the provincial governments and be put through in that fashion.
Sometimes persons take objection when one says there is more money available for the arts - than there was heretofore. The proof, Mr. Speaker, lies in the fact that every home today is enjoying the arts in its own way, compared with the situation just a few years

ago. Possibly one out of every three homes in this country enjoys television programs. Through the media of these programs they are subjected to certain forms of artistry. Whether or not it is to their liking is not material. It appears on the screen. They have the opportunity to view some of the finer things that we so often hear of.
This bill calls for an expenditure of some $50 million on the arts and humanities. The purpose behind it, I would say, is possibly the appreciation of the arts. But, Mr. Speaker, our view is wrong in that respect. Canadians should not be told they are spending money to have an appreciation of art. We should be spending money rather in learning the art of appreciation. I find that we can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and still not be able to appreciate it properly. The very fact that we have paintings worth many thousands of dollars in the national gallery in Ottawa is of no particular value to the rest of Canada unless people can enjoy those paintings. Therein lies the profit; it is learning the art of appreciation.
In my own area we have the Vagabond players who have made themselves quite famous in this country. We have the White Rock players from White Rock, another community, who are likewise well known throughout the whole country. We have established a recreational community within the city of New Westminster which looks after the area as a whole fairly well or at least is beginning to do so. Therein we have the facilities to which this money might be made available. But who is going to decide whether it is the White Rock players, the Vagabond players or the recreational council in New Westminster that is to get this money?
I feel that if culture is going to be directed, it should not be directed from the central government down but that rather it should come from within the souls, the minds and hearts of the individuals in the local communities, and be built up. I believe anything we could do to assist them in achieving that end would be better done through the provincial governments.
We may think of a country such as Russia; and when we think about Russia as such we think of servility. We think of the songs of Russia. I am satisfied that probably every member of this house who is at all familiar with music would say it reminds him of the "Volga Boat Song". We have there an expression of the true culture of these people which has actually come from the soil, from the very hearts and the minds of these particular people and from the work they did. We have there depicted the plodding, the trudging, the heavy work these Russian
Canada Council
people did in the hauling of the boats up the Volga. In our own country we likewise have a culture of our own. It certainly is just beginning to grow, but we are a new country and we must recognize that fact. Yet we have a song in Canada that is known from one end of the country to the other and is sung in the minds and hearts of everybody.


An hon. Member:: "Alouette".


Frederick George Hahn: An hon. member across the way says "Alouette". Certainly it is "Alouette". You hear it sung on the farms and in the homes of British Columbia just as you hear it sung in Quebec and Ontario. There we find the beginning of culture. It is something that cannot be taken from us. The reason the Hungarians revolted was that their culture grew from within them. They had the singing hearts, the singing minds, with the freedom they have always felt in their music, in their songs and in their dancing; and they were not prepared to give it up. But when you have a central organization begin to tell you that we in Canada should foster the ballet or we should foster another form of culture, that is wrong in itself.
It is the demand of the people who go to these things that will determine exactly what the people want to see.
Now, to suggest that people are against culture is to suggest that no one enjoys the theatre; that no one enjoys the music that is all about us, that no one enjoys the songs and dances that we have seen so often performed by the Ukranians and other ethnic groups in this country. How false can we get? These are things we must remember in connection with our thoughts respecting the Canada Council.
Yesterday the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke raised several questions in my mind when he spoke. I should like the Prime Minister when he replies to define what he had in mind when he used the terms, "spiritual development and intellectual world brotherhood". I should like him to elaborate on that and explain to us how those two terms are going to be embodied within the terms of this bill. I ask him, too, if he would tell us about the change in the decision that was made in respect to the remuneration that is going to be paid to the executives who administer the council.
Arising out of this, sir, is one important factor, because culture will develop no matter whether or not we set up this organization. That factor is education, which comes within the scope of culture itself. If we do not have education we have no culture, at least of the finer type.

Canada Council


Mr. Zaplitny:: You just proved the opposite in your speech.


Frederick George Hahn: I did not prove any such thing, sir. I am suggesting that in order to bring finer thoughts on culture to the nation as a whole we need our educational institutions, our universities, for that purpose. I have here the B.C. School Trustee, the issue of December, 1956. It contains a report of an address by Dr. N. A. M. MacKenzie, president of the University of British Columbia, to the school trustees, delivered on September 17, 1956. These remarks are close to the subject about which we are talking at this time.


Mr. Ellis:: Did he not recommend the
Canada Council?


Frederick George Hahn: If you will just listen, sonny, you will learn something. On page 15 he says:
The attitudes and the ideas of the boys and girls are likely to reflect in a true and real sense the attitudes and the values of their parents and of the peoples in the communities in which the boys and girls are brought up. For me, it is nonsense to expect teachers and schools to do for young people things that are not being carried out by parents and citizens around them.
Therein lies your culture, within the local district, sir. It is nonsense, he says, to expect the teachers and schools to do for the young people things that are not being carried out by the parents and citizens around them.
When I read that some of my friends and colleagues get up and damn and blast the teachers of the high schools because the youngsters do not work hard enough or do not acquire sufficient knowledge of this or that or the other, X feel that that, if true, is the responsibility that has to be shared by all of us, and its major burden must rest, not on the teachers and the schools or the department of education, but upon the nature of society and the standards of values that we develop in it, and the goals and objectives that we ourselves hold for ourselves and for our young people and, if our ideal is to get more for less, that is, to work shorter hours and get more pay-and X am not objecting to that-that may be a proper goal- then you cannot expect institutions not to be affected by that attitude and that point of view.
Sir, the point he makes, in effect, is that here we have a society in which we are blaming the teachers, the educationists; but they are not necessarily at fault because the influence of the home, the church and the whole society about us is reflected in the attitude, actions and culture of the boys and girls within our own country. We are building up a "gimme" attitude in this country, and it is wrong. I would suggest, sir, that instead we should remember that as you sow so shall you reap, and that would be a much better form of culture to promote in this country.
Then on the following page, page 16, he explains the need for sacrifice. This is an educationist of the finest type speaking:
[Mr. Hahn.l
Education ... is almost the most important; more important than highways, bridges, ferries or pipe lines, on which we spend so much money.
Now, sir, we agree with him wholeheartedly in every possible way. Here we have the very embodiment of everything cultural for which the people of this country should stand, and we have it being put aside for a promotional scheme of another type, unless I misinterpreted the Prime Minister when he said that none of these funds will be made available to the sciences.
Then, sir, I ask you, who would make these sacrifices? It would be the old age pensioners, the blind, the needy of this country, who contribute through indirect taxes just as much as anyone else does to the setting up of this particular fund. These are the people who are least able to afford it. I continue quoting from the middle of page 16, where he goes on to speak about the fact that the intelligence of the pupils today is no different from what it was at other times. But then on page 17 he has this to say:
I have for years urged the establishment of a general scheme of scholarships, bursaries and interest-free loans for all able and industrious young men and women . . .
We would agree with that; we would agree with the need for those things. There is every need in the world; but I would say that possibly the most important statement is made on page 18, when he demonstrates to these people the problem which exists today:
I think we should try to achieve in our schools, and our university for that matter, as great a challenge to every individual-an intellectual challenge-that we possibly can, and as great a variety, because of the natural differences between human beings.
Now we are proposing to bring culture through the Canada Council, which will decide what is best for us in the way of a cultural environment and that, in itself, is wrong because it does not develop the individual.
He carries on and says:
And so I would suggest, if moneys are available, and I think they can be made available, that we use them at the school level in strengthening the staffs, if that is possible, in terms of finding teachers, adding to their numbers, adding to their qualifications and training, adding, if necessary to achieve those things, to their salaries, adding to their prestige, to the importance that we associate with them and attach to them in the community.
It was my privilege during the summer to discuss this problem of teacher training and the shortage of teachers with one of my friends, a university professor. I found that he had just such a problem within his own faculty. I found that he had to have an instructor in the field of science. Finally he found one man who had published upwards of

30 papers, was the author of a book and had excellent qualifications. I have learned since that this man has proven to be an excellent instructor. The university could only offer him $5,200 a year. Here was a man who had experience, who, it is true, came from another land. He wanted to get out of that foreign land, and he decided that he would take that salary because he wanted the job; he wanted to live in Canada.
What does industry offer in comparison? It offers $7,000 and $8,000 to a non-qualified individual, just a raw recruit, with his PhD. Sir, here we have another instance. We might compare it with the people to the south of us, where I understand the average earnings are something like $10,500 for nine months, and those earnings can be supplemented by summer work to bring them up to some $14,000.


An hon. Member:: That is in a university?


Mr, Hahn:: That is in a university, yes. Here we have a seat of learning. The university, the church and the school are the three things that establish the cultural inheritance we shall pass on to our children, and the culture we hope they will build up in their own minds.
In conclusion, sir, I would say let us go a 'Ittle slower before we decide on the kind of culture we think we want. Let us weld together the nationalities that have come to this country before we decide that the Canada Council shall be the body to decide whether it shall be an ethnic group from Hungary, from the Ukraine, from Germany or from Scotland, or whatever group it might be, that will make up the membership of this council. Certainly we have already been approached by one organization, as was indicated by an hon. member on the floor of this house, suggesting that they should like to have representation on the council. I am satisfied that they should be, and probably they should all be represented, because the assimilation of all these different strata of society, the assimilation of all the different thoughts and ideas these people have, will develop our culture. Therefore they would like representation, and I would say rightfully so. They should expect to be on the council itself if it is to decide what it is to promote.
I would make a suggestion. I would suggest that the grants mentioned in this bill be given as endowments to the universities through the provinces, because each province realizes its own needs. The provincial governments should be assisted, particularly in retaining the outstanding trained men and women in this country. We need those teachers; we must keep them here. So far as the
Canada Council
university building fund is concerned, sir, that is long past due and we would endorse that, too.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I did speak at some length on this subject at the resolution stage. I had not intended to say much if anything, as a matter of fact, about it today. I thought I might wait until we were on the clauses; but the fundamental differences between my thinking and the thinking of the hon. members belonging to the Social Credit party on my left are so great that I thought I should raise the matter at least briefly today. I do so because I think some of the things they have been saying should be answered.
I should like to deal for a moment-since it is most clearly in my mind as having taken place most recently-with the argument of the hon. member for New Westminster. In fact, sir, if it were not for an apparent discourtesy I would have drawn to your attention the suggestion that the hon. gentleman was out of order when he was discussing one of my favourite topics, namely federal aid to education, assistance to the schools, the raising of teachers' salaries and that sort of thing. It is my assertion, and I say it with respect, that there is no relation between that matter and the matter which is now before us in the form of second reading of this bill to set up an institution for the promulgation of Canadian culture.
The second argument, and I am not sure whether it was the hon. member for New Westminster or one other member of the group who made it, was the assertion-I am not sure whether it was an assertion, but it was a hint-or a sort of sinister setting forth of the idea that because Canada has at long last decided to institute something of this kind it is in some way going to interfere with the level of social security in this country. That I say is completely incorrect. I am convinced that it is not going to make any difference to the amount of social security or to the bringing to fruition of the hospital plan, and it is not going to make any difference in terms of cash to any pensioners I know of whether or not we have a body such as is envisaged in this bill.
I should like to say another word about the assertion-I think it was the hon. member for New Westminster who made it, when he talked about the Regina art gallery; I do not know whether he mentioned our museum or not-


Frederick George Hahn: No, I did not.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Now, sir, it is not my custom to talk too much about my own province, and if I can afford after 12 years' observation in this house to say something to my hon.

Canada Council
friends from some of the provinces I would say that I hear their provinces mentioned too often. I think I could bring speeches into this house in which an individual's province had been mentioned a hundred times.
As I have said before, I am not interested one bit more in the promulgation of culture in the province of Saskatchewan than I am in any other province. Dare I say, sir, that maybe some of the other provinces need it to a greater extent than Saskatchewan? But I do want to say this. My hon. friends of the Social Credit party assert that somehow or other the state is going to cram culture down the throats of the people of Canada whether they want it or not. To me that is simply ridiculous. Furthermore, they hint that this is going to be some type of centralized culture that will be harmful to the Canadian people as a whole. That I would deny.
With respect to the institution the hon. gentleman mentioned, may I say it is a very fine institution. Incidentally, it came to the province not as a state enterprise but as the result of certain legacies which were given for the very purpose for which they are now being used. We might couple with it the new museum at Regina, which I have had the pleasure of seeing. But the point I want to make is this. My hon. friends say we must allow the people to develop their own culture. Well, of course, one does not have to talk about that sort of thing; it is a well-known fact. There is only one way in which culture can be developed, and that is through the efforts of the individuals themselves.
As I read the clauses of this bill, and particularly one of the clauses, one of the objects of the institution which is envisaged is to help those people in their efforts to promote culture. What this culture is to be is not to be dictated from the top. The object is to promote, to encourage and to help the people in the various provinces, towns or wherever you wish to proceed in this matter, in the promotion of culture.
I think it was the hon. member for Peace River who used the Eskimos as an example. He said, "Why, the Eskimos do not need to buy any canned culture". I presume they do not have any cold storage culture, either. However, that is by the way. The point is this. My hon. friends may think that the Eskimos have raised themselves by their own bootstraps, in spite of their disadvantages, to a high state of culture. I am not prepared to agree with him. It is true that they, like other primitive peoples who have not had advantages, may have done remarkably well.
However, I am not prepared to wait two or three thousand years or for all eternity in

order that the developments of culture may be laid before my grandchildren and great grandchildren. I do not like discussing the word culture at all, because it is so horribly misunderstood. It has even been spelled with a "k" at times.


Alfred Claude Ellis: By the "Socreds."


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The only way you can absorb culture is by being exposed to it; that is the first thing, and it is fundamental. The only way you can enjoy good literature is by being exposed to it. Here again I hesitate to use the word "good" and perhaps I should leave it out. The only way you can learn to appreciate and enjoy the fine paintings of the great masters is to look at them and understand them; and in respect of modern art perhaps I should add that you attempt to understand them. The same truth applies to drama. How is a small child in the backwoods going to appreciate drama unless he has an opportunity to see it? It is obvious that we have to approach these things from a positive and not a negative angle.
I have said the same things in relation to certain types of literature. Sir, I am not as afraid of certain types of literature as are my hon. friends in the Social Credit party, provided you have a positive approach and provide literature which in our wisdom or folly we may consider good. The point is that we must expose ourselves and our children to these cultural things and then trust the common sense of their intellectual ability to distinguish between what is good and what is not good.
Returning to my hon. friends in the Social Credit party, I might say that I was amused -and I hope I may use that word without offence-at the venture of my friend the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke into the realm of psychology and philosophy. Another hon. gentleman in that party launched a similar flight. I do not think the Prime Minister is going to attempt to cram culture down the throat of anyone. I hope, however, he is going to attempt-and I know it is in his heart-to create an environment in which a Canadian culture may develop.
I have mentioned my hon. friends in the Social Credit party. As far as things of the intellect go there has been a great gulf fixed between them and myself, and there has been no narrowing of that gulf during this debate. I hope I do not do my friends an injustice in stating my opinion-everyone has the right to his opinion-but it is my opinion that they are opposed to intellectual freedom in the pursuit of truth. This fact has been made evident by their dragging into this debate a critical discussion of the C.B.C. I am not

satisfied with many of the programs of the C.B.C., but I claim it is my right to see and hear their programs. If I were to rise in defence of some C.B.C. programs, and sometimes I feel I have to defend them, my defence would be that here we have at least one institution controlled by the parliament of Canada which puts both sides of every question before the Canadian public to let them be the judges of what is right or wrong.


Alfred Claude Ellis: That is why they attack it.


Mr. Wylie:: Oh, smarty.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: My hon. friends say they do not believe in intellectual freedom in the pursuit of truth. This has been proved by their book-burning campaign.


Mr. Blackmore:: There has been no bookburning campaign; that is a preposterous lie.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: This has also been proved by the insinuations they have made against certain institutions in this country.


Mr. Patterson:: You have quite an imagination.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: They say what they believe in is truth, and anything which disputes it is subversive or is brain-washing. Those words were used by an hon. member of the Social Credit party in regard to UNESCO. I thought I should interject a few words into this debate in order to clear the air.


Alexander Bell Patterson: You have not cleared it.


Alfred Claude Ellis: There are none so blind as those who will not see.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I wish to tell my hon. friends in the Social Credit party - and they are my friends in a personal way, although I just cannot agree with them - that I fail to understand their point of view. Perhaps this is my fault, I do not know.


Ernest George Hansell: Hear, hear.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: They simply say that what has been discovered up to this point is the totality of truth; they assume we must accept that as truth and be very careful in our search for anything further. As I see it that is the whole philosophy of the Social Credit movement. I thought it was better that I should say it at this time and I say it in all kindness because there is nothing personal intended in my remarks.


John Horne Blackmore: You have a lot to learn.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Yes, and I thank God that I have a lot to learn and I am going to learn it.


John Horne Blackmore: And you are going to learn it before you are very much older.
Canada Council


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am not going to approach any subject, nor am I going to teach my children to approach any subject whether it is political, religious, cultural or anything else from a negative point of view. I am going to give my chidren the benefit of my opinion and example, but I am not going to ask them to blindly follow my path. I am going to say, "There it is; use your God-given intelligence to decide what is best and what is right for you and for the people of your generation".


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, we have heard some great speeches in this debate. I am not going to make a speech now, but I have some questions I should like to ask; and I would say I think it is about time we went into committee in order that we may ask our questions.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to encourage the arts, humanities and social sciences in Canada. I do not think anyone can disagree, and certainly I do not, with the fundamental purpose of the measure as thus set out. It is laudable and represents something for which we on this side of the house have been pressing for some time. As far as I am concerned personally I am delighted to see that action is finally being taken in this regard.
But having said that, Mr. Speaker, I think it is necessary to examine for a few moments one or two of the ways in which this avowed purpose is going to be accomplished, and having examined these methods I think it would be in order to suggest that perhaps they are not the best possible means by which to accomplish the stated objectives.
As I understand it, the bill essentially comprises in one piece of legislation two undertakings which are quite different in nature. The first is the provision of a substantial capital sum of $50 million to be distributed among Canadian universities as construction grants, this distribution to take place over a period of time which is not specified in the bill but which it has been suggested by the minister would be about 10 years. The other purpose is the support of cultural activities in this country indefinitely into the future by means of the interest on a fund also of $50 million to be contributed by the government at the inception of the plan. The only reason for linking these two dissimilar propositions in one bill is that in each case the money is to be administered by the same body, the Canada Council.
Speaking first and briefly with regard to the question of grants for university construction, while one may question to some extent the wisdom of supplying this money as
128$

Canada Council
a lump sum rather than in amounts as required year by year for the purpose, there may be at least a substantial argument in favour of the lump sum proposition. The construction of major buildings and extensive additional facilities for universities is not something that can be carried on in such a way as to use exactly the same amount of funds each year. It may very well be that in the initial stages as the plan gets under way only small sums will be required; then subsequently over a period of years as the plans come into being substantial sums will be required as the universities hasten to get the much-needed buildings constructed and into operation.
A good deal of leeway must be given to anyone who is going to have the disposition of these funds, and for that reason I am not inclined to quarrel too much with it, though I would have been happier had we been giving this money by means of parliamentary grants. As I say, I am not going to quarrel too much with the way it has been done.
Turning now to the grants for cultural activities, the remaining $50 million, it is quite apparent that the same type of argument which I have set forth in relation to the construction grants does not apply in this second case. These grants consist of numerous contributions of small amounts for manifold purposes to a multitude of individuals and organizations across this country. According to the Prime Minister the sum total of these contributions is expected to be in the neighbourhood of $2 million or perhaps somewhat less per year. It is expected that they will continue at that rate indefinitely into the future. For that purpose there is to be given to this Canada Council a sum of $50 million with complete freedom as to the way in which they shall invest it, with no restraining influences being placed upon the nature of the market operations they may undertake. The purpose of the endowment will be to produce that $2 million per year.
I suggest that when annual incomes are concerned and when annual expenditures are to be made by a creature of this federal government, because that is the purpose of the Canada Council; when comparatively equal expenditures are to be made on a continuing basis, they should be voted by parliamentary appropriations so that parliament may be in position to scrutinize and examine the way in which the taxpayers' money is being used. Make no mistake about it, and I shall return to this point later, the money which is going to this Canada Council is the taxpayers' money just as much as any other dollar which is spent by the government of Canada.

It was suggested by the Prime Minister in his earlier remarks that he wanted to remove the operation of these cultural grants from the influence of parliament. Listening to the Prime Minister one would have almost thought there was something wicked about this House of Commons, that we as a body were not to be trusted with any measure of control or supervision over the operation of these cultural grants. I do not know why. We represent the country as a whole and some of us perhaps have a wider experience in cultural matters than others, but I think all of us have sympathy with them. I cannot quite understand why the Prime Minister should have taken the attitude that we are unqualified to deal with it or, worse still, that we would engage in machinations and devious methods to defeat the purposes of this Canada Council. As I see it, that is the only argument he can put forth as to why he wants to take it away from us. If there is no reason why it should be taken away, surely it is proper that parliament should continue to scrutinize these expenditures.
Mark this, the setting up of this amount as an endowment fund and its transfer to the Canada Council does not remove the fund from parliamentary control. Parliament is supreme, and it can change the terms and conditions of this legislation at any time. Parliament can, if it wishes take the fund back into its own possession. The Canada Council is a creature of this parliament and is subject at all times, by legislation, to the control of this parliament. But what the measure does do, and this is important, is to remove its operations in large measure from the detailed scrutiny of this body.
There is a great deal of difference. If such dangers exist as the Prime Minister set forth, and I do not admit that they do, it does not matter whether or not the fund is established as an endowment fund, because of the preeminent position of parliament in respect to all such legislation. The only thing this endowment fund does in respect to these cultural activities is to remove them from the annual scrutiny of parliament as an item in the estimates of this body. I suggest that is a serious matter.
However, to my mind what is most wrong about the government's attitude and explanation in introducing this legislation was the Prime Minister's departure into a new field of public finance. Over the last number of years we have become accustomed to something called cyclical budgeting, but I suggest that not until this year have we heard of windfall budgeting. This is an interesting new departure, a departure by which the government with a particularly needed project in mind sits on its hands and waits

one year, two years, three years, tour years, and then in the fifth year, according to this windfall theory of budgeting, it suddenly has a substantial additional revenue with which it can carry on this particular project.
You cannot operate a federal government on that basis with any measure of continuing success. Mr. Speaker, we cannot expect to budget amounts totalling in excess of $5,000 million in the same way one would operate a peanut stand, rushing out to get a new mirror to hang behind the counter should someone come in and purchase an excessive amount of candy on a particular day. The government has to accept the responsibility for undertaking projects when those projects become necessary, and the Prime Minister has admitted that this has been necessary for a number of years. You cannot wait until someone dies in order to carry a plan forward.
As it was explained to us, the Prime Minister did not say this was a major factor in the establishment of this endowment fund but he told us-breaking, incidentally, the regulations of the Dominion Succession Duty Act regarding secrecy in so doing-that two big estates had become subject to succession duties in the past year, and that was a major factor in deciding on this endowment. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, that is totally, absolutely and completely wrong, because it tries to hide the fact that it is the taxpayers, all of them taken together, who are contributing to the financing of this council. However tortuous the path which the Prime Minister may attempt to follow, this is not a project of two great Canadian industrialists who by fortuitous circumstances passed away in the same year, leaving the government with a substantial sum of money.
We have in this country something called the consolidated revenue fund, and the money from these estates is paid into that fund in exactly the same way it is paid in from the estates of the smallest taxpayers, in exactly the same way it is paid in by all of us who contribute during our lifetime in the form of income tax. That consolidated revenue fund, as the Prime Minister himself stated in another section of his remarks, is the fund from which this money will be paid. It has no connection with the estates of the two gentlemen who have been referred to. They were both, in their lifetimes, fine Canadian citizens. They prospered in this country and contributed greatly to this country, and it may even have been, that they would have liked to see this particular path followed in the use of their money.
But by what right does the Prime Minister assume that credit for this project is to be
Canada Council
attributed to two individuals, no matter how worthy, and taken away from the thousands upon thousands of taxpayers in this country who have contributed their mites to this proposal? I think, and I am sorry to have to say this, that the explanation to which I have just referred-the "windfall budget" explanation-is nothing more than a piece of cynical opportunism, and I regret deeply that the Prime Minister should have felt it necessary to follow the particular path he did.
Sir, it may very well have been in his mind that he wanted to do two things. First of all, in this year of government plenty he may have felt that an anticipated surplus of some $300 million or $500 million was embarrassing. It may well have been that the government was desirous of distributing- "hiding" would be the better word-as much of that surplus as possible before the end of the fiscal year in order that the taxpayers of this country might not have clearly set out for them the extent of overtaxation by the present government.
Again, Mr. Speaker, it may very well have been that this was chosen as a means of glossing over the fact that this procedure by way of endowment fund is not the proper way in which a continuing parliamentary expenditure should be undertaken, a method of diverting attention from the fact that a $50 million slice was being taken for cultural activities when, actually, a contribution of $2 million, statutory in nature, over the next number of years indefinitely into the future would have accomplished exactly the same purpose. But of course, as I pointed out, that brings us full circle to the unfortunate fact for the government that if the road of proper parliamentary control had been followed, this $50 million for the endowment of cultural activities could not have been extracted from the consolidated revenue fund for this year, and the government surplus would therefore be some $50 million higher.
I realize, of course, that this argument is unattractive to the Prime Minister. When it was advanced by my leader on February 5 the Prime Minister interrupted him to say:
On reflection I do not think the hon. gentleman will consider that his first remark that this was probably done because the government felt it was going to be embarrassed with a surplus and had to truck it away somewhere was fair. I do not think it is worthy of the discussion on this Canada Council.
That was his opinion then, and I daresay it continues to be his opinion. I have considered the matter carefully, and as far as I am concerned I think it is a very worthy subject for discussion at this time. I think anything which concerns the expenditure of

Canada Council
$100 million of the taxpayers' money and the possible reasons for it is a very apt subject for discussion in this house.
Of course few men can carry off an emotional argument as well as the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. He is dignified. He is fresh and young looking, and when his lips pout a little emotion rises and it is hard not to get a lump in one's throat and feel a mist of tears across the eyes. And when we say things about him one is tempted to consider how Caesar must have felt when Brutus stabbed him. Well, Caesars quite often get shocking surprises, though not many of them have the good fortune which the Prime Minister has had to be their own Mark Antony afterwards. I placed very little credence in his observations anent this matter the first time it was brought up for consideration.
I want to summarize in this way, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of this legislation is good. I voted for it at the resolution stage. I will vote for it as a bill. I am glad that finally, after five long years' delay, it has been brought before this house. I have no argument with the essential purpose; but I contend that in the case of the endowment fund for cultural activity the method of financing which is being proposed is an unsatisfactory one from the view point of established parliamentary procedure and parliamentary control, and that the purpose behind this course of action has been to sterilize as large a portion as possible of this year's surplus so the taxpayers of this country may be misled.


An hon. Member:: Misled?


William McLean Hamilton: I did
not say deliberately misled. I further suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the breaking of the secrecy of the Dominion Succession Duty Act in order to inform this house with regard to two estates the amount of the duties that were to be paid, and to suggest in direct contravention to the existing legislation in this country that this money was being set aside for a particular purpose, was a most improper course of action.


Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I consider that there is now before the house a measure the benefits of which to Canadian generations to come will outlive those of any piece of legislation I know of since confederation. I feel that the measure establishes for future Canadians the possibility of enlightenment.
I was provoked to rise by the hon. member for New Westminster, when he almost challengingly suggested that there were no members on the Liberal side of the house who

spoke on the measure. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that we consider this measure to be of a class of which, comparatively speaking, it can be said, to quote Shakespeare, that we do not have to gild the lily. But I was rather surprised to find that there were any members in the house who oppose the legislation.
Each of us in his own way and according to his own capacity attempts to assess a piece of legislation. When we find arguments which are contrary to those which we believe, we like to assess them according to our ability.
I have been waiting to hear from the Social Credit speakers who have been opposing this measure a tangible, logical argument so I may be able to assess it. The only thing they have said is that, in their opinion, there are enough existing organizations to disseminate culture, and they refer to the provincial organizations.
I ask you this question, Mr. Speaker. Could there ever be enough institutions to disseminate culture and education? I do not think any such institution in the country should be able to take the position that we already have sufficient education, that we already have sufficient culture, and that there is no room for any more such institutions.
That is a pitiful fallacy, unless there is some fear that education should become more widespread. I do not suggest that the Social Credit party have any fear lest people become more educated, nor that they have any fear that light or education may make it possible for people to understand their preachings, their teachings or their philosophies. But I should like for a moment to make reference to a quotation which might be somewhat informative. I am quoting very briefly from G. W. Curtis, a philosopher who had this to say:
The sure foundations of the state are laid in knowledge, not in ignorance; and every interference with education, culture, booklearning, which is the recorded wisdom of the experience of mankind is the demagogue's sneer at intelligent liberty, inviting national degeneracy and ruin.
I feel that if arguments were presented that could show a fault with regard to educating, with regard to spreading culture, with regard to spreading appreciation of the arts and music, then of course we might be able to judge from their arguments. But when they attempt to interfere with it-and I say without hesitation that I interpret their opposition to this bill as a direct attempt to interfere with the spreading of knowledge and culture in this country; and perhaps I do them an injustice and interpret it wrongly- I wonder whether they have ever heard of or read the words of a man named Everett, who said:	,111111

Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army. If we retrench the wages of the schoolmaster, we must raise those of the recruiting sergeant.
When you hear an expression such as, for example, that which we heard from the hon. member for New Westminster to the effect that the museum in Ottawa is of no particular value in Canada, what are you to think? I must say that I was astonished at the statement. By the widest stretch of my imagination, and as charitable as I should like to be in interpreting that statement, I could not find the least basis for its justification. I had hoped that this measure, because of its very character and its very nature, would have the support of the entire house without any qualification and without any limitations.
I was strongly impressed by the remarks made by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) when he briefly highlighted the value of this measure. I believe that in the generations to come-and I speak for myself at this moment, Mr. Speaker-I will feel proud to know that I had the privilege and honour of being a member of this house when a measure of this kind was debated for the future of Canada.


Mr. Ambrose Holowach (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of speaking in this debate, but I am prompted to do so after listening to the speeches that have been made by the hon. member for Saskatoon and the hon. member for Cartier. They have made statements that are wild and fantastically false. It would appear from what both of them have said that to have conformity is the be-all and end-all of culture. As I listened to both of them I realized how aptly a particular quotation from a book by Wilfred Trotter, F.R.S., "Art and Science in Medicine," Oxford University Press, 1941, would apply. This is a brief quotation:
Whether or not it is true that the age of adventure in the physical world is now closed, adventure in the world of thought is still open to every soul that is not wholly tamed and in love with the cage. It has always been more difficult than adventure in the ordinary sense, and it is becoming more difficult every day. Uniformity of thought is increasingly the apparent goal and demand of civilization; education has no use for the fires of rebellion, and even science itself is not above lending an occasional hand at the fire engine. Still, there burns on in most of us a small wild spark. I advise you to cherish it as a precious possession. Do not, however, be under any misapprehension. Really to think for oneself is as strange, difficult, and dangerous as any adventure, and, as the wise ones say, "it will do you no good"; but, like virtue-which it does not otherwise greatly resemble-it will be its own reward.
I mentioned at the outset I had no intention of taking part in this debate, but now I do intend to say a few words. I shall make my remarks brief because I appreciate that 82715-82
Canada Council
the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is anxious to answer some of the questions that have been raised during this discussion. I am sure that during the course of the debate all of us have learned something on the subject of culture. For one thing, we have learned that it is difficult to define, and in my opinion it is a subject upon which it is dangerously misleading to generalize. I think that this, in itself, ought to make us realize how important it is to give most careful and thoughtful consideration as to the best methods of promoting culture in our country. I believe that is the crux of our problem and the only area of difference between Social Crediters and other members who are supporting this bill.
The very fact that we have heard various interpretations of culture and the best way of promoting it in Canada seems to point out that it involves individualistic concepts, and that the concept of regimentation or creating a mass cultural formula is absolutely false. In my humble opinion we ought to set out in clear, definite terms in the charter setting up the Canada Council that the council will avoid any restrictions or interference with the creative independence or intellectual freedom of an individual. If the council in any way promotes conformity, as is apparently the argument advanced by the hon. member who just resumed his seat, then I believe that the Canada Council will do irreparable harm to cultural efforts in our country. I wish to remind hon. members of the house of recent history which indicates precisely the sort of thing to which I am referring. In a publication issued by the press and information office of the German federal government, there appears the following under the chapter devoted to cultural policy:
The national socialist state set up with incomparable ruthlessness a cultural regime and monopoly organized in separate reich culture chambers along strictly totalitarian and propagandistic lines. These led to complete lack of freedom in all branches of art and culture and paralyzed the entire cultural life of the nation.
We have learned other things as well in this discussion. One of the things we have learned is that the government of Canada has done very little to encourage the appreciation of the arts themselves or given encouragement to the great talents that exist in our country. Now, apart from the encouragement of the arts and encouragement of an appreciative public, there is of course the prime consideration of the function of culture and the humanities in any nation. We know that in addition to the great French and English cultures which form the very basis of our national life, there are within our borders millions of people of diverse ethnic origins who are enriching the cultural fabric

Canada Council
of our nation. We note that each of these has been welcomed into Canada and they owe a new political allegiance to our country which they must accept. But we wish to emphasize that the Canada Council must make it perfectly clear that it recognizes the value of diversity, and that there is quality and purpose in preserving the cultural heritage of all these people. I am confident that together our people will weave a truly dynamic and distinctly Canadian type of culture.
As stated by Professor Watson Kirkconnell in his introduction to some new Canadian verse, "Canadian Overtones Winnipeg", Columbia Press, 1935, in relation to our situation in Canada, "If we accept Wilhelm von Humboldt's absolute and essential value of human development in its diversity, then we shall take every opportunity of saving for our country each valuable element of individuality which we can obtain."
Now, Mr. Speaker, this event to set up the Canada Council, in a sense, does make a page in the history of our parliament. We all recognize the need of encouraging the arts and introducing gracious living into Canada. Indeed, such an effort is worthy of the support, not only of the members of this house but of every Canadian who realizes the importance of lifting our thinking beyond the purely materialistic concepts that crowd our everyday life.
Since I have said that, it is obvious that we in the Social Credit party are for and not against the ultimate objective of stimulating cultural activities. Where we differ from the Liberal party and the C.C.F. party is in the method by which this desirable objective should be realized. The present administration proposes to set up the council and endow it with a $100 million fund, and away it is supposed to go with a never-to-be questioned attitude as to how the cultural achievement is to be made.
We would like to know to whom the council should be responsible? Surely, if public money is to be used it is important for us to know that the council will never become what some newspapers have said it could become, namely a political pork barrel disguised under the cloak of culture. We would also like to know who will constitute the membership of this council. Why should the government deny us this information? In what way will such information impair the formation of the council?
We would like to know why the government does not make these funds available to the respective provincial governments and earmark them for the express purpose of cultural activities in the respective provinces.

In the province of Alberta, for example, we have had a cultural development branch associated with the department of economic affairs for many long years, and it is doing an excellent job. Within that department there is a general department of cultural activities. It services the cultural activities and administrative details of cultural activity boards within our province: drama, music, handicrafts and visual arts, recreation and libraries. These are all dealt with by the cultural activities branch of the department. This department encourages and stimulates an interest in each of these activities by providing organizational, teaching and financial assistance.
We have the drama section which assists communities in organizing dramatic productions, and conducts workshops and advises on other aspects of theatre. There is a music section which assists in organizing communities in various phases of music activities: festivals, productions, bands, orchestras and choral groups. We have a handicrafts and visual arts section, which assists in organization of provincial craft centres. Teachers are provided in design of leather, copper, woodwork, ceramics and weaving. No charges are made to the public.
We have a recreation section which assists communities in the province to establish recreational centres and programs which cover all phases of recreational activity. A leadership school is conducted at Red Deer each summer. Similar centres in our province provide clinics during certain seasons and assist in establishing leaders in various fields of sport activity.
We have a library section which administers the public libraries act and assist in encouraging the establishment and development of library facilities. The government also assists libraries financially. Various scholarships are offered to deserving talent within our province.
We would like to know why some of these funds are not made available to that level of government which is closest to the people. I for one should like to see a limit on the number of national agencies in this field because I do believe there is always a danger of duplication, and eventually the work is at cross purposes. Furthermore, we in the Social Credit group believe that federally directed lessons in culture are not the answer to this problem; in fact, the very reverse is true.
In his opening address on this matter the Prime Minister mentioned the various countries that have similar boards as an indication that perhaps we should follow the same plan. I was particularly interested in what he said with respect to the West German

Republic. I am quite familiar with the conditions in that country and I wish to assure the Prime Minister that the cultural effort in the West German Republic is on a decentralized basis and is the result of co-ordination and rationalization between the federal and the provincial governments, so to speak. I quote from the same book to which I referred a few moments ago:
Since 1949 the ministers of culture of the Laender are co-ordinated on a federal level by the permanent conference of cultural ministers. Where super-regional affairs are involved effecting several or all Laender, this conference is resolved, out of state-political and cultural historical motives, to see that its cultural-political work suffers no infringements by the Bund. Constitutionally, the ministers have at their disposal a federal organ in the cultural committee of the Bundesrat, through which they are able to voice and make felt their standpoint regarding federal cultural questions.
Farther on this quotation appears:
The goal is, to find a solution of the question of furthering super-regional art and cultural problems through co-ordination and rationalization between the Laender and the Bund which, while clearly defining the areas of interest of each, at the same time guarantee mutual and uniform cultural endeavours similar to those which have developed between the Laender and the communes. Hence the furtherance of scientific research is a task which must be carried out mutually by the Bund and the Laender. But despite the prevailing interest of the democratic state for such institutions, restriction of their independency and supervision of their intellectual freedom by the government must be avoided.
In concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I repeat, we believe the question of furthering our national cultural effort in Canada at this time can be best resolved through such coordination between the federal and the provincial governments, for the simple reason that the federal government cannot in any way, nor can the Canada Council, know the peculiar circumstances which prevail in the various communities of Canada. The cooperation of the provincial governments in this respect is an essential factor for that very reason.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Speaker:: Earlier this afternoon while the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) was addressing himself to the motion for second reading of this bill the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) interjected an expression which I did not grasp at the time but which I checked later and found to be as follows:
It is a preposterous lie.
I want to give instructions now that this expression be stricken from the record.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point is that the question of whether or not something should be removed from Hansard is surely a matter for the house to decide. I agree with Your Honour's position that the words should not have been uttered, but once they have been spoken should the member who uttered them have the protection of having those words taken out of Hansard? I think the proper course for Your Honour to follow would be to instruct the member to withdraw his statement or to make whatever other amends Your Honour might suggest.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot place my finger immediately on the ruling made by Mr. Speaker Black, I think in 1932, but I know it is there and it is upon my reliance on that ruling and the fact that I have taken similar action since becoming Speaker that I govern myself along the same line today. If I had grasped the expression at the time it was made of course the proper course would have been to ask the hon. member to withdraw it, but time has elapsed and I have checked it. It is a matter of order and subject to appeal that I decide that this is the course I should follow at this moment. If the hon. member thinks that an appeal should be made, as was done in the case a few years ago with the decision of Mr. Speaker Black, that of course is his right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I cannot put my finger on the actual ruling, but does Your Honour not recall during the 1956 session this matter was discussed at some length in connection with alterations that had been made in the record involving the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), and I am just mentioning that to identify the incident. My recollection of that discussion is that it was agreed then that alterations should not be made in the record except with the consent of the house and that either the

hon. member should rise to make the correction and if he was given leave then the correction might be made, or the record altered as the house felt proper. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that a deletion from the record, which is an alteration, cannot be made except with the consent of the house and that therefore the proper course would be to instruct the hon. member to withdraw.
I might point out also, sir, that you have followed a course in this connection on other occasions which, I am sure, all hon. members would agree is the proper course. You yourself have said: "I did not catch the expression,
I am therefore not going to make a ruling now as to whether or not it is correct but I will wait until I can check the record." And then Your Honour, having checked the record, has later suggested to hon. members that they should withdraw or modify the expression used. And I suggest to you, sir, with respect, that that is the course which should be followed here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago you gave as one reason in support of your proposed course of action the fact that you have done it several times this session. I recognize that you have done so, and perhaps I was at fault in not getting to my feet sooner on the occasions when you did it. But I felt then it was not proper, and I resolved that the next time it happened I would object. I submit for the consideration of Your Honour that if any hon. member says something which he should not say, he should not have the advantage of being able to say it and then have it struck from the record. It should be there to his discredit, if he has said something that he should not have said, together with the fact that he was called upon to withdraw what he said. Like my hon. friend the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) I was relying earlier on what Your Honour said with regard to the incident involving the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), namely that changes in Hansard should not be made without the consent of the house.
I feel very strongly, sir, that you should reconsider your course.


Mr. Speaker:: This seems merely to be playing with words, because whenever I make a ruling every hon. member of the house has the right of appeal; the decision is still in the hands of the house. And there is my authority for acting in the way I do. The hon. member will find a ruling of Mr. Speaker Black at page 802 of Beauchesne, third edition in which he said that he himself relied on the decision of Mr. Speaker Lemieux in 1925. On the occasion of that ruling the

then leader of the opposition had raised the same point as is now being raised; it was also raised last year by the leader of the opposition at that time, and this is the way in which I consider the matter should be settled.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very happy to change the wording so that it will be more parliamentary. If we had not been going quite so fast I think I would have said something else, such as: "the hon. member is entirely in error"; but we were going pretty fast and something had to be said.


Mr. Speaker:: With the assistance of the hon. gentleman the matter that was feared by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and by the hon. member for Kamloops has been eliminated. But I want to say that it is my opinion that Mr. Speaker Black did the right thing as reported in the ruling on page 802, and I think the Speaker of the House of Commons should be allowed on occasion to give instructions, in the house, that certain expressions be stricken from the record. This is, of course, as a matter of order subject to an appeal of his ruling.
Bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.


Howard Charles Green: The Prime Minister will recall that when we were debating the resolution stage of this measure I expressed some concern over the possibility of having parliament put too far out of the picture with regard to this Canada Council, and I would like to place before the Prime Minister this afternoon a few further thoughts on this particular point. As a matter of fact I am proposing to suggest an amendment when we reach section 23 to add at the end of that section the following words:
And provision shall be made for a review thereof by parliament.
Section 23 deals with the report, and these words would make it obligatory to have a review of the annual report. This may or may not be the proper way of meeting the situation, but I am mentioning it now in order that the Prime Minister may give some consideration to the possibility of an amendment either in the words I have suggested, or of a similar nature.
Under this legislation, Mr. Chairman, we are setting up an entirely new type of governmental body. There may be something similar, but I have been unable to recall anything which has the characteristics to be possessed by the Canada Council. Under the bill there
Canada Council
will be two funds, as I understand it

and if I am incorrect in any of these statements, perhaps the Prime Minister would set me right. There will be two funds, each in the sum of $50 million, one to be known as the university capital grants fund, which apparently is to be used for assisting the universities in their building programs, and the other to be called the endowment fund, only the interest of which is to be used. I understand from the Prime Minister that any contribution made by corporations or by private individuals could only be made to the endowment fund, and that it is not intended that there should be donations made to the university capital grants fund.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that if a donor or testator wanted to make a grant to the university capital grants fund, and it was accepted by the council, they would be bound by the terms and conditions specified by the testator or donor.


Howard Charles Green: Then there could also be donations or bequests made to the university capital grants fund.
In the course of the discussion thus far, very little has been said about providing scholarships from the endowment fund. The emphasis has been on assistance in the furtherance of culture. I am not quarrelling for one minute, Mr. Chairman, with the idea of payments being made to promote culture in Canada; I think that is a very worthy objective. But, as I understand the bill, there is also the power to use the proceeds of this fund for the granting of scholarships, both undergraduate and post-graduate, to Canadians and to scholars coming here from abroad.
The universities therefore come into the picture in two ways. First by assistance for their building projects from the $50 million fund and then they come into it by way of scholarships to needy students. I would hope that is not to be a minor part of the use made of the endowment fund.
The assistance to the universities is particularly important, of course, to all of us who are interested in Canadian universities from coast to coast. As to the university of British Columbia, those of us who are getting on in years were compelled to go to an eastern university in order to get a degree. Our university of British Columbia has been established for only about 40 years. Hence in that province we are now seeing the full benefit from a university. I can remember the day when there were few university graduates in the whole province. We now have graduates

Canada Council
of our own university in every centre in the province and giving splendid leadership in every field.
The chancellor of the University of British Columbia is the Honourable Chief Justice Sherwood Lett who was one of the graduates in the early days. Under his leadership and under the leadership of Dr. Norman A. M. MacKenzie as president wonderful things are being done by that university in spite of great difficulties. They have the second largest enrolment in Canada and are greatly handicapped by lack of buildings. They have students coming there from all over the world. I think they are contributing not only to our province but to the whole of the nation and, in fact, in a much wider field. This measure of assistance that will be provided by this bill is therefore of the utmost importance to the University of British Columbia and to the people of that province.
I am sorry that opposition has been expressed in just the way it has been done in the course of this debate. However, I think the Prime Minister will agree with me that parliament must be kept in the closest touch with this whole project. That provision is necessary, of course, in respect of every body that is set up by parliament. It is a sound principle that parliament must have the opportunity to check most carefully what is done by all of these governmental bodies. That principle applies particularly with regard to the Canada Council because it will depend for its success not only on the personnel, the men and women who are appointed, but also on a thorough understanding of its work by the Canadian people and the deepest sort of sympathy with that work.
1 do not know how such objectives can be achieved if provision is not made for discussion in parliament of the work of the council. If we simply set aside $100 million, then the government appoints the members of the council and they proceed with their work, the general public-the people of Canada as a whole-will be quite unable to follow what is being done. Antagonisms may be built up. There may be criticisms of the work of the council which cannot be met. The proper way in which to remedy that situation is to make certain that parliament reviews the work of the council every year.
If the bill goes through in its present form, there will be no item in the estimates for the Canada Council unless the government should see fit to bring in a vote annually. I suppose we could question the minister who is responsible for the Council when the first item of his estimates is under discussion. However, that is an unsatisfactory way in which to deal with the situation. Many other
[Mr. Green.l
items under that minister's supervision will be discussed on the first item and we could not have a proper debate on the work of the Canada Council. One way of bringing about a satisfactory result would be to show in the estimates a vote for the Canada Council just in the same way that we show a vote for atomic energy or for the national research council. They are both listed as separate votes, as the Prime Minister knows. They are not listed under any particular minister. They appear as separate votes and they have to be dealt with as such. Hence there can be, for example, a full discussion on the work of the national research council when the estimates for that council are called.
If an amendment of the type I have mentioned is made to the bill, I think we can be certain that every year there will be a debate on the work of the Canada Council. The danger is not next year perhaps or the year after that; but as time goes on, it will become all the more important that there has been some method of keeping parliament closely in contact with what is being done by this new council. I therefore hope that the Prime Minister will see that the bill is amended to meet this particular situation.


Mr. Eudes:: Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to bring to your attention and, through you, to that of the Prime Minister a thought which in my humble opinion seems to be an essential in the purposes that the government seeks to accomplish in this bill. According to the preamble, the purpose of this bill is to encourage the arts, humanities and social sciences. Clause 1, the short title, in the English text reads as follows:
1. This act may be cited as the Canada Council Act.
In the French version it reads as follows:
1. La presente loi peut etre citee sous le titre: Loi sur le Conseil des Arts du Canada.
I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, whether it would not be possible to have in or to add to the title the word "Arts" so as to make a distinction between other councils that may now exist or may have existed in the past and this one.
Now, we have a precedent in Great Britain. On August 9, 1946, a royal charter was granted to the arts council of Great Britain. I am still wondering why we should not call this council the Canadian Arts Council. This is submitted very humbly to you, Mr. Chairman.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 1 carry?
Clause 2?


Ernest George Hansell: Following what the hon.
member has just said, I may say that submitting this to you, Mr. Chairman, does not

finalize anything. All he is doing is submitting it to you as a suggestion. It seems to me that it would be necessary for him to move an amendment to that effect, that the council may be cited as the Canadian Arts Council. I think that we in this group would agree with that amendment if he cares to make it.


Raymond Pierre Eudes: I did not move any amendment.


William Alfred Robinson: No amendment was moved, and no amendment is before the committee. I thought that clause 1 had carried and I was giving the floor to the hon. member on clause 2.


Ernest George Hansell: I thought the hon. member who just spoke was talking on clause 1. He must have been talking on it after it was carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Ernest George Hansell: Then, if he was not, it was not carried.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for
Macleod on clause 2.


Ernest George Hansell: No, I am on clause 1, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: It is carried.


Ernest George Hansell: It could not be carried if I was on my feet before it was carried. I am not too much concerned about it, but a thing is not carried when someone is on his feet. I am just going to suggest that if the hon. member who preceded me wants the name changed it should be done in the form of an amendment. If he is not going to do that, it is all right. I am not too much concerned about it.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2-The Arts Defined.


Ernest George Hansell: Clause 2 is an interpretative clause defining the term "the arts". I do not think we have any objection to the interpretation given here, but the purpose of the bill is to encourage the arts, humanities and social sciences. I am wondering why no interpretation is given to th!e other two branches, the humanities and social sciences. So far as I can see, there is more need for an interpretation of the humanities and social sciences than there is any need for an interpretation of what is meant by the arts. I think almost everyone would agree that we know what "the arts" means.
While I am speaking on that, may I remind you, Mr. Chairman, that the other day when we were in committee I had something to say about the social sciences. I think we need to interpret that a little
Canada Council
bit because the term "social sciences" can take in a lot of territory, so much territory that perhaps the council will be embarking on some form of work which is in reality none of its business. I know something about the social science textbooks that are used in some of our schools. I have not been a father trying to care for my children's education without reading some of the social science books which come to my home. I must say that I am not enamoured of some of the things that are taught in social science.
When we were in committee a few days ago I read a paragraph from a book which I have, entitled "Education or Indoctrination", in which something is said with respect to the social science textbook. The paragraph reads:
In 1940 Dr. Raply Robey made an examination of 600 social science textbooks in high schools. He declared, "A substantial portion of the social science textbooks now used in high schools tend to criticize our form of government, and hold in derision or contempt the system of private enterprise . . . There is a notable tendency in the books to play down what has been accomplished in this country and to stress the defects of our democracy."
It is that sort of thing to which I object. However, in this clause we are discussing the interpretation of the arts. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I think if the council were only concerned with the arts as described in clause 2, we would not have had as much to say as we had. I do not think the attitude that this group took would have been the same. It is to some of the other things that are not interpreted in this clause that we have taken objection in our speeches.
May I ask the Prime Minister why it is that the other two branches of the work of this council, the humanities and social sciences, are not given an interpretation in this bill as the expression "the arts" has been?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It was considered that the term "the arts" should be defined so as not to extend it beyond those arts that it was intended should be fostered by the Canada Council. The other expressions, the humanities and social sciences, have a recognized and accepted meaning in the academic world. I notice that in the academic world the term humanities includes such studies as history, literature, foreign languages, philosophy and related subjects; that is the generally accepted meaning that is given to this term in the universities. I think the term "social sciences" is generally taken to mean the study of anthropology, economics, geography, law-not municipal law, but law in its

Canada Council
general, broad application-political science, psychology, sociology and the related subjects.
I would not think that the Canada Council would have any jurisdiction whatever to determine the textbooks that would be used in high schools in connection with the study of the social sciences; that is something that would be outside of their jurisdiction. The purpose would be for the council to encourage the study and development of the arts, humanities and social sciences in their broad aspects, as they affect the enjoyment of life in an organized, civilized society. It was not considered that it would be necessary to describe the humanities or the social sciences, but it was felt that the arts should be defined in a way that would include those things that we in our generation recognize to be the arts. The definition includes the arts of the theatre. Well, the arts of the theatre are the drama, the opera, even the ballet, those things that are provided for the enjoyment of the audiences that attend the theatre; architecture, the arts of the theatre, literature, music, painting, sculpture, the graphic arts, and other similar creative and interpretative activities are mentioned.
There was no attempt made to restrict the objectives, but as the phrase "the arts" is used in describing the objects of the Canada Council, it was felt there should be an indication there that it covered quite a wide field of these interpretative and creative activities that do give so much enjoyment to people generally.


Ernest George Hansell: My simple point is this. To my way of thinking the term "the arts" is in much less need of interpretation than are the humanities and social services which have not been interpreted.


John Horne Blackmore: This is an example. We have heard a great deal about the cold war.


An hon. Member:: What is that?


John Horne Blackmore: I think probably you
would not know. You have been here all the way through and have been asleep.
I suppose there are very few people in Canada or in the United States who have the slightest idea of what are the principles upon which the so-called cold war is based. All we know is-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Certainly not on art.


John Horne Blackmore: It will be on science. There is no doubt about it that science is imperative. The Prime Minister mentioned political science. Well, if it is not a political science, then I would be greatly amazed. They just make our people completely sitting ducks.
[Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East).)
They say and do things that make us follow right along and eat out of their hands. Now, all the techniques which go together to constitute the science of cold war certainly constitute a social science. It is new, but we have not seen the last of it.
Here is another phrase called "brainwashing". It is very common and how it is done requires careful study because it is accomplished through a very definite technique and that again is a social science.
I do not know whether or not the Prime Minister mentioned biology as one of the social sciences. Well, I have studied biology and I happened to have the privilege of teaching biology in the high schools of Alberta for a great many years. In the science of biology every single biology text was plentifully supplied with pictures which indoctrinated the students with the idea that evolution is true, and there was never a single word in any of those texts to guide the students so they could see the respects in which the evidence was against evolution. Well, now, anything that will establish in the mind of the growing child that God did not create this world is certainly undermining religion and the undermining of religion is one of the objectives of UNESCO. Anyone who thinks that is not true just does not know; he is an innocent abroad.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not
know that such is the case.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, it is time the Prime Minister found out; there is no doubt about that.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I shall have to find out otherwise than through accepting the hon. gentleman's word for it.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, the Prime Minister listens to advice far less dependable than the advice he is getting from me now. I will tell him that; there is no question about that. I would not be surprised if I could give him five or six times as good advice about the matter we are talking about as the Prime Minister has ever had at any time in the past. While we are at it, may I just ask the Prime Minister whether he thinks the great church of which he has the honour to be a member will want to have an establishment set up under which the children of Canada will be indoctrinated against God or the creation?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think the hon. gentleman's question is quite ridiculous.


John Horne Blackmore: It is all right for the Prime Minister to rise and make a smart aleck remark like that, but I will tell him that there is nothing ridiculous about it. It is going on now in Canadian schools from coast to

coast and the only schools in which it is not going on, I am proud to say, are the separate schools conducted by the Catholic church. There is no doubt about that. The Prime Minister cannot talk to me about this thing; I have been right through it and have taught in the schools.


Mr. Bennett:: The hon. member does not know what he is talking about.


John Horne Blackmore: If the hon. member knew one-half as much about what he is saying as I know about what I am saying he would be an ornament to this house instead of the reverse. That is the kind of thing we have to keep in mind. This kind of thing, Mr. Chairman, is in action down in the United States. They have had so much difficulty there that, as the hon. member for Macleod pointed out with documentation the other night, whole states have banned the activities of UNESCO because they were accomplishing just exactly the objectives which I am complaining about at the present time.
Now, here is another little thing, the tendency to make the child think that his father and mother are old dodderers or old fuddy-duddies. They are all wet, so to speak, to use the common expression. Now, that is actually being indoctrinated into schools which are under the influence of UNESCO.
Having said that, I shall reserve what I have to say in addition until a later time.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 3-Establishment of Council.
Mr. Hamilton (York West):: Is there anything mandatory in this clause that 19 persons be appointed to this council, or do I understand properly from reading this that it will be possible that only three or four people might be on this council? I see nothing, Mr. Chairman, in later provisions dealing with the quorum and I wonder whether the Prime Minister reads it the same way as I do?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, I would not be a party to attempting to set up a Canada Council that did not have practically a full complement of members provided by parliament. I would feel that I would be in a very embarrassing position in parliament if after a section like this were adopted there was an attempt to set up a council with anything less than perhaps-well, I would not say what the percentage would be-90 per cent of those. There might be some difficulty about the choice of one member. I would think that originally there should be one member for every one of the 10 provinces in Canada. I do not think it would be proper for the government or for 82715-83
Canada Council
parliament to imply that there was any province in Canada whose culture was not sufficiently important to require that it have representation on the Canada Council. It might be that because of some difficulty with respect to one of the provinces the full complement was not ready and instead of being set up with the 21 members that are provided for it might be set up with 18, 19 or 20 members. If I were still Prime Minister I would not like to have to explain why the full complement was not immediately provided or why there was a vacancy that was allowed to exist in the Canada Council for any length of time.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Prime Minister's views and I certainly accept his word that as far as he is concerned it would be the intention to fill the vacancies on the Canada Council as soon as the properly qualified people were available for appointments. I am not offering an amendment but I am wondering if the Prime Minister might accept the idea that perhaps we should set out here that a quorum might consist of a certain number of members. It is possible that one part of the country may feel affronted at times in connection with its representation on the council. This problem would be at least partially solved by specifying what constitutes a quorum.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might ask the Prime Minister the basis upon which the appointments are to be made. Is due recognition going to be given to the service of the individual to the arts in his province? What is the general basis upon which the members of the council shall be appointed?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, there will be an effort made to select appointees for the council when it is set up who will tend to give it the greatest possible prestige among those who are especially interested in the activities of the council. It will not be possible to have representatives of each branch of the arts or of each branch of the humanities and the social sciences. I would not want to have these appointments looked upon by the Canadian public as a sort of substitute for a Canada medal for those who had already deserved one for their efforts in promoting the arts, humanities or the social sciences. I think the appointees should be chosen for what we might expect would be their contribution to the effort of fostering the further development of the arts, humanities and the social sciences.
In line with the question put to me by the hon. member I would just like to add that I took note of the remarks made yesterday by the hon. member for Dauphin. I would not

Canada Council
want to say that every racial group should be represented because one is of that racial group but I would hope that for all time no one would be excluded because of his racial origin. I think that should be the rule with respect to these public services that are performed for the whole Canadian nation. It should not have to be that one should be appointed because he is of a certain racial group but rather that no one should be excluded because of the racial origin of his ancestry.


Mr. Low:: Mr. Chairman, there are many people in the country, of course, who look on the establishment of the Canada Council as one more step in the centralization of power and administration in the federal government. There are many people who are concerned lest it become another instrument for intruding a federal hand into provincial affairs. While we were considering section 3 it occurred to us that some amendment could be made which would perhaps go some distance toward allaying the fears of many people in that regard.
In answer to a question a moment ago I heard the Prime Minister say that it would be the intention of the governor in council to appoint a representative to the council from each province. I think that would be quite proper but I believe it would be better if the governor in council could select nine appointees and allow the provincial governments to name a representative to the council from their province. This would permit them to feel they had some representation on the council that would see to it that full consideration was given to the desires of the province. In my judgment it would be a great protection and comfort to the Prime Minister if he were to have the provinces tied into the council as partners. For that reason I move the following amendment:
That all the words after the word "members" in the fifth line be deleted and the following words substituted:
"Nine of which shall be appointed by the governor in council and one to be appointed by each of the provincial governments".
I would urge that the Prime Minister give very careful consideration to that amendment which I think would clear away many of his problems.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid the ultimate result would be just the opposite of what the hon. gentleman has in mind. I feel that what we are endeavouring to do, namely set up a body that would not be subject to partisan political consideration would not be assisted at all by having one appointee to represent each of the ten provincial governments. I believe we

should choose an appointee from each province, not as representing the province but rather as being a qualified person residing in each of the ten provinces. Such an appointee would be apt to have more intimate knowledge of the conditions in the province in which he resided than would others who might reside elsewhere. I would imagine that my friend the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra would have a more intimate knowledge of what was the situation in regard to the activities in which this council would be engaged in British Columbia than would someone who resided in Prince Edward Island or in Newfoundland. I think a qualified person residing in each of the provinces should be chosen but I do not think they should be on the council to act, as it were, as the mouthpiece of the provincial government. I do not think this would make for the kind of operation that would be generally regarded in any part of the country as being above party politics.


Solon Earl Low: I listened carefully and I think sympathetically to what the Prime Minister had to say in opposition to the motion I have made. I hope no words of mine conveyed the idea that I thought that each of these members of the council who would be appointed by provincial governments would be looked upon as being a representative of a provincial government. Can the Prime Minister maintain that position in the light of the fact that the government is going to appoint nineteen? Are we to assume that, when the government of Canada appoints nineteen, those appointees will be representatives of the federal government? Not at all, and I am not interpreting it that way.
I believe that each provincial government is just as likely to choose a representative of the people of that province as the Prime Minister and his government would be likely to choose nineteen people. I shall go further. We do not suggest by any means that they be mouthpieces of the governments. We want them to be truly representative of the people of the province. I think they are more likely to represent the people of the province and the will of the people if they are selected by a body which represents the province in the government of this country.
I have every faith in every one of the provincial governments and in their ability to select someone who is fully qualified. I feel sure he would be a representative of the people of a province and not a mouthpiece of the government. Certainly he would be in a far better position to judge whether the things done by the Canada Council were in the interests of the people. If you have nine of them appointed by some body other than

the governor in council you will have at least a fair-sized body of opinion on the Canada Council which would be watching more carefully to see that things are done in the interests of the people themselves and not of the government that appoints the whole council.
That is my position and I feel that the Prime Minister's objections cannot be maintained as valid arguments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, we feel there is another objection that can be taken to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River. We agree with the objections stated by the Prime Minister so I do not need to repeat them, but the other objection is that this council must be representative, not only of the entire country and therefore of all the provinces but also so far as possible of the various branches of the arts, humanities and the social sciences. It seems to me that if we are going to have eleven different bodies, the federal government and the ten provincial governments, appointing members we might find ourselves with a council loaded with people interested in the theatre but with no one interested in literature or sculpture or in certain humanities or social sciences.
It seems to me that the appointment of this council has to be made on a broad basis to be sure that all the different interests involved in the purposes of the council are represented. As one who thinks that an awful lot of things should be put down in the law, I do feel that there are some things in this country that we can take for granted, and one is that a body of this kind to be appointed by any federal government will include representatives of all the provinces.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be really mean, but I think you would find a right good dyed-in-the-wool Liberal in every province who could be selected to act on this council, and you could find a right good dyed-in-the-wool one-worlder in every province, one who is working for the dictatorship of the world. You could find one like that in every province.


William McLean Hamilton: You
would not find a Social Crediter in every province.


John Horne Blackmore: I think likely you could. This is serious from the standpoint of absolute administration. Before we get finished I am going to quote some evidence to show that in the United States UNESCO has just absolutely gone red clear through and through.


The Deputy Chairman:: I wonder if the hon. member will bear with me while I point out that there is a clause in the bill 82715-83J
Canada Council
dealing with the council's connection with UNESCO. At the moment we are dealing with an amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River which has as its intention that ten members of this council shall be appointed by the ten provincial governments. I suggest that the discussion at this stage should be directed entirely to the manner of the appointment of those ten members and not to matters which will be decided and discussed by the council, which come under a different clause.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to deviate from the path of rectitude in this respect, but we might just as well be forewarned. What has happened in ten years in the United States is just exactly the kind of thing that could and in all probability would happen in Canada. There is one difficulty that arises and the proposal of the hon. member for Peace River is a safeguard against it. There are little cliques among the higher-ups in almost every nation.


Solon Earl Low: Eggheads.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member for
Peace River says "Eggheads". That is an expression I have not used, but I shall learn to use it. There are people who consider themselves to be the intelligentsia, people who work together world-wide with their friends toward a certain goal. They have been at it for many generations. These people could gain absolute control of this council just by putting the right kind of pressure on certain places in Ottawa. There would be no way in which the provinces could modify or influence that trend.
What the hon. member for Peace River has proposed is one little safeguard. There is no use our discussing UNESCO and then before we get to UNESCO tying the hands of the governments so they cannot do the things that ought to be done or use the kind of safeguard this amendment provides against perversion and subversion.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, there is another point about this amendment I should like to bring out. I stand ready to be corrected, but I believe most provincial governments have a department or branch dealing with cultural matters. The provincial governments and the people of the provinces are just as interested in the cultural arts and humanities and social sciences as is this government. I cannot think that they would be less favourable to the appointment of someone who had no political affiliation than would this government. I do not think that a provincial government would necessarily go out and appoint someone of its particular political stripe. I think they would appoint

Canada Council
someone who they thought was most able and most adapted to the appointment.
There is one thing. The government here is going to appoint nine members, even if this amendment should carry, plus an additional three appointments, or a total of twelve appointments. Surely, out of 22 appointments the sovereign government of a province should have the right to make one? One in 23 is not asking too much.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. gentleman is making a mistake, I am sure it is involuntary. The number is 21 over all-19, plus the chairman and vice-chairman. It is not 22 or 23. It is 21.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, it is 21, including the director.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The director is not a member of the council.


Ernest George Hansell: Well, he will have a lot to do with it just the same. They meet several times a year. They do not do the actual work; the council does the actual work. I think it will be something like the board of governors of the C.B.C. The management carries on the actual work, but the board of governors meets occasionally to give advice, look over financial statements and listen to grievances. I imagine something similar will happen in the case of the Canada Council. All I am saying is that to ask that the provincial governments should each have the right to appoint one to a council with a directorate of 21 is not asking too much.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, rightly or
wrongly, this Canada Council is being set up by the dominion government, and that government is accepting full responsibility; and in view of that fact I doubt very much the wisdom of turning round and saying that the provinces must appoint a certain number of members to the council. I suggest that the government here must be kept responsible for the work of the council. No doubt, the provincial governments are all interested, but it is not their responsibility. They are not being asked to accept any responsibility under this bill; why should they be asked to become half responsible by appointing one member each to the council?


Solon Earl Low: So that we won't all be fugitives from the brain gang.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it would not be very efficient organization to set up a council of that type, with the dominion appointing a certain number of members and each of ten provinces appointing one. After all, this is not a dominion-federal

project; it is a dominion project, and I think that if only for the benefit of those who may wish to criticize this council, and criticize it very seriously in the years that lie ahead, it would be far wiser to keep it as a dominion council; and then any mistakes that are going to be made are going to be mistakes of the government of Canada for the time being and not the mistakes of Newfoundland, or Alberta, or British Columbia or any of the provincial governments.


Solon Earl Low: There would not be many mistakes if the provinces have something to do with it.


Howard Charles Green: I am not so sure of that. Even the province of British Columbia makes some mistakes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: "Mistakes" is a mild word.


Howard Charles Green: It would not bring about good legislation to adopt an amendment of this kind.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, I was a little surprised to hear the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra make the remark he did. He has sat here for a number of years. I will just use an illustration which everyone here will understand. He is familiar with the C.B.C. How many times has he heard anyone in this house rise and call any particular member of the C.B.C. organization to responsibility? How many times has he seen that happen?
Last spring the hon. member for Peace River very effectively brought before this house an instance of an absolute outrage- a matter involving a play. The name has slipped my memory, but the whole thing was an outrage against the Canadian people and the people of the United States as well. How do we know who it was that made the decision that that play should go on the air? We do not know to this day. Do you think we can find out? How many people have tried to find out? If the hon. member for Peace River had not brought this matter up, how would anyone have learned about it? Let us not imagine that we will be able to pick out individual members of this council and call them to question with regard to mistakes they may have made. It is impossible for us to find out exactly who makes certain decisions in the C.B.C., and that is very serious.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I just want to add one word, Mr. Chairman. I agree entirely with the argument used by my hon. friend from Vancouver-Quadra, but I do not take such a dark view as our colleague to the left about this government.

While he said that the whole 19 would be Grits, I think there might be only 18.


Ernest George Hansell: I have just one word to add. It occurs to me, Mr. Speaker, that there has to be a sort of balance here. It seems to me that the Prime Minister and the government object to the provincial governments appointing one director because a provincial influence would thus be brought to bear upon the activities of the council. But let us remember this: the very nature of the work of the council in the arts, in the humanities and in the sciences, is going to be done in such a way as to permeate and influence the local groups, the schools, and the universities which come under provincial jurisdiction. This is the attitude which the government takes; it is all right for the work of the council to influence provincial education and provincial groups which are concerned with the arts and sciences, but we must not have provincial members appointed to the directorate.


John Horne Blackmore: Just one word, Mr. Chairman with reference to the hon. member for Greenwood. The hon. member for Greenwood is all optimism. Just about ten years ago he was all optimism about the Bretton Woods agreement.


An hon. Member:: That old chestnut.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, of course, a chestnut but-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I have no desire to interfere with the line of thought of any hon. member, but I do not think I would be within my rights if I permitted a discussion on the Canada Council, the arts and the social sciences to become a discussion on the Bretton Woods agreement.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

Canada Council
Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 7; nays, 47.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I declare the
amendment lost. Shall clause 3 carry?


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, before the supper recess I had spoken in connection with some misgivings I had about the fact that it might be possible to carry on the work of this council with a group far below the number provided in the clause, namely the chairman, the vice-chairman and 19 other persons. The Prime Minister said he felt that would not be the case so long as he had anything to do with the appointments and that it would be most unfortunate for anyone else who might attempt to carry on in any other manner. I might suggest that he might consider an amendment which would make it mandatory for a minimum number to be included. If he is not so inclined I myself would make a motion to have a minimum of 16 be the figure set.


An hon. Member:: Do you mean for a quorum or what?


John Borden Hamilton: No. It does not deal with the question of the quorum for meetings. I think that matter would be referred to under clause 11. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra:
mat clause 3 of the bill be amended in line 12 thereof by adding at the end of the said line the following words "and not less than sixteen".
That would mean that the clause would now read:
3. A corporation is hereby established, to be known as the Canada Council, ... in this act called the "council", consisting of a chairman and vice-chairman and not more than nineteen or less than sixteen other members, to be appointed by the Governor in Council as provided in section 4.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The question is on the amendment. Is the committee ready for the question?
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The committee is discussing clause 3 and the amendment thereto by the hon. member for Peace River. Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?


Ernest George Hansell: Prior to the dinner recess did I understand the Prime Minister to say that the 19 other members were not members of the council?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Chairman. I said that the director was not a member of the council.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is the Prime Minister going to comment on it?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not
think it is necessary but I do not think it would be at all embarrassing to have that though it might be something of a temptation to carry on with 16 instead of 19. That was the first suggestion in the drafts we considered. After considering what representation there should be of regions and what representations might be required of the different activities to be engaged in by the council, the number 19 was suggested. There was no thought that it would be a smaller council than the 21. The only implication that there might be here was that the council

Canada Council
could be considered as complete if made up of 16 members in addition to the chairman and the vice-chairman. There could be no serious objection to that. At least in our contemplation at present there will be an effort to make it up of 21 members, 19 plus the chairman and the vice-chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask the learned member who moved the amendment and the learned member who has just spoken to it whether the amendment achieves the purpose which the sponsor has in mind. As I read the clause as amended it would then declare that either a total of 18 or a total of 21 would be a full complement but it still does not say that they all must be appointed. As I understood my hon. friend, his concern was that the full complement might not be appointed and yet the council would be permitted to carry on. If I understand the language used, it does not seem to me that this amendment achieves the purpose that the hon. member for York West has in mind.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the
objective that the hon. member has in mind were achieved, it might be embarrassing. It might happen that four of the members would resign or disappear at the same time and there would be no corporate body in existence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or even die and leave large estates.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That might be a possible though perhaps rather improbable difficulty. I think we will be prepared to consider the suggestion that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra made when he was talking about clause 1. If the reports have to be tabled and provision has to be made for their being reviewed by parliament, it seems to me that that would provide an opportunity for rapping the knuckles of any government that was not active in keeping the complement sufficient.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I should like to ask a question. The amendment says "not less than 16". If you can get along without 16, then you would have to have 16.


Frederick George Hahn: Did I understand the Prime Minister to say earlier that the object in having 19 is that cabinet council expects to name one from each province? Is that the purpose behind the number 19?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We came to the conclusion that it might be regarded as offensive to any province not to have at least one member of the council a resident of that province and that would already require ten. Then for the representation that it might be desirable to have of the various activities in which the council would be engaged, it

was felt that the number 19 would make it easier to organize a council that would be representative both regionally and in the light of the activities that are provided for in the objectives of the council.


John Borden Hamilton: If there is going to be any question about the meaning of the word "sixteen" then I would withdraw this amendment.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 3
carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
On clause 6-Remuneration and allowances.
Ernest George Hansell: I do not want to beg the question and I do not know that it is necessary to write it into the legislation, but to my knowledge we have not yet heard what the salaries of these various officials will be. I hope it is not out of order or repulsive in any way for me to ask that question. Perhaps we could have information as to what it is expected the salaries or remuneration will be for these particular employees, the chairman, vice-chairman, directors and so forth?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not
think it would be appropriate to fix in a definite way in the statute what the salaries would be. I would not expect that for some considerable time there would be other fulltime members of the administration than the director and the assistant director. I would not think the salaries would be large. I do not think those who would be occupying these offices would wish the salaries to be more than what would be apt to cover the expenses that the chairman and vice-chairman will be necessarily incurring in travelling about in the course of the discharge of their duties. I would not expect the salaries would be looked on as other than a sort of honorarium out of which they could provide the necessary expenses that they will incur.
There certainly will be some entertaining it will be appropriate for them to provide, and I do not think they would care to have to make charges for that. If the chairman or vice-chairman were entertaining in Ottawa the president or officers of universities, I do not think they would want to be putting in small chits of that kind for entertainment. I would expect that it would be an honorarium that would be fixed at an amount that would appear to be entirely reasonable under these circumstances. I do not think it would

be appropriate to try to provide the kind of salary for the chairman and vice-chairman that would be their principal source of income because that might be a rather large figure. I feel this would be regarded as a position perhaps comparable to that of the president of a university and certainly the person should be one who would be qualified to occupy that kind of position. I do not think that the salaries should be that kind of a person's chief source of income.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: There is just a point of clarification here. The clause mentions the chairman, vice-chairman, director and associate director. What is the difference between the functions of the chairman and vice-chairman, and director and associate director?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The director and associate director will be the heads of the office. It is not intended, at least at the start, to ask the chairman or vice-chairman to devote the whole of their time to the activities of the council. The director and associate director would be the secretariat and would devote the whole of their time to their duties in that connection.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 7-Staff.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question about clause 7. It says:
The council may appoint and pay the remuneration and expenses of the employees and the technical and professional advisers necessary . . .
This is my question. I had conceived that the members of this council would be people who would be interested, and probably expert in, the matters with which the council will deal. Are these technical and professional advisers to be people who, from time to time, would be consulted or are they to be part of the staff?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: My conception is that they would be from time to time consultants. They would be asked to look into a certain question. For instance, they might be asked to prepare a memorandum on the pictures for a gallery or something of that kind. If they are professionals in that work, they would naturally expect to get an honorarium for what they were asked to do.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 8-Objects and 'powers.
Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I notice in subsection (1) of clause 8, paragraph (a), it says: assist, co-operate with and enlist the aid of organizations, the object of which are similar to any of the objects of the council;
Canada Council
I am particularly glad that this is stated quite definitely in view of the brush I had with my hon. friends to the left this afternoon who were insisting that this was somehow a supergovernment or state culture agency which would not pay too much attention to local organizations in the promotion, as it were, of grass roots efforts. I may say I am just as much interested in the promotion of grass roots efforts as they are. I am glad to see that this is mentioned here specifically.
I have things in mind, of course, and one thinks at once of drama as initiated at Stratford. One thinks too of things like the little theatre in smaller places. I had already mentioned, speaking of my own province although there are lots of things in other provinces of the same nature, the art galleries in Regina. I think this clause is pretty much a refutation of any assertion by anybody that this particular council is going to force upon people some type of culture or something sinister that they do not like. In other words these natural cultures which grow out of the grass roots are going to be encouraged with financial assistance by this council and I think that is desirable.
I just mentioned that in passing, but I do wish to say a word about subsection (2):
The governor in council may assign to the council such functions and duties in relation to the United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organization as he considers desirable.
As the Prime Minister, I even flatter myself, may remember, I have been for some years concerned about the fact-in my opinion it is a fact

that Canada has not been taking advantage of the facilities furnished by this international organization. You will recall, sir, that about 10 years ago, when this organization was set up, Canada was one of the,
I do not know whether enthusiastic signatories, but certainly a signatory, and at the charter meeting I think it was generally understood that the delegates of the nations participating would come back here and initiate the setting up of some sort of national commission. I would suggest, sir, that some of the fear, for example, that has been expressed by my hon. friends that this organization got into the hands of people who they say were subversive or indulged in brain-washing actually came about through ignorance and through non-participation by Canada in that organization. I would suggest to my hon. friends that if they had any suspicion-and no doubt they have-that their assertions are in fact true the proper way to remedy that situation is not to sit on the outside and criticize but to get into the organization and help to make it into the kind of organization they would hope it should be.

Canada Council
As to the object of this particular organization, I, like other Canadians, am not well-informed because we have had no opportunity to take part in its deliberations. I have blamed the government at times for sending to the conference on their own hook, as it were, people who looked as though they were just ad hoc appointments. For the most part they have been civil servants and civil servants from the Department of External Affairs.
I have no fault to find with that because, for various reasons, they would appear to be the appropriate civil servants, but I was not satisfied with that kind of delegation. May I say I have been much more satisfied with the kind of delegation that went last year, and that includes the hon. member for Victoria, British Columbia, who was a member of the group, a man who is eminently qualified by experience and knowledge to participate in this sort of thing.
Now, in regard to this matter of UNESCO, in order that members might inform themselves on some of its functions, its aims and its history, I would like to recommend to hon. members and to the public an article which appeared some time ago in the Queen's Quarterly. The article was reproduced in the paper which I hold in my hand, Canadian Labour, which is an official journal of the Canadian Labour Congress. The article in question was written by Dr. J. R. Kidd and I propose in the few remarks that I hope to make to develop as it were what I have to say from the particular headings that I find in this article.
I can dispose of my hon. friend from Victoria, British Columbia, and get him off my hands, as it were, by quoting a word or two from what he had to say in his very fine speech on January 16, 1957, as recorded in Hansard at pages 306 and 307. I do not know whether the hon. member would go so far as I would go in respect to criticism of his government and say that we have not at the top level taken sufficient interest in this organization. But I noticed several things that my hon. friend said. He said that owing to his visit to this particular conference it had increased his knowledge of other people. Well, sir, I am as loyal and patriotic to my own country as anyone else, but I have a larger patriotism and I am not ashamed to admit it, and that is to the human race. The other thing that the hon. member for Victoria, British Columbia, said and with which I agree is this:
This association is one of the instruments of peace.
That is the second thing. Then, he says something about its reason for existence. He said:

It exists because its members believe that the way to peace is by fostering a more complete understanding of one another, and that this objective can be achieved through education, science and culture.
These last words of his bring us back to the study of the subject with which we are here concerned, namely, this bill which has as its object the promotion of education and of culture. But this organization simply extends what might be a purely national thing into the realm of internationalism with other countries and other peoples.
Let me say at once that while I can sympathize with my hon. friends to my left for being a little nettled, or a little worried that people from other countries of different ideological beliefs which are not the same as our own should be members of that organization,
I do not think you can avoid that. I say that it is a poor principle, a poor doctrine, a poor religion or a poor system of government which cannot stand on its own feet and which cannot stand to be studied and put before the people. If there is something fundamentally wrong about it then the good common sense of the people will reject it, but let us hear all sides of every question. I developed that this afternoon and I shall not weary the committee any further with it. In the article of Dr. Kidd which I propose to analyse briefly, he makes this assertion, and may I say that this article was written some time ago. The pamphlet was put out in December, 1956. He asserts:
But Canada's participation in UNESCO's affairs is still half-hearted.
I have already dealt with that, and I am glad that in the provisions set out here and in this clause of the bill there is some provision by which our participation may be somewhat fuller and more interesting, because there is a provision set out here stating that the council itself or the committee set up by the council may act in lieu or in the place of, if you like, the national commission that the founders of the thing certainly visualized.
There is another thing about this idea that this is some sort of subversive, suspect or sinister organization; and to my hon. friends who are constantly looking for communistic influences I might point out this small quotation from Dr. Kidd's speech or argument, in which he says this:
Canada shares with the Soviet union and three other countries out of 73 member states the distinction of having so far refused to establish some form of commission although the obligation to do so is written into the charter of UNESCO.
I understand that the number of the states has now been increased to 80. This article is perhaps a trifle out of date, but Dr. Kidd stated that 73 was the total, and only five of them, including the Soviet union, with

Canada Council
whom we share the reluctance, have not weary the house by reading all of this mate-joined the organization. One of the accusa- rial because it is set out in detail but I tions that have been brought against this should like to mention one or two things, organization by my hon. friends is that it is The article proceeds to give a little history subversive and yet the communists and the of the organization. It says:
Russian people say it is practically run by the external affairs department of the United States.
Let us look at the men who are interested in this organization and served at the head of it. I wonder if even my hon. friends in the Social Credit party would suggest that the Right Hon. Vincent Massey, Dr. R. C. Wallace, then principal of Queen's University, or Edouard Turcotte, editor of Le Canada are the type of men who would lend their names, their reputations or their assistance to any organization which was subversive?
I do not know how enthusiastic the Prime Minister has been about this organization. I have tried to find out through the years whether he was personally opposed to it or whether there were political or some other influences at work which prevented him from encouraging full participation in this organization. That is not my business and it is not the business of the Prime Minister to tell me. However, I shall quote from a speech he made at the time he endorsed participation by Canada in the organization. He said:
It is desired to have some Canadian body that will be widely representative of the Canadian public and that will be entirely divorced from partisan political influence, to make this a matter in which all those in Canada interested in educational, scientific and cultural developments will feel that they have a part.
Like some of my other dreams of the last 10 or 12 years this is perhaps one of those dreams that is at last coming true and I welcome this clause.


John Horne Blackmore: What was the date of that?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The speech is on the record. On August 6, 1946 the Prime Minister asked parliament to approve the constitution. He referred to this in his opening speech so I presume this is the approximate date about which my hon. friend is asking.
The article continues:
Many organizations again proposed a commission, and the Massey commission recommended its estabishment as part of the proposed "Canada Council".
That recommendation of the Massey commission has been implemented in this bill. I am not completely clear as to what part the Canada Council is to play in this worldwide organization in spite of the fact that the Prime Minister gave an answer to my question the other day.
There are one or two other things listed under the section that outlines what UNESCO's program involves. I shall not
In its first years, UNESCO's energies were directed toward post-war rehabilitation. In 1948, with Dr. Torres-Bodet of Mexico as director-general, the primary task was a world wide effort to eradicate ignorance and illiteracy.
Surely even my hon. friends in the Social Credit party would agree with that object. They may dispute the fact that the object has been properly carried out or that it has been one of the main motivations of this organization but certainly they must agree that the intention was good in that it sought to eradicate ignorance and illiteracy. The article then goes on to discuss general activities and I shall read only one part. It says:
.	.	. promoting understanding of human rights
and international co-operation and research.
The article then proceeds to a discussion of special activities and I am particularly interested in this section. Incidentally I would be interested in having increased activity in this direction in Canada. I am referring to assistance to libraries.
Seven or eight years ago I made a trip into certain provinces. I will say only that they were in the eastern part of the country.
I was surprised at the fewness of libraries in certain of our provinces and shocked at the paucity of the books they contained. I visited a seaside town and finding that I had a few hours to spare waiting for my train I stopped a gentleman and explained that I had some time on my hands and asked him to direct me to the public library. This was quite a large town about half the size of my home city. The gentleman to whom I spoke retorted, "Public library? Huh, we have no public library here". I said, "Are there no books about?" He said that he understood the I.O.D.E. ladies had a few somewhere or other and added, "Of course, we have a good collegiate here and it has a library but that is all I can tell you about". I had to go to a drugstore and buy a magazine of a type which I usually do not read in order to occupy the time.


Mr. McLeod:: What province was that?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Well, I am not going to say what province it was, but it was in Canada and I am interested in Canada.


George William McLeod: I would like to know where it is.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am sure you would; there are lots of things you do not know.


George William McLeod: But I am willing to learn.

Canada Council


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Well, if you are willing to learn then you will probably make progress. The article continues:
The special activities are for a specified period and are practical measures to meet concrete problems as, for example, helping India establish a public library system.
Surely you could get no better work than that. I am informed that at the date on which this article was written this organization had actually established 33 libraries in some of these countries which we are inclined to call underprivileged countries. In view of my last remark I would add that although they are perhaps underprivileged in some ways I think there are a few of the so-called underprivileged countries of the world from which we could learn some lessons. I have dealt with some of the achievements of UNESCO.
What has been the cause of the opposition to UNESCO in Canada? There is no doubt that there is some opposition. My hon. friends in the Social Credit group have rather consistently stated their opposition and we have been told that opposition exists in other places. One of the arguments that have been advanced by my friends in the Social Credit party is that UNESCO is communist controlled. I cannot believe that Dr. Kidd would make an assertion he did not believe. He says:
This charge is completely false. The Russians and many non-communist states have often argued that UNESCO Is nothing but a mouthpiece and sounding board for the state department of the United States.


John Horne Blackmore: That is true.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Well, you cannot have it both ways.


John Horne Blackmore: Oh, yes, that is true.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Dr. Kidd admits there is strong organized opposition against UNESCO in Canada. He continues:	[DOT]
It has sometimes been alleged that most UNESCO activities are opposed in French Canada. While there is undoubtedly some criticism there, as anywhere else, some of the most vocal supporters of UNESCO are French-speaking Catholics. A Laval University professor who has completed an important mission for UNESCO says that his acquaintances in the university, government and church were unanimously in support of his undertaking the position-
He had been offered a position with UNESCO, I presume as a member of a conference.
-and keenly interested in the result.
Then we have across the aisle the hon. member for Bonaventure. When he came back from the conference which he had attended he gave an extremely favourable report on UNESCO in the House of Commons. This was after his visit to Montevideo.

I have said something already about the work of my hon. friend from Victoria and his speech is available in Hansard so that he who runs may read.
The charge has been made that the work of UNESCO as an international organization is irrelevant to Canada. Surely any international organization is by its very definition exceedingly relevant to Canada and its people. I quote further from Dr. Kidd's address as follows:
Certainly UNESCO's greatest achievements so far (and who would have it otherwise?) have been in assisting countries with ill-developed intellectual resources.
I wonder if that is not one reason why my hon. friends to my left are worried or afraid that these intellectual developments may tend to promote something in which they do not believe. I am not going into that question as I went into it this afternoon, with some heat I am afraid, rather thoroughly. I am simply going to leave it at that and express pleasure that at last we have an organization which, if in its wisdom it decides that Canada can play some part on a national basis in this international organization, has the machinery for such action to be taken.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, I got out a few notes with respect to UNESCO because I thought it would be unfair to leave on the record any impression that we consider it might be a subversive organization. UNESCO is an organization made up I am told of 80 states and has among its active members the United States, all commonwealth countries except the Union of South Africa, all Scandinavian countries and all the countries of western Europe except Portugal. I do not think that that list would indicate that it is a subversive organization.
The director general is Dr. Luther Evans, a United States citizen who before his appointment in 1953 was the librarian of Congress. I am not going to say anything more about him. The assistant directors general are Mr. Rene Maheu, a French national who during the war acted as French liaison officer with the British ministry of education; Mr. Jean Thomas, also a French national, and Mr. Malcom Adiseshia, a national of Ceylon.
I suppose one thing that made some impression on a lot of people was the fact that about three or four years ago the American Legion set up a special committee to investigate UNESCO. The charges that had been made against UNESCO were, first, that it was favourable and tended toward world government by reason of its programs and functions; second, that it was atheistic; and third, that it was communistic or subversive.

That special committee made a very careful and full investigation and reported:
1.	That UNESCO is not favourable toward world government; that the programs and functions of UNESCO are not such as to tend toward world government; that the United States national commission individually and as a group are strongly opposed to world government;
2.	That UNESCO is not atheistic; and
3.	That UNESCO is in no sense or no degree communistic.
The chairman, Mr. Ray Murphy, had this to say:
These conclusions were reached firmly and unanimously by the special committee, not on any cursory basis, but only after the most thorough, exhaustive, time-consuming research, in which the committee, starting from scratch, sought information from any and every available source, pro and con UNESCO.
Notwithstanding that report by its own committee the American Legion refused to accept the report.
At the meeting of July 1956 the executive board of UNESCO rejected a proposal to invite representatives from the following communist countries which are not members of the organization to attend the ninth general conference as observers:
The Republic of China
North Korea
Communist Viet Minh
East Germany
Outer Mongolia
That does not seem to indicate that it was an organization controlled by communist-minded members. In the ten years of its existence UNESCO has facilitated in many ways international co-operation in the fields of education, science and culture. It has done a lot of research work to make regions which were practically non-productive produce crops and thus add to the food stores of the countries interested in those regions, and it has operated very closely in conjunction with FAO.
To promote scientific co-operation UNESCO maintains scientific co-operation offices in Latin America, the Middle East and Asia. Pakistan reported that as a result of UNESCO's assistance in 1950-52 the geophysical observatory at Quetta is now ranked by competent authorities to be one of the finest institutions of its kind in southeast Asia.
UNESCO has established two fundamental education centres, one at Patzcuaro, Mexico, and the other at Sirs-el-Layyan in Egypt. At these centres it trains teachers from countries where illiteracy is a pressing problem. Teachers are enrolled at these centres for eighteen months of training, after which they return to their own countries, I hope better equipped to cope with the problem of extending elementary education.
Canada Council
At the ninth session of the UNESCO conference which concluded recently in New Delhi, India, the conference voted $200,000 for emergency educational relief in Hungary and Egypt. In co-operation with United Nations Relief and Works Agency UNESCO has for the past two years carried on a program for Palestine Arab refugees so that primary education may be available for children and some degree of secondary education as well. UNESCO has proved a valuable agency or exchange bureau for arranging exchanges of scholars in connection with undergraduate and post-graduate work among the countries which are members of the UNESCO organization. Under the charter, the Canada Council cannot itself be the commission, but the charter provides that there shall be national commissions and the implication is that they will not be commissions appointed by the government

that there should be conferences of various kinds of national organizations interested in the work, and that is why this paragraph of section 8 is drawn in its present form. We want to refer to the Canada Council the duty and responsibility of organizing the Canadian conference. These conferences are not conferences of members who are permanently members. Each time one of these conferences is called, ad hoc members are selected by the organizations invited to participate in the conference to come together and deal with an agenda, one of the principal items of which is the selection of delegates to attend the international conference of the central organization.
I think it is unfortunate that there should be any impression that this is an organization with subversive tendencies designed to destroy the patriotism of the populations of the nations that are members of the organization, or that it is atheistic and intended to undermine the respect of children for Christian doctrines or anything of that kind. I think that when anyone looks at the composition of the directorate and of the delegations which attend these conferences, this would certainly not be the impression received. One would hardly get from Mr. Brockington, who led our delegation at New Delhi this year, or from the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) or from the other members of parliament who composed that delegation the reports we did if the organization had any of the dangerous characteristics which some of the hon. gentlemen who spoke this afternoon seemed to think it had. And to suggest that the Canada Council was set up merely to be an agency of UNESCO is to suggest that a pretty short tail would wag the dog.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Chairman, I said a while ago there were some questions that I wanted

Canada Council
to ask, and there is one matter with regard to which I am not clear.
A great deal of time was spent at university and in college in keeping physically fit, and the games we played-hockey, baseball, boxing, wrestling, skiing and so on-were directed to this end. And I was wondering under what heading these would come-whether it would be under the humanities or the social sciences, because I admit I learned more about humanity and my relations with my fellowmen in some of the games I played than ever I did in studying Latin, Greek or Hebrew and "plugging" to pass examinations.
As I say, I was wondering under what heading these activities would come. Our games have taught us courage-that is what human nature needs-and a definite aim; not to talk all around the thing but to go straight to the point. They taught us patience-and our cabinet ministers have shown me by their conduct, that they have learned something along that line. They taught us determination; when you get the ball under your arm you feel you could go straight through a stone wall in order to make a touchdown. Another thing we learned from our games was to take victory or defeat with grace, and to keep your temper. Everyone knows that when a boxer loses his temper you can lambaste him freely because he can't see straight.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether there is anything in the social sciences or in the humanities which provides for amateurs of athletics in the universities.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that this does not provide for such encouragement as it might be in the national interest to devote to sports or other athletic activities to which the hon. gentleman has referred. I am not disagreeing with him in his appreciation of the value of these activities, but I do not think I could suggest that they come within the definition of the arts contained in this bill or that they would be included in either of the other two categories, the humanities and the social sciences.
We cannot have too many things in the same basket. It may be we should have at some time an organization that would give attention, for example, to our participation in the Olympic games and to the preparation that should be constantly made so that we would be ready at all times to participate in these games.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The hon. member for Fort William has introduced an interesting digression into this discussion, and one is tempted to follow this particular approach. I would 
go as far as to say that it is impossible to overestimate the contribution made to national unity by such a sporting event as the Grey Cup final, for example. I recall, too, that we used to have a national physical fitness act, repealed one or two years ago, which tried to do something along those lines.
The contribution I wish to make to the discussion is along the lines followed by the hon. member for Saskatoon. Like him, I am glad to see some specific reference to the agencies which are already operating in the field of the arts, humanities and social sciences. During the discussion of the past day it seemed to me, as I followed it, that there tended to be somewhat of an air of unreality in that a good many hon. members appeared to be under the impression that with the Canada Council we were beginning something that was entirely new-that we were conjuring up activity along cultural lines which was something new in the body politic. Of course, that is far from being the case. We have had a social science research council, we have had a humanities research council, we have had a royal society, a Canada foundation, a Canadian association for adult education, and any number of voluntary organizations which made or are making an outstanding contribution in this field of cultural development.
The question I would like to ask the Prime Minister, Mr. Chairman, is whether he can clarify for the committee in more specific terms the reference under subclause (1) (a) of this section 8 where it says: assist, co-operate with and enlist the aid of organizations, the objects of which are similar to any of the objects of the council
My understanding of the reason for establishing the Canada Council is that its primary function or its primary role will be that of sustaining the activities along these lines already established by the voluntary groups and also providing financial assistance. If that is the case, it would seem to me that the voluntary organizations will still find a useful function in this whole important field of activities. For example, I think the Massey commission on the arts, letters and sciences made a recommendation to the effect that when the Canada Council was established there should be a group of advisory councils to act in an advisory capacity to the Canada Council. Can the Prime Minister indicate to the committee just how the co-operation, the aid and the assistance of the voluntary groups might be called upon in connection with the operation of the Canada Council?
Also, it seems to me that the personnel of the Canada Council, the people making up this important body, is going to determine

to a large degree the success of its operation. It would seem that the men and women who have been providing leadership in the voluntary groups might be the men and women best qualified to provide the leadership that is required in the Canada Council. I have been making one or two suggestions but none of these things are spelled out in detail in subsection (a). I am wondering whether the Prime Minister can tell the committee just how this assistance, co-operation and aid might be asked for.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, the section describing the objectives was drawn in general terms so as not to have it exclude anything that it might be found that the body of representative public-spirited Canadians who would constitute the council would feel was something that should be encouraged. How the advisory committees will be organized is to be provided for by bylaws under section 10 of the bill. It was purposely left that way because there was no attempt made to pinpoint the things that might be considered desirable. With the income from the endowment of $50 million, that council will not be able to do all the things that might be desirable. It will have to establish priorities and try to expend the income from the endowment in the manner that it will feel is most apt to impress the public that it is doing the right kind of job.
The hon. gentleman says that those who have led in these movements should be the members of the council. If we were to try to recognize all those who have been effective leaders in the activities contemplated in this statute, we would have to have a council of several hundred persons instead of a council of 19. I do not know of any large town or even any quite small town where there are not some public-spirited citizens who have been influential and beneficial leaders in promoting the kind of activities that are contemplated as being the kind that it would be the duty of the Canada Council to encourage and to assist. There are various activities. I have been asked this question: Will this council be able to provide subsidies for every symphony orchestra throughout the country? I do not know how many there are but I know that there are a great number. It is not always those that are made of the greatest number of musicians which are doing the best work. There are other activities. There are some for whom the ballet is much more important than is a symphony orchestra; there are others who feel quite otherwise about it. In a great many places there are societies that arrange for interesting and instructive
Canada Council
lectures. That may be an activity that will be deserving of some consideration by the Canada Council. I think there will be an ample number of things for them to attend to, even though they will not include the activities that the hon. member for Fort William had in mind. It cannot be denied, however, that there are a great many people who would feel that it would be preferable to encourage sports rather than to encourage symphony orchestras.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: The humanities.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I suppose there is the possibility of saying that if sports are not included under the term "the humanities", they should be included. However, there are all these activities. It was intended to try to make this so that it would be the responsibility of the council to decide which were the activities that should get first consideration. The other day I ventured to say that I thought one of the most urgent needs was to assist in the training of a greater number of those who could be the teachers for the increasing numbers who are requiring professors in our institutions of higher learning. That may be at this time something that would be regarded by members of the council as having a high priority in the things to be encouraged. They will know what they can expect as income from the endowment; and I hope they will know what they can expect from the assistance they will get from private citizens or corporations to increase the amounts that will be provided by the income from the endowment, either by adding to the endowment or by making it something to be expended over a short period of time. I think that the possibility of this group being the kind of group that would inspire confidence in those who wanted to be of assistance in that field is a consideration that we shall have to have in mind in making up the council.
I would be sorry if the language used proved to restrict the activities that a properly selected council would find should receive their consideration, their encouragement and assistance. It was to have the language as inclusive in that domain as possible that section 8 setting out the objectives was drawn in these terms which, I confess, are not too precise.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The point in which I was interested was not so much co-operation with the small local groups, such as symphony orchestras or little theatre groups, but rather those organizations such as the large associations on a national scale already operating in this field; the humanities council and the social science council. I am wondering if the

Canada Council
Prime Minister could indicate whether or not there will be some useful function for bodies of that kind under the new Canada Council setup.
Then, just expanding the question for a moment, under paragraph (b), this Canada Council will be providing scholarships and loans to persons in Canada for study or research in the arts, humanities or social sciences. Hitherto recommendations for these awards have come from the voluntary organizations. Will they still be consulted in the making of these research awards? The language, as the Prime Minister suggests, is vague. It mentions assisting, co-operating with and enlisting the aid of organizations. Will the functions of these organizations disappear completely or will there be a job for them to do?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There certainly will be a great deal for them to do. For instance, there are some scholarships that are organized under the terms of the instrument setting them up. I was, for a period, a member of the selection committee for the province of Quebec for Rhodes scholarships. This action was taken under the scheme setting up those scholarships, and of course the Canada Council would have no right to interfere. If its assistance were sought, I suppose it would be only too glad to do anything it could to be of assistance. There are scholarships for scientific research that are allocated through the national research council. Some of these blocked funds scholarships are granted, I think, on the recommendation of the Royal Society. These organizations will be, I imagine, the ready made implements the Canada Council will be using to the extent to which they can be used to make its operations as widespread as possible.
I indicated to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that I would have no objection to adding to clause 23 his suggestion that would provide that these reports of all the activities of the council, together with the financial statement and report of the Auditor General thereon, would be tabled in parliament. I would have no objection to its being added that provision would be made for parliament to review them. This would furnish an occasion for calling the attention of the members of council and the attention of the public to any omission of which the council might have been guilty or any helpful agency that it had not up to that time found it opportune to use. I agree fully with the view that was expressed that the council, in order to do the best kind of job, should have public interest maintained in its operations. I am sure that there could be no better forum
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
to stir up public interest in its operations than a critical examination of its operations in the House of Commons.


Frederick George Hahn: The questions I have arise out of the statement the Prime Minister made a few moments ago when replying to the thought that was expressed by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. The fact is that we in this group have indicated we were quite prepared to accept the use of some of these funds-in fact, we had hoped all of it would be channelled through organizations that are in operation, provincial bodies that are set up, thus giving us more money for the purpose for which this was apparently intended. However, I believe the Prime Minister indicated that the revenue from the $50 million would be quite small and that priorities would have to be set up. I was pleased to hear that he recognized that perhaps the professors or teachers might rank high in that particular priority.
However, there are a great number of clauses in the bill indicating that much of this assistance could well be channelled into foreign fields. I wonder whether there is any suggestion in the bill itself of any restriction as to what proportion of the funds might be utilized in promoting foreign culture in Canada? I was wondering, too, if the Prime Minister could indicate to us approximately how much the revenue might be from the $50 million. Is it going to be obligatory or not for any future endowment that might be made towards education that it should be channeled through this council, and therefore enhance the value of this particular fund?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Of course, if parliament at any future time saw fit to add to the original endowment of $50 million, parliament would then determine how much it would be and how it would be used. If individuals or corporations choose to make any gifts either by acts inter vivos or as to individual, by testamentary disposition, they will have the right to determine in the document' making the conveyance the conditions that they wish to attach to their gifts. They could make a gift to the university capital grants fund or they could make a gift to the endowment fund and determine, in the instruments evidencing the gift, the conditions that they wished to impose.
As to what portion of the income could be devoted to activities outside of Canada, I would imagine-and that was the intention in setting up the bill-that it would be merely on the basis of reciprocal exchanges that they could arrange for scholarships in Canada for people coming from elsewhere; but that they would try to negotiate in such a way that it would be an exchange, and that Canadian

graduates, or perhaps even undergraduates, would get an equivalent benefit in the country from which others came to Canada.
It is not intended in a general way to make this a supplement to what parliament votes for the Colombo plan or what parliament votes as its contribution to the United Nations or anything of that kind. This is intended to be something to foster the development of the arts, the humanities and the social sciences in Canada. That can be done possibly to a certain extent by studies made by Canadians elsewhere in exchange for scholarships established here for persons coming from outside. This is intended to be something set up to improve the situation for Canadians.


Frederick George Hahn: Just before the Prime Minister takes his seat may I say that in section 8 (b) there is a word that I should like to have defined. The paragraph reads:
provide, through appropriate organization . . .
I would take that to mean the institutions and the endowment funds that are set up at the present time. The next two words, however, puzzle me. They are "or otherwise". Just what do they mean?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, that phrase was intended to mean-and I think that is what it means-that, for instance, in granting scholarships an organization might be used for the selection of those who would get the scholarships, or if there was no appropriate organization they might set up one. The appropriate organization or otherwise; the word "otherwise" would mean something that was not in existence at this time. And there I think they would be very apt to follow our example. When it was found that we could set up scholarships to be provided out of blocked funds in European countries, instead of creating an agency to do that, we asked the Royal Society if they would not take the responsibility of selecting those who would get the benefit of those scholarships. If there had been no organization like the Royal Society, well, we would have had to do it otherwise. We might have had to set up a committee of civil servants, or perhaps draw from the civil service commission those who have had some experience in setting examinations to make the selection.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, just before we go any farther with this clause, I should like to make one or two comments on what was said just a little while ago. The hon. member for Saskatoon did extol some of the virtues of UNESCO by depicting some of the things which it had done. He did so as he spoke in
Canada Council
apposition to the position which this group takes. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am quite prepared to admit that in some branches UNESCO has done some good work throughout the world, and some of those branches are the ones which the hon. member for Saskatoon put on the record; but there is another branch in which we think that UNESCO has played a very sinister part, and we have already placed on the record our belief in respect of that.
I should like to call the Prime Minister's attention to something. He also rose in defence of UNESCO and stated that much of the criticism that has arisen was by reason of some action that was taken by the American legion; that there was a feeling among those members of the American legion that UNESCO was contrary, or working in opposition, to the best interests of the United States.
The Prime Minister said that as a result of that suspicion the American legion brought into existence a committee to investigate whether or not UNESCO was in any sense sinister to United States interest and to the United States way of life, and that the committee had reported they could find nothing that would indicate or verify their suspicions. I think the Prime Minister said that that committee of the legion reported two or three years ago. He did not give the date, but let me say this: the Prime Minister is just a little bit behind the times. In saying that, the Prime Minister appeared to wipe the slate completely clean and therefore give UNESCO a completely clean slate. I say once again that the Prime Minister is a little bit behind the times because, on March 7, 1956, the commander of the American legion appeared before a subcommittee on international organizations and movements of the house committee on foreign affairs of the United States congress. He appeared there to present to that subcommittee a resolution that was passed by the American legion as late as October, 1955. That is less than 18 months ago. Commander J. Addington Wagner, head of the legion, appeared before this subcommittee of congress as late as March 7, 1956, which is less than a year ago. He placed on the record a resolution passed by the American legion convention.
I am not going to read the entire resolution, but I will read enough of it to indicate what it is all about. This matter was introduced in a speech in congress by the Hon. H. R. Gross of Iowa, the day after Commander Wagner had made his statement.

Canada Council
This is what he says concerning the committee that the Prime Minister referred to a little while ago:
Mr. Wagner also effectively explodes the widely circulated myth that UNESCO was tried by the legion in a star chamber proceeding, and that the legion's stand did not reflect the judgment of a majority of legionnaires.
The commander exploded the myth that the Prime Minister brought up this evening.
Now then, when he made this submission to that sub-committee he presented the legion's resolution and I shall read the pertinent part of it:
Resolved, that the American Legion urges Congress to repeal the laws creating the United States National Commission for UNESCO and its Secretariat; and that Congress deliver mandates to all administrative departments of the United States government to desist from further dissemination of UNESCO and United States National Commission for UNESCO materials, reports, and programs within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
That was done as late as March 1956. The rest of the resolution urges congress to make a complete current investigation of the operations of UNESCO in order to determine whether or not that agency has complied with its terms of reference.
In the light of that it is small wonder that we are suspicious and we cannot wipe the slate clean by referring to a previous committee of the legion. This gives us reason for fear. As I put on the record the other day, the state of Texas investigated this matter because of indignation that was aroused among the people of that state in respect of the influence of UNESCO upon their educational institutions. I also placed on the record what occurred in Pasadena and Los Angeles where through the indignation of the people a committee of the state legislature of California was set up to investigate the whole matter. In their report the committee stated that the UNESCO material that was infiltrating their educational institutions was detrimental to the United States of America. In the light of all these things it is no wonder that we have some fear when we discover that this council is to be tied to UNESCO. I shall say no more at the moment about our fears. As I said the other day I hope that they will prove to be wrong; I sincerely hope that. It is my earnest hope that this council will perform a great and valuable work for Canada and the world but because we know what has taken place we warn that all may not go well in the years to come.
Perhaps I may be permitted to say this, Mr. Chairman. I know we will not defeat the bill. I know that the council will be established. If the opposition we in this group have demonstrated does nothing more

than warn the people of Canada against any possible sinister influences that might be the result of the work of this council, then what we have done will have served a good purpose.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Chairman, I have a question I should like to ask the Prime Minister but in view of the remarks that have just been made by the hon. member for Macleod perhaps I might be permitted to comment that I wondered for a moment whether we were discussing the Canada Council or some United States body. I would suggest that we in Canada are well able to make our own decisions and we do not have to be directed in these matters by decisions made by any organization south of the line however worthy it might be. I am satisfied that the Canadian people and various Canadian organizations are well able to pass judgment on UNESCO-


Ernest George Hansell: Well, it was the Prime
Minister-


Alfred Claude Ellis: -without having to have interjected into this debate material that is completely irrelevant to the Canada Council.


Ernest George Hansell: It was the Prime Minister who-


Alfred Claude Ellis: So much has been said about UNESCO that I am concerned over the fact that many people who are not familiar with the meaning of those letters might wonder from reading the debate just what type of organization it is. I was very pleased to note that the Prime Minister placed on the record a short while ago the history of UNESCO in order that the people of Canada might judge that organization on the basis of its record.
One thing which particularly interests me is this. I simply want to put one sentence on the record because it describes the objects of UNESCO. It seems to me we have to keep our feet on the ground and understand the purpose of the organization which we are discussing. In the official publication of the United Nations entitled "Everyman's United Nations" under the heading of UNESCO the following words appear:
The purpose of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, as defined in its Constitution, is to "contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law, and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms for all," . . .
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that these are objects which should be sought by all Canadian citizens. I think the type of remarks that have been directed toward UNESCO during the course of this debate indicates

a feverish desire on the part of UNESCO detractors to sow seeds of suspicion in this country concerning an organization which has such worthy objectives that they should be shared by all people throughout the world.
There is one question I should like to ask the Prime Minister. After the setting up of the Canada Council is it the intention of the government to invoke clause 27 of the UNESCO charter and seek from that organization a member of its secretariat to serve either as a permanent or part-time member of the Canada Council?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Chairman, it is not the intention to ask UNESCO to appoint a member of the council any more than it would be our intention to have any of the members appointed by a Canadian provincial government.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Well, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the need to co-ordinate the activities of the various national commissions of UNESCO he might not feel such a move would be a good one in that connection?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, I think not, Mr. Chairman. We want to keep this a Canadian council and if the council requires advice from any source outside of Canada it will be able to obtain that advice. We think of it as a council composed of Canadians that should have the responsibility for making the decisions.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, I have just one question which may have been asked while I was unavoidably absent from the chamber. Would it be within the powers of this council to accept donations for specific purposes? For example, if a family, a firm or an organization wished to endow a scholarship for a particular purpose or if they wished to endow a scholarship to commemorate the memory of some individual, could that be done through this council? I would also like to know if it would be feasible to link the scholarships with the names of war veterans so as at the same time to have them serve as a sort of war memorial? I understand that as time goes on the funds at the disposal of this council will probably increase considerably, which would perhaps make this possible.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: This statute would give the council the right to accept donations made for that purpose and I think it would be quite within the scope of the activities of this kind of organization to do that.
There was a donation made by a family in Ontario to the University of Toronto to establish lectures as a tribute to the memory
Canada Council
of their son who had died during the war. I think it would be quite proper if a Canadian wished to have something within the scope of the normal activities of the Canada Council provided for out of income or capital of a donation to do that and to have it published that it was done as a memorial to such and such a person or of such and such an event that was of special interest to the donor of the funds required to carry out that purpose.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, there are several matters which I think it would be fitting to bring to the attention of the committee at this stage. The first meeting of the United States national commission for UNESCO was held in Washington on September 23, 1946, with Senator William Benton of Connecticut as the chairman. On that occasion Senator Benton said:
We are at the beginning of a long process of breaking down the walls of national sovereignty. In this process UNESCO must be the pioneer. The department of state has fathered this national commission (for UNESCO) . . .
Senator Benton's remarks may be found in state department publication 2726 of United Nations information, series No. 14. The question which hon. members like the hon. member for Regina City need to ask themselves and answer is: Why should Senator Benton express the objectives of UNESCO which he expressed, and why should some corresponding figure in Canada express any other objective? It needs explaining. The hon. member quoted a passage from article I of the constitution of UNESCO, and the quotation I am about to give includes the words read by the hon. member for Regina City:
The purpose of the organization is to contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms which are affirmed for the peoples of the world, without distinction of race, sex, language or religion, by the charter of the United Nations.
That passage will be found in basic documents of UNESCO, page 8.
The ideals which are expressed by the UNESCO enthusiasts are just so beautiful that one almost feels he has drifted away into celestial regions, but the all-important question we have to ask ourselves is by what means is it proposed that these laudable objectives shall be achieved? When we come to answer that question and probe into the details of the problem we find an altogether different appearance on the inside of the cup from that which we see on the outside of the cup looking so shiny and clean.

Canada Council
After that rather promising suggestion, what do we find after ten years of development of UNESCO effort in the United States? I can hear the hon. member for Regina City say, "Oh, well, we are going to be different in Canada." I know we are, but we had better be warned by what has happened in the United States because in a general way we are very much the same kind of people. We are deluded by the same kind of things that delude them. Here are some indications of what was stated positively not so very long ago in a book which I think is authentic. It is said that UNESCO is trying so hard to destroy American patriotism.


Alfred Claude Ellis: What is the name of the book?


John Horne Blackmore: I will give it in a few minutes. The hon. member is so restless and he becomes so excited. If he would only wait. It is stated that UNESCO is trying to dispense with religion; that UNESCO is trying to belittle parents and to diminish their influence with the child; that UNESCO is neglecting to give a proper grounding in the three R's apparently to destroy the child's future facility for learning. Here is a quotation from Lillian Moon Roberts' book.


An hon. Member:: Who is she?


An hon. Member:: Moon Mullins.


John Horne Blackmore: That is the type of individual; you can just see communist written all over this outfit, trying every way to prevent anything effective being put on the record. Lillian Moon Roberts' book "The Greatest Danger to American Youth" has this to say at one point:
. . . why does UNESCO try so hard to destroy American patriotism (which they call nationalism); why does UNESCO present "nationalism" as such an evil thing; why do they dispense with religion; why do they present internationalism and "world citizenship"-


Mr. Regier:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


William Alfred Robinson: I understand the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is rising on a point of order.


John Horne Blackmore: He is breaking in on my speech.


Erhart Regier: A minute ago the hon. member was asked to state the title of the book from which he was quoting and he assured us he would. He has left that book and is now quoting from a newspaper and he has not supplied us with the source of his quotation. I believe that is against the rules of the house.


John Horne Blackmore: I just gave the name of the book.


Alfred Claude Ellis: What about the first book?


John Horne Blackmore: We see this outfit trying to spoil the effectiveness of a speech. It is clear as can be that they are mortally afraid that their little pet is going to be hurt before they have time to prevent it receiving the full burst of the blizzard. I gave the name of the book; it is "The Greatest Danger to American Youth". It should be clear now that I have given it the second time. I am quoting from that book as it is quoted in an article in this periodical. These people have managed to waste a few minutes of my time. I quote further from the passage from Lillian Roberts' book "The Greatest Danger to American Youth".
-why do they present internationalism and "world citizenship" as the most glorious achievement available to man; why do they attempt in every way to belittle the parents and diminish their influence with the child; why is their most powerful ammunition turned on the child and his teachers; why the attempt to eradicate all competition from the child's life both athletically and scholastically; why the lack of proper grounding in the three R's, which lack will automatically destroy the child's future facility of learning? The answers are obvious.
No doubt they are obvious if we read the book. I hope hon. members will read the book.


An hon. Member:: Bum the book.


John Horne Blackmore: This is the outfit that burns books. It is not on the other side of the line all the time. They are the kind of people who are always talking down there in the United States about "book burning".
After his sub-committee held hearings on UNESCO Senator Pat McCarran had this to say:	These are Senator McCarran's
words, and I quote:
This is a very clever propaganda campaign to sell the people of this country and particularly the school children on the doctrine of one world government and world citizenship. The committee had presented to it documented proof of this insidious campaign.
As a reference I direct my hon. friends to the departments of state, justice and commerce and judiciary appropriations for 1953- the hearings before a subcommittee of the committee of appropriations of the United States senate, 82nd Congress H. R. 7289, page 1514-1534. Maybe that is accurate enough information.
General Sumter L. Lorry, retired, speaking before that United States subcommittee, as reported on page 1516, used the following words, and I quote:
The state department's prime concern for existence is to protect and preserve the interests of the United States yet that same state department is taking taxpayers' money and using it to create a world government to replace our own. By no possible reasoning should the state department be

engaged in any effort which, if carried to a conclusion, would destroy our country and American institutions.
There will be those who will say: "We have not the facilities to go and see those originals for ourselves". To them, may I give the means whereby they may check the accuracy of the record. They may do so by referring to an article entitled: "UNESCO-Greatest Danger to American Youth and Schools." This article is the major article in the February 1, 1957, issue of the well-known political journal Common Sense, founded and edited by that great and courageous Christian fighter Conde McGinley.
There is much more that could be said, but I think those three quotations strike with the blow of a sledgehammer. You could hardly find any more dependable quotations. Senator McCarran is famous all over the world for his investigations; he was the chairman of the McCarran committee for years-the man who uncovered more subversion and danger in the United States than, probably, any other man in this country. No one could question what he might say at the conclusion of an investigation especially directed to UNESCO. I will not say that General Lorry is necessarily a great authority, but he was invited by Senator Pat McCarran's committee to give evidence.
Now, Mr. Chairman, may I point out just three or four things? The first quotation I gave from Lillian Moon Robert's establishes, if we can accept her evidence-and all the other quotations tend to support her-that what the Prime Minister considers so regrettable, namely, that the idea should go abroad that UNESCO was trying to destroy the faith of the child in its parents, that UNESCO was trying to destroy the faith of the child in religion, that' UNESCO was trying to destroy the faith of the child in its country-to destroy patriotism-is actually the situation today. It is all established there. It has been proved in Texas and in California.
Let no hon. member go running off with the idea that the Social Credit position has been lightly taken. We have been following this matter for a good many years, keeping ourselves quite as well informed as any of our companion groups in this house, I believe, and I think a perusal of the speeches we have made and a study of the attitudes we have taken all the way through will tend to support what I have said.
People will say: "Why would they want to destroy patriotism?" Because in every country which is a democracy the only thing that holds people together as a unit is patriotism, love of country. In a dictatorship such as those of Russia and China, the things that hold people together are force and fear. Now, if they can destroy this cement of patriotism which binds individual Americans
Canada Council
together, which binds individual Canadians together, then the people will be just as helpless as a flock of sheep without a shepherd in a storm; they will stray all over the place and be easy prey for the wolves of international revolution who are working all over this world as a group, and who have accomplished results of appalling magnitude and success in an appallingly short time. Surely, Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to take any chances!
Why do they want to destroy faith in God? Because the one thing that binds all Christians together is belief in the Bible, and if belief in the Bible can be destroyed, then once more the solidarity of religion will be destroyed. The other great binding force which might hold men together in the fearful struggle that lies before us in the next ten years will have been annihilated and once more the free people will be adrift and lost- the easiest kind of prey for the manipulators who are working continually on world revolution with the definite objective of bringing about a complete world dictatorship under the control of a few international tricksters and masterminds.
Why do they want to destroy reverence for the mother and father? One reason that comes to my mind is that one of the Ten Commandments is: "Honour thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee". And if you cease to honour your father and mother, you are preparing to lose that land, and that is what these international monopolists want-they want to lay their hands on every land that the free peoples have.
Now I move, Mr. Chairman, that we rise and report progress.


Mr. Rowe:: Don't report progress. Just rise.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. gentleman is calling it ten o'clock?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, please.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow, between eleven o'clock and one o'clock, we shall consider the amendment to the Export Credits Insurance Act, then the resolution with respect to the Canadian Farm Loan Act, and the resolution in the name of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
After 2.30 p.m. we will continue with this debate, and then take the municipal grants resolution.


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

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

Mr. Dinsdale: 1. (a) How many applicants for disability allowances have there been in each province each year
	1954-55	(a) 1955-56
Province	(3 mos)	(12 mos)Alberta 	. 	2,769British Columbia	. 	972Manitoba 	. 132	2,167New Brunswick	. 527	2,338Newfoundland 	. 	985Nova Scotia 	. 562	2,228Ontario 	. 7,170	3,399Prince Edward Island.	. 44	497Quebec 	. 	22,783Saskatchewan	. 40	1,819Northwest Territories .	. 	-Yukon Territory 	[DOT] 	-2 and 3. All provinces	do not as	yet have
statistical records on rehabilitation cases dealing specifically with persons who are referred for rehabilitation following rejection of their applications for disabled persons allowances. The information is therefore not available.


DENTISTS PER CAPITA, BY PROVINCES
Mr. Nicholson: What is the ratio of the total number of dentists per capita population in Canada, and in each of the provinces?
Answer by: Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
The following table has been computed from the number of dentists reported in Canada in 1955 and the estimated population as of June 1, 1955. Figures shown indicate the number of persons per dentist in Canada and in each
of the provinces.
Canada	 2,881
Newfoundland	11,771
Prince Edward Island	 3,273
Nova Scotia	 3,449
New Brunswick	 4,574
Quebec	 3,493
Ontario	 2,283
Manitoba	 3,329
Saskatchewan	 4,097
Alberta	 2,783
British Columbia	 2,143
since the Inauguration of the program? (b) How many of these have been accepted in each province. in each year?
2.	How many rejected applicants have been rehabilitated in each province, in each year?
3.	How many of these rehabilitated cases in each province, in each year, have found employment in (a) government service; (b) private business?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of
National Health and Welfare):
1. Provincial statistical reports show the following-
		(b)	
1956-57	1954-55	1955-56	1956-57(8 mos)	(3 mos)	(12 mos)	(8 mos)619	-	1,185	165444	-	725	300261	45	738	118399	177	830	312189	-	659	143409	285	979	2771,882	6,772	1,854	1,07487	40	270	496,391	-	13,064	3,669409	36	793	1876	-	-	3TRENT CANAL	TRAFFIC	
Question No. 127


Mr. Hodgson:: How many	boats passed	through the	locks at
Fenelon Falls, Ontario (Trent canal), in 1956?
Answer by:	Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
941. This canal is used almost exclusively by pleasure craft.


ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONSUMPTION
Mr. Knowles: What was the total consumption (or apparent consumption) in gallons, in Canada, of (a) beer; (b) wines; (c) spirits, in (i) 1953; (ii) 1954; (iii) 1955; (iv) 1956?
Answer by:	Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
Apparent consumption for the fiscal years 1953, 1954 and 1955
Spirits
Beer Wines	(proof
(gallons)	(gallons)	gallons)1953	209,565,912	5,406,254	9,390,0551954	210,673,643	5,521,263	9,390,8511955	209,625,582	5,862,551	9,292,154
Figures for 1956 are not yet available.

Friday, February 15, 1957