1957-01-24

STANDING COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. G. Weir (Poriage-Neepawa) presented the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house, as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Bourque	Meunier
Bryson	Nowlan
Cardin	Pallett
Carter	Perron
Cavers	Rea
Churchill	Richard (Ottawa East)
Dechene	Shaw
Dickey	Simmons
Ellis	Tucker
Fraser (Peterborough) Valois	
Hollingworth	Viau
Leboe	Vincent
Lefrangois	White (Waterloo
MacKenzie	South)
McWilliam	Zaplitny-29. (Quorum-10)
RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES Messrs:	
Anderson	Holowach
Barnett	Hosking
Batten	Howe (Wellington-
Bonnier	Huron)
Boucher	Huffman
Buchanan	James
Byrne	Johnston (Bow River)
Campbell	Kickham
Carter	Lafontaine
Casselman	Langlois (Gaspe)
Cauchon	Lavigne
Cavers	Leboe
Clark	Maltais
Decore	McBain
Deschatelets	McCulloch (Pictou)
Dufresne	Mclvor
Dupuis	Meunier
Ellis	Murphy (Westmorland)
Follwell	Murphy (Lambton
Gagnon	West)
Garland	Nesbitt
Goode	Nicholson
Gourd (Chapleau)	Nickle
Green	Nixon
Habel	Nowlan
Hahn	Purdy
Hamilton (York West) Small	
Harrison	Viau
Healy	Villeneuve
Herridge	Vincent
Hodgson	Weselak-60. (Quorum-20)
MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS Messrs:	
Anderson	Brooks
Balcom	Brown (Brantford)
Batten	Cameron (High Park)
Blair	Campbell
82715-38J
Carter	Macnaughton
Casselman	Mang
Decore	Matheson
Dinsdale	McCubbin
Ellis	McCullough (Moose
Enfield	Mountain)
Eyre	McWilliam
Fairey	Murphy (Westmorland)
Ferguson	Perron
Follwell	Pommer
Forgie	Proudfoot
Garland	Regier
Girard	Reinke
Hansell	Roberge
Hees	Roy
Henderson	Simmons
Houck	Thomas
Langlois (Berthier-	Weaver
Maskinonge-	White (Waterloo South)
Delanaudiere)	White (Hastings-
Leduc (Jacques Cartier-	Frontenac)
Lasalle)	White (Middlesex East)
Lennard Lusby	Wylie-50.
(Quorum-15)	
BANKING AND COMMERCE	
Messrs:	
Argue	Hunter
Ashbourne	Johnson (Kindersley)
Balcom	Low
Bell	Macdonnell
Benidickson	MacEachen
Bennett	Macnaughton
Blackmore	Matheson
Cameron (Nanaimo)	Michener
Cannon	Mitchell (London)
Crestohl	Monteith
Deslieres	Nickle
Dumas	Pallett
Enfield	Philpott
Eudes	Power (Quebec South)
Fairey	Quelch
Fleming	Richardson
Follwell	Robichaud
Fraser (St. John's East)	Rouleau
Fraser (Peterborough)	St. Laurent (Temis-
Fulton	couata)
Gour (Russell)	Stewart (Winnipeg
Hanna	North)
Henderson	Thatcher
Hollingworth	Tucker
Hosking	Viau
Huffman	Weaver-50
(Quorum-15)	
PUBLIC	ACCOUNTS
Messrs:	
Anderson	Denis
Argue	Fulton
Ashbourne	Goode
Balcer	Hamilton (Notre Dame
Balcom	de Grace)
Beaudry	Hanna
Boisvert	Harkness
Breton	Henderson
Bruneau	Hollingworth
Byrne	Holowach
Cameron (High Park)	Houck
Cannon	Kickham
Cavers	Kirk (Antigonish-
Cloutier	Guysborough)
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committees	
Laflamme	Poulin
Leduc (Jacques Cartier- Power (St. John's West)	
Lasalle)	Proudfoot
Maltais	Regier
McGregor	Rowe
McLeod	Schneider
McWilliam	Thomas
Menard	Tucker
Mitchell (Sudbury)	Van Horne
Mitchell (London)	Weaver
Monteith	Winch
Nowlan Pommer	Zaplitny-50
(Quorum-15)	
AGRICULTURE	AND COLONIZATION Messrs:
Anderson	MacLean
Argue	Mang
Batten	Masse
Blackmore	Matheson
Boucher	McBain
Bruneau	McCubbin
Bryce	McCullough (Moose
Byrne	Mountain)
Cardiff	Menard
Charlton	Michaud
Clark	Montgomery
Decore	Murphy (Westmorland)
Demers	Nicholson
Deslieres	Patterson
Dinsdale	Perron
Fontaine	Pommer
Forgie	Proudfoot
Gingras	Purdy
Goode	Quelch
Gour (Russell)	Roberge
Harkness	Robinson (Bruce)
Huffman	Schneider
James	Smith (Battle River-
Jones	Camrose)
Jutras	Stanton
Kickham	Studer
Kirk (Antigonish-	Thatcher
Guysborough)	Tustin
Laflamme	Villeneuve
Legare	White (Waterloo South)
Lusby	White (Middlesex
MacKenzie	East)-60
(Quorum-20)	
STANDING ORDERS Messrs:	
Aitken, Miss	Hollingworth
Buchanan	Knowles
Carter	Michaud
Denis	Monette
Fairey	Robinson (Bruce)
Fontaine	Rochefort
Forgie	Shaw
Green	Van Horne
Hanna	Viau
Harrison	Winch-20.
(Quorum-8)	
MARINE	AND FISHERIES Messrs:
Anderson	Cannon
Arsenault	Ferguson
Ashbourne	Goode
Barnett	Hahn
Bell	Hardie
Bennett	Harrison
Boivin	Henderson
Brisson	Hodgson
Bryce	Kirk (Antigonish-
Cameron (Nanaimo)	Guysborough)

Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare) MacLean MacNaught Maltais Matheson McDonald Nowlan Patterson
Pearkes
Robichaud
Simmons
Stick
Stuart (Charlotte)
Thibault
Weselak
White (Hastings-Frontenac)-35.
(Quorum-10)
MINES, FORESTS AND WATERS Messrs:
Brisson
Brooks
Buchanan
Byrne
Carter
Dickey
Dumas
Eyre
Garland
Gauthier (Nickel Belt)
Hardie
Harkness
Herridge
Hosking
LaCroix
Lafontaine
Leboe
Leduc (Gatineau) MacLean
McCullough (Moose Mountain)
Mitchell (Sudbury)
Pearkes
Ratelle
Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche)
Robichaud
Rowe
Shipley, Mrs. Simmons
Smith (Battle River-Camrose)
Stanton Studer Valois Van Horne Weselak Winch-35.
(Quorum-10)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Barnett
Bell
Brown (Brantford)
Brown (Essex West)
Byrne
Cauchon
Churchill
Cloutier
Deschatelets
Dufresne
Fairclough, Mrs.
Fraser (St. John's East)
Gauthier (Nickel Belt)
Gauthier (Lake St. John)
Gillis
Hahn
Hardie
Hosking
Huffman
Johnston (Bow River)
Knowles
Leduc (Verdun)
Lusby
MacEachen
Michener
Murphy (Westmorland)
Nixon
Philpott
Richardson
Rouleau
Small
Starr
Studer
Viau
Vincent-35.
(Quorum-10)
Balcer
Enfield
Hees
J utras
McLeod
Meunier
DEBATES Messrs:
Michaud
Nicholson
Power (St. John's West)
Purdy
Rowe
Simmons-12.
(Quorum-7)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Arsenault
Balcer
Bell
Boisvert
Breton
Cameron (High Park)
Cannon
Cardin
Coldwell
Crestohl
Decore
Fleming

Garland
Gauthier (Lake St. John)
Goode
Henry
Herridge
James
Jutras
Knowles
Low
Lusby
MacEachen
MacKenzie
Macnaughton
McMillan
Montgomery
Pallett
Patterson
Pearkes
Richard (Ottawa East)
Starr
Stick
Stuart (Charlotte) Studer-35.
(Quorum-10)
Mr. Weir moved: that the report be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:: That the standing committees of this house shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house; and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Gilbert Weir: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both houses on the subject of the printing of parliament, and that the following members, namely; Messrs. Ashbourne, Bertrand, Blair, Boivin, Bonnier, Brown (Brantford), Bryson, Campbell, Cardiff, Charlton, Dechene, Dickey, Fairclough, Mrs., Fairey, Fontaine, Gauthier (Nickel Belt), Gingras, Girard, Gour (Russell), Habel, Hansell, Healy, Hodgson, Houck, Howe (Wellington-Huron), Huffman, James, Johnson (Kindersley), Kickham, Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere), Leduc (Jacques Cartier-Lasalle), Lefrangois, MacEachen, Maltais, Mang, McGregor, Mclvor, McWilliam, Patterson, Pommer, Rea, Regier, Robinson (Bruce), Rochefort, Schneider, Simmons, Small, Smith (York North), Stanton, Stick, Thibault, Weaver, Wylie and Zaplitny will act as members on the part of this house on the said joint committee on the printing of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Gilbert Weir: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house has appointed Messrs. Bertrand, Bourque, Brown (Essex West), Castleden, Coldwell, Dechene, Dinsdale, Fairey, Fraser (St. John's East), Fraser (Peterborough), Gingues, Gourd (Chapleau), Habel, Hamilton (York West), Hansell, Hellyer, Henderson, Hosking, Howe (Wellington-Huron), Hunter, Jones, Jutras, Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare), Knight, LaCroix, Leduc (Gatineau), Legare, Lennard, McCulloch (Pictou), McGregor, McWilliam, Philpott, Pickers-gill, Ratelle, Reinke, Robinson (Bruce), Shaw, Small, Smith (York North), Smith (Battle River-Camrose), Thibault, Tucker, Weselak and White (Middlesex East), a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the library of parliament so far as the interests of the House of Commons are
Inquiries of the Ministry concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a joint committee of both houses on the library.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Gilbert Weir: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house has appointed Miss Aitken, Messrs. Buchanan, Caron, Castleden, Ferguson, Gauthier (Nickel Belt), Gingues, Gour (Russell), Hardie, Harkness, MacNaught, Mang, Masse, McGregor, Michaud, Monette, Pommer, Richard (Ottawa East), Shipley, Mrs., Simmons, Stewart (Winnipeg North), Stick, White (Hastings-Frontenac), and Yuill, to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the parliamentary restaurant, so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a joint committee of both houses on the restaurant.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of the report of a speech he made last evening at the Seigniory club with regard to what was described as the rough disposal policy of the United States? It had to do with the fire sale, giveaway policy with respect to agricultural products and in particular wheat.
I should like to ask the minister this question. When was the last protest made to the United States against this type of disposal program, which violates GATT and the resolution of FAO, and what reply was received to that latest protest? Was the protest in writing? If so, would the minister table that protest and the reply?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the two governments have appointed a continuing committee of senior civil servants of both governments to deal with these matters. The committee meets from time to time. I think the last meeting was some two or three weeks ago. Protests are filed through that committee, and sometimes remedial action is taken. Protests, I may say, are sometimes filed in both directions. In any event we find that committee has been useful as a means of conveying our protests, and has had some effect in discouraging certain policies to which we in Canada take strong objection. There is nothing to table. We do not file our protests in writing; we file them through the committee.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say what changes have been made in consequence oi the complaints that have been made to the United States government through this committee? Would the minister also say what is being done so that Canada may recover her position as the leading exporter of wheat, a position which has been seriously endangered as a result of United States action?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, to discuss in parliament the subject matters that are dealt with by the committee would be to destroy the usefulness of the committee.


An hon. Member:: What usefulness?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know that it is particularly in the public interest to discuss the kind of transactions we object to. Certain transactions we do object to; but to single them out and discuss them on the floor of the house would, as I say, seriously prejudice the future of the continuing committee.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if I might follow up that matter I should like to do so. The making of an announcement outside of the house is much worse than making it in the house. I wanted to get particulars. Possibly I shall direct my question to the Prime Minister in order to get information on this matter. I ask him whether when he last met President Eisenhower and brought to the President's attention the serious situation brought about by the trade balance between Canada and the United States, which caused shock to the President when he found it out, he also let the President know how utterly unjust and unfair it is for the United States to carry on this disposal policy to the detriment of fair competition on the part of Canada?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I cannot assure the hon. gentleman that I used the language he has just used in his question, but I did make it quite clear to the President that we endeavour to have as good relations as possible with his great country in trade policies as well as in other policies, and I found that he was disposed to do everything he could under the circumstances to conserve that state of good relations and the feeling among the populations of the two countries that we were endeavouring to be of as great help to each other as possible.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: May I ask a
supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Has the Canadian government considered any new policies for the disposal of Canadian wheat, such as accepting local currency, as


I understand the United States is doing in the case of India in connection with a contract for the sale of 120 million bushels of wheat over a three-year period?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: In spite of our admiration for our neighbours to the south there are some of their policies we do not take as examples of proper policies for Canada.


Hazen Robert Argue: The question is this. Is the Canadian government considering any additional policies for the sale of Canadian wheat other than the current policy of accepting dollars?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The
Canadian government is always considering ' what policies will be the most effective, and it is continuing to do so. As soon as there is any important change decided upon it will be announced to the house.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: May I
ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in view of his answer to the Leader of the Opposition. He said in his answer that he thought this question was of little public interest. Does he think there is anything of greater public interest to the producers whose sales are being adversely affected by these unfair trade practices being put into effect by the United States?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member failed to understand my answer, and I am not surprised.


George Harris Hees: I am sure I did not fail to understand, and if I did would the Minister of Trade and Commerce please give his answer again so I can understand it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend can read it in Hansard tomorrow.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce supplementary to the question asked by my leader. I will have to take my chance, Mr. Speaker, with respect to whether I understood his answers any better than the hon. member for Broadview. Is the minister now stating as government policy that it is no longer in the public interest to let the people of the country know what case is being put forward on their behalf in negotiations with foreign powers on trade matters?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no.


John Borden Hamilton: What exactly did the minister mean when he answered the question originally?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I seem to have satisfied the hon. leader who asked the question. I thought that was doing fairly well.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the minister that he did not satisfy me any more than he has satisfied me on previous occasions, but I am getting so used to the usual government mumbo-jumbo with respect to answering questions that I did not pursue it.
[Later:1


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, at whatever risk I do so. Did the minister not say that in view of the fact that there was a committee of civil servants considering this particular question it was not desirable that the matter should be discussed or information given in the house?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that is correct. The committee meets in camera, and to discuss any matter that has been referred to the committee would impair and probably destroy its future usefulness.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does that leave us in the situation that whenever a committee of civil servants is appointed to discuss a matter, we in this house must regard it as something that we cannot discuss?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, is that an urgent question to be put on the orders of the day?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Fleming:: It is most important.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I suggest to you, sir, that the rules you used to apply should continue to be applied in the case of questions that are put on the orders of the day.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -does the Prime Minister not believe that parliament has a right to hear? Is everything to be hidden under the new policy or the continuation of the old one that is being followed-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Inquiries of the Ministry


An hon. Member:: Questions for one hour
every day.


John George Diefenbaker: -by the government, of concealing all information that it does not want parliament or the people to have? I do protest against the suggestion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that when a matter is submitted to civil servants it shall not be submitted to parliament.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the hon. gentleman reads what was being talked about before he rose and reads his own remarks, he will find how inappropriate they are to what has been the subject of discussion.


John George Diefenbaker: They are very appropriate. Hide everything. That is the game.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare based on a long-distance phone call from Toronto just a few minutes ago. Is the minister aware that this afternoon's edition of the Toronto Telegram carries a report that on Monday Premier Frost will make an announcement, and that on Tuesday he will introduce legislation implementing Ontario's agreement with Ottawa with respect to the federal government's hospitalization insurance program? Is the minister aware that this report says that certain modifications have been made in the proposal put forward by the federal government last year? Can the minister comment on this report now that it is out in public?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: At first I thought my hon. friend was going to say that Premier Frost had telephoned him. I am relieved to know that the undoubted friendly qualities of my hon. friend do not extend that far. As a matter of fact the hon. member for Parkdale has just come to me to give notice of his desire to ask the same question.


George Harris Hees: Why not ask the question for him?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not aware of such a story except from what I have been told by the two hon. gentlemen. I can only say now that there has been correspondence between the premier of Ontario and the Prime Minister of Canada in this matter and
592	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry that there have been discussions between Premier Frost and myself, between his officials and our officials, and that as a result the premier of Ontario did write to inquire whether or not a particular plan that he had in mind would come, in our judgment, within the scope of the federal proposals which were made to the provinces in the matter of a diagnostic and hospital insurance program.
At the end of his letter the premier asked that the communications between the two governments in this matter should not be disclosed until mutual arrangements for disclosure had been made. Until Premier Frost and I have made arrangements for the disclosure of this correspondence I would not feel that I could disclose the correspondence to the house, but I can say, without in any way revealing the contents of this correspondence, that if the premier of Ontario is prepared to do what he has indicated, then it would seem that we have made substantial progress toward the acceptance of the proposal made by the federal government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. In the light of the hopeful announcement he has now made, is the minister still as strong as he was last year in his adherence to the principle of universal coverage in any hospital insurance program? He will recall that he had our strong support last year in his adherence to that principle.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think, having in mind the pursuit of this desirable objective, my hon. friend ought to restrain his curiosity until the disclosures have been made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister another supplementary question. Are similar discussions in progress between this government and other provincial governments, such as the government of Manitoba?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I said the other day, most of the provinces have, in my judgment, seriously examined and are seriously examining the proposal we put forward. One premier, as I indicated a short time ago, was in Ottawa only the day before yesterday, partly in this connection. I myself have had discussions with a number of premiers and ministers of health and these discussions are continuing.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to either


the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since the throne speech debate has now been disposed of, and since many members on the government side of the house advocated increases in old age security payments and family allowances, will the government now make it possible for the house to have a free vote on whether or not it is the desire of the people of Canada to have pensions and family allowances increased?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think I should answer that question. I think it would be an extremely bad precedent for the government to ask the house by a free vote to take the responsibility, which is the government's, to recommend what should be done in respect of the expenditure of public funds.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is any department of the government going to use the old post office building in Peterborough? If not, what is the government going to do with that vacant building?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It will be used as Liberal
headquarters in the next election.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: May I take the question as notice,
Mr. Speaker?



POULTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister aware that the health of animals inspection regulation requiring a minimum of 10,000 birds per week is being exploited to advantage by three large poultry processing plants in British Columbia, who are labelling their product "H of A approved" and in so doing are even now capturing the poultry market in that province by implying that smaller plants do not meet federal health standards despite the fact that their standards of health inspection are equal to or surpass federal requirements? If so, will the minister immediately consider modifying such regulation's and allow all processing

plants meeting such health requirements to label their products "H of A approved"?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I was handed this question just as I came into the house. I can only say I was not aware of all the things happening that are mentioned in the question.
The facts are that in all these matters we have inspectors in plants that carry on export trade in the commodities concerned. We have no authority to have similar inspections made in other, smaller plants that buy and sell practically all their products within a province. There is no inspector put in plants by the health of animals branch, until they have been approved under provincial health requirements. Therefore any "H of A approved" marking that is put on the products is put on following provincial inspection.
In other words these must be plants that are approved by the provincial authority as putting up the products under conditions set by the provincial health regulations, and that part of it is taken care of before we enter into inspection at all. Our inspection and marking indicates that it has been checked by our people, and is to satisfy the regulations in connection with export. All the other matters having to do with the smaller plants concern the provincial authority.


Frederick George Hahn: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the inspection in these plants is particularly for export purposes, and since the product is being used in the domestic market, would the minister therefore approve of the provincial body allowing the domestic use of the same "H of A approved" stamp in the small provincial plants?


James Garfield Gardiner: As I understand it that is a matter that is pretty well taken in hand by the persons who import the products. They insist on inspection being made by the federal authority in connection with products they import; but the choice is made not by this government but rather by the individual operators of the packing plants, whether they process poultry or some other product; and if they do intend to export then they apply for inspection on the part of our authorities. If they do not intend to export they do not apply for federal inspection.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence
Inquiries of the Ministry and I regret that I did not have an opportunity to give him notice in advance. During the present reconstruction of Minto armouries in Winnipeg, will consideration be given by the Department of National Defence to providing an indoor track for athletic purposes, in view of the department's emphasis on the value of track and field athletics and their general physical fitness programs?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take the question as notice. I do not know just what the detailed plans for the armoury are in that regard.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to ask a question of the Minister of Justice, but as he is not in his seat I would direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the supreme court has now passed judgment in respect to farm marketing boards, can the minister say whether it will be within the jurisdiction and competence of a province to allow producer marketing boards to be set up with policies designed to equalize returns to producers?
While he is answering that question I would also like him to answer a further one. In view of the majority decision of the supreme court on this question, can the minister say whether in his opinion it will be necessary for federal legislation to be introduced in order that producers may have the power to set up marketing boards which cover products going into interprovincial trade?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: When I was minister of justice I was cautioned that it was not proper to give legal opinions from my place in parliament, especially in connection with such a question as this which has to do with the interpretation of a judgment rendered on a reference that was made at the request of provincial authorities. I think it would be quite improper for me to attempt to say what will be the jurisdiction of the provinces now. They have had an answer from the court to the questions which they submitted, and I think it is for them to take the responsibility of determining to what extent it defines their proper jurisdiction in that field.
As to what may or may not be done in the way of federal legislation, that will

Inquiries of the Ministry depend upon representations we may receive from the provincial governments which are interested in the matter, and if we do receive them we will consider them very attentively.



REPORTED EFFECT OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister aware that his tight money policy has contributed to the present confused situation in the egg market in western Ontario?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: I have heard a good many things said about the tight money policy, but this is the first time it has been applied to eggs. However, I know that eggs are a very important source of income to farmers of western Ontario. However, I will look into the question.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I wish to ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that more eggs are on the market today than last year, and that bankers will not make secured loans to dealers in amounts sufficient to enable them to put these eggs in storage? The net result is causing confusion at all stages of the industry and resulting in prices being paid which are less than floor prices.


James Garfield Gardiner: In view of the fact that I have been dealing with that matter for the last three or four days-


Jay Waldo Monteith: I addressed my question to the Minister of Finance.


James Garfield Gardiner: This may also bring an answer from him. As a matter of fact eggs are marketed in two different forms. The one form is fresh eggs and the other form is oil-dipped fresh eggs. We are prepared to take delivery of oil-dipped fresh eggs from western Ontario or from any other place at the price which has been established under the plan which has been operating for the last five or six years. That word has gone forward to the persons concerned in the western part of Ontario within the last hour.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I would still like an answer to my supplementary question, that there are more eggs on the market this year and that dealers are not able to borrow sufficient money to put those eggs in storage, as has been done in previous years. What is the Minister of Finance going to do, in view of his advice to the Bank of Canada concerning the loaning of money?


Walter Edward Harris: I believe that the Minister of Agriculture has cleared up the question very well.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not think he did.


Walter Edward Harris: I think he did, with respect. In any event I promised a moment ago that I would look into the matter and if there is anything I need to do to supplement the answer made by the Minister of Agriculture, I will do it.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Will the minister inform the house as to the total number of man working days lost through illness, as a supplement to the information that 1,261,400 man working days were lost through industrial disputes in 1956, which information was just released as the preliminary figure by the information branch of his department? And is the total time lost through illness also lower than that of previous recent years, as is the figure for time lost through industrial disputes?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have just had a very hasty glance at this question, which I received a few moments ago. I doubt very much if my department has any precise information as to the number of man working hours lost through illness. I will look into the matter. If there is anything useful which can be obtained I shall answer the question at an early date.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the hon. member for Middlesex East asked if the airport at London, Ontario, is to be equipped with surveillance radar as are the other main airports in Canada. The answer is that surveillance radar is to be installed at Halifax, Moncton, Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, North Bay, lakehead, Winnipeg, Kenora, Saskatoon, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. London will be within the range of the installation at Toronto.


Mr. H. O. While (Middlesex East):: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Were any representations or suggestions made by the airport authorities at London or by the city of London that surveillance radar be installed at London? Is he also aware that the latest issue of the Monetary Times reported that London was going to be one of the airports at which such an installation would be made?


George Carlyle Marler: As far as the first part of the question is concerned, the answer is that I can recall no representations of that kind having been made by the airport committee at London. So far as the location of the surveillance radar units is concerned, I may say that the location is decided by the technical advisers of my department and not by the Monetary Times.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: Yesterday the hon. member for Queens inquired as to what progress was being made in efforts to refloat the S. S. Cabot Strait, and also asked for comment on the adequacy of the substitute service provided.
I am advised by the management of the Canadian National Railways that salvage operations are under way but that the vessel has not yet been refloated. With regard to substitute service, the management advises that the motor vessel Nonia is operating in place of the disabled ship, and daily service has not been interrupted. The management considers daily service adequate, and has pointed out that last winter there was only a tri-weekly service.
I think I should add for the information of the house that the stranding of the Cabot Strait occurred in extremely severe weather conditions. Gales were blowing up to 100 miles an hour, and there was a very heavy snowstorm and almost zero visibility.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Did the minister notice that the Canadian Labour Congress in its brief to the
Inquiries of the Ministry government yesterday-I believe he was there and heard it-asked for an increase in the old age pension to $65 a month? Will the minister keep this figure in mind when he drafts the bill increasing old age pensions, which he will be presenting later this session?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have already dealt with that question, but the Minister of National Health and Welfare also heard the Canadian Labour Congress commend the government for the steps it has taken in the introduction of its proposal for a system of hospital insurance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The congress also called for a comprehensive program of health insurance, and for action without further delay.



CANNED PEACHES-INQUIRY AS TO SHORTAGE OF CANADIAN PRODUCT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would he inform the house whether there is or is not a shortage of Canadian canned peaches at the present time?
James Garfield Gardiner: I will have to take notice of the question.
Mr. Pallet!: May I ask a supplementary question. When the minister ascertains what the situation is, will he also ascertain why we are being served American canned peaches in the parliamentary restaurant?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I wonder whether I could ask the Minister of Finance whether he, both as Minister of Finance and as house leader, is in a position to give assurance that if, as we expect, a budget is introduced at this session the house will be given an opportunity to debate it and express an opinion on it before dissolution?


Walter Edward Harris: The progress we have been making, with the long question periods of the past ten days, has made me wonder whether we will ever reach the budget.


Mr. Lennard:: It just depends when you bring it down.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister is, of course, entitled to wonder as he likes, hut I wonder if he would answer the question.


Walter Edward Harris: If a budget is delivered during this session of parliament it will not be within the next few days anyway; therefore the matter is not urgent. In any event, I think my record as house leader would lead the opposition to agree with me that I always extend the courtesy of giving them advance notice of what will be done.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In the light of the precedents of other years, would the minister say we should take it from his answer that he is going to change that precedent, because we have not regarded it as proper or courteous when on former occasions the budget was introduced and no opportunity was given to debate it.


Walter Edward Harris: I have heard the observations, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would be prepared to make a statement to the house concerning the remarks he is reported to have made yesterday to the Canadian Labour Congress regarding a study of collective bargaining between the government and civil servants. May we take it from what the Prime Minister is reported to have said yesterday that this matter will be given a new look, and that it will be studied further?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this
is not the sort of question that should be asked upon the orders of the day. However, I will state to my hon. friend, though I do not want to start another debate, that most of these questions are not asked for the purpose of obtaining information but for the purpose of endeavouring-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I protest. My question was
asked to obtain information that I think should be given to the House of Commons.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not
referring to this question, but most of them seem to have been more in the way of attempts to get us to agree with criticism that is implied in the question, and I do not think that is urgent or proper in questions on the orders of the day.


I made the statement, and it is my personal position, that I have always felt that collective bargaining did not meet the constitutional practice of our system with respect to the civil service. When I heard that some form of collective bargaining was in operation- I do not know how far it goes-in the United Kingdom, I asked that further information be obtained as to what it was and how it works. That is as far as I went.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I rise because I take exception to the categorical manner in which the Prime Minister has spoken with respect to questions which some of us on this side of the house have asked. I feel that I at least have asked questions for the purpose of getting information, and I resent his statement.



STATEMENT BY MR. SPEAKER ON ASKING OF QUESTIONS

['Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is no necessity to quote what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said. The only reason I was using his words was that they expressed what I wanted to say so much better than I could myself. The point I was trying to make was that there is considerable difference between the objectives of this resolution and those of the other measure to which I referred and which also envisages grants and scholarships to students. In introducing the resolution having to do with the Canada Council the Prime Minister pointed out that scholarships would be made available to people who perhaps could not properly be considered as university students. He went on to illustrate that by mentioning groups of people such as artists, musicians and actors.\n\nThe resolution which we are now considering is different in two very important respects. In the first place, it is different in that it is specifically designed to help needy students to get a university education. The factor of need does not enter into the awarding of scholarships under the Canada Council. It is also different in that it makes provision for bursaries as well as scholarships which the other measure does not. One might have hoped that this resolution would have also made provision for the granting of interest free loans to students.\nIt is fitting that education should occupy the attention of this house to such a great extent at this time. Canada is a very rich country with a tremendous future and education is essential to the development of our material resources and the steady expansion of our economy. Education can also play a very important part in the development of those areas of our country which may not be so richly blessed with natural wealth.\nWe all think of the United States, our neighbour to the south, as having the highest standard of living in the world. Mr. Thomas Bouchel, a member of the United States chamber of commerce, when addressing audiences in the United States following his return from Europe some time ago has been quoted as saying that in his opinion Switzerland has the highest standard of living in the world and Denmark had the highest standard of life.\nIn recent months we have become increasingly conscious of the fact that university education is also essential to our national defence.\nIndeed it may even be our first line of defence. The emphasis which Russia is placing on education and the feverish haste of Russian universities to turn out engineers and scientists indicate that they have made the same appraisal. It becomes increasingly clear that our human resources, our brain power, are the most precious of all our resources. Any nation which neglects their development does so at its own peril.\nOn the political level education is essential also to the preservation of our democracy and our democratic institutions and to the solving of the complex problems which face us today. Democracy has been described as government of the people, by the people, for the people. Democracy cannot work unless the people are in position to play their part effectively, and they cannot play their part effectively without sufficient educational training to develop independent thought and judgment.\nThe people must be able to understand the present in the terms of the past and to\n\nanticipate the future in terms of both. Abraham Lincoln said that "if we could just know where we are and whither we are tending, we could better know what to do and how to do it." Above all education is essential for living a life. The only forms of life that have survived on this planet are those which have been successful in adapting themselves to their environment. In this age of electronics, automation and the atom bomb the ability to adapt oneself to one\'s environment becomes more vital still. A knowledge and appreciation of those values which satisfy the soul, which go to make up a full life and which are of permanent lasting value are indispensable if people and\nEducation\nnations are to reverse their present course toward chaos and destruction.\nOn motion of Mr. Carter the debate was adjourned.']
Mr. Speaker:: I think I am in duty bound to say something about the manner in which questions are being asked. I am sure there is on the part of hon. members a sincere desire to observe the rules. Standing order 39 (1) reads as follows:
39. (1) Questions may be placed on the order paper seeking information from ministers of the crown relating to public affairs: and from other members, relating to any bill, motion, or other public matter connected with the business of the house, in which such members may be concerned; but in putting any such question or in replying to the same no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same; and in answering any such question the matter to which the same refers shall not be debated.
Citation 297 of Beauchesne's third edition is to the following effect:
297. A certain number of oral questions are permitted in practice by members, without notice, before the orders of the day are called; but these are merely allowed by courtesy in connection with the business of the house or with very urgent and important matters of public concern. They are always brief, no debate being permitted, and the replies are as concise as possible. The minister interrogated may reply at once or may direct that the usual notice be given. Such questions are governed by the same rules of order as questions of which notice has been given.
Therefore, if oral questions are to be governed by the same rules of order as questions of which notice has been given, they are subject to the following rule found in standing order 39 (1), the last part of which I will read again:
. . . but in putting any such question or in replying to the same no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same; and in answering any such question the matter to which the same refers shall not be debated.

There are other citations in Beauchesne which further explain what the practice should be. I should like to cite citation 311, which reads as follows:
311. Although there may be no debate on an answer, further questions, within due limits, may be addressed to the minister as may be necessary for the elucidation of the answers that have been given. The extent to which supplementary questions may be asked is in the discretion of the Speaker.
After a minister has answered a question asked by a member when the orders of the day are called, no discussion of any kind should take place.
Then it goes on to cite a statement by Mr. Speaker Lowther in 1915 which I will not read to this house, but it is there for hon. members to consult. Citation 295 gives the details of the various rulings that have been made by my predecessors on questions asked from time to time over the years. I would also mention citations 296, 298, 299, 300, 301 and 302.
Last year I made a statement with regard to questions after having made a study of the matter, and it was my hope that the statement I made then, which was lengthy, would be the last one that I should be obliged to make. See Journals, Friday, 16th March, 1956, pages 299-305. I think it is obvious to any hon. gentleman that we may be departing from the requirements of the rules as they actually exit. I believe hon. members will agree, and this is my own view, that at question time I have been so lenient that some hon. members may have felt justified in addressing to me serious reproaches for my lack of vigilance at that stage of the proceedings. I am not going to divulge private conversations, but certain members on both sides of the house have often told me that at question time they were "getting away with murder".
They know what the rules are. We all know what they are. We also know how much more entertaining it may be to have more latitude than the rules allow. But the rules as they stand are the rules I must apply, no matter how much perhaps I personally should like to see another system established. The only way the rules can be changed is by the house itself through a committee on procedure, which would recommend certain changes and have them debated. If hon. members do not like this type of procedure-I refer to the one that is provided for-they may take the steps that are necessary to have it changed. See Beauchesne's third edition, citations 9 and 10.
What I have said today does not apply to any questions that have been asked today in particular. My remarks are not addressed
Motions for Papers
to any hon. member in particular. I am not admonishing the house. I am not reprimanding anyone. I am just speaking in general as to the manner in which we have conducted ourselves, and I include members of the opposition and members of the government as well. The rules are to the effect that the replies must be concise and should not include any more facts than are necessary to give the reply. The rule applies to the question and it applies to the reply. I include myself in the remarks I have been making, because I perhaps should have been more vigilant in the interpretation and observance of the rules.
Having in mind the ambition that we all have to respect our rules, let us resolve that if we do not like them we shall change them in the manner which is provided under our rules. Let us hope we can carry on from here. I hope we may have interesting question periods just the same, but that we shall keep within the rules.



[Stage Direction]
Motion No. I-Mr. Knowles:
For a copy of the judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada in case No. 73805 between the Minister of National Revenue, appellant, and the Publishers' Guild of Canada Limited, respondent; and also a copy of the judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada in case No. 78533 between the Publishers' Guild of Canada Limited, appellant, and the Minister of National Revenue, respondent.
Walter Edward Harris: The Minister of National
Revenue, Mr. Speaker, is unavoidably absent for a short time. Perhaps this could stand until the next day when it would be called.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.


BANK OF CANADA-PRESS PUBLICITY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 2-Mr. Hees:
For a copy of all directives, instructions, press releases, etc., issued by the Bank of Canada, and of all public statements or speeqhes by the governor of the bank, since September 1, 1956.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 4-Mr. Knowles (for Mr. Coldwell):
For a copy of the text of the Canadian government's reply to the questionnaire circulated to member governments, by the Secretary General of the United Nations as authorized by resolution 923 (x) of the general assembly, December 9, 1955, regarding the question of the establishment of a special United Nations fund for economic development.
598	HOUSE OF
Education

Mr. A. H. Hollingworth (York Centre) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to provide national scholarships and bursaries for students at the university level who are in financial need in so far as the subject matter of this resolution is within the competence of parliament.
He said: I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to again sponsor this resolution, which has as its objective the assistance to university students in financial need by means of bursaries and scholarships. I should like to say at this time how very much I appreciate the widespread support I received in the house last year when this resolution came up for the first time. I suppose that is as it should be, because this particular crusade is essentially non-partisan. I should like also to compliment the national federation of Canadian university students for the untiring work they have done in this regard, and I would think the work in which they have persevered throughout the years will soon bear fruit.
There seems to be a considerable amount of confusion in the minds of many people about the responsibility for education in this country, and I should like to take a few minutes to point out in what ways the various jurisdictions enter into the picture. One often hears it said that the federal government of the United States does more for education than does the federal government of this country. This only serves to show up the peculiar nature of Canada, and why a policy that can be followed in the United States cannot necessarily be followed in this country. By the Quebec Act the French speaking population of Canada received certain rights. One of those rights was complete control over the education of their children. This clause was enshrined in the British North America Act, and the federal government must be very careful that its jurisdiction does not impinge on provincial jurisdiction in matters of general education.
I have cited the case of the province of Quebec, but I think I could mention any other province. I feel sure that in my own province of Ontario the provincial authorities would be very much upset, and would quickly object, if it were seen that there was any alleged interference with this exclusive provincial jurisdiction. As a result, Mr. Speaker, we may rule out the possibility of federal assistance to education on a general scale. However, there are certain special fields

Education
than one-tenth of the provincial expenditures on roads. It is my impression that provincial governments are doing more this year. Surely it is incumbent upon this parliament within its limited function-but a very important function, I submit, Mr. Speaker- to revise drastically upwards by one means or another our assistance to universities, and particularly our assistance in the line of bursaries and scholarships.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in French to my French-speaking fellow citizens and particularly to those of my colleagues who represent Quebec constituencies.
I would ask them to support this resolution of mine because I sincerely think that it is one of the best means of promoting national unity in Canada.
Before introducing and explaining my resolution, I want to make it clear that I am among those who recognize that the provinces have competent jurisdiction in the field of education. That is the case in the province of Ontario as well as in all the provinces which stand guard jealously over their rights in the field of education.
I know that French Canadians are proud of their language, their customs and their traditions. They are right in feeling as they do, and I congratulate them on that score. In order to maintain this character, French Canadians mean to keep control of education, in so far as it concerns them. I recognize that fact, as indeed my resolution shows. I am also convinced that most Canadians, French and English speaking, recognize it too.
I am looking forward to a better future when we shall have an active exchange of students, students who will think first and foremost as Canadians.


Mr. Roland Michener (Si. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Hollingworth) on the few words he said in French. I shall now pursue my comments in a language which is familiar to me and perhaps also to other members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear! Hear!
(Text):


Daniel Roland Michener: I would like to say how interesting I found the remarks of the hon. member for York Centre on his second presentation of this motion. It is a subject of great current interest. In fact, if a member had come into the house during the hon. gentleman's speech without having heard the order called he might have been in some doubt as to which order on the order paper

was under discussion, because we had the experience a day or two ago of hearing the Prime Minister indicate that a council would be set up and that it was the intention of the government to ask parliament for $50 million as an endowment for that council, largely for the purpose of establishing scholarships.
It is perhaps a matter of judgment, Mr. Speaker, as to whether one should address one's remarks to this subject at this time or wait for the other debate which is indicated on the order paper. I have been in some doubt on that subject. It is a question of which is the cart and which is the horse in this case. Perhaps one might say, as the hon. member for York Centre has priority in time, that at least if the government is the cart it is a pushcart being pushed by its backbenchers in this case. The lead has not come from the front.
This motion is qualified by three very interesting words which appear at the end, and I shall read the last line:
... in so far as the subject matter of this resolution is within the competence of parliament.
I propose to speak briefly on this subject under three headings. The first is the general need of scholarships for university students; second, the capacity of the federal government to provide funds for such purposes; third, I propose to deal with the question of the competence of parliament which is implicit in the motion itself.
Concerning the question of need, I think every hon. member of this house has a fair appreciation of the needs of the Canadian universities. They have been the subject of a great deal of discussion in the press and of many conferences in the least year or two, and on many occasions they have been the subject of discussions in this house. So there can foe no doubt in the minds of hon. members of this house concerning the needs of Canadian universities if they are to fulfil their function in the years ahead. We are in a forecasting mood these days. We have been looking ahead; we see the possibility of a great increase in the number of students attending universities and are aware of the needs of the universities in expanding their facilities. This resolution, however, primarily directs itself to the needs of the students themselves.
I think it would be a contribution to the debate if I called your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a paper which was delivered in this city a few months ago at the national conference of Canadian universities called on the subject of Canada's crisis in higher education. One paper was delivered by Dr. R. W. B. Jackson and Dr. W. G. Fleming, both of the department of national research of the

Ontario College of Education. The subject of the paper was "Who goes to university?". On page two these gentlemen posed the problem in the following terms:
The question "Who should go to university?" implies an unrealized ideal-a discrepancy between what should be and what is. For just as it is obvious that our universities come very far from attracting and retaining all the young people with aptitudes, interests, and traits of character needed to profit from a university education, it is equally apparent that many of those now enrolled in our universities lack the qualifications for success. The failure rates now prevailing-30 per cent is common-are intolerable even in an economy as wealthy as ours.
Following considerable discussion of the subject they arrived at conclusions which are far from satisfactory, but perhaps they are the best that could be given from the knowledge which is available. This is the first conclusion recorded on page 25:
... we may summarize the findings about "Who Goes to University" in this way. We really know appallingly little about our university students, in general or in particular.
I think that is a rather grave admission in these times of attempts to deal rationally with and make adequate plans for the future. The second conclusion is as follows:
The little we do know all points to the inescapable conclusion that we are extremely wasteful of our limited resources of human talent; we may be utilizing little more than one-quarter, perhaps at most one-third, of the talents of our gifted young men and women.
To my mind that is another extremely serious statement. The third conclusion reads:
We must secure more information before we can do any sensible planning, and we must be prepared to pay the cost in time, effort, and money.
This section of the paper concludes:
Finally, if we are short of trained personnel, it is our own fault. The intellectual and other abilities are present in sufficient quantity in every generation; we not only fail to use them, we fail even to recognize them.
There, I think, is the justification of the need for more scholarships on a broad basis in Canada to make use of the available abilities of this generation which, as indicated in the statement I read, are not being given the opportunities and advantages which with our democratic philosophy and ideals we recognize as the right of every citizen in equal measure. It is the democratic ideal, which we have demonstrated in elementary education, to give equal opportunity to all students. In fact it has been made compulsory for students to attend school to an age which almost completes high school education. That principle of equality which is the background of our political system, and our concept of freedom and government should also extend to university education.
Education
Opportunity should be made available along the lines I have indicated.
The next question is, what are the needs of the students themselves? We have had some very interesting help on this subject. All hon. members have received the brief to which my hon. friend referred, presented by the national federation of Canadian university students. The one I hold in my hand is dated January 25, 1956. It is now a year old, but it shows very careful consideration by the people who ought to know of what it costs to attend university and what the prospects are for a young man or woman who is not fortunate enough to have family backing which will assure him the means to complete a year or two or three of higher education.
This document, signed by Mr. Peter G. Martin and Mr. Harry Arthurs, may have been brought up to date, but it is a clear indication from the students that it is not now possible with the current costs of university education for an ordinary person to earn and pay his own way through university. Certainly some will do it. I recall very well that when I was attending the University of Alberta there was a young man in attendance who was the envy of us all. He was an enterprising sort of fellow who went out selling Wearever aluminum products in the summer and always came back with $1,000 or $1,500 in cash which was more than he needed in those days to pay his tuition and expenses for a year at the university.
The best evidence we have today is that on the average the student who works to good advantage during the summer will make $600 net and will return to university with that sum, which he can put toward his costs; but it does not begin to cover the entire expense. The average cost of a year at university is $1,200, and that ranges from $900 in some of the smaller colleges to $1,400 at McGill. Depending on private support as it does, McGill has, I think, higher tuition fees than most universities. The student who averages $600 net has a shortage of approximately $600. Although one might say to a student, "You are an enterprising young man in a country of vast opportunity. You can make your own way through and if necessary stay at work for a year and save enough to go to university for three years in succession," it does not work out that way in practice.
The challenge to make the best use of the abilities of our young people is a grave one. I agree completely with the proposition that in Canada we should have scholarships based on ability, which will ensure that all young men and women who have the capacity

Education
for higher education shall have an opportunity to obtain it. I could cite many other documents in support of the proposition, but I think it is generally accepted.
The next point is the capacity of the federal government to provide funds for a comprehensive system of scholarships. University students in their federation asked for 2,500 annual awards, each tenable for four years, at a cost of approximately $5.5 million a year, a very modest beginning. The scope of scholarships which exist today is substantially in excess of that figure, and we are now setting aside a substantial sum of money, though not large within the figures with which the federal government deals. There is no question when one considers the real taxation, the amount of money which our expanding economy produces, and the surplus which is produced by the taxation level maintained by this parliament and this government, that the sums are available.
This year the estimates which have just been tabled called for an expenditure of $5 billion, more than was ever spent in one year except in the year of highest expenditure during the war, 1943-44, when the estimates ran to something like $5,400 million. That is a sum which I think we will be asked to exceed this year when all the supplementary estimates are in. I dare say the Minister of Finance will undertake to find that sum on a balanced basis. There is no question of the capacity of the federal treasury to meet these educational demands.
The further point which I wish to make is that which the hon. member raises in his motion, the competence of the federal authority to enter into this field. Of course that is a serious question. The basic document is the British North America Act. In section 91 it deals with the matters under federal jurisdiction. Section 91 does not mention education. The nearest approach to it is the section dealing with the establishment of penitentiaries, which has nothing remotely to do with education. Then in section 92 the exclusive powers of the provincial legislatures are dealt with. Education is not there, for the simple reason that education was so definitely a matter of provincial concern and so jealously guarded by the provinces which entered into confederation that they made a special section 93 for education which says:
In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education . . .
Then there are some provisos which do not affect the argument which I wish to make on that point. There is the scheme of confederation. It has been recognized. I see an instance of it right here in the letter which has been

submitted to the members. The Canadian school trustees' association wrote to all members of parliament in April, 1956, and I shall read one sentence of their letter, as follows:
This year a delegation proposed to present a brief to the cabinet based on that report. Unfortunately the Prime Minister has declined to receive the delegation as he contends that education is a provincial matter.
I propose to present a question to the house. How can this need be filled within the concept of our confederation? I for one do not wish to shatter any of the rights of the provinces in the educational field. That was clearly written into the constitution. Those rights are very jealously prized, particularly by the province of Quebec, and certainly I believe this house should pay every respect to that feeling on the part of the provinces in their control over education.
As the hon. member for York Centre said, the government has taken a fairly active part in educational matters in the past. It is worth while to take a look at the pattern of this. First, there was support for the various scholarships with which we are all familiar. Some 55,000 veterans enjoyed federal assistance in secondary and undergraduate education. Of these, 44,000 were in the universities for more than a year, all with federal funds. That apparently was not regarded as a serious inroad into provincial jurisdiction.
Then we have the dominion-provincial vocational training scheme to which the hon. member has referred. It is interesting to note that in 1952-53 there were 6,000 trainees in the province of Quebec, 1,500 in the province of Ontario, and 1,500 in all the other provinces, making a total of 9,000 who were receiving training which must be considered as educational training at the expense of the federal treasury. But that of course was under agreement between the provinces and the federal government, voluntarily entered into; it was not unilateral action. It was in a different category than the proposals which are apparently anticipated in the establishment of the Canada Council.
Then in addition there are the scholarships granted annually by the Department of National Health and Welfare. The Department of National Defence has a good many scholarships under the defence research board. The Department of Trade and Commerce also has some, more particularly the national research council which offered in 1955-56 a total of 267 scholarships for a total of $336,000. This year there are 250 summer research scholarships of $800 each for teachers of engineering and natural science.
We have a precedent here for the expenditure of federal funds in the provision

of educational scholarships. The hon. member has not proposed any scheme, he has simply recommended that scholarships be founded. The question arises, why does not the present government make these expenditures for these scholarships by means of direct grants to the provinces without any strings attached except that they are to be grants for educational purposes? The other question is this. Could these scholarships be arranged by agreement with the provinces so as to preserve the principle which I have said we should not treat lightly?
What is the answer to the first question of why the government in its own measure, which we will be discussing presently, does not propose to provide these scholarships for the provinces by a lump sum grant for scholarship purposes, trusting the provincial governments, which are responsible to the electorate, to carry them out satisfactorily? The grants proposed are to be made to the Canada council to be set up and they are to be administered by them. Therefore an intermediary is placed between the federal treasury and the recipients of the scholarships. If the scheme of confederation is to be observed, surely these payments should be made to the provinces for the same purposes or be made under agreement with the provinces so that there is no question of federal interference in educational matters.
This is only part of what is necessary in Canada. We know that the need for scholarships is great. We also know that the needs of secondary and primary education are even greater. The problem is of such proportions that I suggest to the house that the answer to my question why the government does not authorize grants for education directly to the provincial authorities is that by doing so the federal government admits that it has been withholding from the provinces by overcentralization of revenues funds which they should have to carry out their responsibilities. It would be a clear admission if the federal government said to the provinces today: Here is $200 million for educational purposes, which you need, and gave it to them voluntarily.
A payment given voluntarily for education without any strings could not be considered a breach of the constitution but it would be an admission that the overcentralization that has continued since the provinces gave up their taxing authority under stress of war has been continued to the disadvantage of the provinces in carrying out their very essential and necessary functions.
My conclusion, Mr. Speaker, is that I support the idea of the resolution and will vote for it. However, I have very definite
Education
reservations as to the method by which this obvious need is to be met. I have explained those reservations. I think it is the duty of the federal authority not to impinge. When there are ways in which education can be assisted from the federal treasury, if it must be so assisted, which are within the principles of division of authority and responsibility and are acceptable, then certainly we should not do these things in ways which are not acceptable to any of the provinces of Canada.
I am sorry that we are in a position where the federal treasury has all the money and the provincial treasuries are not able to meet their responsibilities. It would be simpler if they were because then those governments, responsible to the same electorates, would undertake to discharge their responsibilities. They have every bit as much appreciation of the needs of education at the primary, secondary and university levels as we in the federal field have. As I say, I am sorry that they are not in a position to do so.
We on this side of the house have urged the government to look a little more realistically at the division of taxing authority and not to be so niggardly in their dealings with the provinces. The surpluses that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) is able to produce could well be devoted to giving the provinces an area in which they could raise educational funds. But in the circumstances that exist, and that is what we must look at because these things are urgent, I agree that as the money is here and the need is there it is only logical that they should be brought together. The reservation I have is as to the method.


Mr. J. E. Brown (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Hollingworth) upon the introduction of the resolution now before the house. I believe that last year the hon. member introduced a similar resolution and I was pleased to notice that it received widespread support from both sides of the house. While I have not had time to prepare adequately the reasons why I am very much in favour of the resolution, nevertheless I should like to take this opportunity of making a brief statement endorsing the resolution wholeheartedly.
It is needless to point out that under our constitution the field of education is a matter which comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the legislatures of the provinces. In view of this, I am glad to note that the resolution is worded in such a manner that the legislation asked for is only such as will be within the competence of parliament.

Education
The resolution asks that the government consider the advisability of introducing legislation to provide national scholarships and bursaries for students at the university level.
Although I do not pose as a constitutional lawyer, I can see nothing wrong in a constitutional way with this parliament voting to enact legislation providing for national scholarships; nor can I see any threat to the constitution or any invasion of provincial rights by the government instituting legislation of this kind.
I was very interested in the remarks just made by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Michener). With much of his speech I am in agreement but I cannot agree with him when he is fearful of an invasion of provincial rights in a matter of this kind. While I do not believe in handouts by governments and in making it too easy for the youth of our nation to find their way in the world, I nonetheless support the resolution wholeheartedly and without qualification. I believe it to be only right that the government of Canada and parliament should endeavour at all times to create the widest possible opportunities for the young people of Canada. I further believe it to be a principle of good government and a principle of Liberalism to provide as nearly as possible an equality of opportunity in the realm of higher education. If equality of opportunity across the nation is to be a watchword and a principle to guide us, then by all means the federal government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to provide for national scholarships and bursaries.
There is no need for me, Mr. Speaker, to outline the lack of professionally trained personnel in Canada. I believe that every member of the house knows that our resources of adequately trained people are very much limited. Professionally trained personnel are not available in sufficient numbers and our shortage of mechanical and electrical engineers is something that is constituting somewhat of a threat to the development and growth of Canada. Our shortage of qualified teachers and our shortage of doctors and dentists are also things which are quite obvious to all of us.
What concerns me is that the average working man and woman in Canada is really unable to provide his or her children with a university education, despite the fact that these children are able to earn a considerable amount of money during summer vacations at jobs of their own and thus to help themselves as much as possible. A system of national

scholarships and busaries would, in my opinion, greatly aid in overcoming this state of affairs.
I believe, without hesitation, that every young person who has the capacity and the desire to train himself for one of the professions which I have already mentioned, or indeed for anything requiring higher education, should be able to do so regardless of his or her means. If any such person is prevented from doing this solely because of lack of financial resources, I believe it is a tragedy for Canada and that we should do our best to remedy such a situation.
Mr. Speaker, on numerous occasions I have put my views on record with respect to this matter, but I believe this is the first opportunity I have had in this house to do so. I cannot but call to mind a certain family whom I know in the city of Brantford. The son is a medical student at a great Canadian university. His father is a working man and is really not able to afford to maintain him there. The son works and earns money during the summer months and on every other possible occasion, in order to assist in paying for his education. The mother has gone out and has done char work. She is employed in cleaning several business establishments and several law offices in Brantford. Her husband helps her. All of the money they earn and all the money that their son earns during the summer recess- indeed all the money that they can put together from mortgaging their house and other means-is used to educate the young man at the university, and an extremely brilliant student he is. These heroic sacrifices are being made in my community and in many others in order that some of our young people can take the place in life that they desire to take.	.
I have in my hand, Mr. Speaker, a brief to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects submitted by the national scholarship committee of the national committee of Canadian university students. On page 11 of this brief there is a quotation from Dr. F. Cyril James, principal and vice-chancellor of McGill university:
A young Canadian from a family of modest circumstances has less chance of getting a university education today than a youth in any other country with which I am familiar.
I wonder if this statement could be true. If it is true, I think it is up to us who sit in this chamber to do something about it. Nevertheless, one thing is clear and that is that there are not enough opportunities to obtain a university education in Canada. I am told that only 4 per cent of those who start the first grade in Canadian public

schools ever graduate from university. The brief of which I have spoken also points out that as many as 54 per cent of those who abandon education at any stage do so for financial reasons. The brief asks for the institution of bursaries and scholarships in the form of awards of $2,500 tenable for four years so that a total of about 10,000 Canadian students would benefit in each year in the amount of about $500.
For the reasons I have given and in order to create more nearly equal opportunities for the youth of Canada of whom all members of parliament, I know, are proud, I feel that I must support this resolution. If I recollect correctly, I read somewhere quite recently that all the money spent by the government in providing educational facilities for veterans in the last great war has been paid back by the recipients in income taxes. That is something that may or may not be true but it is something to keep in mind while discussing this matter.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot add anything more to what I have said. I have made only a few brief remarks and I do not think I need to say any more. I should certainly be pleased to see this matter given full and careful consideration by the government.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, it is only with the greatest reluctance that I repeat myself although I know there is a psychological principle involved, namely that repetition finally has some effect. Of course, much depends upon the type of audience you have. I am not suggesting that the members of this house are such an audience but I may say that there are in this country people who need to be told over and over again about the values and the importance of education to Canada.
I said that I did not want to repeat myself. I have just discovered that on January 26, 1956 I spoke at great length on this particular situation. Today I do not propose to go into any detail of statistics or of methods but I think that I can add a word or two to what I have said previously about the general principle of the resolution. I am prepared to take the sponsor's word for it that, when he talks about these scholarships, he has in mind both graduate and undergraduate scholarships.
When I heard that this resolution was up for consideration today, I had some doubt in my mind that it would be accepted as being in order. I am glad that it has been so accepted. Of course, the fact is that legislation has already been foreshadowed-and it will be discussed in this house-which will provide the necessary machinery and arrangements by which these scholarships will be granted.
Education
The government, in the terms of the resolution, has considered the advisability of introducing such a resolution. I am glad that the consideration of such has been fruitful. If I may I should like to quote from page 579 of Hansard of January 26, 1956, where I am reported as saying as follows:
I say I am glad that a member who supports the government brought in the resolution. I honour him for it and I wish him luck with it. It may be a good sign. Let us hope it is of some significance. Let us hope that something will be done.
Well, something is going to be done. There is no one in this house more happy about that than I am.
If I might digress for a moment from my general topic I would say that I think these private members' resolutions, irrespective of what side of the house they come from, are of inestimable value. After all, legislation is often based upon public opinion. If by means of a private member's resolution any idea of importance to this nation may be publicized and popularized throughout the country, then I am all for it. I think my friends on the other side are coming along in matters of education. I know that is not fair to some of them because some of them have come along just as far as I have, indeed farther, over the years. But I cannot help recalling the first time that I introduced a resolution in this house concerning federal aid to education. I was met with raised eyebrows and with wonder. They stood aghast that such a thing should be mentioned in the federal house. Is this, they said, not a matter completely within the jurisdiction of the provinces? My answer, of course, was yes. No one could agree more that matters of administration, matters of the choice of curricula for education are the concern only of the provinces. But I shall have a word to say about that later.
In the meantime the government has brought into this house a resolution preceding legislation which when passed, and I am sure it will be, will set up the machinery to do the very thing for which this notice of motion asks. It is true that it is couched in the devious language which convention dictates and the necessity for which must be a mystery to the average layman. We now wait that legislation, and we await it with interest and, so far as I am concerned, with joy.
Nevertheless, since this resolution has been introduced today I want to assure my hon. friend of my complete and whole-hearted support for his thesis. As I say, since legislation will come, and since there will be an opportunity at that time to discuss it, I am not going to discuss that legislation in its

Education
detail now. I, personally, would interpret such a discussion as being out of order. It is, as I said, a source of great satisfaction to me that the people of this country at long last, and finally those in this house, have shown some concern about the educational facilities of our country.
I have talked about these private members' resolutions. I say my Liberal friends may have come along in their thinking on this subject. A moment ago I forgot to mention that when I brought in either the first or the second such resolution, one of my friends, who sits opposite to me, and who happens to be a neighbour of mine from a geographical point of view, was kind enough to say that any private member introducing a private member's resolution on this subject was doing so for political purposes and that I, personally, was bringing this one in with the deliberate intention of deceiving the public. I do not know whether the same hon. friend over there would like to make the same accusation against the hon. member who introduced this resolution. I am quite sure his colleague would not now, and I emphasize the word "now", make such an accusation, I venture to say, even against me. So, as I say, we are getting along a bit.
Lately there has been a great recognition that this sort of thing is constitutional. I will not go into the arguments advanced by my hon. friend the member for St. Paul's a moment ago, but I agree with them to a large extent. As I say, no one agrees more than do I that these vital things, that the program of education in each particular province, must be the sole prerogative of the people inside that province. But why in the world, if that province has not the financial resources to give the children within that province an equal opportunity of education with the children in other provinces, should we not be allowed to assist them in promoting the type of education that they, not the federal government, want to see tried. I said something the other day to the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) about that lacuna, that void, which will exist in the system of education even after this legislation has been passed. I shall not repeat it here. We shall have the opportunity to do that on another resolution which follows closely in the wake of this one.
We should consider this, that the results of such education, its efficiency and its scope, have a tremendous effect not only upon the provinces but upon the nation as a whole. In these days of fast transportation people are not stuck in any particular province. They are travelling all over the country and they are having an influence upon the whole of the
[Mr. Knight.1
country. Think of the educationists in the province of Nova Scotia who have been so famous in that they have disseminated education of a high quality throughout the country. In the early pioneering days of the west our professors came from that multiuniversity province which is penalized today by that very efficiency and that very demand for education because of the method by which the university grants are distributed, namely the per capita method. We find such a percentage demand for university education in Nova Scotia that that ultimately reduces the amount per student almost to half what it is in some other provinces.
May I say this province has schools of a type that are not available in the other provinces, professional schools if you like to call them, and I think there are none of those, for example, in the province of Newfoundland. You get an influx, therefore, from the other provinces into Nova Scotia with the result that Nova Scotia is penalized in regard to the amount of the grant per student attending their schools of higher learning.
I was saying that provincial education, no matter what type it is, must be a type prescribed by the people themselves, and that the province-this is the repetition, Mr. Speaker, in which I have been saying it is necessary to indulge-let me say that the whole nation is affected by the efficiency of the education in each one of these provinces. We have come to the conclusion that we must develop our human resources just as we have the inclination-perhaps not from as good a motive-to develop our natural heritage. These human resources are those fine young men and women who are your children and mine. We have come to recognize that if we are to develop to the full extent our natural heritage and to develop it for the good of future generations, then amongst this still small population of ours there must be the leaven or the yeast of developed minds.
Our urge toward this end has been stimulated-and I do not think it is the best of motives-by the rivalry of the example of others. I need not point out to you the magnitude of the efforts in regard to scholarships that have been made by certain eastern European countries with whose ideologies we do not agree and who are anxious to prove that their whole system is superior to ours. I remember quoting last year a startling statement by Mr. Burke Stannard-perhaps I can find it. Incidentally, he may be surprised to know, if he does me the honour to read this speech, that I knew him very well as a little boy. He made this statement in that startling argument:
In 1918, Russia had one university for every 1.5 million population; Canada had one for every

315,000. Today, Russia has one university student for every 150 population; Canada has one for every 250.
Mr. Stannard's article was published in the Financial Post on December 18, 1954. This is the situation we find in our country of Canada which calls itself progressive.
Well, I said those nations, and particularly Russia, have a great system of scholarships, much greater than any foreshadowed in any legislation that is for the moment proposed here. Yes, and some friendly nations, too, whose ideas in general are akin to our own, have left us far behind in this particular matter. Seventy-five per cent-I think this figure has been bandied about; the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) may not endorse the figure for he insists it is 74 per cent, but we shall let it go for the moment- seventy-five per cent of all students attending British universities do so with government assistance of some kind or other, and the majority of that assistance is in the form of scholarships. It is equally true that 70 per cent of all the expenditure of universities in the British Isles is provided by the state. Having in mind the success of their system, I would urge that the scholarships advocated here be granted

and note this carefully because I think it is important-be granted upon the basis of need plus ability, not on the basis of need, not on the basis of ability, but on the basis of need plus ability.
I was intrigued a bit by the last speaker, the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown), who quite unconsciously used the term "the working man". You could see back of his thinking there is the tradition that because a man's father is a working man he has no chance to go through university. He cannot go to university perchance because his father worked. Well, there is a big principle, a big idea behind that. We are changing all that now. "Nous avons change tout cela", said Moliere in the play "Le m6decin malgre lui". It will change more and never again will it be part of our language to say that a boy did not go to school, he did not go to university because his father was a working man. Those who are philosophers might think that over. There must, of course, be no distinction in regard to the stratum or the position that students occupy in society, in the granting of assistance to them. Hon. members would expect that remark to come from me. The finest brains are not necessarily found in any stratum of society.
It is most important that students of ability, whose parents could never hope to send them to university or to maintain them at a university, should have the opportunity to attend. Nowadays ability to learn and aptitude
Education
for learning are easily discoverable by scientific methods quite early in life. Clever and hard-working students are recognized under the British system by their methods there, and once recognized are encouraged toward further advance by a system of what is called "free places" in higher schools, and are the recipients of the scholarships such as are envisaged by my hon. friend. In Britain students are often chosen by competitive examination. Thus the best brains of the country are retained in the service of the nation and in the service of their fellow men.
When I was talking a little while ago about the educational results in the provinces I was thinking of a Quebecois, or a man from Saskatchewan or from Manitoba or British Columbia. He gets his education here or there but he is fundamentally a Canadian, and by his ability is the country of Canada judged.
I do not know enough about the British system, either of its merits or of its demerits, if it has any of the latter, to debate it in detail here, but I would urge those who are responsible for the award of those scholarships which are envisaged here to examine the machinery I have described, when they are setting up the system of scholarship awards in Canada.
I am glad, sir, that it appears in the projected giving of scholarships some attention will be paid to the humanities. When I say "attention" I mean extra attention. In the past there has been a tendency to favour the sciences, and that tendency perhaps has been natural enough in a country that has found it necessary to develop defence programs where men of science are in particular demand. It is natural, too, in a country which has set out to develop its great natural resources. I have no quarrel with scholarships in the scientific field; in fact I would urge an increase. But I think there should be a balance. Scholarships are scanty enough in our country, goodness knows, and I look with pleasure upon their being increased no matter for what educational purpose, but I think we should have that balance.
Let me say categorically it is my belief there is no better basis for an education, even for those who are later going to enter the field of specialization, than a broad grounding in the humanities, known sometimes, Mr. Speaker, as a liberal education. With this increase in national scholarships there will be a corresponding need for assistance to universities in order that those universities shall be able to provide the increased facilities which will come from increased enrolment owing to the scholarships.
I need not explain to this house that I have always pleaded for greater equality of

Education
opportunity in education. I must confess that for the most part my thinking did relate largely to the primary and secondary schools. Such equality of opportunity could extend- nay, would extend-to all those who are attending school. If all children had that opportunity it would extend to all the mass of secondary students who would be available for the granting of the scholarships envisaged in this resolution.
Although I could have made a better case today by quoting a great many authorities on education, of which I am not one, I have up to this point expressed my own thoughts. After I had already made up my mind what I might say this afternoon there came into my hands a brochure which I would recommend that all hon. members of this house read. The documented arguments for the granting of university scholarships have been presented in a masterly and convincing fashion in this little booklet by experts in the field of education. The booklet is entitled, "The university teacher and the crisis of higher education in Canada," and it was presented as a brief to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects by the Canadian Association of University Teachers. I am going to follow my announced intention not to quote from the authorities this afternoon but I would hope that the people in this house who are interested in this subject would read the arguments and recommendations contained in this brief. I have perhaps a particular interest in its because the chairman of the association which issued this report is Dr. V. C. Fowke who is a professor of economics at the University of Saskatchewan situated in my own constituency of Saskatoon. My purpose in mentioning the booklet is simply to recommend a study of it to all those who are interested.
I am well aware that in the matter of intelligence Providence has not distributed its bounty with an even hand. I am also well aware that there are many whose capabilities do not lie in the direction of higher education but who nevertheless make a very successful and happy life in other fields. As one who has struggled with high school students for a part of his life at least I am also well aware that there are those who are not prepared to do the work necessary for the attainment of higher education and sometimes for the attainment of even an elementary education. One has to come to a decision here, but putting these things together let me say at once that I am not prepared to ask the nation to subsidize the cost of attendance at schools of higher learning of those who either cannot or will not put forth the necessary

effort to take advantage of such an opportunity when it is presented to them. But concerning those who have the ability, that is an entirely different matter. To those who have any marked degree of capacity to learn combined with a willingness to work, let us be generous. Let us be generous almost to a fault, not just for their own sakes, but for the benefit of future generations, and for the benefit of a future Canada which they will make great in proportion to how well they are equipped to create it.


Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-St. George's):: It is with much pleasure that I support the resolution on scholarships introduced in the house on January 26 of the last regular session and reintroduced today by the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Holling-worth). I would also commend him for his efforts in presenting this resolution at a time when all across this country there is a growing interest in the need for and the needs of education, at a time when more than a little cohcern is being expressed by those whose duty and responsibility it is to administer systems and institutions of learning so essential to the progress of this country, at a time when those who have need for trained personnel are finding that the supply in many fields is far too short. Many have expressed quiet concern while others have been more pronounced in their opinions as to the current problems in education as well as the difficulties which will need attention in the immediate future both at the high school, technical school and university levels.
Within recent months there has been great emphasis placed on the need for more graduates in the professional fields. I do not believe that the position has been overstated. The need is great and I suspect that it will be so for some time. Indeed it may be a good omen that our economy has so expanded as to demand such large numbers of technical and professional graduates, but at the same time it must be admitted that such a demand may not be an indication of strength if the facilities for supplying that demand are not present, or not capable of being provided.
But while we do live in an economy where vocational training and professional faculties are vital and essential, and while we know that these faculties will have to be expanded to meet our growing technical needs, we must remember that something more than the practical must be taught if higher education is to make the contribution which a democracy such as Canada will demand of it. I am not trying to lessen the importance of the need nor the value of the science courses when I say that we could take all the

science courses out of our universities and there would still be a place for the university in Canadian society. Education is not only a preparation for making a living, but also for living a life. We must be careful not to introduce economic conscription into our educational system at the expense of the real meaning and the real need for education in its broader sense. This is one of the reasons why I welcomed the resolution dealing with the Canada Council and aid to universities introduced by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) a few days ago.
We live in a land which over a period of a few years has become industrialized to a comparatively high level. Today there is need for more trained personnel in nearly every field. Without doubt this is true in the various fields of applied science and in all those where technical knowledge is essential. Dr. O. M. Solandt, former president of the defence research board, in speaking to the Canadian Industrial Preparedness Association two years ago said:
If we are to remain free we must contribute more and more to the scientific advances of the free world; if we are to remain prosperous we must do the research and development that will enable us to produce more and better goods more cheaply in order to compete effectively in world markets.
This statement coming from such a prominent Canadian scientist merits the attention of all Canadians who attempt to envisage the possibilities and potentialities of this great land.
In the development of the material side of our economy, the individual and his development must not be obscured. It has been said that the wealth of a nation depends upon production and that in turn production depends upon the available quantity of different raw materials plus the labour involved in producing goods for which there are profitable markets. I suppose all of us would agree that this is not a complete definition of national wealth, but in whatever definition modern economists might give for national wealth, materials and labour would be prominent. These two must go together if there is to be production. It might well be said that these two are so interdependent upon each other that they are of equal importance and yet I believe that in a land where there is a high potential source of labour and a high potential source of material, the source of labour, whether that labour be unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled or professional, must have precedence for its existence and for its improvement.
I should like to quote Protagoras, that great Greek philosopher of the third century B.C., and an older contemporary of Socrates.
Education
I quote him for two reasons; first, because the statement which I want' to use is attributed to him, and second, because in a discussion on the present means of education it may be appropriate to quote the man who is recorded by history as being the first to teach for payment. Protagoras said:
Man is the measure of all things.
One of the problems of our time is to reconcile the dignity of man with the technical achievements of modern society. The real measure of a modern industry is its power to preserve our human values while adding to our material heritage. We must remember that man is not just another link in the productive chain, he is the very reason for its existence.
In this day it might be well to ponder why it is that such large sums of money are spent to refine our natural resources by government and industry when so much of the attempt to improve our human resources is left to individual effort. So I would like to have as a characteristic of any scholarship program which may be in existence now or which may come into being as a result of this or any other resolution, equality of opportunity for assistance in the arts and humanities as well as in the sciences.
May I turn now to another phase of this problem. Generally Canadians are aware that under the British North America Act education is essentially the responsibility of the provinces. I believe it was a wise decision then and I consider it to be a wise decision today, almost a century later. I do not think that a centrally controlled system of education would be a good thing for a country like Canada. However, this is not the time to discuss the merits or demerits of such a system. Suffice it to say that while I believe that the practice of education should be within the jurisdiction of the provinces, I also believe that as our national life becomes more complex, as our interprovincial relations and dependencies lead us toward a unity in multiplicity, and as provincial standards in any phase of living must have an effect on similar standards for the nation as a whole so a responsibility which is essentially provincial may have a national aspect which will demand attention.
At this time I do not propose to project this argument beyond the limitations of the present resolution. I think that such scholarships as this resolution envisages would do much to offer encouragement to those who are handicapped by conditions of geography and finance, to decrease our losses in wasted brain power, and to conserve and develop those human resources of talent and ability which Canada will need in the years which

Education
lie ahead. And so the second characteristic of the program suggested by this resolution that I would welcome would be that such scholarships be open to students from all regions of Canada and that they be tenable at any Canadian university, always provided that the student is able to satisfy the entrance requirements of the university of his choice.
In a scholarship program I should also like to see provision made for those who pursue education courses at university or in teacher training institutions. I know that in all provinces efforts are being made to attract young men and women into the teaching profession, and while there are other important factors affecting the low rate of recruitment, encouragement should be given where possible. The teaching profession must not only perpetuate itself by preparing those who will later enter the profession, but must prepare those who will go on to study in other fields in our higher institutions of learning. I believe that a successful effort to place within the day schools of this country teachers who are qualified will do much to decrease the tremendous waste indicated by the large numbers who fail to reach the standard during the first year of university.
In many provinces of Canada there is a desperate need for qualified teachers. It is noteworthy that while many university faculties have been overcrowded teacher training institutions have been operating with less than the numbers which they could normally accommodate. In 1953 there were 142 institutions in Canada for the training of teachers. The reported enrolment capacity was 16,260 while the actual enrolment was 12,424. In other words, at a time when the demands for recruitment to the teaching profession is urgent, our teacher training institutions are operating at 76 per cent capacity. In the Atlantic provinces these institutions operated at 57 per cent of the possible total enrolment.
In my own province of Newfoundland the shortage of teachers is something more than serious; it is critical and alarming. There are not nearly enough trained people to staff our schools and even after employing those who are not qualified there are still schools, particularly in the outlying areas, where no teacher supply has been possible. The situation would be further aggravated if the teacher load were reduced to thirty pupils per teacher.
On Wednesday of last week a conference was called in St. John's to discuss the various phases of this problem in a very serious minded manner. Public concern was well emphasized by the presence at that conference of many who, although not directly

engaged in the field of education, recognize that in the regional development of our province education must play an important role. Regardless of statements that we have heard floating around about the maritimes in the last few days, we in Newfoundland have been there for over 460 years and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we will be there for a long time yet. But if Newfoundland is to occupy the place in the Canadian federation which I think it is capable of occupying we will need to develop not only the natural resources of the area but also the human resources by providing schools that will develop independent thinking based on knowledge of the past, understanding of the present and good judgment about the future. To do this we will need not only the encouragement and assistance of scholarship programs, the Canada Council, university aid and vocational training but also the assistance of any other sources which may be available to us.
In recent months there has been evidenced a great deal of interest in the progress being made in other countries in education, particularly in the different fields of applied science. There is very little need to repeat here statistics dealing with university enrolment in other countries. They have already been presented to the house over the past few months. It is a good thing that we know what others are doing and I think it is important that we should know what others are doing but I suggest that the really important comparison is not to compare what Canada is doing now with what other countries are doing but to compare what we are doing now with what we need to do in this country to satisfy our requirements for national defence, to maintain our position in the community of nations, and for the development of our own country to the limits of which it is capable.
A comparatively new word has come into the English language, Mr. Speaker, that word being automation. I suppose we could define it as the process in industry by which production is operated, regulated and continued automatically. In a country such as Canada, with its present industrial development and its future potential, one would expect that we should look forward and anticipate the advantages which automation has to offer. Some fear that such a process will result in further unemployment. I do not believe that such need be the case. True it is that there may be less demand for unskilled labour but I believe there will be many more opportunities for better employment available to those who are qualified to take them.

The efforts of the provinces and the federal government under the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act, which has been in effect for the last 18 years, have been commendable. The continuation and extension of the schedule will not only do much to provide the many technicians Canada will need in the years that lie ahead but will do much to eliminate the waste in that segment of our youth who have the ability to engage in technical pursuits but are hindered by financial or other reasons from acquiring those skills which industry will demand of them.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I say again that I support the purpose of the resolution as I would support the purpose of any resolution tending toward the fuller development of the mental, physical and spiritual values of the people of the country, for I believe that it is by such development that we will be able to produce Canadians who are strong and sound individuals and at the same time individuals who are sound and strong Canadians. I believe that it is by such development that Canada will be able to produce that type of Canadian who will work more effectively in the society in which he lives and at the same time live more abundantly in the society in which he works.


Mr. J. A. Smith (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be able to take part this afternoon in a debate on such a worthy resolution as the one now before us which the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Hollingworth) saw fit to present to the house again this year. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks made by former speakers in the debate, and with many of the arguments advanced in support of the resolution I agree entirely. However, I was particularly impressed with one reservation respecting the resolution advanced by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Michener), and I must say that I think the particular reservation he made in his speech is one worthy of great concern.
I wish to commend also the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) for again speaking at such great length on a problem which has for years been very close to his heart. We look upon the resolution as one actually twofold in its purpose. First, it proposes to enable university students now in attendance at universities across Canada and who find themselves unable to continue their studies because of a shortage of funds to be able to continue. Second, it proposes to provide funds which will be used for worthy graduates from our secondary schools who also find themselves with insufficient funds to embark upon university studies.
82715-39J
Education
The resolution is indeed pertinent at this session in view of the proposed government legislation along the same lines. For far too long we have had too many people in Canada giving pious lip service to the saying that Canada is a land of equal opportunity for all. As one travels across Canada and as one listens to the speeches delivered in the house by hon. members from various parts of the country, one cannot help but realize that Canada does not offer equal opportunities for all. This is particularly true in the field of education.
I was impressed with the remarks of one hon. member this afternoon when he pointed out that down through the years educators from the province of Nova Scotia have been leaving that province, going to other provinces of the dominion and offering their services as educators. That is quite true, and perhaps as a result education has suffered somewhat in the province of Nova Scotia. On the other hand, we in other parts of Canada have gained considerably from the talents these people have brought to other parts of the country, particularly western Canada.
The matter of scholarships and bursaries has given the government of the province of Alberta great concern over the past years. That government has already embarked upon a co-operative scheme involving the province and divisional and other school boards throughout Alberta for the purpose of giving bursaries and scholarships to graduates of our high schools in Alberta to encourage them to enter the faculty of education in our province.
The shortage of teachers throughout Canada has already been mentioned. From my own school district, a district for which I worked many years, we have in attendance in the faculty of education at Edmonton this year 16 former students. Out of this number of 16 students in the faculty of education, only one happens to be a man. I am not for one moment discounting the value of ladies in the teaching profession. However, I feel that any profession, particularly that of education, requires the help at least of a certain number of men.
I have already mentioned the bursaries and scholarships which the provincial government and the school divisions are jointly providing for graduates of our high schools in Alberta who enter the field of education. The province of Alberta a few years ago established what was known as the students assistance act. This act provides to university students scholarships which will entitle them to enter any faculty at our university. Again, our province has seen fit to establish what is

Education
called a revolving fund. Students desiring to enter the University of Alberta can borrow from this fund an amount equal to $400 a year. This amount of $400 a year is given to the students at a low rate of interest. Since it is a revolving fund the students, upon graduation, are expected to pay the money which they borrowed from the fund back to it. The money is paid back in annual payments of $200 commencing at the end of the first complete year after graduation. I feel that we in Alberta have gone a long way towards encouraging the graduates of our high schools to enter our university. On the other hand, I recognize that limits are to be found in provincial revenue available for this purpose and that perhaps we have gone about as far as we can go. Certainly we in Alberta would readily accept the assistance of the federal government in this connection.
We are continually reminded, Mr. Speaker, in this house, through the press and over the radio that the U.S.S.R. is going all-out in the matter of encouraging the young people of that country to enter the institutions of higher learning. We are informed that this encouragement is particularly strong in the field of engineering and in other associated scientific courses. We are spending billions of dollars each year to maintain a defensive war machine to protect the free world from communist aggression. With this expenditure I have little quarrel but I do feel that we must also give increasing attention to the educational development of our young people so that we shall have in Canada an enlightened group of young people who are not only capable of matching the wits and the minds of the young people of the communist world but who are willing and able to take leadership in the establishment of a truly free world where peace and goodwill will reign eternally.


Mr. Fernand Girard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I extend my sincere congratulations to the two members who have spoken a few words in the French language. I wish to congratulate them not in the name of the French Canadians whom I represent in the house but in the name of all Canadians in the country because the country as a whole shares in common the two precious cultures of our national character.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening attentively to the speeches which have just been delivered in support of the resolution now before the house. Though each and every one of the speakers carefully pointed out that he would favour the introduction of such legislation only in so far as it would respect provincial rights in matters of education, I must admit that, as far as I could see, they

gave no reason why we should believe that those exclusive provincial rights in the field of education could really be respected in the implementation of this resolution. Nevertheless I do want to pay tribute to its sponsor. He does indicate that he only wishes to attain his objective, as he spells out in his resolution:
... in so far as it falls within the competence of parliament.
Those words are to be found at the end of the resolution itself and may be said to provide cause for repeating the latin saying: in cauda venenum.
That condition is one of the reasons, and the main reason, so far as I am concerned, for opposing the resolution since it does not offer sufficient guarantees as to how it might be achieved without impairment of exclusive provincial jurisdiction in matters of education.
Of course each of the speakers carefully pointed out his personal desire to respect those rights. That is also, I believe, the intention of the sponsor of the resolution. Still I think that if we enter the field of education, one reserved to the provinces, we have no means of knowing what, in ten or fifteen years time, will have become of all the good intentions of those people who stated their desire to respect those rights.
Along with the hon. gentlemen who have spoken before me, I recognize the crying need which is apparent throughout our country for an increase in revenue for educational purposes. I believe that on this point even the most resolute champions of provincial rights, who deny that the federal government has any right whatever in this field, will recognize the tremendous requirements of this country with regard to education. That is no justification however for the federal government to enter the educational field.
One, or even two hon. members, one on each side of the house, advanced the argument that the whole of Canada was affected by education which is provided in any given province. Now that is one of the arguments which, to my mind, were taken from the Massey Commission Report and which have been advanced in support of the theory that universities are of general national interest, a fact which has allowed the federal government to interfere in university education as it is doing now.
Let us take the same argument, let us apply it to primary education; we will then be able to adduce the very same reasons in support of the theory that primary education has national consequences. Let us take all the fields reserved to the provinces by our constitution. It can always be claimed that

Education
everything that a province does may have repercussions on the nation as a whole, an argument which will bring us, little by little, to the taking over of each and every provincial prerogative.
Since we are all agreed on the necessity of aiding education, why do we not return to the provinces the taxation rights which were borrowed from them, and thus enable them, according to the terms of the constitution, to meet their commitments, which they have, in fact, no thought of denying in the matter of education.
Then again, of course, it could be claimed that it is not so in the case of the poor provinces since they might not be in a position to meet their educational obligations without federal help, and because the federal government keeps those taxation fields it has borrowed in order to help those very provinces. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I am far from convinced that the rights which have not been returned to the provinces are being used solely to help the poorer provinces. I am very hopeful, along with every hon. member in this house, that the day may come when representatives of the provincial governments and of the federal government may meet around a table and settle once and for all this problem of taxation rights, which is at the basis of all problems connected with education submitted to the federal government, so that provinces may enjoy rights which are really theirs and each and everyone of them may, according to the spirit of the constitution, meet the obligations placed upon it by the constitution. It would then be possible not only to take into account the needs of the poorer provinces, but also to restore to the others those powers which are exclusively theirs according to our constitution. It would solve this recurrent problem, one that will crop up once again when we will be called upon to discuss legislation providing for university grants or the trans-Canada highway, or the Unemployment Insurance Act, where there has been federal government interference.
As long as the federal government continues to interfere in provincial matters, we will be faced with the same problem, that of the resdistribution of taxation powers. We must ensure that at each level of civil authority the proper body is in a position to meet its obligations with sufficient funds. We will then no longer see a central government plagued with a surfeit of money while those really in need of revenue are deprived of the means to meet their obligations. We will no longer hear this government say: "Well, the state must now look after education since
the provinces are not in a position to meet the cost" because they would have been deprived of their taxation powers.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was a little surprised this afternoon to hear some hon. members draw comparisons with the educational system of Russia.
It might be true that in Russia more money is spent on certain forms of education than in Canada. I rather think, however, that if Canada were to resort to the same means, abolishing private enterprise and chopping off heads, etc., we might solve all our educational problems. But that is hardly a fair comparison. I do not think, in fact, that hon. members really wished to set up Russia as an example of what should be done in the educational field, because the means employed in that country are a denial of those sacred rights which we seek to promote through education.
I will now bring my remarks to a close. I shall have further opportunity to deal with this topic when we will take up the matter of university grants, one closely connected with the resolution we are discussing this afternoon.
I congratulate the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Hollingworth) on the spirit in which he moved his resolution, because I really believe that he sincerely wishes to bring a solution to a need which everyone recognizes but, neither in his resolution nor in the speeches made this afternoon, can I see how, in supporting his motion, we can preserve the exclusive rights of the provinces in that field.
(Text):


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: The
encouraging part of a discussion of this kind, to me, is the growing interest that is being displayed on all sides of the house in the subject of education. Very often the political pundits dwell on the notion that it takes a long time for democracy to respond to a critical situation in the body politic. I am sure it is encouraging to note that even where we have a government that is as well insulated from the impact of public opinion as is the present Canadian government, there is a gradual response to what has been described by many authorities on the subject as a crisis in education.
We have before us, under the title of "Notices of Motion", no less than two resolutions from private members dealing with the important subject of education. We have also a resolution from the government itself

Education
which parallels very closely the subject matter provided for discussion by this resolution put forward by one of the back benchers supporting the government, the hon. member for York Centre. The third resolution is the regular resolution we have had on the subject of federal aid for education sponsored by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight).
It is quite obvious that there is a growing need in this country for a comprehensive examination of the problem of education in general. Not only is the interest growing in this chamber but during recent months we have had repeated representations from various educational bodies outside of this chamber. The national conference of Canadian universities has been urgent in bringing recommendations to bear upon all hon. members of parliament. The teachers' federation, in equally strong terms, makes reference to the problem. Most encouraging, however, is the new interest of leaders of industry and business in the needs of education today. Admittedly this interest arises largely from the crisis, if I may use that word again, that is occurring in connection with the shortage of technicians. Down through the years industry and business has not assisted in an overly generous way in meeting the problems of education, particularly on the higher level. In the past few months, especially last fall, they have demonstrated in no uncertain way that they regard the present situation in Canada as a real crisis. They are moving in a fairly rapid way to come to grips with the problem.
The resolution which we have before us this afternoon deals with only a small phase of the difficulty. As I read it, Mr. Speaker, it is asking the government to consider the advisability of introducing legislation to provide national scholarships and bursaries for students at the university level who are in financial need. Now, that meets one small segment of the difficulty; but what we are faced with today is a crisis in education at all levels. The Canadian population is increasing and we are moving towards an industrial economy. There are very rapid changes taking place in the Canadian way of life. We are moving towards a more complex type of society. It automatically follows that new skills and new knowledge are required in order to heal the schisms that tend to flourish during a period of rapid social change and during a period of rapid movement to a more complex society.
Related to the problem of education on the university level is the problem of education on the elementary and high school level. It is quite true that a major difficulty in

the lack of sufficient recruits for our universities and colleges is the economic and financial difficulty. However, there is also the factor of lack of incentive and this is something that has to be dealt with on the lower levels of our education system, the elementary and high school levels. It is only recently that our school systems in the various provinces have introduced any form of vocational guidance program. One of the encouraging improvements in the approach to education on these lower levels, I feel, is the establishment in the province of Ontario, for example, of a separate vocational guidance program within the general public school program.
I am sure most hon. members, when they look, back on their own educational experience, will agree that it was a process of groping and hoping; it was a hit or miss approach to the selection of some vocation, and very often time and money were wasted in arriving at the final niche in which we were to pursue our life's work. That problem is being met on the elementary level. This has a very particular bearing on the new need in an industrial society for hundreds, indeed thousands, of technicians. We have methods of testing now, intelligence tests, aptitude tests, which, within reasonable limits, make it possible for a student graduating from our high school program to determine whether he would serve most usefully by taking a university course in one of the professions or by moving on to training in the technical schools. With regard to the latter, unfortunately we do not have the type of technical schools in this country that will be needed to supply the training for this type of technician qualified to do the job in a technological civilization.
While I for one welcome the resolution, may I say it deals only with a very small part of the total problem that has been thrust upon us by the very rapid changes that have taken place in Canada and in every other country of the western world in the past 10 years. It will help, but the suggestion I am putting before the house this afternoon is that the time has come in Canada when we need a co-ordinated and a comprehensive examination of the education situation that has now reached the proportions of a crisis.
There is another aspect of education that we sometimes ignore, that is just as important as the high school level or the university level. I refer to the growing significance of the adult education program in this country. Up to the present moment this work has largely been carried on, on a voluntary basis, by the Canadian Association for Adult Education, an association that has made rapid

strides in recent years, and has made a very worth-while contribution to the general solution of our educational problem. In recent years some provinces have been taking an increasing interest in this growing educational need through their adult education departments and also through their university extension departments. But here again, Mr. Speaker, is an area of education that is going to grow very rapidly in its demands with the passing years. For example, we shall be faced in the next 20 years, if we are to draw conclusions from the findings of the Gordon commission, with a work situation where we shall have decreasing hours of work and a rising standard of living. That means we shall be faced with the problem of leisure time, what to do with the leisure hours that will be at our disposal as the work week gradually decreases as the result of automation, improved productivity in the industrial process, and so forth. This increased leisure time will constitute a real educational challenge to the nation. If we use the new-found leisure time arising from an increased standard of living in a constructive, a positive and a creative way it will add immeasurably to the enrichment of the lives of Canadians. On the other hand, if we fail to meet this challenge of adult education then, of course, it will lead to a situation of frustration.
Some years ago a social scientist of some repute Thorstein Veblen wrote a book entitled, "The Theory of the Leisure Class". The basic thesis of his book was that it is from the leisure classes that the new ideas, the creative ideas, have emerged. Formerly, before the advent of machinery, the numbers of the leisure class were restricted to the landed aristocracy and to a very small segment of the population. Today, we are faced with a rapid expansion in that particular segment of the population. I say that is something that this parliament and all the representatives of the people, maybe more especially on the provincial level, will have to give heed to.
The criticism is often made when we discuss education in this house that we are dealing with a subject that has not much significance for a large portion of the population. The senior citizens, for example, are particularly mentioned in this regard. I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps the most useful part of the adult education movement has been the programs carried on among our senior citizens, the formation of second mile clubs. The idea that once a man reached the age of retirement he had nothing else to do but to retire to an institution for senior citizens and there vegetate
Education
for the rest of his days, is a notion that is rapidly passing away. While the theory is still far too prevalent, here is a group who have enjoyed long years of life, who have acquired considerable experience during their earthly pilgrimage, who could, if the opportunity were afforded, rather than merely existing in their latter days enter into a new and a rich experience of living.
I mention this broader approach to the problem because, while we are dealing in this resolution with a very small segment of the difficulty, namely, the provision of scholarships and bursaries for students at the university level, I think that a limited program of this kind-and I am making the reservation, of course, that out of our discussion of the Canada Council and the legislation that will be forthcoming we might be dealing in a more comprehensive way with this situation -I say that our resolution merely touches the fringe of the crisis in education.
Looking at it from the standpoint of the resolution we have before us, perhaps the most beneficial use to which bursaries and scholarships can be put at this stage is in assisting in the training of teachers. Already two hon. members who have spoken in this discussion this afternoon have dealt with the teacher shortage on all levels of our educational system as a main point in their remarks. This shortage is critical at the elementary and high school levels. I do not have to dwell on that aspect of the difficulty. In all parts of Canada there is a problem of adequately staffing our schools with qualified teacher personnel. I think it was Dean Gen-dron of Ottawa University who said, in a recent discussion of this question, that in the next five years 1,124 new professors will be required in the field of pure and applied science alone. That is just one small area of the whole educational field. If we are going to begin to cope with the crisis in education the first and primary need is for an adequate number of properly trained teacher personnel.
Why is it difficult to obtain teachers? That is a big subject in itself. Certainly it is because of the problem that the resolution attempts to deal with, namely that students who would otherwise enter university in preparation for the teaching profession are unable to do so because they do not have the necessary financial wherewithal. A great many of our teachers come from the rural areas and it is in the rural areas of the country that the greatest difficulty is found in providing higher education to the young people.
Another reason is the depressed salary schedules. This subject has been discussed

Education
recently in rather influential quarters. Mr. Muir, president of the Royal Bank of Canada, in his annual statement dealt at some length with the matter of depressed salary schedules in the teaching profession and the effect they have in discouraging the recruitment of our young people for this profession. There is the prestige factor, too. One expression comes to my mind and it has been used with sufficient frequency that it has almost become an adage: "Those who can, do; those who cannot, teach". It contains a derogatory implication as far as the teaching profession is concerned.
Of course we all know the story of the professor who was nicknamed "Sanka" by his students. This story always draws a laugh from an audience which suggests there is an underlying attitude of derogation toward the teaching profession. Perhaps I may be permitted to repeat the story. A professor was given the nickname Sanka by his students. He did not understand the meaning of the word because it was foreign to him until one day he noticed the slogan on a can of Sanka coffee which said, "98 per cent of the energy has been removed from the bean". That is one factor which discourages an increased interest on the part of our young people in the teaching profession.
The hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Smith) said there is a tendency for the male of the species to shy clear of the teaching profession and I believe this is true. Perhaps one of the reasons for the continuing chronic shortage of teacher personnel is the fact that the ladies have a greater tendency to become matrimonial casualties and thus are taken out of circulation. It is not the recognized thing for men to enter the teaching profession in the numbers required to meet the demand. I could go on speaking about this particular subject at some length because I think it is one of the major problems of education today. We have a shortage of money facilities and personnel right down the line but until we have an adequately trained teacher force to deal with all the aspects of this problem then we will not be able to cope with what has been described by responsible people in all walks of life today as a crisis in education. This resolution might well be designed to encourage an increased interest in teacher training facilities and activities.
With the present trend toward bigness and centralization on all sides as we move toward a complex industrial society there is a growing tendency to neglect the smaller institutions of learning. Reference has been made

to the outstanding contributions to education which have come from our maritime provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am surrounded by maritime members who are saying "Hear, hear" and I think I am right when I say that most of these institutions are small institutions.


Mr. Nowlan:: They are smaller in quantity but not in quality.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: An hon. member says they are smaller in quantity but not in quality and that is just the point I was about to make. By preserving that smallness in size they have been able to preserve the fundamental emphasis in education. In some of our larger provincial universities the campus population is moving upward to 10,000, 15,000, 20,000 and 25,000 students, and when we are faced with numbers of those proportions I think the essence of the educational process tends to be missed. I might be prejudiced in this regard because my own teaching experience and my own college experience for that matter was pretty well restricted to one of the finest smaller liberal arts colleges in this country, a college which maintains a student body of around 300 to 400.


Mr. Nicholson:: That wouldn't be Brandon College, would it?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, you are correct. Brandon College retains the close personal relationship between instructor and student that is necessary if we are going to have a truly educated person. The smaller colleges face financial problems which are on a proportionate basis, perhaps even greater than those faced by the larger universities. They tend to be ignored completely in grants made by large foundations, and this applies particularly to the smaller liberal arts institutions. They are neglected by governments too. For example, I have the latest financial statement of Brandon College and am surprised to discover that the provincial grant to that institution, which was established at $22,500 in 1938, still remains at the same level almost 20 years later notwithstanding the increases which have occurred in the cost of living and so forth. That grant still remains at that relatively insignificant level.
It suggests that the province of Manitoba is not able adequately to support this important educational work being carried on by an institution of this nature. I could support my argument by pointing out some of the illustrious graduates of Brandon College.


An hon. Member:: Premier Douglas.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, Premier Douglas of Saskatchewan and Douglas Campbell of Manitoba. Then there is Mr. Grant Dexter of the press gallery and the late J. C. Bowen, who was lieutenant governor of Alberta.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Winnipeg North Centre.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: And the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). This is the type of person who emerges from the background of a liberal arts influence of this kind. This is the heart and soul of our educational process. It is in these smaller institutions that our teachers are largely trained. As the government is taking an increasing interest in this problem, as is industry and business also, I do hope that the importance of the liberal arts institution will not be ignored.
As I said at the outset of my remarks, we are living in a day of complexity. There is a tendency away from the university emphasis in institutions of higher education toward multiversity. With the growing number of faculties required to supply new skills and knowledge in the type of society in which we live, we are faced with a series of mutual unintelligibilities in connection with the various new areas of knowledge where each body of knowledge is building up its own separate jargon, its own gobbledegook.
The heart of our educational system is the teaching profession and the source of teacher training needed to cope with the problems of today is the small liberal arts institution. This idea is summed up in words, I believe of Tennyson, although I cannot be sure of the source, who said:
Let knowledge grow from more to more,
But more of reverence in us dwell;
That mind and soul, according well,
May make one music as before;
But vaster.


Mr. Mclvor:: Would the hon. member permit a question? It has been acknowledged by professors whom I have known that the influence of the small college is far greater upon the future life of a student than that of the large university.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I agree heartily with that observation.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. H. P. Cavers (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks this evening I should like to offer my congratulations
Education
to the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Hollingworth) who has again presented this resolution to the House of Commons for discussion.


Mr. Casileden:: The hon. member for
Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) did it 12 years ago.


Harry Peter Cavers: I realize that the hon. member for Saskatoon has on several occasions, on the speech from the throne and again today, spoken about federal aid to education.


George Hugh Castleden: Twelve years ago.


Harry Peter Cavers: I was not here that long ago so I am not able to recall that far. However, I know that he is an outstanding educationist in his part of the country. The hon. member for York Centre is a young man of outstanding attainments who comes from an area which would be expected to direct its undergraduates to one of the larger universities of Canada. But I am sure that in presenting his resolution he is motivated by the genuine desire to advance education and universities in all parts of Canada.
I feel I have a right and an obligation to speak on the resolution, the purpose of which is to provide national scholarships and bursaries at the university level for students who are in financial need. In 1930 I was one of those who had enrolled in a university course. But in that year I had the misfortune to lose my father and I had to decide whether I would continue the university course or pursue my studies in the law. I left the university at that time and continued in a legal course. Therefore I feel that from a practical standpoint I should say something on the subject.
This afternoon the hon. member for Hum-ber-St. George's (Mr. Batten) placed his finger on the principle involved in the discussion when he referred to the pith of the argument being "equality of opportunity". The basis of my argument is that we should make available to all young Canadian students who have the aptitude and the desire for further university training the opportunity to pursue the study of their choiee in whatever course they desire to continue, whether it be English and history, political science and economics, modern languages, the sciences, medicine, dentistry or the law.
While I speak in support of the resolution for the adoption of national scholarships and bursaries, I do not feel that we should do away with the opportunity for students to help themselves. There is a great need for students to work hard, indeed, to work very hard in order to earn the financial resources to assist in obtaining a university education. I think that not only must the

Education
student work hard at the course of his choice in order that he may attain high standards but that it is not a bad thing that he should be required to work hard in some type of physical or business activity. The beneficial effects of part-time summer employment or work during the Christmas holidays are manifold. In my opinion the appreciation of money earned is advantageous to the student and there is the pride of achievement in having assisted oneself in one's work at the university.
We have heard today something of the obligations and problems that arise from the constitutional standpoint. Canada's federal structure has placed within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures the right to deal with matters of education but I feel that it is rather matters of the curriculum of study and administration of schools that were meant to be under the jurisdiction of the provinces than the question of financial assistance. There are real problems to be overcome in the matter of jurisdiction when we discuss any scheme of scholarships or bursaries for students at the university level. I accept all these considerations but I still feel there is an urgent need from the point of view of the students of future years.
It seems to me that we must have a national system of scholarships similar to that blueprinted or outlined in the recommendations of the Massey royal commission on the arts, letters and sciences submitted in 1951. In that report the recommendation was made that federal aid to education, particularly to students who desire to pursue a university career, would be advantageous to the country.
There exists at the present time a longterm shortage of professionally trained personnel. I realize also, as has been mentioned by previous speakers, that all Canadians cannot attend university. Some by reason of inclination and others by reason of natural aptitude are not suited to attend university, but for those who have the desire, for those who have the mental and natural aptitude, every opportunity should be given to pursue a career for which they have been professionally trained.
I am informed by many businessmen that such people are needed in their businesses and that the availability of such personnel is inadequate to meet present day needs. One firm in five anticipated a serious shortage of trained personnel in the years 1954 to 1956. One in four business firms have said that they are short of personnel at the present time. In addition to business administration courses that are required by many

young Canadians, mechanical and electrical engineers are in the shortest supply. A survey conducted about two years ago indicated that 39 per cent of electrical appliance manufacturing firms in Canada and 31 per cent of the chemical, oil and petroleum firms felt that their needs could not be satisfied by reason of lack of graduates or inadequately trained graduates for the particular purpose for which they were required.
The steel and iron industries throughout this country which require skilled employees of a particular type have felt the pinch. They are hard pressed for trained engineers. In recent years we in Canada have been in the forefront in the development of atomic energy. Scientists, technicians, research employees, are required to continue the work that has already been set up. I am informed that skilled personnel have had to be brought in from our neighbours to the south in order to provide some of the skill, knowledge and expert opinion that is required in connection with this branch of work. I feel that our universities should be in a position adequately to supply the needs of our atomic energy development by providing qualified personnel to fill the need. Canadian industry is suffering from its inability to find trained people to do the jobs that need to be done.
Then, as has been so well said during the afternoon by the member for Humber-St. George's, one of the important phases of university training is that of providing qualified teachers. There is a greater shortage of qualified teachers in Canada today. My view is that the fundamental necessity in all teaching is that our young people should be provided with adequate teachers. In order to provide adequate teachers we must provide adequate salaries for those persons who are trained in that vocation. The teacher shortage will perpetuate the shortage of trained technicians. I think this is so particularly in the sciences. If we have not adequate well-trained teachers we cannot hope to produce the type of skilled research scientist that is required in this country.
I come to the question of the cost of education which was mentioned earlier today. In recent years education has become more costly than it was 25 years ago, largely because of the necessity for increasing the salaries of professors and the increased costs of upkeep in carrying on the universities of the country. In some of the professional courses we find that the cost of instruments alone in one year runs as high as $350. The cost of textbooks and tuition in the university ranges from $350 to $450 or $500 a year. The average student attending university must be reasonably well clothed. I suggest that decent

Education
clothing is not available for much less than $150 a year. Those students who are not able to reside in the particular university centre that they might desire to attend have living expenses for a school term of eight months. I suggest that under present circumstances these will not amount to less than $500. The average requirement for educational costs would therefore be from $1,500 to $1,800 per student per annum. The student also has difficulty in providing for himself part of the cost of this training.
A survey made at the University of Alberta about five years ago indicated that the average male university student earns about 51 per cent of the cost of his yearly course or in the neighbourhood of $800 out of the required $1,500. The female students are able to earn much less than are the male students. In the survey it has been estimated that the female student is in a position to earn about 40 per cent of the cost of her university training or in the neighbourhood of $600 per year. It will thus be seen that the student is short approximately $600 to $800 per annum.
While I said that it was right and proper that students should work-and work hard

in summer vacations and during Christmas holidays, I think that part-time work during the student's school term seriously interferes with studies in any course. To that consideration I add the worry and financial anxiety which accompanies any shortage in funds and which does not assist the student in any way. Rather, I suggest that it detracts a great deal from the attention which the student might give to his work. When interviewed on this subject Dr. Sidney Smith, president of the University of Toronto, stated that he thought there was a greater financial drain on those students who came from other than university centres than upon those whose homes were in the university centres which they desired to attend. Dr. Smith had this to say:
It will be increasingly difficult for the boy in Swastika and Sioux Lookout to enrol ... It will be a tragedy if universities become places where only the students who live near them are able to attend.
I suggest that is not the sort of thing that we desire in Canada.
It may be said that already a considerable amount of money is available for scholarships and bursaries throughout this country. I should like to compliment those foundations, clubs and organizations which desire to assist worthy students in furthering their university courses. The Edward Blake Memorial scholarships, the I.O.D.E. scholarships, the university women's clubs, the Massey foundation and the Leonard foundation are only a few of 82715-40i
the bursaries which have assisted many worthy students in their scholastic pursuits. But unfortunately these scholarships or bursaries do not go far enough. The average sum which is available is comparatively small. It is an insufficient portion of the student's requirements or total expenses. This situation is likely to have a tantalizing effect upon the student who, having a smaller amount available to him, will feel that he is unable to pursue further the course of his choice.
Then there is the need to assist not only the brilliant student but the very good student. There are some students who would take first place and therefore would be awarded a scholarship. But there are still those very good students who might come second or third and who would not be able to avail themselves of the opportunity to accept the present scholarships.
It is my submission that scholarships, to be worth while, must be paid in the average of $500 to $600 per annum. I take this opportunity of complimenting the government upon the introduction of legislation a few days ago to set up the Canada Council. I feel that is the vehicle which can provide scholarships of this kind in order that needy students, worthy students, may have an opportunity to pursue their courses.
I should like to bring to the attention of this house another point which occurred to me and which I think is a very serious problem to be confronted, that is the psychological barrier which is placed across the minds of needy students, those who might feel that they have no right to aspire to higher education because of the fact that they come from ordinary homes. Students of any station should aspire to the highest standard of education, if they have the ability and the desire to do so. I have read the manuscript which the students federation prepared for submission to the national scholarship committee. In reading that brief I noted that on one instance certain students of high standing who might have qualified for scholarships had not applied to avail themselves of the scholarships that were offered for competition. They were not aware of the fact that they had the right to apply for these scholarships. They were not aware of the proper method of application. I feel we must overcome the inferiority complex of some students who might feel that they should not aspire to a higher education.
I am not aware of the proportion of Canadian university students receiving aid in comparison with those receiving aid in other countries. However, I have had the opportunity of reading the brief submitted by

Education
the national federation of Canadian university students. In their brief they had this to say, and I quote:
The proportion of all Canadian university students who receive assistance in some form or another is only about 15 per cent. In Great Britain, on the other hand, the corresponding figure is almost 75 per cent. Moreover in 1938, 14 per cent of Canadian university students received scholarships; thus we have made little progress in this respect in the last 17 years. In Britain at the present time a worthy student can obtain grants to cover the cost of both tuition and maintenance if the income of his parents is below a certain figure. In France education is virtually a state responsibility throughout. In the United States both Wisconsin and California make higher education of the best quality freely available to their residents.
I feel that in other countries, some older and some wealthier countries than our own, students are receiving aid. If we are to develop the young people of this country, and in so doing develop the national fibre of our own country, if we are to make this country a better place in which to live, then it is desirable that we should provide our students with adequate and sufficient scholarships and bursaries in order that they might assist themselves to make better citizens of themselves.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like to join hon. members in all parties, Mr. Speaker, in paying tribute to my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) who I feel is rightly regarded as the dean of education in this chamber. Being generous he welcomes this resolution being introduced again this year by the youthful member for York Centre (Mr. Hollingworth). While there are not any members in the house apparently who are speaking against this resolution, it does give individual members an opportunity to speak about this very important question. I must say I cannot generate very much enthusiasm for it myself. I think it is unfortunate that the means test is suggested now in Canada for assistance on the university level. A long time ago I thought we had accepted the principle that education should be provided free to all who were capable of acquiring an education.
I think that, just as elementary education was necessary at the time of confederation, so university education is necessary now. It should be provided for those who are competent to take it. There is another weakness that is rather important. I think the suggestion that we crowd a great many more students into our universities, without first making some adequate provision for university facilities and adequate compensation for those who are teaching, is putting the cart before the horse. Nevertheless, I do

want to thank the hon. member for giving us an additional opportunity to discuss this important question.
The policies of the government nowadays point up the need for education. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) recruits high school graduates for air force personnel. He is quite prepared to spend $60,000 on training a young chap who has finished high school to fly a jet plane. I am not complaining about the expenditure of $60,000. But I think it is unfair to ask my friends down in Newfoundland to stand the cost of elementary and high school training up to the point where the youth leaves high school, and then for the federal government to come along and spend $60,000 so quickly.
The Minister of National Defence told us last June that he had spent $24 million on the "velvet glove". He pointed out there had been 400 scientists and specialists from industry and the forces who had acquired a good deal of practical experience in the field of air to air guided missiles. Since that time I have read that we have written off our investment in this particular field. Apparently there is no one who becomes excited about the expenditure of $24 million on a project of this sort which is then designated as an unpractical project.
Some time ago the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) told us we will have spent $120 million on the CF-105 before it is off the assembly line. But if these machines are to be used we have to have young Canadians who have been able to go to public school and high school as well as university. Last year my colleague the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) asked the Minister of National Defence how much we were spending on the training of cadets to qualify for officers in the army, air force and navy. The reply was $3 million to $4 million for 1954; over $4 million in 1955; and $4.5 million in 1956. My colleague said that appeared to be about $30,000 per cadet. The minister replied, "Yes, that is about correct". He explained that costs have gone up. I submit that if the taxpayers of Canada are able to spend $30,000 to train cadets, somehow or other we have to share with the provinces and the municipalities the essential expenditures which have to be incurred before we are able to make use of our personnel in this sort of category.
Apparently, we are not short of funds in Canada, judging by some of the figures I have mentioned. Last year I received an answer to a question regarding our expenditures in Canada for tobacco, liquor and education. In 1954 we spent $475 million

Education
on tobacco, $865 million on liquor, but only $581 million on education. It is a matter for pretty serious reflection when our per capita expenditures are $31.26 on tobacco, $56.92 on liquor and $40.26 on education.
The other day when discussing the Canada Council resolution I mentioned the percentage of the tax dollar which the federal government, the provincial governments and the municipalities spent. Members are always flattered when colleagues, particularly colleagues of other parties, ask them a few days later about their material and their sources, and I must thank the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Holowach) for paying close enough attention to my remarks to ask the question. I now wish to inform him that the Bank of Commerce commercial letter of March 1953 is my source. It gives a table showing the total Canadian tax revenue of the federal, provincial and municipal authorities. I have added these up and I find that the federal government gets 74 cents out of the dollar, the provincial governments get 15 cents and the municipal authorities, 11 cents. I was quoting from memory the other day. There has been a slight variation from year to year. I have not given the exact fractions. These are for the year 1951. I might mention that if you go back to 1939 you will find a fifty-fifty split. At that time we just gave the federal government about 50 cents out of every dollar. The municipalities fared a little better then. They had about 30 cents and the provinces about 20 cents of each tax dollar.
I have confirmed these figures by reference to the Bank of Canada statistical summary financial supplement for 1955. The 1954 figures naturally show much larger amounts collected by the federal government, the provincial governments and the munic-ipalites. They also show a distribution that makes it very difficult for the municipalities and the provinces. On the 1954 figures the federal government-I am making my calculations from the Bank of Canada figures- received about 70 cents out of each tax dollar, the provinces 16 cents and the municipalities 14 cents. You still have only 30 cents to be divided between the municipalities and the provinces. The government at Ottawa gets 70 cents. I submit that it is physically impossible for our municipal and provincial authorities to get the wherewithal to meet the crisis in the field of education.
I am indebted to a number of sources for a good deal of help. Like other hon. members, I want to refer to the very interesting conference which was held in Ottawa in November when the Canadian universities
met to discuss Canada's crisis in higher education. It is significant that the Prime Minister rated this meeting high enough to take time off to speak and to intimate that his government was prepared to take action. While action has been taken, it is much too little and, of course, it is much too late but it is better than nothing at all. It does recognize that there is a problem. I was particularly interested in some of the papers. I hold in my hand one from the director of extension of the Unversity of Montreal, one by the president of St. Francis Xavier and another one by Dr. Burchard of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the alma mater of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and one on the problems of securing staff. All these papers deserve the most careful consideration by hon. members and by all who are interested in the question of education.
I would like to make a few references to the paper by President Norman MacKenzie of the University of British Columbia. Dr. MacKenzie is a product of Dalhousie. He was President of the University of New Brunswick before the Minister of Labour, and now is president of the University of British Columbia. He presented some figures in connection with the percentage of the Canadian students who go on to take higher university work. He mentions that it would appear that between 25 per cent and 33 per cent of the population have the capacity for higher education, and goes on to say:
At the present time 7.2 per cent of the appropriate age group, 18 to 21 inclusive, are in our Canadian universities.
Is that not something to think about? Although between 25 and 33 per cent of the population have the capacity, we permit only 7.2 to proceed to university. I think I should say that although I have been to university myself, all who have been there readily recognize that you can get a university degree and still be very ignorant about a great many things. A great many who never get to university make an outstanding contribution to society also, but anyone who has been to university would consider that he had missed something if that right had been denied him. When only 7.2 of the appropriate age group in Canada are permitted to go to university it is a pretty serious situation. According to Dr. MacKenzie the figures for Russia are 19.6 per thousand of the population. For the United States the figure is 15 per thousand and for Canada it is 4.9 per thousand. The 7.2 figure would be of the appropriate age group. Dr. MacKenzie points out that if we are really to face this problem, instead of having 80,000 enrolled in universities, as we have today,

Education
we should have between 240,000 and 315,000. By 1980, it our population goes up we should have between 375,000 and 490,000. If the provinces and the municipalities are not able to find the wherewithal now to maintain adequately the establishments that are supposed to house 80,000 and pay the salaries, how are we going to find facilities and perj sonnel to teach 240,000? Dr. MacKenzie points out:
I realize that statistics are among the most misleading materials with which human beings can work but while I do not propose to comment upon these figures, I suggest that there is plenty of food for thought in them.
The other day I had the Financial Post for November 17, 1956, and I made reference to an article on Russia by Ronald McEachern, the editor of the paper. Dr. McEachern mentioned that:
Soviet universities are hard to get into. A few prize-winners in the secondary schools go direct into university without examination. Of the remainder, around 60 per cent are flunked in their university entrance exams.
The graduate of a soviet university has about 50 per cent more formal hours of instruction behind him than the Canadian graduate.
He mentions that of all the Canadians who enter university here a little over 20 per cent survive through graduation. In Russia about 14 per cent survive and in the United States about 13 per cent. He mentions that in 1955 the Russian universities graduated about 120,000 scientists and engineers compared to about 70,000 in the United States universities. Mr. McEachern points out that there are two angles which must be associated with this fact. First, the magnitude of the Soviet economy is about one-third that of the United States so relatively the Soviet production of scientists and engineers is about five times that of the United States.
Mr. McEachern includes an interesting paragraph about a young chap who was studying at the University of Leningrad. This young man was 27 years of age and not only did he speak English very well but when he was speaking to someone from the United States he spoke as an American would and when he spoke to someone from Great Britain he spoke as people in that country do. Apparently he was somewhat puzzled by the Canadian accent. He said, "You speak just like the Americans but you are all Canadians."	All the subjects of
Her Majesty whom he had met previously used the Oxford expression of the English language. Here is a chap who not only spoke his own language but had been encouraged to speak English as it is used in both Great Britain and the United States, and in addition he had been trained to

speak Italian, Spanish, French, German and some other languages. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if it is possible in a country like the Soviet union to recruit such a large percentage of young people and send them to university and train them in various fields there is no good reason for a rich country like Canada failing to grapple with the problem and leaving it to be dealt with by the municipalities and the provinces.
I am also indebted to the Canadian school trustees' association for the research work they have done under the direction of Dr. M. E. LaZerte. In the study entitled "School Finance in Canada-1955" Dr. LaZerte points out that education is a very different matter from what it was not so long ago when log schools were erected at a very low cost. Even in the last 25 years in the province of Saskatchewan log school houses were built with grants of $100 or $200 from the provincial government. The settlers cut their lumber out of the logs with whip saws and made desks. That sort of school accommodation is not good enough in this day and age. Dr. LaZerte also points out that school children are no longer being educated to live for the rest of their lives in one small community. They are being educated as citizens not only of their own province but of the country and the world.
I heard the speech made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) at the Canadian Club luncheon today and I was greatly interested in the fact that the minister has been able to travel over 40,000 miles since we saw him here last year. The fact that he has been able to travel to so many countries makes it important that people such as those who provided his education should not be handicapped in educating children who live in the depressed areas of Canada and are not able to attend university if the price received for the produce of the farm is not adequate. I think we have to recognize the fact that the citizen of today is a citizen of the world and he must not be handicapped because he lives in a depressed area.
In this study there is a table that gives information regarding the cost per pupil of education in the various provinces of Canada. It is surprising to find a variation from a low of $8'6.11 in Newfoundland to a high of $292.58 in British Columbia. The per capita cost again shows a wide variation. The high is British Columbia, Saskatchewan is second, Alberta is third, Ontario is fourth, New Brunswick is fifth, Manitoba is sixth, Nova Scotia is seventh, Quebec is eighth, Newfoundland is ninth and Prince Edward Island is tenth. Again we have a variation from

$45.34 per person in British Columbia to a low of $16.84 in Prince Edward Island. There is also a table giving some information regarding the relative prosperity in different parts of Canada. Questions such as the following ones were asked: Do you have a telephone? Have you an automobile? Did you have a radio in 1952 when you had to buy a radio licence? Questions such as these indicated whether or not people were too poor to afford a radio.
Another table shows the personal income by provinces, indicating the ratio. In Ontario we have a rather high average. Ontario had an average of 123 per cent. British Columbia had 120 per cent, Alberta 93 per cent, Saskatchewan 78 per cent and we come down to 53 per cent in Newfoundland and 54 per cent in Prince Edward Island.
There is also some information concerning the salaries paid to teachers which points up an impossible situation confronting the authorities in many of the provinces. For example, in Newfoundland the average teacher's salary was $1,065. The average salary is given for some of the states immediately south. The average salary for teachers in Maine was $2,115; Prince Edward Island, $1,152; New Hampshire, $2,712; Nova Scotia, $1,587; Vermont, $2,348. Going down the list we find a high average in British Columbia of $2,590 but in the state of Illinois to the south the average salary was $3,458. Again there is a wide spread between salaries paid to teachers in Canada and the United States.
My colleague the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) had a sessional paper back in 1952 listing the present federal expenditures on education. You find an approximate total for the year of about $20 million including the amount for the Department of Labour for apprentice training, youth training and vocational grants, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the national research council, the Department of National Health and Welfare for professional education and post graduate training, the Department of Veterans Affairs for grants to universities and the Department of Finance for grants to universities. The total was $20,936,000. The small sum of just over $20 million was spent for the educational facilities I have mentioned, and last year $24 million was spent for the Velvet Glove, which was later discarded as useless.
I am also indebted to the Canadian teachers federation for their excellent research. They have made a study concerning the position of civil servants to point up the problem confronting those who are in the teaching profession. I have never been guilty of complaining about the salaries being paid
Education
to civil servants. As a matter of fact, I know a great many who are staying with the public service at salaries which are a great deal less than they would command in the commercial field. But we are robbing our schools of a great many teachers and I think that this report made by the federation deserves some consideration. They say:
Of six arts graduates hired as junior administrative officers in 1946 at approximately $2,000, three of the six are now earning between $7,000 and $9,000. Of eighteen hired in 1950 at approximately $2,400, most are earning between $5,000 and $6,000; five of the eighteen are earning $6,000 to $7,000 and one is earning between $7,000 and $8,000.
They mention that those who joined external affairs and trade and commerce as foreign service officers started at $3,900 and after seven years would be receiving between $5,500 and $6,000. If those same people had gone into the teaching profession there would have been very few positions anywhere in Canada available to them at salaries at all comparable. I have here a comparison of the teacher salary schedules of some of the larger centres in Canada, and I will give the low and the high figure:
	Low		High	
Vancouver 	... $2,300	$6,200	Calgary 	... 2,370	6,390	Winnipeg 	... 2,450	5,750	Windsor, Public 	... 2,700	6,800	Toronto	... 2,800	6,800	Ottawa 	... 2,800	7,000	Montreal, Protestant ....	. . . 2,150	6,550	Montreal, Catholic	... 2,150	5,300	Halifax 	... 1,900	5,650	Saint John, N.B	... 2,250	4,895	Charlottetown 	3,575	St. John's, Newfld	... 2,004	4,200	It is hard to expect	teachers	to	stay	inareas in Canada where	these low	salaries	are being paid when the public	service	in
Ottawa offers salaries such as those I have mentioned, and when industry is offering salaries that are away out of line with those teachers are receiving.
It is particularly difficult to hold teachers in the smaller communities. A very competent science teacher up in northern Saskatchewan who had been there for seven years left last term to accept a position in Regina at a salary increase of $800 over what he had received in the small town. He was replacing a science teacher in Regina who had gone to Timmins at a salary $800 more than Regina was paying. That man in turn was replacing a teacher who had left Timmins to go to Toronto at a salary $1,000 more than was being paid in Timmins. There was a difference of $2,600 in the salary paid in a small community in northern Saskatchewan from that paid in Toronto with similar qualifications being necessary.
Mr. James Muir, president of the Royal Bank of Canada, took time in giving his

Education
annual report to his shareholders to discuss this important question. He said:
The economic positions of all teachers has deteriorated relative to other professions of comparable training and responsibility, and relative to the working force as a whole. Thus the teacher today finds himself in the same occupational "depressed area" which he occupied as long ago as 1776: a member then as now of what Adam Smith called "that unprosperous race of men commonly called men of letters".
And again:
With the present disparity between the salaries we pay our teachers, and the salaries we pay for comparable talent elsewhere, we cannot expect to recruit or to retain enough qualified men and women to maintain our present teaching standards in our high schools and universities.
While it is all right to have a pious resolution of this sort being presented every year, a resolution which is not opposed by anyone on the government side, I submit that it is imperative that the government of Canada face up to the fact that as a result of our changing economy our municipalities and provinces have not the wherewithal to provide the facilities which will supply Canada with the educated people we must have to face the future. There is no reason why this country of 16 million people with our great natural resources, with our record of achievement in war time could not face up to the fact whatever is physically possible must be made financially possible. Something better than the plan proposed from the government side must be forthcoming if we are to meet successfully this crisis in the field of education.


Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker,
at the outset of my remarks in support of the resolution put forth by the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Hollingworth) I should like to congratulate him heartily for having put it before the house and for having proposed it with sound argument. He has done it as a good Canadian and has dealt with the matter in a manner above party consideration and for the sole welfare of our fellow young Canadians and of Canada as a whole.
When he introduced his resolution last year the hon. member for York Centre said he was hoping for the support of all sections of the house. He got support from members of every political affiliation. I was glad, and I was also impressed at the same time by the way in which his resolution was received by the hon. members. It showed that if hon. members do not agree all the time on certain matters dealt with in the house they are all eager to promote better education and greater knowledge for the younger generation. In concluding his speech last year the hon. member for York Centre, who is known as a promoter of better understanding among the

different racial groups in Canada, made a special appeal to his colleagues of French origin, when he said, and I quote from page 571 of Hansard of January 26, 1956:
I should like to conclude my remarks in French as I am most anxious to have the support of my French-Canadian colleagues on both sides of the house.
None of the members of French origin to my left saw fit at the time to express openly in the chamber his opinion on the matter and we do not know as yet the stand of those hon. members on the matter. But on the government side of the house the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Blanchette) expressed very well I think the opinion of our French colleagues when he said in concluding his remarks on that occasion as reported on page 594 of Hansard of January 26, 1956:
The great need is for first class men to give leadership and inspiration through their own brilliant, original discoveries. The future depends not only on the continued liberality of government agencies but on the number and quality of the men induced to do research work. The greatest need is to discover and train these men, and surely the resolution of the mon. member for York Centre (Mr. Hollingworth) will, if implemented, assist us to attain the aim envisaged.
Since our colleague the hon. member for York Centre, asked his French-Canadian colleagues to support him on his resolution, and since I graduated from one of our great universities not so long ago, I feel it my duty to add my voice to those who have spoken already on the matter. In doing so I feel I am doing my duty and also doing my share of what is good for my fellow citizens, my country, my province and the people I represent because they would all benefit from the implementation of such a resolution.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, the proposed resolution introduced by the hon. member for York Centre reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to provide national scholarships and bursaries for students at the university level who are in financial need in so far as the subject matter of this resolution is within the competence of parliament.
This proposed resolution is in complete agreement with the report of the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences, as submitted to parliament in May, 1951. In this report the commissioners recommended, on page 419:
That the federal government maintain and enlarge the system of scholarships, of bursaries and of loans to undergraduates now in operation and known as the Federal-provincial Vocational Training Plan.
However, before going further into the matter and because we are dealing with

Education
something which relates to education, may I be allowed, as a representative of a Quebec constituency, to wonder if the implementation of such legislation would interfere with provincial autonomy. In the first place, it is important to determine if this legislation is contrary to our constitution as enacted in 1867. Since we are dealing with educational matters, it is important, I think, to know if we have any right at all to discuss it and, even more to know if we may adopt legislation in aid of education.
I remember that last year, when we took up the same resolution, the Hon. George Drew, a former premier of Ontario and then leader of the federal Conservative party and of the opposition, a man who when he was a provincial premier had proclaimed himself a champion of autonomy, just like the premier of my own province, stated, as is reported on page 572 of Hansard for 1956:
The purpose of this motion, undoubtedly, is to emphasize the need for an extension, a very substantial extension, of the award of scholarships to those who seek the opportunity to take advantage of the educational facilities that our universities afford. This can be done without in any way interfering with the exclusive jurisdiction over education which rests with the provincial governments under our constitution. This can undoubtedly be worked out on a satisfactory basis of effective co-operation between the federal and provincial governments.
Now what do we find in section 93 of the British North America Act, that section which defines the powers of the provinces and confers exclusive rights in different matters? Here is what we find:
In and for each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, . . .
Well, Mr. Speaker, that section is clear, plain and definite about the organization of education and about the organization of our teaching institutions in the different provinces of the country, at all levels, either primary, secondary or university education. Provinces alone may enact legislation in the field of education. This was a guarantee given to them when our constitution was enacted in 1867. More particularly for the province of Quebec, it is a guarantee which was given to her perhaps primarily on account of the fact mentioned last year by the hon. member for York Centre when he said-and I quote page 598 of last year's Hansard:
I know that French Canadians are proud of their language, their customs and their traditions. They are right in feeling as they do, and I congratulate them on that score. In order to maintain this character, French Canadians mean to keep control of education in so far as it concerns them.
That is, Mr. Speaker, the main reason why French Canadians are jealous of their exclusive rights in the matter of education. They want to keep their language as well as the traditions bequeathed to them by their
ancestors, and I am convinced that the whole Canadian culture is enriched by this fact.
As I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, it is always a delicate matter for a federal member from the province of Quebec to deal with education. If the other provinces of confederation jealously cling to their rights in the field of education, my province, for her part, and for the reasons just mentioned, will never tolerate any encroachment on section 93 of the British North America Act which grants her exclusive rights in matters of education.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the fact that the federal government grants scholarships to our Canadian students, scholarships which are accepted by them, is an interference with the autonomy of the provinces in the field of education.
This afternoon I heard the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Girard) state that he felt the need for the establishment of this system of scholarships not only in the province of Quebec, but in the whole country. In his speech, if I am not mistaken, he said that he could not see how those scholarships could be distributed in various provinces without violating section 93 of the constitution. I respect his opinion, but I do not agree with him. As far as I am concerned, I feel that the federal government has the responsibility of helping Canadian students to pursue their courses, no matter in what province they live. We must help those students. When I was at university myself, I noticed that most of our students were from middle-class families. Many of the students of my acquaintance had to work during the summer in order to be able to pursue their studies, and several of them even had to work during hours of study. But, what about that large number of intelligent, diligent, studious, and ambitious young Canadians who cannot get higher education and who cannot go beyond college, for lack of funds. I suggest that the whole country is thus deprived of the valuable services which could be rendered by those young Canadians if they had enough funds to complete their courses.
In each of the provinces, tremendous amounts of money are spent, with reason I think, for national defence, health, research, social security and the development of our natural resources. However, Mr. Speaker, is there a greater natural resource than the intellectual potential at our disposal for making our country richer and more prosperous? We need more technicians, scientists, doctors, engineers, etc.
Mr. Speaker, we are doing a grave injustice to the nation, the Canadian family

Education
and more particularly those born in low-income families, if we refuse to help talented students to complete their studies. I admit that the state must not substitute itself to parents, nor to the family, but it has an inescapable duty to help the family, and young Canadians. The assistance I just mentioned, which concerns us more particularly in this case, is the help to universities. That assistance could be given by various provincial governments which, on the other hand, are fairly generous in the granting of scholarships.	*
Moreover, in my own province, scholarships are granted annually to some students. Some foreign governments also grant university scholarships to our young men and women. There are also private concerns sufficiently conscious of their social responsibility to provide valuable scholarships annually to students from the province of Quebec or from the country as a whole. Moreover, in my own province, the St. Jean Baptiste Society, by providing honour loans renders invaluable services to young students of that province. And there are similar scholarships provided by the government of this country.
May I digress for a moment to answer the argument advanced by the hon. member for Lapointe. According to him the proposed scholarships are a threat to provincial autonomy. By the same token then we should refuse to accept scholarships provided by private enterprise, or by foreign governments. But there is no interference with provincial autonomy. These young men who receive scholarships from private enterprise or from provincial governments or from nameless associations are perfectly free to act as they wish and to benefit from the advantages provided by the scholarships in question.
Nevertheless all those scholarships which I have just mentioned are not sufficient to render justice to all our fellow citizens in every part of this country. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see every talented, responsible, competent, studious and ambitious young Canadian provided with a higher education.
The proposed resolution introduced by the hon. member for York Centre is a long step in the right direction. That is why I am happy to support it. It does not interfere with provincial autonomy. If I were in any doubt about that, I would not support it. I am of the opinion that in certain cases the federal government may provide assistance in this field without imposing any conditions and without interfering with the

rights of the provinces in the field of education. This case which we are discussing today is such a case.
I want every young Canadian, whatever his province and racial origin, and whatever his background, to benefit equally in the field of education and every other field. This is the aim of the government in granting aid to education. It is not only in dictatorships like Russia, that certain methods are applied, not so much to help the students, but to make them the slaves of the state machine. Here, in Canada, in our democratic country, where the living is good, the sole aim of our various governments is to raise the intellectual standards of our young Canadians. As a matter of fact, their only aim is to help the nation to develop and prosper in order to exert an ever-increasing influence in the world. We want to help the less fortunate.
Some may wonder, Mr. Speaker, by what means we may determine the eligibility of students whose parents are of modest means. Well, Mr. Speaker, did we not find an adequate way of choosing those who would be eligible for the old age pension. In a field such as the one we are now considering, the government could easily find means to choose those who would be eligible for such scholarships.
At page 361 of the report which I mentioned a moment ago, one of the suggestions made by the commissioners reads as follows:
We therefore recommend:
(f) That since the amendments which we are proposing in this legislation will, if they are adopted, extend the present system of scholarships to a greater number of universities and colleges, there be established an advisory council to be known as "The University Training Advisory Council" which will include representatives of the provincial and federal governments and of the universities.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that such a recommendation is practical and takes into account the rights of each and everyone. What we want here in Canada is to give to the greatest possible number of young Canadians an opportunity to avail themselves of our facilities for higher education so that, in the end, our whole nation may benefit by it. What we want is to give assistance to parents with large families who do not get a sufficient income but whose children have talent and wish to be educated so that they may serve the Canadian nation.
It is in that sense that I approve the resolution of the hon. member for York Centre as I am firmly convinced that the Prime Minister of Canada, who always has young Canadians in mind, will welcome this resolution. The sooner we put our education facilities within reach of a greater number of young Canadians, the better it will be for the whole country.

(Text):


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, as I have agreed with so much that has been said in the course of this debate and have disagreed with practically nothing, perhaps I might be well advised to content myself by saying nothing at all. But there are one or two points that I should like to make very briefly.
I think it is quite clear that public interest in education has been aroused in a way in which it has not been aroused for many years. The reason for it, of course, is perfectly obvious. The reason is fear. The reason is that we watch what is going on in Russia and we are afraid that we are being left behind in the kind of competition that the Russians are putting on. What is that competition? It is a competition in the production of all the material apparatus of life, including military engines of all kinds. We are troubled that we may be left behind in this competition. I regret to say that I believe that is the main reason why we find education being talked about so much. Therein I think lies a great danger. Therein lies the danger that we may concentrate on technical things or mainly on technical things. We may concentrate on the production of more and more technical people. On that matter I want to say two things.
First of all, I want to point out that what we need most of all in this world at the present time is not more technical things but more wisdom, more knowledge of how to live together. That is what we need most of all. That leads me to say that when we are thinking about assistance to education I hope we shall not allow ourselves to concentrate wholly on technical things but will remember that while wisdom cannot be taught in the same way that technical things are taught, nevertheless there is more chance that those who educate themselves broadly-who read history and literature, who know how men have lived, what the difficulties of the past have been and how they have been overcome-will become wiser than if they lack that knowledge.
In the second place, in speaking about technical education 1 wish to point out what has been pointed out to me by men who are in the industrial world, namely that we are in danger of not using our resources in quite the right way. It has been pointed out to me more than once that in the industrial world there are a large number of people with full engineering training and the highest of technical skills doing work which does not demand such full technical training at all, and that the work in many cases could be done by those with much less technical training.
Education
I am glad to say that in the province of Ontario regard is being had for that situation and that technical schools are being set up which may do a great deal to overcome that difficulty.
The second thing I want to do is to say something about those who are in the universities and to whom I hope the aid will be directed. I notice, for example, that this resolution, for which I shall vote, speaks about providing national scholarships and bursaries for students at the university level. If that means for undergraduates only, I want to say a word about it. In thinking of those who are at the university I have, for my own convenience and in a rough and ready way, divided them into three classes. First of all, there are those who fail, and we ought to get rid of them from universities.
I do know that at the present time university heads are troubled over the number of failures that they find in the early years. While I am not an educational expert I cannot help wondering whether or not some explanation for these failures may be contained in a letter I had some years ago from a man who was teaching one of the very elementary classes in a university. He told me he discovered to his surprise on taking a poll that 16 out of 40 in that class had never read a book of any kind during their years at school except their technical textbooks. I could hardly believe that, but he assured me it was so. He went on to argue, and this interested me, that the curriculum in the English course should be relieved of the English classics and should be replaced by modern works.
He said that the pupils of whom he was speaking-and they may not have been the best, they may not have been a fair test- would not have been able to read Shakespeare, Milton, Browning or Wordsworth without a dictionary because they would not have known the words. Then he added this, and it interested me very much. "You and I have to remember that when we were at school, even though we did not get any training in the ancient classics, we had the Bible read in our homes and thus we had the vocabulary that would enable us to read any good English literature." I am not going to offer any further opinion as to the number of failures but it is such to concern university authorities.
There was one thing more my friend said which interested me greatly-I had not thought of it before. He said that you have to remember that radio and movies-we had no television in those days-which take

Education
so much of the attention of the children now demand no effort, while the reading of even a novel does demand effort. Of course, in what some of us like to regard as the good old days it was quite a common thing for children actually to be kept at home during the evenings and to sit down with their lesson books in front of them and spend a considerable amount of time working at them. Whether or not the change in that has anything to do with the incidence of failures at the present time, I do not pretend to say.
I come now to the second class at the universities which I like to think comprises the great majority of university students. I refer to the competent, reliable, industrious people who do their work and who afterwards do the world's work too. They are perfectly competent but they do not have anything in them resembling genius.
I come then to the third class of people who have genius or something like it; people who have an extra spark; people who are going to provide the great teachers, scientists, theologians, philosophers, poets, the artists and so on. They are of a special class but they are in great danger, as I understand it when I read this resolution, of not being considered as proper subjects for these scholarships. I should like to put in a plea that the requirements and needs of these people should be carefully considered, because after all it is upon them we have to rely to make our way of life a better way of life. It is these people to whom we are going to owe so much if they can be given an opportunity to fully develop themselves. I venture these comments because when we speak about scholarships I think that we should not confine them wholly to those who, as I say, are going to do the world's work; who are competent and industrious and have all the good pedestrian qualities raised to their highest level but who lack these special high qualities which go to those who have what I call genius or near genius; those people on whom we have to rely for making our life something more than a dull pedestrian affair.


Mr. A. R. Lusby (Cumberland):: I am very glad indeed, Mr. Speaker, to take part in this debate. In view of the lateness of the hour and the fact that there are possibly a number of other speakers who would like to take part, I am going to compress my remarks into a somewhat briefer compass than I had originally intended. However, I am very glad 
to have the opportunity to say something. As a Nova Scotian I might say I am particularly interested in a resolution of this kind for at least two reasons. One reason is the fact, as was so graciously indicated by a couple of western members who spoke in the debate this afternoon, that Nova Scotia has made such a signal contribution to the cause of education in this country.
The second reason is that in Nova Scotia, as in the Atlantic region generally, I think it is perhaps fair to say that for the student who is working his way through college, either partially or wholly, the task is somewhat more difficult than it is in the more prosperous provinces of Canada. It is true, of course, that a large percentage of our university students do work their way through college, either partially or wholly. This afternoon the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Michener) spoke with some pride about a classmate of his who had succeeded in paying his way through college by selling aluminium. Almost anyone can sell aluminium. I recall that when I was at college a student who was there at the same time financed his way through college by selling Bibles. I think that requires salesmanship. I was never quite sure at the time whether it was his superb salesmanship and business acumen or the piety of his Nova Scotia clientele to which he owed his success. But in view of the fact that he has since risen high in the business world I am inclined to the view that he had the former qualities.
I should like to add my congratulations to those which have been tendered the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Hollingworth) on his part in formulating and presenting this resolution. Of course, he cannot, I suppose, claim credit for originating the idea any more than the Wright brothers can claim credit for originating the idea of human flight. But in the resolution he presented this year and in the resolution he presented last year, which was practically identical, he has put the central idea in concise and concrete form. He has brought it forward for the close scrutiny of this house, and for this reason I should like to congratulate him. I should like to congratulate him also upon the fact that he marshalled the arguments in favour of the resolution very ably and presented them logically, forcibly and lucidly.
It is easy to deduce from what he has said and his manner of saying it that the subject

Education
is dear to his heart and is one which he has entertained with sincerity and enthusiasm. I think the house is greatly indebted to him in this regard. It is true that this year the discussion on the resolution is going to constitute a double covering of certain ground which is being covered in the debate with regard to the establishment of the Canada Council. However, I might point out that in so far as scholarships are concerned they are, it seems to me, a corollary to the aid which is being extended to the universities themselves. On the one hand we have aid being given to the universities so that they may provide better facilities for scholars and this resolution, of course, has in mind aid to deserving and needy scholars themselves who wrould take advantage of the facilities which the universities afford.
I was particularly glad this year to hear that the Canadian universities were to receive aid, and that the university grants were to be doubled. I might reiterate what I said before, that I think it regrettable that these grants are still being distributed on the basis of provincial population.
I think it is clear that this resolution has enlisted very good support from members on all sides of the house. This shows, I think, that we, not only we, but the people of Canada whom we represent here, are increasingly aware of the value of higher education as a significant factor in our national development. In this regard we must consider higher education from two distinct and yet very closely related points of view. First, there is that of fostering the arts and humanities; and second, there is that of promoting scientific and technological advancement. Unless we keep these in proper focus it seems to me we shall arrive at a distorted understanding of the whole subject.
In this age, with its increasing emphasis upon materialism, an unfortunate development, and yet one which I think we must assume is with us, it is in some quarters customary to belittle the value of the classical education. I certainly do not support the present resolution with any idea that it may encourage the production of withdrawn intellectuals moping in misty ivory towers; not at all. But is is my submission, Mr. Speaker, that if Canada is ever to attain the stature of a truly great nation, which we all ardently hope and expect for her, she
must progress not merely along the paths of science and engineering, essential though such progress is; there must also be a flowering, or so it seems to me, of the things of the intellect and the spirit, of those lofty ideals and conceptions which are to be found only in the realms of art, literature, philosophy, religion and in all the allied manifestations of a truly noble culture. Here it is that human thought appears at its highest and purest and that, Mr. Speaker, is higher than any jet plane or any rocket can ever soar and certainly purer than the finest distillation of the laboratories. And from such sublime flights of the human mind come also those concepts of freedom, of democracy and of the worth of the individual without which all our material achievements count for little more, I should say, than those of so many ants or bees. Certainly, efficiency is a most desirable quality, but I sincerely hope that we shall never have for our national goal the soulless efficiency to which a communist state aspires, that and nothing more.
Surely, no one will dispute the outstanding and essential role of the university in encouraging and promoting those lofty flights of the human mind of which I have just been speaking. On the other hand, for all I have said, I do not wish it thought that I am decrying in any way the necessity of maintaining the highest possible standard of advancement in all scientific and technological fields. Indeed, history shows that the full development of the arts and humanities usually, though not always and not necessarily, comes with the attainment of a high level of material well-being, such as today only science and engineering can ensure to us. For example, I think it may well be that the modern world cares very little about what, let us say, the gross national product of ancient Athens may have been in any particular year or years, how many helmets or chariots or galleys were turned out; and yet, if Athens had not enjoyed worldly strength and prosperity, even based though it was on the evil foundation of slavery, I doubt very much whether she would have ever lighted those beacons of mental and spiritual progress that have made her name deathless. A similar lesson may be drawn, I think, from the beginning of the Renaissance in Italy and also from the Elizabethan age in England. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, while we must advance the cause of liberal education, we must not neglect that of science and engineering.
Today, indeed, as previous speakers have pointed out, the nation which falls behind in the latter fields faces the danger of extinction.

Education
We note the alarm that has spread through the western world at the revelation that Russia shows signs of outstripping us in the training of scientists and engineers. We regard that as a potent threat to our security and freedom. And again, we see the teeming masses of workers in the countries of Asia, against whose wretchedly paid labour we cannot compete in the markets of the world except by maintaining our place in the vanguard of technological progress.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if Canada is to meet and realize her bright destiny as a truly great nation, it is essential that every fine, keen young mind which she produces shall have full opportunity, by access to higher education, to realize all its potentialities and make its greatest possible contribution to the national cause, whether that may be in the field of the humanities or in the more mundane fields of science and technology.
I am not proposing to quote any statistics, Mr. Speaker. I am not particularly noted as a dealer in statistics. In fact, I sometimes think that when they are used as lavishly as they quite frequently are in this house they form more or less so many hurdles which thought is bound to stumble over in its course. And yet, there has been a profusion of statistics given from time to time in this house-I think there have been some given in this debate-which show only too well that, compared with many other countries, Canada is allowing much of her best available talent to lie fallow for lack of opportunity for university training. How much, perhaps no statistics can accurately determine. But we need the utmost development of all that talent if we are to hold our place in the forefront of modern civilization. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, in the development of that talent no factor has more significance, I submit, than the university and the training which it can give. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, for the reasons 1 have mentioned I consider that the present resolution is a sound and worthy one, well calculated to advance our true national interests, and certainly no narrow constitutional arguments should be allowed to weigh against it.
I suppose there are possibly some strict constitutionalists who might say that this is an infringement upon the provincial realm, who might utter the old cry "federal hands off education"; but to me, Mr. Speaker, this does not constitute any infringement upon the provincial rights in the educational field.
I fully agree with previous speakers that under our constitution education is in the provincial realm, but it seems to me there is a vast difference between an attempt to interfere with or control a provincial system of education, or to exercise any authority over

it, and what this resolution proposes, which, as I see it, is simply a matter of assisting brilliant and deserving students who are in need to take advantage of whatever educational facilities may be afforded in the realm of higher education in any particular province.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that does not constitute any constitutional infringement upon the rights of any province and therefore I think this resolution deserves the support of all of us here and I do not think there should be any serious objection to it from any quarter.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose tonight to cover the field of statistics, as the hon. member who has just taken his seat said he would not; nor do I propose to discuss education in any general way whatsoever. I rise to speak on this matter because I happen to have had a lifetime background of experience in a small university town where it has been my good fortune to know for more years, perhaps, than I like to recall, generations of students who have come into that university and gone out into the world.
This resolution, of course, was before us last year. I am not sure whether it is a matter of conceit, Mr. Speaker, or of complacency, but this afternoon I read over the speech I made last year and I felt I could not improve upon it, and therefore there was nothing new that I needed to say on this occasion. But at the time I did mention and did give an instance that happened a few days before this resolution was moved a year ago. We read in the press that a relatively large grant of money had been made by a former graduate to the university with which I have been associated. He was one who had worked his way through 20 years before because of the fact that he was fortunate enough to be appointed as a waiter in the dining hall and thereby got a scholarship which enabled him to graduate. That is typical of the matter which is envisaged in this resolution. The swift years of the past develop the human material and of course like stones that are thrown into a pool sometimes the ripples roll to the shore and sometimes they are dissipated before they reach there, but at the same time from those who have had assistance in the past much more assistance has come in later years.
Coming as I do from a town which contains a small university similar to the one mentioned by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), and similar to the small university with which has been associated the hon. member for Inverness-Rich-mond (Mr. MacEachen), I am able to say

that I personally feel that universities of this kind which have not attracted the support of the government and which have not the wealthy alumni societies which are associated with some of the larger universities can profit more by the subject matter of this resolution than can larger universities. Therefore there can be no doubt in the minds of hon. members of this house that this resolution is worthy of support. Today we are overlapping the field envisaged by the legislation which will be brought down concerning the Canada Council. The Canada Council legislation proposes that there will be fairly substantial grants made toward universities in the future. The main reason I rise to speak on this matter this evening is that I feel the subject of education which has been discussed so much in the last year or two is one of vast importance and this is simply the beginning of much more extensive discussions and more comprehensive legislation which will be enacted by this parliament in years yet to come. We are only at the threshold of this tremendous expansion particularly in the field of university education.
Early this evening I was reading Hansard of last year and I observed the contribution made by our friend who is no longer with us, the late Mr. Noseworthy. When speaking on this resolution a year ago he referred to the fact that when he first came into the house-I forget whether it was in 1940 or 1945-he moved resolutions in respect to education on three different occasions and each time they were ruled out of order because they transgressed provincial jurisdiction and therefore were not within the competence of this parliament. We have moved a long way in that relatively short period and I know we are going to move much further in the years to come because the problem concerning the future of university education in this country is one which is going to command more and more attention from this parliament as years go by. This problem can be solved only by parliament assisting universities through grants to the municipalities and provinces who will in turn look after the needs of the elementary and high schools.
For this reason as well as for many other reasons which I could suggest I rise to voice my support of this resolution. I know there are many others who desire to speak on this resolution and I do not wish to delay their contributions. I am sure that almost every hon. member of this house, if not all hon. members, will support this measure. Although it probably blends and merges into the legislation that will be brought down within the next few days with respect to the Canada
Education
Council, we are nevertheless blazing a trail here which those who will come after us will some day say marked the beginning of the recognition by the Canadian parliament of its responsibility for university education.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, so much has already been said on this resolution that it is very difficult at this stage to avoid repetition, but as one who has been connected with education for a great many years and also as a university graduate who knows from personal experience what it means to be a needy student, I feel that I have a special obligation to support this resolution which has been sponsored by my friend the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Hollingworth). At this point I should like to tender to him my congratulations on bringing this resolution before the house at this time. The resolution under debate reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to provide national scholarships and bursaries for students at the university level who are in financial need in so far as the subject matter of this resolution is within the competence of parliament.
This resolution might seem unnecessary in view of the fact that there is also before this house another measure dealing with the setting up of the Canada Council which appears to have similar objectives. Section (a) of the resolution dealing with the Canada Council reads as follows:
The Minister of Finance may, out of the consolidated revenue fund, pay to the council the sum of $50 million to constitute an endowment fund for the purposes of the act.
When the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) introduced this resolution last Friday he pointed out that the purposes of the proposed bill were in some respects different from the purposes of the resolution which is now under debate. I should like to quote what he said as reported at page 395 of Hansard.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Speaker, is that in order?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. Is the hon. member for Burin-Bur-geo intending to quote from a speech made by the Prime Minister in another debate of this session?


Chesley William Carter: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Well, I had expected that we would reach a point in this debate when this would come to a head because one could see it coming.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Education


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: I checked with Beauchesne and the appropriate words are:
The member while speaking must not refer to any debate of the same session on any question not then under discussion.
I think the hon. members on all sides of the house have endeavoured to follow that rule and I think hon. members on all sides of the house have found that in several cases matters do come before this chamber which are so inter-related that at least part of the debate on one might be dealing with a subject which is then being debated under another heading. At the same time I think it is the intention of the rule that a quotation should not be made out of its context and have the result of quoting any hon. member of this house on a subject on which he has not spoken. I believe that is the intention of the rule.
If I may take just a moment I should like to comment that the point was raised by myself some years ago in connection with two very similar private bills when the remarks made on one would perhaps have been applicable to the subject matter of the other except that in this particular instance one sponsoring group was being commended and it was not intended by the speaker at the time that the commendation should extend to the other sponsoring group.
Therefore I feel that the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) will agree that if we are going to carry out this rule with the intent that I think it has we should make our points during this debate without quoting- the citation says "referring to"-but I would say certainly without quoting the remarks of any hon. member made during another debate during this session. I feel sure the hon. member can make the point he wishes to make without infringing that rule.


Chesley William Carter: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is no necessity to quote what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said. The only reason I was using his words was that they expressed what I wanted to say so much better than I could myself. The point I was trying to make was that there is considerable difference between the objectives of this resolution and those of the other measure to which I referred and which also envisages grants and scholarships to students. In introducing the resolution having to do with the Canada Council the Prime Minister pointed out that scholarships would be made available to people who perhaps could not properly be considered as university students. He went on to illustrate that by mentioning groups of people such as artists, musicians and actors.

The resolution which we are now considering is different in two very important respects. In the first place, it is different in that it is specifically designed to help needy students to get a university education. The factor of need does not enter into the awarding of scholarships under the Canada Council. It is also different in that it makes provision for bursaries as well as scholarships which the other measure does not. One might have hoped that this resolution would have also made provision for the granting of interest free loans to students.
It is fitting that education should occupy the attention of this house to such a great extent at this time. Canada is a very rich country with a tremendous future and education is essential to the development of our material resources and the steady expansion of our economy. Education can also play a very important part in the development of those areas of our country which may not be so richly blessed with natural wealth.
We all think of the United States, our neighbour to the south, as having the highest standard of living in the world. Mr. Thomas Bouchel, a member of the United States chamber of commerce, when addressing audiences in the United States following his return from Europe some time ago has been quoted as saying that in his opinion Switzerland has the highest standard of living in the world and Denmark had the highest standard of life.
In recent months we have become increasingly conscious of the fact that university education is also essential to our national defence.
Indeed it may even be our first line of defence. The emphasis which Russia is placing on education and the feverish haste of Russian universities to turn out engineers and scientists indicate that they have made the same appraisal. It becomes increasingly clear that our human resources, our brain power, are the most precious of all our resources. Any nation which neglects their development does so at its own peril.
On the political level education is essential also to the preservation of our democracy and our democratic institutions and to the solving of the complex problems which face us today. Democracy has been described as government of the people, by the people, for the people. Democracy cannot work unless the people are in position to play their part effectively, and they cannot play their part effectively without sufficient educational training to develop independent thought and judgment.
The people must be able to understand the present in the terms of the past and to

anticipate the future in terms of both. Abraham Lincoln said that "if we could just know where we are and whither we are tending, we could better know what to do and how to do it." Above all education is essential for living a life. The only forms of life that have survived on this planet are those which have been successful in adapting themselves to their environment. In this age of electronics, automation and the atom bomb the ability to adapt oneself to one's environment becomes more vital still. A knowledge and appreciation of those values which satisfy the soul, which go to make up a full life and which are of permanent lasting value are indispensable if people and
Education
nations are to reverse their present course toward chaos and destruction.
On motion of Mr. Carter the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will take the further supplementary estimates which I tabled a few days ago; then the resolution on the Canada Council, and second reading of the bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
634	HOUSE OF
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. Boisvert: How many manufacturing establishments were in operation (a) in each province; (b) in each of the years 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955?
Answer by:	Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
1 (a) and (b):


MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS, BY PROVINCE, 1950-1955
[Stage Direction]
1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955
Newfoundland	 359
Prince Edward Island	 244
Nova Scotia	 1,482
New Brunswick	 1,107
Quebec	 11,670
Ontario	 12,809
Manitoba	 1,507
Saskatchewan	 887
Alberta	 1,671
British Columbia	 3,696
Yukon and Northwest Territories	 19
Canada	 35,942

Mr. Murphy (Lambton: West):
1.	What is the book value of Polymer Corporation Limited, including both buildings and land?
2.	What is the amount computed by Sarnia as to basis of payment in lieu of taxes?
3.	What real estate was purchased by or for Polymer Corporation in the years 1954 to 1956 inclusive, and what was the amount paid for same?
Answer by: Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Defence Production:
1.	As of December 31, 1955, the book value of Polymer Corporation Limited amounted to $48,409,311, as set forth in the company's published annual report. The figure for the year ending December 31, 1956 has not been finalized and will be disclosed in the company's annual report for the year.
2.	It is the company's policy to pay to the city of Sarnia the same amount as would be payable if the company was a private concern. The plant is assessed each year by the city assessor in the same manner as other industrial property in the area and the company's grant to the city is determined by applying the current mill rate to the final
822	948	939	790	237	224	216	209	1,474	1,533	1,591	1,526	1,084	1,077	1,094	1,057	not11,861	12,024	12,132	12,191	yet13,025	13,172	13,114	13,178	1,512	1,531	1,540	1,522	available973	1,022	1,062	1,010	2,118	2,150	2,072	2,052	3,897	4,225	4,317	4,462	18	23	30	31	37,021	37,929	38,107	38,028	
business and property assessment. The grant to the city in lieu of taxes for 1956 amounted to $297,547.80 and the total business and property assessment made in 1956 which will serve as the basis for determining the grant for 1957 amounts to $5,168,515.
3.	Disclosure of purchases of real estate and the amounts paid for same would not be in the public interest, since any land purchased in the Sarnia area has been acquired in competition with industry and others for current or future plant expansion.


T.C.A.-MARITIME FLIGHT CHANGES
Mr. Bell: 1.	Have any changes been made In T.C.A. flights in and out of the maritimes in the last two months?
2.	If so, what were these changes and why were they made?
Answer by: Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
1.	Yes.
2.	One North Star flight operating Montreal to Halifax and return replaced by a DC-3 aircraft.

Questions
One North Star flight operating Halifax to Boston and return replaced by a DC-3 flight.
These changes were necessitated by the loss of a North Star aircraft in British Columbia on December 9 and were made effective by a schedule change on December 15.


CAMP GAGETOWN COAL CONTRACTS
Mr. Brooks: 1.	How many tons of coal have been contracted for by the Department of National Defence or any other government department for use at Camp Gagetown, during the winter season 1956-57?
2.	What quantity is being purchased from (a) Minto area, New Brunswick; (b) outside New Brunswick?
Answer by: Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Defence Production:
1.	20,039.5 tons.
2.	(a) 20,000 tons.
(b)	39.5 tons.


PARCEL POST, VANCOUVER, BURNABY, NEW WESTMINSTER
Mr. Goode: 1.	Were tenders called for the delivery of parcel post in the area covered by Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster, etc.?
2.	If so, (a) when; (b) who were given the opportunity of tendering; (c) what prices were quoted; (d) who received the contract?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):
1 and 2. All the instant coffee products on the market in Canada have been analysed in the laboratories of the food and drug directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare and no ingredients other than those present in coffee were found in the products labelled 100 per cent pure coffee. One brand contained a small amount of added dextrose or sugar; this ingredient is not considered detrimental to health.


MAIL TRANSPORT COSTS AND REVENUES
Mr. Hahn: 1.	What was the amount paid to (a) Canadian Pacific Railway; (b) Canadian National Railways; (c) Trans-Canada Air Lines; (d) Canadian Pacific Airlines; (e) Great Northern Railway; (f) Pacific Great Eastern Railway; (g) other means of transportation, for transport of mail in each of the fiscal years ending in 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955?
2.	In each of these years, what was (a) the total revenue received from second and third class mail; (b) the estimated cost of handling second and third class mail; (c) the total tonnage of mail carried; (d) the total tonnage of second and third class mail carried?
Answer by: Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Postmaster General):
Answer by: Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Postmaster General):
1	and 2. Tenders were not called and no change is contemplated at the present time in the existing arrangements.


PARCEL POST DELIVERY, VANCOUVER DISTRICT
Mr. Hahn: 1.	Has consolidation of the parcel post delivery in the Vancouver metropolitan district been completed?
2.	If so, who has the contract?
3.	When was such contract let?
4.	When were tenders called?
5.	How many applications were there?
6.	For what reasons was successful applicant chosen?
7.	Are any parcel post carriers being let out as a result of the consolidation? If so, how many?
8.	What are the names and addresses of each of those so affected?
9.	How many years of service did each give to date?
10.	On what day is the new service to go into effect?
Answer by: Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Postmaster General):
1. No.
2	to 10. See answer to No. 1.


INSTANT COFFEE INGREDIENTS
Mr. Hahn: 1.	Are there any ingredients other than coffee in the instant coffee sold in this country?
2.	If so, (a) what are such ingredients; (b) are any of them considered detrimental to health?
1. (a) Canadian Pacific Railway
1950-	51	$6,801,609.081951-	52	
5,707,611.941952-	53	
6,107,384.141953-	54	
7,244,330.761954-	55	
6,897,801.891955-	56	
6,768,935.05(b)	Canadian National Railways1950-	51	$6,627,935.771951-	52	
5,672,593.191952-	53	
6,372,134.431953-	54	
7,360,541.021954-	55	
7,113,228.811955-	56	
7,015,984.98(c)	Trans-Canada Air Lines1950-	51	$6,657,554.391951-	52	
7,389,013.151952-	53	
7,701,560.851953-	54	
7,817,996.491954-	55	
8,387,906.841955-	56	
8,430,766.76(d)	Canadian Pacific Air Lines1950-	51	$1,442,479.461951-	52	
1,506,671.211952-	53	
1,553,706.891953-	54	
1,678,249.181954-	55	
1,842,688.761955-	56	
1,851,676.68
Questions
(e) Great Northern Railway
1950- 51	$ 11,049.15
1951-	52	
11,385.641952-	53	
14,456.301953-	54	
15,559.641954-	55	
14,010.281955-	56	
14,687.00(f)	Pacific Great Eastern Railways1950- 51	$ 20,513.831951-	52	
24,641.691952-	53	
26,937.571953-	54	
14,843.961954-	55	
2,626.761955-	56	
2,957.73(g)	Other means of transportation
International
Domestic water services water services
1950-	51	$927,867.22	-	$1,253,496.681951-	52	821,332.37	-	1,555,267.391952-	53	935,650.01	-	1,623,450.811953-	54	985,376.93	-	1,420,277.871954-	55	984,145.84	-	1,334,080.311955-	56	964,782.83	-	1,241,899.90
Land mail services
1950-	51	$13,672,978.831951-	52	
14,475,857.431952-	53	
15,588,817.241953-	54	
16,974,888.491954-	55	
17,782,870.281955-	56	
18,518,463.382.	(a) Second and third class estimated revenue:1951	$17,833,8001952	
25,529,1001953	
25,854,1001954	
26,218,5001955	
26,781,000(b)	Second and third class estimatedcost:	*1951	.$33,093,0001952	
35,865,1001953	. 37,487,7001954	
40,216,9001955	
43,237,100(c)	and Cdl No record.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Mr. Hodgson: 1.	How many miles of the trans-Canada highway were completed by December 31, 1956?
2.	How many miles were built in 1956, by provinces?
3.	How many miles are under construction, by provinces?
4.	How many miles have been completed through the national parks?
5.	How many miles are still to be constructed in each province?
Answer by:	Mr. Bourgel, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
1. Approximately 2,800 miles of the trans-Canada highway are now completed of which
the following mileages, exclusive of national parks, have been constructed since agreements were signed under the Trans-Canada Highway Act: Grading, 2,038; paving, 1,577.
2.	Grading	PavingNewfoundland 	.. 28	-Prince Edward Island	.. 12	17Nova Scotia 	. . 33	-New Brunswick 	. . 18	7Ontario 	. . 30	52Manitoba 	. . 32	52Saskatchewan 	. . 38	63Alberta 	.. 43	66British Columbia 	. . 107	66Total	
341	3233.	Grading	PavingNewfoundland 	.. 87	-Prince Edward Island	.. 1	1Nova Scotia 	.. 11	2New Brunswick 	. . 8	-Ontario 	.. 112	28Manitoba 	.. 10	6Saskatchewan 	. . 	33. . 31	British Columbia 	.. 54	11Total 	.. 314	814.	No mileage within Banff and Yoho national parks has been paved. Eighty miles of the trans-Canada highway through Banff and Yoho are under contract for grading, with 51 miles completed. In addition 14 miles of bituminous stabilized base course have been completed.5.	Under the terms of the new trans-Canada highway agreement, pavements of good standard, but not necessarily to trans-Canada highway standards, constructed prior to December 1949, may be retained as part of the trans-Canada highway. Therefore, it is the provinces prerogative to reconstruct to trans-Canada highway standards such sections.TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINE	i
Question No. 46-Mr. Hodgson:
1.	How many miles of the trans-Canada pipe line is completed?
2.	How many miles of the pipe line have yet to be built to reach Winnipeg?
Answer by: Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
1.	To date, 225 miles of pipe line have been laid, with clean-up operations complete.
2.	Three hundred and fifty miles are yet to be completed. Of this portion of the line, 231 miles of right of way have been cleared; 226 miles have been graded, and 195 miles of pipe have been strung or stockpiled in

Questions
Canada. In addition, the following work has been done at river crossings, which come within the uncompleted portion of the line: The west Assiniboine crossing is 75 per cent complete, with both dual lines pulled across the river and the east Assiniboine crossing is 50 per cent complete with one line pulled across the river. Work on the Red river will be started on completion of the east Assiniboine crossing.


DUMPING DUTIES ON IMPORTS, 1956
Mr. Lennard: What was the total amount applied as dumping duties on goods entering Canada, during the calendar year 1956?
Answer by: Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
Period January 1 to September 30, 1956, (latest figures available) $934,584.25.


AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION STATISTICS, ONTARIO
Mr. Brown (Essex West): 1.	What quantities, in bushels, of (a) fall wheat; (b) spring wheat; (c) corn; (d) soybeans, were produced in the province of Ontario for each of the years 1950 to 1956, inclusive?
2.	What quantities, in bushels, of (a) fall wheat; (b) spring wheat; (c) corn; (d) soybeans, were produced in each of the counties of Kent and Essex, in the province of Ontario, for each of the years 1950 to 1956, inclusive?
Answer by: Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
1 (a), (b), (c) and (d) and 2 (a), (b), (c) and (d).


PRODUCTION OF FALL WHEAT, SPRING WHEAT, CORN AND SOYBEANS 1950 TO 1956
[Stage Direction]
Fall wheat	Spring wheat	Corn for grain	Soybeans
		-thousand bushels-		
Ontario-				
1950	
30,067	1,166	13,449	3,0391951	
19,696	952	15,765	3,8431952	
20,900	760	19,170	4,1281953	
26,206	740	20,404	4,4061954	
24,140	629	21,920	4,9531955	
19,963	537	31,300	5,6501956	
19,778	375	23,693	4,905Kent county-	1950	
2,310	33	4,021	1,1781951	
2,092	68	5,148	1,5491952	
2,513	86	7,171	1,6751953	
2,955	70	7,646	1,6381954	
2,668	52	6,976	1,5011955	
2,056	38	10,772	2,0341956	not	available	Essex county-	1950	
1,452	44	3,305	1,0581951	
1,270	66	3,632	1,6121952	
1,260	28	3,902	1,5501953	
1,906	31	3,767	1,4651954	
1,534	19	3,518	1,5391955	
1,588	20	5,263	2,0411956	not	available	
Friday, January 25, 1957

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. G. Weir (Poriage-Neepawa) presented the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house, as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Bourque	Meunier
Bryson	Nowlan
Cardin	Pallett
Carter	Perron
Cavers	Rea
Churchill	Richard (Ottawa East)
Dechene	Shaw
Dickey	Simmons
Ellis	Tucker
Fraser (Peterborough) Valois	
Hollingworth	Viau
Leboe	Vincent
Lefrangois	White (Waterloo
MacKenzie	South)
McWilliam	Zaplitny-29. (Quorum-10)
RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES Messrs:	
Anderson	Holowach
Barnett	Hosking
Batten	Howe (Wellington-
Bonnier	Huron)
Boucher	Huffman
Buchanan	James
Byrne	Johnston (Bow River)
Campbell	Kickham
Carter	Lafontaine
Casselman	Langlois (Gaspe)
Cauchon	Lavigne
Cavers	Leboe
Clark	Maltais
Decore	McBain
Deschatelets	McCulloch (Pictou)
Dufresne	Mclvor
Dupuis	Meunier
Ellis	Murphy (Westmorland)
Follwell	Murphy (Lambton
Gagnon	West)
Garland	Nesbitt
Goode	Nicholson
Gourd (Chapleau)	Nickle
Green	Nixon
Habel	Nowlan
Hahn	Purdy
Hamilton (York West) Small	
Harrison	Viau
Healy	Villeneuve
Herridge	Vincent
Hodgson	Weselak-60. (Quorum-20)
MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS Messrs:	
Anderson	Brooks
Balcom	Brown (Brantford)
Batten	Cameron (High Park)
Blair	Campbell
82715-38J
Carter	Macnaughton
Casselman	Mang
Decore	Matheson
Dinsdale	McCubbin
Ellis	McCullough (Moose
Enfield	Mountain)
Eyre	McWilliam
Fairey	Murphy (Westmorland)
Ferguson	Perron
Follwell	Pommer
Forgie	Proudfoot
Garland	Regier
Girard	Reinke
Hansell	Roberge
Hees	Roy
Henderson	Simmons
Houck	Thomas
Langlois (Berthier-	Weaver
Maskinonge-	White (Waterloo South)
Delanaudiere)	White (Hastings-
Leduc (Jacques Cartier-	Frontenac)
Lasalle)	White (Middlesex East)
Lennard Lusby	Wylie-50.
(Quorum-15)	
BANKING AND COMMERCE	
Messrs:	
Argue	Hunter
Ashbourne	Johnson (Kindersley)
Balcom	Low
Bell	Macdonnell
Benidickson	MacEachen
Bennett	Macnaughton
Blackmore	Matheson
Cameron (Nanaimo)	Michener
Cannon	Mitchell (London)
Crestohl	Monteith
Deslieres	Nickle
Dumas	Pallett
Enfield	Philpott
Eudes	Power (Quebec South)
Fairey	Quelch
Fleming	Richardson
Follwell	Robichaud
Fraser (St. John's East)	Rouleau
Fraser (Peterborough)	St. Laurent (Temis-
Fulton	couata)
Gour (Russell)	Stewart (Winnipeg
Hanna	North)
Henderson	Thatcher
Hollingworth	Tucker
Hosking	Viau
Huffman	Weaver-50
(Quorum-15)	
PUBLIC	ACCOUNTS
Messrs:	
Anderson	Denis
Argue	Fulton
Ashbourne	Goode
Balcer	Hamilton (Notre Dame
Balcom	de Grace)
Beaudry	Hanna
Boisvert	Harkness
Breton	Henderson
Bruneau	Hollingworth
Byrne	Holowach
Cameron (High Park)	Houck
Cannon	Kickham
Cavers	Kirk (Antigonish-
Cloutier	Guysborough)
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committees	
Laflamme	Poulin
Leduc (Jacques Cartier- Power (St. John's West)	
Lasalle)	Proudfoot
Maltais	Regier
McGregor	Rowe
McLeod	Schneider
McWilliam	Thomas
Menard	Tucker
Mitchell (Sudbury)	Van Horne
Mitchell (London)	Weaver
Monteith	Winch
Nowlan Pommer	Zaplitny-50
(Quorum-15)	
AGRICULTURE	AND COLONIZATION Messrs:
Anderson	MacLean
Argue	Mang
Batten	Masse
Blackmore	Matheson
Boucher	McBain
Bruneau	McCubbin
Bryce	McCullough (Moose
Byrne	Mountain)
Cardiff	Menard
Charlton	Michaud
Clark	Montgomery
Decore	Murphy (Westmorland)
Demers	Nicholson
Deslieres	Patterson
Dinsdale	Perron
Fontaine	Pommer
Forgie	Proudfoot
Gingras	Purdy
Goode	Quelch
Gour (Russell)	Roberge
Harkness	Robinson (Bruce)
Huffman	Schneider
James	Smith (Battle River-
Jones	Camrose)
Jutras	Stanton
Kickham	Studer
Kirk (Antigonish-	Thatcher
Guysborough)	Tustin
Laflamme	Villeneuve
Legare	White (Waterloo South)
Lusby	White (Middlesex
MacKenzie	East)-60
(Quorum-20)	
STANDING ORDERS Messrs:	
Aitken, Miss	Hollingworth
Buchanan	Knowles
Carter	Michaud
Denis	Monette
Fairey	Robinson (Bruce)
Fontaine	Rochefort
Forgie	Shaw
Green	Van Horne
Hanna	Viau
Harrison	Winch-20.
(Quorum-8)	
MARINE	AND FISHERIES Messrs:
Anderson	Cannon
Arsenault	Ferguson
Ashbourne	Goode
Barnett	Hahn
Bell	Hardie
Bennett	Harrison
Boivin	Henderson
Brisson	Hodgson
Bryce	Kirk (Antigonish-
Cameron (Nanaimo)	Guysborough)

Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare) MacLean MacNaught Maltais Matheson McDonald Nowlan Patterson
Pearkes
Robichaud
Simmons
Stick
Stuart (Charlotte)
Thibault
Weselak
White (Hastings-Frontenac)-35.
(Quorum-10)
MINES, FORESTS AND WATERS Messrs:
Brisson
Brooks
Buchanan
Byrne
Carter
Dickey
Dumas
Eyre
Garland
Gauthier (Nickel Belt)
Hardie
Harkness
Herridge
Hosking
LaCroix
Lafontaine
Leboe
Leduc (Gatineau) MacLean
McCullough (Moose Mountain)
Mitchell (Sudbury)
Pearkes
Ratelle
Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche)
Robichaud
Rowe
Shipley, Mrs. Simmons
Smith (Battle River-Camrose)
Stanton Studer Valois Van Horne Weselak Winch-35.
(Quorum-10)