1958-01-07

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, January 7, 1958
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Mr. Justice Robert Taschereau, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 7th January, at 9.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute
Secretary to the Governor General (Administrative)



PRIVILEGE


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege is based on sessional paper No. 117-B which was tabled in the house on Friday, January 3. This sessional paper followed a return to an address of the House of Commons dated November 6, 1957, for a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged between the federal government or any of its departments and the governments of the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia or their respective power commissions, from April 1, 1957, to date, regarding the development of electrical energy.
Page 94 of the said sessional paper contains a copy of a letter from Premier Hugh John Flemming addressed to Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of Canada. This letter says:
I am enclosing a copy of my comment on the memorandum of Hon. Alvin Hamilton dated September 30 in connection with power problems in the Atlantic provinces, which I trust will be helpful to you in presenting our point of view.
My question of privilege is that the document mentioned in the letter is not included in the sessional paper and I state that it is part of the documents which were asked for and tabled in the house on Friday, January 3. I therefore ask that it be supplied and attached to the document.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the document referred to by the hon. member for Gloucester is a private document that was circulated to certain of my colleagues. It was concerned with basic Conservative policy on development, with application to the Atlantic provinces. A copy was shown to the premier of the province of New Brunswick. My department advises me that they did not consider it as part of their records, and since it was not used in the department it is not part of the documents requested by the hon. member for Gloucester.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's remarks, I may state that the comments-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is not the time for a statement. If the hon. member has any motion to make I would think he could do so. I am doubtful that it is a proper question of privilege. I would think the hon. member can secure relief by moving a motion for the production of the missing paper. In that way it would be settled whether or not the document ought to be produced.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, as the house knows, the governor in council has received a petition from the Atlantic provinces, the prairie provinces and British Columbia invoking the provisions of section 53 of the Railway Act and asking that the recent decision of the board of transport commissioners authorizing an increase in freight rates of 3.6 per cent effective from January 15 next be rescinded. The provinces also submitted that the governor in council should in any event suspend the freight rate increase until their petition had been heard by the governor in council.
In the time that has been available to consider this matter, and having regard to the principles involved and to the complexities of the problem, the government has come to the conclusion that the provinces' case is of sufficient importance to warrant a hearing by the governor in council. The question arises immediately as to when such a hearing might be held to make sure that the provinces, and I presume the railways as
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry well, have sufficient time to prepare to present their cases and to give the governor in council adequate opportunity to consider the facts and reach a decision. The order of the board is due to become effective on January 15, that is about a week away; and having regard to the necessity for adequate preparation on the part of the petitioners and the answer of the railways, and to the situation in which we find ourselves at the moment in connection with the business and sittings of the house, it would hardly be possible to arrange for a proper hearing between now and January 15. Accordingly the government decided this morning, in the light of these circumstances and the case made by the provinces, that the application of the order of the board of transport commissioners for the increase in question be suspended until March 1. By that time it is hoped that it will be possible to hold a hearing, and for the governor in council to reach his decision.
I wish, sir, to table a copy of the order in council suspending the order of the board to which I have just made reference.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: On Saturday the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) asked me the following question, as reported at page 2842 of Hansard:
Can the minister tell us whether the inquiry undertaken by the board ot transport commissioners into the equalization of freight rates across Canada was taken into consideration in the recent order of the board increasing freight rates by 3.6 per cent?
The board of transport commissioners has advised me that the inquiry into the equalization of freight rates was taken into consideration in its judgment and order dated December 27, 1957, authorizing increases in freight rates.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question arising out of the minister's statement regarding the equalization of freight rates. Can the minister give the house some idea of when we may expect this important study to be completed since, as the minister knows, it will soon be six years since the board was instructed or advised by the royal commission on freight rates to instigate such a study?


George Harris Hees: No, I do not know when the
study will be completed.


Hazen Robert Argue: Would the minister be prepared to make inquiry and let the public of this country know whether or not within a few months the inquiry can be completed, or whether it may take another six years?


George Harris Hees: I shall be very glad to do
that.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisfa-Twil-lingate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to redirect to the Prime Minister a question I asked the Acting Prime Minister on Friday. Has there been any correspondence with any of the provincial governments about the federal-provincial conference or the matters discussed at that conference, since the conference adjourned?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, and I hope to be able to table that correspondence at the earliest possible date.



INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF RESUMPTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: I
should like to ask the Prime Minister a question which I asked the Acting Prime Minister last Friday but which I probably should have delayed until his return. When does he contemplate the calling together of the dominion-provincial conference, particularly in view of the fact that the legislatures are about to meet and the provincial treasurers must prepare their budgets, and that this conference may adopt some agreement which may involve budgetary considerations on the part of the provinces?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the uncertain duration of this parliamentary session it is impossible yet to say with any definiteness when the dominion-provincial conference will be reconvened. However, the matter is receiving consideration, and as soon as a decision is made it will be communicated.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a
supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister know whether on any other occasion the government has used as an alibi the fact of the house being in session, when parliament and the conference can be in session at the same time?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, on Friday I announced that the government had decided to offer to the provinces an arrangement under which it would be prepared to pay 50 per cent of the cost of construction of forest access roads where the construction is undertaken between the date of the offer and June 30, 1958.
I now wish to announce that the federal government has also decided to offer to the provinces 50 per cent participation in a program for the construction and improvement of camp grounds and picnic areas that would be of benefit to the very important tourist industry in this country.
Last October I was chairman of the annual federal-provincial tourist conference. During that meeting there was much discussion of the importance of expanding camp grounds and other tourist facilities along the highways of Canada and in the provincial parks. These recreation developments would complement the very extensive facilities that are now available in the national and provincial parks of Canada. All the provincial representatives indicated interest in doing something along these lines.
On the authority of the government I have written the premiers of the provinces to advise them that the federal government will be prepared to reimburse the provincial governments for 50 per cent of expenditures made on camp grounds and picnic area developments between the date of my letter and May 31, 1958. The letter makes it clear that the developments can be constructed anywhere in the province, and that the offer is made on the basis that not less than 50 per cent of all expenditures would be for the payment of wages of persons employed on the work.
As in the case of the offer on forest access roads, the amount of expenditure and the number of jobs that will be provided will, of course, depend on the extent of provincial participation. The supplementary estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources for the fiscal year 1957-58 will include an amount of $1 million for this purpose in order that funds may be immediately available.
It is my hope that the letters I have sent to the provincial premiers outlining the federal offer for participation will produce an enthusiastic and immediate response. I
9G698-186^
Inquiries of the Ministry think the program contemplated is a far-seeing one that will result in projects that will have continuing recreation value for Canada.
It will also have the added value of providing a larger number of employment opportunities in all parts of the country during this winter season if the provinces act at once to implement the program.
For the convenience of hon. members might I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a copy of the letter I sent to the provincial premiers under date of January 2 be printed as an appendix to Hansard? By leave of the house I should like to table a copy of the letter and have it printed as an appendix.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave of the house to have this letter to which he has referred printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For text of letter referred to above, see appendix, pages 2977-78.1 [Later:]


Mr. T. S. Barneii (Comox-Alberni):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources arising out of his earlier statement today about the joint program of park development with the provinces. My question is as follows. Would the terms of the offer made to the provinces include the development of seaside parks for boating tourists, something which I understand the government of British Columbia has had under consideration?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am not just quite sure of the implications of the question of the hon. member. The offer we have just made was on the subject that was raised at the dominion-provincial tourist conference and dealt primarily with picnic sites and camp sites along the sides of highways. It was on that particular subject that we made this offer. As to the question raised by the hon. member, I am unable to state whether that will be included because I do not know all it implies.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Will the minister look into the matter?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes.



TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINE    INVESTIGATION OF WALK-OUT EAST OF PORT ARTHUR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Would the Minister of Labour give the house a brief statement on the effort being made by his officials to settle the walk-out on the trans-Canada pipe line project east of Port Arthur, Ontario?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Michael Slarr (Minister of Labour):: In
answer to the hon. member's question I wish to state that the federal government is in no position to intervene in this strike. However, the action we have taken is to have one of our industrial relations officers from Winnipeg look into the matter. He is at present in Port Arthur. We are awaiting a report from him, and our actions will be determined by that report.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce of which I have sent him notice. Can the minister inform the house whether officials of Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation have acted in any way to resolve the walk-out on the trans-Canada pipe line east of Port Arthur, Ontario?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. The walkout referred to by the hon. member involves contractors to the crown corporation, and not the crown corporation itself. However, since the clearing of the crown's section is being affected the president of the crown corporation, in order to inform himself as to the issues involved, will be visiting Port Arthur during the next few days.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY-INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, but before doing so may I express our best wishes to him, to the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Holowach) and to all other members with similar traditions and all other Canadians to whom today and this week have a special holiday significance such as we others enjoyed during our parliamentary recess.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Moore Benidickson: I want to supplement a question which I asked the minister on December 4 last, respecting the report expected from the royal commission investigating the labour dispute on the C.P.R. with respect to diesel firemen.
Has any member of the government yet received this report? I draw to the hon. minister's attention the fact that on October 15 he indicated that the government expected this report before the end of November and, on December 4, when I asked him a question he said that he was doing his best to expedite the submission of this report.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for the good wishes he expressed prior to his question. We did expect that we would receive this report on dieselization toward the end of November. Unfortunately Mr. Justice Kellock became ill, and this, of course, has prolonged the time taken. As yet I am unaware when we will be receiving this report. As to whether any other member of the government has received it, I cannot say, but I do not think this has been the case. No doubt the report will come to me direct, first of all. I will, however, make some inquiries in the course of the next few days to see how soon we may expect this report.


William Moore Benidickson: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister assure the house that he is aware of the keen desire on the part of railway employees that this report should be submitted before the conclusion of this session, and would he assure us that no suggestion or hint from the government is delaying the submission of this report?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, everyone is desirous of obtaining this report in order that this matter may be cleared up; everyone is as anxious to receive it as are the employees of the railway. Most certainly and emphatically I may say that the government is not taking any steps to delay this report.



CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister tell the house whether the government has under consideration the sale of the Canadian National steamships that have been under strike for some time, and whether or not a report on the economic and financial implications of sale has been before him for consideration, as stated in a report in a recent issue of the Montreal Star?


George Harris Hees: I wish to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in advising me of his intention to ask this question. The answer to both parts of it, Mr. Speaker, is no.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the reply the minister has made, can he tell the house whether anything has been accomplished during the six months' period that the strike has been going on by the transfer of the flag from Canada to Trinidad?


George Harris Hees: That would be a matter of opinion.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount asked if I could make inquiries as to what vessels with refrigerator accommodation are now available to carry cargo between the Atlantic provinces and the Caribbean. As the question relates to private shipping operators my department has no official information with regard to the actual refrigerator space on vessels in the Canada-West Indies service, but I understand that refrigerator space is available on a number of ships engaged in that trade, as can be noted from advertisements published in the press from time to time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: While we are on maritime problems, Mr. Speaker, on Friday the hon. member for Acadia asked whether we had lost any trade with the West Indies as a result of the cessation of the Canadian National Steamships service. I took the question as notice. There appears to have been no loss of trade. During the period from July to the end of October, 1957, our export trade to the West Indies and Bermuda amounted to $17,772,000 as compared with $15,961,000 in the same period in 1956.
The hon. member for Bow River asked whether any other country was carrying the cargo formerly transported by these vessels. Our information is that Saguenay Shipping Limited, a Canadian company operating owned vessels under United Kingdom registry and chartered foreign flag vessels, together with Lamport and Holt, a British shipping line, schedule regular shipping services from eastern Canadian ports to the Caribbean, and are carrying the greater proportion of our general cargo export trade to the West Indies. Both these lines operate vessels which have refrigerated space. No statistics are available at this time to show what volume of our export trade is carried by Alcoa and other shipping lines operating out of the United States to the West Indies.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I wish to direct to the Minister of Transport a question of which I have not had an opportunity to give him notice. In any event, I should like to have a reply as soon as possible. Is the Canadian National Railways
Inquiries of the Ministry contemplating any change in the method of handling freight at the North Sydney yards? In other words, are the members of the Canadian brotherhood of railway employees and other transport workers going to continue to do this work or is it going to be given to a private company? That is in reference to the loading of the William Carson and other work pertaining thereto in those yards.


George Harris Hees: I am not aware of any change in plan which the Canadian National Railways might have in contemplation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the serious situation in Ceylon, where half a million people are without food and shelter, will the government consider making a substantial donation to the relief of those people in addition to that under the Colombo plan? I am thinking particularly of supplies of wheat and lumber, which are in surplus supply in Canada. Will the government consider making available in addition to the Colombo plan aid some further aid of this nature?


John George Diefenbaker: The subject matter of the question asked by the hon. gentleman is one that is before the government at the present moment and is being considered. Assistance apparently should be given having regard to all the circumstances. What the form of that assistance is to be will have to be determined on the basis of need, and in particular on those needs which, in the opinion of the government of Ceylon, are of the utmost importance. The matter is receiving immediate and continuing attention.


Mr. A. P. Lavigne (Siormont):: Mr. Speaker, further to the question asked by the member for Rosetown-Biggar, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if when his government considers giving further assistance to Ceylon it will not include in the shipments of food some of our surplus cheddar cheese, which is the best in the world?


John George Diefenbaker: Whatever is needed,
within reasonable limitations, will be sent; and if the people of Ceylon in their needs require cheese, cheese will be given.

Inquiries of the Ministry


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In the light of the statements made over the week end by Prime Minister Macmillan and ex-President Truman about the urgency of convening another summit meeting, would the Prime Minister consider issuing an invitation to the leaders of the countries represented at the Geneva conference, and Prime Minister Nehru, to a summit meeting in Canada at an early date?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was courteous enough to give me notice of his question.
I wish to say, as I stated the other day, that the government welcomed Prime Minister Macmillan's proposal for an east-west non-aggression pact as a forward-looking suggestion. In speaking at NATO and in my report to the house on December 21 I advised that we attach the greatest importance to the reopening of negotiations, and agree to examine any proposal, from whatever source, for general or partial disarmament and any proposal enabling agreement to be arrived at as between the Soviet and the free world.
The suggestion, however, that the Canadian government take the initiative in inviting the leaders of the countries represented at the Geneva conference, and Prime Minister Nehru, to a summit meeting in Canada at an early date is one that I am sure the house will realize would be inappropriate for us to make without consultation with our western allies. I would add, however, that during the past few weeks we have repeatedly demonstrated our willingness to discuss with the Soviet union matters of common concern, if such discussions can be productive. To that end we must seek futher clarification of their views through normal diplomatic channels. This is now being done.
Until there has been some measure of consultation between our allies and ourselves we would not wish to extend an invitation unless we were reasonably sure, in any event, that the invitation would meet with general acceptance, and that the result of any such conference would be generally beneficial.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising

out of a Canadian Press report dated January 5 which states that Dr. Smith said NATO was now considering a food bank to assist underdeveloped nations. Would the right hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us what Canada is contemplating in this regard? I may say I am very happy to see this action being taken.


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the questioner for the honour he has conferred upon me; it puts me in a good frame of mind to answer the question. I did make that statement, and I was referring to the imaginative proposal which was made by the Prime Minister of Canada earlier at NATO with respect to the establishment of a food bank. That was in line with the discussions at the meeting of the NATO council in relation to article 2 of the treaty. Interest has been shown by other members of NATO, and we have had inquiries. All I can say at this time is that the possibility and feasibility of implementing that proposal is being studied by the NATO council.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs based on the very important statement which has now been made. Can the minister inform the house as to what would be the size of the food bank which the government has proposed? Is it something imaginative in size? What has the minister in mind regarding the total value of the food bank?


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, in reply to that supplementary question, I can state that I have heard no discussion with respect to the size of the food bank, but, having in mind the needs of many underdeveloped countries, I still crave the privilege of repeating my adjective "imaginative".


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Algoma East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the important statement just made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs respecting Canadian initiative in regard to a food bank which is now before the NATO council, can he assure the house that the Canadian delegation to that council is now taking the further initiative in pushing that matter before the permanent council, and can he give us any indication of the instructions that have been sent to our delegation to that effect?


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question I can state that our permanent representative on the NATO council has informed us that he has

been asked many questions with respect to that matter. The instruction to Mr. Wilgress is that he should endeavour to forward the discussion in every way possible with the representatives of other member nations of NATO in the council.


William Moore Benidickson: With or without instructions from his government?



UNITED KINGDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Irvin Studer (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government received any information respecting the resignation of the British chancellor of the exchequer, and is it true that he resigned because his free trade proposals were ignored by the Canadian government?


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that is an April 1 question, and was not put forward seriously.



REQUEST FOR AID FOR DISPLACED PERSONS IN EUROPEAN CAMPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: May
I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the Prime Minister's desire to give encouragement to those behind the iron curtain, can the minister tell the house what is being done, in a substantial way, by this government to help the tens of thousands of victims of communist persecution who are now in displaced persons' camps in Europe?


Sidney Earle Smith: I cannot reply to that question in detail. In the declaration, of which the hon. member who has asked me this question does not think very highly, there was a statement with respect to the subjugated countries. I would be bound to say this, Mr. Speaker, however, in reply to the question: that great care should be taken not to make any statement or start any negotiations that would impair the safety or the health or imperil the very lives of these people.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: May I ask
a supplementary question. If it is a fact that I do not think very highly of the Prime Minister's statement, can the minister be really surprised in view of his answer?


Major James William Coldwell: May
I ask a supplementary question. I think the question really involves the international refugee organization rather than the people who are now behind the iron curtain. May
Inquiries of the Ministry I ask what contribution, if any, Canada is making to this organization at the present time, and whether any steps are being taken by Canada to relieve the situation of those people?


Sidney Earle Smith: I will take that question as notice. I cannot recall the facts at the present time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Lesage (Monlmagny-L'Islel):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Could he tell the house when he intends to table the further supplementary estimates which have been mentioned again today by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say precisely. Work is being done on these estimates but it will be some time before they are ready.


INQUIRY AS TO MEETING OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. member for Middlesex East in his capacity as chairman of the standing committee on external affairs. Can he say when that committee will meet again in order to hear statements by Hon. Ray Lawson and Mr. Zeckendorf, as decided at the last meeting of the committee?


Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I am not a member of the government or the cabinet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
previous occasions when we have asked questions about committees and have addressed our questions to members of the cabinet, we have been referred by the cabinet to the chairman of the committee in question. That is the reason I addressed my question properly to the chairman of the committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not on orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know whether or not any hon. member wishes to address himself to this question, but it seems to me that arrangements of the house are discussed before orders of the day when questions are being asked. While it is an arrangement with respect to a committee, I think it is probably a matter that could be inquired into in the house. If the chairman can give any information he might do so.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Harry Oliver White: Mr. Speaker, correspondence is going on in an endeavour to arrange dates that are mutually agreeable. We hope the end of next week will be the probable date, but it is not definitely set yet. [Later:]


Mr. Speaker:: Before the orders of the day are called may I say this with reference to my previous statement about the inquiry of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as to the meeting of the committee. Rule 39 reads in part 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-
I am not sure whether that would extend to the question that was asked, but I shall look into the matter against a future occasion when the same point may arise.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that officials of farm organizations are presently in the city, and reports indicate that more representations of farm organizations will be in during the coming week, will the minister instruct that the committee on agriculture and colonization be called into session so the various farm organizations may make representations to that committee concerning agricultural problems.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have no power whatever to call the committee. However, I will look into the implications incident to the question, and if in my opinion consideration should be given to the request, I will give it that consideration which it deserves.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received a brief from the Canada chapter of the flight engineers' international association which states that of the 300 commercial jet transports of the DC-8 type already ordered by the air lines of the world, the Trans-Canada Air Lines cockpit design indicates that it will be the only air line

in the world planning to operate these 144 passenger planes without the services of a flight engineer?
If so, would the minister look into the matter to determine whether or not any public safety factor is being overlooked?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any such document, but I will certainly look into the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport supplementary to the question asked him by the member for Kootenay East. Is the minister not in a position to make a statement to the house concerning the meeting which was supposed to have been held yesterday between the flight engineers' international association and the air services branch of the department with respect to the crew complement of the new DC-8 jet aircraft?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister look into the matter and make a statement tomorrow?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INVESTIGATION INTO HELICOPTER CRASH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister tell the house what was the passenger-carrying capacity of the Bell helicopter which figured in an accident recently, and whether a public inquiry will be held into this unfortunate tragedy?


George Harris Hees: I believe the carrying capacity of that particular helicopter is three. A press release was issued by my department yesterday regarding this very unfortunate crash, and for the information of the hon. member and the house perhaps I might read it.
A technical board of inquiry has been convened to investigate the circumstances surrounding the crash of a departmental helicopter at Shirley's Bay on Friday afternoon, it has been announced by the Department of Transport. Chairman of the board is A. J. Burleton, Toronto, and member is W. Gadzos, Ottawa. Both are departmental officials.
The transport department brought in two specialists from the Bell Helicopter headquarters at Fort Worth, Texas, to assist the department's team investigating the accident in which three were killed. The Bell representatives arrived on Saturday night and on Sunday morning were at the site of the wreckage with transport department personnel. Two additional experts from the plane manufacturing company arrived in Ottawa today. Plans are under way to bring the wreckage of the

helicopter from the Davidson farm machinery shed, in which it was housed over the weekend, into the Department of Transport hangar at Uplands some time today.
The board of inquiry will use the services of the visiting experts and collect evidence from eyewitnesses and others in its attempt to determine the cause of the accident. At the conclusion of the investigation, the board will submit its findings to the Minister of Transport and a summary report will be made public.


Lionel Chevrier: The question I asked was, will it be a public inquiry?


George Harris Hees: If it appears, following the departmental inquiry, that some useful purpose will be served by holding a public inquiry, then a public inquiry will be held.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the inquiry be held under the Department of Transport Act or under the air regulations; and if under the latter, will the minister table the air regulations in question?


George Harris Hees: I am afraid I cannot answer that question. I will check into it and give the hon. member an answer tomorrow.



BEAUCE, QUE.-INQUIRY AS TO ENGINEERING REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister given consideration to the report received by his department from the engineer who has made an investigation into recent floods in Beauce county, according to his declaration in this house on January 3?
If so, has the hon. minister reached a preliminary conclusion?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Beauce for having given me notice of this question. The report received from the engineers of the Department of Public Works has been considered. The situation with regard to this unfortunate disaster is, of course, as I pointed out last week, that any request for help must come from the provincial government.



BLIND PERSONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the government received recently a request for a special cost of blindness allowance to be paid for life without
Inquiries of the Ministry a means test to all blind adults over the age of 18 years? If so, what consideration has been given to this request?


Hon. J. W. Monieiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I made inquiries of my staff this morning on this very matter and actually I have not as yet received any such request although, as indicated in reply to a question by another hon. member some time ago, frankly I am expecting it.



THE SENATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I apologize for not having given notice of it, but I was prevented from doing so by circumstances entirely beyond my control. I ask the question in view of numerous inquiries from people who know the Prime Minister's long interest in this matter. Can he inform the house whether he has under consideration any measures required for the reformation of the other place?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the good humour in which the question was asked, and I assure my hon. friend that his touch of humour would certainly bring about a measure of reformation in any house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You cannot get rid of him that way.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Have representations been made by Assumption University of Windsor for amendment of regulations under the National Housing Act to permit a loan at a low rate of interest, as is the practice in the United States, for the purpose of enabling the university to provide dormitory and attendant facilities at that university at a time when assistance in aid of employment is urgently needed? If so, what have been the results?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe any such representations have been received. Such a change would not be a matter of amending regulations; I think it would require legislation.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Ferguson Brown: May I be permitted to forward to the minister the representations which I think have been made?



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is he aware that the position of chief coordinator of civil defence has been vacant for five months, owing to the resignation of Major General Worthington? Has he any intention of replacing him?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I might point out to the hon. member that the post has not actually been vacant for five months. In due course the government will make known its intention in this respect.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer another series of questions put by the hon. member for Laurier during the examination of the estimates of the Department of National Defence regarding the ship Labrador, which is coming under the authority of the Department of Transport.
The Labrador is undergoing naval refit at the present time, following which certain additional work will be necessary for Department of Transport purposes. Details of this are not fully available yet but it is expected that this will involve such items as interior layout, in view of the fact that my department will be operating this ship with a crew of about 85 instead of a naval crew of well over 200; modifications to make the ship conform with safety requirements of the board of steamship inspection, which are somewhat different from those of the military; and possibly certain other technical modifications in view of the expected new winter role of the Labrador in icebreaking.
My department already operates a major Beet in the eastern Arctic each summer, composed of icebreakers and supply ships, and the Labrador will be added to this operation, which performs extensive military and civil duties. The main function of the Labrador in the last couple of years has been in connection with assistance to the U.S. fleet entering Foxe basin for purposes of D.E.W. line supply, a function which is

being taken over entirely by my department commencing this year, in so far as provision of ships and organization of supply is concerned. The Labrador may be used again in connection with this work, or may alternatively be used on other Arctic exploration convoy and supply work in connection with our general duties, but in any case I am satisfied that her responsibilities in the eastern Arctic are going to increase in the future rather than diminish.
Arrangements are also in hand for the other departments of government to carry on the research work in connection with the use of the Labrador which has been customary hitherto. She will also be added to the departmental fleet for winter icebreaking operations, and is expected to serve the gulf and Atlantic area in this role.


Lionel Chevrier: May I be
permitted to ask a supplementary question. If I understood the statement, although I could not follow it because it was read quickly, I believe the minister said that H.M.C.S. Labrador will be used for both military and civil purposes. The question I am prompted to ask is this. In view of the statement made by the Minister of National Defence that all the naval equipment, defence equipment, had been taken from her, I wonder just how it is going to be used for other than civil purposes?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I used the word "military". What I intended to say, and I thought I did, was that the ship will be performing the same type of tasks in the summertime in the future as it has performed in the past.


Hon. George C. Marler (St. Anloine-Wesl-mount):: I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport concerning H.M.C.S. Labrador. As I understood the statement he made just a moment ago it is the intention of his department that the Labrador shall carry out in the Arctic the same function as she formerly did when she was a part of the Royal Canadian Navy.
The question I should like to ask the minister is how it would be possible for the Labrador with a civilian crew to carry out the very important functions that the Labrador discharged when she formed part of the Canadian navy?


George Harris Hees: Perhaps if the former minister and I could get together with the officials of my department we could settle the whole thing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely this is of public interest.


George Carlyle Marler: I would have hoped the minister would have been able to deal with the question more specifically. I should like to ask him if he does not appreciate that the Canadian public is very much interested in the functions to be carried out by the Labrador and the question of how the role she formerly exercised in the Arctic is going to be discharged by a civilian department.


George Harris Hees: In the report I gave to the house I described the work the Labrador performed in the past. My department advises me that it is our intention that it will perform the same type of operation in the future. I do not think I can be any more specific than that.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question asked last Friday by the hon. member for Skeena, one in which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has expressed a great deal of interest. With regard to the withdrawal of the coastal shipping services in British Columbia hitherto operated by Union Steamships Limited, I am glad to announce that an arrangement has been concluded with Canadian Pacific Steamships under which that company will provide a regular service from Vancouver to Alert Bay, Ocean Falls, Kitimat, Prince Rupert, Port Simcoe, Kincolith, Stewart and Alice Arm. The service will be on a weekly basis, though this may have to be modified at some points if it becomes necessary to provide for additional points of call in the northern area, since only one vessel is available.
It will provide reasonable and adequate transportation for the coastal communities in line with their requirements. Certain other points which are not directly served will receive service by water taxi distribution from the main point of call, or are already receiving regular air service. To the extent that this may not prove adequate, additional arrangements either with Canadian Pacific Steamships or other sources will be considered if this should be necessary.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of his statement with respect to arrangements with Canadian Pacific Steamships to provide service on the
Inquiries of the Ministry Pacific coast. Is there any question of subsidy involved in this arrangement? If so, can the minister say how much?


George Harris Hees: Yes; at a rate of approximately $82,000 for the first three months of the year, compared to $300,000 which it would have been necessary to pay to the Union Steamships company.



MAGDALEN ISLANDS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. A. Cannon (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Some time ago the minister made a statement in the house in which he said that instructions were being given to his department to use icebreakers and any other means necessary to keep navigation open along the north shore of the St. Lawrence. At that time I asked him whether he would see that those instructions were enlarged, I might say, so they would include the Magdalen islands, to see what could be done to keep navigation open there. The minister was kind enough to tell me that he would look into the matter, but I have not heard from him since. I was wondering whether or not he could give me an answer at this time.


George Harris Hees: I do not recall that particular exchange, but I will be glad to look into the matter for the hon. member and report to him right away.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: If the minister will look up Hansard he will refresh his memory.


George Harris Hees: I do not deny that the exchange took place, but it must have been some time ago. However, it will not slow me down at all in looking into the matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You cannot slow down a stop.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. The Financial Post of January 4 carries an article entitled, "Ottawa Wants to Improve Four Lake 'Seaway' Ports". The article, if I may just read the first paragraph, says:
Plans for improving four upper lakes ports in time for the opening of the seaway are now before the government. They concern the lakehead, Sault Ste. Marie, Sarnia and Windsor.

Inquiries of the Ministry
The biggest changes and the most extensive works will be required at Port Arthur and Fort William.
Then the article goes on to say that a very comprehensive plan has been submitted to the Minister of Public Works. If this is the case, I commend the government and the minister upon this forward-looking plan. My question is, has the government given any consideration to or has it any plans in mind for the improvement of lower St. Lawrence ports from, say, Seven Islands right up to Montreal in the province of Quebec where, according to seaway economists, more than 50 per cent of the traffic will emanate?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, wherever there is a request for a survey of potential developments in a port, the Department of Transport and the Department of Public Works co-operate to have a survey made by their economic branches. Requests of this type have come from the lakehead cities, from Sault Ste. Marie and Windsor, and investigations have been made by the officials of the two departments. We also are looking into the situation at Father Point on the lower St. Lawrence, but I do not believe there has been any request from other centres on the St. Lawrence for an investigation.


Lionel Chevrier: I understand there have been from Three Rivers and Seven Islands. Does the minister say no?


Howard Charles Green: Not to my knowledge.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice, but in his absence perhaps his parliamentary assistant can take it as notice. Has the department yet had a report on the disastrous fires on two Indian reservations during the Christmas holidays, one near Duncan and one near Vancouver, which caused considerable loss of life? Is the department making an inquiry into the living conditions on those reservations to which the fires are attributable?


Mr. D. J. Walker (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Justice):: I shall be very happy to accept the question as notice.



OIL-RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTS INTO THE UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether a note


of protest has yet been sent to the United States government in respect of the action taken by that government restricting oil imports into the United States.


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. It has not been prepared yet. It is in the process of being drafted.



UNITED STATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, I desire to reply to a question addressed to me last Friday, January 3, by the right hon. member for Melville. The question was:
Has the government taken note of the declared intention of United States agricultural secretary Benson of increasing by 50 per cent in 1958 the farm surplus give-away program of that country and has the government taken any steps to protest this decision?
I took the question as notice. On the next day, January 4, an almost identical question was addressed by the hon. member for Laurier to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I can best answer the question that was addressed to me by giving the reply made by my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce last Saturday. We are aware of the proposed action on the part of the United States. I do not think any action on our part is necessary. The United States surplus disposal program is not likely to interfere with the sale of wheat to our cash customers, and that is one of the main points about which we have been particularly concerned.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State, but in her absence perhaps I may direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Mr. J. George Neuspiel, who was discharged by the undersecretary of state last October 10, has been reinstated with his status unimpaired and his salary paid back to the time he was dismissed, could we now be told what were the reasons for his dismissal?
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): I have no information sufficient to answer the question, but I shall give it to the Secretary of State for her consideration on her return to the house.

Inquiries of the Ministry OLD AGE PENSIONS



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Murphy (Westmorland):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue arising out of his answer on January 4 in which he stated that the microwave connection would not be completed in the maritime provinces until February 2. This question can be taken as notice, and the minister can draw it to the attention of the C.B.C. Can the minister report to the house what progress is being made by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to have the Durelle-Anthony fight televised live in the maritime provinces? I may state that I have received about 50 telegrams from people and organizations in the Westmorland county area concerning this matter.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: On Saturday last I directed a question to the Minister of Labour relating to alleged inefficiency in the processing of claims in the Vancouver unemployment insurance office. I wonder if he is in a position to give an answer at this time?


Michael Starr: In answer to the hon. member's question about the alleged inefficiency of the unemployment insurance office in Vancouver, I should like to inform the hon. member that while I have received a number of inquiries from the united fishermen and allied workers on a number of subjects, I have not as yet heard from them on the point he raised. When and if I do hear from them, appropriate action will be taken.



MATTAWA, ONT.    STATEMENT ON REQUEST FOR OPENING OF OFFICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: On Saturday last the hon. member for Nipissing asked a question concerning the opening of an unemployment insurance office in Mattawa. I should like to inform the hon. member that I have asked my officials for a report on the situation in that area, and I shall be glad to make it available to him as soon as I have received it.



INQUIRY AS TO RECOVERY OF ALLEGED OVERPAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware that some old age pensioners are receiving as little as $21 a month as a result of the department collecting up to $34 a month to recover alleged overpayments of old age assistance? If so, is the minister contemplating any arrangement to alleviate this abominable and heartless situation?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I am unable to determine exactly whether the overpayment referred to is being recovered from current old age assistance or old age security payments. This makes a considerable difference, since in the former case it is the province which effects the recovery, while in the latter case it is the federal authority. If the hon. member will give me the details of the case or cases he has in mind I shall be glad to look into them and let him have a reply as soon as possible.



MANITOBA-ALLOCATION OF BOX CARS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Last Friday I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether or not he had received a brief from the co-operative elevator association of Manitoba requesting action on his part to bring about a more equitable distribution of box cars. At that time he indicated that he had not seen the brief. I wonder if he has seen it since, and if so what action he has taken to meet that request?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have received the brief and I have it under study. I am giving full attention to it. I hope to have some satisfactory-I was going to say solution, but I am not sure whether or not you can get a solution to these problems, but some satisfactory proposal to make very soon.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Murdo William Martin: 1 should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General.

Inquiries of the Ministry Is the minister aware that the postal department has been involved in the infringement of two municipal by-laws in Burlington, Ontario, in regard to rented premises, as to which it is reported charges are to be laid? If so, is he in a position now to give the house any details on this matter?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: I have no personal knowledge of the subject and would not expect to have, since matters of this kind come under the Minister of Public Works.


Howard Charles Green: I do not know whether the Postmaster General or myself or both will have to go to jail over this alleged breach of the law, Mr. Speaker; but if it is a responsibility of the Department of Public Works I shall be glad to have the matter looked into at once.



POSTAGE STAMPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis Lewry (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General, based on the announcement he made in this house on Friday, December 20, of interest to stamp collectors. He announced that there was a change made by the previous government in connection with the cessation of plate numbers on sheets of stamps.. I am wondering as a matter of clarification if he can say now whether it is necessary for stamp collectors to buy entire sheets in order to obtain new blocks of four, under the new policy of the government.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, it has always been necessary for stamp collectors purchasing from the philatelic section, in order to acquire a block of four stamps, to purchase either the entire sheet or a portion of the entire sheet, depending on the value of the stamp. That policy will be continued in the future.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: should like to ask a question of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In the light of the minister's announcement indicating an active interest on his part in the development of Canadian parks and in the tourist business, will the federal government reopen negotiations with the government of British Columbia to make a national park out of Garibaldi park so the citizens of the lower mainland may at an early date

enjoy the blessings of Canada's greatest and most magnificent but as yet undeveloped playground?
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern
Affairs and National Resources): The minister will take this matter under advisement.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Agriculture. Have the payments under P.F.A.A. been made to qualified producers in the prairie provinces?


Howard Charles Green: We will take that question as notice.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that question might well have been put on the order paper.


Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee of supply.



FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION

Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I want to introduce discussion of a matter which I think is of fundamental importance not only to the whole of Canada but to all those countries which are linked together in an attempt to protect our democratic institutions and our way of life, and also to strengthen and develop our resources in view of what is being done in the several countries behind the iron curtain.
Two days ago we adopted the estimates of the Department of National Defence in an amount of approximately one and three-quarter billion dollars. I suppose hon. members felt that amount was essential in view of representations made by the government and in light of the agreements made by the government of Canada with our NATO allies and other countries across the world, but I want to submit that there is something of equal importance which we should reconsider. That is the manner in which we can promote the welfare of our educational institutions and how we can build up within our country a corps of people, not only those who are educated and who understand the implications of our society and of the culture of the country in which we live, but also a people who will understand the necessity of improving our educational facilities in order that we shall

not be left behind on an international basis in the development of our culture and our scientific and technical resources.
Over the past few years various Canadian citizens occupying positions of some importance in many parts of our country have visited iron curtain countries. I am not going to quote them again but I am merely going to refer to people whose words I have quoted recently; Mr. I. Norman Smith of the Ottawa Journal; Mr. James Muir, president of the Royal Bank of Canada; Mr. James S. Duncan; the former president of Massey-Harris of Canada and now chairman of the HydroElectric Power Commission of Ontario, who was also the gentleman who, apart from the Minister of Trade and Commerce, led the recent delegation of Canadian businessmen and others to the United Kingdom.
From time to time I have also had the opportunity of speaking to ladies and gentlemen-of various viewpoint, I might add- who over the last year or two have visited some of these iron curtain countries and have seen what is going on in them. I have mentioned the statements of the gentlemen I have named, but there is also a long list of those whom I have not named, all of whom have outlined the tremendous expansion of educational facilities, scientific research and technical advances made in Russia.
To my mind if we are going to, shall I say compete, though perhaps that is not the right word to use, in the world in which we live, not only for the minds of men but also in order to impress upon all peoples, particularly those in underprivileged areas, that the manner in which we develop our educational institutions and our scientific and technical resources is in the end going to bring a better result than the perhaps more regimented system of Soviet Russia and the iron curtain countries, then I think we have to do a great deal more than we are doing to improve facilities of this nature in Canada.
I do not think we are doing enough. I would like, indeed, to transfer from the military commitments and expenditures that we are making, a substantial number of dollars to be used in Canada for purposes of education; because I believe that in the long run the struggle that is going on in the world will not be settled on the field of battle, will not be settled by missiles, will not be settled by sputniks, will not be settled by planes or any of those things about which people are talking so much today, but will ultimately be settled by the peoples of the world when they understand one another and when they understand the condition in the countries in which they live.
Federal Aid to Education
Because I believe that, Mr. Speaker, I think the taking of this opportunity this afternoon is well worth while. So far this session no opportunities have been afforded for a discussion of this description. Usually we rely on private members' resolutions regarding federal aid to education, but quite obviously we are now so far advanced in the session, with so few private members' days remaining, that if there were resolutions of this description on the order paper it is unlikely that they would be reached.
So I say that the problems of education and research have become of such critical importance as to merit top priority in government planning. We have been giving top priority to military equipment and so on. Now I believe we should be giving top priority to the planning of education and to the planning of research.
As I indicated a few moments ago, visitors to Russia, papers in scientific journals, and other reports coming from the Soviet union indicate the spectacular successes which have been made in recent years; and if this needs to be underlined it has been underlined by the appearance of the sputnik which was launched in October. Maybe it is just a rumour that a rocket has been launched carrying a man; maybe it is not true; none the less the very fact that scientists have stated they would not be surprised if it were true indicates the extent to which scientists throughout the world believe that great progress has been made in this field in that country.
And so I say that our very survival as a nation would seem to require an unprecedented effort in the field of education; unprecedented effort in bringing our educational system up to a level much higher than it is at the present time. I am not belittling what is being done in our schools and colleges. I am not belittling our system which has evolved over the years, but I say we have to vastly increase the educational facilities of this country and vastly increase the funds available for our educational system.
Not only that, but I believe our ability to maintain the prosperity of our country at a high level depends, in the age in which we live, very largely upon the education and training of those who are connected with every field of human endeavour within our country.
We know perfectly well, looking back over the years, that among nations which some years ago had populations which were more or less illiterate, standards of progress were much lower than among those who had more literate populations. We know that with the coming of the great machines in the last half

Federal Aid to Education century particularly there has been an ever-increasing need for persons better qualified educationally than their forefathers were, in order to operate those machines. Consequently, not only in the field of culture, in the field of national defence and in the field of research, as I have indicated, we need, in order to maintain a level of prosperity in our country, an educated and well trained population.
May I add that I believe the better educated people are, the more likely they are to be democratic in their approach to problems, the more likely they are to resist the teaching of totalitarians, whether those total-itarians are fascists or whether they are communists, because we have found over and over again that the more backward the peoples of the world are, the more likely they are to be led into totalitarian forms of rule.
I know it may be said that some of the leaders were highly educated people; that Lenin, Trotsky and some of the others who led the Russian revolution were highly educated people. So they were. But the power which they had through their own personal education over the peoples of the countries in which they lived was due in large measure to the fact that the people they controlled were so largely illiterate, so largely uneducated and so largely untrained. Consequently the more education we have, in my opinion, the more likely people are to be free of totalitarian inclinations.
In recent years we have scarcely managed to maintain the personnel in our schools and colleges and in our scientific endeavours. We have seen many young men and many middle-aged men who should be teaching mathematics, chemistry and physics leaving our universities and schools and going into private business in different fields, joining companies to take up certain lines of research, with the result that they have been largely lost to the training of the younger people who must replace them not only in industry but as university leaders in the days to come.
As a matter of fact I think this country has lagged behind in the field of research. It is true that some of our industrial organizations have set up research laboratories, but these private organizations set up by industry have a definite aim, the aim of improving the output or product of that particular industry; in other words, their research is directed to a given end. Yet the significant research which has been done in the world in the last 25, 30 or 50 years is not of that type. The type of research we need is what is sometimes called pure research, pure science, where the scientists are not engaged
[Mr. Coldwell.l
in looking toward a particular end but are, rather, following a path in order that they may find new paths, new goals, new ends.
In our own country, of course, the one exception is our national research council, yet those who were on the committee dealing with the national research council two years ago will recollect that while we found it was doing a magnificent job, the encouragement given with regard to salaries, with regard to tenure and to some degree, perhaps, with regard to equipment, was not all that might have been expected of Canada under the present circumstances.
Of course we have the defence research board. But the defence research board cannot be compared with the national research board, because no matter how efficient the defence research board may be it is conducting research toward a particular end, namely the equipment and improvement of our means of defence. The national research council on the other hand is directing its attention to pure science, and in my opinion we are not doing enough in that field; we are not giving enough encouragement to the national research organization. To my mind we should be emphasizing to a greater extent than in the past the facilities of the national research council and building up a corps of pure scientists who can be working to achieve the kind of results which pure science investigation will give. After that the other research organizations can take the results of the pure research and use them in the narrower channels of applied research which industry encourages.
Recently I read the Atlantic Monthly of January, 1958. I am not going to quote from it at length. It said that in the United States, for example-and I think about the same proportion applies to Canada-five times as much is spent on chewing gum alone as on the basic, pure or theoretical as distinct from applied research. And yet it is the pure research that leads us into the applied and to the new knowledge upon which further human advances can be made.
Therefore, the first point I want to make is that within our educational system this parliament of Canada, within its own field, -I am not going outside that field at the moment-should be spending far more than it is spending on pure research; in other words, on an organization like the national research council. Or it should be expanding the national research council because of the tremendous contribution it has made to the life and welfare of Canada already.
This is the first point I would make because we have it within our own jurisdiction. It is not a question of interfering with

provincial jurisdiction in that type of facility and that type of education. Under the national research council we might establish scholarships. I think they have some scholarships now. We learned that, as a matter of fact, when we were on that committee. But we should expand those scholarships and bursaries in order that more young men and young women should be encouraged to go into the field of pure science, the science which is the basis of all other scientific research.
I am working down to the university level. When we think of the university facilities in Canada and what was said by the presidents of the universities-and I am very happy to see that we have the former president of the University of Toronto in the house this afternoon as the Secretary of State for External Affairs-we find that they have been warning us that the facilities are inadequate and that we need to make quite a tremendous expansion of university facilities if we are to accommodate the young men and women who will be not only desirous but who will have the ability to benefit from a university education. Therefore we say that not only in the Canada Council, through which we are providing some scholarships, but in a much larger way we should be providing scholarships for our young men and women in our universities and expanding the facilities of those universities in order that they may be available to the young men and women of ability who might wish to enter those universities.
May I say that I think the time has come when we in this country should establish a system for our young people so that every young man and woman, every adolescent every boy and girl, if you like, beginning at the bottom, who shows ability to benefit from a university education should be able to go into science and so on without regard to the level of the parents' purse or the economic circumstances of that young person. He or she should be enabled to go right through without any individual payment from the family or from himself or herself. Of course, if the young man or woman can earn a little on the side that is all to the good, but as a rule they cannot earn enough to put themselves through, although in the last year or so I am free to confess more young men and women have been perhaps able to earn in the summer much more than they could 10 years ago and certainly more than they could 20 years ago in order to assist their university courses. Yet even then they cannot provide for themselves because the cost of university training and of living is so high.
Federal Aid to Education
When I look back over the years when I was a student and realize in those days how difficult it was to find the comparatively small amount that was required I wonder how many parents of the students who are at university today manage to put their young people through university. Therefore, we have to build an educational system, and I think it is the duty of this parliament to consider ways and means, to consider how we can assist the provinces without interfering with their constitutional rights to control their educational system, to bring our university levels up, to promote scholarships and to make it possible for every boy and girl of ability to receive the best education that this country can give them.
When I was overseas in 1956 I was most interested to see how that was being worked out in the country where I was born and where I began school over 60 years ago; how they are endeavouring, and successfully, to promote the idea that boys and girls of ability, from the humblest homes, should get an education that will equip them in every possible way, both culturally and scientifically, to assist in the development of their country. Mr. Speaker, I said deliberately "culturally and scientifically" because I am not one of those who believe that-while this afternoon I have advocated and shall continue to advocate that we should do what we can to encourage pure science-we should turn out merely people who are scientists and neglect the cultural side of their education. I think there is a danger in that, as there are dangers in most things if you overemphasize one side of a problem or the other.
A year ago last September there was a conference on engineering, scientific and technical manpower at St. Andrews by the sea. It was held from September 9 to September 11, 1956. What did that conference say? I am not going to read the entire brief, I am just going to put some extracts on the record. First of all, the brief said, that by 1980 to remain competitive with other industrial nations, on the basis of the projected increases in output per capita and projections of other fundamental factors, Canada will need-these are the rather startling things that those people engaged in those fields put before the conference-to at least triple and probably quadruple her currently employed total of some 40,000 engineers.
When I listened the other afternoon to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) talking about the new equipment, and so on, it was again brought home to me that no longer is manpower the essential thing even in an army, a navy or an air force, though it is very important; the essential thing is that that manpower shall be of a particular
2948	HOUSE OF
Federal Aid to Education type; that manpower shall be trained in all kinds of technical and modern fields. This brief says that in industry alone we need to triple and probably quadruple the currently employed total of some 40,000 engineers in our own country and to triple and probably more than quadruple today's scientist force of 20,000. As a matter of fact, our scientific forces are not increasing at the rate that is essential if we are to keep up with what is going on in other countries in the world, and when we think of Canada as a country with vast resources still to be developed we must realize that' scientists, engineers and technicians are going to play an essential part in the development of those resources if thev are to be developed either in the interests of private enterprise or in the interests of public enterprise. Of course, I should like to see our resources developed instead of exploited and therefore developed under public enterprise but I am leaving that out of the question because I am not dealing with that particular phase this afternoon.
The brief goes on to say that we need to have almost ten times as many technicians assisting our scientists and engineers as are employed today. When I was in Europe in 1956 I found

I am not sure that they are altogether wise in doing this-that there was a disposition at a comparatively early age, around the age of 12 in most instances, to try to divide the students in the schools into two groups, those who would go on to technical education and those who would go on to scientific and cultural education. They were not divided according to the types of homes from which they came; they were divided, as far as their teachers could judge them, on the abilities they showed and their aptitudes. Those who showed aptitudes indicating that they had the ability to absorb a higher education in the cultural or scientific fields were led along through the universities where they could take not only the usual degrees but could afterwards continue with postgraduate work.
These young people are sometimes picked off. I am thinking of a young man whom I know very well and who graduated in chemistry in 1956. He ranked very high in his class and shortly afterwards he received a letter from Harwell, where the main United Kingdom atomic energy research plant is located, inviting him to submit an application to Harwell. Evidently the standards of the various students who graduated in 1956 were reported to Harwell by the board of examiners of the university. I may say I was astounded to learn that the young man had been called up for military service. In spite of the fact that Harwell invited him to 

submit an application, today he is commissioned in one of the armed forces of the United Kingdom and instead of teaching applied chemistry or pure chemistry he is teaching radar about which, until he was sworn into the armed forces, he had known nothing at all. What a waste of ability!
I rather suspect that if we examined our armed forces, be it the air force, the army or the navy, we should find in the ranks young men who have ability in the fields I am discussing this afternoon but who have been sidetracked into the armed forces because the armed forces have been offering the bright young men of our country educational opportunities and careers and have enticed into the armed forces young men who perhaps might have been better utilized outside the armed forces. However, in order to obtain an education these young men have joined our armed forces. I, of course, compliment the Department of National Defence on giving them this opportunity which we refuse to give in other and more productive parts of our society.
The brief says that we need to provide ten times as many technicians as are employed today. We are told that the existing capacity of our colleges, universities and technical schools is producing one-twentieth of this requirement, and to provide for our requirements for technicians would absorb about 10 per cent of our matriculation graduates who do not go on to or complete university training. We say that the needs cannot be met from either the existing rate of university enrolment or from a continuation of the current rate of increase in enrolment, and if we have the enrolment we have not got the facilities. Over the last year or two we have been seeing our great universities endeavouring to raise money from private corporations and private citizens, and to some extent some of them have done very well. But we cannot rely on that source even if these funds are deductible for income tax purposes in one way or another. As a matter of fact, I often think that their deductibility for income tax purposes is really an indirect way in which the country itself is providing funds. I say we should be providing funds in a direct way through the parliament of Canada and the legislatures of the provinces.
We are falling far short of exploiting the full potential of those capable of assimilating higher education and utilizing it to maximum effectiveness. I might add that undoubtedly we have some young men and women in our universities and high schools who should not be there but because their parents are well enough off to keep them there they are kept there. On the other hand, many young men

and women have the ability but their parents do not have the funds and these young people are not able to take advantage of our educational system.
By 1980 we shall have to increase our university enrolment by as much as three to four times to satisfy our indicated requirements at that time, so the brief says. By 1980 we shall have to increase our enrolment of today by seven or eight times to enroll the same proportion of the age group now enrolled in the United States, which is quite a bit ahead of us. We are in a very poor position compared with Russia and the United States. Russia proportionately has four times as many enrolled in schools of higher learning as we have in Canada and the United States has three times as many.
I could go on and give a good many other figures in support of our contention regarding higher education but I do not think I need to do that. I think I have made my point sufficiently clear in that regard. With our present performance we shall graduate between three million and four million students from high school who will not graduate from university over the period from 1956 to 1980, a period of 24 years. In the United States 53 per cent of those entering grade one graduate from secondary school. In Canada 20 per cent complete junior matriculation and slightly more than half of these complete senior matriculation. So in that way we are falling far behind the United States, and if we can believe the statistics and the reports we have received from the U.S.S.R. we are falling very far behind Russia in the same particular.
We are told that with no increase in the percentage of the age group graduating from our universities, 63 per cent of the graduates should be absorbed in satisfying our indicated requirements for scientists, engineers and post-secondary or university teachers. It is presently absorbing, we are told, 21 per cent.
We should consider carefully, therefore, in this parliament of Canada a program to influence the secondary school graduates now enrolled to continue their education, even if they do so on a part time basis. Again, we should provide facilities to enable them to do so, because there we have a vast reservoir of additional scientific, engineering and technical manpower which could readily be tapped if only the proper incentives were provided. Of course, out of all this stems the need for properly qualified and highly equipped teachers.
I had the great honour and privilege 30 years ago of being the president of the Canadian teachers' federation. For the next six years, from 1928 to 1934, I was the
Federal Aid to Education national secretary treasurer. During those years there was borne in upon me the fact that the teaching body was not a teacher's profession but a teacher's procession. There was a procession of young men and young women entering and remaining for a few years time, then finding more remunerative employment. There has been some improvement over the past several years. The provinces have adopted superannuation plans. The provinces have adopted salary schedules, and have given greater security of tenure to the teachers. Some have organized their areas, of course, into larger units making that security more complete than it was before. However, we still need to encourage more young men and women to enter the teaching profession.
In the primary, secondary and university levels, educational finance is inadequate and unequal. I was looking at a bulletin published by the research committee of the Canadian teachers' federation, whose head office is in this city at the present time. It is dated December, 1954, which is the latest one I could get. This report uses a number of yardsticks with which to measure the provinces' ability to support education. As I said at the beginning, under our constitution education is primarily a provincial function. We believe however that this parliament of Canada not only has a right but an obligation to see that education across Canada is adequate, and therefore we believe the federal government has the right to make grants to our provinces for that purpose. The federal government has no right to interfere with the management of education in a particular province. We recognize that very fully. These yardsticks of the research committee of the Canadian teachers' federation are useful in indicating the differences in the provinces' ability to provide education.
These statistics provide also striking evidence of what we have long advocated in this house. May I say, in order to avoid misunderstanding, that not only have we advocated, but some hon. members on all sides of the house from time to time have advocated in this parliament over the years federal aid to education. I regret that my own good friend who used to introduce his resolution on this subject every year is not here, that is Mr. Roy Knight of Saskatoon, himself a teacher of many years' standing. Others have done the same thing. I am not taking for this party or myself the sole credit for bringing this matter before parliament year by year.
Let us look at the report to which I referred. This report notes that a major reason for educational differences between
2950	HOUSE OF
Federal Aid to Education provinces is differences in financial ability. As a yardstick ol financial ability it compared per capita personal income figures of the provinces. It goes on to say:
The best available measure of a province's ability to support the various functions of government is the per capita personal income of the individuals within the province. It quotes per capita personal income figures for 1951. However, comparable figures for as late as 1956 are now available.
I am going to put those comparable figures on the record this afternoon. The per capita personal income in 1956 for the whole of Canada was $1,350; for Newfoundland it was $725; for Prince Edward Island, $788; for Nova Scotia, $1,000; for New Brunswick, $923. Unfortunately those four Atlantic provinces have the lowest per capita incomes and yet, may I say that in days gone by at least many of the leading educationalists across Canada came from the Atlantic provinces and particularly from Nova Scotia. Look over the list of university presidents over the last number of years and one is surprised by the number of them who came from the Atlantic provinces, some from very humble origins. The opportunities which those men had then to get a higher education equipped them to occupy these very important positions in the field of education. Those opportunities are not there in the same way today because it is not as simple for a young man or a young woman to go through school and get a higher education, particularly a university education, as it was in those earlier years of our century.
The per capita personal income of Quebec in 1956 was $1,180; Ontario, $1,595-more than twice as much as Newfoundland and almost twice as much as Prince Edward Island-Manitoba, $1,260; Saskatchewan, $1,291; Alberta, $1,370 and British Columbia, in which they include the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, $1,566. Now, those figures are very revealing because they indicate the financial ability of the various provinces of Canada to carry the educational burden. As I have already indicated, though I have not said it, education is not only of interest to the various provinces or localities in which young people live but it is of interest to the whole of Canada. If you educate a boy or girl in Nova Scotia or Newfoundland, British Columbia or Saskatchewan, you have not guaranteed that your return on that young person's education will be made to the province which educated him. His contribution will be to the whole of Canada. Consequently, from that point of view the whole of Canada has responsibility for our educational facilities.
I was going to refer to numerous other sectors of this report, but I am not going
[Mr. Coldwell.l

to do so because I think I have established my point quite well that education is of direct interest to all Canada.
Therefore federal aid for education should be provided from this parliament of Canada without-again may I say-interfering in any way with the management of education by the several provinces of Canada. Of course the systems of education that have arisen in our provinces have vital differences. To try to control education in any province would cause great difficulty for us all, besides which it would violate the fundamental consideration of the confederation agreement. I do not suppose we would have had confederation at all unless the fathers of confederation had agreed to leave education as one of the principal functions under section 92 of the British North America Act to the provinces of Canada. Because of what I have said-and I shall have very little more to say afterwards-I am going to move this amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That all the words after the word "That" to the end of the question be deleted and that the following words be substituted therefor:
"this house is of the opinion that the government should give consideration to the advisability of taking steps to relieve the financial crisis in education, without encroaching in any way on the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces in this field, by granting financial assistance to the various provinces for the expansion and equalization of educational opportunity across Canada."
What I have said this afternoon falls into two categories. First of all, there is what we can do ourselves. I mention particularly the extension of the facilities and the attractiveness of work in the national research council. I believe that to be absolutely fundamental to encouragement of pure science in this country. It is the only organization in Canada equipped and experienced in the field of pure science. Other research is applied science. We need more of the type of pure scientific research in this country than we have had up to the present time. I say that it would pay big dividends to our country.
I was going to refer-and I am just going to mention it because I do not intend to deal with it at any length; I have spoken long enough already-to the report that was made by Dr. LaZerte who was engaged by the Canadian school trustees' association to make an investigation of our educational system several years ago. It is a long report but there is a synopsis of it published. Dr. LaZerte is one of the outstanding educationists in this country. He was professor of education at the University of Alberta for a long time. I knew him years before that when, as a young teacher, I listened to him speak at the Saskatchewan educational association

during the first world war. Dr. LaZerte has made a tremendous contribution in several fields of education. I believe that today, being retired from Alberta, he is lecturing in the University of Manitoba in education.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right.


Major James William Coldwell: His report is one that should be read by every member of parliament because he makes an analysis of educational opportunities and facilities from the primary school right through to the secondary school. It is rather technical. That is why it is perhaps out of place to quote it at length in this house this afternoon. However it is well worth reading and I recommend it to hon. members of this house for their study.
We therefore would say to the government: You can provide, $1,750 million, one third of our entire budget, for defence in the military field; yet we are doing nothing substantial in what I believe to be a more effective field of defence, namely the field of education. As a matter of fact, the provinces are inadequately equipped to raise the money necessary to build up and carry on an educational system such as we need if we are to outrival the people who today are threatening us in so many fields, including the field of education, scientific and technical. The complexity of our present economic society is such that only the federal government can tax wealth wherever found in order to pay for educational services where needed. No other authority has that power. This federal parliament of Canada has the right to enter any field of taxation and to tax wealth where it can be found. In other words, we are the only ones who can provide sufficiently for the higher education that is essential to meet the needs of this country in this age of complexity, in this age of scientific and technical progress.
I plead with this house, Mr. Speaker, to support this amendment so that we may indicate to the government that we require a vast expansion of all kinds, of facilities and opportunities of education. This parliament alone can provide the necessary funds to enable us to do that so that Canada may progress as she should. We should provide them.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, there has been a certain switch in educational circles in the last few months as a result of scientific developments and education, which a short time ago had a sort of civil war going on within its ranks- rather the traditional versus the progressive-has now become something at which everybody is taking-I was going to say
Federal Aid to Education "optimistic" but that is hardly the word-a very pleasant look. Everyone is very much in favour of it. What I wanted to refer to today was that aspect of the resolution that would deal with universities, the nature of the crisis that we have at the present time and the measures that need to be taken to improve our position in higher education.
As one who has been in the classroom fairly recently I may say that there are two features which stand out about our failure and which have nothing whatever to do with the events in Russia. I think the first one- at least I place it first in importance-is the fact that the young ladies or the girls in our society are not getting the opportunity to go to university in anything like the numbers they should, according to what surveys reveal they have the capacity for. It may seem odd that I should place that matter first but it seems to me that is one of the great reservoirs of talent that we are not using. I suppose it will take almost a social revolution to get us to do something about that matter. I wanted to put it first in order to keep it in people's minds.
The other point which is very apparent and which was brought out by the leader of this party a short time ago was that equality of opportunity in education is something that we all treasure and believe in. I do not think there would be a gentleman in this house who would be against the idea that any students who had revealed by academic attainment and by their record that they were capable of higher education should not have the opportunity. Of course the question we are all asking at the present time and which there have been a number of specific studies to determine is this: Is such a condition existing? I hope later in this speech to cover some of the statistics which indicate that we are losing a great deal of talent.
There are four main reasons for saying that the universities of Canada face a crisis today. Firstly, statistics indicate a heavy increase in enrolment over the next 10 years; secondly, is the fact that Canadian universities for financial and other reasons are not even now fulfilling the manpower needs of our own economy; thirdly is the invidious comparisons drawn between Canadian and Russian production of university graduates, especially in the fields of pure and applied science; and fourthly is the fact that only a small proportion of those persons capable of benefiting from higher education are now receiving it.
Enrolment statistics in regard to universities and their projection into the future are usually those given by the education division
2952	HOUSE OF
Federal Aid to Education of the dominion bureau of statistics, a number of which have been prepared by Dr. Sheffield of that division. We can see from the period 1945-1946 through to the projection to 19641965 that there is an estimated enrolment moving up to 122,900 undergraduates. This will be approximately 10 per cent of our 18 to 21 years of age group in 1964-65. The significant proportion of the college age group actually attending is increasing and will presumably continue to do so, but even in 19641965, if we project the figures set out by the bureau of statistics, we are still only going to have 10 per cent of the people in that particular age group attending universities. The reasons for the rise from 1945-1946 of only 4.3 per cent probably has to do with postwar prosperity and the various drives for status which accompanied that prosperity. There has certainly been an increased demand for university graduates but the general increase projected for enrolment will come about mainly from population increases. What is anticipated is not a sudden rise and a sudden drop as happened back in 1946 to 1949 with the influx of veterans at our universities but a permanent enlargement of enrolment as a result of higher population figures.
In terms of manpower and our present failure to fill that manpower requirement from the universities it is very hard to give accurate statistics but some of the reports of the Gordon commission indicate that although 15,000 students were graduated by Canadian universities in 1954 it was 10,000 short of the 1954 manpower requirements.
The committee of the national conference of Canadian universities has estimated that Canada will be 190,000 short of necessary personnel in 1965. When we compare our manpower requirements with that of other countries we have to realize that the U.S.S.R. has overtaken us as well as other western countries in the field of higher education.
In 1918, to serve a population of about 140 million, Russia had 96 institutions of higher learning or one institution for every 1,460,000 Russians. Canada at that time had one institution for 315,000 Canadians. In 1953 the U.S.S.R. had 890 centres of higher education. In 1927 university enrolment in the U.S.S.R. stood at 169,000; today it numbers 1,867,000. In other words, the U.S.S.R. has one university student today for every 107 people while Canada has about one for every 200. We are of course also behind the United States in this respect.
The following table shows the percentage of the 18 to 21 age group enrolment in United States colleges. In 1900 the percentage of enrolment there was 4.0 per cent; in 1950 it was 19.3 per cent. In the previous table to


which I referred Canada in 1965 will have reached only 10 per cent. In other words, United States today is at least 10 per cent ahead of us in this important regard or in other words the percentage of students in the 18 to 21 age group at universities under our present situation is roughly equivalent to that existing in the United States more than 40 years ago. To put it in another way it is estimated that in order for our university population to reach a level proportionate to the United States and the U.S.S.R. the present Canadian enrolment of around 80,000 would have to leap immediately to between 240,000 and 315,000.
One of the questions we have to ask ourselves when considering our crisis in university education is "who goes to university?" It is surprising how very little is known in an analytical way about this question. There is no national survey at either the secondary school or university level and there are only two or three regional surveys which can answer a few questions. In a paper given to the November session of the N.C.C.U. in 1956 the authors say:
It can ... be argued on the basis of the fragments of information at hand that we are utilizing to the full the talents of probably no more than one-third of our academically-gifted young men and women.
This is a vital point if we are wasting that much of the talents of our gifted people. The evidence for this statement of course is very slight. I would like to refer all hon. members of this house to the two recent reports put out by Atkinson study of the utilization of student resources. I have gathered from conversations with the gentlemen behind this study that the new Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith), the former president of the University of Toronto, played a fairly large part in initiating this study. This particular book that interprets the initial stages of the study is entitled "Secondary Grade 13 Students-Who are They and What Happens to Them?" I would like to refer to the summary on page 52 of report 2, with relation to the points in connection with who goes to university.
It says that, regardless of sex a student had the best chance if he was somewhat younger than the average prospective grade 13 graduate, if both his parents were living, if he came from a family with not more than three children, if his father enjoyed a relatively high occupational status and especially if he was a college or university teacher, administrator, a lawyer, physician, dentist, an engineer or a manager of a wholesale trade; if his parents were relatively well educated and especially if they had attended

university and if he had not done part-time work during his last year of secondary school. In other words early indications from this report are that if a student's family background is of a high occupational or educational standard he is much more likely to go to the university.
Any of us who have taught in these schools are quite aware that those students are not necessarily those who have the talent or the gifts. A powerful factor however, I am sure, is the position of those students who grew up in homes where university education is something that is prized and discussed and is part of their whole focal point as young people.
One of the other sources of determining who goes to university is the 1951 Canada census, and the main conclusion one can draw from a study of these figures is that if you live in a city you have a much better chance of going to a university than if you live in a rural area, and that if you happen to live in a city which is near a university you have a better chance still. For instance, if you live in Kingston, Toronto or Hamilton you stand a much better chance of going to a university than if you live in a city which has no university in its neighbourhood. This is a point of particular interest to the people of the lakehead where we are at the stage of initiating what we hope will be in a few years a lakehead university and for that reason the question of the price of higher education is particularly interesting to my constituents.
When you get into another phase of who goes to university, and what happens to students when they get there, you come to a discussion of university failure rates. It is known that approximately 33 per cent of university students fail to graduate, but no university has undertaken objectively to discover why. Part of the reason must be the fact that universities are open to those who can afford them rather than to all of those who have the necessary intellectual equipment.
I know of a young lad who has attended four universities. He has never got past the second year. He has put in a total of six years at universities because his father is a well to do man. I interviewed this young man, and was much impressed by his personality and very depressed by his lack of ability. I thought he made the perfect case as to the injustice of federal support for higher education. Even though such young men pay for their education the cost is heavily subsidized by federal grants to the universities and yet they have the jump over other students who never think of going to
Federal Aid to Education university just because their fathers are well to do, which points up again the necessity for a new approach to the question of enrolment rather than retaining a situation where money can override more important considerations.
Quebec requires special treatment because of her special situation. At first sight the province appears to lead Canada in the value attached to higher education, and in many ways this is true. At least 40 per cent of the graduates of the public secondary schools, and 96.5 per cent of the graduates of the classical colleges go on to university. The joker is that very few Quebec students enter either tye of secondary institution. The first problem for French speaking schools is not to bring more secondary school graduates into the university; it is rather to bring more boys and girls into the secondary school itself. The 1951 census showed that Quebec had the lowest percentage of the 15-19 age group still in school, 29.89 per cent; the national average being 40.42 per cent. The average for Newfoundland, the next province up the scale, being 38.4, and the averages for Ontario 44 per cent, Nova Scotia 45 per cent, Alberta 50 per cent and British Columbia, 52 per cent. On the other hand, because of the very high proportion of high school and classical college graduates going to university, Quebec's percentage of the 20-24 age group still at school is roughly the same as the national average, 4.5 as against the Canadian average of 4.84. There are five provinces below Quebec. Leon Lortie of the University of Montreal recommended, in effect, a break with the elitist tradition of Quebec education. If I may quote from his speech made at the Canadian congress of higher education:
The efforts of all are indeed absolutely indispensable, and more especially in Quebec, because we are faced for the first time with the real task of democratizing our system and methods of education.
There has been no visible response to such notions from the Quebec government.
When one comes to the solution of the crisis which the universities face it has been argued that unless there is a limitation on university enrolment the universities are going to be swamped with applicants, and that in consequence there is bound to be limitation.
Apart from the social criticisms which can be made against limiting university enrolment, such a solution is erroneous in that it assumes that the crisis is one involving the universities alone, and of course this is not so. Limitation of enrolment has received a certain amount of consideration from university administrators, most of it unsympathetic. But even those, like Sidney Smith who harp incessantly on the responsibility

Federal Aid to Education of the university to society, set limits to maximum enrolment that are well below the maximum desirable level.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is realistic to think of providing university training in Canada for anything approaching 25 per cent of our college age population. I have doubts even about the 11 per cent visualized in Dr. Sheffield's projection. I do not believe that "realistic" is precisely the word that Mr. Smith had in mind. Norman Mackenzie of the University of British Columbia used the word in a different way in 1948. He said:
If we are convinced that there are more students demanding education than we can adequately look after, then we should do what we can to see that those who are best suited for it do get the opportunity to come. This can in part be taken care of through higher standards of admission, which should be general in character; and by the maintenance of high standards throughout the courses that are given, whether they be general or specialized. Many will continue to want to enter without any particular intellectual qualifications or for other reasons such as social or economic ones, or in order to fill in time before going into marriage or business. I think this is a fact we have to recognize. They will attempt to get in, and in many cases in the kind of society we live in, it will be difficult or impossible to keep them out. The only way we can meet this problem and deal with it in a realistic way is either to provide, as they have in the United States, not altogether satisfactorily, a larger number of junior colleges for undergraduate and superficial vocational training, or put up with larger enrolments in existing institutions. I do not believe it is realistic to think that we can reserve higher education for a privileged elite, privileged by reason of birth or family or economic position or even privileged by reason of the natural gifts of mind and intellect that they may have. We have to remember that we are part of the community which we serve and in which we live.
Cyril James of McGill University accepted Mackenzie's position in his presidential address to the N.C.C.U. in 1949, but rather tepidly-"whether we like it or not"-when he said that the plea for limited numbers cannot be applied successfully by all universities with any great expectation of success. President Somers of St. Francis Xavier was more forthright in 1955 when he said:
We can give a very simple answer-hold to the present registrations. There are some who would solve the problem simply by saying that there are too many students of non-university calibre at present in our universities. We may solve the problem by raising tuition costs to the point at which only those with ample means may enter university. Before we accept either of these solutions we have to ask ourselves what are the requirements of this growing country of ours in regard to higher education. Canada must have educated leaders in all fields, and today these fields are many. Universities cannot restrict their work to a small elite and pay no attention to their country's needs. We cannot be content with the education of the same percentage of our youth as we now have in Canadian universities, even although that may give us a 50 per cent increase in students by 1965. We know that at least 25 per cent are of university calibre. We should educate many more of the college age group of our

population-the group with the talents, who are not in our universities because they cannot afford to pay our fees.
So far only a few universities have announced restrictions in enrolment. Among the larger universities, McGill has done so, limiting the enrolment to 9,500, whereas by 1965 it might have been expected to reach 13,500. Of the middle range of universities, only Queen's plans some restrictions. The rest anticipate at least a doubling of the present enrolment. Of the smaller universities, Acadia and Mount Allison, being almost completely residential, cannot expand unless large grants are made for residences. Bishop's has decided to allow enrolment to expand only slightly above the present level of about 300. Its leaders said:
We cannot expand beyond 400 without changing the character of the institution, and we feel that Canada can afford the luxury of one small college.
No university administrator has faced the problem of what the universities would do if, for example, a system of government bursaries raised the percentage of the 18 to 21 age group attending university above the projected 10 per cent to 11 per cent. Of the students attending university now only about 15 per cent receive financial aid of any kind and this percentage has not increased over the last 20 years. Mr. James has said:
A young Canadian from a family of modest circumstance has less chance of getting a university education today than a youth in any other country with which I am familiar.
That is a very sweeping and powerful statement. In other words, we are in one of the poorest positions of all for youth in modest circumstances. In the crisis we have to consider where the universities are going to get the increased revenue. For some years the national council of Canadian universities has been attempting to gain from the federal government certain changes in tax laws governing deductions for charitable purposes in order to increase grants or gifts from private and corporate sources. The fact is that corporations have not taken advantage of the present tax situation. By law, corporations are permitted to deduct 5 per cent of their taxable income for charitable purposes. In 1946, corporations contributed three-quarters of one per cent of their income for charitable purposes; in 1953, about $26.3 million, or about one per cent of their next taxable income; in this year, five per cent would have amounted to about $130 million. The proportion of the .75 per cent in 1946 going to universities was about 14 per cent; the proportion of the one per cent in 1953 was about 10 per cent. When grants are made by corporations they are tied often to specific research projects in which industries are interested. For example, look at the givings of

corporations such as International Nickel and Imperial Oil. There is no necessity for me to comment upon this, the former president of the University of Toronto has done so already. He said:
We want a great deal of money. Without wishing to sound ungrateful, I have sometimes thought, when a prospective donor makes an offer, that the industrial conscience in some instances can satisfy itself by putting a very small sum on the collection plate. There are shining exceptions . . . but on the whole Canadian corporations have not as yet taken seriously the needs of higher education; they have not even taken advantage of the five per cent deduction from their taxable income permitted under the tax laws of Canada.
Part of the difficulty is that many of our corporations are not Canadian. In our branch plant economy, American-owned or controlled corporations feel little obligation toward the Canadian institutions which often provide them with their administrative and technical personnel.
The fact that corporations are concentrated, or at least their head offices, in central Canada works a hardship on eastern and western universities. In 1952, 84 per cent of corporation taxes were collected in Quebec and Ontario; the two tax districts of Toronto and Montreal accounted for 56 per cent of all corporation tax returns. A president of one of the eastern universities has proposed a kind of united chest and a division of proceeds from corporations on some equitable basis. The complaints you hear from the west and the east on the freight rates, or anything else, can be re-echoed by the universities. The situation is that those provinces in central Canada have quite an advantage and as far as the proposal of this president of an eastern university for a united chest for universities is concerned, I do not know that any of the central Canadian universities have rushed to endorse the suggestion. I have not seen any record of it.
During the last 20 years government financing has been an interesting problem. The university enrolment has more than doubled but the total revenue received by the universities in relation to the number of students has shown virtually no increase in real terms. At the same time real costs have gone up substantially. To carry out university functions, university capacities have been overtaxed, according to one expert; university teachers have suffered a sharp decline in relative real income; and essential university facilities have been skimped. An illustration of the consequences of financial squeezing is the fact that the 10 largest universities in English Canada spend together annually only about $500,000 on stocking their libraries with books and microfilms. It is almost a pitiable figure when one thinks of the tremendous amount of publishing that goes on in the world today.
Federal Aid to Education
When you look at the source of university revenue, which you can find in President Mackenzie's address on "Government Support of Canadian Universities" you find that endowment provides only six per cent; student fees, 28 per cent; provincial funds, 40 per cent; federal funds, 15 per cent; and miscellaneous, 11 per cent. The 40 per cent provided by the provinces amounts to exactly 3 per cent of provincial budgeting. On the average, roads and highways in the provinces got 30 per cent and education got three per cent. University presidents have tended to place their hopes on additional revenues from industry and from the federal government. The figures I quoted above show why. Student fees have increased steadily over the past 20 years and you cannot milk this source much more.
The request for increased federal assistance is always accompanied by some reference to the danger involved. However, it is apparent that university presidents in English Canada regard the prospect of having to do without federal assistance as more alarming than any dangers which might flow from it. They tend to regard-though how sincerely I am not in any position to judge-the diversity of university income sources as the best guarantee of university independence. As an illustration, President Mackenzie claimed that the "modest system of federal per capita grants" introduced in 1951 respected "the constitutional position of the provinces and maintained the independence of the individual institutions". But these grants have proved to be insufficient. Thus, former President Smith of the University of Toronto, after new federal grants, said;
This and other Canadian universities will require for the mobilization of resources, support from government at all levels, municipal and federal as well as provincial, and in addition they will need all the help that industry and individual donors can give them. Their welfare and progress are matters of public concern. The Ottawa government is doubling its assistance to universities, and as in the past that assistance will not involve any interference or attempt at control. But the increased federal grants will not be enough to finance the expansion.
I hope the gentleman who made this very ringing statement will be in a position later on today perhaps to amplify the position of the government on his attitude in this regard. A good example of the notion that diversity of income source is the best guarantee of independence comes from former President Smith. He said:
It is well for universities that they should have a diversity in their sources of income. The chairman of the board of governors, Colonel Phillips, stated in 1947: "Nothing could be more fateful for us than to adopt the view that all our financial problems could be thrown on the shoulders of our government."

Federal Aid to Education
There has been a conscious effort to justify increased federal government assistance by comparing the Canadian situation with that elsewhere, not simply in order to say, "other governments give more" but also to say, "other governments give more without endangering the universities". It can be shown that endowment income, for example, has formed a steadily decreasing part of university revenue in the United Kingdom and in the United States. It would seem that in the United States a large body of university opinion regards government assistance as bringing with it political interference. This is certainly the stand of the private universities, especially in the east. Over all, United States private universities gain 63 per cent of their income from private sources.
There has been a good deal of political interference on both the state and the federal level in the United States with public universities. The McCarthy scare is an example. The case of Illinois occurs to any one who followed the situation there. During the red scare the situation of professors on the staff was a very delicate one and many of them were quizzed in public.
The whole question of whether government assistance, especially federal government assistance, is going to tinker with and ruin the independence of universities is one that those of us who introduced the resolution and those who may support it will feel is something about which we all have to be very careful. There is no doubt about it that the old saw that the person who controls the purse controls things can apply, but the experience in the United Kingdom with the university grants committee is that political interference has really not entered into the operation of the universities there.
So far revenue from government sources in Canada is really too small to have introduced any undue influence. In the United Kingdom government grants form 73.6 per cent of university revenue, in the United States 42.4 per cent. In Canada the government's share in the four western provinces is 57 per cent and in Quebec we have a low of 23.7 per cent. The comparative niggardliness of government aid in Canada means that the minimum cost of a university education is much higher in Canada. In 1954-55, 72.9 per cent of all British students were in receipt of aid of some kind. The Canadian figure is 14 per cent to 15 per cent. President James concluded in this regard:
As a result of these generous government grants every British student can be sure of a university education if he has the ability and determination to attain it. Financial factors are never a barrier.
Similarly, in the United States, as a result of government assistance to public institutions,

fees are markedly lower than those charged at any Canadian university and 56 per cent of United States students are enrolled in state universities where these low fees prevail.
One of the factors that must be considered in any discussion of the crisis is the position of the province of Quebec because the Quebec position is that since the federal government may not legislate directly within any of the fields granted to the provinces and since federal grants do involve legislation, the interposition of a non-government distributing agency is still unconstitutional. In other words, the crux of any drastic change in our federal set-up will be the attitude of the province of Quebec. Marcel Faribault, representing the chamber of commerce of Quebec, has said:
Yearly grants from the federal government to the universities, whether distributed directly or indirectly, are a matter which it is just not possible to class otherwise than as support for education and legislation in respect of education.
He is prepared to admit, however, the possible validity of non-recurring capital grants. He says:
Capital grants are not recurrent, and the intermediary body, the Canada Council, is not primarily educational or para-educational. Moreover, the allotment to the recipients is to be variable, and is not to cover more than half the cost of some buildings for definite projects.
Mr. Faribault goes on in his remarks to indicate that if the capital grants from the federal government are of a non-recurring kind it might be expedient for Quebec to accept them. Arthur Tremblay, secretary of the Laval teachers' association, has declared:
I want to reaffirm the public position we have already taken concerning the Canadian government plan to give grants to the N.C.C.U. We want those grants to be accepted by the province of Quebec universities as well as by other Canadian universities.
In other words, here is an expression of opinion by a French Canadian that the grants that have been offered should be accepted. President James of McGill, who is in a very difficult position as head of an English-speaking university within a French-speaking province, has said:
The governing body of each university has the right to accept or reject any grant that is offered, but speaking personally I can see nothing in the pattern of federal grants which invades the constitutional rights of the provinces or weakens the independence of any Canadian university. There is no legal barrier that I know of which would prevent a university from accepting federal aid.
In order to clarify the position of that part of the Quebec elite which opposes federal grants, I consulted he Devoir from November, 1956, to the end of March, 1957. During those months I could not find any explicit statement of the newspaper's constitutional position, but it seems to me it is

similar to that expressed by Mr. Faribault. Le Devoir feels that federal grants are a menace to the cultural and religious autonomy of Quebec, and advocates resistance to them at all costs. Even though present grants are unconditional, there can be no guarantee that they always will be so. To resist grants now places no great burden on Quebec universities, since the grants are still modest. The universities must resist because they are the first line of defence. If this line is breached, primary and secondary education will come under attack too.
That is the gist of what I have gathered respecting Le Devoir's attitude to higher education grants from the federal government. Yet resistance to federal grants in order to preserve the independence of universities has brought the anomalous situation now existing. Quebec universities are at the mercy of the provincial government, are subject to political interference and are certainly not receiving provincial grants to match federal grants that would be coming to them.
Far from persuading Le Devoir that federal grants might be of some use, the provincial situation allows the editors to take up a favourite position-defenders of the right against tremendous odds, upholders of unsullied principle while damning the consequences. They insist that French Canadians must not sell their rights for a mess of pottage. They refer to Mr. Duplessis as "un phenomene passager". They say, "It is not desirable to destroy the constitution because of a simple public nuisance." They say, "We live in any age in which the people of Quebec prefer to be poorly governed by themselves rather than well governed from Ottawa." As an outsider just looking into the situation, I would not want to go out on a limb to express any opinion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I must advise him that his time has expired.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, we are considering a problem of very great importance at the present moment. We have a motion that the Speaker shall leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee, followed by an amendment dealing with the subject of aid for education. The amendment is framed in such a way that an important subject is brought to our attention but the framers of the amendment realize that according to the rules and the custom of the house the debate will be terminated by a vote at 8.15 this evening and that an amendment such as this is and always has been treated as a want of confidence motion 96698-1871
Federal Aid to Education to which, of course, the government naturally reacts and cannot accept. My hon. friends who introduced the amendment have done so apparently for the express purpose of putting the government in the awkward position of voting against aid for education, which is something many of us supported when we were on the other side of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You also took a different line towards motions of this kind when you were on the opposition side of the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is obviously the type of motion calculated to embarrass the government, and since it is linked to a subject of this importance to the people of Canada it is, in my opinion, irresponsible.


Mr. Ellis:: You used to bring in motions of this type.


Gordon Minto Churchill: According to the notices of motion on the order paper-


Stanley Howard Knowles: What a change since June 10.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -there were plenty of opportunities for this subject to come forward for discussion. Hon. members will find under Notices of Motion, No. 30, a motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Morton) dealing with this subject of aid for education. Then, No. 41 under the name of the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir), is another one dealing with aid to education in the maritime provinces.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If these motions were brought forward, would the hon. gentleman vote for them?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is a hypothetical question.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Talk them out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate vote for them?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall speak for myself in a moment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps that opportunity will arise. I have already stated that this is a want of confidence motion and will have to be treated as such. I have already said that this is a subject of very great importance.
I have listened to the remarks made by the mover of the motion as well as the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) with a great deal of interest because I spoke on

Federal Aid to Education this subject myself in the house about five years ago. I thought then, and think now, that I knew a little about the necessity of aid for education. The problem has been with us for a very long time. This subject matter has been raised in the house over a great many years.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Why not have government action now?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Government action will follow on a government proposal. We are not accepting the suggestion of my hon. friends as to what we should do today or tomorrow. We are quite competent to bring forward our own program, and will do so in due course. I intend to restrict my remarks, something which was not done by the speakers who preceded me, although the time for debate is very short. The supper hour intervenes at six o'clock, and the vote is at 8.15.
I propose to restrict my remarks and will deal with a subject touched upon by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). He dealt at some length with the question of scientific education, and with the threat caused by the evidence we have as to the importance that Russia is attaching to scientific education. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar drew attention to the scientific achievements of the Russians in launching satellites and so on. I feel that although these are important scientific achievements we need not get overly alarmed with regard to scientific achievements of that nature. Had we been living in a world less subject to tensions I believe scientists generally would have been inclined to applaud this advancement of scientific knowledge. Since we are living in a world of fear any scientific advancement of this nature is immediately linked up with the threat of warfare or something of that nature, and consequently is a matter for some alarm.
However, all the remarks that have been made with regard to the Russians' advance in science-not all of them but a great part of them-have tended towards measuring the advance quantitatively. We have been given today, and on other occasions, reports of the vast numbers of scientists that are being turned out by Russian schools and universities. The quantity has been emphasized. I think it is much more important in the scientific realm to emphasize quality. I am not suggesting we cannot do more in Canada, and in the other nations of the western democracies, but quantity is not the yardstick by which to measure scientific achievements. These figures showing thousands of Russian scientists being produced annually are not as alarming, I believe, as some people appear to think they are. Quality is of much

greater importance. At the same time as the satellite was going around the world this fall one of the greatest scientific advancements was made by scientists in England who have got closer to solving the question of fusion. However, we heard nothing about that today at all. All we heard about was the Russian scientific advancement in launching a space satellite. This step towards solving the problem of fusion will be of greater consequence and greater benefit to mankind than the launching of a satellite at the present time.
It is not necessarily the most spectacular scientific advancement that is the most important. It may be some less spectacular scientific achievement which will prove of greater value in the long run. We have living in Canada Sir Robert Watson Watt, the inventor of radar. This advancement was accomplished quietly in the twenties and thirties, and the protective value of radar was to our advantage during the course of the war. The development of atom power was an achievement not attributed to the Russians. These things are perhaps less spectacular at the time the discovery is made, but may prove to be of greater importance than the more spectacular achievements. I simply draw that to the attention of the house. Let us not be carried away by the number of Russian scientists or some of the spectacular things they have done. We have scientists working carefully and quietly in Canada and in the western democracies whose achievements may be of much more lasting benefit.
I should like to draw attention to the fact that Canada has done a great deal in the realm of scientific research over the last 40 years. It is quite right to suggest that we should press on; that there should be greater advantages provided for our scientists and that more opportunity should be given to younger men in the scientific field. There is no quarrel with that at all. But let us not overlook the fact that we have made very great progress in Canada. If you refer to the report of the national research council of Canada for 1956-57 you will find an historical summary of our scientific achievements under the direction of that council. This council was set up 41 years ago, in 1916, incidentally under the Conservative government of Sir Robert Borden, and has achieved many things since that time.
During the past year the national research council provided $3.6 million to support pure research in the universities, and that was divided into 540 grants, 310 scholarships and fellowships. The research council employed 541 on the scientific staff, including 122 postdoctorate fellows; 819 technical personnel and 859 on the general services and administrative

staff. The council operated five laboratory divisions in the sciences, and two regional laboratories, one at Halifax and the other in Saskatoon, as well as a division of medical research. The research council sponsored 26 associate committees working in diverse fields and answered over 7,000 technical inquiries from Canadian industries.
Just to show what can happen, I may say that in 1916 when the research council was established, and in 1917 when it became operative, industrial research was practically non-existent in Canada and the supply of research men capable of independent investigation was entirely inadequate. Over the years great advances have been made. More than 2,100 students have held council scholarships and a similar number of very able students have been employed as research assistants. Today the council's alumni occupy many of the senior scientific positions across Canada.
That indicates the change that has taken place. Back in 1916 and 1917 most of our postgraduate students went to foreign universities and many of them did not return to pursue their work in Canada. Hence through governmental assistance by the national research council the basis was laid in Canada for scientific advancement. That came to fruition-and I am summarizing very rapidly here

or was brought to fruition during the second world war when there was a great expansion based upon that scientific knowledge. Our scientists in Canada achieved international fame by their work during the second world war and established recognition for Canada in the field of science to an extent that Canada had not achieved previously. That situation has carried over into the postwar years, particularly in the field of atomic research in which Canada is recognized as having some of the leading people in the world.
I just give you that resume briefly to show what can be done by the application of funds and the attention of dedicated men to an enterprise such as this in establishing in Canada research on a sound basis, chiefly in the field of pure research, and then carrying over into the fields of applied research. So in discussing this particular subject of federal aid for education and in advocating, as have my hon. friends, increased support for education, let us not overlook the fact that over the years this has been done. The government has taken an interest in research and in educational assistance of this nature, and there is no reason to suppose that that type of assistance will not continue. Canada has laid the foundation for scientific progress and we can now move forward through assistance to the national research council and other
Federal Aid to Education means to increasing what we all desire, namely our scientific knowledge in Canada
and our corps of scientists.


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to discuss for a few moments matters educational in Canada. As one can fully appreciate, having regard to my career, this is a topic that is very close to my mind and to my heart. With much that the mover of the motion, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), had to say I agree. Having regard to the quotations given to us by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) from a man by the name of Smith, I am bound to say that I am even more in concurrence with his remarks than I ever thought I could be.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar spoke of the threat of the Russians in the field of scientific advance. As a man who spent over three decades in the field of education I would say that I regret we are obliged to face up to educational problems as a result of fear arising from scientific advances made for the purposes of war. I would say that we must congratulate the Russians on their successful endeavours in the scientific field. It is a fact that they have made great advances. But, with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, I would state that it is regrettable that their production of scientists has not involved also a program for men and women-and incidentally they have paid special attention to the training of women- who have something to do with ideas and ideals apart from the ideas and concepts that are peculiar to the physical and biological sciences.
There is one achievement that I am convinced the Russians have made and that is borne out by the testimony of men of whom the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar spoke, such as Mr. J. S. Duncan and others who have gone there, come back and given us their testimony. That achievement is that the Russians have been able to make their young people work. They have selected them early in life. They have afforded them this opportunity. They have ascertained that they had great gifts for further study and investigation. If they fail in any way, they are taken out of their schools, their colleges and their universities and are degraded in terms of social and economic status.
In speaking to this amendment I would make this plea, namely that we should not make that mistake in Canada. I am greatly concerned about taking a young person and giving him a scientific training-whether it be in mathematics or in the biological sciences or the physical sciences-where that is all he

Federal Aid to Education or she is exposed to. Despite the threat that may arise out of the success of the Russian scientists in terms of sputnik and the intercontinental ballistic missile, I would plead that we never accede to that type of narrow program. I would plead for the humanities and the social sciences and their development while at the same time we endeavour to do more in the field of the physical and biological sciences. As Sir Richard Livingstone once put it, you have the type of program for the study of the law of things, and that could produce and put forth a very arid person, a person who would make little if any contribution to our political and cultural development whereas, on the other hand, the humanities and the social sciences provide the opportunity to study the law of men as distinguished from the law of things.
We have in our larger universities or in nearly all of our universities and colleges in Canada some type of professional school. We need our clergymen. Of course we do. We need our teachers, our foresters, our engineers, our doctors, our dentists and our nurses. But again I would make another plea for the support of a faculty of arts. Sometimes people think of a faculty of arts as a division that teaches only the humanities and social sciences. But in the program of this core division within a university known as the faculty of arts, there is the interplay of the study of the social sciences and the humanities with the study of biological and physical sciences. I believe that we should never set off against the support of the faculty of arts the great need of scientific development to the sacrifice of the humanities and the social sciences.
I agree fully with the observation that was made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that the teacher is the fundamental cornerstone of any educational institution. It is a fact that we are not attracting into the teaching ranks-and I am speaking of the colleges and universities-the men and women who should be taking up that worthy calling. They are attracted by offers from industry and they are attracted by offers- let us be frank about it-for graduate work in the United States. The United States universities and their supporters see to it that our best men are being retained in the United States. They do not return to Canada.
We must find more money in Canada for the increase of salaries to the end that we may attract to and retain on our teaching staffs of the colleges and universities the best in intellect, the best in curiosity and the best in character. The third requirement is not deliberately put there in a tertiary position.

There is more money needed in this regard. A university that I know quite well

the University of Toronto-has an annual budget of $18 million; and between 70 and 80 per cent of its annual expenditures are devoted to the payment of the teachers, the academic staff and those who assist them in making it possible for the teachers and the investigators to carry on their work. Here, of course, I come back to the point I endeavoured to make in the first place, the need for the development, training and production of more physical and biological scientists. We heard something about that subject at the last NATO meeting. I would be a bit sceptical about a supranational body endeavouring to direct the research of gifted men and women in the various countries which adhere to the principles of the United Nations. You cannot direct, you cannot manage fundamental investigators in that way. So it comes back upon the nations themselves to support research in that fundamental field.
I agree with and I heartily endorse the observations made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar with respect to the need for developing fundamental research. He was not far from the mark-and I say this with respect-in his remarks concerning the growing need for scientists, quite apart from war purposes. I did attend the St. Andrews conference held in New Brunswick in September 1956 when it was told that to maintain our industry in Canada-and I am just speaking of our industries now-we will need by 1970 at least three times as many engineers as are now being turned out.
There is another facet of this educational problem as it relates to the universities at the present time. To take last year, 1956 to 1957, about 70,000 students were in our Canadian colleges and universities proceeding to degrees or diplomas; that is to say fulltime students. In any projection I have ever seen with regard to students, having regard to the growth of birth rates, it has been indicated that by 1965 there will be twice as many students, 140,000 to 150,000, knocking at the doors of our colleges and universities. Those figures are in the same percentage of our population age groups of 18 to 22 years or 17 to 21 years.
This represents a great burden which will be thrown on our Canadian colleges and universities and if Canada is going to maintain its place as an industrial nation, a nation with a growing culture and, I say this advisedly, as a country which has a recognition of spiritual values, then Canadian colleges and universities must be supported in order that they may handle this greater number of students.

I do not recall, Mr. Speaker, the particular context of the observation which the hon. member for Port Arthur attributes to me. I do not remember ever having said that our student population in our Canadian colleges and universities, in relation to the total age group of 17 to 21 years or 18 to 22 years, could never be more than 11 per cent. Last year it was about 10 per cent. What I have endeavoured to say, and it was not said in any mood of academic snobbishness, and what I repeat at this time is that we should not attempt to admit to colleges and universities those men and women who have not the capacity to pursue the work in the field of higher education. That is the only test. When I say "capacity" I do not have in mind that they should all be grade A students. I have seen grade B students, class 2 students, graduate from university and do better than some of their colleagues and classmates who were regarded as abler because they got the highest marks in the class. But that is not a universal truth.
It happened in the United States army during the last world war that certain tests were given to the men in the ranks. It was ascertained by those tests-and I am not going to accept this qualification-that about 25 per cent of the recruits were qualified to go on for work in the field of systematic education. I have never discovered that large number, but if we can find them we must, having regard to the welfare of Canada and its progress in the future, use the brains we can get and if there are 25 per cent we must make it possible for that 25 per cent to carry on their studies. That will not be possible, however, unless we provide scholarships and fellowships.
I am not one who suggests that anyone who comes from a home which can provide finances for a three, four, five or six year course should be classified immediately as a person not qualified for university work. That is not true, but I have in mind the picture painted to us by the hon. member for Port Arthur that many young men and women, remote from college and university centres, are being deprived of the opportunity to attend university. Some of us in this house have experienced difficulties in that regard.
We need to provide ladders of opportunity, not ladders of opportunity for every young man and woman who desires to go to university, but we should have very careful selection methods for choosing students who are admitted bearing in mind their capacity to benefit from higher education. We need a better type of selection and then, when we do select the students on a more
Federal Aid to Education promising basis, we come back to the point raised, that we should provide scholarships for them.
Brains are one thing that we need in our students in colleges and universities, but coupled with brains I think we should have stamina. I can really describe it in another way as moral fibre. How you can ascertain the possession of moral fibre by a young person is very difficult to establish but we must not look only for gifted young men and women. We must also see in them those gifts, talents or qualities of character that will make the investment in them by society much more worth while.
The teachers are the most important. They are the very essence of an educational enterprise, but in the field of science, for example, and even in the fields of humanities and social sciences you must provide them with the tools they need to do the job. In the case of the sciences, you must provide laboratories; in the case of humanities and social sciences you must provide libraries. We cannot expect Canadian universities to attract the men and women of the calibre required under the present circumstances, or to retain them on the staffs. There is a need for higher salaries, a need for scholarships on a more satisfactory basis of selection, and the need to provide laboratories and libraries.
No university in Canada is sufficiently endowed in this regard. Need should be communicated not only to the federal government but to provincial governments. I feel we should expect and demand more from private donors, whether or not they are alumni, and that we should expect much more from corporate donors. Just think what industry and commerce have received from the universities in the way of trained personnel, whether technical or scientific, or staff at managerial level. We find corporations investing millions of dollars in plant and equipment and never being too much concerned about the amount of their investment provided they feel it will eventually yield a dividend. Well, it costs the university in the field of engineering-one that I know-about $1,600 a year for each student, and the student pays about $450. The universities are thereby providing $1,200 for each man's training. Therefore, I come back to the statement that the corporate donors who are receiving such benefits from our colleges and universities should contribute toward that over-all cost. It sounds rather cold and calculating, and it does not have any human aspect to it, when I say they should invest in the future of these people even if only on the low ground of providing necessary equipment as part of their operating costs and as part of their capital investment.

Federal Aid to Education
I fear that unless the colleges and universities of Canada receive greater support there will have to be limitations in enrolment and I think the colleges and universities will be justified in taking such a step on the basis of academic honesty. To take into a crowded lecture room about 400 students and to lecture to them in segregated conditions and not provide for them any opportunity for communication between staff and students or between students and staff would be to defraud the students. In terms of academic institutions they should not go beyond the point of an academic contribution to the development of our young people-I hesitated there for a moment; I was going to say "academic efficiency" but I do not like using those words in this context. We will in Canada be faced with the problem that is posed here. I regret, and I may say I regret it having regard to my past career, that I must vote against this motion.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Sidney Earle Smith: It is a
vote of want of confidence having regard to the character of our parliamentary proceedings, and I regret that this government has not had a longer opportunity to study this crisis-I admit the term "crisis"-in education. But I can assure the house that it has already begun to study this very serious problem. This amendment has taken one whole afternoon to discuss. If we could have gone into supply we would have been nearer the solution to this serious problem as far as the dominion government is concerned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question? Is the minister aware of the fact that in 1955 when his leader moved an amendment for a motion to go into supply concerning the South Saskatchewan dam, both he and Mr. Drew suggested that if the government was really interested in the matter it could arrange for a free vote? Would it not be possible for the government to permit a free vote on this particular motion, if the government is really interested?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin the few observations I intend to make on this amendment moved by the hon. member for

Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) by saying, -I am sure the hon. gentleman will not regard it as disrespect-as one egghead to another, how thoroughly I agree with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) in his plea for more liberal education. There can never be too much liberal education.
I should like also to say how pleased we all were in this part of the house to hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) praise the work that had been done over the years by his great predecessor in the development of the national research council. It is very interesting to find how different hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches sound today from the way they sounded the last time a motion in what I think were almost identical terms was brought up in this house.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce said this motion was embarrassing to the government. We recognize that it is embarrassing to the government. I am very glad to say it causes not the slightest embarrassment to me. As did Mr. Garson on several occasions when we were on the other side of the house, I spoke in opposition to motions in almost exactly the same terms moved by Mr. Knight, the former member for Saskatoon, and I have no different tune on this side of the house from what I had on the other side. Perhaps hon. gentlemen opposite are now out of tune or perhaps they are now in tune. I leave it to them to explain to the public but we have witnessed, sir, on two successive days in this house the extraordinary spectacle, first of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) swallowing his leader yesterday and the Minister of Trade and Commerce doing the same thing today. I am very proud that I belong to a party which has the same kind of doctrine on both sides of the house.
I am quite sure that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would be the first member of this house to admit that in the last few years nothing that has been done to support university education was greater than what was done under the leadership of my right hon. friend, the former prime minister, in establishing university grants, and if I had time I would like to read what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said on that subject when he was speaking in another capacity, but under the new rules under which we operate, when one minister speaks after another, my time is severely limited this evening.


An hon. Member:: Are you rehearsing for next week?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; I think I need no rehearsing. I might say that there is nothing which I can say which will be more eloquent

of the support for scientific research than the words read by the Minister of Trade and Commerce about the work of the research council under his great predecessor, Mr. Howe.
I would also remind hon. gentlemen in all parts of the house that in this year's appropriations, by the Liberal administration not by the present administration, $50 million was included for the purpose of assisting in the building of universities in this country and another $50 million was appropriated, the income from which is being used for the support of the very kind of scholarships for which the Secretary of State for External Affairs made his plea today, when appealing for more liberal education.
The reason I am opposing this motion is that it asks us, as previous motions moved by the former member for Saskatoon did, to consider the advisability of appropriating funds collected from the taxpayers of Canada generally by the federal government and handing them over to the provincial treasurers to be earmarked to be spent on education. No matter how many saving words may be put into such a motion, the plain fact is that if we earmark those funds exclusively for education and hand them over to the provincial treasurers it is, in fact, an invasion of a provincial field. It is altogether different in character from assisting universities directly by grants or students by scholarships and things of that sort. We are saying to the provincial treasurers: here is so much money; you can have it only if you spend it in such and such a way. I think the right way to deal with this problem is the way the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) recommended it should be dealt with during the election campaign at Three Rivers. Here is what the right hon. gentleman said on June 4.


Some hon. Members:: The red book.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This volume is published by the national Liberal federation and I think hon. gentlemen opposite know what is in it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It brought about your ruin.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is an extract from a newspaper which I do not think hon. gentlemen opposite will call into question. It is the Montreal Gazette of June 5. This is what the right hon. gentleman is reported to have said and it is in quotation marks:
The Conservative party will restore the true meaning of the British North America Act-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Federal Aid to Education


John Whitney Pickersgill: Wait.
-which guarantees the provinces freedom to carry out various spheres of activity allotted them under the constitution.
This is good Liberal doctrine. The second paragraph reads:
We will not only make sure that the constitution is respected but we will also make sure that the provinces and the municipalities have sufficient money to do the job they are supposed to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Also, I might say, pure Liberal doctrine.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Listen to this:
Having the power to do a certain job does not mean very much if you haven't got the financial means to implement these powers.
Over and over again the present Prime Minister promised-I could find dozens of examples of his promises in this book-that immediately after the election he would call a federal-provincial conference to do these things. He did not call it for five months, and now he makes the feeble excuse that he cannot call it again because hon. members in the opposition exercise the right given to them by their constituents to speak in this parliament. We in this party might perhaps have been embarrassed if the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar had framed his motion quite differently and I am not going to suggest how. I speak only for myself when I say that it does not cause me the slightest embarrassment to oppose this motion for precisely the reasons given by the Prime Minister at Three Rivers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are
you one of his followers?	.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like to add just one other thing. Before hon. gentlemen opposite boast very much about what they have done in this field of putting the provinces in a financial position to carry out their functions let me remind them that just before coming into the house I looked up Mr. Ilsley's budget speech in 1946, and I found that in the year 1944-45 the provinces were receiving as their share out of the three principal direct taxes $82 million and under Mr. Harris' equalization scheme they will have received over $630 million this year. That, sir, if we are to assist the provinces to carry out their functions, is the right way to do it, namely by those equalization payments which we cannot get hon. gentlemen opposite to say they will carry forward in any increases they make in payments to the provinces.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement in regard to the amendment which is

Federal Aid to Education before us. That is all I have time to do. First, I want to apologize to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) for what may be interpreted as a discourtesy to him. I had to leave while he was speaking in order to keep another appointment that had been made before I knew this motion was being moved. I certainly meant no discourtesy and I would have liked to stay to hear what he had to say.
I have expressed myself on various occasions, Mr. Speaker, with regard to federal aid to education and our position as a party in the house is well known. We have supported the idea over many years and with the principle of greater aid to education in the provinces we are still in agreement. However, there is something further that ought to be included in considering this matter. There are many people in Canada today who are not certain that they want further aid to education from the federal government for the reason that they fear that along with increased grants in aid of education from the federal government will come a greater demand for federal interference in what are considered to be purely provincial affairs. I respect that attitude on their part, although I have always said that I do not think it is necessary that the two things should go hand in hand at all.
I am quite certain that means can be found to provide further assistance from the federal government to education in the provinces without carrying with it any interference on the part of the federal government in purely provincial affairs. Until such time as we can get the people of the country in pretty full agreement on the matter it would seem to me that it would not be wise to try to press it too fast.
What will be our stand on the amendment? I feel, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a proper matter on which to call for a vote of want of confidence in the government. I should like to see greater aid to education but I do believe that that aid can be made available by a fairer division of the revenue dollars amongst the governments of Canada. Inasmuch as the federal government has already called a dominion-provincial conference and the matter of increased revenues for the provinces is under consideration, it does seem to me that it is premature to bring about a vote of want of confidence in the government on the basis of calling for increased aid to education.
I want to see more money made available for education in this country. Greater amounts have to be channelled into the field of education if we are going to do the job that is demanded of us. That is quite true.

I want to see the very best people encouraged to get into the field of education to be leaders and teachers but that can only be done if we see that they are properly paid. But, Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that we can get money into the field of education by the means that have been chosen and for that reason and the reason I have already given, that the matter is under study now as to how we can arrange a better division of the revenue dollars amongst the governments of Canada, I do not propose to support the amendment that has been moved.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys has advised me that he asks leave of the house to make a short statement which he did not feel he could make during business hours this afternoon. Has the minister leave to revert to motions for the purpose of making a brief statement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE


Hon. Paul Comlois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement concerning the assistance to gold mining in Canada. The Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act will 96698-188J
Gold Mining Assistance expire on December 31 next. Requests have been received from the gold mining industry and labour groups for an increased subsidy and for an extension of the act beyond 1958.
Following a study of the existing conditions in the gold mines and their dependent communities, it is the intention of this government to introduce at the next session of parliament a bill amending the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act to provide for a two-year extension to the act. The other matters are still under study.


Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to be allowed to make a few remarks on this matter. The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois) in making his statement tonight followed the same procedure as that which was followed in 1955 by the previous minister of mines and technical surveys, and I recall that on that evening in 1955 the procedure followed then was criticized. Tonight it is not my intention to protest against this way of making this statement. However, I will point out that I am disappointed and I know that the people interested in gold mining will be disappointed. The miners will be disappointed and the people living in mining communities will also be very much disappointed when they learn that the minister, although he has announced that the act will be extended, did not state tonight the manner in which the act will be amended. Of course, this matter is postponed until the next session. We do not know when the next session will take place. It may take place after an extremely important event which is supposed to take place any time now. The people in my constituency and those in many of the other constituencies in Canada will certainly be greatly disappointed to learn that the minister did not take the trouble to tell us tonight what will be the nature of the amendment to the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.

The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming for committee of supply.



RELATIONSHIPS WITH UNITED STATES AND UNITED KINGDOM

Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take advantage of this motion to bring to the attention of the house some questions which are, I think, of interest to all members and to the country. I refer to matters concerning trade and the effect of some aspects of this trade question on another matter which is of even greater concern to the house and to the country,

Trade Relations
namely unemployment. Of course, in the time which will be available to me I shall be able to deal with only certain phases of this trade problem and others I shall be obliged to omit. But there is one aspect of the problem which is perhaps central to the whole consideration of it, and that is our relationship with tKe United States of America.
My view on that relationship, both political and economic, is exactly the same as it was when I was sitting on the other side of the house. There can be no more important political or economic relationship for Canada than that which we have with our neighbour; and there can be nothing of greater importance not only to Canada but to the world than that the United States-which because of its power is bound to be the leader of the free world-should give that leadership which is required, both politically and economically. In that leadership, Mr. Speaker, no country has more at stake than has ours.
As has been said by members of this party, and indeed by members of other parties over the years, while we accept that leadership, it must be on a basis of partnership. We are all the happier to accept that leadership in the political sphere when it is given with imagination, determination and wisdom. We welcome and we look for that kind of leadership. When we feel that perhaps it is not being given Canadians are-as my friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) pointed out the other day, I think at Windsor-in a particular position or advantage to remind our friends and neighbours of the necessity for that kind of leadership. But this leadership has also its economic as well as its political aspects and certain actions of the United States government which are very much in our minds cannot help but be contrasted by us with United States words in Paris and in Washington. That contrast is bound to arouse our anxiety.
Take for instance defence-


An hon. Member:: What is the difference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is a pretty serious subject, Mr. Speaker, and I think my hon. friends opposite might at least listen to it seriously. I forgive however, the exuberance which often descends upon them at this time of the evening.
Take the defence aspect of this economic co-operation. We have been discussing in this house in recent days the necessity for treating defence on a continental basis. My hon. friend the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) had some things to say on that subject the other day and we all agree that in this aspect of defence-the military and

strategic aspect-it must be treated on a continental basis and that there must be the closest co-operation between the two countries. Perhaps indeed that co-operation should, in certain circumstances, extend to integration. But the economic aspects of defence so far as Canada is concerned at times seem to be treated by our neighbours to the south-by the United States-on a purely national basis. I suggest that it is going to be increasingly difficult to deal with defence in its military aspects, continentally and in its economic aspects, nationally.
We have a very good example of this position in NORAD. As contrasted with the United States emphasis, and it is quite proper emphasis, on the building up of NORAD on a continental basis; in contrast with that emphasis, there is United States national action taken in the field of oil imports into that country from Canada. I suppose in NORAD the planes under that command will operate under a joint continental command but the gas used by those planes, if they are United States planes, will be United States gas only; if commercial considerations seem to make that necessary. There is a pretty startling contrast between United States economic and strategic approaches in this respect.
It is going to be difficult to deal with our defence strategy on a joint basis and to develop our resources for defence on a national basis. I think this is something which should secure the preoccupation and attention of those in positions of responsibility, not only in this country but more particularly in Washington.
When in years gone by the United States took steps to interfere with our exports to that country in a way which we thought was unjustified, and perhaps at times almost irresponsible, we were urged by my hon. friends opposite when they were over here to stand up to the United States. When we mentioned, as we often did mention, the notes of protest which were sent to Washington on occasions like these a good deal of scorn used to be poured on those notes and it was said that all we did was to write notes and we were asked why did we not take action, retaliatory action.
I remember the eloquent invective that used to be hurled at us on such occasions, but what has happened in the last six months with respect to economic relationships with the United States? We know what has happened. Almost on the morrow of the election statements were made, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in particular, regarding a contrived diversion of trade from

the United States to the United Kingdom and commonwealth markets. The Prime Minister made a statement which caused a good deal of interest and a good deal of excitement at that time. If I may lapse into the metaphor of baseball he threw a fast ball-a high hard one-which was immediately knocked over the fence by the United Kingdom through its late chancellor of the exchequer when he made his free trade proposal. Nothing much has been done about these free trade proposals and I may have something to say on that subject a little later.
However, the statement and the attitude of the government in regard to the removal of trade from the United States to the United Kingdom were not, I am sure, overlooked in Washington and perhaps may have had a greater effect on the attitude of the administration towards Canadian economic problems than we would like to think. Be that as it may, the government attempted to recover from this free trade knockout by sending a mission to Washington which, as I have already stated in this house, consisted of the four members of the cabinet who were described by one organ of the press as the power hitters of the administration. We know what happened to that mission.
We got a very comforting statement in the house a few months ago about the effect of the mission. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), and I am sorry that he is not able to be in his seat tonight, gave us to understand in the house and certainly in the communique which was issued upon their return from Washington that this time something really had been accomplished, that they had now secured a commitment from the United States administration which would be a great help in our trade relationships in the future.
What has happened since that time? As was pointed out in the house the other day, the United States secretary of agriculture is about to appear before congress which will be convened in Washington today with a request for a very large additional sum of money to encourage United States agricultural exports. When that was mentioned in the house the other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill)-his comforting words were re-echoed this afternoon by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith)-indicated that he did not think this additional sum to help the United States dispose of their surplus food products was going to harm us very much. We will see about that.
Only the other day, and this has been referred to many times since, the United States administration put on its 15 per cent restriction or, if you like 15 per cent diversion, of
Trade Relations
Canadian oil imports from Canada to domestic producers. In that regard it is perhaps interesting to recall that in 1956, while we exported $106 million worth of oil products to the United States, we imported $270 million of oil products into this country. Consideration might be given to that unbalance when the government is wondering what could be done about the 15 per cent restriction.
When I mentioned this matter the other day in a question addressed to the Minister of Finance I asked him if he realized-I am not quoting exactly my words-that twice in recent years the administration in Washington had taken action to restrict imports of oil into that country and that on both occasions Canadian imports were excluded by agreement from that restriction as a result of our diplomatic representations, formal and informal, in Washington. On this occasion, however, the action was taken in such a form that our oil was included with the oil from other countries which was to be restricted.
While that is a depressing indication of the lack of success of the diplomatic methods of the present administration in its dealings with Washington there is a real danger of further and even more serious action being taken against our exports. I suggest, and I think it is fair to suggest this, that the talk here in government circles-the official talk and unofficial talk of diversions from the United States to the United Kingdom, desirable as that diversion may be in principle to correct the imbalance of our trade-of that, and especially the 15 per cent proposal, is giving ammunition to those people in Washington and out of Washington in the United States who are contemplating in their own interests further action against Canadian imports. It is quite easy to realize what they will say when they go to Washington in their pressure groups-"The Canadians are looking after themselves, they are arranging to take away our exports to Canada. All right, surely we are not going to be so tender about their exports to this country". Perhaps before long-and I hope it will not happen-there may be action taken down there which will be very dangerous to our trade in base metals and fish products, and if that action does take place-


An hon. Member:: I bet you hope it does.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a very unworthy observation. No member of this house, unless he is inspired by the lowest partisan considerations, is going to take any satisfaction from any action, whether on the part of the United States government or of another government, which interferes with our trade and our welfare. I am pointing out that as a result of the policy or lack of policy carried out by this

Trade Relations
government ammunition may have been given to those interests in the United States which in recent years have been trying to increase the protection of United States tariffs against certain Canadian exports to that country. This is not new, this proposed action, and I refer again to base metals and fish products. This has been before their tariff board before but it has been possible in the past to bring influence and friendly pressure to bear on the United States government to assist those down there in Washington who were opposed to this kind of action.
Now surely it is fair to say that if emphasis is placed by the present Canadian government upon proposals to take away trade from the United States and divert it to the United Kingdom it is going to be hard to keep at bay and in check those forces in Washington which if they are successful will bring about a greater interference with our exports than anything that has happened up to now with regard to base metals and fish products. If this does happen I do not for one moment say this government is directly responsible, but I think it is fair to say that the policy they have adopted and the attitude they have taken will make it more difficult to prevent such action and, therefore, they will have to take that measure of responsibility for the action if it occurs. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I hope the government's intervention will be successful and that the action will not be taken.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? What did he and his government do to right the adverse balance of trade between Canada and the United States.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a perfectly good question, Mr. Speaker, but I suggest to the leader of the house that the adverse balance would have been even greater if the United States government had not been able to resist the measures proposed to it to interfere with our exports of fish products and base metals to that country over the years. The balance of trade situation was bad, but it would have been far worse if we had adopted the attitude and policies which the hon. gentlemen are suggesting.


An hon. Member:: Let us take another crack at the ball.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have not been struck out yet.


An hon. Member:: Two strikes on you.


An hon. Member:: Foul ball.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If we can abandon just for a moment this baseball terminology, which I confess I introduced myself, I suggest also that this attitude of the present government, which

of course is not one on their part of any unfriendliness, deliberate or otherwise, toward the United States; this attitude of uncertainty, confusion and diversion of trade from the United States and the lack of knowledge as to where we stand in these trade matters is bound to have an adverse effect on investment in Canada from abroad. The figures prove- I do not need to labour the point-that investment from abroad and particularly from the United States and the United Kingdom is of great importance to our future development. We have heard a lot in this house in recent years about the political and economic dangers of United States financial penetration of this country, and indeed there are dangers attached to it. There is no doubt about that. But I suggest, also, that this investment from the United States in Canada in recent years has been an indication of the confidence of the people of the United States in the development of Canada as Canada and not as a satellite of the United States. If we had not had that kind of investment in recent years, not only would we have been in far greater difficulty than we were over our trade balance on the whole but the entire pattern and basis of our development would have been altered and would have been slower; and I do not know anybody in Canada who would now say we should have slowed down that development.
Therefore it is important to maintain this atmosphere of confidence in Canada which has had such a marked effect upon investment in Canada. We can and we must protect ourselves against pressure, political and economical, from foreign investment from any quarter, and the only quarter where those pressures are likely to be of importance is I admit, the United States. But I think we should be very foolish and very short-sighted if we in any way brought about an atmosphere which would discourage the participation of American investment in the future development of this country. If we did it would slow down development, and the slowing down of development would mean the speeding up of unemployment.
The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) has mentioned the imbalance in our trade. Over the years we are bound to recognize that this has become a problem. It would be foolish to underestimate the seriousness of that problem. It would also be foolish to exaggerate its dangers and its significance in recent years at a time of great capital development and expansion in this country, an expansion which could not have taken place without the import of capital which, in effect, covered that imbalance in visible trade. We ought to be accustomed in

this country to imports and exports not balancing. They have never balanced since confederation. I have been reading, as no doubt some other hon. members have been reading- I am sure members of the C.C.F. party have read it-a very interesting pamphlet put out by the labour research department of the Canadian Labour Congress, the editor of which is Dr. Forsey, a man not notable for his excess of friendliness toward the Liberal party. On the question of unbalanced trade and how did we pay for this imbalance, this gap between our exports and our imports, he said:
We didn't. We borrowed. Canadian individuals, businesses and governments bought a whacking lot of goods and services on credit. We borrowed, of course, mainly from the Americans, because they have the most money, because they are the nearest, because they know the most about the possibilities of profitable investment here, and because they provide the biggest effective demand for the things we can produce by developing our new resources.
And incidentally, when we develop those new resources, as we are, from funds supplied in part from outside our country we are by that fact increasing our exports to those countries from which we got the money in the first place. Dr. Forsey goes on:
Borrowing on such a scale (almost $3 billion in the last four years) makes a lot of Canadians very uneasy, to say the least. Surely it's not healthy to go into debt like this?
The first answer to that question is that we have done it before, and survived.
The second, and main, answer is that the healthiness or otherwise of borrowing depends on what you do with the money. The spendthrift borrowing for a lost weekend is one thing: the businessman with a solidly based business borrowing to expand that business is another and very different thing.
And that is what we have been doing in this country in recent years. Then, he says:
There can be little doubt that Canada is the businessman rather than the spendthrift. We are borrowing to develop our resources. They are rich resources, and there is every prospect that most of the developments will pay handsomely.
No doubt it would be better if we could do the developing ourselves, without having to borrow. Then we should not have to pay interest or dividends or repay principal to external investors. But the plain fact is that, unless we are prepared to slow down our development, or finance it all ourselves, we cannot get along without large borrowings from the United States.
Are we prepared to slow down our development? It would be interesting to find anyone who would say yes.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the proper policy to follow in these matters is not to create an atmosphere which will restrict trade or restrict investment but to create an atmosphere which will encourage investment and encourage expansion to all trade areas; not diversion but expansion. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there has
Trade Relations
seldom been a time in our history when trade expansion was more necessary than it is at this time of slackening and reduced employment. That this is occurring is undeniable. We know the figures for mid-November were 352,000 unemployed and I suppose they are higher now. Indeed a Conservative member of the provincial legislature in Toronto-I quote him because he will not be suspected of betraying the country or rocking the boat-has prophesied that before March we shall have 800,000 unemployed. I hope he is wrong.
When we mention this problem of unemployment in this house we are accused -we have been accused-of trying to create a panic and increase a problem which is already serious enough. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that reaction to our efforts to bring this problem to the house and to the country is an unworthy one, I only have to recall to hon. gentlemen opposite their own fulminations and their own doom and gloom speeches in 1954 and 1955 when the situation was not as bad as it is now.
If we call attention to this problem, this very human problem behind the statistics, and if we call attention to its relationship to trade, to expanding and not restricting trade, it is so that in this parliament we may be able the better to do something about it and to encourage the government to bold, resolute, imaginative and wise action. I, of course, admit, as all hon. members must admit, that they have done something. They have primed the pump; they have encouraged construction, and all these things are good as far as they go. But they have not gone far enough yet to meet the problem which is looming up ahead of us, and I suggest they will have to take bolder and more imaginative action than that before the winter is over. I suggest also that this problem of unemployment will be increased in this country if we are not given stable, wise, constructive economic and trade policies which will create that atmosphere of confidence at home and abroad which could be the basis for our future prosperity as well as that for dealing with our present difficulties. We will not do that, Mr. Speaker, if we talk about diversions and restrictions or if we talk about action to reduce foreign trade by keeping out foreign goods in the interests of domestic employment.
We have had periods of recession and depression in this country before and one which we are not likely to forget; but surely we must have learned from the experience of those days that that kind of restrictive,

Trade Relations
panicky protective, policy does not aid employment. In the long run it creates unemployment and I hope it will not be followed by this government.
May I suggest one area where perhaps there is a possibility for imaginative and bold action, the effect of which may not be felt immediately but would be felt before long, and that is our trade relationships with the West Indies, the new federation of which was born just the other day. I know that we in this country have done a great deal for undeveloped countries, perhaps not nearly as much as we should or could do; we have made a respectable contribution to what we call underdeveloped areas. We have such an area close to home, materially and economically underdeveloped, in the West Indies. Perhaps it would be worth considering whether we cannot tie that new part of the commonwealth, as it soon will become, more closely economically and financially, to our own country, Canada, by exploring the possibility of free trade between the West Indies and Canada, or a freer trade area, and by tying up our two currencies, which would encourage trade and transport between us. I throw that out as merely one suggestion.
As to what can be done so far as the free trade proposal of the United Kingdom is concerned, we do not know where we are in that matter at all. We have asked and asked and asked what progress, if any, has been made, what consideration has been given to it. We know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was in the United Kingdom for three weeks. We know that he saw the prime minister, the chancellor of the exchequer and the president of the board of trade. We know that he did not mention the British free trade proposal in those interviews because he said so. We know that the Prime Minister was in the United Kingdom and he met the United Kingdom leaders in Paris. He said he was not able to discuss this matter with them at the time. We know that the president of the board of trade is on this hemisphere at the present time but he is in Venezuela rather than in Ottawa. We know that the prime minister of the United Kingdom is going around the commonwealth at this moment but he is not coming to Ottawa to discuss the British free trade proposal. I suggest that one of the most astonishing things that has happened in the last six-months period in which my hon. friends have been in power is this proposal that the British made and the way in which it was made, which commanded so much attention. It died from that moment on so far as the Canadian government was concerned.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Are the hon. member and the Liberal party in favour of free trade with the United Kingdom?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a perfectly reasonable question, Mr. Speaker. I have been asked it before. What we are trying to do, of course, as an opposition, and as it is our duty to do, is to find out the policy of those who are responsible for these matters.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: But, Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad indeed to tell my hon. friends what I would have done in the matter. I would have announced at once that this is a far-reaching, imaginative and constructive proposal on the part of the United Kingdom government and one which seems to indicate the seriousness of their intention of getting closer economically to Canada, something which my hon. friends have often talked about, and I would have followed that up by saying that this proposal should be immediately and sympathetically considered in discussions between the two governments.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, but are you in favour of it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: And, Mr. Speaker-


Howard Charles Green: Why not answer the question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: -I think I would have gone a little further than that. I would have added, if I had been in a position of responsibility-


Howard Charles Green: Why not answer the question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: -that while it is very important indeed to work out bilateral relationships of that kind which increase trade between countries, and no country has more at stake in this matter than Canada, it is of even greater importance to expand this area of freer trade beyond two countries. I would have suggested that perhaps the British proposal could have been discussed within the context of Atlantic freer trade so that all this talk about economic interdependence in NATO might eventually result in some action towards economic interdependence. I trust that my hon. friend is completely satisfied now that if we had been in power we would have known how to deal with this matter,


Howard Charles Green: Why don't you answer the question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I suggest that the record is clear that this party throughout the years has stood for freer trade and has realized freer and expanding trade between Canada and other countries and that this party when in power has always attempted to avoid those restrictive trade practices which in the past

have done us harm when they have been put into effect by governments of the party of my hon. friends. I can assure my hon. friends opposite that that will be our policy in the future, freer and expanding trade between all free countries.


Mr. Speaker:: May I inquire whether any of the members who have risen are going to pursue the grievance which has been opened?


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is it?


Mr. Speaker:: I would describe it as a grievance relating to governmental trade policy with respect to the United States but it seems to me that unemployment was added to it. I would describe it as a trade grievance.


John George Diefenbaker: A glossary of gloom.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Dauphin.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, on the assumption that what the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) was talking about was chiefly trade, I should like to make a few brief observations in connection with what he had to say. He started by referring to the lack of information with regard to the proposal made by the British government to the Canadian government for a free trade area and also to the proposal made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) during the course of the election campaign for a diversion of 15 per cent of our trade with the United States to Great Britain. I think he scored at least one point when he pointed out quite effectively with respect to the question of diversion of trade from the United States to Great Britain that about all the government has been able to accomplish so far is to lose some trade with the United States without gaining any from Great Britain.
I fully expected to see the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill), the Prime Minister or some other responsible minister rise immediately to make a comprehensive statement on behalf of the government as to what, if anything, has transpired with relation to the proposal of Great Britain for a free trade area. That matter has become even more important since the original proposal was made due to the fact that a European common market is now in the process of being set up in which the United Kingdom apparently is going to play a part. We know that if we sit back and do not show any interest whatsoever in the proposal made by Great Britain to Canada the chances are that we will be the loser if that common market expands and absorbs a larger number of nations, as seems to be the prospect. I think the government certainly shpuld go so
Trade Relations
far at this time as to make some statement of policy with regard to the British proposal.
The hon. member for Algoma East has gone quite a distance today in showing his sympathy for the proposal. At one point I almost expected that he was going to come out in favour of it. However, he very skilfully stopped short of that and did not really lay the policy of his own party before the house. But I think the time has come when parliament and the country deserve to be told exactly what the plans of the government are with regard to trade with Great Britain. A Canadian trade mission went to Great Britain at considerable expense to the Canadian taxpayer. No doubt the members of the mission were very interested in what they saw and the discussions they had, but we are still waiting to hear of any practical results from that mission. We are still waiting to hear from the Minister of Trade and Commerce or any other member of the government as to what field of endeavour they covered and as to what the intentions of Canadian business people are so far as imports from Great Britain are concerned. We are waiting to hear what if any actual discussions were held with the government of Great Britain with regard to a trade agreement between our two countries. We are being left entirely in the dark.
Before this discussion is over I think that parliament and the people of Canada deserve a statement from the Prime Minister speaking on behalf of the government in order to clear up some of the doubts and misunderstandings which are developing over this question. I am not going to repeat at this time what I have had to say before on the subject of a free trade area. My views have been expressed in the house and I am prepared to stand by them. I think there are some very distinct advantages to be gained by Canada in accepting that proposal and if there have been any misunderstandings about the matter in my opinion it is due entirely to the fact that the government has failed to make its policies known and to place its views before parliament.
I think one misunderstanding has been created by the impression that has been left in the country that the acceptance of such a proposal would mean the complete wiping out immediately of all tariffs between the two countries, and from that point of view there are certain industries and certain groups which, of course, are apprehensive. As a matter of fact, that was not the proposal at all. The proposal was a most reasonable one. It was that we begin now to sit down around the table and try to find out how to extend the free list already in effect between the two countries. The proposal

Trade Relations
was that this should be done step by step over a period of years and that we should try to see how we could reduce trade barriers so as to make the exchange of goods between the United Kingdom and Canada flow more freely with the objective or the ideal, if you wish to call it that, that in the end over a period of 10, 15 or more years we will arrive at a position where the two nations can trade freely, which is the only natural state of affairs that should exist between such countries within the commonwealth as Great Britain and Canada.
In my opinion, what the government has been doing so far in that respect has been very disappointing. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), since he became the head of that department has been busily referring certain tariff items to the tariff board. Almost every second or third day we receive in the mail a new list of items which have been referred to the tariff board.
Many of these items are items which have to do with tariffs against British-made goods. We know from experience what that means. Any time the Minister of Finance refers a tariff item to the tariff board it is for but one purpose and that is to get a recommendation to justify increase in certain tariffs. The minister will argue that it could, in some instances, mean decreasing certain tariffs also. Theoretically he would be right. However, we know that over the period of the last 10 or 15 years any time the Minister of Finance has referred certain tariff items to the tariff board it has been for the purpose of getting a recommendation in order to justify an increase in these tariff items.
As a matter of fact it seems to me quite clear now that this government instead of moving in the direction of freer trade between Great Britain and Canada is actually moving in the direction of a more restricted trade policy. In other words, we have the very opposite of what the Prime Minister advocated during the election campaign. From that point of view, this whole question of the trade mission looks a little bit ridiculous. Here we are going to the trouble and expense of sending a group of people over to the United Kingdom to induce the producers of manufactured articles in that country to find a market for their goods in Canada, creating the impression that we are willing and anxious to have their goods brought to Canada and exhibited to the Canadian consumer. On the other hand, the Minister of Finance is busily finding ways and means by which he can further restrict that trade, by which he can place higher trade barriers against the trade between the two countries. In other words, he is trying

to find the means by which he can stop British-made goods from being sold in Canada.
Surely it is time that the government made its policy known. If they are going to follow restrictive trade practices, if they feel they do not want British-made goods sold in Canada because they constitute competition for certain industries in which the government is interested or which they feel require protection, let them say so. Let them stop kidding the people of Canada. Let them stop kidding the people of the United Kingdom. If, on the other hand, they really mean business when they talk about freer trade between this country and the United Kingdom, let them take some practical steps to indicate that they really mean business. The first practical step could have been taken as early as last September or October, and that would have been to indicate they were interested in the British proposal for a free trade area; that they were prepared to sit down with representatives of the British government to try to find ways and means by which some tariff barriers between the two countries could be removed and in that way improve trade between the two countries. They could also make it quite clear that they are not going to do anything from now on to increase tariff barriers against British goods.
Until we see some indication of action on these questions, or at least get a statement of policy from the Prime Minister, then the only thing we can conclude is that the government is quite happy to continue tossing the ball back and forth with the official opposition while leaving the matter as it was before. I listened with great interest to the foreshadowed leader of the Liberal party, but I could not help but recall having heard those words before from former Liberal leaders in this country. We have heard exactly the same phraseology in the period between 1930 and 1935 when we had a Conservative administration in this country and which adopted the same trade restrictive psychology as seems to be evident now. When the Liberals came back into power they fiddled around with the tariff structure but left it pretty much in the same condition as they found it. In some cases they increased trade barriers instead of reducing them.
It is for these reasons we say, so far as this group is concerned, we believe that until the government is prepared to carry on our trade in a logical manner, until the government is prepared to set up export-import boards which would be for the purpose of exchanging goods and not for the purpose of making profits for private corporations; until

we are prepared to approach the whole question of trade from the point of view of the Canadian people rather than the welfare of a few individuals or a few corporations, we will never have a satisfactory system of trade relations with other countries. I think that eventually we will have to get away from this idea of competition. We will have to realize that today we are living in a world where we have to co-operate and improve our position in that fashion. If we continue to compete in the same way as each individual tries to exploit the other or one nation tries to exploit the other, if we follow that line then we will be getting deeper and deeper into trade barriers, trade restrictions and eventually into a world depression again.
Until the government of Canada is prepared to accept a rational and sensible system of trade relations through import-export boards then the least the people of Canada should expect from this government is some statement of policy on trade. I hope that before this debate is concluded we will hear from either the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Prime Minister as to what their attitude is with regard to this proposal of Great Britain for a free trade area; what their attitude is generally on the question of tariffs in so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, and as to what practical results have already been achieved or that they expect may be achieved as a result of this rather expensive trade mission that was sent to Great Britain and about which they have not given any detailed report whatever. In the absence of such a statement we shall have to assume the government has no policy or has the kind of policy they are anxious to hide until the next election is over.



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have a grievance I should like to bring to the attention of the house. It is a matter that concerns the Department of Agriculture, and I am sorry the minister is not in the house tonight. However, I understand that he is ill so I wish him a speedy recovery.
This matter concerns a number of people residing in what is known as the Bow river development project, who are under contract with the federal government. I should like to read into the record a letter that was sent to me and a copy of a plea that was sent last month to the Prime Minister (Mr. Dienfenbaker). The letter reads:
Dear Sir:
Enclosed you will find a copy of a letter that the Hays F.U.A. No. 1415 sent to Hon. Mr. Diefenbaker.
P.F.R.A.-Bow River Project We trust you will give us your full co-operation in seeing that our plea is acknowledged.
This letter was signed by 104 farmers in the area. I should like also to read that plea which was sent to the Prime Minister. It reads:
Dear Sir,
We the people of Hays, Alberta, wish to make a plea to you to make a thorough investigation of the Bow river project "Hays Area", as it is practically impossible for us to make a living on the small plots.
We are all people who have come from the unsuitable farming districts of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta or veterans. We have been placed on parcels of land consisting of approximately 120 acres, these units are just too small to make a reasonable living.
Some of us have been here since 1952 and not one of us to this day have a land deed, even though the P.F.R.A. took our land in trade which land was clear of all debts.
Some of us who had no land to trade in have been on the rental basis, and none of the crop share has been deducted from the principal, as we were promised verbally when first interviewed. It has come to the stage now that we cannot carry on our operations any longer, with our present rate of income from these small units.
We are not allowed to rent a neighbour's parcel should he be forced to go working for wages, because he can not make ends meet on his unit of land.
Should some of us be able to get money enough to buy our neighbour's unit, he cannot sell because he does not hold any deed, nothing even giving him permission to have buildings on the places.
We trust you will get in touch with your minister of agriculture and mend the mistakes the former minister of agriculture made in establishing this irrigation project, or the majority of we farmers will have to turn to social welfare, which in this day and age is a shame.
In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that before you can resolve a problem you must first of all recognize that a problem exists. I took this matter up on the orders of the day. As reported at page 2650 of Hansard I asked the acting prime minister-because the Prime Minister was away in Paris at the time- whether he had looked into the matter. He referred me to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) who, he said, would deal with the question. Here is the reply that I received at that time.	I am quoting the
minister as reported at page 2650 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I have not the particular petition referred to. I will be glad to look into the matter when and if I receive it. However, I think the matter referred to is one which was contained in a long letter addressed to the Prime Minister and forwarded to me containing numerous but confused complaints with regard to the difficulty of a certain family group of Hays. I might say that those complaints were investigated by the local of the Alberta farm union at Hays, and the local did not seem to think there was very much in them.
I may say that I was in the Hays area during the Christmas recess and I found that it is not a family problem. It is a problem that concerns every one of the farmers who are settled in that area. I went to
2974	HOUSE OF
Unemployment-Magdalen Islands see the secretary and the president of the local farmer's union and they were surprised to learn that they were supposed to have investigated this matter. They had not heard anything along that line at all. They knew that they had sent the request to the Prime Minister but they had never been asked to investigate the matter.
I realize that when the P.F.R.A. took over the existing irrigation district in that area it was necessary because it had deteriorated and renovation was necessary. I realize also that when they were renovating it they expanded it to a certain degree. I think this was also a proper thing to do, in view of the fact that they were going to do the work, and there were several hundred thousand additional acres that could be brought under the ditch when renovation was done on that scale. I agree also that possibly the setting up of the contour farms, in size from 90 acres to 120 acres or approximately that size, was a proper thing to do but I think it is also essential that we realize that these farms were designed for irrigated crops. They were designed for those specialized crops that can be grown under irrigation but they are not economic units if they are to be used for growing wheat, oats and other grains in competition with dry land areas. There are several reasons why that is true. One is that there is not sufficient production of that kind of crop, and under the present quota system these small units do not allow each farmer sufficient income to make a living.
I hope the day will come soon when this land, that has been put under the ditch can be used properly for the growing of crops that are particularly adapted to irrigated farming. Those crops I suggest are sugar beets, various vegetable crops and other specialized crops where there is a high dollar return per acre.
I do not wish to go into that matter at length now. However, I should like to ask the government review the economics of these small units in view of the recent advances in the mechanization of agriculture and the tendency toward larger farm units. I would also ask the government to give immediate consideration to two things that would alleviate the situation until such time as this land can be used properly. First of all, I think the government should consider allowing temporary absence from these farms of those farmers who would like to do something else where they can make a living, get a job for wages and so on, and thereby allowing their neighbour to rent their unit while they have to grow these crops which, as I suggest, are not adaptable. Then also I think the government should give these people now-not some time later-a reasonable clear-cut


contract so that they will know where they stand. They do not have this contract at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a plea for any subsidy or anything of that nature. It is simply an attempt to get the government to realize that unless the government is prepared to give recognition to this situation these people are going to be on relief. If they would allow temporary absence and give the farmers that stay on the land a clear-cut contract to their land so that they know where they stand then I think possibly they can get along until general agricultural conditions improve and reach a better level.
(Translation):



UNEMPLOYMENT AT MAGDALEN ISLANDS

Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Mr. Speaker, on behalf on the electors of the Magdalen islands, I wish to give my full support to the remarks made by the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson). It is quite important for us that the Canadian external trade with the United States should continue, as far as the exports of our fish products are concerned.
A few years ago, the United States tariff commission recommended an embargo or higher tariffs on the imports into the United States of Canadian fish products, and only the veto of President Eisenhower saved us from such an action which would have been disastrous for all the fishermen of eastern Canada and in particular for those of the Magdalen islands.
Indeed we export' to the United States a great quantity of lobster, of frozen cod fillets, and of fish meal and oil. The export of all these products is essential to the economic welfare of the Magdalen islands and, if the steps taken by this government or by any other Canadian government should have harmful effects on the good work of our American friends who protect us in circumstances similar to those I have just mentioned, I say, Mr. Speaker, that such an action from the Canadian government would be absolutely disastrous for the Magdalen islands.
That is why I fully agree with the hon. member for Algoma East when he says that what Canada needs, as far as trade is concerned, is the expansion and not the diversion of her trade from one friendly country to another.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Algoma East has also dealt with a question which is of interest to the Magdalen islands as much as to the whole of Canada, that is the unemployment situation. So the grievance which I wish to express to the house and to bring to the attention of the government

Edmonton Public Building-Parking
concerns the unemployment problem in the Magdalen islands which must be checked without delay. The most populous and the most industrialized of the Magdalen islands . . .
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order, if the hon. member would recognize that there are several members who would like to speak and there is very little time available, perhaps he would refrain from opening up a second subject.
(Translation):


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make a long speech and I am dealing with the same matter as the hon. member for Algoma East-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) spoke on the subject of trade rather than of unemployment.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Also unemployment.
(Translation):
That is what I am saying, Mr. Speaker. I am speaking about unemployment and "chomage" in French means unemployment. I am speaking about unemployment and I say that, to remedy unemployment more public works should be carried out in the Magdalen islands. The grievance which I am expressing in this house is one of great importance to the Magdalen islands.
The main wharf of Cap-aux-Meules island was damaged by a storm last fall and it is very important that it be repaired before the opening of navigation. On this point, I should like to make two suggestions. I suggest first that the steel should be obtained for the pilings and then that tenders be called in advance so that the contract be awarded and the wharf repaired as soon as navigation opens.
Then, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this grievance has to do with unemployment because, through repairs to the wharf, jobs will be given to unemployed people, and thus the unemployment which we all deplore will be spared those people.
Before concluding these remarks, I would like to submit to the government and more particularly to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) a list of works whose implementation would help relieve unemployment in the Magdalen islands.
The landing strip at the Havre-aux-Maisons airfield should be completed. The wharf at Cap-aux-Meules should be repaired. The port at Baie-aux-Huitres should be developed. The port at Dune-du-Sud should be repaired. The runway at the airfield at Havre-Aubert should be improved, enlarged
and lengthened. The port at Havre-Aubert should be improved, as well as the fishing ports of Etang-des-Caps and Etang-du-Nord, by the construction of a new breakwater on the west side. There should also be constructed a breakwater at Millerand which would also serve the adjoining communities, more particularly l'Anse-a-la-Cabane and l'Anse-Lebel. Improvements should also be made to the harbours at Havre-aux-Maisons and Pointe Basse.
These are a number of suggestions which I put to the government and which would help relieve unemployment. I hope that the government will give them sympathetic consideration and will give the necessary instructions so that these various public works can be carried out as soon as possible.
(Text):



PUBLIC BUILDING, EDMONTON  PARKING FACILITIES

Mr. S. H. S. Thompson (Edmonion-Siraihcona):: Mr. Speaker, I believe we are expecting a knock at the door but if there is time I would certainly like to bring my grievance before you. It has to do with several interrelated problems surrounding the new federal building in Edmonton. I believe everyone would agree that this is one of the finest federal buildings in Canada and certainly the most modern.
Since time is very limited I think I had better deal with one problem in particular, especially since the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) is here. That problem has to do with the small amount of parking space in relation to the size of the building. For a $6,300,000 building, housing practically every department of federal operations in that area, we have parking facilities for 130 cars which will not be nearly enough for the staff alone. In addition to that, there is absolutely no room for expansion and I understand that all the departments are not going to be able to find their way into the building as they first expected.
This, of course, leaves no room at all for landscaping of any kind which is certainly a pity in view of the style of the building. I understand that immediately to the south and in the same block as the federal building land is available. In fact a development permit has been given for an office building in that, area and the developers, I believe, feel that they would now like to perhaps get out from under. They might be interested in trading the federal government some of that land for some of the property which the federal government will be vacating in the near future when it moves into the new building.
It would seem to me absolutely essentia] both from the parking standpoint and from

The Royal Assent
the point of view of future increase in the size of building which may be anticipated that this land be procured immediately.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:



DEPARTMENT OP NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
297. Departmental administration, $637,817.

[Stage Direction]
353. General administration, $6,927,301.

[Stage Direction]
435. Departmental administration, $1,937,680.
Proceedings reported.

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask what the business will be tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.


Howard Charles Green: The business for tomorrow will be as announced last night. First, No. 9 on today's order paper, the Beechwood resolution; then No. 11, with respect to Atlantic power; then No. 2, annual vacations with pay; then No. 4, with respect to the income tax agreement between Canada and Australia; then No. 3, a bill respecting the boundary between Alberta and the Northwest Territories; No. 6, second reading of the bill amending the Criminal Code; and No. 8, a resolution concerning an amendment to the Northwest Territories Act.


Lionel Chevrier: Could the house leader indicate what other business will be taken up after tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not able to do so but I will let the representatives of the parties know as soon as I can.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And having returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deupty Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act for the relief of Pierre Rothe.
An act for the relief of Vasyl Dudka.
An act for the relief of John Francis Bernard Deegan.
An act for the relief of Jean Guy Joseph Desparois.
An act for the relief of John Howard Cooper Thompson.
An act for the relief of Romeo Raymond.
An act for the relief of Annette Allard Huint.
An act for the relief of Vera Dziedzic Volkman.
An act for the relief of William Toulouse.
An act for the relief of Frances Maud Mercer Barter.
An act for the relief of Florence Bloomfield Cichella.
An act for the relief of Carmen Baron Matucha.
An act for the relief of Martine Rolland Badeaux.
An act for the relief of Gertrude Laurence Delisle Laplante.
An act for the relief of Viola Carmela Starnino
Dizazzo.
An act for the relief of Ludek Peter Rubina.
An act for the relief of Bernhard Wilhelm Michael.
An act for the relief of Paul-Emile Bedard.
An act for the relief of Michael Todascu.
An act for the relief of Iris Dorothy Birks Yates.
An act for the relief of Marion Gloria Ewart Balleine.
An act for the relief of Yvonne Florence Kee Brien, otherwise known as Yvonne Florence Kee Durocher.
An act for the relief of Christine Mary Mackay Leavitt.
An act for the relief of William Lucien Proulx.
An act for the relief of Lionel Houde.
An act for the relief of Gilberte Henriette Marie Harchoux Vuillaume.
An act for the relief of Catherine Maitland Moenting Johnstone.
An act for the relief of Maria Torossi Chartrand.
An act for the relief of Judith Sidney Browne Stein.
An act for the relief of Florence Wedge Whitlock.
An act for the relief of Jean-Baptiste Gagnon.
An act for the relief of Christine Silverson Manchur.
An act for the relief of Joseph Napoleon Leon Prosper Brault.
An act for the relief of Kaarlo Kustaa Loikkanen.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1958.
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on December 2, 1957.

Development of Camp and Picnic Areas


[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, January 2, 1958.
The Hon. W. A. C. Bennett Premier of British Columbia Victoria, B.C.
My dear Premier:
At the federal-provincial tourist conference that was held in Ottawa this past October there was a good deal of discussion on the possibilities of major developments being achieved over the next few years in the expansion of Canada's tourist industry. It was recognized that in most areas of the country expansion of tourist accommodation facilities of all kinds would have to be effected before any major increase in tourist traffic could be handled adequately.
One type of tourist accommodation which has rapidly increased in popularity over the past few years, and which would certainly have to be expanded to meet a major increase in tourist traffic, is camp ground-picnic area development. At the conference, all provinces demonstrated their interest in this form of development, whether it would be located along provincial highways or in provincial park areas. I indicated on behalf of the government of Canada the strong interest which the government has in the development of the tourist industry which already plays such an important part in our country's economy and which we are sure will play an increasingly important part in years to come. While I was not able at the conference itself to make any definite offers of federal assistance in connection with projects the provinces might wish to undertake, the whole problem has since been under most active consideration.
The government of Canada has now decided that it would be very much worth while to take an immediate step in the direction of some assistance as a practical experiment. The work involved in implementing the program would have particular value at the present time in providing added employment this winter in many different localities across Canada. I have therefore been authorized to offer on behalf of the federal government a program of assistance to the provincial governments on the following basis:
(1)	The federal government will reimburse the provincial governments for 50 per cent of provincial government expenditures
made on camp ground and picnic area developments between the date of this letter and May 31, 1958.
(2)	The offer applies only to developments on land owned or to be acquired by the provincial governments and constructed by or on behalf of provincial departments and agencies, with the understanding that the developments would continue to be owned by the province.
(3)	Subject to (2) above, the developments could be constructed anywhere in the province.
(4)	The offer is made on the basis that not less than 50 per cent of all expenditures are for payment of wages of persons employed on the work.
(5)	Auditing of provincial records or inspection of provincial works by federal representatives would not be a condition of reimbursement. Reimbursement would be made on receipt of a letter or statement from the provincial minister or ministers directly concerned giving the total of expenditures made within each of the prescribed periods and stating that the conditions set out in (2), (3) and (4) above had been met, and enclosing a list of the points where work was done and a very brief description of what had been accomplished at each point.
(6)	Reimbursement could be made on a monthly basis if desired by the province, on submission of an appropriate letter or statement as set out in (5) above to cover the expenditures made in the last complete month. For expenditures made prior to March 31, 1958, a covering letter or statement would have to be received by April 20, 1958, so that the federal contribution could be paid from 1957-58 funds. Covering statements for provincial expenditures in April and May could be submitted any time before June 30th.
(7)	Because of the limited time, it would not be proposed that formal agreements be entered into. This letter, together with a letter from a provincial premier accepting the offer and the conditions set out above would be regarded as the agreement. Immediate consideration will be given to placing before parliament a request for the provision of the funds that will be required for the federal share of the cost of the program.
2978	HOUSE OF
Development of Camp and Picnic Areas I am sorry that I have not been able to advise you of this program at an earlier date but I would hope that it will still be possible to organize and carry out a good deal of work such as cutting and clearing of sites, trails leading to sites, erection of camp buildings and so on. We propose to initiate a program of this nature at once within the national parks and we have found by past experience that a good deal can be done regardless of weather conditions.
I would be very pleased if you would let me know as soon as possible whether your
[Stage Direction]
province wishes to take part in the program. If your province is to take part, it would be particularly helpful if you could let me know the approximate total of the expenditures you believe your government will be able to make during each of the two periods of the program. From these estimates we will have some idea of the probable total of federal contributions that would be required.
Yours sincerely,
Alvin Hamilton.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, January 8, 1958