1946-06-03

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MATTHEW MacLEAN (Cape Breton North-Victoria) moved that the second report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented on May 30, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 164, to amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act.	[DOT]
Mr. STIRLING:: Explain.


Mr. BRIDGES:: By way of explanation I might say that this bill is composed of only two sections. The first section is to amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act so that it will no longer be compulsory for dealers to have cans of fish or shellfish labelled with the name of the place and/or province where the same are packed. The present requirement causes unnecessary hardship to assemblers who pack or buy a number of products in more than one province, in which case labels have to be made for each type of product and for
each province where it was packed. The amendment will make this no longer necessary. I might also say that the present requirement is now unnecessary, as under the regulations all cans are required to be embossed with the registered mark or number of the canneiy in which they are packed.
The second section of the bill substitutes "fish or shellfish" for the word "lobster". This change will provide statutory authority for the establishment of standards of quality and grades for canned fish or shellfish in addition to lobster if the need for such is established to the satisfaction of the governor in council.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Mary Epstein Harris.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 158, for the relief of Helen Irene Flewelling Wilson.'-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of Maitable Horwitz Hollander.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Pauline Gisele Guenette Villeneuve.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Mary Jaclyn Robinson Jeffrey.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 162, for the relief of Jessie Hope Forbes Hardie.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of Robert Venor. -Mr. Maybank.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by
an asterisk.)

Mr. FRASER:: 1.	How many motor vehicles of all kinds have been stored by the War Assets Corporation in the St. Thomas and New Sarum districts of Ontario?
2.	How many of these vehicles have been sold or otherwise disposed of?
3.	Have any of the vehicles that have been stored in this district been stolen or lost?
4.	If so, how many?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	At this date there are 1955 vehicles at New Sarum, Ontario, which have recently been dteclared surplus by the Department of National Defence (Army).
2.	These vehicles are currently being disposed of by. War Assets Corporation.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
Questions


H.M.C.S. CORNWALLIS
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	What was the total cost of the Canadian navy's training base H.M.C.S. Cornwallis?
2.	When was it completed?
3. Has it been decommissioned?
4.	If so, what use is now being made of the buildings, premises, facilities, etc.?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	19,148,747.59.
2.	30th November, 1944.
3.	Yes; paid1 off 1st March, 1946.
4.	The Department of Veterans Affairs have taken over 44 buildings and the heating plant in the drill shed. The remainder was turned over to War Assets Corporation.


PUBLIC WORKS-CHARWOMEN
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	How many charwomen are employed in Ottawa by the Department of Public Works?
2.	What wages do these women receive?
3.	How much annual leave with pay are they entitled to?
4.	How much sick leave with pay are charwomen entitled to?
5.	What arrangements are made by the department to replace charwomen who are tem-parily absent through illness?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: 1.	Part-time charwomen, 2,052; full-time charwomen, 6.
2.	Part-time" charwomen, $420 per annum; full-time charwomen, $900 per annum.
3.	Part-time charwomen, nil; full-time charwomen, one week.
4.	Nil.
5.	The charwomen are allowed to send their own substitutes to replace them while absent on sick leave. If this is not done, the department supplies the substitutes.


ELEVATOR OPERATORS
Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: 1.	Have the elevator operators in the government service been recently granted an increase in salaries? If so, when did such increase go into effect?
. 2. How many employees have received this increase ?
3.	Who is responsible for recommending increases?
4.	On what bases are increases awarded?
5.	Are allowances in lieu of uniform granted? If so, how many?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: 1.	Under order in council P.C. 183/119, dated January 16, 1946, the maximum salary for elevator operators was raised from $1,200 per annum "to $1,380 per annum, and from $1,380 per annum to $1,560 per annum for the

elevator operator on the privy council elevator in the east block, Ottawa. This increase went into effect on January 1, 1945.
2.	No employees have received this increase. The recommendation in this regard is now before the civil service commission for approval.
3.	The Department of Public Works.
4.	Increases are awarded when employees have served one year and they have been on active duty at least ten months during that year or from the date of last increase. Employees must also give efficient service and operators receiving above increases must have knowledge of the names of employees working in the building in which he is employed to direct visitors to the proper place.
5.	Allowances are not granted in lieu of uniforms.


DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS-PUBLICITY PERSONNEL
Mr. HOMUTH:: 1.	What is the total cost of the publicity personnel in the Department of Veterans Affairs?
2.	Who is employed?
3.	What salaries are they paid?
4.	Is a departmental paper published? If so, what is the cost of publishing same?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: 1. Total cost including current annual salaries with cost of living bonus, and actual travelling expenses during fiscal year 1945-46; $36,175.56.	[DOT]
2 and. 3.
Annual salary (including cost of living bonus,
Employee	if any)
E. B. Reid	$ 5,040 00
L. B. Connery	
3,600	00W. H. Agnew	
3,060	00L. E. Trepanier	
3,060	00A. T. Paton	
2,778	12C. A. Pope .=[DOT]	
2,778	12G.	S. Way	
2,598	12W. A. Smith	
2,141	04Miss E. Cavanagh	
1,841	04Miss M. E. Baxter	
1,661	04Miss Y. Blouin	
1,474	20I.	J. Gareau	
1,404	00Miss M. A. Fessler	
1,263	60Miss M. G. Jackson	
1,263	604.	Yes, twice monthly; average cost of publishing, including cost of engravings and paper, is approximately $270 per issue.
Questions


INCOME TAX-FARMERS
Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	What was the practice of the income tax department in respect to farmers who overpaid their income tax of 1942 by reason of not being aware of the provision of "forgiving" half of the tax?
2.	In how many cases were applications by farmers for a refund in the above cases refused or not acted upon?


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	The practice was to refund the overpayment by reason of the forgiving of a portion of the tax.
2.	So far as known, none.



DEPARTMENT OF RECONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY-PUBLICITY PERSONNEL


Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	Regarding farmers income tax, is it the practice of the income tax department to dispose of returns below $5,000 at the provincial officer of the inspector of taxation (federal) ?
2.	Do farmers' returns in excess of $5,000 have to be sent to Ottawa for approval?
3.	How many cases as above have now been sent back from Ottawa in the years 1943-44-45 to the Winnipeg office (Inspector of Income Tax) market "not approved?" On whose authority was this done?
4.	Were officials in the income tax department at Ottawa made aware of the limitations that the quota marketing imposes on grain producers by reason of (a) quota system on so many bushels per acre sown; (b) obligation to market at one shipping point; (c) limitation of available shipping space?


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	No.
2.	Yes.
3.	(a) Information not available; (b) Following head office auditors examination on the authority of the deputy minister.
4.	(a) The department was aware of the quota system; (b) No; (c) No.


DEPARTMENT OF RECONSTRUCTION-PRESS RELEASES
Mr. FRASER:: What is the cost of editing, printing and mailing the Department of Reconstruction daily press releases?


Mr. McILRAITH:: No daily press releases are issued by the Department of Reconstruction and Supply but releases are issued, however, at irregular intervals whenever it. is considered necessary to do so. As the preparation of these releases is only one of the many functions of the publicity branch, and as other branches are involved in the preparation and distribution, it is not readily possible to determine the exact cost.


PRINCE RUPERT DRY DOCK AND SHIPYARD-SUBSIDY
Mr. ARCHIBALD:: 1.	Has a subsidy ever been paid to the Prince Rupert drydock and shipyard?
2.	If so. what term of years did the subsidy
cover ?	_
3.	What was the amount of the subsidy annually?
4.	Has such subsidy been discontinued?
5.	If so, has any action been taken to reinstate this subsidy?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Twenty-five years.
3.	$76,970.88.
4.	Yes, term of the subsidy payments having been completed.
5.	No.


VETERANS LAND ACT-HOUSES - CHARLESWOOD, MAN.
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	How many houses have been built or are under contract to be built in Charleswood, Manitoba, under the Veterans' Land Act?
2.	What is the total cost for each unit, including land, water works, etc.?
3.	Who is the contractor?
4.	On what basis are these houses sold to veterans ?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: 1.	Ninety.
2.	Not finally determined.
3.	Bird Construction company, Winnipeg.
4.	Under the terms of the Veterans' Land Act which requires an initial down payment of at least 10 per cent of cost of land, buildings and other permanent improvements, plus any

Questions

cost in excess of $6,000. The balance may be amortized over a period up to twenty-five years, with interest at 31 per cent; subject, however, to any adjustment which may be made under the provisions of order in council P.C. 1278 of April 2, 1946.


CIVIL SERVICE-PREFERENCE TO MERCHANT SEAMEN
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Do merchant seamen have preference in the civil service?
2.	If so, since when, and what is such preference?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	No.	.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. MOORE:: 1.	What are the names of the officials of the Central Mortgage and Housing corporation?
2.	Which of these officials, if any, are or were associated with insurance companies?
3.	What are the salaries of these officials?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	The following have been appointed officers of the corporation by order in council: D. B. Mansur, Esq., president; Major-General
H.	A. Young, vice-president.
2.	D. B. Mansur was associated with an insurance company.
3.	D. B. Mansur, $18,000 per annum; Major-General H. A. Young, $12,000 per annum.


ROYAL COMMISSION ON COOPERATIVES
Mr. MOORE:: What was the total cost to the government of the MeDougall report and the commission on the taxation of cooperatives?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 


$134,597.78. RADIO BROADCASTING-CFRB, TORONTO
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Who are the owners of radio station CFRB Toronto?
2.	If a limited company, who are the shareholders ?
3.	(a) Have there been any changes in the ownership of shares since the 1st of July, 1945; (b) If so, when, by whom, and to whom were transfers or assignments of shares made?


George James McIlraith: In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned:
1.	Rogers Radio Broadcasting Company Ltd.
2.	Standard Radio Ltd., G. Harrison Smith, Harry Sedgwick, Carl J. Sanders, J. E. Rogers, D. I. McLeod, Samuel Rogers, V. C. McGlennan.
[Mr Mackenzie.]	t 1 I
3.	(a) No application for any change has been received by the department; (b) answered by (a).


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL WAR SERVICES- PTJRLICITY PERSONNEL
Mr. HOMUTH:: 
Mr. McCANN:: 1.	There is no publicity personnel in the Department of National War Services.
2.	and 3. Answered by No. 1.
4.	A departmental paper is not published.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-PUBLICITY PERSONNEL
Mr. HOMUTH:: 1.	What is the total cost of the publicity personnel in the Transport Department?
2.	Who is employed?
3.	What salaries are they paid?
4.	Is a departmental paper published? If so, what is the cost of publishing same?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	Salary costs alone answered by No. 3.
2.	W. II. van Allen, H. M. Nesbitt (Miss).
3.	$3,000, $1,228.
4.	No.	^


CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS
Mr. COLDWELL:: What is the number of conscientious objectors still being held in detention camps?


Mr. MITCHELL:: As of April 30, 1946, there were 91 postponed conscientious objectors in alternative service work camps.
IMMIGRATION-SKILLED Vt'ORKERS FOR INDUSTRY


Mr. CHURCH:: What is being done by the government to aid immigration from Great Britain of skilled workers for industry in Canada?


Mr. GLEN:: The regulations provide for the admission to Canada of British subjects from Great Britain having means to maintain themselves until employment is secured. The only additional requirement is good health and character. There is no provision for assistance to any particular class.


PRISONERS OF W.AR-FARM LABOUR
Mr. BLAGKMORE:: 1.	How much per month must a farmer in the Lethbridge district pay for a prisoner of war to do beet work and other farm labour?

Questions
2.	How much of this monthly wage may be spent for the prisoner of war buying goods of certain kinds and deducting the cost from the monthly cheque?
3.	What becomes of the remainder of the cheque ?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	$50 per month, or $1.75 per day, plus board and lodgings where the prisoner is placed on an individual farm. Where the prisoner is working out daily from a hostel, payment is on an acreage rate basis for sugar beet operations and on an hourly rate basis for other agricultural labour at the prevailing rate for such work.
2.	50 cents per day.
3.	The amounts paid by the farmer for the services of prisoners, less the amount of 50 cents a day credited to the prisoner and less the costs of the Department of Labour for prisoner-of-war administration, are paid into the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS-BANFF NATIONAL PARK
Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	Are any conscientious objectors performing alternative service in Banff national park at present ?
2.	If so, how many, and what is tlie daily rate of pay?
3.	When will this service terminate?
4.	Under whose supervision do the men work?
5.	Is a fine imposed for absenteeism? If so,
what amount and on what basis?	_
6.	How much has been collected from this source, by years, at Banff camp, and what disposition is made of same?
7.	Are these conscientious objectors doing alternative service obliged to remain in bounds, in camp?
8.	If so, what are such regulations and by whom were they issued?
9.	Are these men given periodical medical examination?
10.	Are any of these men below medical standards required by the army? If so, why are they retained in camp?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	As of May 13 there were 47 postponed conscientious objectors in Banff national park.
Conscientious objectors doing alternative service work in camps receive a wage of 50 cents per day. A subforeman alternative service worker receives 75 cents a day, and a foreman alternative service worker is paid $1 per day. In addition, they are provided with board and lodging and the necessary work clothing to supplement the worker's own equipment. They are also entitled to receive benefits under the Government Employees' Compensation Act as though they were "employees" as defined by that act.
3.	Service will terminate when the alternative service regulations are revoked. An
individual alternative service worker in camp may be released any time he agrees to abide by the regulations applicable to postponed conscientious objectors outside of camps.
4.	Under the supervision of the superintendent of the park and the camp foreman.
5.	Provision has been made in the national selective service civilian regulations as amended by P.C. 2796 of April 24, 1945, section 251, s.s. (5), (6),- and (8) whereby any alternative service workers who refuse to obey an order lawfully given, or to observe the ordei'S, rules and regulations laid down for their governance, shall be guilty of an offence and liable upon summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months with or without hard labour, or to a fine of not less than $50 and not exceeding $200, or to both such imprisonment and such fine. This provision has been invoked in very few instances and only for very serious cases of complete insubordination.
6.	No fines have been paid by alternative service workers in Banff national park.
7.	No alternative service worker in camp shall go outside the boundaries of the camp as fixed by the camp foreman without the written permission of the camp foreman or other person authorized under the regulations to grant such permission.
8.	Answered by No. 7.
9.	Yes.
10.	Yes. Those postponed conscientious objectors who were below the medical standards required by the army were granted the status of postponed conscientious objectors by their mobilization boards on evidence presented by them when they appeared before the board claiming exemption from military service.
Men of low category, like any other alternative service worker, may be released from camp at any. time they agree to abide by the regulation applicable to postponed conscientious objectoi's outside of camps.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	How many ocean vessels were the property of the Park Steamship Company Limited, during the war?
2.	How many such vessels are still owned by the said company?
3.	What is the respective tonnage of each vessel (a) owned during the war; (b) still owned by the said company?
4.	To whom were each of the said vessels sold by the company?

Questions as Orders for Returns
5.	To whom were calls for tenders addressed
for each sale?
6.	Are all of the vessels that were sold still registered in Canada?
7.	If not (a) how many were registered in Canada during the war; (b) how many are registered at present?


George James McIlraith: Return tabled.


RIDING MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK TIMBER BERTHS
Mr. ZAPLITNY:: 1.	What are the areas of the timber berths, numbers 571 and 551D, in the Riding Mountain National Park held in the name of The Northern Trust Company?
2.	What amounts of money did this company pay for these berths at the time they were contracted?
3.	What ground rent does this company pay for these berths annually?
4.	What amount does this company pay for fire protection annually on behalf of these two berths ?


BANFF NATIONAL PARK
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	How many (a) season registrations; (b) trip registrations, were made at the Canmore entrance to the Banff National Park in 1945?
2.	How many (a) season registrations; (b) trip registrations, were made at the Radium entrance in 1945?
3.	What was the total amount collected at each entrance in registration fees for 1945?


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE- PUBLICITY PERSONNEL
Mr. HOMUTH:: 1.	What is the total cost of the publicity personnel in the Department of National Defence
(a)	army; (b) naval service; (c) air force?
2.	Who is employed?
3.	What salaries are they paid?
4.	Is a departmental paper published? If so, what is the cost of publishing same (a) army;
(b)	naval service; (c) air force?



NURSING ASSISTANCE AND DOMESTIC HELP

Thomas Langton Church: What steps have been taken since last session by the government to provide nursing assistance and domestic help for (a) soldier's families; (b) civilians in Canada?



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIBFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. To<lay the census taking of the three western provinces is beginning. Will the distribution of constituencies in the three provinces be based upon the census now being taken, or upon the 1941 census?

Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I have not had an opportunity to give consideration to the hon. .member's question, but I can say at this time that under the British North America Act as it stands the redistribution would have to be made on the basis of the 1941 census. The ten year census is the one which is required to be used for the purposes'of redistribution. Whether or not there could be any change made in that is something to which further consideration would have to be given.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister intend to make an amendment to the British North America Act to cover this present census?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The intentions of the government with respect to redistribution that are ready for announcement are those disclosed in the resolution which is now on the order paper. If any other decision is arrived at, it will be made known in due course.
LABOUR CONDITIONS seamen's STRIKE



INQUIRY AS TO PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East); Is the Minister of Labour in a position to give us a statement on the progress made towards settlement of the seamen's dispute?
Humphrey Mitchell: All I can say. is this, that I met the operators and the seamen last Thursday and suggested what I suppose people might call an armistice in view of what has occurred since then. The ship owners are meeting in Montreal to-day, and I expect to meet them in Ottawa on Wednesday. I met the men's representatives this morning. A good many people, of course, give wonderful advice as to settling labour disputes, but, as the hon. member knows, there is no short-cut in these matters. The department has been fortunate in settling every dispute which came before it up to now, and I hope that good sense will prevail on both sides and will settle this one.
Mr. MacINNIS; I hope the Minister is not trying to give the impression that I am attempting to give him advice as to how to settle this dispute.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: No hope.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend says there is no hope.


Mr. MacINNIS:: No, I did not say that.


Humphrey Mitchell: I want to say that the hon. member for Vancouver East has always been very helpful ia these matters.

Atomic Energy Control



REPORTED DISTURBANCE AT CORNWALL, ONT.

Ronald Stewart Moore: I should like to know from the Minister of Labour whether the government is making an investigation of tihe disturbance in connection with the strike reported from Cornwall, Ontario?


Humphrey Mitchell: The answer at the
moment is, no.



TRANSPORTATION OP STRIKE BREAKERS

Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I have a question to address to the Minister of Justice; I am sorry I have not had time to give him notice of it. Has the minister been informed that persons hired and transported by the Fidelity Detective Agency of Montreal provoked the disturbances and thereby incited civil strife in Cornwall, in the current dispute of the Canadian Seamen's Union?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): The answer, Mr. Speaker, is, no.


Major James William Coldwell: May I just direct a supplementary question to the Minister? Will the Minister of Justice look into this, and if he finds that the facts are as outlined, prevent such incitements to civil strife?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The Minister of Justice has no means of preventing illegal acts apart from endeavouring to have all the constituted authorities of the country carry out their own responsibilities, and, to the extent to which he has jurisdiction to do that, it will be done.


Major James William Coldwell: That will be done.


Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. What is the minister doing to prevent the menace to navigation and property involved in the sailing of inadequately manned ships during this strike?


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: The hon. gentleman sent me no notice of the question, but in any event I can reply that the Minister of Transport is taking all means to keep the waterways of the country open and is seeing to it that the property of the crown is protected from damage and from violence thereon.



VICTORY CELEBRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley) :: In view of the fact that New Zealand
is sending its winner of Victoria Cross with bar to London to the victory parade, will the government give consideration, in view of the fact that we have in the House of Commons two winners of the V.C., to flying them to London for the victory parade?


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Acting Prime Minister):: No notice was given of this question. There has been no consultation with the two V.C.'s in the house, and under the circumstances I do not know what answer to give to my hon. friend.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Just say "yes".


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think the representation in London has already been arranged, but I will discuss the matter with my colleagues.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Take it into consideration. HOUSING



CONDITIONS AT CHARLOTTETOWN AIRPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queen's): I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction, of which I have given him due notice. Is the government taking action for the assistance of some one hundred families regarding housing conditions at the Charlottetown airport? If so, what action?
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: The answer is, yes The project originally entered into in November, 1945 and effective until May 31, 1946, is being continued, by arrangement, for an additional three months, during which time plans will be made for alternative accommodation.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply)1 moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to make provision for public control and supervision of the development, application and use of atomic energy, and in connection therewith to provide for the incorporation of the atomic energy control board; the creation of corporations to carry out certain powers of the board which may be more conveniently performed by separate corporations; to provide for the appointment of members of the board and its officers and employees, their tenure of office, remuneration and expenses; to provide fqr the organization, administration and financing of the corporations; also to provide for the superannuation, pension and other rights of the employees of the board and of the corporations;
Atomic Energy Control
[Stage Direction]
and also that the board may, with the approval of the governor in council acquire or cause to be acquired by purchase, lease, requisition or expropriation, prescribed substances and any mines, deposits or claims of prescribed substances and any works or property for production or preparation for production of, or for research or investigation with respect to, atomic energy.
He said: Recent developments in the field of atomic energy have placed Canada in a unique position among the nations of the world!, in that Canada is an important source of raw material and, as well, shares with the United States the position of having a plant able to. produce the final product from which atomic energy can be released. For that reason it is essential that legislative action be taken by parliament to control both the production of atomic energy and the materials from which this energy is derived. It is also of the first importance to encourage further research and development towards a peaceful and constructive application of atomic energy, under proper safeguards.	.
Hon. members are familiar with the .part which Canada has played in the development of the atomic bomb. The house will recall that the primary materials required for atomic fission is uranium. The Eldorado mine on Great Bear lake is the second most important deposit of uranim oxide that has been discovered to date. The importance of this material as a potential war weapon was recognized some three years ago when the government expropriated the ownership of the Eldorado mine near Great Bear lake in the northwest territories, together with its refinery located1 at Port Hope, Ontario.
Activities in the field of atomic energy have been carried on in close association with the United Kingdom and the United States. In 1942 the Montreal laboratory was established, and leading scientists of the United Kingdom joined with those of Canada to press forward the development of the science of atomic energy. In 1943 the United States had made such progress in developments leading towards the possibility of creating a successful atomic bomb that it became clear that allied efforts in this field should be coordinated and closely integrated. Accordingly a combined' policy committee representative of the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada was formed under the chairmanship of Mr. Stimson, United States Secretary of War. Other United States representatives were President Conant, of Harvard university, and1 Mr. Vannevar Bush, president of the Carnegie institute. The United
[Mr. Howe.l
Kingdom was represented by Lord Halifax and Field Marshal Sir Maitland Wilson. The Canadian membership on the committee was held by myself, as Minister of Munitions and Supply.	_
In pre-war years the United Kingdom government had made a substantial contribution to the development of atomic energy in the field of research. The joint British-Canadian laboratory in Montreal continued this work. The Montreal organization came under the administrative control of our national research council and this laboratory, with a staff of over 340, became the largest organization ever created in this country to carry out a single research project.
Prior to the war, Eldorado mine and its refinery at- Port Hope had been concerned primarily with the production of radium, with uranium as a less important by-product. Radium was in over supply at the outbreak of the war, and as a consequence the operation of the mine at Great Bear lake had been suspended. When the importance of uranium was recognized the mine was reopened and brought back into production as rapidly as possible. The refinery was enlarged and was used to refine ore from foreign sources during the period required to bring down Eldorado ore from Great Bear lake.
Since then the refinery has been in operation day and night and has processed a substantial part of the uranium requirements of the united nations. A plant for the preparation of fissionable material has been constructed at Chalk River for the purpose of exploring one particular process for producing the ultimate material. This plant has certain features that make it unique and it is believed by our partners in the United States and in the United Kingdom that Chalk River can make a substantial contribution in the field of peace-time development and use of this new source of energy.
It is expected that the plant at Chalk River will provide a centre of research in Canada which will not be excelled elsewhere in the world, for a considerable time at least.
From this brief review of war-time developments, hon. members will appreciate the important position of Canada in the field of atomic energy. I have not traversed the field in great detail, since all hon. members have in mind a comprehensive review of Canada's part in these matters made by the Prime Minister in a statement to this house on December 17, 1945, on the occasion of moving a resolution to approve the agreed declaration signed at Washington on November 15, 1945, by President Truman and Prime Ministers Attlee and Mackenzie King.

Atomic Energy Control
Atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were largely responsible for the surrender of Japan and the sudden ending of the war. Since the ending of the war the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada have continued their cooperation, recognizing the imperative need for the control of atomic energy as a weapon of war as well as for its development in the service of mankind.
The purpose of the bill to be based on this resolution will be to encourage research in this field, both public and private, while taking adequate security measures against the use of the material from which atomic energy is derived as a weapon of war.
The three-nation declaration on atomic energy, signed at Washington on November 15, 1945, which was approved in this house on December 17, 1945, gave recognition to the need for further cooperation not only between the three countries which have been mainly concerned with this field but also for extending this cooperation to all countries throughout the united nations. The declaration recommended the setting up of a commission under the united nations to prepare recommendations on atomic energy for submission to that organization. Such a commission was set up by resolution of the general assembly of the united nations on January 24 last. Because of the special position of Canada in this field we are the only country, apart from the great powers, to be permanently represented on the commission. General McNaughton has been appointed Canadian representative, and the commission will hold its first meeting on June 14. This commission has been charged with the responsibility of inquiring into all phases of atomic energy and, in particular, of making specific proposals with regard to certain objectives which were stated in the resolution of the united nations assembly setting up the commission as follows:	(a) for extending between all nations the exchange of basic scientific information for peaceful ends; (b) for control of atomic energy to the extent necessary to ensure its use only for peaceful purposes; (c) for the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons, and of all other, major weapons adaptable to mass desrtuction and (d) for effective safeguards, by way of inspection and other means, to protect complying states against the hazards of violations and evasions.
Much has been said and written about the form of international control that should be initiated. The government is giving earnest study to this immensely complex problem. It seems to me that the meeting of the atomic energy commission will mark only the first step on the road towards international control.
It is recognized that the final solution of the problem can be attained only by stages. In the long run the finding of a solution must depend on good will and mutual confidence among all the nations concerned.
I am sure that the house will agree with me that the immense gravity of the issue, raised by the discovery of atomic fission, and its potential danger to civilization, has made it imperative that we should approach this question in a boldly constructive manner. It may very well be that the problem of dealing with the newly-discovered force, so dangerous to human society, may afford us an opportunity of making a great step forward in the field of international cooperation.
Among the many discussions of the form which international control of atomic energy may ultimately take, the report recently published by the state department of the United States, which was prepared by a board of consultants, all specialists in the field, under the chairmanship of Doctor Lilienthal, deserves careful-study. This report constitutes perhaps the most far-reaching attempt so far *made to sketch out a plan that would control the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, and turn the discovery into productive channels. I feel sure than hon. members will find the Lilienthal report an absorbing and enlightening document.
Until such time as the united nations atomic energy commission has made its recommendations, and has translated these recommendations into action, it remains the responsibility of Canada, as well as that of the United States and the United Kingdom, to establish and maintain conditions under which these recommendations can be made fully effective. Canada and all other nations possessing raw materials, or productive apparatus, or special knowledge with respect to atomic energy, have a very special responsibility to establish and maintain conditions which will ensure the effective carrying out of any recommendations that may be made by the commission to provide for international control of atomic energy.
In the United Kingdom, first reading has already been given to an atomic energy bill which will empower the United Kingdom government to establish control over the production or use of atomic energy. In the United States the McMahon bill has been drafted by a special senate committee on atomic energy, and I am informed that the administration intends to conclude legislation on the domestic control of atomic energy before the adjournment of the present session of congress.
Atomic Energy Control
[Stage Direction]
The house will apprciate, for the reasons I have' just outlined, the necessity for introducing a bill for the control of atomic energy in Canada, in the terms of the resolution now being considered. It remains for me to say something of the [DOT] general character of the legislation proposed. Tresh discoveries in the field of atomic energy may bring about swift developments which cannot now be foreseen precisely. Therefore, the measures for control must be not only wide, but also flexible, to meet the new situations.
The bill that will be based on this resolution will provide for a board that will continuously study the field of atomic energy. It will be the responsibility of the board to propose regulations designed to meet fresh situations as they develop. Any such regulations would be issued under the authority of the. governor in council. The board will be organized, and will function, much along the lines of the national research council. Liaison with the national research council is provided for, by making the president of the council a member of the board.
There will be provision in the bill for the incorporation of crown companies, and for the taking over of existing crown companies, should the board decide that atomic energy operations can better be performed by separate and subsidiary organizations. It is possible that the operations at Great Bear Lake, Port Hope and Chalk River, may be carried on by crown companies, under close supervision of the board. The board will report to the committee of the privy council on industrial and scientific research, to which the national research council now reports. An annual report of the board will be tabled in the House of Commons by the chairman of the committee, who, at the moment, is myself. The board will make such other reports to the committee as may be required, and will also, on the board's own initiative, report any matters which the board considers should be brought to the attention of the government. Thus, machinery is provided for the government being kept fully informed, and in a position to deal with any question relating to atomic energy which will deserve its attention, or which may be brought up in this house.
Apart from the proceeds of its operations, the work of the board, and the operation of the crown companies, will be financed by moneys voted by parliament for this specific purpose. Any regulations made by the board are to be published promptly and tabled in parliament.
It is the intention of the government to encourage scientific initiative and research directed towards finding constructive applica-
[Mr. Howe.l
tions for the use of atomic energy. Tire bill will empower the board not only to itself undertake research and investigation, but also to facilitate and finance approved research, to be carried out in our universities and elsewhere under proper safeguards.
To build up a Canadian source of raw materials the government will carry out its own prospecting and development programme, and will encourage private prospecting, even though all the materials related to the production and use of atomic energy are to be under government control at all stages.
Thus the bill will provide means for continuing the important developments that have placed Canada in the forefront of war-time developments in the field of atomic energy, as well as means for furthering and encouraging research and development in the peacetime application of atomic energy. The bill will provide also an appropriate legislative basis, both for the domestic control of this highly dangerous substance and for international measures which will need to be concerted by the united nations commission.
All hon. members will agree with regard to the need for legislation of the kind outlined in the resolution, as a means of bringing under control a newly discovered force of nature which promises great benefits to mankind when applied to peace-time uses, but which has great destructive potentials to mankind unless developed under strict government control. There can be no lack of agreement with regard to the objectives of the bill, and I feel that there will be general acceptance of its provisions.
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution
before us has to do with a very important problem, namely the control of atomic energy. I am not one of those who believes that at this stage, when we do not have the details of the bill before us, we should have a lengthy debate. Obviously the opposition is always handicapped in trying to debate a subject of this kind when it has not before it the details of the bill, which the government knows all about but about which we know little. I rise at this time to say something of a more or less general character, only because of the importance to mankind of this new form of energy, and because of the need to move cautiously, sanely and wisely in deciding how to handle it.
I want to say to the minister who has moved this resolution, to the government, to the house and to the Canadian people, that in so far as the measure to be brought forward aims to control this new form of energy, to encourage research in this new field of science,

Atomic Energy Control
to encourage the use of this new energy for peaceful purposes or to prevent its use for purposes of war, we shall be strongly in favour of it.
In looking over the objectives outlined in the resolution, and listening to the minister's remarks in respect to it, I see only two points on which we shall expect further light when the bill itself is brought before us. The first of these is in respect to the second objective set out in the resolution, "the creation of corporations to carry out certain powers of the board." We shall want to hear a more detailed explanation of what is proposed before we can give unanimous approval to that provision. The other is the last objective outlined in the resolution; it has to do with the expropriation of substances and any mines, deposits or claims of prescribed substances. At the moment we have nothing before us except the general statement of the purpose of the government to set up these corporations and to make provision for expropriation. When we see the details of the bill I trust we may be able to support even these clauses, but I hesitate to do so until we have seen the bill itself.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that since less than a year ago, when the atomic bomb was brought so forcefully to our attention, we have been facing a new situation. Physical science has exceeded the development of social science. We have produced gadgets by means of which it is possible that our civilization may be destroyed before social science has discovered how men in different nation states may live together in peace. That is the major problem human society faces to-day. We see physical science so far in advance of social science that the gadgets we produce have become a danger to humanity and, in a warlike society, may result in the destruction of our whole civilization and large sections of our population.
As I said, when there is before the house a motion to go	into	the	committee of thewhole to consider a measure involving the expenditure of money, hon. members have an opportunity to	seek	information	as to thegeneral scope of the proposed legislation before it is given first reading. Later, when the bill comes before us, these general principles will be	amplified	by the	details itcontains. In his remarks the minister referred to the necessity of international control of this new source of energy. I am sure most hon. members will support that idea, but in the resolution	we	see	nothing	whatever
referring to such international control.
From the resolution now before us the purposes of the proposed bill are represented to
be as follows: to make provision for public control and supervision of the development, application and use of atomic energy, to provide (a) for the incorporation of an atomic energy control board; (b) the creation of corporations to carry out certain of the board's powers, which was only briefly touched upon by the minister; (c) the appointment of members of the board, its officers and employees, their remuneration, expenses, and so on; (d) the organization, administration and financing of these corporations, the superannuation of employees, and so on. From this outline it is apparent that a board is to be set up which is to be given wide powers, including the creation of corporations and the power of expropriation with respect to substances, mines, deposits, claims and the like.
Just how far all the matters encompassed in the proposed bill are to be removed from the practical control of parliament will not be fully clear until we have an opportunity to see the bill. From the outline given to us, however, the bill can mean either very much or very little in this respect. From the resolution on the order paper several things seem evident. First, that the measure is to provide for a very extensive degree of public ownership, development and control. For example, we are asked to make provision for what is likely to be one of the greatest state-owned developments of our time. Second, that the object of the bill is either for purposes of offence or defence, offence for or defence of Canada in cooperation with our likely associates and allies. Whatever its merit-and it has merit-it is not a measure for preventing war. The minister is not claiming that, of course, but I am pointing out that whatever else it does, it is not a matter of war prevention.
In this connection let me say that the discovery of a method by which atomic power may be released and used for the benefit of mankind unfortunately coincided with the bitterest war in history. As a result the greatest of all potential blessings is now considered as a major threat to mankind. Were the world at peace, with an assurance of continuing peace, I should stand firmly for the immediate release of all governmental controls over the development of atomic energy and for the widest restoration of the liberty of scientists of all nations to exchange knowledge, a liberty which must be restored sooner or later if we are again to march forward on the road of progress. For the moment we can all understand that this is not practicable. Canada must cooperate with those nations of whose peaceful intentions we are convinced, in all necessary measures to control the
Atomic Energy Control

development and use of atomic energy. Certainly I support warmly the plan that the use of atomic energy for military purposes must be kept the sacred prerogative of the government, and not be permitted to be left in private hands. This involves the possibility that government monopoly in this field will be automatically extended to cover those possible uses of atomic energy which are not of a destructive but rather of a constructive nature. It is quite possible rigid governmental control of the military use of atomic energy may involve hampering limitations upon the development of these peaceful uses.
It is our intention to support the government's rigid control of atomic energy development for urgent reasons of national and international safety, not because we believe that the government should retain a perpetual monopoly in this most important field, if peace were assured to us. I think all will agree that we must look forward, and not backward. We must have confidence that lasting peace will eventually be established. But that time is not here yet. For that reason I agree that this particular subject is one which must remain under most rigid government control. Whether these bodies that the government proposes to be set up will be for the purpose of developing atomic energy or for the purpose of preventing its development for destructive use, or for both, has not been made clear to us at this stage of our proceedings.
So far as this resolution goes, it looks as if the government is planning to be ready for the eventuality of war, not for the prevention of war. The defence of Canada is a perfectly laudable purpose in itself. I would point out, however, that we have nothing before us to suggest that by enacting this measure into law we are solving or even coming within a measurable distance of solving the two great problems facing us, namely, (1), the development of atomic energy for economic use and benefit, and (2) the prevention of its use for war and devastation.
At this point some more, general observations on the problem of the control of atomic energy I hope will be in order. There is a strong demand in this age to place in the hands of the government the manufacture of instruments that may be used for war. There are very few who will dispute that the manufacture of war instruments should be in the hands of the government. I agree that this is desirable if they are to continue to exist at all. But I am wondering if the dust and smoke of the bombs that landed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are'not clouding our thinking at this hour and making it impossible for us

to appreciate the sweeping changes on the industrial front that are inherent in the fact of the atomic discovery.
The impending change in our economy may be more sweeping, in my opinion, than that following the industrial revolution. I wholly disagree with those who assert that we shall not see, the application of atomic energy for practical purposes in our lifetime. It is the viewr of many that it will revolutionize science in the fight against disease, and revolutionize the means of supplying power to the enterprises of our already complex society. As it takes its place in competition with electricity and steam, many believe-and certainly I believe-that atomic energy will bring a transformation in our capital goods structure greater than that attending the industrial revolution of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
The difficulty is that while men and women are paralysed by the fear of the potential dangers of atomic energy, its development for peaceful purposes will be hampered. We all know that the great developments of the age of steam and of the age of electricity would not have been possible had industry been kept within the iron grip of government ownership and control. Furthermore I think the events of the last thirty years-have proved that, whatever merits there are in government ownership and control, economic power held by governments tends to place in the hands of the few who form the governments not only the control of these government-owned enterprises, but the power of decisions on matters affecting whole populations. The few who are in government have the power to decide what is good for the many. But what is more important is that the threat of this dictatorial power becomes dangerous when left in a few hands. The concentration of economic power in the hands of a dictatorial government is much more likely to lead to war than if that power be widely diffused among the people as in a true democracy.
That is one of the major arguments for democracy in this age, namely, that the decision as to peace or war is left to democratic procedure. The danger of rushing unthinkingly into war is much less than where such decision rests in the hands of only a few.
There is no use in shutting our eyes to the dangers that lie about us. Much of Europe to-day is neither peaceful nor free; much of that continent is in the grip of a totalitarian power quite as thorough, and some consider quite as ruthless, as the power that we fought for five years to destroy. The business of making competition serve the purposes of

Atomic Energy Control
progress deserves a high priority in the governments of those countries that still adhere to the democratic process.
It. will thus be seen that this generation in the democracies has a heavy responsibility. It faces a great challenge, one of the greatest of all time. Three facts stand out as never before:
1.	The devastating potentialities of atomic energy have been demonstrated. They are in the minds of everyone and, therefore, need not be elaborated again here.
2.	We have become the custodians of a new type of knowledge and of power that has more promise of good and greater of evil than any set of facts ever before placed at the disposition of mankind.
3.	We have made great strides in the physical sciences, but we have lagged behind in social science, and particularly the science of nation states living together in peace. The great advances in the physical sciences have universalized our thinking, while our social thinking in many respects still conforms more to the organization of a local community .
Obviously, something new and vastly more of understanding must be brought into the relations between communities if the homicidal danger of the atomic weapon is to be averted. The science of living together has been outdistanced by our scientific capacities for penetrating the unknown, and for producing gadgets potentially more dangerous to a society of nation states than anything we have ever known before.
I stated on another occasion that we must begin to move oat of a world of conflicting economic nationalisms and accept the world of interdependence that has become, our heritage, and that there should be no delay in making a firm beginning in that direction. The overwhelming majority of mankind of every race and in every clime craves for permanent and lasting peace. The danger is that mere handfuls of men, here and there, may still plan for national' or ideological expansion, even for war, using bogus. revolutions as the stalking horses of their aggressive designs.
It is one thing to try to control atomic energy. But our main problem is to prevent war. If we cannot make reasonably sure that we can prevent war, we should of course *take steps to make as certain as we can that this new instrument of death will not again be used in war. That means putting it into the hands of an international authority which will be given the power to issue a passport that will have to be accepted by every national state. All our vague talk of abridging sovereignty and limiting sovereignty is a mere
patter of words. War must be averted. The atomic bomb we must find a way to debar or denature. It is not by abridging and restricting and hampering national development and growth that the goal of real peace is to be achieved; it is rather by clothing an international authority with such prestige and power that we can be assured in this parliament from year to year that there are not underground, clandestine factories stealthily preparing to obliterate large sections of the human race. Until we make a firm beginning in this direction, we are but fooling the people when we pretend that legislation such as this offers as security in this very insecure age.
Pass the bill., with such amendments as may be necessary, if any. But let us not stop there. Let us either banish war or let us take practical steps with other nations to prohibit the use of the atomic bomb, in the event that another cataclysm should visit itself upon mankind.
The discovery of practical methods of producing nuclear fission has presented the human race with its most supreme challenge. Can the world of politics and law reveal comparable inventiveness and skill so that the invention may be turned to good use? It is not alone a moral problem; it is a problem of world1 organization.
The minister in his remarks referred to the work of a board of consultants in our neighbour country to the south, the chairman of which is David E. Lilienthal. The report prepared for the United States government by this board of which Mr. Lilienthal is chairman happily does somewhat narrow down the dimensions of the problem. The report says, among others, these two things (1) that uranium is and is likely for a long time to remain the only raw material from which fissionable substances can be prepared-this simplifies the problem of control of original sources; (2) that U-235, the fissionable material could be so "denatured" as to make it unusable for atomic weapons and still remain perfectly serviceable for the "non-dangerous" uses of atomic energy. To remove the "denaturant" is possible, but only at the cost of large plants and the expenditure of much time and money.
This suggests that the way to effective control lies not in what is ordinarily thought of as an international agreement in any wide sense but in the specific proposal to put the material at its source into the hands of a world monopoly. Such a world monopoly would of course be under the control of the united nations. Such a monopoly could mine uranium and experiment with it in its denatured state. National states could acquire
Atomic Energy Control

denatured material only. The problem of inspection would thus be greatly simplified. The monopoly would be a world authority; it would be a supra-national authority.
As I said at the beginning Mr. Speaker, so far as this measure aims at controlling this new source of energy at encouraging research in this new and vastly important field, and so far as it aims to make it available for purposes of peace and to prevent its use in time of war, it will have our support. We ask only for more elaboration of two sections of the resolution; namely, the one having to do with the appointment of government corporations to carry out some of these activities, and the other having to do with the confiscation of property.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I regard the resolution now before the house as probably the most important resolution that has ever appeared on the order paper. I do not think anyone will dispute that when its implications are understood. Last week a resolution was moved by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) dealing with the establishment of a more comprehensive research organization. It seems to me that the two are correlated.
So far in the discussions in this house, and indeed across the country, the aspect of atomic energy that has been most emphasized is the terror of the atomic bomb, and I think it is well that the average citizen in every country should understand what a revolution was made in military tactics when the atomic bombs fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But it seems to me that only the scientists have yet come to a realization of the significance of the discovery of atomic power and its potentialities for industrial uses.
I had the privilege last December of attending a meeting in New York organized by the New York Nation and attended by many of the scientists who had taken part in the Manhattan project, which was very largely responsible for the evolution of the atomic bomb. I listened there to a statement from Professor Henry DeWolf Smyth, who, as many hon. members will recall, wrote the report on the atomic bomb experiment in the New Mexico desert for the government of the United States. On the very day we were meeting in New York, on December 1, he had been appointed adviser on atomic energy to the President of the United States. I shall refer, a little later, to something he said. But one of the speeches which impressed me most was that of Doctor Leo Szilard; I have a report of it in my hand at the moment, and I shall quote a few sentences. As the minister will know, Doctor Szilard was one

of the atomic bomb scientists who formerly worked in the metallurgical laboratory of the University of Chicago. In opening his remarks he made this statement, which seared itself on my memory:
On the 3rd day of March, 1939, Doctor Walter Zinn and I performed a simple experiment on the seventh floor of the Pupin building at Columbia.
After two days of preparations, everything was ready and all we had to do was to turn a switch, lean back and watch the screen of a television tube.
If flashes of light appeared on the screen, that would mean that neutrons were emitted in the fission process of uranium, and this in turn would mean that the large scale liberation of atomic energy was just around the corner.
We turned the switch and we saw the flashes.
We watched them for a little while and then we switched everything off and went home.
That night there was very little doubt in my mind the world was headed for grief.
This crucial phenomenon was independently discovered just about the same time by Anderson and Fermi, and by Halban, Joliot and Kovarski.
They used different methods but arrived at the same conclusions, and I have, therefore, good hopes that my own plea of not guilty will receive merciful consideration in the heavenly court of justice.
That seemed to be pretty much the opinion of the men who had been engaged in the development of atomic energy and the atomic bomb. But it was not only the development of atomic energy and of the atomic bomb which seemed to worry them; it was the tremendous effect which the use of atomic power would have on the economy of the whole world. They were afraid that man had not reached the stage of development at which it would be possible for him to create the abundance flowing from the use of atomic energy, and to use that abundance for the good of all mankind.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) remarked this afternoon that perhaps this was a greater discovery than that which inaugurated the industrial revolution of about one hundred and seventy years ago-if one may date it from any particular period. I think that is true, and I would go farther and say that I agree with the scientists who were* present at the conference of which I have spoken and whose opinion was that it was the greatest discovery since man discovered the use of fire many thousands of years ago. It foreshadows, in .their opinion and in mine, such a revolution in man's way of life as is comparable only with the revolution resulting from primitive man's discovery of the use of fire. Beside it, the discoveries to which the leader of the opposition referred this afternoon in a general way-the discoveries of coking coal, the power of steam, the power loom,

Atomic Energy Control
Faraday's discoveries with respect to electricity, and the other discoveries linked with the industrial revolution-all these pale into insignificance.
It seems to me that the purpose of this resolution and our object as the parliament of this country should be to perform the task which will enable science to inaugurate a peaceful and prosperous society based upon the widespread use of this energy. As the leader of the opposition said, and I heartily concur, social science has lagged far behind physical science, and the social scientists have lagged behind the physical scientists; the physical scientists are to-day exercising greater imagination with respect to their discoveries than politicians and social scientists are exercising, and because we as politicians and social scientists have failed to relate our thinking to the discoveries of physical science, we are apt to get into a tremendous mess in the not far distant future.
I listened with a great deal of interest to what the leader of the opposition said. I agree with him that we must have international control of this form of energy. I agree with him that within our own boundaries we must have public control of this energy. But I do not agree with him that this is necessary only in so far as it relates to the making of war. I disagree wholly with that concept. I say that it must relate also to all the economic developments of peace-time; because the ownership and control of atomic energy will set the pattern of living for years to come, just as the ownership and control of the new machines at the time of the industrial revolution set the pattern of living for our own time and the period which immediately preceded it.
I know history. I know British history, perhaps, particularly well. It was a subject I taught for a good many years, and in which I specialized when I was a student. When one reads of the misery and the poverty which came upon the people of the British isles and the rest of the world following the discovery of the physical means which brought about the industrial revolution, one makes up one's mind that never again must such consequences occur in the history of any nation. The alienation of the new discoveries, the placing of them in the hands of a few people who would manipulate them for their own use, in any country, would so undermine the economy of that country that it might enslave the many to the few. Moreover, the selfish development of atomic energy for industrial purposes in any one country would upset the economy of the whole world, and that
must not be permitted to happen in 1946. It is a discovery which will set the pattern of life for years to come.
I listened to the leader of the opposition when he talked of the danger of a government exercising power over this atomic energy. He called that a dictatorship. Am I to understand that the leader of the opposition considers that in our democratic countries governments are dictatorships? Do our governments not rest in the final analysis upon the will of the people? Are they not, in theory at least, expressing the will of the people when they bring before parliament measures upon which, as representing the people of Canada, it must decide? I know of no other form of democracy as efficient and effective as the parliamentary democracies of the British commonwealth; and to suggest that in a resolution of this description, to be followed by a bill setting up corporations which will be public corporations, we are departing from democratic procedures seems to me to reveal an entire lack of knowledge of what democratic government really is. To do the opposite, to place this in the hands of various corporations, such as the Imperial Oil company, the Aluminum Company of Canada, International Nickel, or a number of other monopolies which I could name, would destroy democracy in Canada and tend to do so throughout the world.
I congratulate the minister upon this resolu-. tion. I congratulate the government upon it. I think it shows a certain amount of imagination which should demand the respect and support of every right-thinking person. The carrying into effect of the ideas which lie behind the resolution, if I apprehend them correctly, means that an attempt at least will be made to see to it that we shall be able to introduce this new form of energy and power without condemning thousands of our people to destitution, poverty and want, as the industrial revolution, over a century and a half ago, condemned hundreds of thousands in the country in which I was born. I have seen the long-time effect of it, and so have some of my hon. friends in this house. I have seen the stunted masses in the northern industrial areas, the stunted masses in the Manchester slums, in the Yorkshire mills and in the London slums.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And in Glasgow too.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes. I have seen, written on their bodies, the evil results of the industrial revolution. Therefore we dare not permit that kind of thing to happen again in the history of any country. The use of atomic energy, in our opinion, must be to benefit
Atomic Energy Control

society and not to benefit a few people in society. Its misuse would upset the economy of the world and cause untold misery, but its use for the benefit of mankind would inaugurate a new era.
Even before the war, educationists were concerned with the problem of leisure. I wonder if we realize to-day just what the problem of leisure will be when this new source of energy is developed. I agree with the leader of the opposition to this extent, that the development of atomic energy is at hand. I do not know when it will be used, but I heard certain statements made at the conference which I attended. I heard it said that in all probability within the space of five years a city the size of Seattle-that was the city named-might be heated by atomic energy. I heard it said that those who were expecting atomic energy to be used for the operation of automobiles, for example, were going to be disappointed for some time to come, because it was highly probable that what I might call the machine or the apparatus which would be necessary to utilize that atomic energy for transportation would be so large as to require perhaps a ship to carry it, and therefore the first vehicle that would utilize atomic energy might be a ship. It was said however that the time would come when the ingenuity of man would reduce the apparatus to the size where it could be used for all means of transportation, though that might be fifteen, or twenty, or twenty-five years away. But not one scientist there believed that a period of more than a quarter of a century would pass before atomic energy would be generally used throughout the world.
That is why I say that the problem of leisure forces itself upon our attention. Scientists say that a .pound of uranium, the cost of which was put in December at $3, could deliver as much energy as 1.000 tons of coal as that fuel is at present utilized. If that is so, one can understand at once what it might mean in the coal industry, in the mining industry, what it might mean in transportation. For something like forty per cent of our transportation system is engaged in the movement of such heavy freight as fuel oils, coal and so on. If that is true, one can see what effect it will have .on the entire transportation system and on the movement of heavy freight.
If we do not seek to control this energy and to plan its use to inaugurate the atomic age, we may be faced not with leisure but with technological, unemployment. Of course the only difference between leisure and unemployment is that leisure is enjoyable unemployment while unemployment is unenjoyable leisure. That is what it amounts to, and so

we dare not leave the development of this energy in private hands. From its very nature it is imperative that it be publicly owned and controlled as a public enterprise.
I remember very well some of the speeches of the former leader of the opposition, the Right Hon, R. B. Bennett, I remember sitting here and hearing him' thunder across this chamber, as was his wont, with regard to radio and the necessity for bringing that great utility under public ownership and control, and I remember too his saying to the members of the house at that time: "Who is there among us who would repeat the mistakes of the past? Who is there, among us who, if he could, would not have preserved some of the great resources of the country for the good of the nation instead of for private exploitation?"
The former leader of the opposition was a very interesting man, and in some respects a far-sighted statesman who saw some of the implications of these great new scientific discoveries, such as radio, television and so on; and were he here now I am perfectly certain he would take the same view of atomic energy'.
Of course I do not follow all the fanciful things that we are told. We are told., for instance, that one day atomic energy' may enable men to air-condition tropical cities and turn the polar regions into habitable places. I do not know whether that is so; but if it is, it is a long way .off. There are however some developments that are very close at hand, and these are the things we have to safeguard the country against if they are evil or make available to our people if they are good., and make them available in our day. Scientists are certain that what is now within sight is something which, uncontrolled, or left in private hands, will make a shattering impact on present business, present industrialism and present development, internationally as well as nationally.
Scientists, as I said at the very outset, are trying to emphasize the benefits that may accrue from atomic fission. They believe that the peaceful ..development of energy will destroy an age-old conflict, the struggle for room in which to live in this world, which struggle is so frequently at the root of war, the struggle for elbow room. This energy, they believe, if properly used will enable mankind to produce such an abundance of the necessities of life that men will not have to struggle for room in which to live, but will be enabled to enjoy the things that are made possible. Consequently, as I said a few minutes ago, the acquisition of leisure should be regarded as the means whereby we might

Atomic Energy Control
enjoy a higher cultural standard than the world, has ever known. And all this, we as average people have perhaps yet to learn.
The leader of the opposition closed his remarks with some reference to the terrors of atomic bombing. I was not here in December when the question was discussed; I was unavoidably absent. I have in my hand however a copy of an address which Professor DeWolf Smyth prepared for delivery before the conference to which I have referred. When we talk, as the leader of the opposition did, about using this energy for offence and defence, it might, be well to hear what Professor DeWolf Smyth said:	.
I do not at present see any likelihood of any adequate military defence against this new form of weapon.
He went on to say that if various devices that had been suggested were tried out they could not possibly be effective, and again I am using his own words. He says:
The nature of the atomic bomb and the speed of its approach make it highly questionable that any anti-aircraft or other defence could be developed against it which will be one hundred per cent effective. Some atomic bombs would inevitably get through.
Doctor Ivan Getting, who is regarded as one of the great radar experts of the world, and who went to London to assist in devising ways and means of meeting the flying bomb and the V-2's in the autumn of 1944, gave it as his opinion that there was no effective defence that could be foreseen against this new form of weapons. Then Professor DeWolf Smyth said also:
Since rocket bombs might be sent in a few moments from any spot on earth to any other spot, it could well prove impossible, in the event of an attack by atomic bombs, to know from which country the .attack had come.
He went on to say:
There is no scientific reason why atomic bombs cannot be shipped in trunks or boxes in peace time to key industrial and population centres and detonated at the moment desired by remote control wireless or other means.
Six or seven thousand miles away in a room a man with a set of buttons before him, with an instrument1 attuned to the bombs which had been placed in the industrial centres of the United States or of some other great country, we shall say Russia, if you like, could, by pressing the button, detonate bombs that had been planted weeks and months before, without danger of deterioration, and incidentally destroying, as one scientist said, sixteen million people in a single night.
These are the dread uses to which this new energy could be put. By the same token there are constructive uses to which it could
be put. I quite agree with the leader of the opposition and the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, and I believe with all parties in the house, that the scientific development of this new discovery must be used internationally; that the scientists of the world must be encouraged to exchange information. Let us bear this in mind; there can be no blackout of science. The Germans tried it, but did not succeed. We cannot blackout science. If we cannot black it out, then the thing to do is to have an organization through which scientific knowledge can be disseminated. This means an international organization. The proper organization to set it up is, of course, the united nations organization. I do not believe that the proper organization within the united nations organization is the security council; I believe it is the social and economic council, because the emphasis has been placed in the wrong place. It has been placed upon the military uses of this new energy. I hope the great and beneficial consequences that will be felt b\' the world will be in the industrial field.
I do not wish to prolong the discussion. I wanted to express these views because my colleagues and I are supporting the resolution. We are supporting it because we believe the fundamental principles of it are sound. Of the details we may have something to say, and we may disagree with some of them, but fundamentally the resolution is sound.
At the beginning I said that this resolution is perhaps in some respects the most important that has ever been introduced into this house. The minister knows that a similar bill has been discussed in Great Britain, and that a bill very like the terms of this resolution has been introduced into the United States congress and is now being studied by a committee there. Farsighted men everywhere are aware of the uses to which this new discovery can be put; and whether in peace or in war the public of this country through its democratically elected government must exercise complete control of this great new source of energy. We dare not allow it to get into the hands of a few people who will use it for their own purposes and not for the common good.
We shall welcome the bill when it comes; we shall look into its details, and if it follows the principles of this resolution we shall support it.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): I shall not detain the house longer than a few minutes, because most of the important things which should be said have been said here this afternoon. First, let me express to the minister my feeling that- this is a timely resolution; that I appreciate his bringing it in
Atomic Energy Control

at this time and1 giving us an opportunity to discuss and consider its various provisions in preparation for the bill which will be introduced shortly.
Like the two hon. gentlemen who have already spoken, I must say that I believe it is one of the most'important measures to be brought before the house since I came to Ottawa and I hope that it will receive the most earnest consideration of all hon. members. There are many things in what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) said with which I agree, and some of necessity with which I could not agree. The same is also true of the speech of the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldiwell).
I just wish to say one or two things which have occurred to me in connection with this resolution, and which I should like to make clear. In the first place, I believe that the discovery of atomic energy has brought us to the verge of the golden age of the world. I am just wondering whether man's stupidity will keep us from passing over the threshold into the realization of that golden age. Whether or not our stupidity will prevent us will depend on how bodies of this kind react to suggestions for development and control of the energy in the best interests of the people of the world.
I should like to emphasize that I am anxious to see the best possible use made of atomic energy in the interest of peace, prosperity, health and happiness of the people of the world. That is fundamental. I believe that every thinking -man must take the same stand.
In the second place, I believe that the development of atomic energy is fraught with [DOT]such grave problems and dangers for the world that it is necessary for us to place the control of its development, at least for the time being, in the hands of the government, and I support that wholeheartedly. So far as the application of developed atomic energy to economic uses is concerned-, I am not yet just sure where that control should best be vested. I am quite content to study that question more thoroughly and to see what the future brings. But there is one thing I am certain of, namely, that Canadians, in common with the nationals of every other nation, will have to settle down to a thorough and complete study of the social sciences in an effort to find out how we can distribute the benefits that derive from such great discoveries to ail the people. All the people should share in the benefits that derive. To see that they do so we must make absolutely certain that we have a real democracy.

This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, we have heard much about a democratically elected government. I believe that we have had a form of democracy, certainly; but I cannot believe that we have really had a democracy in Canada. The reason is not hard to see. I would not worry very much about placing the control of atomic energy, for destructive purposes as well as for economic purposes, in the hands of this government, provided that I could be certain that this government was democratically elected and controlled. The only reason I feel diffident about placing such control in the hands of a central government is that under the system we call democracy the people have not yet been able to get the results they wanted from the management of their affairs. They have got just the opposite from what they wanted. Witness the bread lines; witness business recessions; witness depressions and strikes. These are anything but what the people have wanted. If there had been a real democracy; if the people had effective control of their government as the leader of the C.C.F. party suggested they have through the mechanism of this house, those things never would have taken place. I say now, sir, not only must we have a reorganization of our whole economic system in this country in order to give the people the results they want, but we must see to it that our political reorganization actually reflects the will of the people.
I am going to make this suggestion. I would not be a bit afraid of placing the control of atomic energy in the hands of the minister's commission, both for destructive purposes and for economic purposes, and its development along those lines, provided that the people in the constituencies of this country actually paid their members of parliament and actually had control over those members so that when they did not do the will of the people they could kick them in the place which was built into man to be kicked, and put others in their places. We need political reform that will give us real democracy, which we do not have under what is known as the political party machine rule which we have had in this country for so many years. If we did rehabilitate democracy; if we put new Blood into it so that the people actually did control their government, then there would be the least possible danger, even in government development, control and application of the economic phases of atomic energy.
For just a moment let me turn to the social aspects of this whole matter. I do not believe the leader of the C.C.F. party meant exactly what he said about the industrial revolution. I do not believe he meant that the industrial revolution actually caused the stunted masses.

Atomic Energy Control
I believe he referred to the results of the industrial revolution in displacing men with machines and perhaps another result which followed, in that labourers were exploited by the centralization of capital. I can quite understand that, but surely the industrial revolution in itself was of inestimable benefit to mankind, in essence. The whole difficulty was that we did not have sense enough properly to apply it.


Major James William Coldwell: That is right.


Mr. LOW:: So it might be with atomic energy. I believe that this is one of the greatest discoveries of all time. I believe that through its proper application for the benefit of the people of the world men can be pro. gressively released from the drudgery of the productive effort. I believe that if we organize properly, and with vision, it will be possible- for us to allocate and distribute equitably a progressively greater amount of leisure time to all Canadians. But we should have begun years ago to prepare our people for the proper use of that leisure time. In itself such leisure can be a danger to humanity if it is not used as it should be. We should have been educating- our people in the proper use of that time for the benefit of their fellowmen. The greatest play ever written, the greatest painting ever painted, the finest music ever composed, all were produced by people in their leisure time. That is the sort of thing we want to aim at in future; to give our people sufficient leisure time so that they may turn to the arts and sciences and the development of cultures in order to benefit mankind generally.
We should now adopt a sensible attitude toward the finding of means to distribute the abundance which the application of atomic energy will ensure; and I do not believe for one moment that this is an impossible thing to do. I think we are on the verge of discovering it; but let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that when we do discover it I believe that it will be the seventh great discovery of the world: how to distribute equitably among the people the abundance which can be produced through the application of forces now at our disposal, of which atomic energy is one. I hope, that as we set up the commission for the development and control of atomic energy we may also set up commissions to study the needs of the.people and the means of getting into their hands the things they will need, out of the abundance we produce. As we stand on the threshold of this golden age I believe that we should give very careful attention to that phase of the new life which is bound to come, if we ever survive some of
the difficulties which have been pictured here in connection with the application of atomic energy.
In conclusion, let me say that I am not one of those who see darkly. I am not looking into the mud with regard to atomic energy. I would rather see stars, and there are stars to be seen. There is no question about that, I would far rather leave with hon. members the thought that, as men think, so will they become. If we think constantly in terms of war and destruction, as a mass of people, then that is exactly the situation that will be brought about. If we think in terms of peace, prosperity and happiness, than we are seeing stars; we. are raising our eyes to the skies. Then men will go on to greater achievements, to higher objectives, infusing humanitarian aspects into all the things they do. I plead with hon. members to give careful consideration to all sides of this question of the development, control and application of atomic energy so that the people of this land and of the world may be happy, peaceful and prosperous.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Just before we go on to the next stage, Mr. Speaker, may I make two or three observations which have come to my mind in listening to the various hon. members who have taken part in this debate. I fear there is a great tendency to refuse to face the realities. We are in the gravest kind of danger if we make a serious mistake. I am not referring particularly to the remarks of the minister. I thought his dissertation was scientifically prepared, as we would expect it to be, and sane, not committing him to any particular policy at all. But when we begin listening to the leader of the Progressive Conservative party (Mr. Bracken) and the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) we begin listening to doctrines which might be fraught with grave danger to the world.
May I say something about one or two matters which were talked about. It is true, as the leader of the opposition has said, that the science of living together has lagged far behind. The important thing for us to-day is to make an effort to bring our social sciences up to date. Let us develop our science of living together.
But one of the amazing things to me is that we never hear a single, solitary suggestion from the leader of the official opposition or from any of his party as to how that is to be done- no, not a single suggestion. Thus far also I have not heard one from any hon. member on the government side of the house as to how that is to be done. The assumption seems to
Atomic Energy Control

be that all one has to do is to take the power away from Canada, and from each of the national governments corresponding to that of Canada, put it into the hands of a big enough board, one that is far enough away from the control of the people, and automatically the problem will solve itself.
That is not the way things have happened in this world thus far. It is true that we must learn something about the social sciences, the science of living together. The alarming thing is that all over the world nothing is being said about that. In the spring of 1945, when we were discussing the San Francisco conference, I alone among all the members of the house rose in my place and pointed out the fact that in all the discussions leading up to the San Francisco conference there was not a single hint that any of the men discussing the problem had any idea of what on earth the fundamental cause of war was, or had any suggestion whatsoever for the removal of the cause of war. Yet they assumed that by coming together at San Francisco and building up a united nations organization, consisting of a group of men who did not know a thing about how to distribute goods in their own countries, they would be able to solve the problems of the world.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but, as he knows, we have before us a resolution, and we should discuss its subject matter. That resolution states:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to make provision for public control and supervision of the development, application and use of atomic energy, and in connection therewith to provide for the incorporation of the atomic energy control board.
There are further provisions in the resolution. I must ask the hon. member to discuss the principle of the resolution now before the house.


John Horne Blackmore: That is exactly what 1 shall endeavour to do. The advisability of having government control of atomic energy tvas discussed by both the leader of the opposition and the leader of the C.C.F. from this point of view, that only the government could be entrusted with the control of power such as that of atomic energy, because if any other body had that control it would use it for private purposes, and consequently cause disruption in the world.
It seems to me I would be perfectly in order to express some observations contrary to that idea; and that is what I propose to do. Great numbers of machines have never been allowed to come on the market, I understand, because it is feared that if they were

permitted to enter the market they would displace so many men they would completely disrupt the economy of the world. If atomic energy were to come into common use industrially the assumption seems to be that the same sort of thing would happen.


Major James William Coldwell: If misused.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes. And the assumption is that if the government controls it, the use will automatically be a proper one.


Major James William Coldwell: It is less likely to misuse it.


John Horne Blackmore: That is the very proposition I challenge. My hon. friend says that the government would be less likely to misuse it, or to use it unwisely. Let us examine that. However, I believe I shall return to that subject after I have completed the other observations I wish to make.
It is suggested that we place atomic energy power in the hands of a world monopoly. May I ask this: Who is to control the world monopoly which, it is proposed, should have control of atomic energy? This does not bear particularly on what was said by the minister, but it is a matter which was discussed freely by the speakers representing the Progressive Conservative party and the C.C.F.
Who is to control that body? The leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low) asked that question. If the people cannot control that body by democratic means, then who is to control it? That is one of the most serious questions confronting our age. Once more we assume that somehow or another, by some sort of fatuous reasoning, all we need tq do is to get control in a body situated far enough away from us, and that body will use it all right. That is just so unreasonable and so completely out of harmony with any human experience as to impress the ordinary man as being inconceivably absurd.
What will' be the policy of such an international body? Will it know how to distribute goods? Will it use its knowledge, provided that it should have any knowledge in the distribution of goods? Will it endeavour to distribute by trade? Will it distribute by free trade or by unrestricted international trade? If it endeavours to use either of those devices, then tell us how it will overcome the disadvantage which arises from having industrial power concentrated.
In Canada, for example, the industrial power of this country is concentrated in two provinces,, which run Canada. Those two provinces do just that. They drag the other seven provinces helplessly behind them. If the whole world is put into an organization similar to the political organization of Canada,

Atomic Energy Control
who will run the whole world organization? It will be the two or three nations which have the great concentration of industrial power. Surely that must be obvious. I intend to discuss that matter at greater length by and by, when it will be more in order to do so. But I am just warning members who are talking recklessly in terms such as these. They know not what they do.


Major James William Coldwell: Will the hon. member give us an alternative for the united nations organization?


John Horne Blackmore: I will give an alternative, just as soon as it is in order to do so. It is not in order at the" present time. However, I will say, since the hon.. member has raised the question, that social credit is the alternative. I know the hon. member will not accept that, but the more he comes to know about 'social credit, the more he will realize that it is the answer.
Mr.-COLDWELL: Thank you.


John Horne Blackmore: There is no doubt about that. That seems to be absurd to people who do not know; but it is not absurd to those who understand it.	.


An hon. MEMBER :: Who understands it?


John Horne Blackmore: I understand it, for one.


An hon. MEMBER:: Anybody else.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Don't you? Come on over, and I will teach you, when I have time.


John Horne Blackmore: This last thing I would say for the benefit of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar: His assumption is that if government owns industry it will solve all problems.


Major James William Coldwell: No, that is not his assumption, at all.


John Horne Blackmore: That is all we hear, from what is being said.


An hon. MEMBER:: The C.C.F. is the government.


John Horne Blackmore: Oh, it would not
matter; if the Progressive Conservative party were in charge of Canada they would be just as socialistic as the C.C.F.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Much worse.


John Horne Blackmore: No doubt about it. They would be advocating measures of government ownership and control, just as the present government is doing, exactly as the present Liberal government are to-day simply rushing into socialism. Measure after measure
after measure, week after week, they are going right, straight into socialism; there is no doubt about it.
I am going to ask one question:	If monetary reform were essential to a solution and we had an international organization controlling atomic energy and industry, such organization consisting of men of the mentality of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Claxton), as manifested by them within the last two or three months, I ask the house if there would be any chance in the wide world for solution. They would absolutely refuse to accept any measure that would solve the problem and would just let things drift until we had a world revolution.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You are a pessimist.


John Horne Blackmore: Not at all. Just a realist. Mr. Speaker, having given these few words of caution, I discontinue until it is more in order to say something further on this subject.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
John Bracken: Before the resolution is passed may I ask the minister to enlarge upon three aspects of this matter? He has referred to the importance of international control of atomic energy, but I find nothing in the resolution dealing with that. Perhaps the minister would explain how he expects that to be brought about.
Would he also give us some idea of the crown corporations that it will be necessary or advisable to set up under this proposal.
Thirdly, what concerns does he expect it may be necessary to confiscate?
From my reading of the resolution these are three things upon which I would ask the minister to enlarge.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The measure does not primarily concern itself with the international control of atomic energy. That is a matter with which an international forum is, dealing. Canada has its representative on the atomic energy commission of the united nations. The commission includes representatives of the great powers and certain other powers. Canada was given a special place because of its contribution to and interest in this particular problem; it was made a permanent member of the commission. Canada is represented on the commission by General McNaughton, who is surrounded by a panel of those best able to offer advice on that problem to our representative.
Atomic Energy Control

Rather the purpose of this measure is to keep the situation within Canada in such a position that the recommendations and the decisions of the international commission can be, carried out in so far as Canada is concerned. We are a source of raw material, certainly the second most important in the world, and the source of raw material will be a matter of great international consequence. Therefore it is the intention to keep strict control over raw material that is used for atomic fission.


John Bracken: What country is the largest source of the raw material?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Belgian Congo is the largest source.
Second, we have the industrial know-how. This at present is confined to two countries, the United States and ourselves. The knowhow is really more valuable than the science of producing the atomic energy.


Mr. GREEN:: Does tire United Kingdom not have that knowledge?


Clarence Decatur Howe: While the United Kingdom has not as yet built a plant, I have reason to believe that that country has the knowhow that will enable it to do so.
Then we are one of the two countries which have a plant that produces the final product from which atomic energy is derived. Therefore it is important that we control not only the raw materials, but, in addition, the working processes and the finished product.
One of the difficulties concerning this product is that the material which will be used for peaceful purposes is the same material which can be used for warlike purposes. If anyone had three pounds of the material for any peaceful purpose, from the same three pounds of material a bomb could be made which would destroy all life within the city limits of Ottawa. Therefore it is not a material which can be used promiscuously. Its use for peaceful purposes must be carefully guarded at all stages, so that no one can accumulate a quantity which could be used for destructive or anti-social purposes.
That, I think, answers the first question asked by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition as to the relationship between this measure and international control. This measure simply controls the domestic scene, so that when decisions are taken in the international field Canada can fit in with those decisions.


John Bracken: Will this atomic energy control board itself have direct association with the international organization or will it act through the government of Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The board acts through the government. It is proposed at the moment to make our representative on the international commission a member of this board, so that he may be in close touch with the domestic situation. This is a board to control the domestic situation and it has no direct part in the international scene.
Next my hon. friend asked about crown companies. Here again the power is permissive. One operation associated with atomie energy is at present controlled by a crown corporation, Eldorado Mining and Refining. There are two opinions as to the direction of Eldorado. One is that it should be under the national research council, and the other is that it should be under the board referred to in this measure we are now discussing. It will depend upon the view of the board when it is appointed whether it should be an operating board or simply a policy board. The board will be closely allied with the national research council in any event, and it may be the decision will be that the national research council shall do the actual operating or it may be that the board itself will be the operating body. If the board is the operating body, then in my opinion Eldorado should be placed under it. I am also rather of the opinion that Chalk river itself should be operated as a crown company, for undoubtedly, in due course, it will be buying and selling materials as well as conducting research. We are simply taking permission in the bill so that if a crown company turns out to be desirable it can be created by the board.
The third question was, what properties-


John Bracken: May I ask one question before the minister passes on? .


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly.


John Bracken: He says he anticipates at the moment two crown companies, one having to do with the Eldorado Mining company and the other with the Chalk river development. He is asking for permission here to set up any corporations he chooses?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


John Bracken: Which may be done by the governor in council?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Mr. REID:: Will any Canadians participate with United States representatives in the experiment which will take place in July?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; provision has been made for six representatives to be there. There will be representatives of the navy and the air force and, I believe, two civilians.

Atomic Energy Control


Solon Earl Low: In connection with the expro-priatory powers of the board-


John Bracken: Before the leader of the Social Credit party proceeds, the minister, I think, had one other question he was willing to answer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. The leader of the opposition asked what properties the government intends to expropriate. As far as we know, the government now owns all the sources of uranium in Canada. It is carrying on extensive exploration in the Great Bear area to prove up additional properties. If valuable discoveries are made privately in other parts of Canada this bill permits the government to acquire those properties, by expropriation proceedings, if necessaiy; and if the properties are not acquired the uranium itself, or the uranium oxide from these properties, would undoubtedly be acquired by the government. It is not contemplated, until the matter is very much farther advanced that uranium would ever be permitted to be sold to private purchasers.


John Bracken: The resolution makes clear the answer which the minister is now giving; it also includes these words, "expropriation (of) any works or property for production or preparation for production of, or for research or investigation." Would the minister elaborate on what that might contemplate-expropriation of works or property? That is in addition to mines and so on?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are no "works or
property" at the moment that are not in the possession of the government. The government has works and property; for example, it has a refinery at Port Hope, it has also certain facilities for the further processing of radium for commercial uses, such as luminous paint, and medical purposes. The clause in the bill simply gives the government power, in the event that works of that kind are established privately, to acquire them by expropriation. But at the moment I can say there are no properties in Canada known to the government which it is desired to acquire under this provision.


Solon Earl Low: The minister has partly
answered the question I started to ask, but there is this second part. It is not inconceivable that deposits of uranium might be found in certain provinces. In case, we may suppose, there is a discovery in Ontario, would the minister add, say the minister of mines of the Ontario government, to the board? I can see that some difficulty might arise when the senior government attempted to expropriate or to obtain those properties. I can understand, too, that some force might
be given to the peaceful expropriation or peaceful transfer if the province were recognized as a part of the board itself.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Fortunately the problem does not arise at the moment. It happens that all the known deposits of uranium are in the northwest territories. Should uranium be discovered in one of the provinces-and I sincerely hope it will, though I have my doubts, from what we know of the geology- there will be a problem as between the board and the province to determine the best manner of dealing with the provincial rights to the mineral. I think my hon. friend will agree that there is an overriding national interest in the product, which should make that fairly simple when the time comes.


Solon Earl Low: Yes. The suggestion I make would perhaps help in that direction.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That might be helpful.


Howard Charles Green: "Will the minister explain
what control parliament will have over the atomic energy control board? I understood him to say in his opening statement that there would be reports from the board to what is known as the committee of the privy council on scientific, and industrial research; apparently there will be no direct reports to parliament. Would the minister explain in some detail what control parliament will have over the board and its undertakings?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The bill provides that the board will operate by directives, that all directives will be published and tabled in parliament by the chairman of the committee of the privy council to which my hon. friend referred. As set out in the bill, it will be the duty of the chairman of the privy council committee to bring to the attention of parliament any regulations or orders issued by the board and to give parliament any information acquired by the board that it would be in the public interest to publicize.


Howard Charles Green: Will there be any way of interrogating the chairman of the control board? 'Will there, for example, be any provision for having him appear before a committee of the house, or will the control be merely indirect through one cabinet minister, probably the Minister of Reconstruction?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, Mr. Chairman, any committee of the house can summon any public servant. I suppose that if any committee of the house wishes to interrogate the chairman of this board it has only to call him. The board must report to a member of the government; all boards do; and1 the information is conveyed from the board to parliament by a member of the government. That would be the case with this board.
Atomic Energy Control


Howard Charles Green: What control would) there be over the crown corporations set up under the control board?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I assure my hon. friend) that, in its early stage, Chalk River will not operate very long without a preliminary appropriation, which will be voted by parliament. Thus there will be the usual control of the expenditure, the usual opportunity to obtain information about the operations of the project.


Howard Charles Green: What type of board is to be set up? Could the minister give us any idea of the size of the board and the type of men or women who will be appointed to it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government has in mind a board of five members. The only ex-officio member is the chairman of the national research council. I have suggested that Canada's representative on the international commission would be a probable appointment. The other three are not definitely chosen; but I would say that certainly one should be from the universities, and certainly there should be on the board a good businessman, familiar with corporate practice.


Howard Charles Green: Would there be no representative from the defence forces?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Canada is not concerned with the use of atomic energy for making weapons. The development of defence weapons is closely interlocked with the national research council, and I think the contact there would be sufficient. But it is not the intention, as far as Canada is concerned, to develop atomic energy for the manufacture of weapons. Therefore I doubt whether a member of the defence forces would logically be a member of the board. However, that has not been finally determined.


Howard Charles Green: What is the difference between the plans of the Canadian government and those of the United States and United Kingdom governments with regard to these atomic boards? Are they all following the same plan? If not, what is the difference?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I recall the bill that has had its first reading in the United Kingdom, the board is somewhat similar in character to that of Canada, in composition and in objectives. I have the bill before me but I am not as familiar as I should be with its objectives. Perhaps I can give a clearer explanation of the composition and objectives, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, when the bill is before us. The McMahon bill in the United States is only in the committee stage. It has not been introduced into the house of representatives. It provides for

a civilian board somewhat similar to the civilian control in Canada. Up to the present the development of atomic energy in the United States has been under military control throughout. It has been a military project for reasons which my hon. friend will understand. A great deal of attention is being devoted to the peace-time development of atomic energy in the United States, but actual control has not moved from military to civilian. Here in Canada, it was recognized as unlikely that Canada would manufacture material which would have any use in war, and therefore our development has been planned from its inception for peaceful use.


Angus MacInnis: Will the minister make a little clearer the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver South as to what control parliament would have on the commission or board of control set up? Perhaps I can put the question in this way. Would those boards, as far as parliamentary control is concerned, be on a basis similar to the Canadian National Railways .and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? In other words, would the reports made be referred to a standing or a select committee of the house?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The board proposed is more analogous to the research council, which is actually a branch of government. My hon. friend has referred to two corporations. This board will be not a corporation but a branch of government. It may have corporations functioning under it, but I would say that the members of the board and the staff would hardly be government- officers operating in a sphere remote from parliament. Any question regarding the board would undoubtedly be answered in parliament, which is not the case with the Canadian National Railways or the broadcasting corporation. If parliament wishes to have the affairs of the board examined by a standing committee it would need only to make a request and a committee could be established. But it is not a type of organization analogous to the two mentioned.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The ministar indicated that he would be asking parliament for money. Has he any idea what it will cost the government a year?
Mr. HOW*E: The budget for atomic energy contemplated at the moment, that is to say, for the operation of Chalk River and the laboratories associated with atomic energy research, is about $3,500,000 a year.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There is some revenue from, the plant at Port Hope?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.

Atomic Energy Control


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What is that revenue? You have revenues to offset part of the $3,500,000?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am afraid the revenues from Port Hope are just about sufficient to take care of that operation and the development work carried on in connection with Eldorado operations.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Are the researches which will be conducted by the commission so far removed from any other kind of research being carried on in the country as to necessitate their being carried on separately, or is there some liaison with any other form of research? Second, would the minister care to make any comment, as suggested by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, on the time within which economic peace-time uses may become available.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have stated that there will be a close liaison between the work of the board and the work of the national research council. Definite liaison is planned by making the chairman of the research council ex officio a member of the board. But the purpose of the board is to exercise powers other than directing research. It must keep a close control over security and over the handling of the product. It must also keep abreast of developments in the international field, and must be prepared to guide the government in its international relations.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Do I understand the minister to mean that for reasons of security, and I take it he means military security, it will be out of the question to have contact between the researches carried on by the commission and those of the research council or any other industrial research going on in the country?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not intend to imply that [DOT] there would be no relation with other researches. It is expected that under the direction of this board work can be carried into university laboratories and into any laboratory that is able to give man-power to it, and carry on under careful supervision. The danger is that it takes a matter of only three or four pounds of this material to blow up the city of Ottawa.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Why pick on Ottawa?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The reason for the security is that no one shall be able to divert any of this material from the purpose for which it is intended. As to the time when there will be practical applications of the material, I believe the time will be short. The science of atomic fission is in about the same position
to-day that electricity occupied when Faraday discovered the electro-magnet about 100 years ago, but science has broadened since then, and application of this energy will probably move faster than in Faraday's time. I would say that in five years there will be practical applications of the material. The first will probably be in direct transference of heat, and once that transference of heat has been worked out the application will follow logically.


Mr. SKEY:: Who will be responsible for employing the various scientists who will work on this new project?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The pattern of the national research council will be followed. Its scientists are employed by the governor in council.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Will special care be taken to screen the personnel who will be dealing with these atomic projects? Will they pass through the mounted police or some other authority who can pass on their security?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. For several years, every man or woman who has been employed by the national research council has been screened by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Mr. FLEMING:: From what the minister said a moment ago with regard to the proposed personnel I took it that the members will serve on a part-time basis. Probably that has direct relationship to the point he made earlier with reference to the essential nature of the board, as to whether it would be an operating body or a policy body. Will the minister indicate to the committee within what period of time we may expect the decision to be taken as to whether this body will be an operating or a policy body, and what opportunity we may expect parliament to be given at that time to consider that question? It will affect also, I take it, the proposal to clothe the board with power to set up a corporation to carry on specific works under the authority of the legislation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The bill itself, when it is placed in the hands of the committee, will indicate the authority with which the board will be clothed. The decision as to whether it will, in fact, be an operative body will be left largely to the board itself. The operations at Chalk River are being carried out under the national research council. At the moment the national research council is favourably disposed to the board taking over actual operating in the field of radio-active substances. The present intention would be to clothe the board with the duty of actually operating the project. However, no decision
Atomic Energy Control

has finally been taken, and I should not like to commit myself at this time and say that the board will be an operating body.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I infer from what the minister has said that there is no present, intention of expanding the scope of operations? It is simply a matter of whether the present type of operation shall be carried on directly under the board or continue as at present under the research council.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The activity is certainly
expected to expand. Up to date the activity has been to carry on extensive research in laboratories, with a pilot plant and, concurrently, with the building of a pile that is perhaps not wholly a full-size commercial pile, but something approaching that magnitude. It is expected that, as material becomes available, the board will devote its attention to widening the field of experiment; that is, by making it available to those who wish to devote time and attention to development work in that field under proper supervision.


Mr. JACKMAN:: On numerous occasions the minister has referred to the commission. May I ask him to straighten out my own mind on that? Is it the same as the atomic energy control board?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: When the minister
referred to the fact that there was a meeting of the commission on June 14 at which General McNaughton was to attend, was that the same-


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; I am sorry. Perhaps I have confused the committee. I shall look over my remarks carefully to make sure that I used the word "commission" in its proper sense, and the word "board" in its proper sense. The proper use of the word "commission" is in reference to the international commission, and the proper use of the body to be created by the bill which will follow this resolution is "the board".


Mr JACKMAN:: This is an international commission, the members of which are Great Britain, United States and Canada. Are these the only members?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. There are other countries represented on the commission. All the great powers are members, as in Canada, and certain other countries.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: As tabled on December 17?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: There is to be an exchange of information between the members of the international commission. How does Canada or any other member get its particular assignment as to research? For instance, I read that in the United States they are appropriating $250 million for research for the navy, mostly along atomic lines, and one million is being appropriated for research into pure mathematics. While I believe our country must do its share in making its contribution, particularly because of its early contribution along this line, I think the committee should be given some idea as to how we get our assignment, because if we have carte blanche and had unlimited resources, undoubtedly we would spend I suppose as much as the United States, running into hundreds of millions of dollars. I do not think the minister has that in mind. Can he tell the committee how, when the international committee meets, it is decided that one country shall do certain work and so on? How is the expense appropriated? The information is to be intercommunicated, and I merely wish to find out whether or not we are doing about our relative per capita share, or are we going ahead a little faster than one might expect from a country which has the population that Canada has?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The situation is not difficult at the moment. There are only three countries which are publicizing extensive work in the field of radio-active substances. One is the United States; another is the United Kingdom, and the third is Canada. For the past three or four years these countries have been carrying on their efforts under the direction of the policy committee to which I referred in my earlier remarks. The policy committee has three representatives of the United States, two of the United Kingdom and one of Canada. One purpose of the committee is to see that the research of the three countries does not overlap. The project that is being carried on in Canada is not a duplication of anything that has been done heretofore; it is research into one particular method of arriving at the ultimate result.
Britain is beginning to undertake practical research into production of the material itself. Britain has been the leader in laboratory work, and she will still pursue a different line of experiment. All three are being guided by the policy committee for the time being. If the required measure of cooperation can be obtained so that the united nations can take control of research of this subject around the world, then the duties of the policy committee would be transferred automatically to the international commission.

Atomic Energy Control
I have read somewhere that the expenditures of the United States on this particular project have been in excess of $2,000,000,000, over the past three years. In the same period, Canada's expenditures have been on the order of perhaps a little less than $30,000,000. These relative expenditures may be reasonable, bearing in mind the resources of the two countries.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the minister indicate what were the expenditures of the United Kingdom in connection with the same enterprise, and to what extent the cooperation that brought about the development of the atomic bomb during the war-cooperation between the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom-is being continued in this immediate post-war period, while the united nations atomic energy commission is deciding what it will do about international control?


Clarence Decatur Howe: During the war period the expenditures of the United Kingdom on atomic energy were not large, for the reason that, England arranged to carry on development work in Canada, and in cooperation with Canada. The Montreal laboratory was a joint project, and the United Kingdom has pooled its scientists with those of Canada in working out the project at Chalk River. The United Kingdom is now planning to build atomic piles in England, similar to ours at Chalk River. The war-time arrangements are still in effect. The policy committee is still functioning as between the three countries, and is continuing to coordinate the work of the three countries.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In both research and
production?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I took it from the minister's initial remarks that the Chalk River project was intended to explore one particular fissionable material?


Clarence Decatur Howe: One particular method of
obtaining fissionable material.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Using uranium as a base?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Later the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar mentioned that the Lilienthal report said uranium was the only practical material to-day, and was likely to be so for many years to come. Do I understand that the material used at Chalk River has a uranium base, if I may use that term?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What arrangement has been made by Canada with the United States and the United Kingdom in regard to supplying them with uranium from the Eldorado mine?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Eldorado mine has had continuing contracts with the United States government for the sale of uranium, and it has delivered, small quantities to the United Kingdom. At the moment the principal consumer of uranium is the United States, but the combined policy committee may allocate available supplies of uranium in accordance with the requirements of each partner government. Canada is the only country of the three which at the moment has an excess of uranium over its own requirements, and this surplus will continue to be dealt with as the policy committee may decide.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is that a united nations committee?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, it is a joint committee representing the three companies.


John Bracken: Would the minister
explain how he arrives at the price of uranium?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There has been a bit of difficulty there. I am afraid our methods may not have been exactly correct. Our earlier operations were primarily based on obtaining radium as the main product and uranium as a by-product. When the question of marketing uranium came up, its cost depended greatly on the value placed upon radium. It is quite obvious that the greater activity in mining operations which has occurred since uranium began to be used in quantity has cast great doubt upon the value of radium. The fact is that the fissionable material will probably be much better than radium for medical purposes. The advantage in medicine of the fissionable material is that its intensity can be controlled, where as it cannot be controlled with radium. In other words probably it will be possible to manufacture to specification for medical purposes, rather than to depend upon radium.


John Bracken: And it will not be so
likely to bum people?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. It will be made to suit
various applications. On that account, it is unlikely that radium will have the same value in future that it has had in the past. For that reason, I am not sure that we have been charging enough for our uranium. I rather think we have not. We have a considerable * stock or radium, on which we have a value that may be too high.
urisa sian
Atomic Energy Control


John Bracken: Perhaps the minister
would prefer not to answer this question; perhaps it would be better not answered, but is the product being sold anywhere other than to Britain and the United States?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


John Bracken: Perhaps the minister
would prefer not to have that answer appear in Hansard?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; that is all right.


Howard Charles Green: In his opening remarks the
minister said something about private research having a place in connection with the development of atomic energy for peace-time use. Could he amplify that at all?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Several universities have
branches devoted to nuclear physics. McGill university at the moment is installing a cyclotron, which was the instrument first used to break down the atom. Several other universities have active branches concerned with nuclear physics, and the intention will be to assist and encourage developments in those university branches.


Howard Charles Green: The minister also said
something about sending out prospectors to try to find the raw ore. Could he give us any further light on the plans for that type of work?


Clarence Decatur Howe: For the last two seasons, and the present season, we have had about twenty prospecting parties studying the geology of the Great Bear lake area. They use a Geiger counter, which is an instrument for measuring radio activity, and which has been used previously in laboratories. Perhaps some hon. gentlemen noticed an article published recently in the Saturday Evening Post. It is well , known to those interested in radio activity. Portable sets have been made and are being used in the northwest territories to discover the degree of radio activity in various localities of the north. As a result of its use, some promising discoveries have been made.


Howard Charles Green: Are these parties sent out
by the Department of Mines and Resources?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Or by the research council?


Clarence Decatur Howe: By the Department of Mines and Resources.


Howard Charles Green: And they will continue to
be sent out by that department rather than by the atomic energy control board?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, by arrangement between the two. I know Eldorado pays the bill, but

I rather think the Department of Mines and Resources directs the exploration, though I am not sure. But Eldorado Mining and Refining and the Department of Mines and Resources collaborate on the project.


Howard Charles Green: Has there been any attempt to reach agreement with any of the provincial governments about exploration parties in the provinces? I ask that because the press in British Columbia carries a report concerning a find of radio-active ore in the Kootenay district. I am wondering whether the dominion government has looked into that find.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Eldorado investigates every find reported to it. To date, as far as I am aware, there has been no likely prospect discovered outside the northwest territories.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Does the government intend to make public the text of the report following the special investigation carried out last fall by Mr. Glassco, of Toronto.	*


Clarence Decatur Howe: The report is now the subject of litigation, and will be released after that litigation is completed.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: For what length of time is the Canadian representative on the commission to be appointed. Will it be an annual appointment, an appointment pro tempore, or under what arrangement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not sure. That matter is within the ambit of the Department of External Affairs. However, I shall make enquiries and inform the hon. member.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Is it like the Senate, for life?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.
Resolution reported, read the second time, and concurred in. Mr. Howe thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 165, relating to the development and control of atomic energy.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



RESEARCH COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply) moved the second reading of bill No. 154, to amend the Research Council Act.
James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


John Bracken: Lest there be any misunderstanding, I hope it is not considered that the bill has been read a second time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

Government Companies
After Recess
.The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock we had just taken up consideration of the second reading of bill No. 154. That bill is connected with the following bill, bill No. 155, and involves the main principle of bill No. 155. For that reason, Your Honour, I move the adjournment of the debate on bill No. 154 until later this day in order that we may consider bill No. 155 first, and I would ask the approval of the house to that being done.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no objection, Mr. Speaker.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



GOVERNMENT COMPANIES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction) moved the second reading of bill No. 155, respecting the operation of government companies.
He said: Mr. Speaker, since I made an extensive explanation of this bill on the resolution stage I shall reserve any further remarks until later.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this bill is described as "An act respecting the operation of government companies.'' It is a far-reaching bill because it sets up a new plan for activities by the dominion government in peace time, sets up a plan that may very well be adopted by some or all of the provincial governments in Canada, and for that reason I suggest to the house that it merits the most thorough scrutiny. The explanatory note to the bill gives a brief summary of the reasons for its introduction. It reads:
During the war, several companies were incorporated under part I of the Companies Act. 1934, to carry out special projects. Some of these companies, such as Polymer Corporation Limited and Canadian Arsenals Limited, will continue their operations for a considerable period. It may also be desirable, where statutory authority exists, to incorporate similar companies to carry out other special projects.
That is the way in -which these companies were formed during the war, and it was a new way not used before by any dominion government. A group of individuals, in most cases civil servants, applied for the incorporation of a company, in just the same way as three or more individuals from any city in Canada might apply for such incorporation; in reality these companies formed as a result of such 63260-134J
applications were crown companies, wholly-owned by the dominion government, but having their shares held by officers of the government. That is the way in which these crown companies were formed. They were operated under the provisions of the War Measures Act and were financed out of the war appropriation; each year there would be money voted under the war appropriation bill with which to finance their operations.
We now come to the days of peace, and wi are faced with the question, what is to be done about these crown, companies? Is the government to carry on in the way in which it carried on during the war? On the resolution preceding this bill the minister explained to the house that it was proposed to retain some of these crown companies and also to form certain new ones, and it is for carrying out that purpose that bill No. 155 is now introduced.
The title of this measure is to be "The Government Companies Operation Act." I would point out to the members of the house that it is a blanket act, to provide for the operation and financing of all crown companies incorporated in the way in which these companies were incorporated during the war.
There are in the bill certain key provisions. The first important feature of the bill is this* that there is no limit to the number of crown companies that can be formed; there may be-one, there may be ten, there may be five-hundred of them. It is quite clear also that these crown companies may be set up by any minister in any one or in all of the departments. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) may have one or ten crown companies; the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) may have tfeei same number, and obviously the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) is going to have quite a few of them. They can be set up in any department of government, so that we may have each minister with a flock of crown companies, just like an old mother hen with a lot of ducklings.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Chickens, isn't it?


Howard Charles Green: No; I said ducklings. Then under bill No. 154 power is given to the national research council to procure the incorporation of crown companies. That council, too, may have a flock of ducklings.
Provision is made in the bill also that each one of these crown companies can have paid to it by way of capital up to a total of $500,000 at any one time. The company gets that amount either by loan direct from the consolidated revenue fund of Canada or by borrowing from the public under'guarantee by the dominion government. In addition to being able to get capital up to that amount of half;
Government Companies

a million dollars, provision is made that each company can construct, acquire or improve capital works up to a total of a further $500,000 in any one fiscal year. As I read the bill, this means that each company may have up to a million dollars. Then, each company is to be an agent of His Majesty; it can sue or be sued. Furthermore, each of these companies can employ whom it wishes, can pay whatever salaries it wishes, and has full control over all officers and servants. Again, each company can set up its own pension fund or its own group insurance plan, subject in those cases to the approval of the governoi general in council, but the pension funds may be all different and they may have different group insurance plans.
The other key provision to which I would refer to-night is that each company must make an annual report in such form as the minister who happens to be the mother of that particular company requires. In due course that rdport comes through the ministei to parliament; there is provision for its being Jlaid on the table of parliament within a certain number of day's after the house meets -in session.
These crown companies were a creation of the war. It is important that lion, members should realize just how it came about that we have such an institution in Canada. The minister explained it the other day; lion, members will find his explanation at page 1511 of Hansard, when he said:
Crown companies were an invention of the Department of Munitions and Supply in the [DOT]early days of the war to provide a method for carrying out duties which could only be carried 'Out with difficulty by the staff of the department. Hon. members will appreciate that, at the commencement of the war, the Department of Munitions and Supply had no staff. It was a newly-created department, and it acquired its staff by going out into the highways and byways and inducing men with high patriotic purpose, men of skill and experience, to leave tlieir civilian occupations and join the service of the government tor the period of the war.
I would point out in that connection that, now that the war is over, many of these outstanding businessmen who came into the government service, solely from patriotic motives, have gone back to their businesses and are no longer available for the operation of crown companies of this type. The minister went on to explain:
One of the inducements for adopting the crown company plan was that it permitted men with business responsibilities of their own to give a good deal of their time to the government, in executive positions associated with a form of administration with which they were wholly familiar.
There were thirty-one crown companies set up in this way during the war. They have now been or will shortly be reduced to five.
[Mr. Green.l
The minister listed on the same day the companies which were to remain; they are set out on page 1512, of Hansard as follows: Canadian Arsenals Limited, Polymer Corporation Limited, Park Steamships Limited, Wartime Housing Limited, and Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited. He said:
Of these five I anticipate that Canadian Arsenals, the Polymer Corporation and Eldorado Mining and Refining will continue as crown companies for many years to come. I also anticipate that the Park Steamships Company and Wartime Housing will be wound up within the next three or four years at the maximum.
It may be that a crown company is the best method to carry on certain types of business in peace time. For example, I am not arguing this evening that Canadian Arsenals Limited is not the proper structure to carry on the manufacture of weapons in Canada. That may be true also of the Eldorado company, because it has to deal with uranium and, as every hon. member knows, uranium is of world-shaking importance at the present time. There may be reasons why the Polymer Corporation should be a crown company; I am not arguing this evening either that it should or should not be. But I suggest to the minister and to the members of the house that where we need a crown company it should be set up by means of an individual bill brought into this house to deal with that one company alone. If that were done, parliament and the Canadian people would know exactly why a crown company is required. Parliament would be able to approve or disapprove the powers which it is supposed to give to the company. Parliament could provide for the operation of the company. That has been done in certain cases, for example with War Assets Corporation. I believe that if that were the policy followed, each company being set up by an individual bill, there would be far fewer crown companies, and surely crown companies should be the exception rather than the rule. But this bill No. 155 is a blanket bill; we as members of the Progressive Conservative party have serious objections to some of the terms of that bill, and because of those objections cannot support it.
I am going to list six objections. No doubt there are others. I think each one. of these six is important, and I would ask hon. members on all sides of the house to give careful consideration to them.
The first objection is that there is no limit to the number of crown companies which can be set up; further, that any department can set them up.
The second objection is that government activities of this type are far removed from parliamentary control; the crown company is

Government Companies
far removed from parliamentary control. If this bill is carried it will weaken parliament; it will be one more step in taking away parliament's powers. The only check on a crown company that the minister can promise is that its accounts will be brought in once a year and laid on the table of the house. It may be that they will be studied by a special committee, but I submit to hon. members that that is an ineffective control; it means locking the stable door after the horse has gone.
As the number of crown companies increases, the effectiveness even of that control will diminish accordingly. Just consider the position if we have fifty of these crown companies; parliament will have no effective control over them or their operations. I do not think anyone in this house will contend that parliament has had any effective control over crown companies during the war. Certainly in my experience there has been little control over the activities of these companies; with other problems pressing, and in the hurry of the war, parliament did not bother very much about how these crown companies were carrying on.
The third objection is that no provision is made for these crown companies to pay any taxes municipal, provincial or federal. The Minister of Reconstruction pointed out the other day that a crown company did not have to pay taxes because it had the protection of the British North America Act. Hon. members will find in section 25 of that act the following:
No lands or property belonging to Canada or any province shall be liable to taxation.
The time has long since passed when the dominion should shelter behind that provision of the British North America Act at the expense of the municipalities. Certainly these crown companies should pay municipal taxes. I suppose there are dozens of municipalities across Canada losing out because the dominion pays no taxes. I have here a resolution passed a few months ago by the city council of my home city of Vancouver which sums up the situation as it applies in every municipality in Canada in which there is any considerable amount of crown property:
That this council reiterates its stand of June 12, 1945. when it passed and asked His Worship to present to the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities the subjoined resolution which was adopted at the 8th annual conference of that body for submission to the federal and provincial governments.
Whereas under the British North America Act, 1867, the property of the crown (whether dominion or provincial) is not subject to municipal taxation;
And whereas at the time the act was passed only a few properties belonged to the crown, such as post offices, court houses, penitentiaries, etc.;	_	_
And whereas since that time, and particularly during the war years, both governments have
vastly increased their holdings and have embarked upon many forms of commercial business never contemplated in 1867;
And whereas municipalities are required to provide services for government buildings, such as roads, fire protection, police protection, sewer facilities, etc.;
And whereas it may be expected for some years that the number of government properties in the municipalities will not diminish;
Therefore be it resolved that this conference reiterate its stand that some measure of relief for the municipalities must be worked out, and that pending such an amendment to the British North America Act as will require the government to pay taxes in the ordinary way provision be made by way of grants or otherwise to offset the value of the services contributed to them as aforesaid.
In that city there is dominion government property assessed at over $15,000,000 and provincial government property assessed at over $3,000,000, to a total of $18,464,150. If that were taxable at the ordinary rate that a ratepayer has to pay it would yield $608,574 per annum. In my opinion the dominion has been getting away with murder in the last few years in so far as exemption from payment of municipal taxes is concerned. Also, the crown companies pay no provincial taxes, nor do they pay federal taxes and therefore are not on the same footing as private business, and that brings me to my fourth objection.
In some cases crown companies will be in direct competition with private business. I do not think any member of the house can question that fact. They are bound to be in competition with private business, to some degree at least, and one proof of that fact is that these crown companies are set up in the way that has been devised so that they can pay the same type of salaries that are paid by private industry. I do not want hon. members to think I am speaking on behalf of big business, because the big fellow is usually able to take care of himself. It is the little fellow who goes to the wall and who will suffer from competition of this type. It should be made clear to every Canadian that with each independent business man destroyed we chop down one of the pillars on which the nation rests.
The fifth objection is that the bill makes possible the setting up of a super civil service. Employment is entirely in the hands of officers of the crown companies. They can hire whomsoever they choose and pay whatever salaries they wish. The minister explained that one of the reasons he wanted crown companies was to pay salaries commensurate with those paid by private industry. These provisions regarding employment leave the way wide open for patronage, wide open for employment of supporters of the government
Government Companies

that happens to be in power at the time. The companies are designed to get around the Civil Service Act. That is one reason for having them.
The Civil Service Act, as hon. members know, is based upon the principle of employment on merit; upon the principle of everyone having the same type of pension plan and of keeping appointments entirely away from patronage. But these crown companies are set up in such a way that their employees can become a super civil service.
The sixth objection is that by using these crown companies the government is putting into effecet a very fine method of bringing about a socialist state. There are "hear, hears" from my left.' The members of the C.C.F. party will agree, I am sure, with that statement; and that very fact should be a warning to the private members on the Liberal side of the house. Let that sink in, that the C.C.F. are applauding the fact that this bill makes socialism easy. They have already been using this same system in the province of Saskatchewan and naturally they want the same system written into the federal law. I warn the government, I warn private members of the Liberal party particularly, that this bill-


An hon. MEMBER:: We are stealing their thunder.


Howard Charles Green: -is opening the floodgates of socialism. We believe that the bill should be withdrawn, that far more thought should be given to its implications, and that in the meantime the minister should bring in separate bills providing for his three companies which are to carry on or, if he wishes, providing for the five companies. I think there would be little trouble in having bills of that type pass the house; but we cannot support any blanket bill of- this kind which in effect, even though it may not be in intent, is an attempt to grasp, for ministers of the crown, powers that belong to the Canadian parliament.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): I do not very often intervene in debate in this house, but I must say that in seventeen years' experience here I have never heard a more stupid, a more nonsensical, a more fatuous speech in my life than I have just listened to from my hon. friend on the opposite side.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have the floor.


Howard Charles Green: On a point of order.


James Horace King: I understand the hon. gentleman is speaking to a point of order.
[Mr. Grren.l


Howard Charles Green: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that those words are not parliamentary and should be withdrawn, although I may say I have a very low estimate of the value of the minister's opinions. I submit, however, that the words should be withdrawn.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If they are not parliamentary, sir, they are very sincere, and if I were to express my opinions outside they would be no less sincere and ten times, more unparliamentary.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: Withdraw.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I will not withdraw a single word, because every single word is parliamentary. I know my rules.


Mr. TUSTIN:: Yes, you think you do.


An hon. MEMBER:: We know our rights.


James Horace King: Order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The remark has been made to-night by the typical Tory mind-


Arthur Leroy Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Speaking only to the point of order-


An hon. MEMBER:: Don't be stupid.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You know, the mule gave certain advice at one time; therefore I realize where it comes from.


James Horace King: Order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, we have heard-


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


James Horace King: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We are waiting for a ruling.


James Horace King: I did not hear the hon. member ask that the words used by the hon. member should be withdrawn.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not intend for one second-


Howard Charles Green: I ask that the words used originally be withdrawn. I forgot what they were. One was-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have pleasure in withdrawing all the unremembered words. So far as the clever boy from Eglinton is concerned, I think he had better just refrain for the moment from intervening in this debate.

Government Companies


Arthur Leroy Smith: Why not sit down on the point of order?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I must say I myself have not infringed upon the tolerance, patience and indulgence of the house as the hon. member for Calgary West has in the last few days.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I rise to another point of order. Why not take that back? I accept it just as it is given.


James Horace King: Order. Hon. members
know that when an hon. member has the floor he should not be interrupted without his consent.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I rise to a point of order. The minister, charming and all as he may be, a moment ago said that he had not been in the position of the member for Calgary West who did certain things. I am quite unable to keep up with him because he has that fluid sort of mind which runs all over.


James Horace King: Order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think the house Will probably forgive the hon. gentleman. All I want to say is this, and I think the house will pardon me for saying it. To-night we have the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) submitting to the house and to the country in the days of transition, reconstruction and reconversion a well-considered plan for the direction of certain activities of the country.


An hon. MEMBER:: 


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think the whole house, regardless of our political affiliations, will agree that no man in the Dominion of Canada did more during the six trying years of war to lead us to victory than did the hon. gentleman who is now submitting to this house a certain plan in regard to crown companies. And just because it savours slightly of public ownership, direction and control, these backwoods Tories come here with rusty bowie knives to try to kill the very fine conception of modern industrial development in Canada. I think the country which gave my hon. friend such loyalty and support during those dark years of war, and also this house, will give him equal support and loyalty in carrying out these new policies for the development of Canadian industry to meet the problems of to-morrow.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is one for the book.


Angus MacInnis: I regret very much that I have not the fluency of language to follow in the footsteps of the
hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie). However, with my disabilities in that regard I shall try to deal with this bill and with some of the objections to it raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), in which he was stating the position of the official opposition in the matter.
To-day I was writing a radio script for a recording, and without knowing exactly what my hon. friends were going to say I think I put it down right by saying that they would oppose these several bills on the order paper for public ownership. I can understand their fears but I cannot understand how they can logically oppose measures of this kind. Let us look at the picture that is confronting not only Canada but the world. And in doing this let us take our minds back to the ten years before the war and consider the state of affairs that existed when the war began. Are we to leave the natural resources, and the welfare of the people of this country, to the caprice of certain individuals who may or may not develop our resources for the benefit of the people of Canada? That is the question confronting us. Unless my hon. friends will say and give proof that there are people in Canada who are prepared to place their capital in ventures of this kind and at the same time safeguard the interests of the whole of the people of Canada, there is nothing they can logically do but support the representatives of the people-the government-in carrying out these projects.
In discussing another measure to-day I believe the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) referred time and again to the fact that we were taking these things away from the Canadian people.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, may I rise to a point of order? Is it not against the rules to discuss a recent debate in dealing with this measure?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, not necessarily.
Look up citation 293.


James Horace King: I call the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that he rose twice on a point of order and I did 'not see any point of order. If he wants to ask a question of the hon, member who has the floor it is his privilege to ask it, but the hon. member need not be interrupted. Having no point of order, I do not think the hon. member should rise.


Angus MacInnis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Arthur Leroy Smith: My point
was that the hon. member was quoting from a previous debate. If I am wrong, all right.
Government Companies


Angus MacInnis: I did not quote from a previous debate. I merely mentioned that such a debate took place, and gave the trend of the speaker's remarks. But I need not even go that far. Surely the people of this country have far more control over what is done by this government, or by any other government that might be sitting on that side of the house, than they have over the acts and actions of private concerns. What control, for instance, have the people of Canada over the Aluminum Company of Canada? What control have they over International Nickel? What control have they over any of these large corporations that are essential to the life of this country? They have not the slightest control.
During the last few months we have seen a trend in affairs not only in this country but in nations throughout the world. Where there are socialist governments they go on with measures of this kind as a matter of considered policy in the best interests of the people, and they are really doing what the people have asked them to do.
The hon. member for Vancouver South raised six objections to this measure. I am not going to say that this measure is perfect; but it is now before this house and it is the duty of those who believe in the principle involved to make it as perfect as possible, while at the same time it is the duty of hon. members to my right, the official opposition, to oppose it if they do not agree with it. But I think most hon. members will agree with the principles of the bill. The hon. member for Vancouver South says,his first objection is that there is no limit to the number of crown companies that may be set up. If the welfare of the people of Canada demands the setting up of crown companies why should we set any limit? Surely it is within the good judgment of ..members of this house whether or not a crown company is desirable or necessary at any particular time.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Agreed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is just what we are asking. We want to examine them one by one, which is what the hon. member asked.


Angus MacInnis: That may or may not be an objection. But the hon. gentleman objects to the whole principle, as far as I am able to gather.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Howard Charles Green: Let us have them one by one.


Angus MacInnis: And perhaps the hon. member would oppose each one. Why not, as the member for Vancouver South said a moment ago, oppose them in blanket form rather than go to the trouble of opposing them one by one?
Then the hon. member said this bill would take the crown companies away from parliamentary control. But, Mr. Speaker, it lies with this parliament as to how much control we wish to have.
His third objection was that there was no provision for crown companies to pay taxes. Well, since the value of what will be produced by the crown companies will go back to the people of Canada through the consolidated revenue fund, the services required by the people will ultimately be paid for out of such funds. I quite appreciate that the municipalities have difficulties, but we shall have to meet those difficulties in the same way we met the situation when private companies refused to provide employment for the people of Canada, and we had to pay unemployment relief. The government cannot get away from these matters. We may as well use the resources of the country to provide these things first hand instead of leaving them to private companies and then have to do them second hand.
The fourth objection was that crown companies would be in competition with private companies. Well, I thought my hon. friends believed in competition, so that does not appear to be a very strong objection.
The fifth objection was that these companies will create super civil servants. I have always noticed that when my hon. friends think of government or government projects they always do so in relation to the jobs which may be created and who will get them. After all, their fears are merely an evidence of what is constantly in our minds, that is, that under the present competitive system all are competing against each other to survive, each one striving here and striving there to get a job so that he may have some hold, no matter how precarious, upon the means of existence. Surely an intelligent society that is able to produce sufficient for all our needs could get us away from that sort of struggle.
The sixth objection was that this would bring about socialism. Well, it is perhaps a natural fear, but I cannot see any great objection myself. But whether hon. gentlemen to my right move to the other side of the house or whether the present government remains there, it will not make the slightest difference; all of you will be driven in the same direction. You must socialize the means
I Mr. A. L. Smith.]

Government Companies
of life within this country in order to assure the people of Canada of the goods and services which their labour produce.


Mr. KUHL:: The farms, too? The farms are a means of life.


Angus MacInnis: Not very long ago I heard an hon. member over there say that under the present system the farms were a means of carrying on slavery. If we can put an end to the slavery on the farms we shall do so; but if the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Kuhl) wishes to continue it for himself, that is all right with me. This war has demonstrated several things. One thing it has shown is that men and women will work for the government, or, in other words, for the people of Canada, just as faithfully and just as effectively as they will work for a private company. From some of the not very loud statements I hear coming from the other side of the house I have an idea that all are not in accord over there.
An hon. MEMBER; It is behind you, to the left.


Angus MacInnis: I did not expect anything from over there, anyway, because they have nothing there. But my hon. friends should not worry about the opposition over here; let them worry about their own opposition over there. I may have been hearing echoes from this side, however, so we shall let it go at that. So far as this party is concerned, we are going to support the principle of this bill. We will do what we can to improve it and to see that the interests of the people of Canada are protected as well in the operation of the measure as they are in the principle itself.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, a speech is a good speech or a weak speech as it provokes argument or stimulates sleep. I think the hon. member for ^Vancouver South (Mr. Green)-or Vancouver some place-made a good speech because it provoked argument.


Howard Charles Green: South was right.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I was going to ask the minister a question. What is the difference between crown companies and public ownership? I lean decidedly toward public ownership, up to a certain stage. When I think of the controls we exerted during the war in connection with war expenditures, and when I see the country is safe under the foundations laid by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) I take some satisfaction. I believe where public ownership or crown com-63260-135
panies can be operated for the good of the people as a whole, they should be set up. Look at Trans-Canada Air Lines.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Look at them.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I think Trans-Canada Air Lines should be publicly owned or controlled by the government; but, of course, if you have not an honest government in control, it is a bad thing. But we happen to have an honest government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Of course doctors differ. I believe radio should be controlled.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And how!


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I mean government controlled. Who would say that anything connected with atomic energy should not be controlled? But when the hon. member for Vancouver South said there were no controls, I bring to mind some of the controls exerted by the war expenditures committee, reports sent to the minister, investigations made and contracts cancelled and fines levied. Control is what is necessary. As the other hon. member from Vancouver said'-and we have some great men from Vancouver, no matter what party they belong to-I believe controls are absolutely necessary. We shall have better control from a man like the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply than we shall have from men who control privately owned corporations.
I would take my stand in this way, that one of the causes of labour unrest to-day is that men who toiled at small wages remember, when they go on strike, that they have seen companies able to invest hundreds and thousands of dollars in victory bonds while they, themselves, cannot own their own homes.
I congratulate the minister upon this bill, and of course I shall support it.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the three-cornered Vancouver debate with considerable interest. I am always very happy to hear my hon. friend, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie). He always gives a fine demonstration on these things, and I always try my best to follow that smooth, Gaelic language of his; but I find it difficult to get every word of it.
However, I thought this time he did a very good job, except for this one thing, that he drew the complete support of my hon. friends to the right. That always makes me most suspicious. If I did not have suspicions before, I certainly did have them after the exchange took place.

Government Companies

I rhust say, first of all, that I for one, having watched with interest the work done, by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe), and having noted carefully the contribution he made during the war, must say that I appreciate what he did during the war. But his contribution in wartime certainly does not entitle him to special privileges after the war is over.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He is not asking for any.


Solon Earl Low: That seemed to be the whole tenor of ,.the appeal made 'by the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Grote Stirling: Exactly.


Solon Earl Low: No other reason for it at all.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: By their fruits ye shall know them.


Solon Earl Low: I was not much moved either, by the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). I have listened time after time in the house to speeches from him and from other members of his party, and they often remind me of that mental conceit that is utterly unaware of the rattle of its own dry bones. So far as his arguments were concerned, he did not get down to the facts of the situation with respect to this bill.
Here is the nub of the whole thing: Are we to put into the hands of the government an enabling bill under which they can set up at will any crown corporation they wish to set up; and to finance, and carry on under its terms the hiring and firing all servants? By the way, when I speak of financing, I should like to refer to what was said by the minister when he introduced this measure. These are his words as reported at page 1511 of Hansard:
The present bill is intended to provide for the financing of such companies and in particular to enable them to use operating revenue to pay operating costs, and to enable emergency requirements for funds to be met.
I draw attention to that for this purpose:
I do not think it is good governmental practice at any time to set up a crown company and clothe it with power to use its own operating revenue to pay its own operating costs, because you take the control of the corporation, which ought to carry on in a responsible way to the people, through their representatives in parliament, completely away from the House of Commons. One of the major reasons members sit in the house is to control expenditures by the government. But if we are to set up crown companies under enabling or blanket bills of this kind, and
[Mr. Low.l
give them the power to use operating revenue to pay operating costs, then it removes control of that company and its financing largely from the House of Commons; and I object to that procedure.
I am asked if private companies would not do the same thing. Yes, but private companies carry on their own affairs, and, further, private companies are not supposed to answer to parliament for their revenues or expenditures.
Mr. MaeINNIS: Are they supposed to answer to anybody?


Solon Earl Low: Yes.
Mr. MaeINNIS: To whom?


Solon Earl Low: The people whom they serve.
Mr. MaeINNIS: Yes, "the people whom they serve"-the shareholders.


Solon Earl Low: No, the consumers of this country. I know what these people are thinking.


Mrs. STRUM:: Did the farm implement companies consult the farmers when they increased the cost of farm implements?


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, one of the things we need most in this house is another lady member to take the measure of my hon. friend to the right. If I started to do it they would blame me for picking on a woman.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Did I ever at any time ask you to give me preferred treatment?


James Horace King: I would ask hon. members to address themselves to the Chair.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I merely wished to ask the hon. member if at any time I had ever given the impression that I wanted preferred treatment in this house.


Solon Earl Low: There are some of us at least, Mr. Speaker, who try to be gentlemen.
I have attempted to place before the house one of the objections which I take to this bill. This sort of thing, granting a crown corporation the right to use its own operating revenues to pay its own operating costs, is not done in the operation of the Canadian National Railways. If it is not done there, there must be a reason. If it is done in these crown companies, Polymer and Canadian Arsenals Limited, already set up, I have yet to find one good reason why they should follow a different practice from that which is followed with respect to the Canadian National Railways.
The second reason I object to this bill is this. I have no objection whatever, where the exigencies of the occasion demand it,

Government Companies
to seeing a crown corporation set up. Crown corporations have their place, and that was amply demonstrated during the time of emergency in the war. I have never objected to Polymer; I have never objected to Canadian Arsenals, and I have never objected to any other crown companies being set up to meet an emergency situation. But I claim that the emergency situation requiring them has largely passed. We are now facing a time of peace, and certainly it is only right that we should return in our rehabilitation and reconstruction measures so far as we possibly can to the system of enterprise carried on privately. I have never criticized those crown corporations; but, sir, why we should now give blanket powers to the government to set up other corporations at will and clothe them with unusual powers is beyond me. The wisest thing to do, if we need other crown corporations, is to bring a bill into this parliament for each, and let the representatives of the people judge whether the corporation proposed is a good one. Let the representatives find out from their people whether they want more corporations, and let them say whether or not the minister is entitled to have such crown corporations. If that is done, and if I am convinced that the corporation proposed is a good one, I will certainly support a bill brought in to create it, but I do request that we give careful consideration to a principle which I think is objectionable, of granting the government blanket powers to set up any crown corporation they see fit at any time. That is the main reason why I cannot support this bill.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: 
Clarence Decatur Howe: Of capital.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Yes, I thought it was around that figure. The minister said he was reducing the assets of the government to the point where he would retain only those things that were needed for defence; such things, for instance, as are required in the servicing of ships, the arsenals, those things connected with atomic power, uranium deposits and related industries which may arise through the development of atomic power. As to Polymer, everybody knows that we cannot afford not to have supplies of rubber in this modern age if we are to defend ourselves. The only thing the minister asked was that in the interest of defence we maintain these activities for our own safety. He made it quite clear at the time that the government did not believe in government enterprise and would do only those things that were required for the safety of this country. So I fail to see the logic of the objection; I fail to see the reasoning.
Although I hesitate to jump into this Vancouver civil war, I cannot see that the fears of what the minister might do were justified because the record of this government has been that only very reluctantly has it ever embarked upon social ownership, and then only because of an emergency.
I want to ask this question: What other authority has the right to defend Canada? There is not any other authority. This government has not only the right but the responsibility to take care of those assets which are vital to our defence. I am sure, having the record of this government in mind, that they will undertake only those things.
The point has been made that the government pays no taxes. To me that is a fallacious argument because the government in fact pays 100 per cent taxes, for the earnings of any government enterprise - the earnings of the arsenal were about $1,000,000, I think the minister said, because they had sold certain things-go into the federal treasury. It is the only form of enterprise that does pay 100 per
Government Companies

cent profits tax, and so I see no grounds for the argument that the government pays no taxes.
In closing, I merely wish to say that the people of Canada would be very much disappointed and very uneasy indeed if the government did not provide the necessary means to embark on those things which we must do for our defence at this time when there is so much fear in the country.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I listened with amazement to some of my Conservative friends this evening on the question of public ownership. I have a vivid recollection of Sir Adam Beck when in the province of Ontario he established the greatest publicly owned power system in the world at that time.


An hon. MEMBER:: It still is.


Humphrey Mitchell: I believe we can all agree that he made a notable contribution to the life of that'province. We had the cheapest power in the world. The establishment of that great publicly owned undertaking profoundly affected the industrial life of the province of Ontario.


Mr. MANROSS:: The 25-cycle 1


Humphrey Mitchell: "The 25-cycle", my hon. friend says. I could argue that point with him too. If he knows anything about the industry he will know that at that time it was agreed by those interested that 25 cycles was the most economical way of distributing power. Of course in later years that opinion has changed, but that is beside the point. I have a vivid recollection of the campaigns which took place at that time. I thought, when the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) was speaking this evening, that he is just thirty years behind the times. Recently we had an example in Quebec of the taking over by Premier Duplessis of the Montreal Light, Heat and Power company: I do not suppose by the longest stretch of the imagination he, or his predecessor Premier Godbout- for anyway it was done by the government of Quebec-could be accused of being a socialist. Confronting us now is an undertaking far more revolutionary than the development of electric power. The potentialities of atomic energy, we are given to understand by those scientists who specialize in the subject, are the greatest of any invention since the discovery of the use: of fire and the invention of the wheel.
I am not altogether in agreement, however, with the statement of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum) that you do not need to be taxed for government ownership.
{Mrs. Strum.]
I am of the opinion that, with the development in various directions of public ownership, governments will find it necessary, while not directly taxing publicly owned industry, to tax the users of those undertakings. There are only two places where one can get the money. Like the Quakers are said to do, you must go where the money is; you must go to the people who are able to pay. But that does not affect the principle that the state should own great undertakings of this kind. I am not a socialist. I believe that where risk is involved, where one has to take the long view and encounter dips and elevations in the economic life of the country, there is a proper place for private enterprise. But the proper place for such great undertakings as the nation's power sources is under the jurisdiction of the government. I was surprised, therefore, that the hon. member for Vancouver South reverted to the dark ages of the Conservative party in advocating a policy which is in direct contradiction of everything which has been supported by some of its greatest leaders.


Howard Charles Green: Of course the minister did not understand what I advocated.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We are really having a great evening, and I am afraid I shall not be able to live u,p to what has already been said.


An hon. MEMBER:: Nobody expects that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I did not refer particularly to the standard set by the hon. gentleman opposite; I was just speaking generally.
I would say first of all to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) that I am afraid I am going to be in his opinion "stupid, nonsensical and fatuous", because I propose to maintain the ground taken by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green); and to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) I may appear thirty years behind the times. But I do want to get hon. members if I can to look at the, propositions made by the hon. member for Vancouver South, from which everybody except the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) has departed miles away. The hon. member for Peace River has said so many of the things I was going to say that I almost felt it was not necessary for me to speak at all. But in view of the speeches made since he spoke, I believe it is worth while to come back and direct the mind of the house to the things which the hon. member for Vancouver South said, and which I believe, as he believes, are serious and well worthy of our consideration.

Government Companies
What did he ask? He did not speak for or against socialism, and I do not think tonight we need to have impassioned speeches on the subject of socialism. I am one who believes that it should be looked at in a detached way. I do not think we Should become theological about socialism. I do not regard myself as an enemy of the human race because I am not a socialist. I believe the way we should look at questions of this kind
is,	which method will do the particular job best in the particular case, public ownership or private ownership; and that in effect was the attitude taken by the hon. member for Vancouver South in what he said to-night.
Let me repeat what be said. In effect it was this, let us get away from a lot of-shall we say?-'herrings. Are there "red" herrings?


An hon. MEMBER:: I would say that
Ontario Hydro is a pretty fair herring.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We shall come back to that in a moment. The hon. member for Vancouver South said, although not in these words, that as the bill stands it gives us a nice, easy, slippery slope right into socialism. If that is what we want-and bon. gentlemen to my left want it, and I expected that they would acclaim the bill-then, of course, we shall vote for it. But some of my hon. friends to the left will agree with me in this, because I know some of them can be talked to like the rest of us can be talked to, that before we slip into socialism the people of Canada are entitled to have a good look at, it. I believe hon. members will agree that there is no sign at present that the majority of our people want socialism. Therefore, if we are changing our way of doing business, it is fair that the people should have a good look at what we are doing while we are doing it. That is all that the hon. member for Vancouver South asked for.
I come now to a point made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I wish I were as highland as he is; I am only a poor diluted highlander, about twenty-five per cent genuine: were I 100 per cent I feel that I might amount to something. All we highlanders are more or less sentimental. I think the Minister of Veterans Affairs is a real sentimentalist; I love him for it but I do not follow him for
it.	He really asked us to vote for the bill because the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) 'had done a good job during the war. That was what his speech amounted to. I would not disagree with him that the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply did a good job during the war. Incidentally I suspect that if we knew the whole truth we would discover that this is
the Minister's bill and that a great many hon. members opposite feel about this bill very much as we do but they will not have any more to say about it than I have, indeed not nearly as much, because they will not have the-chance to say anything about it at all.
During the war the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply exercised great powers; We approved that; we could not be finicky about giving power in war time. At such; a time one expects a relaxing of ordinary restrictions. But now we are in peace time,, and we are really being asked in time of peace to accept a condition applicable only in time of war. I submit-and I think this is the point which the hon. member for Vancouver South made in connection with the bill-that if the measure passes we can have government companies by the score, and let no one imagine that measures creating them are going to be considered by parliament.
I expect they will not even' be considered by the government. I assume what will happen is that each particular minister will decide what company he wants and will come with his proposal to the cabinet and the thing will be approved.
Therefore what do we have? If we approve this bill we have a movement into socialism, to an extent which nobody can measures That is the reason why hon. gentlemen to the-left of us approve-quite naturally-the bill. There is no stopping place; nobody can tell us where the thing will end.
One further remark. I have made the point that people are entitled to "stop, look and listen" when the way of life which they have approved is being changed. It is perfectly proper to ask that this thing should be taken* step by step. When there is an industry" which the government thinks should be run' by the public, very well; let them come and tell us all about it; let us discuss it; let the people of Canada know what is going to be done; let parliament consider the matter, and let it be approved by the people's representatives. We are not saying that there should be no public ownership. The hon. member for Vancouver South said exactly the opposite.
One further point. There have been many references in this house to the present British government, and I submit that it is of some interest to us to know that the present British government is dealing with this matter, as I understand, in exactly the way that we propose that it should be dealt with. Take the steel; industry. They are passing a special bill in that regard and they are doing it cautiously. The British minister in introducing that measure said that the British government, proposed:
... to review the field-
Government Companies

That is, the field of the steel industry.
[DOT]-section by section and firm by firm, in consultation with the industry, before deciding on the exact boundary in each case.
That, it will be said, is different, that they are taking over an existing industry. I submit, however, that in principle it is not at all different. I say to the government: You are going to step into this, that and the other industry, and when you step into an industry, do you mean to suggest that that does not affect the industry as a whole? Of course it does. It alters the whole condition of doing business in that industry if you step in where there is already private competition. This case that comes from England is absolutely in point. Moreover, it indicates the sound way in which these matters should come up in the house and should be considered; and, as the hon. member for Vancouver South said, only when that is done, only when the people of Canada have had a chance to consider what they are doing, should these important steps be taken.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, I speak now largely to assist the .Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe), who told me just now, sotto voce, *that he had not yet spoken. I want to speak now so that he will have ample material to -discuss when he does close the debate. I am not going to be very long, and that should -be gratifying to most hon. gentlemen who are *here.
First, I wish to refer to some things which [DOT]by some stretch of imagination might be re-.'garded as political, and I want to compliment the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maelnnis) and the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who is the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), on having that nice clean line between the two Vancouver seats, and to reinforce an idea which I have always had that hon. gentlemen immediately to my left and those immediately facing me have a thorough understanding of one another's position. I hope that will not be regarded in a narrow sense, because I made a note of what the hon. member for Vancouver East said, that he commended the government for going on with socialistic measures. I do not think any phrase of mine could even compare with the choice of phrase made by the hon. member in his compliment to the government, on the pace and direction in which they are proceeding.
May I mention just one thing, and in the event of my being regarded as not being always serious, I am asking the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply whether in his judgment the passage of this bill does not
{Mr. MacdonneU.]
mean, as in my judgment it does, a blanket authority to constitute crown companies. Before he shakes his head, let me add this. Adding this to the previous resolution with respect to the national research council, wherein a blanket authority is certainly given to create these companies; having regard to the resolution with respect to atomic energy, I again ask the minister the question that I have put to him-and I notice he is being advised by that eminent lawyer, the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I am again asking him whether it is not the fact that this gives the government blanket authority to do exactly what I said. That is my view. I am just a bit of a police court lawyer; I know nothing about constitutional problems. But behind the minister there sits a very great lawyer from Windsor who operates in another department. I am sure that the minister has only to whisper to him the question I have asked, and he will be told that my humble suggestion is accurate with respect to the law as to what the government is now proposing.
Now, granted that I am wrong-


Mr. ABBOTT:: We will grant that.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I have just heard from the Minister of National Defence and I am glad he interrupted me. What he is folding now is not a newspaper, but he is the greatest newspaper reader in the House of Commons. He really reads them. He does that in moments of embarrassment and I know perfectly well that the Minister of National Defence would not read a newspaper upside down. We who come from the west have learned that everybody who advertises in eastern Canada advertises upside down. That is all I have been able to get from the backs of papers spread out in front of the hon. gentleman.
Our humble suggestion is this, and I say this with great respect to the imaginings of the hon. member for Vancouver East, who of course gets out the old needle. The record is a bit scratched, but every time we come to socialism away goes the needle and we hear the same old song, which some day I hope will be a siren song. Nevertheless we hear it. All we are saying in connection with this matter is this. No one has said a word against Polymer or the company which produces at Great Bear lake-Eldorado. No one has said a single word against Canadian Arsenals, with great respect to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum), and I confess I am thoroughly frightened of her. However, may I say that I agree with her entirely that matters of defence should be owned and operated by the government of the country.

Government Companies


Clarence Gillis: No profits in that.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Probably you would like to have a go at this thing. You are probably one of those people who a moment ago discussed taxation-no, it was the hon. member sitting immediately to my right. Certainly they will give 100 per cent of their profits to the country, but we have not heard of any profits yet, though it is lovely in theory. But the little municipality in which they run their business does not get a dime. Let us think that one over, because they are the people who are trying to operate the municipalities. I am being inter rupted in many places, Mr. Speaker. I am not like the chap who went to the sea and told the waters to go back. I was never that silly. I leave that to my hon. friends the socialists immediately to my left.


Angus MacInnis: You are doing your best.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I always do, and that is a great deal more than you do occasionally.


Angus MacInnis: It would be too bad for you if I did.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: May I ask a question?


Arthur Leroy Smith: Indeed you may.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Did you ever hear of a corporation getting a tax-free option for twenty-five years? General Motors got that in Saskatchewan, in Regina.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I will accept what the hon. member says about the city of Regina. I do not know anything about the General Motors situation. But if they did the burgesses of Regina passed on it and voted for it. There cannot be any doubt about that, because they could not get it otherwise.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: May I ask the hon. member another question?


Arthur Leroy Smith: Ask me anything you wish, and I shall be very happy to answer.	-


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Did the hon. member -hear that about two years after the employees had been brought in they had to go on relief and Regina had to keep them?


Arthur Leroy Smith: I can answer that in one word. I have a brother who worked there for a long time. He was employed when the government took over and operated it as a war plant, and he has never been on relief nor has he ever asked
me for a dime, for two reasons: one, I did not have a dime; and two, he would not ask for it.. .
I turn to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. He told us how well the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply had done. I will admit -and I am sure my hon. friends to my immediate left will be happy when I say this-that during the war years the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply was the darling of big business. Nobody could say enough about-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Your leader is to your immediate left.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I said the party to my immediate left; I am sorry but a hairpin is good for an occasion, I am told.
During the three years the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply was the darling of big business. Times have changed in that way. Remember, I have not lost my humble admiration for him one little bit owing to his change of heart. As the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) said-my memory is terrible but I think I have him pinned down somewhere-during these days all of us from the humblest to the greatest, whatever these expressions may mean, were of one mind. We were all at one; we were all united. I am going to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs a question. He tells us what the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply did then. He is very much in favour of the incorporation of crown corporations. In order that he and the hon. member for Vancouver East may get together, may I ask, is he in favour of private enterprise or state ownership?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Both.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Well, I have been at many circuses, and I have found that the only chap that can do that wears a long hat and paints his face.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Read the works of Winston Churchill. May I have the permission of my hon. friend for half a minute?


Arthur Leroy Smith: You have my permission for anything in the world.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is what Churchill said in a speech on May 21, 1945:
And I tell you my solemn belief which is that if we act with comradeship and loyalty to our country and to one another and if we can make state enterprise and free enterprise both serve national interests and pull the national wagon side by side then there is no need for us to run into that horrible devastating slump or into that squalid epoch of bickering and confusion which mocked and squandered the hard-won victory which we gained a quarter of a century ago.
Government Companies

That is Right Hon. Winston Spencer Churchill speaking.


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I be so happy as to agree with the Right Hon. Winston Churchill, and I am happier still that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has had the remarks passed to him from somewhere down the line and discovered what Churchill said on March 21, 1945. We are all so happy about that, and some of the hon. gentlemen opposite-


Douglas Charles Abbott: The Minister of Veterans Affairs gave me the same quotation-


Arthur Leroy Smith: I wish I could hear what the Minister of National Defence is saying.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I just wanted to say that my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, gave me the same quotation to use in the debate on the industrial development bank two years ago, Mr. Speaker.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Of course, Churchill did not say it until March 21, 1945,
so-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Nineteen forty-three.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Nineteen forty-three; you are wrong again.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Well, if you say I am wrong again, all right. I am one who is anxious to admit that I am wrong. I will not apologize for it; it is just my ignorance and I could not help it. You see, I am not always right. I differ so much from the people opposite. They were never wrong. The only way they can prove they are always right is to go back to 1930 and 1935 when a man by the name of Bennett sat over in those seats. They are using him to prove that they were always right. Only a fool is never wrong. The wise man admits it, and it would be a grand thing if all of us in this house-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The people proved it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The Minister of Veterans Affairs interrupts me again. I have been waiting for the day when he would stand up in the house and say, "No Tory will ever make me sit down." I wanted to be here to reply: "No Grit will ever make him stand up." That, of course, is neither here nor there.
My simple suggestion to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply is that he has not heard a single word in objection to the three companies which have been suggested. The minister shook his head a moment ago when I suggested that this bill, together with the previous one and the previous resolution, was

an omnibus concern where crown companies might be generally incorporated and brought in to operate our business. I know in connection with one he spoke of a crown company under the research council to operate patents. Someone on the government side said-I have forgotten who it was-that any patent owned by the government should be sold to the highest bidder. I agree with all that. With great respect I ask the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, would he not consider the serious suggestion we made, that when a crown company is formed it be treated as an individual concern? That is not asking a great deal. With that I assure him that of the three companies he has in mind I can safely say he will find very little opposition from this side. Therefore it is not very much to ask that they be treated individually.
We have heard about the toboggan slide to socialism. That expression was used by my deskmate, the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario. I am not thinking so much of a toboggan slide, but I know that if we get a lot of them there will be difficulties. It may be said that parliament can examine these companies in committees. For a couple of months I have been sitting on the war expenditures and economies committee which covered a great many companies. We could not make a proper examination in a couple of years if we sat every day. We have the Canadian Broadcasting corporation committee. We have the Trans-Canada Air Lines and the Canadian National railways committee. Hon. members who sit on these committees know how limited we are in time and in circumstances. Hon. members know of the lack of research people in our parliamentary library. The individual in this house who endeavours- and I am not criticizing the few unfortunate people who are down there-to undertake research soon runs into difficulties. One of our greatest lacks is a dozen or half a dozen trained research people, so that when we give them a subject we may get back into our hands something having to do with the subject. Do not think for a moment, please, that I am criticizing Mr. Hardy or anyone under him. We who have no staffs-and this applies to members on all sides of the house-that if we have to hunt for anything we waste our time in the catacombs over there and probably find the wrong things. There are not sufficient people over there. There are a few very good ones, but there are not enough to tell us where to go to try to find the answers to our problems.
Once more I am just saying to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker: will he just not reconsider this a bit? I know many people

Government Companies
say he is drunk with power. I would rather be drunk with something else, if the occasion should arise; but they also say that about a chap named Caesar Petrillo, of the musicians' union, and they say it about John L. Lewis. It is an easy accusation to make against anyone; I am not making it against the minister, but I know this. Only one man who ever lived in this world could have tremendous power and remain humble, I do not mean to his fellows but to himself. What I am suggesting in all seriousness is that the minister reconsider this. Let him bring in the bills he thinks are, necessary. Do not regard us as being merely suspicious but regard us as people who are seeking truth and wanting to examine individual measures. Then, with great respect, you will find very little difficulty from this side; but we are frightened of omnibus measures.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I wish to protest the ruling that if I speak I close the debate. I have not spoken during this debate, and I think I am entitled to do so and perhaps have the rebuttal. I ask for your ruling.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Since Mr. Speaker made the ruling, as far as I am concerned I would have to abide by it; but if you would like the Speaker recalled to the chair I shall be glad to ask him to come back. With the unanimous consent of the house-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not want unanimous consent, but I have not spoken during this debate.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I think the rule is that if the minister does not speak when introducing the measure he can speak at any time during the course of the debate.


John Bracken: Speaking to the point of order, I should like to ask whether, when the minister moves the second reading of a measure, by that very act he has not spoken?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Certainly.


William Ross Macdonald: I must say this puts me in rather an awkward position. I believe Mr. Speaker should return to the chair and decide the point; and if hon. members will just content themselves for a moment he will be here.


Clarence Gillis: I could not hear you, Mr. Speaker.


William Ross Macdonald: Since the point of order was raised when the Speaker was in the chair I suggested that he should decide the point, instead of the Deputy Speaker; and the Speaker will be back immediately.


Clarence Gillis: Well, Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of stopping the minister if he wanted to make a statement, but certainly I am not going to let him close the debate because I have a few general observations to make on this measure.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. Mr. Speaker is about to take the chair, and I suggest that he be asked to rule on the point of order before the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) continues.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no desire to press the point. I shall be glad to wait.


Clarence Gillis: In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this
debate concerns a serious matter, though some hon. members do not treat it as such. For example, when the last speaker took the floor he said he was going to speak briefly; and then he nearly exhausted his forty minutes. Apart from making a very good show of the thing, a humorous speech, I think he really contributed little to the debate except confusion. I was surprised to find that in answering the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) as to whether he stood for private enterprise or government ownership, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) was on both sides, as the Conservative party is at the present time. He believed in public ownership, and at the same time he believed in free enterprise. That is exactly the position the Conservative party are taking, as I see it. They are not opposing this bill, except as to the extent to which it may go. Then they go into the realm of prophecy and point out to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) that at some time in the future this can be developed into adjoint system of state and private ownership, and that kind of stuff.
I just want to make this point, which I do not think has been made so far in this debate. The legislation proposed by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply is not analogous to what is going on in Britain and bears no relation to it. The British government have decided upon a policy of scolialization. They have passed the basic legislation in the house and are now examining the steel industry section by section to see in what way it can best make its contribution to the economy of Britain. That is exactly what we would do were we on that side of the house. But the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply is proposing this, in my opinion, on the basis of his war experience. He is proposing the setting up of crown companies. He is asking this house to lay down for him, through this bill, the basic legislation necessary because
Government Companies

those who have operated the so-called system of free enterprise in this country for the last seventy-five years have failed. They failed in time of peace, as they are failing now with
243,000	unemployed registered in Canada last week and with the continent of Europe and the world at large crying for production. The system of free enterprise has fallen down on the job. They are not producing; they are not absorbing the ex-service personnel coming back. The minister, with his war experience, realizes this.	.


Arthur Leroy Smith: How many unemployed are there in Britain?


Clarence Gillis: That question is too silly to answer.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then laugh it off.


Clarence Gillis: A country devastated by
war, wrecked from one end to the other;
43,000,000 people on a litle island you could put inside the province of Ontario-


Arthur Leroy Smith: How many unemployed?


Clarence Gillis: -still trying to get out of the air raid shelters; and the bon. member for Calgary West compares that with Canada, a country with unlimited resources; 11,000,000 people occupying half the continent of North America; a country which does not know what to do with its resources. And we have 243,000 people unemployed while the world cries for our production. That is too silly to answer. This is a serious question and should not be put on the plane on which it was placed by the hon. member for Calgary West during the time he spoke. *


Arthur Leroy Smith: Why do you not answer the question?


Clarence Gillis: There is one thing that perhaps the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply is not forgetting, that no hon. member should forget and that certainly the Canadian people will not forget. When this war broke out; when Britain had her back to the wall, the country about which the Tory party seems to be so anxious; when the free enterprise system was called upon to produce for war the very minister who is introducing this bill tried to let war contracts in this country for the production of the necessary materials of war to assist Britain. But at that time there was a profits limitation of five per cent in those contracts; and a statute passed by this house during the short session of 1939 had to be repealed by order in council at the instance of the present minister because for months he could not get the free enterprisers

across this country to accept a single contract to produce munitions of war to enable Britain to build a jumping off place for the rest of the world when it was ready to fight. Now, in the days of peace, he is finding himself in the same position. With thousands of our boys coming back; with thousands of our *war workers being relegated back to the streets, w'e find the free enterprisers back in the saddle putting up a fight for the removal of controls, for the removal of the excess profits tax, wanting to throw the field _ wide open or threatening to go on a sit-down strike and not produce. In my opinion that is true in every industry in this country. The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply is not asking the house for power to socialize or nationalize anything in this country. He is merely asking us for authority, to give him the right to act where free enterprise has failed to develop the resources of this country as it is doing in the maritime provinces from end to end. There are many small industries which could be set up there. But they would be competing with the big industries in central Canada. They are not set up, with the result that in the maritime provinces to-day you have either to get a policy of taking the people out or to give someqne authority to develop small industries in that end of the country.
That is the idea behind what is being done by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply at this time. So far as I am concerned, this bill is limited in its powers. When one considers the amount of capital that any one company will be allowed to handle in one year, namely a half a million dollars, it means nothing. And they are restricted and limited to that extent, under the bill. Personally, I should like to see those limitations taken out.
All we have to do is to stop and examine for a minute the whole problem on the basis of common sense. Is the fuel industry in'this country operating to capacity, or in the best interests of the people of Canada? It is not. We face an emergency, a crisis, in that industry to-day. Is that not also true in the lumbering industry? People in this country are crying for houses, and we find the lumbering industry-the essential industry in the building of houses-tied up under your system of free enterprise.
We can go right along and find the same thing in the textile industry. You cannot buy a shirt or a suit of clothes without a priority ticket. The whole machinery is tied up under the system we have to-day. There is no competition; there is no threat to them. In giving the minister the right to set up crown companies we are going to make that attempt and

Government Companies
that step in the right direction. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) has said that we are facing days of peace. What world is he living in? Where is the peace? Is it international or national peace? There is certainly not any peace. We have just transferred the war to the home front in every country. I do not think it looked much like peace in Cornwall a few days ago when members of a private detective agency from Montreal were handling strike-breakers with crowbars, in order to smash up members of the Canadian Seamen's Union who were trying to get away from an 84-hour week. There was no peace there.
From one end of this country to the other you have industrial strife and industrial' unrest because those who control the means of life in Canada to-day-and incidentally control the government from behind the scenes- are sitting back in the saddle and putting on the squeeze so as to get a freer hand to exploit the people of this country. There is no peace there.
There will be no peace in this world until the standard of living of people throughout the world is raised. Rather than hon. members looking upon this measure as a step toward socialism, I would point out to them that it is nothing to be afraid of. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) says that the people of Canada should be consulted. Well, were the people of Canada consulted when the capitalist system was adopted? Were the people of Canada consulted when the Dominion Steel and Coal company were given a blanket right to lease all fuel properties in Nova Scotia, clean out to British Columbia? They were not consulted, at all. Bills were passed, and your birthright was stolen, without any reference to the people. Socialism would merely restore to the people of this country the things that were stolen from them, legally stolen from them, through the legislatures and the House of Commons. That is what it would do. The people were not consulted then. But the people are consulted now, because under the bill proposed by the minister I would have the right to sit here, when a crown company was set up, and examine the accounts.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Oh, no.


Clarence Gillis: You do with the Canadian National railways, you do with the Post Office Department; you do with the Canadian Broadcasting corporation. Every company or government department operated or controlled by the government can be examined in the house at any time by any member who wishes toask a question.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: After it has been set up.


Clarence Gillis: Do you examine the National Trust Company's activities? Do you examine the activities of Canadian Collieries, from Vancouver? You do not.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Government inspectors do.


Clarence Gillis: So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, we are supporting the minister in the step he is taking.
I just wish to clarify the minds of my Progressive Conservative friends on the matter of socialism. This is a long way from socialism. It is merely the matter of giving a minister the right to set up, in areas where free enterprisers are not developing the resources of this country, means of employment.
Let us suppose that the Minister of Transport to-morrow were to go ahead with the building of the causeway across the strait of Canso, for which Nova Scotia members have been asking, for so long. He would have authority to set up a corporation to do that. Under the bill he would not have to come back to the house and wrangle for months and months.


George James McIlraith: There is no power in this bill to set it up.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, there is power in the bill. All you have to do is to read the explanatory note, the short bit on the second page. I am merely using that as an illustration. The Minister of Transport would have to set up a crown company. I believe the mechanics of it has been worked out in his department; at least I have seen that part of it.
If the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply wished to start an industry in New Brunswick-and many of them are badly needed there-they could be capitalized at half a million dollars. He would not have to come back to this house and be tied up for a year with all sorts of wrangling and talking about it. He could set it up and report to parliament, and we would have power to change the legislation if we so desired.
The fact of the matter is this-and we might as well understand it once and for all-that what pulled the house of cards down around the heads of the people of Europe was greed, selfishness and stupidity. That is what built Hitler. They feared social change more than they did Hitler; they were short-sighted. Many of them are dead to-day.
Government Companies

We are travelling the same road on the North American continent, if we are not careful, and if we are not prepared to take some responsibility.
An hon. MEMBER. Oh, oh.


Clarence Gillis: There is no "oh" about it; and you may not have to wait long. If you will just look across the border at the industrial unrest in the United States-in transportation, in fuel, in every one of their major industries-and look back to Canada, you will see that effort is organized by people - who understand the stupidity of those who are trying to hang on to something that died a natural death on the battlefields of Europe, and cannot be revived. Social change has to come about.
I am pleased to see that we have at least one minister in the government who is prepared to take the first logical step toward giving parliament the necessary authority to develop the resources of this country in the interests of the people of Canada; and the money derived from that comes back to the government to be distributed to the people by way of social legislation. I am glad to see that we have at least one minister; and I hope that the other ministers will get behind him, and that he will not receive a lot of Tory opposition from that side of the house. -


James Horace King: Order. During my absence the Minister of Reconstruction asked if he was entitled to speak twice, or to close the debate. If hon. members will recall, at the opening of the sitting this evening, when the Minister of Reconstruction moved the second reading of bill No. 55, respecting the operation of government companies he said:
Mr. Speaker, since I made an extensive explanation of this bill on the resolution stage I shall reserve any further remarks until later.
In making this statement, according to the rules the hon. minister is considered as having spoken. If hon. members would look at Beau-chesne, third edition, page 115, they will find this:
If a member who moves an order of the day should rise and say only a word or two, for instance that he moves the order, he is precluded from again addressing the house, except if the order of the day be a substantive motion for second reading of a bill in which case he will be allowed a reply.
Beauchesne, 2nd edition, page 106, under the heading "Standing order 43-Members not to speak twice", says in clause 3:
In all cases Mr. Speaker shall inform the house that the reply of the mover of the original motion closes the debate.
So that when no other members rise to speak, the minister, when he takes the floor, will close the debate.
[Mr. Gillis.l


Mr. F. D. SHAW (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, before making special reference to certain sections of the minister's speech delivered on May 14, may I refer to one or two statements made in the debate to-night?
In the nineteenth parliament we had an overflow of government members into the opposition side of the house. It becomes completely obvious to-night that in this twentieth parliament the picture is entirely reversed, because now we have the C.C.F. both here on this side and an overflow of C.C.F.-ers to your right, Mr. Speaker.
During his early remarks the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) referred to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) as one who was riding two horses on this particular subject, namely, public ownership and private enterprise, and he also tied in the Conservative party with that assertion. I should like to ask the hon. member for Cape Breton South how many horses he is riding. I heard the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) say that in order to accomplish certain results which he believes essential to the welfare of the people of Canada we must socialize the means of life; yet if he used that expression in some parts of Canada the C.C.F. there would become furious because they realize that it is politically wise in certain parts of this country to exclude many things from their programme of socialization, and one of the things they exclude is certainly enterprises which produce the means of livelihood.
I should like to ask the hon. member for Cape Breton South and other members of his party this question: Is it the specific function of industry to provide employment? Or is it the specific function of industry to provide the goods and services which the people of the country require? We hear from time to time a great deal said about that very subject. We are presumed to have a quarter of a million people unemployed in this country to-day. Since we are' living under the present arrangement of things unemployment means no income and therefore a desperate situation, and having that situation, it is asserted by my hon. friends to my immediate right that the responsibility for it rests entirely upon the industrial enterprise of the country. In other words, they say: "regardless of all other circumstances, industry must absorb those who are unemployed." I still look upon industry as that section of our economy which is charged primarily with the production of goods and services of the best possible quality at the lowest possible price. We must recognize the technological fact that almost daily we are improving and increasing our ways and means of production. We must

Government Companies
recognize, therefore, that the tendency in the industrial life of our country is to remove persons from the field of so-called work. This afternoon the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) referred to the leisured state, and I think he got reasonably close to the conception which I hold, namely, that if we can, through improvements in science and technology, remove men from the drudgery of eight to ten hours' work a day, then that should be our objective. But let me emphasize that we must make certain that those who are displaced as a consequence of scientific and technological development are not going to be deprived of an effective claim against the production of our industrial life.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South referred to the era of peace and at the same time he referred slightingly to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). I have never witnessed the hon. member for Cape Breton South making a substantial contribution towards the peace of this country. In fact, I sometimes think he and some of his associates thrive upon the discontent of the country, and I sometimes think they are hopeful that people will become more discontented rather than more peaceful. They refer to certain practices which have developed in industry and to the report of the price spreads commission. I know all about that report. Those practices constituted an abuse of capital, and I admit that governments should have sufficient intestinal fortitude to step in and check abuses in industry which are nefarious in character. I think everybody realizes that no government whatsoever has any right to close its eyes completely to the abuses of some of the larger corporations, while concentrating upon probably minor offences which are more easily visible.
May I refer to the speech delivered by the Minister of Reconstruction and) Supply (Mr. Howe) on May 14. I would be remiss in my duty if I were not to associate myself with the hon. member for Peace River in condemning the introduction of this new principle which the minister referred to on page 1511 of Hansard of allowing crown corporations to use their operating revenues to pay their operating costs. Within the last day or two I have had a number of complaints from my part of the country with respect to that aspect of the government's proposals. At the bottom of page 1511 of Hansard the minister classified these crown corporations in three groups. First, he referred to those of an administrative and supervisory nature. He said :
It did not directly operate plants, but it supervised their building, arranged for the operation of the plants, and handled the sale of the product.
While that applied1 during the war, it is assumed that the minister gave it as one of three functions which one or all of these crown corporations might discharge after the war. But I say to him that it does not require a crown corporation in order that building may be engaged in throughout the country. It does not require crown corporation to operate any industry efficiently; in fact, of all the examples of industry I have seen, some of the most inefficient were labelled as crown corporations. Let me assure the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the fact that before the war industry experienced difficulty in selling its products was not because a substantial portion of our industry was owned privately. Let me emphasize this fact: whether a corporation is privately owned or publicly owned you must have in the hands of your people an effective claim against its production. We realize that we have had and still have crown-operated corporations in this country, but their products and their services are not a bit easier to secure than the products and the services rendered by private companies.
Just before leaving No. 1, let me say again that our view is that the affairs of this country should be so regulated that we shall have in the hands of our people an effective claim against goods, and then it will take no crown corporation to see that such goods are properly distributed.
On page 1511 of Hansard the minister asserted:
In the second class were the manufacturing companies. We found as the war proceeded that it was necessary to increase the manufacture of certain products beyond the capacity of private industry. . .
We agree that the urgent demands of war made that course of action necessary. But what does the minister advance as the reason for a crown corporation to function after the war? I reflect back on that period from 1930 to 1939. No one will say that the industry 6f this country was then incapable of producing the requirements of the Canadian people. I well recall that our stores and warehouses were jammed with commodities. The government of the day called them "surpluses". But we realize that the whole problem was lack of effective demand for those goods. We shall have no difficulty in securing the vast quantities of produce necessary for the requirements of our people, provided that our people are in possession of those incomes which alone
Government Companies

create effective demand and which alone guarantee the full-time operation of those industries.
I move to No. 3. The minister stated:
Then there was the third class of companies, companies engaged in merchandising certain raw materials and in providing stockpiles sufficient to assure adequate supplies for war and civilian purposes.
Once again I agree that during the war this was an important function of a crown corporation. But do you remember the stockpiles we had before the war, stockpiles of grain, called "surplus", stockpiles of almost every other type of produce, called "surpluses". Why, they were even paying people not to produce, in order to reduce their stockpiles. Yet we accuse private industry-at least some people do -of not being capable of producing the requirements of our people.


An hon. MEMBER:: The C.C.F. do.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Place in the hands of your people, by whatever method you desire, purchasing power so that they can create an effective demand, and industry will flood this country. We have the natural resources. We have the skilled technical personnel and all other types of workers. It is remarkable what would be accomplished. So that I say to the minister, maybe he was simply endeavouring to justify crown corporations during the war by making these statements, but in my estimation if he is endeavouring to use them to justify the existence of crown corporations after the war his case falls miserably flat.
I agree with my leader, the hon. member for Peace River, that where special conditions exist, particularly emergency conditions as was the case during the war, there is justification for the establishment of certain crown corporations, but when I see a measure of this nature, almost unlimited in its application, appearing as though it will pass through this parliament, I say that we are making a step which we may have occasion to regret.
The question occurs to me, when it comes to the establishment of another corporation, say two years hence, will parliament know anything about it before it is established, or will someone quite accidentally discover, maybe a year after it is established, that such an animal is in existence? It removes from parliament, by virtue of the fact that it. will spend its own money, a substantial measure of control. If that corporation has to come here for the money to carry on, and if, in asking for that money, it is obliged to justify its existence, we shall be able to say that parliament truly operates in an effective manner as applied to the control of these corporations.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Filibuster. I am sure this hon. member does not know much about it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I could say in five words just what I think of this bill, but I am going to say more than that. I tell the minister right now that I am against the bill the way it is set up at the present time. I believe he would serve the coutnry best by following the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), taking the bill back, and treating each company individually on its own merits. Only this afternoon the minister said that the Eldorado mine and the radium plant at Port Hope were only paying their way. If I remember rightly, that outfit was making a profit before the government took it over. Why is it that at the present time it is only paying its way? However, I suppose we are lucky that it is doing even that; most of the corporations which the government is running or has run have cost the country many millions of dollars. Take the Canadian National Railways; it has cost this country millions on millions of dollars.


Mr. MAYBANK:: That is the Tory position.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I did not hear the remark of the hon. gentleman.


Ralph Maybank: I hope Hansard did.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: See what the broadcasting corporation is costing the people of Canada. Everyone who owns a radio chips in two and a half dollars to help run that corporation. But there are broadcasting stations in the United States, owned by private interests, which do not cost the people a nickel, and give good programmes. They do not serve out trash like the corporation we have in Canada serves out.


Mr. MARTIN:: Who set it up?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is not "who set it up"; it is who is running it at the present time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Who set it up?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is not the question now, but, who is running it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Who set it up?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The Secretary of State keeps chipping in, but I only wish the Secretary of State would listen to some of the programmes they have on the air now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Who set it up?

Government Companies


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am quite sure that the minister would not only have a headache after listening to it, but that he would be very, very bitter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Who set it up?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is just like hon. gentlemen on the other side sitting around the Secretary of State. They often start up the "quack, quack". Who set it up?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am simply asking a question. Who set it up?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I have often thought, when friends of the Secretary of State start the "quack, quack" it would be a good idea if the Speaker would throw a few kernels of corn to the ducks and geese on the Liberal side.
I have been wondering why the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply is so anxious to set up these crown corporations. There are more reasons than one, but is it because the Minister of Munitions and Supply-the department is now the Department of Reconstruction and Supply-has men whom he does not want to let out and wishes to make a place for them? Is it because the minister wishes to retain the power he has of real dictatorship over the industry of Canada? That is what he has at the present time. It has been said to-night that parliament has no control over private industry. This government at present has private industry in such a position that industrialists do not know what is going to happen next. They do not know what is going to happen to-morrow and they cannot plan as they should be allowed to plan. This government has not given them any lead at all, or any help, or the prospect of any help.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) said to-night that we in Canada were competing against each other to survive. Of course, I have always believed that his party felt that way. They do not want to compete with anyone; they would rather sit dowm and have somebody feed them. If I am right-and I know I am-I have seen deer, elk and other wild animals in game preserves, as other hon. gentlemen have also seen them, and I have always found that those animals in a game preserve are not as strong as the animals that are in the wild, which have to fend for their own food.


An hon. MEMBER:: They live a lot longer though.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I think the hon. gentleman over there will agree that no one has ever seen a man or a woman, a boy or a girl who
was worth anything unless they worked and tried to do something for themselves. One has to do that. It is really the survival of the fittest and we all have to contribute something. I know the socialist party represented by my hon. friends to my left, and right across the country, seldom try to contribute anything to the welfare of the country. In welfare work, how many of them get out and help? They do not in my riding, and they do not in many other ridings in the country.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is your riding the whole country?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No, and I am glad to hear that in the hon. member's riding there is one in that section who does a little bit for welfare. The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, under this bill, will be able to set up crown companies holus-bolus.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I interrupt to say that that is wholly untrue. This bill makes no provision for setting up any crown company. The authority must be found outside the bill.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That interpretation is absolutely different from what we have had before.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Read the bill.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I have read the bill and it would give the government a chance to set up companies holus-bolus. There is no doubt about that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Read the section.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I will read the section.
(b) "Company" means a company incorporated under part I of The Companies Act, 1934, all the issued shares of capital stock of which are owned by or held in trust for His Majesty in right of Canada, except shares necessary to qualify other persons as directors.
And so on.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Where is the authority? .


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You have the authority under this bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. That is perfect nonsense. It has been said all evening and you might as well continue, but I simply point out that it is nonsense.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am pleased to hear the minister say that it is not as I suggest, and I hope that when he speaks he will explain what he means by his remarks. As I see it, the setting up of these crown companies will mean extra income tax to the people of Canada. The companies to be set up under this bill-


Paul Joseph James Martin: There aie none to be set up under the bill.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Are you sure you have the right bill?
Government Companies


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I only wish the hon. member for Fraser Valley had read the bill. I think he would agree with me.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I could not find the holus-bolus.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: After the bill passes, you will find it to your regret and to your constituents' sorrow. At any rate, the set-up that the minister has here will mean extra income tax to the people of Canada, and they have plenty at the present time. I hope that the minister will do as the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) has suggested.


Mr. MAX CAMPBELL (The Battlefords):: I simply wish to make a few observations. 1 could not allow the statements made by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) to go by without some comment. In the first place, he said that this group were in favour of sitting down and allowing someone to feed them. I represent a group of people who pioneered in Saskatchewan from 1904 and on through these years, a group that produced more food possibly than any other section in Canada. When the hon. gentleman says that the members of this group are in favour of sitting down and having someone feed them, I resent that Very much, and I know that the people in my constituency will want me to rise in my place and protest against a statement of that kind. Why was the C.C.F. started? There was a good reason for it. It was started because the people who produced the wealth of the country did not get anything for it. Therefore no hon. member in my hearing will get away with a statement of that kind.
Another statement which the hon. gentleman made was that we were not interested in welfare work. What is welfare work? I have seen something of welfare work. The people who do welfare work are good-hearted people-


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I will ask him to discuss the bill before the house.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: There has been a good deal of opposition to crown corporations. Many remarks have been made which did not have much to do with crown corporations. If hon. members bring the question of welfare work into this discussion, then other hon. members should be permitted to answer. We have welfare work in connection with business of all kinds. The people who do welfare work are largely the people who have had a greater share-


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but on second

reading of a bill it is against the rules to discuss matters which are not relevant to the bill itself.


Mr. W. G. CASE (Grey North):: My interest in the bill is not to indicate my opposition to public ownership but to indicate my concern about the taxation feature of crown corporations. I think I am within the scope of the bill in discussing the aspects that apply to taxation with regard to municipalities in the future. Naturally I have been greatly interested in public ownership for many years. I am associated with the hydro enterprise, and I am a member of a public utilities board of my home city. I am already on record so far as hydro is concerned. In expressing my convictions to hon. members to-night, may I say that I believe in equality of taxation. The only standard by which you can measure the efficiency in management of any enterprise is that they should in common with all other citizens or corporations bear their fair share of the nation's costs, and particularly the costs of the municipalities.
So far as the hydro electric power commission of Ontario is concerned, it can be considered a crown company. It is true they make money. They make it by the rates that are fixed and levied on the people who use hydro, but none of that money is returned to the municipalities in which hydro power is sold. Therefore in that sense they contribute nothing toward the building of sidewalks, the laying of pavements, the building of bridges or of schools, or the educational costs, the police to -protect their property or the fire department which is also necessary to protect their property; whereas other public utilities which are operating within the municipality, such as the water works, any revenue or profits resulting from their operations go into the coffers of the municipalities.
With the crown companies as proposed in the terms of this bill, it would appear to me that, wherever they might be located, if there is a profit resulting from their operation it will find its way into the coffers of the central administration. Hon. members may say that is where it should go. I have no doubt that, in the main, municipalities throughout Ontario and the whole dominion would bid for one of these companies if they could get them to locate in their midst. Nevertheless it seems to me that the time has arrived when the government should give consideration to a local levy of taxation of crown companies; and if we can accept what the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) said to-night, the government will in due time, and I think should, give such consideration. If that is done, then I

Government Companies
feel our position with respect to the quotation given by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) would not be very different from what he quoted from the Right Hon. Winston Churchill. If the suggestion of the Minister of Labour is acted on, then we shall be in a position to make private enterprise and public ownership work side by side.
At the moment I cannot accept the principle that a crown corporation should escape its share of municipal taxation. Many hon. members know that my background is one of municipal government. There we are charged with the responsibility of raising sizeable sums to carry on the administration of local municipalities. All the municipalities of Ontario, being creatures of the provincial government, legislate or work within the terms of the authority laid down by the provincial legislature; therefore their field of taxation is one of direct taxes, and it is limited and must be borne by the property owners.
My objection is-and I am more impressed when I listened to the round of applause emanating from the quarter occupied by the C.C.F. socialist group, that this can easily be; in saying this I am not doubting in any sense the sincerity of the present incumbent of the ministerial post of reconstruction; I think that generally we have considerable confidence in the man who is charged with that responsibility at present-that he is not the one who is going to carry on forever. This legislation could become, in the hands of those who would seek to use it for a purpose it was never intended, in the mind of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe), a dangerous thing. We are all individuals; we think as individuals; we act as individuals, and we shall continue to do so until there is mass regulation and regimentation. In order to bring that about there will have to be instituted a system of government similar to that which we destroyed or hoped we had destroyed in central Europe. I agree in that sense with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) that the thing we thought we fought the war for was to destroy state or national socialism which was rampant in Germany. It was brought about by what we might do here unconsciously in this sense.
There is more than one way to bring about state socialism. The first way. is to listen to its being advocated from a public platform. The other way is to continue to impose taxation until you have taxed private enterprise out of existence or destroyed the will of the people and their ambition and desire to make their contribution to the state. As I look back and think of the contribution which has been made by government agencies during the war-and
all of them are praiseworthy-I am still reminded that in association with the contribution were the tremendous resources of this nation which have been built up under the finest system in the world so far as I am concerned, namely, private enterprise. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the functions of government can quite properly be considered as legislative and not entirely regulatory or administrative. In other words, if there is anything wrong with private enterprise; if there may be so-called' monopolies; if some have usurped the privileges of citizenship and have sought to exploit the nation for the benefit of a privileged few, then I say this parliament or any other parliament having authority can legislate and regulate in order that private enterprise may be brought within the scope of the legislation and required to render an account of their stewardship which must indeed, after all, bear some semblance to fair play. I am inclined to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), with due deference to my good friend the Minister of Veterans Affairs that there is something in this legislation delegating to the government an authority which, if I understand the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply aright, he is not seeking; and that is one very good reason why the bill should be further considered.
Then the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum) spoke about General Motors in the city of Regina receiving some advantage by way of freedom from taxation. In Ontario the only bonus or consideration we can give a prospective industry is a fixed assessment. Of course, if the statutes of Saskatchewan provide that an industry may be brought to Regina where it will pay no taxes, that inducement must have been approved by the ratepayers of that city. They may have taken a long-range view, knowing that at some time, sooner or later, that enterprise would pay taxes in the municipality, and that would be offered as an inducement to have it locate there. The moment we approve the establishment of crown companies, which will be located in municipalities across this country without being subject to taxation, then I say the situation is entirely different from that of offering a bonus or some similar inducement to private enterprise, since they will never pay taxes.
The real source of security, after all, is employment, and I will go so far as to say that I believe this country of ours offers everyone the right to earn a living at a fair rate of pay for a fair day's work. But I certainly do not feel that we should subscribe to the false theory which I believe is all too
Government Companies

prevalent in these days, that the country owes a man a living. I cannot accept that, nor do I think it is good for the nation. There is a tendency at the present time for people to lean upon others, and we find a constant trend toward paternalism on the part of the government. We are now to have crown companies, and we shall have no way of knowing whether or not they are efficiently operated, because we have no yardstick with which to measure them since they pay no taxes. I have heard it said in this house, for instance, that T.C.A. had an operating surplus, but unless we know what they paid in taxes for the use of airports and other property it is difficult indeed to determine if they are efficiently managed. In order to determine the measure of efficiency we must have some means of comparison. The setting up of crown companies may be the thin end of the wedge, so that our people will be still further robbed of their initiative and their desire to build Canada into a great nation. We have in Canada what it takes to make a great country, but what we need more than anything else is good, sound business management. We need balanced budgets and lower taxes, because at present our people are being discouraged by taxation, and that may account to some extent for the constant migration from this country to the United States.
It has been stated in this house to-night that in many enterprises the crown can give leadership, and I would point to one outstanding example in that connection. In the great province of Alberta there is a wealth of coal, a great deal of which may be needed in this country before next spring comes around. I hope the government are considering giving leadership in that development, because I believe great quantities of this coal could be made available. I have no doubt that one of the reasons back of the introduction of this legislation is atomic energy, which has been referred to this evening; and I feel that for whatever the government may have done or may do by way of research in this connection they should be commended, because in atomic energy we have a latent power greater than anything mankind has ever conceived. Man has now discovered a means of harnessing this power; but how is he going to use it? In the beginning I believe it is in good hands when it is under the control of the crown. We should seek constantly to see that it is developed and devoted to useful purposes. As my leader (Mr. Bracken) said this afternoon, it should not be developed in anticipation of destruction but for purposes of construction. It may be that these crown companies are to be set up in order to develop atomic energy still farther, perhaps to utilize

the products resulting therefrom or even to use the power that may be developed in this way. But I believe the minister should accept in good faith the suggestion that has been made from this side of the house. I would not want in any way to appear belligerent about this. I rose to speak only because I have been long associated with public ownership ventures in Ontario, and I would not want my position to be misunderstood or misinterpreted. I am in favour of public ownership, but by the same token I am in favour of every enterprise and every individual bearing a fair share of the cost of government, because that can become a terrific burden.
We in Ontario realize that our hydro system, owned by the crown, has brought us cheap power and has assisted in our industrial development. Nevertheless, to get a true picture of the value of such great institutions I feel they should bear their fair share of the cost of local government within the municipalities. I believe we should give careful consideration to all these matter before we travel too far along the road to socialism. Mind you, socialism is nothing new. If time and Mr. Speaker would permit I could trace socialism back for hundreds of years, and show that it has always destroyed the civilization of its day. It may do the same thing again unless we are alive to what it really means, and unless we decide whether we are to have our people reduced to a point where they are subservient to the government, or whether the government is to remain the servant of the people. So that to-night I am simply trying to place myself on record as believing in public owmership. I am also in favour of a limited development in the matter of crown companies, as long as certain protection is given and the right of taxation is admitted. If wre are to embark upon something of this kind I believe the sooner we recognize these factors and give them thought and study, the better it will be. It appears to me that we are now just about in the position in which the Minister of Veterans Affairs is, when he said that he is both for public ownership and for private enterprise. No one can find any grave fault with that statement, if he can work it out in practice. But when we do come to work it out in practice, will it give the individual an equal opportunity against equal odds? And the odds at the present time are in favour of those who do not have to bear a share of the nation's costs.


Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, time is short, and I have only a few words to say. I rise to-night for only two or three reasons. In the first place, my honourable and jovial friend, the Minister of Veterans

Government Companies
Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) said this afternoon that the speech made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) was most stupid and fascist-


An hon. MEMBER:: No; fatuous.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I thought he said fascist, and I take exception to that. I must apologize if the minister did not say "fascist".
I thought my colleague from Vancouver South made a well-reasoned, plain and well-ordered speech, and my only complaint is as to the fact that the Minister of Veterans Affairs described the speech as stupid. After listening to him, the only conclusion I must come to is that the minister is much more stupid than the hon. member for Vancouver South.
Replying to the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser), the minister said that the bill did not allow the setting up of crown companies. Of course it does; at least as I see it it does. How can you run a company without getting money for it? That is what this bill does. It says that any of these companies may be formed under part I of the Companies Act. They can get money from this measure, up to a million dollars.
So that the minister can go on and on and on, creating company after company, without coming to parliament at all. He has the money for it right there; only it is just a million for each company. But he can have as many millions as he likes by creating companies.
I object to the bill because it is the inalienable right of a member of the House of Commons, one which dates back to the times of Charles II, to take one's grievance to the foot of the throne. Since that time a member of the House of Commons has been given that right. For instance, that is what we do when we pass the estimates, the current issue of which I hold in my hand. Why not have many more companies? For instance, let us look into these estimates and turn first to the Department of Agriculture. Why not have a company to control the experimental farm service? Had we such a company, the ministry would not have to come to parliament at all; the minister would just take the money.
Then, let us turn to the insurance branch. Let us have a little company for that branch. I could gQ on. We are keenly interested in this, because the minister says that these statements of the companies are brought down every year. I have not yet seen a statement of Wartime Housing Limited, nor do I know if one has ever been published. Of course we shall be told that everything is all right, and that we are doing it for a purpose. I do not know whether they operate at a profit or a loss.
Speaking about companies, the minister said that the system of bookkeeping was inadequate. Well, I have sat in the house for almost eleven years, and I have not yet found out whether the Post Office Department makes a profit or a loss. Money seems to go in one way and out the other. I do not know just how it is done.
Then, let us go on, because there is more here. For instance, as I have said, we shall have a little company to operate the post office, others to operate other departments. If we did, then they would not have to come to parliament for money, because they would simply get $500,000 to begin and another $500,000; that would be a million dollars between the two parts of the bill. Of course, that is just a start. When we get along a little farther they will be more ambitious; and when they find it so easy to get money in that way, without any kick from members, without any criticism on the estimates, they would just go on forming more companies.
I doubt if the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) would ever ask for a company to run his show, although I do not know about some of the other ministers. You see, first of all, we have ministers; then we have parliamentary assistants, and now the job is getting so big we are going to have boards of directors for these companies. Indeed, after a while we shall have more people directing companies than are employed by them.
I do not think we are far apart in this matter. The hon. member for Vancouver South put it plainly when he said that if the minister wishes to incorporate a company he should put it in the bill. Let him come to parliament with a separate bill for each company, in the regular way. What objection could there be to that? We could have discussion; it would always be out in the open, and no one would be subject to criticism. Then, too, we would be preserving our rights as members of the House of Commons.
I, for one, do not intend to give up my right to criticize when the government asks for money. That is a most precious right. We relinquished that right to a certain extent during the war, because at many times in those years we were very careful about our criticism of the government, and the government knows that very well. We in the opposition had to be careful of what we did, and even then we were called saboteurs of the war effort because sometimes we criticized what the government was doing.
On motion of Mr. Ross (St. Paul's) the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
House oj Commons
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 4, 1946.