1946-06-10

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
EDMOND CLOUTIER, C.M.G.. B.A., L.Pli.. PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY 1947
[Stage Direction]
vj-arv iff'tfr-
[Stage Direction]
House of Commons! Debated
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 10, 1946.

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of the special committee on veterans affairs.-Mr. Tucker.
First report of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Mr. Maybank.


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as to-day is the day appointed for the celebration in Canada of the King's birthday, I have the honour to propose, seconded by the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Graydon) the following motion:
That an humble address be sent to His Majesty, King George VI, in the following words:
"To the King's Most Excellent Majesty:
Most Gracious Sovereign:
We, the members of 'the House of Commons of Canada in parliament assembled, desire to extend to Your Majesty, on this day set apart for the celebration in Canada of the King's Birthday, our loyal greetings and heartfelt good wishes."


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Acting Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on previous occasions of this kind it has been customary for the leaders of the various parties to express in some way the feelings of the members of those parties. It would seem to me most appropriate, however, if on this occasion we were to refrain from comment, and the house were simply to rise and to sing God Save the King.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
(The members rose and sang
God Save the King).

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

Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	During what periods of the last war was the amount of clothing allowances granted to Canadian army personnel on discharge (a) $35: (b) $65; (c) $100?
2.	How many of such discharged personnel received (a) $35; (b) $65; (c) $100, as clothing allowance ?
3.	What steps is the government taking towards making the said clothing allowance of $100 retroactive to cover all Canadian army personnel discharged since the beginning of the war?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	(a) 1 September, 1939 to 31 October, 1943;
(b)	1 November, 1943 to 31 July, 1944; (c) 1 August, 1944 to date.
2.	(a) 96,561; (b) 42,559; (c) 357,038.
3.	None contemplated.


DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE-PUBLICITY PERSONNEL
Mr. HOMUTH:: 1.	What is the total cost of the publicity personnel in the Department of Agriculture?
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. GARDINER:: 1.	813,953.12 (including cost of living bonus and travelling expenses).
2 and 3. F. James, $4,200; R. B. Marven, $3,600; W. R. Gillanders, $2,141.04; Miss M. K. Rooney, $1,661.04; Miss M. I. Gillespie, $1,601.04.
4.	No.


PRISONERS OF WAR-BOWMANVILLE
Mr. STEPHENSON:: 1.	How much barbed wire was used to enclose the prisoner of war camp at Bowmanville, Ontario ?
2.	What has become of this wire since the prisoner of war camp was closed?
3.	Was it sold?
4.	If so, to whom; in what quantities and at what price?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	74,250 lineal yards of single strand barbed wire on wood posts. (8 ft. high double barbed wire fence 1,190 lineal yards in length, with concertina and loose wire between).
2.	37,125 lineal yards stored in the storage yard at Bowmanville, Ont.; 32,175 lineal yards stored at Barriefield, Ont.; 4,950 lineal yards shipped to Ottawa, Ont. for use by army in that area.
3.	No. It will be required for use by the army.
4.	Answered by No. 3.

3S522
Questions



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


Mr. GAGNON:: 1.	How many individuals, companies, associations, cooperative societies or other bodies have benefited, up to the present time, by the provisions of the National Housing Act, 1944?
2.	How many in each province?
3.	How many (a) in the urban municipalities of the province of Quebec; (b) in the rural municipalities of the said province?
4.	What is the total amount of the loans made under the said Act by the government?
5.	What is the average amount of the loans made on houses in each province?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	7,774 loans were approved under the National Housing Act, 1944, up to May 31, 1946.
2.	Province Loans Units Amount
Prince Edward Island 

 

Nova Scotia	
110	110	507,480New Brunswick	....	45	45	208,580Quebec	
807	1,380	5,971,440Ontario	
3,490	4,285	19,289,560Manitoba	
1,124	1,146	5,193,020Saskatchewan	
205	205	875,500Alberta	
798	832	3,646,900British Columbia	...	1,195	1,637	6,623,552Total	
7,774 9,640 42,316,0323.	No loans have been, made under part III (rural loans) in the province of Quebec. Loans under part I and part II are shown in the answer to question 2.4.	342,316,032.5.	The average loan per house (part I) by provinces is as follows:Prince Edward Island	$
Nova Scotia	 4,610
New Brunswick	 4,640
Quebec	 4,780
Ontario	 4,470
Manitoba	 4,930
Saskatchewan	 4,270
Alberta	 4,530
British Columbia	 4,170



CUSTOMS DUTIES ON SUGAR

Mr. BLACKMORE:: What is the basis in general upon which the customs duties on sugar per tariff item 134 are arrived at, and in special for the following sugars?
British
General Preferential Preference
96 per cent raw
sugar	 $1	74	0-99	0-75
99-9 per cent
white	sugar.	1	89	1-09	-80Spread	0	15	0-10	-


Mr. McCANN:: No information.
IMr. Lapointe. 1


Mr. FRASER:: 1.	What was paid out by the government in reestablishment credits during the year 1945?
2.	What has been paid out in the reestablishment credits from January 1, 1946 to May 31, 1946?
Mr. MACKENZIE.:
1.	$12,677,809.46.
2.	$26,108,437.43.



PRISONERS OF WAR-TRANSPORT FROM CANADA

Mr. BENIDICKSON:: 1.	How many prisoners of war were transported from Canada during the months of January, February, March, April and May, 1946?
2.	On what ships did they sail, and how many were carried on each sailing?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.
January, 1946	 nil
February, 1946	 3,054
March, 1946	 16,216
April, 1946	 nil
May, 1946	[DOT].	4,126
Total	 23,396
2.
HMT Mauretania	 2,753
HMHS Lady Nelson	 301
HMT Scythia	 2,541
HMS Letitia	 183
HMT Aquitania	 2,978
HMT Mauretania	 2,185
HMT Aquitania	 3,003
HMT Scythia	 2,567
HMT Aquitania	 1,197
HMT Mauretania	 2,759
HMHS Lady Nelson	 57
HMT Aquitania	 2,872
23,396



PURCHASE OF IMPLEMENTS BY VETERANS

Mr. ARGUE:: 1.	Is a discount allowed veterans on the purchase of new (a) power implements; (b) all other implements?
2.	If so, what discount, and who gives same, the implement dealer or the implement companies?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: 1.	(a) Yes; (b) yes, with exception of wagons.
2.	As to 1 (a), discount 7 per cent; as to 1 (b), 10 per cent. Information not available as to who gives discount; Veterans Land Act arrangement is with implement companies.
Note.-For information respecting discount on implements purchased by veterans not coming under the Veterans Land Act, see

Questions as Orders jor Returns
statement made by parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs as reported on page 2054 of Hansard, May 31, 1946.



INCOME TAX-FARMERS

Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	Did the Income Tax Department originally (a) assess; (b) agree to assess farm returns for 1942 on the basis of the year grain was grown as distinct from the year it was sold?
2.	If so, did they change back later to the cash basis, and for what reason?
Mr. McCANN;
1.	(a) Yes in some cases; (b) No.
2.	In the cases erroneously assessed the department changed back to the cash basis for the reason that an error had been made.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Did any persons receive compensation from the dominion government since January 1, 1944, in consequence of injuries received by reason of the negligence of officers, servants, agents employees and/or contractors of the crown? If so, how; many?
2.	Did any persons receive such compensation after legal action had been taken by them and judgment delivered by the court?
3.	If so, how many and what is the name of each of these persons and how much did each receive?
4.	Did any persons receive such compensation, or compensation on compassionate or other grounds after action was commenced but before judgment was delivered?
5.	If so. how many and what is the name of each of these persons and how much did each receive?
6.	Did any persons receive such compensations, or compensation on compassionate or other grounds before legal proceedings wrere commenced?
7.	If so, how many, and what are the names of those persons and how much did each receive?


CANADIAN SERVICE PERSONNEL OVERSEAS
Mr. BENIDICKSON:: 1.	On June 1, 1946, how many Canadian servicemen were still in the European war theatre and Great Britain?
2.	On June 1, 1946, what was the estimated number of (a) wives; (b) other dependents, of Canadian servicemen requiring transportation to Canada from the European war theatre and Great Britain?



PRISONERS OF WAR-EMPLOYMENT IN CANADA

Mr. BENIDICKSON:: How many prisoners of war were (a) in Canada; (b) employed in the timber industry in Canada; (c) employed in the timber industry in Ontario; (d) employed in agriculture in Canada; (e) employed in agriculture in Ontario on (1) January 1, 1946; (2) April 1, 1946; (3) June 1, 1946?
63260-147i



JAPANESE NATIONALS

Mr. REID:: 1.	Of the 22,000 odd Japanese nationals who were moved from the coastal areas of British Columbia, following Japan's attack at Pearl Harbor, how many are still resident in the province of British Columbia?
2.	How many Japanese nationals are at present residing in each of the other eight provinces?
3.	Is any assistance granted to the Japanese nationals to enable them to become established in the other provinces?
4.	If so, what total moneys have been expended for this purpose up to the present time?
5.	What individual assistance is given and for what specific purpose is assistance granted?



LEGAL SERVICES

Mr. McGREGOR:: What is the total amount of legal fees disbursed by the dominion government since September 1, 1939?



PENSIONS IN EXCESS OF $2,000

Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	How many persons are in receipt of dominion government pensions in excess of $2,000?
2.	What are the names of such persons and what is the amount of the pension received in each case?


Mr. TUCKER:: Order for return, excluding pensions under the Pension Act.



GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Robert Henry McGregor: What is the total amount of money paid by the dominion government for advertising since September 1, 1939.



WAR ASSETS OTHER THAN THOSE DISPOSED OF BY CORPORATION

Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	What war properties and war assets have been sold by the dominion government since September 1, 1939, exclusive of those disposed of or entrusted to the War Assets Corporation?
2.	What was the cost to the dominion government of each of the said properties or war assets, to whom was each sold and what was the price received in each case?



IMMIGRATION

Mr. McCUAIG:: 1.	What was the number of immigrants entering Canada in 1930 to 1946, inclusive, from (a) U.S.A.; (b) United Kingdom; (c) other countries?
2.	What was the number of people who emigrated from Canada in the years 1930 to 1946, inclusive to (a) U.S.A.; (b) United Kingdom;
(c)	other countries?
3.	What decrease or increase in population, by provinces, has the above entailed?
Labour Conditions



LABOUR CONDITIONS

[Stage Direction]
seamen's STRIKE-PRESS REPORT AS TO USE OF TROOPS IN CORNWALL
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, of which I have not given him notice. Has the minister any comment to make on the statement so widely publicized in the press of last Saturday that Colonel R. E. A. Morton, officer commanding, Camp Borden, had troops in readiness to proceed to Cornwall if necessary in connection with the strike? This was regarded as intimidation.


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence):: I have no comment to make other than that contained in a states ment *which was issued by my department. No such instructions were given, and Colonel Morton was speaking on his own authority. The statement which I authorized indicated that the district officers commanding are bound to be prepared in the event of the local attorney general calling for aid for the civil power by having troops available to meet that demand. No special arrangements were made, no leave was stopped, and no troops were alerted. I think the statement which Colonel Morton made, was no doubt accurate, but it was made entirely on his own authority and responsibility.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: The point of my question is, should an officer make such a statement without first consulting the department?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The answer is no.



ADVERSE DECISION OF REGIONAL BOARD IN JOINT APPLICATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Would the Minister of Labour explain why the regional war labour board of Ontario refused to approve a wage schedule which was mutually agreed to by the management and the union? This question arises over a dispute in connection with an increase in wages between the united steelworkers of America, Fittings Limited and-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. gentleman knows that his question should be brief and to the point.


Charles Edward Johnston: I have already given notice to the minister.


Mr. MITCHELL:: My answer is-
{Mr. McCuaig.]


James Horace King: I would ask the hon. member to place his question on the order paper.


Mr. HANSELL:: Would the minister explain why regional boards refuse to approve wage schedules which are agreed upon by management and unions? I have particularly in mind the case of the united steelworkers; I think the minister is aware of it.


Humphrey Mitchell: That question is easily answered. As my hon. friend knows, or probably the people who ask him know quite well, there is a formula, with which any decision made by a regional board has to comply. That obviously is the reason why in some cases the regional boards have turned down applications, even joint applications by employer and employee.



EXPORT OF TRUCK SPRINGS TO DETROIT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: On June 6 the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) asked a question as follows:
I am informed that steel truck springs are being exported from Canada by War Assets Corporation and Ontario Steel Products to Detroit Steel Products, where a strike is in progress; and in this telegram the charge is made that this is being done in order to break that strike.
I have looked into the circumstances and I may say at once that no springs have been sold or are being shipped to Detroit Steel Products. Some weeks ago a sale of springs was made to the Chrysler Corporation of the United States. These springs had been manufactured by Chrysler Corporation for inclusion in trucks for shipment to England. Certain supply of these was surplus at the Longue Pointe depot, and was sold, with the approval of War Assets Corporation of the United States, to the Chrysler Corporation of the United States. The price was satisfactory and the springs are being shipped in accordance with the terms of the sale.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: When these springs are badly needed in Canada, is it the policy to sell them to a foreign country?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are not suitable for any vehicle made for the Canadian market. They were made for a special purpose for shipment overseas.



SUGAR BEET INDUSTRY-PRISONER OF WAR LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize for not answering earlier the question asked on Wednesday last by the hon. member for

Domestic Coal Supply
Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) and questions asked by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) and the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) in reference to the employment of German prisoners of war in the sugar beet industry, but the orders of the day were not reached in time to enable me to reply before.
I am glad to say that with the cooperation of my colleague the Minister of National Defence, Navy and Army (Mr. Abbott) an additional 400 prisoners of war have been made available for the cultivation of sugar beets. Two hundred will be allotted to Ontario and 200 to Manitoba. This means that we shall have a total of 1,222 prisoners of war working on sugar beets in Ontario, 1,116 in Manitoba, 1,449 in Alberta, with others making up a total of 4.000 doing work at various points in the country.
It should be explained that the distribution of these prisoners of war is decided upon by the representatives of the provincial and federal agriculture departments and not by the Department of Labour.
As I have indicated, most of these prisoners of war will be employed on the cultivation of sugar beets. The allocation to southwestern Ontario is considered ample to assure the production required.


Mr. HACKETT:: Can the minister say when the two hundred additional prisoners of war mentioned in his answer will be sent to the beet growing industry of southwestern Ontario?


Humphrey Mitchell: I think the question should be asked, when will they be sent home? However I may say to my hon. friend that my understanding is that they are on the way now.



STRIKES IN VARIOUS TRADES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Big-gar):: Is the minister in a position to make a statement to-day in regard to the seamen's strike, the loggers' strike, and the threatened strike of steelworkers?


Humphrey Mitchell: All I can say about the seamen's strike is that the ship operators are meeting in Toronto to-day. As to British Columbia, I am constantly in touch with the provincial authorities, and the situation there is just the same as it was last week.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: May I ask the Minister of Mines and Resources if he would have copies made of the statement on immigration which he made on May 29 last? Letters are beginning to arrive from people who desire to get relatives out and the simplest way to reply to them would be to send a copy of that statement.


Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources):: The hon. gentleman is suggesting that I should have copies made for distribution among the members?


Grote Stirling: Yes.


James Allison Glen: I will do that.



INQUIRY AS TO RETAIL PRICE CEILING INCREASE

[Stage Direction]
On the'orders of the day:
Mr. W. A. McMASTER (High Park):: In view of the fact that the wholesale ceilings on both red and blue brand beef have advanced four cents a pound, will the Minister of Finance consider raising the retail ceiling, allowing a corresponding increase in the retail sale price to allow the retail butcher a fair margin of profit?
Right Hon. J, L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance): I would not like to give any encouragement whatever to the idea that the retail ceiling on beef may be raised. The wholesale ceiling on red and blue brand beef were adjusted a few weeks ago as an experimental measure. There has been much dispute whether the retail margin was too great or not. If the present arrangement is not working out well, consideration will have to be given to something better, but as I said at the beginning I cannot encourage at all the idea that there will be any raising of the retail price.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Are deputations coming to Ottawa to discuss this matter?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know.



DOMESTIC FUEL SUPPLY SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
["When the resolution was under discussion I made a rather full statement of the objects of the bill. I appreciate that other lion, members will wish to discuss the contents of the bill; therefore I suggest, sir, that you call it eleven o'clock.\nOn motion of Mr. Howe the debate was adjourned.\nOn motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.\nPrivilege-Mr. Coldwell", 'Tuesday, June 11, 1946']
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a brief statement on the coal situation.
Domestic Coal Supply

In my last review of the coal situation on May 24 I referred chiefly to the position with regard to the supply of coal for industrial use. I did advise the house briefly of the domestic position and stated that it might well be that the household consumer would have to reduce his fuel consumption in the coming winter.
Since that time the anthracite miners in the United States ceased work on May 30. While it has been reported that production will start in these mines on June 10, this stoppage of production has accentuated the short supply situation in domestic fuel and there may not be sufficient of this type of fuel to give every customer his full supply.
It has been, the practice for many householders to order and accept delivery of their winter's requirements of coal during the summer months. It is evident that when the supply of preferred coals is short this practice will, unless controlled, lead to a situation where some householders have a full supply and others who, for one reason or another, cannot order their supply in the summer, will be unable to secure their fair proportion.
It has been decided, therefore, to put out an order restricting the delivery of coal for domestic or household consumption. Since the future supply position will remain uncertain for some time to come, it has been necessary to divide the season into two parts. The order provides that no dealer may deliver nor may any consumer accept before November 1, 1946, more than sixty per cent of his normal annual requirements of the preferred classes of coal otherwise defined as class A fuel. The consumer may, at his option, secure in this period an additional twenty per cent of his annual fuel requirements in the form of other coals. In other words, the consumer may, before November 1, order and store eighty per cent of his total annual needs, but only seventy-five per cent of the coal he secures in this period may be class A fuel, which corresponds to sixty per cent of his total annual needs of the preferred type of coal.
Before November 1 I shall be in a position to see what can be done to make up the balance required, and I would assure the house tha every possible effort will be made to provide additional supplies before that date.
Measures have been taken to divert from (he railways in western Canada a supply of low volatile briquettes which are acceptable as a replacement for the class A fuels, as defined in the order of last year and are included as a class A fuel in the new order. It is also expected that there will be a substantial increase in the output of these

briquettes as soon as the necessary construction material can be secured. Steps are also being taken to increase the output of other western coals both to protect the consumers in western Canada and to provide some surplus for movement to Ontario. It must be realized, however, that the movement east of any large tonnage of coal will conflict with the movement of grain, and not only will it not be difficult to coordinate these two volume movements to secure the most efficient use of the available transportation, but there is also a definite limit to the tonnage which can be moved because of the limit set by the railway facilities available.
In conclusion, I would advise the house that the situation is grave and that unless there is some improvement in the near future it probably will be necessary to take other and [DOT]more severe measures to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of the fuel that is available.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: Is the minister able to make a statement on the additional tonnage of coal from Nova Scotia that will be available in the ordinary course this season for shipment to central Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to make inquiries. The output of Nova Scotia coal has improved considerably. I shall require advice before I can answer the question.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: May I suggest to the minister that the instructions sent out make clear whether deliveries can be made concurrently of class C and class A fuel, or whether it is permissible to deliver them separately as the dealer may desire? There was considerable confusion over that last year.


Mr. FULTON:: In view of the emergency outlined in the minister's statement, will the government consider granting an increase in the subsidy on coal to encourage production in small or marginal mines?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The coal controller is constantly in touch with mines of the class mentioned, and is using his best discretion to do what is necessary in that regard.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, June 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe for the second reading of bill No. 154, to amend the Research Council Act.
Clarence Decatur Howe: In the remarks made on the resolution which preceded the bill, I

Research Council
set out the purpose of the amendments to the Research Council Act. The intention is to strengthen the top structure of the national research council in order to enable it to carry out its greatly enlarged responsibilities, arising from its growth during the war years.
In the discussion on the resolution it was suggested by hon. gentlemen opposite that the national research council had little revenue other than that voted to it by this parliament.
I would point out that in the six years ended April 1 last, the revenue of the research council in payment of services rendered by the council amounted to 84,360,997.13, in addition to which funds were provided by other government departments to pay for work on their problems in the amount of $6,632,122. In addition, the council received the following sums during that period: contributions to the Sir Frederick Banting fund of $1,346,386.66, and in addition a return of $363,496.56 for work performed at the cost of that fund. An amount of $1,900,000 was received from Research Enterprises Limited in payment for development work carried out by the council on radar. This amount was turned back to the consolidated revenue and not accepted by the national research council. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it will be appreciated by hon. members that the work of the national research council involves the expenditures of great sums of money partly voted by parliament and partly earned by the research council itself.
It will perhaps be of interest to hon. members if I run over the purpose of the several amendments proposed.
The amendments to section 4 provide for the appointment of two vice-presidents and for an increase in the size of the honorary council in order that the vice-presidents may sit on the council and also that the various scientific interests covered by the scope of council activities may be represented. Provision is also made for an executive committee with the normal functions.
The amendment to section 2 defines the term "vice-president", and amendments to sections 5 and 8(a) detail the functions of the vice-presidents, the necessary provision for fixing salaries by order in council, and also defining the powers of the executive.
Section 3 makes formal provision for the privy council committee on industrial and scientific research. This committee has functioned since the Research Council Act came into being, but its existence has never been formalized by an act. As it is desired to have the proposed atomic energy board report to cabinet through this same committee, it is
necessary to have this committee formalized in the Research Council Act in order that it may be so referred to in other legislation.
The amendment to section 10 merely details certain additional powers of the council in connection with establishing pilot plants and the handling of licensing and patents. There is nothing particularly new in this, but it *was thought wise to set down these functions which have already been carried on by the council in the past under the general authority act but which may become more extensive in the future.
Section 14 is a new section which gives the council power to set up corporations to carry on activities that cannot now be easily looked after as part of the general administrative work of the council. For instance, as an incident of the normal work of the council, many inventions arise which must be covered by patents. During war time, most of the inventions were secret and have not been formally patented, but it is certain that during the next few years there will be many patents arising in connection with the council's work on atomic energy developments and the whole range of industrial research. These patents should be exploited in the public interest, but it has been found that the normal set-up of the scientific organization is not suitable for such work. After a great deal of study the council recommended that a corporation similar to the Research Corporation of America be set up. The corporation should be a nonprofit organization equipped to receive patents from the research council, other government departments, and any scientific organization, such as universities and public institutions which desire to make use of its facilities.
The Research Corporation of America has served the public welfare in an eminently satisfactory manner, and it is proposed that the Canadian corporation shall function in a similar way. After considering carefully the recommendations of the council, I came to the conclusion that the most satisfactory way of setting up such a corporation would be to have the Research Council Act amended, as proposed, which gives the research council the right to set up and control such a corporation.
It was also recognized that there may be many cases in which an idea originating in one of the council's laboratories would be of no great value until it had been tested out in a pilot plant, yet, after such development, might be very valuable to the country as a whole. The present amendment will give the council adequate facilities in such cases
Research Council

to set up a pilot plant and do the necessary work in order to prove the value of a promising idea that might otherwise never be utilized.
Section 15 is a new section, giving the council power to establish and support a pension scheme, if the governor in council so approves. At the present time very few members of the regular research council staff are under any pension scheme. After a great deal of study of the matter, and after consultation and examination of pension schemes in connection with similar scientific organizations in other countries, the national research council has recommended that a special pension scheme be set up for the national research council scientific staff which will permit the desirable transfer of scientific personnel as between government services, industry and universities, without undue loss to the individual. Such a system has been in satisfactory operation for some years in scientific branches of the British civil service, and there can be little doubt that such a system is desirable in the case of the national research scientific staff.
It should be noted that it is the intention of the council to bring clerical administrative and non-scientific staff under the Civil Service Superannuation Act, and that this amendment is needed for the purpose of enabling a special pension scheme to be set up for the scientific staff if the government so approves.
This is an important bill, Mr. Speaker, but fairly simple in its terms, and I do not think that any further remarks of mine are needed at this time.


Mr. IRVINE:: Does the council have in view any investigation or research into social science as well as physical science?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. That is not within the scope of the Research Council Act.
Mr. II. C. GREEN (Vancouver South): This bill, which is numbered 154, amends the Research Council Act. That act was first passed in 1924, and there have been no amendments since it was originally adopted, which is something very unusual in the history of legislation in recent years, either in this house or in any of the provincial legislatures.
The duties of the research council are set out in section 6 of the act as originally passed, which reads:
The council shall have charge of all matters affecting scientific and industrial research in Canada which may be assigned to it by the committee and shall also have the duty of advising the committee on questions of scientific and technological methods affecting the expansion of Canadian industries or the utilization of the natural resources of Canada.

The committee referred to in that section is the committee of the privy council on scientific and industrial research. I think the minister will agree with me that that committee of the cabinet has in effect not been functioning in recent years. The other day he was asked to name the members of the cabinet on that committee and he could not do so, at least he named some but could not name them all. He said also that they met only once a year and that to consider the annual report of the research council. I am afraid therefore that the committee of the cabinet has had very little to do with the operation of the research council in recent years.
The bill before the house to-day does not propose any changes in the duties of the research council but it does aim to give the council the power to carry on the expanded work which it undertook during the war. Naturally the demands of war time meant a great increase in the work being done by the research council and also a great increase in staff. The council and its employees are to be congratulated on the work done for Canada and for the other allied nations during the war.
The official opposition take it that the main purpose of this amending bill is to provide for the continuation of this expanded work during peace time, and deeming this to be the main purpose of the bill we are glad to support it, although at the same time we disapprove of some of the provisions of the bill.
The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply has given us this afternoon a brief summary of the provisions of the bill. He has pointed out that whereas formerly there was just a president, there are now to be a president and two vice-presidents. I believe the intention is that one of the vice-presidents shall be in charge of the scientific work of the council while the other will be in charge of administrative work. The minister pointed out also that further provision is now being made with regard to the committee of the privy council on scientific and industrial research, and we hope that committee will take this new work very seriously. If a cabinet committee is vitally interested in research, that in itself should mean a great deal in the development of research activities in Canada.
The minister mentioned the fact that there is to be an executive committee of the research council. Under the original act there were only fifteen members of the council. That number is now raised to twenty and provision is made for a small executive committee, to consist of the president, two vice-presidents,

Research Council
and three other members. Perhaps that is necessary in order to strengthen the functioning of the council, but it may also have the effect of taking away some of the responsibilities of the council as a whole. Probably the council will not meet so often, and a good deal of the work hitherto done by the fifteen members will in future be done by the six members of the executive committee.
The bill gives power to the council to carry particular works past the stage of pure research. That is to be found in section 7 to the provisions of which, this afternoon, the minister made some reference. One of the powers is the power to manufacture. We should like to know just how far the council is to go in manufacturing. If the intention is that it shall not go into manufacturing as that term is generally interpreted in Canada, then there is no serious objection. But if it is the intention that the council shall go into manufacturing as an ordinary business man would understand it, serious objection can be taken to the change.
There is also provision for licensing, selling or otherwise granting or making available patent rights or any other rights owned by the council. Under the original act all inventions made by technical employees of the council vest in the research council. Here power is given to the council to dispose of these rights. This provision calls for a more detailed explanation from the minister, and I propose to say something further about it in a few minutes.
There are two further powers of which we on this side of the house strongly disapprove: first, the power to procure the incorporation of crown companies, and, second, the power to assume the shares of crown companies which have already been incorporated. I shall have something further to say about these questions also.
The Progressive Conservative party favour the active promotion of scientific and industrial research in Canada. We believe that research is vital to Canada, perhaps more so than to any other country. The war has given Canada a great impetus. In this country there has been a tremendous development of production of both manufactured goods and foodstuffs. Canada has made great strides. One reason for that, of course, was that we were not subject to attack; we were free from bombs and invading forces; therefore we had every opportunity to make progress. Among the nations of the world Canada has reached a position quite out of proportion to her population.
In order to retain that position we feel that Canada must make the best possible use 63260-148
not only of her natural resources but also of Canadian brains. Already we have many fully trained and talented scientists doing research work, and we have the young men and women with the native ability to become great scientists. Hundreds, I dare say thousands, of them have already done so. In every part of Canada we have universities which are well able to train young people for this scientific research.
Not only have we the human resources but we have large areas practically untouched. Take for example, the northwest territories, Where uranium has been found, probably the most valuable natural resource in the world to-day. No one knows how many more deposits of uranium may be found there. Prospecting parties go out each year to find other deposits, and there can be little doubt that many valuable deposits not only of uranium but also of other minerals will be found in that territory. In the northern part of British Columbia large coal deposits are lying untouched. Explorations are by no means complete. It might be possible to find there sufficient coal to change the whole picture of Canada's fuel production. Canadians cannot go too far in trying to develop their natural resources, particularly in parts of the country which are as yet unopened.
In any event, whether this is so or not, research is of vital importance to Canada, and in order to do that research we have the research council; but it is only one body doing that work. We also have certain departs ments of the dominion government. Take as an example the Department of Agriculture. Outstanding research work has been done by scientists in that department. One example is the development of wheat. We would not be producing anything like the wheat crops we do now if it had not been for research work carried on here in Ottawa by scientists of the Department of Agriculture. The same thing is true of the Department of Mines and Resources. Scientists in that department are carrying on research in many different fields. The Department of Fisheries are also working along that line. The fisheries of Canada are limited largely to the maritime provinces and the west coast, although there is also an extensive fishing industry in Manitoba. On the two coasts excellent research work has been done by the Department of Fisheries. We should not get the idea that the only research in Canada is that which is carried on by the research council.
The provincial governments too have been carrying on useful research, largely in connection with industries which are the most important to the respective provinces. Private

Research Council

industry also has been carrying on extensive research. There are all these ways of developing research in Canada.
We doubt very much the wisdom of putting the research council into business. Its name has been made by research, not by doing business, and yet there are changes in this bill which indicate that from now on the research council may be put into business, may be operating companies. As an example, the minister said that the council may be operating a plant at Chalk River. There is also the suggestion that it might be carrying on mining operations in the northwest territories, where uranium is found. We suggest to him that the research council is not designed for that type of work, and if there is placed upon it the responsibility for carrying on such operations, it is possible that the efficiency of the council will be undermined.
The house has not been given complete information with regard to the policy on patents, and we would like to have further explanation from the minister. We do notice that section 11 of the Research Council Act had this provision with regard to patents:
All discoveries, inventions and improvements in processes, apparatus or machines, made by a member or any number of members of the technical staff of the council shall be vested in the council and shall be made available to the public under such conditions and payment of fees or royalties or otherwise as the council may determine, subject to the approval of the gov-nernor in council.
I direct attention particularly to the words "shall be made available to the public". I take it that the intention, when the Research Council Act was passed originally, was that any inventions of officers of the council, who are public servants, would be made available to any Canadians who could use them in carrying on their business. I would ask the minister if there has been any change in that policy. Those words do not appear in the bill before the house, and it may be the intention now to make money out of these, inventions -


Clarence Decatur Howe: It always was.


Mr. GREEN:: -and that if an officer of the council makes an invention, it shall be sold to the person who can pay the highest price. The minister had something to say on the point on May 27, as reported at page 1898 of Hansard. I quote:
Discoveries of the national research council are patented and it is now the practice to patent all discoveries of reasonable value. Many are in use and many patent holders already pay fees to the council for the use of the patents. Hon. members will agree that anyone wishing to use a patent of the national research council should pay its full market value, and it is to obtain the revenue that should properly 
come from the patents of the council that the proposed corporation to handle patents is to be established.
We must consider where a policy of that kind may lead. Let us suppose for example that an invention of an officer of the research council is sold to a firm which forms part of a cartel. In such event the research council is, in effect, helping to strengthen cartels. In so doing it may be going directly contrary to the ideas expressed in the report on Canada and International Cartels which was brought in by Mr. F. A. McGregor. It may also mean that Canada would be helping in the formation and functioning of international cartels. Surely that is not the purpose for which the researcl council was set up. I would refer hon. members to page 45 of that report, where we find a section dealing with the relation of patents to cartels and combines. Mr. McGregor sets out, for one thing, the following:
The essential purposes of the patent law of Canada are expressed in the following extract from section 65 of the Patent Act:
"Patents for new invention are granted not only to encourage invention, but to secure that new inventions shall so far as possible be worked on a commercial scale in Canada without undue delay."
I suggest it should be basic that, rather than having patents sold, for example, to one firm, inventions made by research council officers should be made available as widely and as quickly as possible to all Canadians who can make honest use of them. In any event, in his speech this afternoon, the minister used words which indicated that these patents were to be exploited in the public interest. He should go a good deal farther in explaining what he means by that statement.
I now come to the provision for the setting up of crown companies. This is contained in section 9 of the bill, where it is set out as a new section 14 of the Research Council Act giving the research council power to incorporate crown companies. This of course is done with the approval of the governor in council. Under this provision the research council will now have the right to form any number of crown companies. The minister was asked about this during the debate on the resolution. The discussion on the point is reported at page 1897 of Hansard as follows:
Mr. Howe: ... ,1 have no desire to limit the number of companies which the research council can have. If it needs twenty, then it should have twenty.
That, of course, is carrying this business of crown companies much farther than it has been carried hitherto, because until the introduction of this measure, crown companies were set up under the minister's department. Here,

Research Council
however, the power is no longer in the department, but rather in the research council. If this can be done, there is no reason why the national harbours board or the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation could not be given power to set up crown companies. Amendments could be brought in authorizing such procedure by those organizations. This is going just one stage farther than up to this date the government has gone. These companies will be just one step farther removed from parliamentary control.
In the debate on the government companies operations bill I enumerated our objections to crown companies, and I do not intend to repeat those objections in detail to-day. I stated that crown companies are not subject to municipal, provincial or federal taxation; that they establish a super civil service which does not function under the Civil Service Act; that they will compete with private industry, and that they open the flood gates to socialism.
The minister admitted in the debate on an earlier occasion that the research council could do anything these companies will be able to do. That is recorded at page 2188 of Hansard, where we find this, in reply to my question:
Hr. Howe:	Of course, but my hon. friend will
remember that anything the companies could do, the national research council could do without the companies.
Mr. Green:	I suggest to the minister that
that is a very good reason why the national research council does not need to set up companies at all.
We suggest to the minister that if companies are required to carry out some of the functions of the research council, such companies should be set up by separate bills. If the minister w^ants a company to deal with patents, and other rights of that type, then let him bring a bill before the house, at which time he could explain the need for such company. All the powers and all the surrounding facts could be thoroughly considered by the house. I understood the minister to say this afternoon that the crown company to be set up to deal with patents would have to do not only with those owned by the research council but also with inventions made by the universities and other bodies doing research work. I may have been wrong in taking that meaning from what he said, but his words led me to believe that that is what he meant. It is another reason why the proposed companies should not be set up by the research council, but rather under statute of this parliament.
63260-148i
In conclusion may I repeat what I said in opening. We approve the main principle of this bill because we are strongly in favour of research being carried on to the utmost, but we reserve our right to oppose certain provisions of the bill as it is at present before the house.


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, the leader of this group made our position clear the other day when he spoke briefly to the resolution. I quote from page 1886 of Hansard:
Speaking briefly to this resolution, No. 14, may I point out that we welcome the proposals contained in it, and look forward to the introduction of the bill. We have long been of the opinion that an expansion of our scientific activities is essential at this time. As a matter of fact, what I fear is that people in public life-political leaders, and in some degree men in charge of our defence forces-are failing to exercise, in the matter of scientific progress, that degree of imagination the scientists themselves are exercising.
When we consider the contribution that scientific workers made during the war years I am sure all members of parliament will support any resolution that will enable Canada to play a more prominent part in the scientific progress of the future than we have in the past. Like the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), I am fearful that we shall be unable to recruit in Canada or retain in Canada sufficient scientific personnel to cope with the problems before us.
This problem is not peculiar to Canada. I have been interested in reading "Endless Horizons", written by Vannevar Bush, in which he outlines some of the problems confronting the United States. He mentions that President Roosevelt wrote to him on November 17, 1944, requesting recommendations, in the following words:
(1)	What can be done, consistent with military security, and with the prior approval of the military authorities, to make known to the world as soon as possible the contributions which have been made during our war effort to scientific knowledge?
(2)	With particular reference to the war of science against disease, what can be done now to organize a programme for continuing in the future the work which lias been done in medicine and related sciences?
(3)	What can the government do now and in the future to aid research activities by public and private organizations?
While I do not go all the way with the writer of that book, I think some of his observations would apply to the Canadian scene. In the chapter entitled "War against Disease" he writes:
The death rate for all diseases in the army, including the overseas forces, was reduced from 14-1 per thousand in the last war to 0-6 per thousand in world war II.
Research Council

Such ravaging diseases as yellow fever, dysentery, typhus, tetanus, pneumonia, and meningitis have been all but conquered by penicillin and the sulfa drugs, the insecticide DDT, better vaccines, and improved hygienic measures. Malaria has been controlled. There has been dramatic progress in surgery.
The striking advances in medicine during the war were possible only because we had a large backlog of scientific data accumulated through basic research in many scientific fields in the years before the war.
In the last 40 years life expectancy in the United States has increased from 49 to 65 years largely as a consequence of the reduction in the death rates of infants and children; in the last 20 years the death rate from the diseases of childhood has been reduced 87 per cent.
He mentions some of the diseases which affect us in middle life and which so far have not been conquered. He refers in particular to cardio-vascular diseases, including chronic disease of the kidneys, arteriosclerosis, cerebral hemorrhage and other diseases which now account for such large loss of life. He says that if we are prepared to carry on scientific work in peace time as we did in war time we can expect great discoveries in these fields. In the chapter on the deficit of scientists, he says:
As a result an accumulating deficit of trained research personnel will continue for many years. The deficit of science and technology students who, but for the war, would have received bachelor's degrees is about 150,000. The deficit of those holding advanced degrees-that is, young scholars trained to the point where they are capable of carrying on original work-has been estimated as amounting to about 17,000 by 1955 in chemistry, engineering, geology, mathematics, physics, psychology, and the biological sciences.
While a similar study has not been undertaken in Canada I am sure the situation is identical here.
In the annual report of the national research council for 1944M5 there is a summary of the scholarships which have been granted since 11)17-18. A total of 168 fellowships have been granted; 483 studentships, and bursaries totalling 542. The amount actually expended by the council was $827,788.81. When one considers the contribution made by many of the men and women who have been working as a result of these scholarships, one must agree that this is a very small amount to expend. The research council should have available much larger sums so that continuous work may be carried on in a great many other fields.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), who seems to be much concerned about certain sections of the new bill. I think he was hardly fair in suggesting that the research council will be able to establish crown corporations without reference to the minister.


Howard Charles Green: I said, subject to the governor in council.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I did not hear the hon. member mention governor in council. It says, "the council may with the approval of the governor in council." I think that should appear on the record. That means that the research council cannot proceed to set up a new company or take over a company without some reference to the elected representatives of the people.


Mr. FRASER:: Just to the governor in council.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: We have some say as to what will be done. From time to time we shall have a chance to express an opinion as to whether the action which has been taken has been in the public interest or not. I cannot see any good reason why the national research council should not set up crown corporations to engage in the manufacture of certain products that are for the use of the people.
May I remind the house that when insulin was discovered the late Sir Frederick Banting was offered, so I am informed, over a million dollars to make his discovery available to private industry. But being a great scientist and humanitarian he was not tempted by the offer. Fortunately for those who suffer from diabetes, insulin has been made available to patients without some private corporation having a tremendous rake-off.
One of the recent contributions of the national research council was the discovery of glycol, which I understand has performed very well as an anti-freeze in automobiles. This discovery, I understand, has been turned over to the Saskatchewan wheat pool, which will use it in the public interest. I think the national research council would have been within its rights if it had decided that this anti-freeze, developed at no little public expense, should be produced to serve the Canadian people at the lowest cost and that any profit made should go into the general revenues of the country rather than into the pockets of Imperial Oil or of some cartels that my hon. friends were worried about. This would not be something new. In Saskatchewan some years ago when the farmers were suffering heavy losses from encephalomyelitis in horses, the university of Saskatchewan manufactured and sold chick vaccine, which had proved a successful remedy in combatting this disease. Otherwise the farmers would have been obliged to pay a much higher price for it and would have lost more cf their live stock, thereby imposing a

Research Council
much greater burden on the people of the province. I can see no reason why, if from time to time valuable discoveries are made by research council scientists in fields hitherto unknown in Canada, the results of their investigations should not be used for and by the people. It is true that the national research council has not had experience in this field, but there is no fundamental reason why an organization which made such an excellent contribution during the war should not extend its activities and produce additional revenue in further justification of its existence.
One would not expect that we would go along with the Progressive Conservatives in their protests against section 9, which gives authority to incorporate or take over crown companies already in existence. It was demonstrated during the war that we could not depend upon private industry to do all the research work that was required, and the council having done research work in so many fields there is no reason why the people generally should not enjoy the benefits of that work.
When the resolution was before the committee the minister said, at page 1891 of Hansard:
There should be a considerable turnover of research men. In other words, people should move from universities into the government service, and after they have made their contribution there they should move back to the universities. In government there should be a good deal of moving from one department of research to another department, from one type of research to another. There should be moving from public research into private research, and from private research into public research.
At the time I questioned the wisdom of that policy in an organization such as the research council. I can understand the younger personnel might like to spend some years in western Canada, or in the maritimes, or on the frontier, studying various problems. But many research problems require for their solution the work of a lifetime, and I think that a policy such as the minister outlined should be applied very cautiously. My point the other day was that these men should not leave the research council because of more attractive salaries outside the service. When the agriculture estimates were before the committee I had something to say on a comparison between the salaries of the scientific personnel in the Department of Agriculture in Canada and the salaries for similar work in the United States and Great Britain. The information I gave at that time indicated that in practically every classification the agriculture scientist in Canada received much less attractive remuneration than his fellow scientist in Great Britain or in the United States.
I have here the report of the royal commission on technical and professional services, published in 1930, better known as the Beatty report. The commission consisted of the late Sir Edward Beatty, then president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, J. George Garneau, and Walter C. Murray, of the university of Saskatchewan. In its report the commission pointed out:
It is only within the last three generations that even the most advanced of modern democracies have felt sufficient confidence in their mechanism of public administration, to launch boldly upon their new tasks. The change in the attitude of government to national problems and its willingness to satisfy demands for legislative action, to meet new and complex economic and social conditions, were preceded by the creation of a body of trained experts and administrators, in the service of the state, who could safely be entrusted with the important responsibilities of efficient government administration . . .
The problems of government are becoming ever more complex; the effectiveness of government action must be limited, to a substantial extent, by the quality of the civil service, which is called upon to investigate many subjects of national importance demanding consideration by the government, as well as to make governmental policies effective and governmental decisions operative; and we believe that no more important task confronts those in charge of the country's affairs, than that of improving, and continuing to improve, by every means at their disposal, the quality of the Civil Service of Canada.
They were disturbed in 1930 at the tendency of civil servants, particularly scientific men, to leave the government service for private industry. They say in their report:
In certain respects, it is true, the civil servant is at no disadvantage, or even at a positive advantage, when compared with other workers of his own kind in private employment.
They observed that those who continue in the service find in a very few years that those who have left it for private industry have much more remunerative positions. In appendix C is given a table showing the average earned income of McGill graduates in engineering at certain intervals after graduation, from which I find that after twenty years those who are with the government service average an annual salary of $3,560; teachers, $4,250; all classes, $9,300; which would indicate that the graduates in engineering who select government employment for a career are sorry after they have been in it for a year or two, because the government employees after twenty years receive an average salary only about one-third of the average remuneration of all other classes.
The report has a special section dealing with the national research council, in which it is pointed out that:
Research Council

The Canadian scale of salaries under the lowest grade (grade 6) is very slightly higher than that of the United States (grade 9), but in the higher grades the salaries proposed for Canada are substantially less than those paid under the United States scale; for example, the salaries on the scale proposed for Canada range from $2,100, the minimum for the lowest grade, to $8,000.
-whereas in the United States the maxima are a great deal higher. Away back in 1930 this commission made certain recommendations as to wrhat salaries should be paid to the employees of the national research council if we were to hold in Canada the type of men and women essential to do the work which must be done by the national research council. I was interested in the opinions expressed by the Canadian Association of Scientific Workers, Ottawa branch, in a statement presented recently to the Gordon commission, having to do with the problems of the scientific worker from their point of view. They express this opinion:
For years prior to the war it has been the accepted custom for many of our best scientists to proceed to the United States to pursue their careers. This caused no great concern because at that time Canada had no large scientific programme. With the advent of the war the situation changed radically. The national safety and welfare required the immediate inauguration of a large scale programme of scientific research in a number of fields. To-day it is almost universally recognized that Canada must continue to carry on scientific research at the war-time level, and that in fact, the scope of this activity must be expended if Canada is to take her rightful place in the post-war world . . . To-day our experienced scientists and those just graduating from the universities are acutely aware of the better opportunities in the United States, where in some cases the salaries offered are two to three times those being paid for similar work in Canada.
Last January and February I visited the university of California at Los Angeles and Berkeley, and was surprised to find so many Canadians had gone down there. While they like the climate of sunny California, they are loyal to Canada, and if they could return here at half the salaries they are receiving in the United States they would be interested in coming. True, the cost of living is higher down there, but even so they feel that the standard of living is a great deal higher in the United States for men in scientific work than it is in any part of Canada.
The association goes on to point out:
We do not need to look to the future to find a serious threat to the maintenance of an adequate programme of scientific research. To-day, even with the restriction placed on the movements of our scientists, whole projects are being jeopardized because key men have left and are leaving. The loss of these individual specialists is serious enough, but the real calamity lies in the fact that in many cases they are indispensable members of research teams. When

one of these men leaves, the whole programme is disrupted for a considerable period. This is the situation to-day and it will become worse until the status of Canadian scientists is radically improved.
Certain definite recommendations are made:
1. The first and most important consideration is the implementation of a salary schedule that will be commensurate with the training, experience, and abilities of the personnel engaged in scientific and technical work. The Canadian Association of Scientific Workers proposes a salary schedule which corresponds roughly to the recommendations of the Beatty commission made in 1929, although the scale is appreciably higher for the more senior grades. This schedule is equivalent to that proposed by the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario and supported by the Federation of Employee Engineers and Scientists.
They suggest that those who are doing scientific work should be given an automatic annual increment of $150 up to the top of the professional grade 3, $3,900, and that beyond this level promotion should be at the discretion of a review committee consisting of scientists and others. They add:
It is emphasized that this is proposed only as an essential minimum for qualified scientific personnel, and that those individuals with special ability are expected to advance more rapidly. An important feature of the schedule is that the senior scientist is not required to carry out specific administrative duties in order to receive the higher salaries. It is felt that the public service of Canada should be prepared, when the occasion demands it, to obtain the very best scientific man available. He may be a man with no inclination or special ability for administrative work, and it is felt that no arbitrary ceiling should be placed on his salary on this account.
The most significant distinction between this recommended schedule and the Beatty report is the guaranteed annual increment up to $3,900 per year. This, we submit, is absolutely indispensable to the maintenance of efficiency and morale of the scientific branches of the public service. It means that the requirement of a special order in council to enable a scientist to be promoted from one grade to the next would be eliminated.
Another recommendation is:
In recent years a number of women have entered the scientific and engineering professions, and, in spite of the important contributions they have made, almost without exception they have received salaries lower than men with similar experience and training. It is recommended that steps be taken to eliminate this discrimination as it leads only to dissatisfaction and reduced standards, and tends to discourage women from entering these professions at a time when the country urgently needs' people with the special abilities required of the scientist.
I am sure that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum) would underscore this suggestion. The third recommendation is:
We urge that every effort should be made to remove all considerations of colour, race or religion from the choice of applicants for civil service positions so that there will be no danger

Research Council
of the public service of Canada being deprived of the services of competent scientists on these grounds. There appears to be no satisfactory explanation for the query regarding race which exists on the application for employment of the National Research Council.
4. It is urged that there be greater cooperation and interchange of personnel between the universities and the government scientific services. This type of cooperation has already been carried out in a commendable way through the various associate committees of the National Research Council, but it should be extended both in relation to the National Research Council and other government departments.
If the minister had it in his mind to suggest that research workers should move around, I think it should be supported. Work in other countries might be of great value to the council's personnel; and, as the universities have found it practicable and useful to provide a sabbatical year for their staffs, I believe the national research council would find it a very good investment to make it possible periodically for those who are doing research work to visit other parts of the world, without loss of salary.
6.	A superannuation scheme is required that will ensure that term appointees suffer no loss when they leave the service after a reasonable period of time.
7.	We urge that in all reclassifications of the salaries of scientists, and in other matters concerning their welfare, representatives of the scientists (themselves, drawn from all_ grades, should be consulted before such decisions are made, and every effort should be made to acquaint these representatives with all the factors governing the decisions. We submit that if this policy were to be carried out it would result in improved efficiency in the scientific services, and would constitute an important step toward solving the critical problem of keeping our scientists in Canada.
There is one other matter with which I should like to deal briefly before I conclude. I have been speaking chiefly of the work of the scientific personnel. I understand that the technical staff of the national research council are in an even worse position than the scientific personnel. I find that the maximum salary available is very low, taking into account the importance of the work they must do. It is folly to have well-qualified scientists in a laboratory if the technical personnel, who are essential if the research work is to be done, are not adequately paid. I am told that some of the technical personnel who have been there for several years receive much smaller compensation than the janitor staff. I know the janitor's work is important, and I should be the last to suggest that anyone doing such work is overpaid. But those who have special qualifications and are doing important work should be paid at least as much as those who are doing janitor's work. I hope that when we are in committee the
minister will make some statement as to the salaries being paid to the technical personnel in the various departments of the national research council. I hope he will also answer questions regarding the years of service of members of his staff and tell us something about the promotion they have had. I am thinking of the salaries I have seen set out in the public accounts as being paid to some of the men who were with me in the university twenty years ago. I had the greatest respect for them in those days, and have always had.
I know that many of them worked nights and on Sundays in the investigation of research problems which were more important to them than playing rugby or hockey or basketball, and many of them have been as conscientious since joining the staff of the council as they were in their undergraduate days.
I cannot see any good reason why many of those who have their doctor of philosophy degree and have been for so many years with the council should not be in higher salary brackets than they are, and the same applies to the president. I know that the president is receiving a substantial salary, but I attach much more importance to the job he is doing than I do to that of the governor of the Bank of Canada. I suggest that from the president down the salaries of the scientific and technical employees of the council should be revised upward.
During the war the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply adopted the policy that whatever was physically possible and necessary would have to be made financially possible, and many unorthodox things were done. I suggest that now the national research council is under his supervision those engaged in research should receive as much as those in comparable positions in other government departments and in private industry.


John Horne Blackmore: The bill before us is a bill to amend the Research Council Act in the year 1946. We have passed through the most tragic war in history and we are now in the age, above all ages, in which mankind can produce, or has the best possible chance of producing, all the good things that are necessary for a high standard of living in the world.
We are now considering a Research Council Act which, I take it, might be assumed to point out the ideals of the government with respect to the needs of Canada for national research during the next few years. Let us view the act for a short while in the light of that fact. The bill is a good one as far as
Research Council

it goes, but it does not go nearly far enough. In fact, it stops practically where it ought to start.
The war caused the expansion of the research council's work. What for? To help Canada and her allies to win the war. The close of the war ought to cause the expansion of the council's work. What for? To help Canada and her allies win the peace. Shall we consider the act for a few moments in the light of that state of affairs? In order to do so, shall we ask ourselves this most challenging question: What is the problem which, above all other problems, needs to be solved in order that Canada should aid her allies in winning the peace? After answering that question to our satisfaction, let us ask this other question: Does this act apparently envisage the carrying on of such investigations by the national research council as would enable Canada to solve that problem?
To help .the united nations win the peace, the council ought to study the problems of social science, the problem of how to enable mankind to live together. Surely that must be obvious. The science of producing goods and services has already progressed so far that production has far outstripped consumption. It had done so fifteen years ago. Canadians do not know how to distribute fully what they have now learned to produce; yet this act is apparently to concentrate on the problem of greater production and to give no attention whatsoever to the problem of consumption or distribution.
Any government that is willing to face realities realistically should have provided that its research council should concentrate much of its effort upon the problem of how to distribute. Recently it has been said that the science of living together has lagged far behind. It is well said. Then let us by all means bring up to date our social science or science of living together.
Even before the war Canada needed a new method of distribution. What caused the depression which blighted this nation in the ten years preceding the war? What caused it if not the fact that we had learned how to produce more than we could distribute? An hon. member will recall, it was commonly said in those days that we had overproduction. After the word had been used for about five years, someone suggested that we ought to say underconsumption instead of overproduction. That was the wise thing to say under the circumstances.
During the war our productive capacity expanded tremendously, and to no man in Canada will history accord more honour for

that achievement than to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe), who is now piloting this bill through the house. The figures which have been used rather commonly are these, that during the last year of the war Canada was producing nine billion dollars' worth of goods in a year. If that seems to the minister not the right figure he might interject a correction, but, as I recall, those are the figures which were used by the Bank of Canada.
Surely, now that the war is over, the necessity for a new and scientific method of distribution is greatly aggravated. If we needed such a method before the war, how much greater is our need now? This was true even before the discovery of atomic energy. To use the abundance resulting from the industrial employment of atomic energy, we simply must have a scientific method of distribution. Great numbers of machines have never been permitted to come into use because they would have thrown so many men out of employment that the millions of the world would have been thrown into chaos. What an inconceivable number of men are likely to be thrown out of work by the industrial use of atomic energy, the mind really dreads to contemplate. What unimaginable chaos would result from the stupendous production attainable through the use of atomic energy, coupled with the tragically ineffective distribution system which has afflicted mankind and still prevails, one recoils from considering.
To illustrate how serious the situation is for the world, may I refer to a statement made during the war by the late President Roosevelt? As I recall it, he made the statement in October, 1944. He said that after the war he wanted the United States to find sixty million jobs by trebling her exports of goods into the markets of the world. In other words, the United States was planning to export sixty millions of her unemployed and distribute them hither and yon among the populations of the helpless peoples with whom she traded. That fact is tragic, is it not? If under the system we were using, the United States felt she had to export enough goods to give sixty million unemployed a job, what can be said of Britain and Canada? What must their needs be? The United States is one of the most fortunate nations on the face of the earth. She is practically self-sufficient; she has over 130 millions of people; she has an industrial equipment second to none in the world; she has a transportation system adequate to the carrying to and fro of all her goods to her people; she has financial strength which

Research Council
dominates the whole world. How can one possibly find a more complete condemnation of the method of distribution which we now use? Where can one find more potent evidence that we should set our national research council to work learning how we can distribute the goods which we produce without such extravagant measures as President Roosevelt was meditating when he made the statement?
In my judgment the bill-and I speak with all deference to the minister, a man for whom I have the highest esteem-is simply utterly inadequate. If you ask me what we Social Crediters think of the principle of the bill, there it is. It provides for more productive science discoveries, but no social science discoveries whatsoever.
How serious is the need of a new system of distribution in Canada? It can be shown by a letter which was written to me on September 25, 1945, by Mr. J. L. Forsyth, statistician of the dominion bureau of statistics, dealing with the wage rates prevailing in Canada in the years 1940 to 1941. This letter shows up the kind of problem which, above all others, the Canadian government should, in my judgment, be concerned with. To-day we have strikes in every direction, trouble and unhappiness. What is the matter? Surely we should be examining into that problem, and it looks to me as though the national research council ought to be the body charged with the responsibility of so doing. May I read Mr. Forsyth's letter? It is as follows:
Further to our telephone conversation of this morning regarding the percentage of wage-earners receiving various amounts of income.
The percentage of wage-earners earning less than $450 for the twelve months' period prior to date of the census, June 2. 1941, was 32-9 per cent; 28-7 per cent of the wage-earners reported earnings between $450 and $949; 29*9 per cent earned between $950 and $1,949, and 6-8 per cent earned $1,950 and over. 1*7 per cent of the wage-earners did not state the amount of earnings for the year.
For your information I am enclosing herewith census bulletins showing the earnings of wage-earners by occupation and the earnings and employment of wage-earners for the various census divisions or counties as well as a number of urban centres in Canada. The above statistics are taken from these bulletins.
Yours very truly,
J. L. Forsyth,
Statistician.
In reviewing the letter we notice the following salient facts: 32-9 per cent of the Canadian wage-earners received in the year prior to June, 1941, less than $450 a year. I submit this simple question to hon. members: Do you suppose that any person in Canada should be obliged to work for an income as low as that? Yet apparently nobody knows what
to do to change that tragic situation except by strikes. Then 28-7 per cent of the wage-earners earned between $450 and $949. This means that 61-6 per cent of the wage-earners of Canada received less than $950 a year, during a time when in order to support a family in decency and with the necessities of health they should have received $1,500 a year. If you want a problem for the national research council to sink its teeth into there you have it; how to adjust that grotesque, fantastic imbalance in our Canadian way of life. And 91-5 per cent of all the wage-earners in Canada received less than $1,950 a year. I do not believe that any family in Canada, if it has one or two children, ought to be called on to live on less than $2,000 a year. What are we going to do about it? There is the problem. I think I have said enough in a general way.


Gordon Graydon: Hear, hear.


John Horne Blackmore: We have "hear, hear" from the helpless creatures who have no idea what to do about the situation and who are quite contented to rest and leave it as it is. That is a pathetic situation, and yet they call themselves progressive. If you need anything to point to the complete irony of the situation there you have it.
This bill reflects upon the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King). While we were discussing the atomic bomb question last year he said, as reported at page 3638 of Hansard of December 17, 1945:
We should, by every means in our power, support and strengthen every agency of international cooperation and understanding which can help to make the world community a reality.
I submit that it is utterly impossible for Canada to do to-day what the Prime Minister said we ought to do, so long as we depend entirely upon international trade as a mechanism for the distribution of goods. All we are doing at the present time is depending upon international trade as a mechanism for distribution. Under the circumstances failure to make provision for the submission of this problem to the research council is a reflection upon the membership of the house, and especially upon the government.
This bill could have offered means of supporting the idleals behind the Atlantic charter, but it fails to do so. In fact, if this is all the government has to offer for the solution of our problems-and I presume it is-it betrays the Atlantic charter.
I would assume that all 'hon. members have received copies of this excellent booklet "Into the Atomic Age", which has been distributed
Research Council

by the Montreal Standard. At page 18 they will find an article by Albert Einstein, from which I should like to quote briefly:
We delivered this weapon into the hands of the American and the British people as trustees of the whole of mankind, as fighters for peace and liberty.
But so far we fail to see any guarantee of peace, we do not see any guarantee of the freedoms that were promised to the nations in the Atlantic charter. The war is won, but the peace is not. The great powers, united in fighting, are now divided over the peace settlements. The world was promised freedom from fear, but in fact fear has increased tremendously since the termination of the war.
The world was promised freedom from want, but large parts of the world are faced with starvation while others are living in abundance.
This serves to indicate the lines along which this man's thoughts are travelling. I wonder if that great scientist would look with complete approval upon the bill we are considering today. I wonder if he would say that it makes provision for the solution of the problem upon which he puts his finger.
I have no further remarks at the present time. I am sorry the bill is no better than it is. Our group will approve it, so far as it goes. But may I most earnestly urge upon the minister that he do not leave this matter of how we may live together in the world without first making provision, even in this session, for some competent body of eminent students to take over the problem and endeavour to learn how we may live together, how we may distribute that abundance internally and internationally which the great Creator has enabled us in this remarkable age to produce. I leave that earnest request with the minister.


Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly to express my support of the principle of the bill, and to make a few observations with regard to two sections in it. I have listened with keen interest to the debate. In my view, our aggressive Conservative friends are too nervous in respect of this legislation from their point of view, and some of our other lion, friends are too optimistic regarding its socialistic possibilities.
As I view it, this is a minor development of state capitalism, and common sense indicates that it is correct action. But I want to say this, that I object to the new section 14 which provides that with the approval of the governor in council the council may procure the incorporation of one or more companies.
We are at a time in our history when, whether our development along the lines of state capitalism will be democratic or whether it will evolve into a fascist state, depends upon our actions in this parliament. If one studies

carefully the early history of the fascist regime in Germany, and gives careful consideration to the legislation passed in those early days of Hitler's power, he will find that a number of bills of this type, which gave the government wide power and established what we would describe as crown companies, or organizations, which could carry on their future operations without reference to the representatives of the people, were forced through the German reichstag. In Germany that was a development of state capitalism, the real motives of which were covered with a facade of socialist terminology; but that facade of socialist terminology actually concealed monopolistic intentions and developments.
That is why I take strong objection to the section which provides that the governor in council only may give permission to incorporate companies. I believe that if these companies are to serve the people and if we are to assure the democratic development of this type of state capitalism, such companies must be born as the result of parliamentary action, and should report to parliament. In my opinion, the representatives of the people should have an opportunity to examine the objectives of these companies, as well as their financial arrangements and development, how their whole scheme of organization is related to our economy as a whole, and to decide whether the work they are doing is in the interests of the general public. Therefore I believe that we are taking a step in the wrong direction when, under the authority of the governor in council alone, we consent to the organization of crown companies for the purpose of implementing public ownership.
In addition, I believe that the patents covering discoveries should remain the property of the people, through the companies concerned. Section 7 (i) reads:
To license or sell or otherwise grant or make available . . .
I object to the word "sell". I believe that the right of ownership in these patents which will be and have been developed at public expense, and as the result of public and social action, should be retained by these companies for the people.
My major point is-and I repeat it before taking my seat-that if we are to assure the democratic development of this type of state capitalism, parliament must retain control.


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a few words respecting the principle of the bill. The government shows, through the bill, that it desires to promote scientific research. I am in full accord with that desire. I believe that we

Research Council
must of necessity, in a true scientific spirit, follow through to the logical destiny of this scientific age. But the expression "scientific research" is a blanket one, leaving the implication that it includes all kinds and all branches of all science.
I am afraid, however, that in this bill the government is limiting itself to a narrow field. The bill is confined to the narrow field of physical sciences, those which may be most readily adaptable to industry and those discoveries which may most readily lead to profit making by individuals. I should like to be assured by the minister that sociological science will also be tucked in beneath this blanket phrase of scientific research. No hint has been given that this will be done. In fact, in answer to my question the minister gave a direct negative, that there is no thought of studying social science, that we are just going to carry on with the study of the physical sciences.
It has often been remarked that the physical sciences have progressed far beyond the social sciences, that they have gone far beyond our . power to control them and use them properly for human needs. This fact has been deplored by those concerned with the stern facts of our social and economic life. I noticed that when the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) was speaking on atomic energy he made reference to this fact and said that the physical sciences have far outstripped the advances made in social science. It is not hard to understand why that should be. I believe it was Pope who said that the greatest study of mankind is man. It is probably because of the greatness of the study that we have been loath to take it up. Perhaps it has been neglected because it is not quite as remunerative a subject to follow as some of the other branches of science.
As between physical science and social science, the physicist has all the advantage. If he makes a discovery that is marketable, then he not only has a chance of being kept at his job or of selling his discovery, but also has the satisfaction of seeing the job to which he has given his life applied to something of value in human experience. That gives great encouragement to those who are studying in the physical sciences. But it is a very different matter when you start out to make discoveries in the field of social science. A newly discovered energy or an invented gadget which will make $2 grow where SI grew before will be snatched at avidly, but a Christ with the discovery of a human brotherhood in his heart is quickly crucified. Such a man spends his time in the study of the social questions of life. However, such
discoveries have hitherto not been wanted by the few who have dominated the economic system based on the economic conquest of the many by the few.
The failure to pursue and apply social science has brought about dangerous results which we now face in both the domestic and the international sphere. As I see it, society has been left like a child to play with the matches and fire furnished by the physical sciences. There have been no signs of indicating the objective to which the discoveries of physical science should be devoted. We have given ad lib to the physical sciences. I have no quarrel with that; my quarrel is that we have not given equal study and equal attention to the social side of the question.
Human experience through a long period has known of what are supposedly antinomies, that is, antagonisms which seem to be irreconcilable quantities ready to rend asunder all human relationships. I should like to mention just a few as an indication of what I am driving at in my implication of the study of social science. We have seen in the great historic struggles of man such conflicts as the struggle between the ideology of the natural and the supernatural, between the human and divine in man himself and the struggle between the sponsors of mind and matter as interpretations of the universe. Finally we have come down to one of the sharpest struggles of all, the struggle of individualism against society or of society against the individual.
But all these antinomies have been proved by history to be false or incomplete. These conflicts proved to be reconcilable. Conflict came about because each point of view was treated as being final and complete in itself. In fact, those historic conflicts now appear in the light of wider knowledge as two partial views of the same reality. The great struggle to-day is that between the ideology of individualism and that of socialism.
Neither of these concepts can be regarded as absolute any more than the conflict between the natural and the supernatural could be regarded as absolute, or any more than the conflict between what is human and what is divine, and between what is mind and what is matter. The philosophy of individualism is no more absolute than the philosophy of socialism. In fact they are reconcilable. Free private enterprise and the social objective of socialism are not necessarily antinomies. Free private enterprise, of course, is essential, but it must flow like individual streams into the great current of social purpose and well-being. Ten million
233S
Research Council

people with ten million free enterprises, not one of which cares for society, would not create the kind of society that any of us would want to live in. But ten million enterprising people working for the common good of all would be a very satisfactory condition as I conceive it.


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I do not think his remarks are relevant to the bill which is before the house at the present time.


William Irvine: I am sorry if I have to argue that with Your Honour. The bill before the house is for the promotion of scientific research, is it not? If that is so, am I to understand that the Speaker of this house is ruling out one of the greatest branches of modern society and precluding its discussion under the bill? If so, then I have nothing more to say. Do I understand that, Mr. Speaker?


James Horace King: The hon. gentleman will understand that it is most disagreeable for the Chair to interrupt during a speech, but it is the duty of the Speaker to keep the discussion relevant to the bill before the house. The rules are very clear that on second reading the principle of a bill should be discussed.


Mr. MacINNIS:: On the point of order, may I suggest that the principle of the bill is scientific research, and it seems to me that any scientific research would come within the purview of the bill and consequently would be a matter for discussion on the second reading.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member has suggested that additional amendments be made to the bill, and I think on a discussion of the motion for second reading he is quite in order to bring up matters which he believes should be included in amendments to the Research Council Act.


James Horace King: If the hon. gentleman has the unanimous consent of the house he may proceed.


William Irvine: I do not wish to ask for the unanimous consent of the house to discuss something which I am quite convinced is in order. If you say it is not in order I will sit down. I w'ant to know whether or not I am in order.


James Horace King: The hon. member knows that the house is master of its own rules. If the hon. gentleman has the permission of the house to proceed, he may proceed.


William Irvine: I shall proceed until either you or someone else stops me.


Angus MacInnis: Or until you have finished.


William Irvine: Or until my forty minutes have elapsed. I think what I am getting at will be quite clear and I do not think, sir, you will consider it to be out of order. If social science had been directing human affairs to the same degree as physical science has figured in industry in the last half century, we would not have many of the problems that we have to-day. I am arguing that while it is well that we should maintain and support further research in the physical sciences and apply them to the great systems of production and distribution, the principle of scientific research should be extended into the social field so that we may thereby be in a position to give direction to physical science in bringing about the best possible solution of human problems. Because this has not been done, the industrial application of physical science, which should have relieved man of drudgery and brought him within the compass of economic security, has brought such things as total war and wholesale slaughter in the international field and unemployment and want in our domestic economy, where leisure and abundance might have been the reward.
I suggest, sir, that such a matter as enforced1 idleness without adequate income to make living possible is a very serious problem indeed. I suggest further that the advances in the physical sciences have helped to increase the numbers of those who have to put up with enforced idleness on an inedequate income, and therefore it is right within the compass of this bill to be discussed.
It is common knowledge that science may be used to achieve any end. It may be used to destroy; in may be used to construct; it may be used exclusively for the achievement of personal gain; it may be used for communal benefit. It may be used for either one or all of these, so that if we are to subsidize scientific research It is important that we should know what is to be done with what we discover. What is the end we strive to achieve? If we are to spend public money on scientific research, we should have, I repeat, some say in how that will affect mankind. It is the very business of human nature itself to decide the ends toward which all scientific knowledge should be directed.
Science has two functions: one, to give man a realistic view of the whole phenomena of existence, and, second, to provide man with the means of controlling his environment and his destiny. Says Huxley in his "What Dare I Think?":
Science as a principle and body of knowledge is essentially a means. It provides the only way of achieving distant and elaborate ends.

Research Council
If, therefore, the great advances made by science are to be applied to human life it is time that we should be considering how science can make that possible. If science is a means and if we are to promote it we must ask ourselves: To what achievement is our proposed scientific research to be the means? Since the social sciences will assist us to determine worthy ends for the application of physical science, which this bill proposes to promote, then the social sciences are at least of equal importance with the physical sciences. Indeed I would1 say that they are of greater importance, for what is the use of discovering atomic energy if it is to be used to destroy us wholesale? What is the use of hitching atomic energy to industry if it will rob the great bulk of the workers of employment and expose them to starvation in the midst of abundance? These are not rhetorical questions. They are practical. They are now facing us. For example, steam, electricity, the internal combustion engine-all these were the products of scientific research and all held great possibilities for the benefit of mankind. All were revolutionary. But because of a neglect of the social sciences, the beneficial ends which applied physical science might have achieved were never reached. If atomic energy comes anywhere near the expectations of those who speak of it most it will create a still greater revolution, and that revolution not only will be industrial but will reflect itself immediately in social relationships both within the national economy and in the field of international politics and trade.
But apart entirely from atomic energy there is still urgency for research in social science with a view to bringing it abreast of modern scientific progress. If that is not done the further pursuits of physical science are of doubtful benefit. We in this parliament are, I believe, quite up to date in our industrial technolog3'. We would not wish to be represented as standing in the way of passing a bill of this sort because it would show us to be back numbers in the scientific sense. We want to be abreast of the times. We want to see our government lead and sponsor investigations of physical science. Of course we do, We are up to date in our physical science and in our industrial technology, but I suggest to you, sir, that we are antediluvian in our social studies and in our politics. I suggest again that the minister should give some thought at least to the point I am trying to make, and I hope that he will see fit to do something along the lines I am suggesting.
I assert also that this parliament should have something to say as to the degree of
secrecy to be exercised concerning scientific discoveries resulting from this publicly financed enterprise of research. I am wondering whether our scientists to-morrow under this act will be subject to the Official Secrets Act. Will they be liable to a charge of espionage if they happen to mention to some other scientists what they are working on, the progress they have made, and the hopes they have for what they are engaged in? I note that there is some mention of provision for liaison offices in London, Washington and Ottawa. I wonder whether that principle is to be extended. I believe that to bottle up scientific discoveries for any reason is to do violence to the very spirit and principle of science itself, and I hope that in any research furthered by this government every precaution will be taken for the fullest exchange of scientific knowledge between Canada and every other nation of the earth and that no attempt will be made to keep secret anything which our scientists may be fortunate enough to discover. By the same token they should have the suggestions and the opinions of other scientific students across the entire world.
I have referred to the apparent opposites which history has revealed in the human struggle. These struggles will appear later, say five hundred years hence, insignificant. To-day some of us are struggling in this house against each other and we are quite serious about it; I imagine that five hundred years from now some of these questions will have come within the range of science and will seem extremely petty. I do not suppose that people at that time will pay much attention to them; rather they will wonder how anybody spent any time on them at all.
I am bringing this out because, lacking confidence in this particular branch of science, namely sociology, people have gone very much astray. Men have been tortured and slain for causes which a few centuries later would be relegated to the funny papers. One finds the same antagonisms here; even in this parliament, racial, religious and political prejudices exist. All these thrive where the light of science is precluded. Our own parliament reflects these fears and prejudices in its wrangling over the basic ideas of the various parties. There is nothing either creative or scientific in that practice, and this I say even though I have my share in it. I think it is well for us to remember that no political idea, no political philosophy, no political party is absolute; it will be much nearer to say that they are obsolete. For that matter, neither private ownership of industry and enterprise, nor public ownership of industry with social objectives, nor the most complete control and
Research Council

administration of systems of finance, can be considered in themselves a complete solution of all or any of our modem human problems.
It is for these reasons that I urge the necessity of having a competent branch of research into sociological questions joined with researches into other branches of science. Each view held by the various parties in this house, however valuable, is only a partial view of a greater reality to which we are all striving to attain. The only way that that reality can be achieved or even seen is by the impartial approach of the scientific mind. As long as we are stirred with emotionalism and racialism and all the prejudices of the past it will be difficult for this parliament to find scientific solutions of the economic, social and political problems of this country.


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: I have listened with interest to the debate this afternoon, and there are two or three remarks I 'wish to make, mostly arising from the ideas expressed by members of the group to my immediate right. They seem to assume, as so many do to-day, that science has the answer to every question and that you have only to get larger and larger aggregations of people and then you can solve larger and larger problems. But surely it is fundamentally true that life is not a science and that science is not the answer to life; it is not the explanation of it. So I cannot assent to the idea that all we have to do to solve our problems is to set up huge bureaucracies and hand over to them our responsibilities as individuals, and they will automatically find the solutions, much as we can turn out material things by mass production. Surely, if any fact is true, it is that all the greatest and all the most beneficial discoveries in this world have been made by individuals. That is as true to-day as it has always been. You could gather together all the expert teachers of English grammar and form an English bureau, and is there any likelihood that they could produce any worth-while literature? We owe the art of poetry to such humble people as Robert Burns. So with music; for instance, suppose you assembled all the music teachers in Canada and formed them into a bureau and set them to work, is it likely that they would produce a single bar of worth-while music? All the music which is worth listening to to-day has been produced by men who have been inspired as human individuals and not as scientific machines. That is the point I wish to make.
One of the books I have read on the atomic bomb has been quoted to-day, and apparently the scientists who have produced this terrible weapon presume-and it seems that others

are willing to allow them to presume-that they are the ones who are to tell us how and when this weapon is to be used. Of course, it takes scientific training to produce a bomb; but what I want to make clear is that the greatest scientist who ever lived is no more competent to say when that bomb shall be used than is the most humble man on the street. More than that, if individuals were left to their own devices, it is not likely that they would have produced such an evil thing as the atomic bomb. It took billions of dollars, and hundreds of scientists, and they ceased to be human individuals and became scientific automatons. It is they rvho produced the atomic bomb; it is they who presume to tell the world how it should be used; and if we do not obey their dictates we shall be blown off the face of the earth.
All human progress has been made through the divine revelations made to individuals. Science is no answer to the major problems that confront the world to-day. We have to go back to first principles, to Christian principles. Without that the world is lost.
Recently a book has been sent me "The Anatomy of Peace," and the very purpose of it is to prove that Christianity has utterly failed and cannot help the world out of its present troubles. I would not say anything if the views that appear in that book represented only the opinion of its author, but the book is endorsed by numbers of public men in the United States. I will not mention their names, but I might say that one was a scientist who was referred to this afternoon, Professor Einstein. That, I believe, is the chief trouble with the world to-day. It thinks that science can solve the problems of the world when only a return to Christian principles can save us from the disasters with which we are faced.


Angus MacInnis: I did not intend to take part in this debate, and I do so only in reply to the last speaker (Mr. Jaques), who has ascribed to this party certain views and attitudes which we do not hold. He stated we believed that all that was necessary to have a perfect world was to have larger and larger aggregations of people come together and appoint what he calls bureaucrats over them, and everything would be fine. I do not think it is necessary for me to refute this idea. The hon. member who preceded the last speaker made it as clear as it could possibly be made that we do not believe that anyone has a corner on absolute virtue, that collectivism is not a sufficient answer by itself to the present problems of the world, and that certainly individualism is not a sufficient answer to those problems.

Research Council
What are we to make of the hon. gentleman's statement that what we must do is to go back to first principles? What are first principles, and how do we get back to them? The position we are now in is that there have been scientific developments; that because of those developments man has multiplied upon the earth, and that by using those scientific developments to live together we have raised ourselves, perhaps not to any great height, but certainly beyond the conditions of the cave man. Does he suggest that we go back to the cave man? He should define first principles. He should define his concept of the fundamentals of religion.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who says there was a cave man?


Angus MacInnis: I assume there must have been.


Norman Jaques: I made it clear that I meant a return to the principles of Christianity.


Angus MacInnis: But the principles of Christianity are only two thousand years old, whereas our human life goes back over a very considerable period. People who ought to know say, billions of years. So that to ascribe to us certain ideas, and to make statements such as the hon. gentleman made, merely indicates a lack of knowledge on his part. I have heard my hon. friends time and again state in this house how much more productive an individual is in this modem world than were our ancestors even a few score years ago.


John Horne Blackmore: Is it not true?


Angus MacInnis: It is quite true, but it is not the individual man that is productive. The individual man is no more productive to-day than he was ten thousand or a million years ago. What is productive is the social man, and if you put a man to work producing anything to-day or put him to make his own living, the individual man to-day is less capable of producing his own livelihood, as an individual apart from society, than was his grandfather or his great-grandfather, because he is farther away from the simple principles of living upon what he produced himself. But social man is so productive that we do not know what to do with the volume of the things he produces, so we have to call a war every twenty-five years or so in order to destroy our surpluses. What we are here trying to do is to get away from that and to use our scientific achievements in production; and, as the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine) said, to use those scientific achievements also in distributing the things we can so abundantly produce.
That is what this party stands for. We do not maintain that we have any corner on knowledge or even on good intentions, but we do maintain that by making use of the knowledge which the human race has acquired over the years we can make progress.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is very little that I need to say at this time. The principal suggestion in the debate is that the scope of the amendments should be enlarged to include the social sciences, as well as the work now encompassed in the Research Council Act. I think it is inevitable that the work of the research council will centre primarily on applied science rather than on pure science. The reason for that is that it is possible to organize the work of applied science. A project can be organized that has as its objective the applications of known facts of science to a particular problem. For example, it is possible to work out a method for producing magnesium, which has been mentioned in this debate. That was worked out, and I will later say a few words about Dominion Magnesium Limited in reply to the question of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), which I agreed to do. But it is not possible to organize research in the field of pure science in the same way.
The council can assist universities in organized research on these lines, but it is not usual that the discoveries of pure science come from organized efforts. Reference has been made in this debate to the discovery of penicillin. Last summer I had the good fortune to spend a day with Sir Alexander Fleming, the discoverer of penicillin. We both received honorary degress from Harvard on the same day. I was interested in his description of how penicillin was discovered.
Sir Alexander was relieved from his ordinary duties as a teacher and 'he was doing some independent research on the virus of a malignant disease. He left his cultures by an open window and when he came back the next morning he found that they were dead. He was a highly trained man of science and he thought there must be some reason for it. So he tried it again and again; each time that he left his cultures by an open window he found them dead the next morning. He then set out to discover what was killing them and he traced the cause to a mould which was being blown through the air. He then started to work on the mould to see what medical properties it contained. From that research came the discovery of penicillin.
This country needs more men in the field of pure science. There is no question about that. It needs more work in pure science.
Research Council

Europe has constantly led the Americas in work in this field. The reason, according to men who have studied the matter, is that there are more highly trained men of leisure in Europe than there are in this country. I listened to a discussion on how pure science could best be advanced in this country, in which it was suggested that if well-trained university men were put on a pension of $12,000 a year, with the undertaking that if they would care to spend any of that $12,000- they would spend their time as they liked- on any particular line of research, such expenditures would be added to by the state in the proportion of three to one. These highly trained men would be assigned no particular task. They would be on pension and they could do as they liked. If they cared to take up any particular line of research, their expenditure in that work would be supplemented. By such means it might be possible to develop scientifically trained men of leisure who could be expected to contribute discoveries in pure science. I am simply throwing that out to explain why the national research council does not primarily organize research work in the field of pure science.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Would the minister permit a question?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Not having a thorough
understanding of the men of Europe to whom the minister refers, may I ask if the developments over there were brought about on their own initiative, or organized by some government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: On their own initiative, for
the most part.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is the difference
between a man working on his own initiative and working under government auspices. The men of whom the minister is speaking who may be paid $12,000 a year would be working under the government. Men of that type have not the initiative. Not having that initiative, they would not rate one, two, three with the men who are working under their own initiative. That is the difference between private initiative and government control.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I hardly suggest that a large income is a necessary corollary of ability. My hon. friend will find that in the field of pure science discoveries have been made not so much by men of wealth, as by men of leisure. Certainly Sir Alexander Fleming was not a wealthy man when he undertook to discover what was happening to his cultures, what
[Mr. Howe.l
caused them to die when he left them by an open window. It is a fact that in Europe there has been a leisured class of men trained in science. In this country we expect men trained in science to buckle down and be producers. Perhaps that is the reason why this continent does not -advance as rapidly in the field of pure science as do the older countries.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, to continue my remarks before the hour of recess, I would refer to the comment on the permission sought in the bill to build pilot plants. In the past, the national research council has taken the view that its duty was to work out the scientific process, and leave the actual development work to others. It has been found, however, that, in some cases, the proving of the scientific work by means of a pilot plant is necessary to carry out the objectives of the national research council.
In explanation, I would refer to the Dominion Magnesium plant, and in doing so I shall carry out my promise to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) to explain the position of that plant.
In 1937, experimental work on the production of metallic magnesium was initiated by the division of chemistry of the national research council under the direction of Doctor L. M. Pidgeon.
Until 1939, this research was largely confined to the established electrolytic methods when work was started on thermal reduction methods, or what later became known as the Pidgeon process, which uses the reaction taking place between calcined dolomite and ferrosilicon.
At the close of 1940 the situation was as follows:
(a)	The national research council had financed work on the production of metallic magnesium through the reduction of dolomite by ferrosilicon, at a total cost of approximately $22,000. At this stage no patentable discovery had been made.
(b)	It had been demonstrated that magnesium could be produced by this process on a laboratory scale, but it was not known whether it was practicable successfully to expand the laboratory retort to a commercial plant size, and it was realized that this involved problems of more than ordinary difficulty.
(c)	The council had discontinued investigations on this process as the questions indicated in (b) above could only be answered by

Research Council
greatly expanding the investigation to pilot plant scale, at an estimated cost of at least $25,000 per annum. The council did not consider that the process was sufficiently promising, in competition with existing established processes to justify this expansion at public cost...
(e) At the close of 1940 it did not appear probable that the Pidgeon process would be used commercially for the production of metallic magnesium, even for war purposes, as there was no certainty that this process could operate commercially, or would produce metal at a cost that would compete with established processes. The associate committee on magnesium of the national research council, which includes members of the staff of the Departments of National Defence and Mines and Resources, and the research council, about this time officially recorded its view that if the dominion government desired to establish a commercial magnesium plant immediately, one of the established existing processes be used, rather than a plant based on the experimental work of the council up to that date. That was the situation at the end of 1940.
In January, 1941, Doctor Pidgeon showed Mr. W. E. Segsworth a four-inch retort which was in successful operation in his laboratory, and on the following day Mr. Segsworth and Mr. R. J. Jowsey called on the acting president of the national research council and discussed possible business arrangements to finance a pilot plant for the production of magnesium lay what is now known as the Pidgeon process. As a result, an agreement between the council and Dominion Magnesium Limited was signed in April, 1941.
This agreement provides that the company pay not only the entire cost of the research carried on thereunder, including the salaries and expenses of the staff employed thereon, the cost of equipment and supplies required in connection therewith, and the sum of $4,000 per annum in respect of overhead, but also an additional sum of $30,000. The total expenditures of the council on the investigation of this process prior to the agreement were $23,165.66. In addition, the company had to expend each year on research work considerably more than the $25,000 estimated by the council as the minimum amount required to expand the investigation to pilot plant scale.
Following investigations carried out at the expense of the company under the above agreement, the company established a plant for the manufacture of magnesium by the Pidgeon process near Renfrew, Ontario, but before this plant was ready for commercial
production, it was taken over by the dominion government under arrangements made by the Department of Munitions and Supply.
It will be seen from the foregoing that Dominion Magnesium Limited has invested considerable money and has taken considerable risk in developing the Pidgeon process for the manufacture of metallic magnesium, and that during the war period it made no profit on its investment in this process. In addition, it still remains to be proven whether in the post-war period this process can successfully compete with other established processes for the production of magnesium.
Reference has also been made to the plan of the council to establish a corporation to patent discoveries of the council, and to exploit those patents. Every country in the world follows a similar plan in connection with its governmental research activities. It is the practice of all governments to own patents discovered by scientists in its employ, and it is the practice of all governments to make these available to the public either by lease or by outright sale.
In my earlier remarks, I made reference to the corporation that attends to these duties in the United States. To handle duties of that type by means of a corporation is in the public interest, in that its transactions are readily available; the manner in which it handles patents and the proceeds derived from such patents can be ascertained without difficulty. The purpose for which the proceeds are used can also be readily ascertained.
All those associated with the national research council believe that patent work should be handled by a separate corporation under direction of the council; and that is the purpose of the bill.
In the matter of crown companies, I do not know that anything further need be said, except to point out that the national research council can perform no act through the corporation that it cannot perform directly, if it desires to take appropriate action. The national research council cannot create a corporation which will have any power in excess of that held by the council itself. The establishment of a corporation will be simply for the purpose of enabling the council to carry out its duties in a way that is considered more efficient than the method of direct operation. I do not think hon. members need have any concern about the authority being given by this bill to the national research council to establish corporations.
The matter of employment was referred to during the discussion of the bill setting out the duties and privileges of crown corporations. A corporation set up under this bill
Research Council

would have no right that is not enjoyed by the national research council itself. As I stated before the recess hour, the provisions of this bill are few in number and simple in language. As we pass into committee, I do not think hon. members will have any difficulty in agreeing with the government as to the desirability of the proposals that are now being placed before the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Definitions.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I am not going to make any extended remarks on this section or on the bill, but I want to express the fears that I have expressed before as to the gigantic business into which the government is apparently going to enter. I am a private enterprise man and I believe that private enterprise can do a job better and at less cost than the government. After the results of experiments have been arrived at, I submit that private enterprise can carry on better. I am afraid of what this country is going to get into.
The minister was a big business man, and I often think he must laugh to himself when he looks back at the days when he had to figure everything carefully on a business basis and compare that with what is going on today, with the possibility of the government setting up a long line of businesses. I am not going to oppose the bill, but I am not in favour of that sort of thing.
There is nothing new about a research council. The Ontario government set up a research council in 1928, and I understand that the dominion act was passed in 1924. It was around 1924 that I went out of business. The Ontario set-up is entirely different from what is now before the committee. I should like to read from the Ontario act which is chapter 57 of the statutes of 1928:
1.	This act may be cited as the Research Foundation Act, 1928.
2.	There shall be established a corporation to be known as the Ontario Research Foundation, hereinafter called the "foundation," which shall consist of such persons as may from time to time be designated by the lieutenant governor in council to be members of the foundation.
3.	The objects of the foundation shall be the carrying on of research work and investigations having for their purposes,

(a) the improvement and development of manufacturing and other industries by the introduction of advanced methods and processes;
It was felt by manufacturers and others that the government could assist them materially along general lines, and it was for that reason the foundation was set up. They
[Mr. Howe.l
became members of the foundation and subscribed in amounts of $100 or more. The particular section reads:
6.	(1) The foundation may enter into an agreement in writing with such persons as may desire to become subscribers to the foundation for receiving from such persons subscriptions of money in sums of $100, or multiples thereof, until the sum of $1,000,000 has been subscribed.
In 1929 there was an amendment to permit of a total of S2.500.000. The basis of the Ontario foundation was to give direct service to the whole manufacturing industry. It was something to which they themselves subscribed. If anything worth while was discovered, the action to be taken was set out in section 10 (a), as amended in 1929, which reads:
The foundation may apply for, or acquire by purchase, assignment or otherwise, rights in any patent of invention for industrial or other processes of any nature or kind whatsoever, and may sell and dispose of the same, or any interest therein, and grant or assign any rights which may be acquired by the foundation thereunder.
I do not take it, either from the act of 1928 or the amendments of 1929, that the foundation was to do any processing of the patents obtained. They were to dispose of them, and in my opinion that is the right thing to do. I have nothing but the highest regard for the minister and I realize the tremendous activities he has carried on. I know he has a great knowledge of affairs in general, and particularly of business affairs. I cannot figure out why he has not followed the programme which was set up by the Ontario government. There will be no limit to the number of plants that may be set up under this bill, and there is no limit to the total cost. The minister is a business man, and he knows just as well as I do that the government cannot begin to do anything of a business nature at anything like the cost that private industry can do it.
The minister has two striking examples of this before him. The first is the Abasand Oil company at Fort McMurray. He says he did not put that through, but I find his name all through the agreements with the old Abasand company and the crown company which took the place of the old Abasand company. Then there is Dominion Magnesium, On May 21, 1943, I asked some questions which were answered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). I do not know why they were answered by that minister. I asked how much capital was at that time invested in Dominion Magnesium and was informed that the capital cost was 83,349,504.03. In reply to further questions I was informed that the working capital was SS20.000, or a total capital of $4,169,504.03; that 1,186 tons

Research Council
had been produced up to April 30, 1943, at an average cost of 39-70 cents per pound; that the capacity was ten tons a day and the actual production 8i tons a day.
After the country had put up all that money the plant was disposed of to a private corporation, I presume. Just how much did the countrjf get out of that big investment? The figures have been given in the house. We were to get so much out of production, but the actual immediate cash return was small. That is one example of what it has cost this country to put up a pilot plant, like the one at Haley's.
At page 5023 of Hansard of July 30, 1942, the Minister of Trade and Commerce said this:
I would reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacXicol) this afternoon by saying that the national research council were engaged on certain preliminary investigations in connection with the production of magnesium metal before the Dominion Magnesium company came into the picture. None of the work up to that time resulted in a patent. Subsequently, Dominion Magnesium entered into an agreement with the council

I presume that means the national research council.
-to have the work undertaken on its behalf and its cost, plus 50 per cent overhead on the actual cost. Certain patents then developed. If these prove to be as valuable as is expected, a further sum of $30,000 will be paid by the company under their agreement with the council.
If the national research council did develop a patent for magnesium metal the minister knows, and he knows there are several good methods of making magnesium metal. As a matter of fact, the Dow company in the United States, using their own system, have during the war made a large amount of magnesium metal, and it was apparently for that reason the company was set up.
On the next page, 5024, the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) said:
I wish to protest against the procedure which has been followed in the development of magnesium metal.
I protested myself, too. He went on:
Here we had a discovery made in our own research laboratories, and once they knew they . had something, the process was turned over to this private company to develop it commercially, instead of the government building a pilot plant and developing it commercially.
The only comment I have on that statement is that it should have been advertised to the -world and tenders should have been asked for from all who wished to purchase the patent and come in here and manufacture magnesium metal.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government did not develop the patent.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is what it says here.
I think I can prove it too. If the discovery of the Pidgeon process was made and developed at the national research council in government time and at government expense-


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was never patented by the research council. The council reported that it was no good.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is what I want to find out. I have nothing but the highest regard for Doctor Pidgeon, or whoever did it. They are good men; they have ability; but if the process was developed by him or those associated with him in the research council, working on government time and at government expense, that patent belonged to this country.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They did not develop a patent.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That does not exonerate the government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have just given my hon. friend a lengthy and detailed explanation. I do not think he listened to me.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The men at the national research council did the groundwork there. You can read in different books all about the different processes of producing magnesium metal. The men of the research council got out a new process or a combination of the others. The minister spoke of the electrolytic method. One inventor of that was Ralph Keemle, of Hamilton, Ontario, before Dominion Magnesium came into the picture.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was developed long before that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I went to see Ralph
Keemle's pilot plant in Hamilton. It was in a big plant past the Westinghouse plant and on north from Westinghouse. Perhaps the hon. member for Hamilton West knows the name of the plant.


Humphrey Mitchell: Otis-Fensom.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You go past the gun
plant and turn to your right at the corner. You have to go a quarter of a mile and then you find this big plant on the lefthand side of the street. I am sure that the Minister of National Defence for Air will know it.


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: Otis-
Fensom.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I asked Mr. Keemle,
"Why don't you get in touch with your member so that your process may be used
Research Council

by Canada?" I have forgotten his reply. But he did. have a small pilot plant in that big plant I am speaking of, to develop magnesium metal by electricity out of the Dolemite limestone which abounds in that great range running north of Hamilton to Guelph and on to lake Huron. Mr. Keemle said to me, "We could make magnesium metal for a million years for the whole world out of that vast source of supply that we have from Hamilton north to lake Huron."
The hon. member for Melfort said something else:
The minister stated that the company which developed the Pidgeon process had paid for the development of that process itself. I have here the minutes of the privy council, and I find:
"That the company will build the plant at cost and without profit but will be paid the sum of $41,500 to cover its costs heretofore incurred in the development of the Pidgeon process."
If the Pidgeon process was developed in government time, with government materials, and at the government expense, I do not see why they should be paid anything for it. The report, quoting the minutes, continues:
"Included in the cost (but not in the $41,500 above-mentioned) will be certain commitments and sums already incurred or paid by the company for the purposes of construction of a magnesium plant, not exceeding however the sum of $12,000; the benefits of such commitments and expenditures shall be used for the construction of the initial Diant."
It appears from this that the company are to be reimbursed for their expenditures in connection with the development of the process.
Then the Minister of Munitions and Supply replied:
I have forgotten the details, but I think that applies to a certain pilot plant which was built to develop the process actually being used in our plant.
That is, in the government plans.
I think we paid for building a full-scale unit,-
That is, the government paid for it.
-using tubes and furnaces of the size we intended to instal in the new plant. The $41,000 certainly does not cover all costs incurred by the company in developing the process.
I do not want to prolong my remarks. The point I am making is that if that magnesium process, the so-called Pidgeon process, were, developed in our own laboratories on government time and the salaries of the men engaged there were paid by the government, that process, to my way of thinking, belonged to this country. The whole thing has now been disposed of. What did the country get out of it? Little but loss.


Clarence Decatur Howe: ' It got a lot of magnesium out of it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I beg the minister's
pardon?
Mr. HOW'E: It got many, many thousand tons of magnesium out of it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I agree, and I am not
wholly opposed to what was finally done with the plant, because I do not believe in the government being in business. If the agreement they made with the people now operating the plant is a provident one, and if the present operators keep it going and give men employment-that is what I am interested in, giving employment to men- we shall have that much out of it, and in time the country will derive some return in taxation, income tax and so forth. At any rate I hope so.
So I come back to where I started. Frankly, I am alarmed at the government going into business on such a wide scale. There seems to be no end to it, from what one sees in this bill and in the other bill which either has been before us or is coming up. As a business man I cannot understand how the minister has allowed himself to be led into this course of action. If this research council, which I am in favour of and whose development I would support as a service to the country and to manufacturing, just as the Ontario research council is doing, can produce something worth while, put it on the market and sell it, someone can be producing for the public welfare through its activities and the country will reap returns much as it does from business in general. While I am not going to oppose the contribution, my position is that which I have taken right along. I believe that private enterprise will do these things far better than a government can do them.
I remember what the minister said before the house rose, and I thank him for saying it. He had been speaking of scientific and other developments by private citizens in Europe who had the time and means to devote to the work, and I asked whether they were on government pay. The minister kindly answered, no. Well, I know that type of man. I think I am one of that type. I have worked many a night, week in and week out, month out and month in, trying to develop processes in the business in which I was engaged. A twenty-four day did not mean anything; I was pursuing something and I wanted to get to the end of it. I am sure the minister has had the same experience.
I am certain that during his business life he has often worked all night planning the construction of elevators, in which business he

Research Council
was such an expert. He could not take a chance where experiments were involved; he had to see to the thing himself. I am sure I am right in this supposition. I know you cannot expect that kind of thing in the government service. This country has as good a civil service as any in the world. It is staffed with men and women of high character and excellent capacities, but they are not asked to work all night long, as the minister and myself and many another pioneer have done in business and professional life. Government men are not expected to do that. We do not pay them to do it. But those engaged in private industry are bent on reaching a particular goal, we aspire to reach the top in a big company; we reap our return in that way. But government employees are only paid salaries and they are not expected to work like that. This is one reason why I favour the government, if it gets out patents, putting them up for sale and disposing of them to the highest bidder who can pay for them, on condition they put the production of it on the market. Only in that way can we provide employment; the result of research must be placed on the market. In my judgment, the research council will be doing good and worth-while work if they confine themselves to that procedure. But to manufacture stuff themselves-well, they cannot do so profitably. They can, of course, do it on government money, in the way magnesium was developed at Haley's and as might have been done from the $2 million expenditure at Abasand, where we did not secure a process for extracting oil from the sands, or at least, if we did, the plant burned down before it was in operation, so that whether or not it would have been successful we do not know.
I am not in favour of the government carrying on business on so wide a scale. If what the minister said this evening about employment is correct, there would be a good deal of temporary employment in the various pilot plants. As the minister said, the employees will be entitled to benefits of superannuation. I am in favour of superanu-ation, and I would favour private companies doing much more in that direction than some of them are doing to-day. Before I left home last night a man came to see me who, after being with a company for twenty years, had just been let out without a pension. I think that is an outrage. During his period of service his salary was at no time sufficient for him to accumulate a competence. He was not an officer of the company, he was working in the plant, and I may say that he was just about heart-broken. So with that part
of the government's proposal I agree, that whoever is engaged in the government's plants should be under civil service conditions as to pensions and the like if he is retired from government service. Anyone who has worked in the public service for twenty years should, on retirement, be entitled to a substantia! pension, because the government, having the country's money to operate with, can afford to do that and can thereby show an example. As the minister knows, private industry cannot always do that. No doubt, many times, when tendering for a big elevator contract which he had to get by competition, he had to sharpen his pencil and found it "pretty close skating" to get out even and without losing his coat. But the government is not subject to such conditions.
That expresses my opinion with regard to this bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I just wish to put my hon. friend straight on the position with regard to magnesium. To review what I said earlier, in 1937 the national research council undertook to develop a new process for the manufacture of magnesium metal. It was carried out under a strong committee representing not only the research council but also Mines and Eesources and National Defence. In 1940 the work was reviewed by the committee, and it was found that they could make magnesium metal in a testtube by the process which later became known as the Pidgeon process. But it was represented that there was nothing patentable in the matter and that if the government needed magnesium metal in the war they had better try a proven process. That was the official report to myself as Minister of Munitions and Supply. However, Doctor Pidgeon, who had been working on the process and had done development work, did not agree with the committee. He said, "All right. I am cut off from the funds of the research council by the decision, but I still believe in the process," and he interested private investors in carrying on the process. Messrs. Segsworth and Jowsey went to the national research council and said, "We will pay all costs up to date, but we want to own the thing from now on". They made arrangements to finance from that point on, and as a result of work in the pilot plant certain processes were patented, not on the time of the national research council but on time paid for by this private syndicate. The government overlooked no opportunity to patent the process. They never had the opportunity. If they had carried on the work farther, if they had followed Doctor Pidgeon in the matter, they might have had a patentable process. The syndicate, having been satisfied with their
Research Council

process, undertook to build a plant at their own private expense-it was only a very small plant-for the production of magnesium on a commercial scale.
At that time it became evident to the Department of Munitions and Supply that Canada must have a source of magnesium of its own if it were to continue to build aeroplanes on a large scale. A good deal of time was taken in investigating other processes, and it was finally decided that the firm best able to build was Consolidated Mining and Smelting which had an electrolytic process which seemed to be very modern. It was found, however, that the estimate of that company for building a plant of the size required was 89,500,000. It was also found that by spending a little over 83,000,000 on the Pidgeon process the same production could be obtained, though there was no guarantee as to what the cost would be. I decided that it was a better gamble for Canada financially to take the Pidgeon process than to spend nine and a half millions on the electrolytic process, and the gamble was justified for the reason that magnesium was produced in the required quantity. It was sold at the then world price and it showed a very small loss. Nevertheless, when the war ended, instead of having nine millions of capital tied up in the plant we had three millions in it. We were able to dispose of the plant in a manner that should net the government SI,400,000, so that we got magnesium when it was required for a very reasonable sum. We now have in Canada an industry that has a fair chance of success. I do not think, therefore, that the government has anything to apologize for in the manner in which it handled its production of magnesium in the war years.
My hon. friend has referred to Abasand as a losing venture on the part of the government. Let me assure him that the government never went into that undertaking to make money. It did so for the purpose of testing a process. It was a pilot plant. The government obtained 95 per cent of the information required, and the information was of such a character that it was not believed necessary to rebuild the plant in order to get the other five per cent. It was pretty well proven that the plant could not produce at present costs for petroleum products. It paid for the information. The information was obtained and the books are closed so far as I am concerned.


Mr. JACKMAN:: There is one point in particular that I should like to bring to the attention of the committee and it has to do with the accountability of the national research council. As I see the bill, it seeks to enlarge

and streamline the activities of the research council, but no attempt is made in it to make the council more accountable or responsible to parliament. May I give to the committee the provisions which appear in the Research Council Act in regard to reporting to parliament. It might have been all right when the council was a small affair with a small annual appropriation, but now that it is going to take on not only a new lease of life but a greatly enlarged life I believe

and I hope the minister as well as his own party and the C.C.F. and Social Credit and other members of the house will agree with me-that something should be done to make the national research council more responsible to members of parliament.
As the situation now stands, the president of the council reports annually to the council itself. Report is then made to the committee and, after fifteen days, the report is tabled in parliament or, if parliament is not sitting, the report need not be tabled until fifteen days after the opening of the next session. I presume the report will be supplemented by the auditor general's report on the accounts, as well as the president's report on the work of the council itself. The auditor general's report, however, is usually fifteen months after the close of the fiscal year. That is to say, some of the operations of the council which take place now will not be accounted for twelve months plus fifteen months, or twenty-seven months after the actual work has been done.
That, I submit, is too slow if we are to have any check on these matters, and I believe most members of the house will agree with me in that regard. The minister has said in connection with all these government controlled companies that they are accountable to parliament and that parliament is to have supervision over them. But I ask the members of this committee, what possible useful control we can exercise if the report on the activities of the council in its enlarged state is to be so long delayed and we are not to know what they have done for at least twelve months or two years afterwards? When I first raised this point the other day the minister said that the members of the house would probably take affront at the council reporting to the press, or to the public generally if you like, rather than to the house itself. I suggest, however, that it must be the opinion of most thinking members who have the interest of the council at heart that it is not material whether the report goes first to the members when the house is sitting so long as they have the information before them upon which they may act and form their own judgment, and

Research Council
perhaps bring the necessary pressure to bear, or pass on suggestions of a constructive nature to the minister himself, so that he in turn may pass them on to the council, and in that way have a closer control over the operations, and certainly a closer reporting of what is being done by the national research council than we have at the present time.
I would, therefore, suggest to the minister that he bring in an amendment whereby the report of the president will be made not later than three months after the close of the fiscal year. That would seem to be a reasonable period, and one which would1 not press upon the work of the president or of the council. It would give the members of the house a reasonable period within which to act and a period before the facts, upon which they sought to act, had become too stale. Therefore I would ask the minister to thaw out a bit so that those in the opposition and1 hon. members generally may have at least a snowball's chance to keep up with the activities of the national research council and to report any recommendations which they may have.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend seems to suggest that parliament would not have the same control over the expenditures of the national research council that it would have over the expenditures of the Department of Public Works or any other department of the government. I point out that when the estimates of the national research council are before parliament hon. members have the same opportunity to examine the operations of the national research council that they have to examine the operations of the Department of Public Works. It seems to me that the objection just raised is wholly fallacious.
I take it that the presentation of estimates to the house is made largely to enable hon. members to find out the details of any expenditures of public funds contained therein. That privilege would certainly apply to the appropriation of the national research council.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: May I just say to the minister that it is one thing to appropriate certain moneys to carry on the work of the national research council and another thing to have a report on how these moneys were spent and the general stewardship of the council itself. The two are entirely different and I believe that the point is well made. We should have a report of the council within a reasonably short time. May we just ask ourselves, why is the minister unwilling that the national research council should make its report within three months? From his point of view I can see no objection to the council
making a report within that time, and I do not understand why he should not be amenable to the suggestion I made. My second point is that he said this afternoon the national research council does not live entirely from funds which we in parliament may vote. I am not sufficiently familiar with the technique of the matter upon which we voted1 the other day which showed that there are certain sums which the minister may draw upon which are, I believe, passed en bloc, to discuss it. Perhaps someone else will take up that point later.
The point I wish to make just now is that this afternoon the minister said the national research council during the war years had received $4,360,900 from the funds within its own confines, if you like, revenue which it had received for work done, to say nothing of $6 million which it had received from other departments of government. I presume that $6 million was voted upon in this house and carefully gone over during the consideration of the estimates; but as to the $4,360,900, the national research council received this money, and it was not responsible to parliament as to the spending of it. While that sum may not be so large when it is spread over the whole period of the war years, we now find that the national research council is to be greatly expanded and may develop new processes and patents from which it will receive revenue. That revenue is not to be returned to the consolidated revenue fund from year to year, but it is to revolve within the accounts of the national research council alone. The reason this is important is that while it may start off in a small way with a few companies under the aegis of the national research council, the history of this country has shown us that the average small town in Ontario or in the whole dominion has started out in this way. Within that small town one chief industry was started by a man with $25,000 or less; and over a period of ten or twenty years or longer by ploughing back the earnings, not taking them .out, those little companies have grown to a substantial size and in many cases now employ three or four hundred men. That is the history of enterprise on this continent and also in the old country. These things start in a little way, but if they are successful and are allowed to retain their money, they expand. In the case of the national research council there is no share of the tax burden being borne by them; and it would be only a short time, with the compounding of these earnings that they might make, before they might earn substantial sums. For that reason parliament
Research Council

itself has no direct control over the total sums which the national research council has at its command.
I believe the council should report-and the minister has advanced no reason why it should not-within a reasonable time after its fiscal year ends, which time I suggest might be about three months.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I must say it is extraordinary to hear of my hon. friend worrying because the earnings of the national research council are not subject to taxation. It is a strange situation. I should be very happy if the national research council could earn enough to carry on its activities; and I would not be particularly worried about the size of the activities. Recently I read an article about the United States research, and I found that the government of the United States spent in the four years they were at war over $10 billion on research. That is more than half the total cost of the war to Canada. They believed that that money spent on research during the war was perhaps the most effective of any of the war expenditures. I certainly hope that Canada will spend very much larger sums on research in future than have been spent in the past. Therefore I am not worried that the national research council will earn enough money to be subject to tax or earn enough money to be free of appropriations by parliament. Unless that happens my hon. friend need not worry about the ability of parliament to extract all the information that it cares to ask for about the operation.
So far as the annual report of the council is concerned I am sure that the council make their annual report as rapidly as they can. The research council as a whole meets only four times a year. Whether the report can be compiled and approved by the council within three months after the end of the fiscal year I am not sure, but I have had no complaint to date that the report of the national research council is not filed as promptly as the report of any other branch of government which makes a report to parliament.


Howard Charles Green: Is the report for 1945-46 out yet?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I could not say. The fiscal year closed just two months ago.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: This afternoon I expressed concern about the salaries being paid to the scientific workers in the national research council, particularly those who have been there for a great many years. Has the minister available the salaries paid? I mentioned that in the Beatty report of 1930, sixteen years ago, it was suggested that scientific

workers should start in at $2,100. I understand that some start in at a salary a great deal less than that. I understand that $1,680 is the salary being paid some workers with a Ph.D. degree. Has the minister available, or can he obtain the information while we are in the committee stage, the number of Ph.D.'s receiving less than $2,000, and also could he give us the average salary that is being paid to scientific workers in the different groups? The Beatty report broke them down into different classifications. Could the minister give us some indication as to whether the recommendations of the Beatty report have been implemented, or how many are receiving less than these suggested classifications?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no information. I suggest that there is nothing in the bill before the committee referring to the salaries of scientific workers. My hon. friend is easily shocked. I can remember distinctly the first work I had after graduating from college, with what I considered a superior degree. I remember receiving $40 a month, and worked for that for some months. It does not shock me that these young men out of university, even with a Ph.D., are working for $1,800 a year.


Mr. FLEMING:: I wish to say a word respecting the point raised by the hon. member for Rosedale, and it relates to the principle involved. That principle, so far as we Progressive Conservatives are concerned, is one of parliamentary control. We have expressed the view that all these enterprises which the government believes ought to be carried on under crown company control should first be submitted to parliament.
But then as an alternative the minister says, "Give us certain blanket powers, and parliament will have an opportunity to review reports at the conclusion of the year." The discussion we have had to-night bears directly upon the minister's contention that parliament has full opportunity of reviewing the administration of those crown companies. The point made by the hon. member for Rosedale is a substantial one, because the provision in the Research Council Act which refers to reports to parliament is, if I may say so, loose and inadequate. It does not contain a time limit.
In the short space of time I have been in parliament, I believe in every case where any body has been given power a stipulation has been included in the statute that a report must be submitted to parliament within a fixed period. If hon. members will refer to section 13 of the Research Council Act they will see that, first of all, there is a provision that the president shall report annually to the

Research Council
governor in council, and make certain recommendations. Then, what about the council's report? Subsection 2 states:
Tile council shall, after the conclusion of the fiscal year, make a report to'the committee-
That is the committee of the privy council. That is the privy council committee on scientific and industrial research. Then the section continues:
-containing the report of the president to the council and also containing a statement of the receipts and expenditures of the council during the preceding fiscal year.
I draw attention to the fact that there is no time limit on the report to be made to the privy council committee from the research council. Then, subsection 3 makes this provision:
3. Such reports shall be printed and laid before parliament within 15 days of the making thereof or. if parliament is not then in session, within 15 days after the commencement of the next session of parliament.
If one reads subsection 3 with subsection 2 he sees that there is no time limit within which these reports are to be completed and laid before parliament. The fifteen-day period is related to an event to Which there is applied no time limit at all.
What is the situation with regard to reports of the national research council? I understand that the fiscal year in question-and I am speaking subject to correction-is the government fiscal year ended March 31, 1945. But if one goes to the distribution office today he will not find a report of the national research council. I have been trying to get one, and I know there is no report of the research council available. I take it that the last report would be for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1945. If it has been tabled-and again I speak subject to correction-it was not tabled either at the fall session or at this session of parliament. That illustrates, I suggest, the inadequacy of the present provision in the act writh regard to reporting to parliament.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It would not be distributed, under the three months' rule. It is only two and a half months since the end of the fiscal year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But we are speaking of the report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1945.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was distributed to the
members. W'hether it was tabled or not, I cannot say; but if it was not, it was an oversight on my part. It has certainly been distributed to the members.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It has not been made available to me, because I have been trying to get a copy of it.
With regard to the provisions now before us, I urge that if the minister is determined to embark upon a policy of setting up a number of crown companies, two things will have to be done if parliament is to exercise any effective power of review at the end of any year's operations. In the first place, there will have to be some method of getting these reports before parliament at an earlier date, so that parliament may have before it the report for the fiscal year immediately concluded, when it is reviewing the estimates of expenditures for the ensuing year.
In the second place, there will have to be evolved within parliament itself some better method both of reviewing those reports and of conducting a detailed examination of such officials as may be in a position to give parliament information.
If the minister is urging on parliament, as he has been during the debate on these related measures, that parliament has had a good opportunity to review, then I say that before that argument can have any validity there will have to be evolved a better method than now exists both for getting reports before parliament more quickly and for reviewing such reports.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I agree with the hon. member who has just spoken that a method has to be devised of reviewing the work of these crown companies and related organizations. But I submit it is impossible to control such organizations from a legislative chamber, such as a parliament. With the multiplicity of our economic enterprises to-day we have to find ways and means of dealing with reports which are substantially different from the manner in which these bills have been considered in the house. We have had interminable debate, and have listened to the same arguments hour after hour, until one has become thoroughly tired of listening to the reiteration of those arguments.
I can understand there are some who are opposed to public enterprise of this description. I do not think this type of enterprise is going very far. Indeed, I think it is most modest, and is only an attempt to do for ourselves what every other country is doing for itself. The manner in which crown companies are being set up and functioning is, it seems to me, in line with the trend everywhere in the world.
I rose to say that I agree with the minister that when some of us who are reaching middle

Research Council

age began our activities, we did not earn very much; but neither did we pay out much for our board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We could not.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: No, we could not; but we did not, and we managed to get along with very little.
But times have changed, and it seems to me that if Canada is to retain her young scientists -and certainly in this age we need to retain them-we have to do something better than we have been doing, through the research council and other organizations of that description. We are losing too many of our bright young men and women to our great neighbour to the south. Some, as I said the other day, are even going to Great Britain to engage in scientific and other activities. We must see that our scientific organization is properly financed.
We have heard a good deal about substantial sums at the disposal of the national research council. What do they amount to? I have not the exact figures, but I think they total around $14 million or $15 million. That is the amount at the disposal of the national research council in a country with such great undeveloped resources, resources to which science must be applied if we are to reap the benefits from them. When one compares that amount with the amounts being spent by other countries for scientific research, we find that in this country the percentage of national income being spent in that field is small in comparison. It seems to me that instead of criticizing the setting up of this organization, as has been done, we should say that we are glad to see something of this sort being done in a comprehensive way and that we are going to support the measure. I know my Progressive Conservative friends dislike the idea of many other things that are being done for the benefit of the ordinary man and woman in Canada.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Not so; never.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: It certainly is so.


Grote Stirling: Not at all.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I am trying to think in terms of 1936, not in terms of 1846 or thereabouts. It seems to me that this is a bill which should command the support of the house.


Howard Charles Green: It got the support of the house to-day.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: It got the support of the house, but it was grudging support according to the discussion that has gone on. As

far as controls are concerned, it seems to me that the proper way in which to handle this is the way in which we now handle crown companies already in existence, such as the Canadian National Railways, Trans-Canada Air Lines and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The matter could be handled through committees. I do not say that the organizations to which I have referred are perfect, but-


An hon. MEMBER:: Far from it.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Far from it, if you believe that.


An hon. MEMBER:: I do believe it.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: If you do believe it, all right but let us improve them. What I am saying is that this parliament has an opportunity, through appropriate committees, if it desires to use it, of going into every detail of the activities of any one of the organizations that we have already established. It seems to me that that is the way we should handle crown companies. I know these are on a different footing; but when the minister is before us with his estimates in connection with the national research council we shall have an opportunity of inquiring, not only into the actual expenditures that have been made in the past year but into the expenditures that are being contemplated and into the policy that is to be followed by means of those expenditures.
I do not think we are paying enough attention to scientific research. I do not think we are spending enough of our national income on scientific research. I submit that if we spend public money on research, the benefits that accrue from that research should come back to the people of Canada. One proposal in this bill that I do object to is that the right is given to sell patents on things that have been developed by the publicly owned national research council. I think that is all wrong.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is my hon. friend talking against the bill?


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I am talking for the bill, but I am pointing out one defect in it.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The same as we are doing.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: You kept up a constant barrage for days on the other bill, for w'eeks even.


Howard Charles Green: You did not hear what we said this afternoon on the bill.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I read and listened to the discussion which my hon. friends engaged in for hours and hours on the crown companies bill.

Research Council


Mr. BROOKS:: It is wrong when we say it, but it is right when you say it.


Grote Stirling: That is just it.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding) :: I must ask hon. members to keep order. It is not according to the rules to interrupt
a speaker.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Thank you. However, I do not mind if guilty consciences sometimes express themselves. I think anything done by one of our publicly owned institutions for the benefit of Canada should be used for the benefit of Canada. One of the matters that will come before this house in connection with the combines legislation is the question of patents. One of the evils that we have to fight in this country is the patent evil. I would hope that before we reach the particular section in this bill which deals with the matter the minister will agree to remove from it what I regard as an objectionable feature. In the main this bill is a step in the right direction. All I can say about the national research council at the present time is that we have not provided the wherewithal for it to carry on the functions that are contemplated in this bill.


Mr. BOUCHER:: The hon. member for
Rosetown-Biggar, the leader of the C.C.F. party, has undertaken to censure the members of the Progressive Conservative party for reiteration. I should like to refer to some of the matters he has reiterated. I do not think I need recall to members of the committee the fact that almost every C.C.F. member who spoke on this bill, or on the preceding crown companies bill, deplored the fact that scientists were going south, that there was a great need for further research, that more money should be spent on research and that the terrible combines and cartels were crucifying the people of Canada. The leader of the C.C.F. who has just sat down reiterated everyone of those points ad nauseam. I would have hoped that he would not attempt to censure others for his own sins and then go on to give an example of his adherence to those sins.
He turned around and talked about money for the national research council being brought before parliament in the form of estimates, and he said that we of the Progressive Conservative party did not appreciate the policy that was being placed before the committee. If ihe had understood what the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply said on the Government Companies Operation Act he would know that grants to crown companies, whether set up under the national research council or 63260-149J
otherwise, are made in the form of allocations before estimates are drawn up or before there is any survey of contemplated expenditures made. Apparently he did not get that point.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I got it all right.


George Russell Boucher: You did not indicate that you had got it. You spoke one way and thought another.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I showed you how to get around it.


George Russell Boucher: The hon. member says he showed it; he says that he -understood it, but we shall see how much he really does understand it. He stated that the national research, council had only something like $14,000,000 a year to spend on research. We are now dealing with a bill that gives the national research council the power to set up crown companies. Under the provisions of section 9 of the bill these- companies are made applicable to the Government Companies Operation Act, which we passed the other night. The governor in council has power to allocate to each crown company, including crown companies set up under the national research council, one-half million dollars for operations and another half million dollars a year for extensions. -


Mr. HOY  E@: There is a little reiteration there.


George Russell Boucher: I have to reiterate in
order to get the members of the C.C.F., particularly the leader thereof, to say what they think.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is the twentieth time.


George Russell Boucher: And to get the minister's attention. How can an hon. member get up in this committee and- say that the national research council has only $14,000,000 to expend when it has the power to incorporate crown companies and when those -crown companies can get money out of the people's treasury without its being appropriated? The minister stated definitely that it was to be out of unappropriated- money and- our C.C.F. friends fought against changing that word to "appropriated." How can they now say that estimates will be set before parliament which will give hon. members plenty of time to scrutinize proposed expenditures when the fact is that the expenditures will all have been- made by the crown company before they will ever come to parliament?
I should like to ask the minister who is piloting this bill another question. I know there are crown companies to which money has been allocated out of unappropriated
Research Council

moneys in the consolidated revenue fund. They are tabled in the reports, having already been allocated by the Government Companies Operation Act. Expenditure can come before parliament for scrutiny and discussion in only one of two ways: an estimate, which is a proposed expenditure, or a statutory appropriation under a statutory appropriation act, as I think the Government Companies Operation Act is. What opportunity will parliament have to discuss expenditures, increased earnings from the operation of these crown companies, together with grants for operations, extensions, maintenance or improvements? If the minister would enlighten us on that point it might allay our fears.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend has asked that question five or six times, and I have tried to explain the situation in the simplest language I could use, but I have been totally unable to make him understand. I am not going to start all over again. Reiteration can be carried too far, and I am not going to reiterate again.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Committee of the P.C. on scientific and industrial research.
Howard Charles Green: This section deals with the committee of the privy council on scientific and industrial research. Apparently in past years that committee has not functioned to any great extent. I think that is a tragedy. There is some scope for such a committee if it is possible to get busy cabinet ministers to devote enough time to meetings of the committee. Is there to be any change in the situation in the future? Is it now intended that there shall be an active and aggressive committee of the cabinet dealing with matters of research, or is this committee of the cabinet to continue to be largely a matter of form?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is and always has been an active committee. It meets to decide any question of policy referred to it. It is composed of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Mines and Resources, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Labour.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: How often did the committee meet last year?
* Mr. HOWE: I have attended five or six meetings, and I did not always go until I became chairman. I spent at least an hour a day on affairs of the national research council acting in my capacity as chairman of that

committee. The committee met three or four times in the last year, not on routine matters, but to decide matters of policy, to discuss the size of the appropriation and the nature of the projects that should be undertaken.


Howard Charles Green: Does it deal with any business other than the conduct of the research council?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is all.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Appointment of council.
Harry Rutherford Jackman: Subsection 4 provides:
There shall be an executive committee of the council consisting of the president, vice-president (administration), vice-president (scientific) and at least three other members selected by the council.
I suggest to the minister-and I do not see why he would not accept it if he has the best interest of the committee at heart-that the last line but one of that subsection be amended to read: "and at least four other members selected by the council." The reason I suggest that is that only the executive members are in receipt of remuneration; the others serve voluntarily. It is not easy to get men to attend. If only three other members are appointed it would mean that the executive officers would be in the majority at all times. If at least four outside members were appointed to this executive committee, or even five or six, there would be a better chance of the committee not being dominated by or of even having a majority of executive officers at all times. I think that is a reasonable suggestion which I hope the minister will accept.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would not argue at length whether the executive committee should be six or seven. The council itself in the past has consisted of fifteen, distributed geographically from coast to coast. It is now proposed to make the council twenty. Because of geographic and travel difficulties, it meets four times a year. Between meetings of the council the responsibility for decision has been carried in the past by the president of the council. The creation of an executive committee which can meet frequently will relieve the president and paid officers of some responsibility for decisions between meetings of the full council. I question whether an executive committee of seven would be better than one of six members. I think usually an executive committee consists of five. The smaller it is, the better file responsibility is carried.

Research Council


Harry Rutherford Jackman: But this executive committee, as I understand it, has powers which did not exist before. The executive committee itself did not exist before, only the council. Now we have an executive committee which has all the powers in law, as well as in fact, of the council. I believe that it would be better for the carrying on of the work if this executive committee, which legally has all the power, were not composed of at least fifty per cent of executives in receipt of a salary. The general council, now fifteen in number, can be overlooked between meetings because of the power that will reside in the executive committee itself. May I ask the minister, when he replies, to say whether a quorum has been fixed for the executive committee, and is there a quorum for the council itself?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The amendment provides that there shall be a minimum of three, but there v/ould be nothing to prevent council from appointing four members to the executive committee.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I pointed that out.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The executive committee has power only between meetings of the full council. It can exercise power for three months, but its actions can be overruled by the full council whenever it meets. The authority of the executive committee can be limited by the full council if the full council loses confidence in the executive committee. There is nothing in the measure to prevent the appointment of four members from the council at large if council decides that is desirable.


Howard Charles Green: Why not make it four, then? Pretty wide power is given to the executive committee under section 5 of this bill, which provides:
The executive committee of the council may exercise the powers of the council and shall submit at each meeting of the council minutes of its proceedings since the last preceding meeting of the council.
There is no provision for a review by the full council. I suggest that there is some merit in the point raised by the hon. member for Rosedale, and I would suggest that the word "three" be changed to "four" in section 3 of the bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The council itself recommended that there be a minimum of three. I would dislike to overrule the council without consultation. This bill was not invented in the office of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply; it was invented in the research council, and was sent to myself as chairman of the cabinet committee with the recommendation of the full council. On a matter which is wholly for the council I would dislike to overrule the opinion of the council. I might say, however, that the executive committee is appointed by the council and it exercises its brief authority only between meetings of the council. It can be dismissed and reappointed by the full council at will. So that I think there is no great authority carried there.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-President of the council. ,
Harry Rutherford Jackman: I asked the minister with regard to a quorum, and he pointed out, what I pointed out myself, that there must be at least three other members selected by the council, but that is merely the nominal role of the executive committee. What I am asking him is, is there a provision as to the quorum of the executive committee, and also a provision as to the quorum of the council itself?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The original Research Council Act provides in article 10 thereof that the council ma3r exercise the following powers, namely, (a) to make by-laws for the conduct of its business. The matter of a quorum is a matter for the by-laws of the council, and the council has the authority to make its own by-laws.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It certainly seems strange that the minister should come to parliament asking for legislation setting up a certain organization, and saying that this organization has the right to make its own by-laws and determine exactly how it should be run, as if parliament did not have something to say as to how these institutions and committees should be run. I think what is suggested is preposterous, and I suggest that we as a committee should determine how we want this council run, within the field of our owe. discretion and with what background we have of experience in committees, et cetera. If we feel that a certain procedure should be followed it is up to us to incorporate that in the bill, and not say to a committee, "Here is carte blanche; make your own rules; come when you like; delegate powers to a few paid executives, and carry on; after a while report to us; then after fifteen months or two years report to parliament, and by that time it will all be forgotten about." Might I emphasize, while I am on that point, the need for this council to report to parliament in a much shorter time than is allowed under the provisions of the bill as it now stands. The minister has said how the national research council erred in declaring that the Pidgeon
Research Council

process for making magnesium was not a good process. What happened? Private enterprise went in; one of my constituents-now dead- Mr. Segsworth, took up the process and developed it and made a great contribution to the war effort on that account. Then the minister mentioned another matter in which the national research council or his own department erred, namely the expenditure on the Abasand development. I remember talking with an official of an oil company some years ago when this matter of Abasand was brought up in this house, to a large extent by one of my own colleagues, and I was told then virtually that the process was not feasible, although there was no doubt that oil was contained in the various sands.
So, in view of the fact that everyone is apt co make errors from time to time, I believe, on the record as displayed by the minister himself, that the national research council should make its report to parliament or, if parliament is not sitting, to the public, so that we and our constituents may know of it. As I pointed out, one of my constituents took up the magnesium process where the national research council left off, and did a real job. So I believe that the council should make its report available to the public in short order, not in a period of fifteen months or two years.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have in my hand the report of the National Research Council of Canada, 1944-45. It was tabled at the session of parliament preceding this. I cannot give my hon. friend the exact date; I shall have to look it up. I am sure, at least I am reasonably certain, that this parliament will not adjourn before the report of the national research council for 1945-46 is laid on the table. It is published as quickly as it can be published after the close of the fiscal year, just as the reports of other departments of government are published. It so happens that the Canadian National Railways closes its year with the calendar year instead of the government's fiscal year.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: But it reports monthly.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, it does not report
monthly.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Well, it reports its earnings monthly, which is what we are interested in.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sure my hon. friend cannot find monthly earning reports of the Canadian -National Railways for the last twelve months. It just does not make them any more. He is thinking of the Canadian Pacific Railway company.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: No, I am thinking of the C.N.R.; and if the minister will read the evidence in the committee he will see where I made the statement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In any event, I think the matter of the report is somewhat exaggerated. No government department is required to report to parliament within a certain time limit, but as soon as it can prepare its report and have it printed.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Now the minister is
branching into new fields and streamlining the national research council.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let us take the nonsense out of this talk of streamlining. What new field am I branching into? I am setting up a corporation to patent discoveries of the national research council and market the patent.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Is it new or old?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is new.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: That is what I said.
Mr. HOW'E: That is all I am doing. We are told that a vast enterprise is started. But this is all that is being discussed under this bill. Another possibility I have mentioned is that a corporation which the government owns and bought as a corporation, not a government corporation, may have a home found for it under national research, and it may not.


Howard Charles Green: Which one is that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited, which has been a corporation for many years. It is wholly owned by the government, and there will be no change, whether it is placed under the research council, or the atomic energy commission, or under a department of government. It is there today. Then I mentioned that the atomic energy plant at Chalk River may very well be operated as a corporation. That is three, and that is all there is any intention of handling at the moment. One would think we were running the whole country by government corporations. It is perfect nonsense. I never heard a debate conducted in just this style in discussing serious matters, because the national research council is a serious enterprise, and all that we are doing here is to stream-line the work of the corporation at the request of the council which is responsible for these matters. Let us see whether we can use a little less extravagant language.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.

Research Council
On section 7-Additional powers of council.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Section 7 proposes to add two powers to those now enjoyed by the council under section 10 of the act. There are quite extensive powers in section 10, to which this proposes to add two, and 1 am concerned with Ihe first one, under paragraph (h). It is in these words:
To carry on experimental and development work and manufacturing with respect to the matters referred to in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section-	,
I do not want to take time to read these two paragraphs. They are quite lengthy, and include within their broad scope much that is involved in research work. Then the new paragraph proceeds:
[DOT]-so as to render the processes, methods or products to which the said matters relate more available and effective in useful arts and manufacturing and for scientific purposes and otherwise.
The minister has indicated, in the course of his remarks on, I think, two occasions now, that it is desirable that the research council- we are not talking now about corporations, but about the council-should have power to carry through its research work to the point of testing in pilot plants; and I think we would all be in agreement with that position. As long as the manufacturing which is intended to fall within the scope of this new power is confined to manufacturing in the pilot plant stage, then I think no one will take exception to it. But, with respect, the section as it now stands is unnecessarily broad. It will be noticed that it is not confined to experimental and development work, but it says, "and manufacturing". If I am not mistaken, the minister's intention is to confine manufacturing as it appears in that subsection to manufacturing in the course of experimental and development work or manufacturing incidental to the experimental and development work, not manufacturing in the commercial sense.
I think I have made my point clear on that. It is desirable that the unnecessary breadth of the language should be reduced in keeping with the purpose which the minister has indicated to the committee this section is intended to serve. It has been indicated that the research council is not a body which has at all times practised the most efficient business methods, and the desirability has appeared more than once in the debate of clearly distinguishing between business on the one hand and research on the other. The minister stated at page 1904 of Hansard:
I think those who are best acquainted with the council realize that its business administration has not been all that could be desired.
That is the reason he gave for appointing a vice-president who will be a business executive.
Again, the minister stated at page 1906:
It has never been the practice of the national research council to go into the manufacturing business.
If the intention of this section is to give the council power to carry on such manufacturing, that is to say up to the pilot plant stage, as is incidental to experimental and development work, then we are in complete agreement as to what is desirable. But we say that the language for that purpose is unnecessarily broad, and I would therefore ask the minister to agree to amend the new paragraph (h) by inserting after the word "manufacturing" these words:
incidental to such experimental and development work.
I hope the minister will agree to that, because it will make clear what he has already indicated to be the purpose of the amendment to the act. It does not take away anything except unnecessary breadth in the language. The paragraph as it stands is broad enough, I fear, to permit the council to carry manufacturing actually to the commercial stage, and we have been assured by the minister that that is not his intention.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not?


Donald Methuen Fleming: An hon. member in the C.C.F. group says, "why not?" We can have a long debate on that. I am content to discuss that question with my hon. friend at any time, but if the minister will indicate now his view of this phase of the matter we may be spared another debate on the question the hon. member raises.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suggest to my hon. friend that a careful reading of the section will indicate that with the pilot plant work it is definitely limited:
To carry on experimental and development work and manufacturing with respect to the matters referred to in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section so as to render the processes, methods or products to which the said matters relate more available and effective in useful arts and manufacturing-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Go on.


Clarence Decatur Howe: -and for scientific purposes and otherwise.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, "and otherwise."


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps "and otherwise" is superfluous. Without that phrase the limitation would' be just as exact in the present wording as in that suggested by my hon. friend.
Restarch Council


Donald Methuen Fleming: I take it we are in agreement on the purpose which the section is intended to serve. It is simply a matter of the breadth of the language used, and I would urge upon the minister that the language I have proposed gives the council all the power for which he has been contending on two different occasions. It does not take away from the council anything that is desirable, and it will contribute something to the clarification of the section if we add the words "incidental to such experimental and development work" after the words "manufacturing."


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suggest again that a careful reading would indicate that the limitation is there now:
... so as to render the processes, methods or products to which the said matters relate more available and effective in useful arts and manufacturing
And also more available and effective for scientific purposes and otherwise.
Perhaps I might state the experience of the war years. In the war years the research council did a great deal of work in radar. It did not manufacture radar for the public, but it did manufacture one radar set as a pilot model and that was sent to Research Enterprises where the manufacturing process was carried on. I suppose in the narrow sense of the word the manufacture of that one radar set could be called manufacturing, but it is manufacturing, following the wording of the act, "to which the said matters relate" so as to be more available and effective in useful arts and manufacturing. It was simply the manufacturing of a pilot model.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would that not be the kind of manufacturing that would clearly be incidental to experimental and development work? My amendment, I repeat, would not take away from the council anything which the council ought to have in the way of power. What the minister says substantiates what I stated before, that we are at one on the purpose, and it is simply a matter of reducing the unnecessary breadth of the language in the section. For the sake of clarification, what objection can there be to the insertion of the words I have suggested?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My suggestion is that it would be redundant. The act says exactly what the hon. member wishes it to say: so as to render the processes, methods or products to which the said matters relate more available and effective in useful arts and manufacturing.
It is not manufactured except in the sense of making the product available and effective in useful arts and manufacturing and making
$Mr. Howe.]
it available and effective for scientific purposes and otherwise. It is to make the discovery effective to the manufacturer.


Grote Stirling: What in the minister's mind does "and otherwise" mean? It seems to me to mean et cetera, et cetera.	.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not mind proposing an amendment which might clarify the position.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Could the minister not say, "for scientific and other purposes"? Would that not cover it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is what it does say.


Mr. JAENICKE:: The objection I have
to the section refers to paragraph (i) and not to (h), because there is an altogether new principle involved-


William Henry Golding: Order. I suggest that it would be better to finish with Oh) before we go on to (i). An amendment 'has been proposed by the hon. member for Eglinton that section 7 be amended by inserting in the eighth line on page 3 after the word "manufacturing" the words "incidental to such experimental and development work".


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will my hon. friend read the section as it would appear with his proposed amendment?


Donald Methuen Fleming: To carry on experimental and development work and manufacturing incidental to such experimental and development work with respect to the matters referred to in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section so as to render the processes, methods, or products to w-hich the said matters relate more available and effective in useful arts and manufacturing, and for scientific purposes and otherwise.
It is then both clear and grammatical.


Mr. PROBE:: It is clear that our hon.
friends to the right are definitely trying to ensure in this paragraph that under no circumstances shall manufacturing for commercial purposes be carried on by the crown. I presume that is correct. That is the purpose of the present amendment, to guarantee that the research council shall under no circumstances step into the manufacturing business for commercial purposes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think it would be more accurate to say that the purpose of the amendment is to clarify the section so as to establish that which he has said to be clearly the intention,


John Oliver Probe: That is the intention?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. It is a matter of clarification only. The minister is in agreement on the purpose.

Research Council


John Oliver Probe: Is the minister also in accord with that as the function of this corporation, that there shall be no commercial manufacture at any stage of the work of the national research council so far as the Canadian people are concerned?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Under this act it is not the intention to permit manufacture. It has never been the practice of the national research council to do manufacturing or development work beyond the preliminary stages, and there is no intention on my part to change that situation. My legal advisers believe that the amendment is wholly redundant, but there is no objection to it. If my hon. friend wishes to press it and the committee wishes to carry it, it will be quite all right with me.


John Oliver Probe: As I see this section, the Conservatives are quite consistent. They want to make sure that we undertake all the expense of the original research in the early stages. The cost can be cheerfully borne by the Canadian people as a whole in the early stages. Then when we come to the time that it is commercially feasible, after we have set up a pilot plant to show that the process is feasible, then thi y suggest that we turn it over to Messrs. Conservatives and Company-


John Ritchie MacNicol: You mean you will sell it?


John Oliver Probe: -and let them exploit it. That is the history of their party as far back as you care to go.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Cheap.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Just like Marquis wheat; it is the same idea-for the benefit of all Canadians.


John Oliver Probe: Provided that the grain exchange can handle Marquis wheat; provided that the friends of the hon. member for Rosedale can buy or otherwise.


William Henry Golding: I would ask hon. members to confine their remarks to the section under discussion. It has nothing to do with wheat.


John Oliver Probe: The hon. member for Rose-dale brought it up as an example, and I am quite insistent that I want to be clear with respect to both what our friends to the right see in this section and what the Minister of Reconstruction sees in it on behalf of the government.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Perhaps you will not like him so much then.


John Oliver Probe: The hon. member for Rose-dale and his confreres see in this section a definite step. Once the experimental expense has been undertaken and the product is feasible for manufacture they will take it over at their price. The minister has indicated that he is prepared in general to adopt the same idea. Am I right in that? I should like the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply to say whether or not he believes the crown should step out. Once the thing is proved to be commercially feasible? Is the government then going to step out after the expense has been undertaken, and turn the rest of the production over to private enterprise?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should not care to give a reply to that, but I would say that when the experimental work is finished it is no longer a matter for the research council. It has never been the practice of the research council to manufacture anything for sale, and I sincerely hope that that will always be the policy, because research is one thing and manufacturing is another.


John Oliver Probe: With that, of course, I am in accord so far as the research council is concerned, but I hope that the purport of this is not to stop necessarily a crown company of some other sort from carrying on with the commercial development-


Harry Rutherford Jackman: That is another matter.


William Henry Golding: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Fleming) negatived.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister said he had no objection to it.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: With regard to the proposed new paragraph (i) of section 10 of the act, we of this group have some objection to it because it involves a great change in the previous act. The new section 11 replaces the old section 11 and omits the provisions covered by the new paragraph (i) of section 10. I should like to read the old section, which is as follows:
All discoveries, inventions and improvements in processes, apparatus, or machines, made by a member or any number of members of the technical staff of the council shall be vested in the council and shall be made available to the public under such conditions and payment of fees or royalties or otherwise as the council may determine, subject to the approval of the governor in council.
As I read this section it means that the crown would always obtain the patent rights in any inventions or discoveries made by the research council. I think we should retain that; but paragraph (i) of the new section 10 changes that and proposes that the council
2360
Research Council

shall have power to sell or otherwise grant the patents or discoveries which are made. We know that to-day patents are one of the causes of the grip which monopolies have upon our economic life. While personally I have no objection to making any inventions and patents available to private enterprise, so to speak, I think the crown should at all times retain the absolute right in them so that they can license not only one but two or three, because our hon. friends who support private enterprise say that competition is the life of trade. I therefore move that the words "or sell or otherwise grant" in the first line of paragraph (i) of the new section 10 be deleted.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think my hon. friend is mistaken about the nature of the transaction referred to. The national research council is the agency of the corporation of the United States which handles patents in that country. The national research council handles the Canadian rights to patents owned by the government of the United States, through this corporation, and also handles Canadian rights for the government of the United Kingdom, and it may lease or sell as instructed by the owners of the patents. Though it is not the practice of the national research council to sell its own patents-usually the practice is to grant non-exclusive licences-nevertheless there may be a patent which has no value so far as the commission can see., Take magnesium which we have discussed to-night. Had there been a patent, and had the commission reported the process not desirable for the government to enter into, nevertheless private enterprise saw possibilities that warranted further development. If private enterprise had been unable to do so because they could not acquire the patent, that would have been an unfortunate result, In other words, the fact that a patent has been granted should not be allowed to prevent others from carrying on further with the development if they are prepared to pay a reasonable price for the work that has been performed and for the patent that has been obtained. Therefore there are many reasons why refusal to sell might be contrary to the public interest.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: What section would that be?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member read it himself, section 11.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: With great respect I suggest to the minister that section 11 does not mean they have the rigl t to sell.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The section reads:
. . . shall be made available to the public under such conditions and payment of fees or royalties or otherwise as the council may determine-
What is "or otherwise"?


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I would say the implication there is that it simply means to license.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Are you a lawyer?


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will sit down. I am told by my legal advisers that under this section the council has been selling these foreign rights for a great many years. I presume my hon. friend would not give it as his legal opinion that they have been violating the act in doing so?


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I would not be prepared to answer that at the present time, but I will look into it.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Which is a good legal answer, incidentally.


Charles Edward Johnston: I shall not enter into
the legal interpretation; but the thing that does amuse me is this:	A minute ago when
we were discussing section 8 the hon. member for Kindersley seemed to be very much concerned lest the research council would not be able to sell products which they manufactured. He took strong objection to that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: He said he did not care what happened to it.


Charles Edward Johnston: Now he takes the other stand and wants to make sure that they do not sell them.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: No, nothing of the kind.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am pleased that the minister has clarified section 8-and I understand that section has not been passed; at least, if it were, I did not hear it. The minister has said that the council as set out will not go into business of manufacturing articles for sale. I think that policy is sound.
With respect of section 7 (i), I agree that the research council should not sell patent rights. I have no objection whatsoever to their retaining possession of patents, and then letting them out for royalties, or by some other means, so long as they keep control. I am expressing my owm personal view when I say that I believe there have been and still are cases where large companies have deliberately prevented the manufacture and sale of certain

Research Council
inventions. I think the government should control that policy. That has always been our stand, and we have been consistent in it.
In my view the government should control the policy, but should not enter into the production of articles for sale. I think it can be more effective if it controls the policy in respect of the development of these resources. For that reason I am in doubt as to the explanation the minister has given, and I wonder whether his explanation is sound when he said' the word "sell" would not prevent the research council from going into the commercial business of selling patent rights. If it does, then in my view it should not be so. I believe these patent rights are of interest to the whole nation. They should be retained by the research council, but should be let out to companies which should pay royalties for the use of them.
Then, those companies should be compelled [DOT] to use such rights. I say that because in the past there have been examples of companies retaining important patent rights and refusing to develop them. That is not in the interests of Canada. When the government retains ownership and control of rights, letting them out on a royalty or rental basis, it would be in a position then carefully and judicially to control policy. I believe it should stay out of the market.


Howard Charles Green: What is the underlying
policy of the research council with regard to these patents on inventions made by technical employees of the council? There seems to be some confusion on the point, and I did not get clearly from the minister's statement just what the policy has been?
It is quite clear that there have been many worth-while inventions during the war. With the council carrying on an expanded peacetime programme, there are likely to be more in the future-and we hope that that may be so. Is it the policy that, as these inventions are made and patents obtained, the right to use such patents will be given as widely as possible in Canada to any business concerns which can make use of them or, on the other hand, is it the policy to sell the right to a patent to some firm at the best price obtainable? It seems to me there is a big difference between those two policies, and I should like to know what the plan is.
I realize that if rights are being sold to another country, or to people outside Canada, it is only right and proper that they should pay a proper price for those rights. But it does seem that within Canada a different rule should apply.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It has been the practice of the national research council to patent inventions made by employees of the council in the right of the crown in Canada. It has not been the policy of the Canadian government to sell its patent, so far as use in Canada is concerned. It has been the policy to grant non-exclusive licences.
My hon. friend asks if everyone who wants a licence can get one. That does not necessarily follow.


Howard Charles Green: No, I did not go that far. I referred to those who could honestly make use of the right in their business.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It has been the policy to grant non-exclusive rights. How many nonexclusive rights will be granted in the same field is a matter of policy for the research council to decide.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: If it has been the policy of the national research council not to sell, then why include the provision at all?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was coming to that.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: It is the change in
wording that is puzzling us. It looks like a change in policy.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I could finish my statement without interruption, perhaps I could make it clear. We have referred to the use in Canada of patents of the national research council. But the handling of patents goes much beyond that. As I say, by arrangement with similar organizations, the national research council is the agent of the United States research authorities for the handling of Utaited States patents in Canada, and also for the handling of United Kingdom government patents in Canada. It may be the policy of the government owning the patent that it should be sold rather than leased.
There is also the matter of the foreign use of Canadian government patents. For instance, the patent rights in Egypt or in China of a Canadian patent might be better sold than leased. This simply gives flexibility to those who determine policy as regards the handling of patents, so that they can act in the interests of the Canadian government in the disposal of either their own patent or the patents of other governments which have been placed in their custody for disposal.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: This afternoon I mentioned the discovery of a process to make glycol from low-grade wheat and damp frosted wheat. I understand that this glycol has stood up well, when compared with Prestone. My
63260-150i
Research Council

' information is that the process was made available to the Saskatchewan wheat pool. The argument was that this organization has large quantities of low-grade wheat in its possession from time to time, and that it would be the logical organization to manufacture.
On what terms would a process, such as the making of glycol from wheat, be made available to the wheat pool?. Is it sold, or what charge is made for turning over the process?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No Canadian patent is involved in the process of making glycol from Canadian wheat. It is a well known process. We give them the information, as one government to another. I believe there is no charge, as a rule.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Some of us, and probably also the hon. member for Vancouver South, are interested in securing patents for the Canadian people with the title remaining in the crown. I can understand the minister's point of view when we are acting as the agent, say for the United States, or if we are sending a patent to Egypt; the probability is that we would sell for the United States or sell for ourselves in Egypt. Could this section not be so worded that there would be no doubt that what we have in mind is that we license or grant in Canada and authorize the council to sell on behalf of another government or beyond the borders of Canada?


Charles Edward Johnston: If the Canadian government had a patent in connection with which they were negotiating in Egypt, what would stand in the way of the development of an Egyptian company by the Canadian government, merely granting them permission to use the patent on a royalty basis? I cannot see any reason why a company in Egypt would refuse to go ahead and manufacture on a royalty basis and not go ahead when it was not on an outright sale basis. I cannot see the logic of the minister's argument.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The policy that we are discussing to-night is not a policy imposed by parliament upon the national research council, it has been the policy of the national research council since its inception not to sell its own patents in Canada but to grant non-exclusive rights. We are not changing that policy. It is contended that under the present act it was not possible to sell, but they have been selling for years. I doubt if they have been violating their own act.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Not in Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They have been selling foreign patents in Canada as agents for other governments, and they have sold their own

patents abroad. I do not think anyone will argue that there is anything in the present act to prevent them from selling a patent. In any event, it is not the intention to change the policy of the national research council, and for that reason I see no purpose in restricting the generality of the present bill.


Mrs. STRUM:: Is this bill bringing the act into harmony with the practice?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. It is not changing the previous act particularly. I contend that the previous act gives authority to sell. The purpose of this is not to change the policy that has been the policy of the national research council since its inception; it is simply to clarify the language.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: I am far from satisfied with the explanation that has been given. It is stated clearly in paragraph (i) of section 7, "to license or sell or otherwise grant." Then it says, "any other rights, vested in or owned or controlled by the council." It is definitely changing the policy, if the policy has been not to sell patents that are owned by the council in the name of the crown. It states here, "or owned or controlled by the council." If it is not the intention to sell patents in Canada that are owned by the council, then that is not stated here.
I think what is required is a revision of paragraph (i). I believe that a new subsection is needed so that these patents may be handled in Canada for Canadian industry, as well as patents for other governments or for this government beyond the borders of Canada. I think it would be well to let the section stand and reword this paragraph because we shall talk about it for two hours and not get anywhere. I do not think the committee is satisfied with the explanation.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I believe the hon.
member for Dauphin has made a suggestion which should be followed. There is a general feeling, not only in this house but all over Canada, that in many respects the patent business is a great evil. We are anxious to see that this bill shall not give some future council some powers which we do not want to give out. I do not think any patent in the hands of the crown should be sold. I have no objection to making a patent available to business, but it should not be on an exclusive basis. I suppose, when we come to the Combines Investigation Act, we shall have an opportunity to go into this whole evil of patents. There are some examples of it in the field of radio and so on. I certainly object to the paragraph as it is worded; I think it needs rewording as the hon. member for Dauphin has suggested.

Research Council


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can assure my hon. friend that it has been very carefully considered. I doubt whether the national research council could carry out the responsibility it is taking under this act without the right to sell. For example, it appoints a university as an agent. Suppose that university develops something that is patented and asks the national research council to sell the patent for the account of the university. Surely it should have that right.


John Oliver Probe: That is as agent.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If it cannot sell a Canadian patent, then it cannot sell it; that is all. Let us take another case. Supposing a milling company came to the research council and asked them to carry out certain research work at their expense. Technically, anything that was arrived at by the staff of the national research council would be the property of the council, and it would be necessary to sell the discovery back to the milling company in order to give it value for the payment it had made. 1 am simply putting a' hypothetical proposition. This policy was not invented by parliament; it has been the practice of the national research council since its inception. For this parliament to take this opportunity to move in and impose restrictions on the activities of the council is, to my mind, not only unwise but immoral.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I believe it is immoral for us to give rights that may lead to monopoly.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are giving no rights.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: As far as my opinion goes, I would not give an exclusive right by law for the use of a patent to anybody. I think the time has come when we have to protect the Canadian public against the kind of patent scalping we have had in this country for a long time. The minister gave the example of a milling company. If the milling company hired scientists to do a particular job in the way of developing a particular process and they were successful, I suppose that would be their property?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not under the act.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Unless an agreement otherwise is made. I should like to see it provided that any patent obtained by the national research council shall be held permanently as an asset of the crown and leased, if necessary, to those who can use it. I do not want to see these patents sold within Canada for the exclusive use of anyone.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They never have been.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: It seems to me that a simple change in this section would meet the difficulty. We are anxious to support the minister with his bill.


William Henry Golding: Does the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Jaenicke) wish to have his amendment stand?


John Oliver Probe: Unless we can have a compromise.


Charles Edward Johnston: The minister referred to a university which might develop a patent and then give it to the research council to sell as agent. It seems to me that that would nqt require legislation because they would be acting merely as agents. As far as the milling company is concerned, if the research council developed a certain process it seems to me there would be grave doubt as to whom the patent belonged to once it was developed. A milling company might pay a scientist to develop a patent, and if it paid all the costs, probably the resultant patent would belong to the companj'. In that case you would not need legislation because the patent would already be the property of the milling company. The same is true of a university which developed a patent and gave it to the research council to sell as its agent. I do not think that would require a statute. The same would be true of United States concerns that put a patent into the hands of the research council as their agent. I do not think that would require a statute. The agent could go ahead legally and sell the patent wherever he wished. So it seems to me that "sell" is redundant and unnecessary. The minister has certainly not convinced me that these words are necessary, and if they are not necessary and redundant they should be struck out.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think my hon. friends are
quite mistaken. Section 8 reads:
11. (1) All discoveries, inventions, or improvements in processes, apparatus or machines made by a member or any number of members of the technical staff of the council or a company and all rights with respect thereto shall be vested in the council.
That covers the milling company case.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: But you are repealing that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Yes, you are repealing it by section 8.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: That makes all the
difference. Could this section not stand over?
Research Council


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should like to get this bill through to-night. I am busy too, you know.
Mr. CO'LDWELL:	If this section could
stand, I think we might probably get the rest of the bill through. It is not likely to go through to-night with this section as it is.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will my hon. friend promise to reexamine it from his point of view to see if I may not be right just as well as he?


Frank Eric Jaenicke: The minister says that it has been the practice not to sell patents belonging to the crown in Canada, but paragraph (i) of section 7 says that council shall have the right to license or sell or otherwise grant or make available to others Canadian or other patents. So that there is certainly a change in policy.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It has been the custom to sell Canadian patents abroad. A patent is not valuable unless used reasonably soon. This is the proposal of the national research council. It has asked for this amendment to clarify its rights. It has no intention of changing its policy. An invention belonging to the council is transferred to the crown company. That would have to be a sale. Otherwise how could you transfer rights? The crown company can act as agent not only of the research council but of other governments which desire the council to handle patents; also for educational institutions which want a patent marketed. The council asked for this amendment and I am in favour of giving it to them and would be obliged if hon. gentlemen would support me. I do not think I would be justified in accepting a snap amendment which may or may not be wise.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: That is why I suggested letting the section stand. No doubt the national research council knows exactly what is intended, but in three or five or ten years from now we may have an entirely new council, and one day some one may want to buy a patent for use in Canada. Their lawyer looks at the act and says: Yes, we have the right to sell this patent in Canada and we are going to do so.


Charles Edward Johnston: No matter how good the intentions of the minister or of the council may be, the fact is that when you interpret a statute you must go by the language of the statute. I think the minister should reconsider this section.


Mr. STEPHENSON:: I am not a lawyer and am speaking only as a layman, but the wording of the section seems very clear to me. Reading it this way it says:
To license to other Canadians, or to sell to other Canadians or to make available to other Canadians patent rights.

The word "sell" is definite. After all, the grants that are made to these corporations or to companies formed under the council come out of the taxpayers' money, yours and mine. Therefore we have already paid for these discoveries and inventions with our own money. Why should they not be made available to the Canadian people without being sold to them?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a fallacious argument. It has been made many times in connection with War Assets Corporation. We have heard it repeatedly said that the country has paid for such-and-such equipment, and why should the people have to buy it back again? That is a ridiculous argument. The taxpayer is entitled to a run for his money just as well as anybody else. If a man creates a valuable invention it is ridiculous to say that it has been paid for by the taxpayer.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: If. for instance, I were paying a man working for me, and if he created something while he is working for and being paid by me, it belongs to me, his employer. So, if a person works for the government and is paid by the taxpayers' money, whatever he creates belongs to the people.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There seems to be a lot of talk about patents by many who seemingly know very little about the subject. I could not dream of a manufacturer getting a patent from the national research council if it were to be made available to scores of other manufacturers, because then it would be of no value to anybody. Suppose that the research council developed a solvent for boilers and they notified all and sundry to see what they had developed. Nobody would want to take it. It would have no value unless someone had an exclusive right to it. Most patents can be got around by clever, able men. I do not know of any ordinary business patent that could not be got around. I think the government should put the patent up for sale and sell it to the highest bidder on condition that he uses it. That would create employment. If he does not use the patent, take it back.
Amendment (Mr. Jaenicke) negatived.


William Henry Golding: Section carried.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I was up, Mr. Chairman, before you declared section 7 carried. I am not satisfied with the conclusion we reached. We seem to have got back to where we started. We made a perfectly reasonable request to the minister, that the first paragraph of section 7 stand until such time as the two types of patents involved in it can be separated. There are definitely two types of patents to be considered.

Research Council


William Henry Golding: Order. Section 7 is carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: It was the amendment which was lost, and when the amendment was lost the section was not carried.


William Henry Golding: Yes; I said that section 7 was carried.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: No; my hon. friend was on his feet.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let us go back to it.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: It was declared
"carried," but I think we might revert to it.


William Henry Golding: The amendment was lost, and then I asked if section 7 was carried. As far as the chair is concerned it is carried. If it is the wish of the committee to revert to section 7 I am in their hands.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: As I pointed out, I was on my feet before it carried.


Humphrey Mitchell: Do not argue about it. We have gone back to it.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I will not argue about it now. I was pointing out that two types of patents are involved: first, patents developed and owned by the research council. Then there are those of which the minister spoke, which are held on behalf of this country or other countries by the research council which acts as agent for these patents. In order to avoid confusion, it is quite clear that we shall have to have another paragraph dealing with the other half of this question. Unless they are separated we are definitely giving the research council the right, almost an instruction, to sell patents to private enterprises or private industry, if you want to call it that. Regardless of what the minister may say as to the policy of the council, we are taking the responsibility for this legislation; we are passing on it; from now on parliament will be responsible for this act, and I for one will not agree to have it stand as it is.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Discoveries and inventions vested in council.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: I wonder whether the minister or the research council has made any provision for rewarding the technicians who may make a discovery. Do you reward them in any way?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Section 11 of the act states:
2. The council, with the approval of the governor in council, may pay to its technical officers and to others working under its auspices who have made valuable discoveries, inventions, or improvements in processes, apparatus and machines such bonuses or royalties as in its opinion may be warranted.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Has a special fund been set up for that? What I want to know is, has a limit been put on the amount?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certain receipts from patents and royalties have been set up in a fund, but I have been told that no awards have been made from it. In other words, it would need to be an exceptional case to call for a reward, since research is the ordinary occupation of members of the research council, and the finding of patentable devices is part of their daily task.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I understand that the national research council does not receive fees for work done on behalf of outside persons, that, for instance, unlike the Ontario research foundation, it does not run a research service. Does it collect a fee only in the event of a sale or leasing or granting of patent rights? Am I right in that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is quite mistaken. Industry is charged fully for any work which is done for industry. I pointed- out that the earnings of the national research council for work carried out for industry over the past six years have amounted to about $5,000,000.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. The minister spoke about a number of government departments in that respect.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is something else. That it another source of income.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I now have the report of the council for the year 1944-45, and I am informed that none has been tabled, or submitted to members of parliament hitherto. On page 14 there is a financial statement, but I had not an opportunity of checking into it before the bill came up.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The financial statement is on page 14. The revenue from patents is shown there: royalties, and sales of patents; revenue for the year was S42,836.51.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The next item, laboratory fees, is, I take it, the answer to my question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; that is correct.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is a fee for a particular service rendered at the request of someone?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to. -
Research Council
[Stage Direction]
On section 9-Council may procure incorporation of companies.
Howard Charles Green: Section 9 adds two sections to the original bill: section 14, which deals with crown companies; and section 15, which deals with the setting up of a pension fund. My remarks svill deal only with the proposed section 14. Under it the research council will be able, with the approval of the governor in council, to procure the incorporation of any one or more companies under the provisions of part I of the Companies Act, and as I said the other evening with regard to the Government Companies Operation bill, we do not believe that this is a proper way to set up crown companies. We believe that if there are to be crown companies set up to do the work to which the minister has referred, for example to handle patents and other rights, he should bring in a bill providing for the setting up of that particular company. I do not intend to repeat the arguments which have been made on that question, but I would point out again that the minister explained this afternoon that that company to handle patents would be handling not only patents on improvements made by the staff of the national research company, but also patents made by the staffs of universities or acquired from other outside sources. I suggest that it is not correct to have the research council given the power to set up a corporation of that type, and 1 would appeal to the minister once more to bring in a special bill providing for that proposed corporation. Furthermore, he has said that he intends to have that section apply only to the maximum of -three companies. The second one was the Eldorado company, and I am not sure of the third.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Chalk River.


Howard Charles Green: The possibility of setting up Chalk River. I suggest to him that this is not the proper way to provide for the setting up of a new company in the case of Chalk River, or for taking over the Eldorado company. I move, seconded by the member for Davenport, that section 9 of bill No. 154 be amended by deleting section 14 added to the research council act thereby.
Amendment negatived on division.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the proposed new section 14 (b) there is a wTord that needs some clarification. In line 42 we find the words "existing companies". That word "existing" is ambiguous in this context. It might be considered by some members that it means

existing at the date of the enactment of the .resent bill, but it will be found that "existing" will mean any company that is in existence at any time that this new section 14 is in effect. Therefore the scope of the section is very wide. It can apply to any company which happens to be in existence at any particular time that the national research council with the approval of the governor in council, decides to assume control of it. That is not what the minister indicated as the purpose behind the amendment. As one followed his argument, it was to the effect that there were certain companies now in existence. He mentioned two, with the possibility of a third. For the sake of clarification, would the minister indicate the interpretation he proposes to put on the word "existing"? Does he intend to take advantage of it in future to take over companies existing at any time-crown companies which he desires to bring under the control of the council?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I see no harm in it. If a company is wholly owned by the government and the government desires to divorce its direction from one agency and submit it to another, I cannot see why any lion, member would object. For example, the Eldorado company is at present administered by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. It is not crystalized as yet, but there is a suggestion that the control of that company might be exercised through the national research council. Has my hon. friend any objection to that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the minister has missed my point. He has made out from time to time what he considers to be a case for three companies. The first is a company to hold patents which would be set up presumably under the proposed new section 14 (1) (a), but he is asking for power to bring under the research council other crown companies which may come into existence at any time. He referred to two companies now in existence-


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, one now in existence.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Eldorado now in existence, and the Chalk River plant whose ownership may be vested later on in the crown. The power under section 14 (1) (b) goes far beyond the scope which the minister indicated he attached to the section. "Existing" will not be interpreted as meaning only those companies in existence at the date of the enactment of this bill before us. It will mean, if carried in its present form, any crown corporation in existence at any time

Atomic Energy Control
as long as this section 14 is in effect, and it is therefore broader than the case the minister made out. If he can make out a case for broader provisions than he has done up to the moment, we can consider that; but this goes far beyond the case he has tried to make out up to the moment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have stated the intentions of the government in that regard, but I see no objection to my hon. friend making a case against any corporation wholly owned by the government being placed under the national research council. Is he doing so?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I submit that in every case parliament should say whether it should go to the research council or not. I do not think it should be done by executive act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is a Transfer of Duties Act, which allows the Prime Minister to transfer any activity of government from one agency to another agency of government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That does not in the least affect the point I am making. Here you have joint stock companies whose stock is owned by the crown and you have a provision that the council may, with the approval of the governor in council, assume ownership of the stock of those companies and the direction of them. Parliament should have an opportunity of passing on these individual cases, and it should not be left to be accomplished simply by decision of the governor in council without reference to parliament.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: There are references in the proposed new section 14 to shares necessary to qualify persons as directors. To what type of shares does this refer? Is that a provision of the Companies Act, making it necessary for the directors to own shares?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Under the Companies Act a director must be a shareholder of the company. That is effected by turning over a share which has been previously endorsed by the director in favour of the crown, and the share is deposited with the crown so that it can be transferred back to the crown at any time by action of the crown independently of action of the director. It is necessary to preserve that fiction, if you like, in order to comply with the Companies Act.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Is there any stipulation as to the number of shares?


Clarence Decatur Howe: One share.


Howard Charles Green: The new section 15 provides for the establishment of a pension fund or other pension or superannuation arrangement
for the benefit of members of the professional scientific staff of the council. This afternoon I understood the minister to say something about the other employees of the council. I thought he said they were to be employed under the Civil Service Act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: Does that include the nontechnical employees of any crown companies set up or taken over by the council?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The crown companies have the right to set up their own pension plans. I was talking about employees of the nationa! research council. The provision there is that scientific employees will have a special provision for reasons I have already explained. The non-technical employees would come under the Civil Service Superannuation Act. Crown companies will come under such superannuation act as may be proposed by the companies and approved by the governor in council.


Howard Charles Green: I understood the minister to say that the other employees would come under the Civil Service Act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Civil Service Superannuation Act.
Mr.. GREEN: I take it, it is the Civil Service Superannuation Act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply) moved the second reading of bill No. 165, relating to the development and control of atomic energy.
Howard Charles Green: Is the minister not making a
statement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: When the resolution was under discussion I made a rather full statement of the objects of the bill. I appreciate that other lion, members will wish to discuss the contents of the bill; therefore I suggest, sir, that you call it eleven o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Howe the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Privilege-Mr. Coldwell

Tuesday, June 11, 1946