1954-05-25

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table order in council P.C. 1954-760 appointing as a commissioner under the Inquiries Act the Hon. W. F. A. Turgeon, Q.C., LL.D., a member of the Queen's privy council for Canada, to inquire into the application and effects of agreed charges made by the railways under part 4 of the Transport Act.
Hon. members will recall that in 1951 the Railway Act was amended to provide that where competitive transcontinental tariffs are established by the railways, freight rates on the same goods shipped to or from intermediate points shall not exceed by more than one-third the rates in such competitive transcontinental tariffs. This amendment was made in accordance with one of the recommendations of the royal commission on transportation, of which the Hon. Mr. Turgeon was chairman.
The government of the province of Alberta has recently made representations to this government that this so-called one and one-third rule in the Railway Act should be extended by parliament to apply to agreed charges made by the railways with the authorization of the board of transport commissioners under part I, section 4 of the Transport Act. The government has come to the conclusion that this proposal requires detailed study before its merits can be properly assessed. There are many interests involved -those of producers, purchasers, the railways and other transportation agencies and the public generally at intermediate points as well as in eastern Canada and on the Pacific coast. The subject is one which is closely related to the subject matter of the report of the royal commission on transportation but on which the commission did not make any recommendation. Consequently the government has arranged with the Hon. Mr. Turgeon to serve as a commissioner to inquire into this particular question of agreed charges, taking into account the representations that
have been made on it and all other relevant considerations including developments since the royal commission reported in 1951.



INQUIRY AS TO SALE OF SURPLUS TO U.S.S.R.'

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question either to the Prime Minister or to the Minister, of Agriculture and to ask whether or not within the last few days there has been; a sale of surplus butter to the U.S.S.R.; if so, at what price and how much; and are further sales expected?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there have not been any sales of butter held by the agricultural prices support board outside of Canada up to the present.



PUBLIC SERVANTS' INVENTIONS


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of Stale) moved: the third reading of Bill No. 444, respecting inventions by public servants.


Mr. Speaker:: The Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) moves-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would you-allow a further question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid that the hon. member was not on his feet quickly enough. The deputy clerk has read the orders of the day and I am now about to* put the question for third reading of the bill.'


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I want to take just one minute to refer to the report of the debate which took place on the bill yesterday which appears in the Montreal Gazette this morning under the heading "Military Inventions Unprotected". I have not the slightest doubt that this Canadian Press report was written in perfect good faith but in the first paragraph it says the precise opposite of what I said in the house, and I do not think that is an impression that any hon. member would want to have spread about. It said:
State Secretary Pickersgill said today there is no law to prevent a privately-owned invention of a1 military nature from becoming public property and reaching a potential enemy.
[DOT]5054

Inventions by Public Servants What I actually said in reply to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) who made a most useful intervention on this point yesterday was that the law did provide, in so far as we thought the law could do so, for precisely this kind of thing in sections 20, 21 and 22 of the Patent Act and that under the provisions of the law it was the duty of the commissioner to see that such applications are scrutinized in the kind of way that the Leader of the Opposition had in mind before anything is made public about them. The government has been given authority to keep them secret if they have military significance.
I felt it only right yesterday to go on and point out that there was one danger against which the law could not, as far as we could see, provide, namely that if someone invented something and, for example, did not try to patent it but rather made a speech about it or wrote an article about it or something of that sort, no law could prevent that kind of thing. In view of what was said yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition I feel that it would be desirable, when the commission of inquiry into the Patent Act is set up, to have this point drawn particularly to the attention of that inquiry and I shall be glad to do so.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the [DOT]Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, since the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) has raised this point,
I should like to supplement the remarks he has made because I appreciate greatly the manner in which this subject is being approached. My concern related to a warning Which had been given by Sir Robert Watson-Watt with regard to the possibility of very important secrets being disclosed in the filing of patents. I welcome the statement by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) that when the patent commission is being set up he will draw to their attention the necessity of guarding in some way against the dangers pointed out by Sir Robert Watson-Watt as exemplified by the disclosure of the Whittle patent to German agents resulting in the actual development of the jet engine in Germany before it was developed in Britain. I welcome this assurance, but in view of the assurance may I also add the suggestion that Sir Robert Watson-Watt made, namely that in addition to being as careful as possible to prevent the filing of patents which would disclose very important secrets care should also be taken that anything of that kind should not become a barrier to development, and the lack of enthusiasm for a new idea on the part of officials should not be permitted to become in itself a hindrance to development.


I recognize that this presents a very great problem for the consideration of the commission. I would refer to the speech of Sir Robert Watson-Watt in which he suggested a combination of technical and official skill in order to determine the very difficult balance between protection against publicity on the one side and on the other side protection against interference with possible development.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



RADIO ACT


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved: the third reading of Bill No. 446, to amend the Radio Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Lionel Chevrier: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 442, respecting the construction of lines of railway by Canadian National Railway Company from St. Felicien to Chibougamau and from Chibougamau to Beattyville, all in the province of Quebec, and from Hillsport on the main line of the Canadian National Railways to Manitouwadge lake, both in the province of Ontario.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


The Chairman:: I might point out to hon. members that this bill has been considered by the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
On clause 1-Construction and completion.


Mr. Hamilion:: Mr. Chairman, there has been considerable discussion of the bill now before us. We have had an explanation from the minister and the bill has been discussed in the standing committee. I think it is possible to say that in the way this problem is being attacked it is being attacked by men with little confidence in the future of at least part of the area which the line in the province of Quebec is designed to serve. Those who have little thoughts are going to accomplish only little things. Those who have great thoughts and great confidence are going to accomplish great things. I think that those of us who have true faith-


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Mr. Hamilton:: -not only in the central area of Canada, not only in the parts which are already built up, not only in the parts which have already proved themselves, but who also have faith in the hinterlands of this country, in the areas about which we do not know a great deal yet except that we do know they hold great promise, are disturbed, worried and unhappy about the attitude displayed in the information given us on this bill.
I think we can call it a sort of lick and promise bill. One half of it is the lick inasmuch as we are informed that half the line will be built, and the other half is the promise because we have no indication as to when, how or under what circumstances the second section of the line will be built. It is a lick and a promise measure, one part of the line to be built in the immediate future and with respect to the other part a rather vague and indefinite promise extending far into the future. One of the things we must note about the bill is that it contains the indication that any time within the next ten years the second section of the line may be constructed, and if it is not convenient to do so within the next ten years then at any time in the future beyond the ten year period, beyond the year 1964 mentioned in the bill, the governor in council may continue its provisions in force in order that the line may then be constructed.
Can anything, Mr. Chairman, be much more indefinite than that? Can anything be much more foolish in the light of the circumstances than to suggest that we should build a railway line, half of which we will build now leaving the end almost suspended in mid-air, and the other half, the half which logically completes the line, the half which runs to the sea, the half which connects finally with a seaport which can become great, will not be built until some indefinite time in the future? The minister and the witnesses who appeared before the standing committee advanced reasons why this course is being followed. From the information given to us I think these reasons may be summarized by saying that the part of the line extending from Beattyville to Chibougamau is to be built through an area from which sufficient traffic can be guaranteed for the railroad line through signed contracts to ensure beyond any shadow of doubt that it will be an economically feasible proposition. The other half is to be built through territory where, according to the information given to us, such written guarantees are not possible.
Canadian National Railways
In the light of that the minister suggests: Let us build the line in so far, so to speak, as the money is on the line, but let us not take any chance, let us not have any faith, let us not go beyond that point and develop the rest of the line. Let us simply leave that hanging in the air as a promise. When we examine the minister's statement we find that he says that he will build it at some time in the future. He and the witnesses who appeared before the committee indicated that they know there is promise in that area, that some day they will be able to build the line, and that almost from the day their trains run over it they will have an indication that it will be a profitable part of their operations. We then ask: What indications are there that this change is going to take place? What is going to happen between Chibougamau and St. Felicien in the next few years that will make this economic change possible? We know of nothing, we cannot pinpoint anything, that is going to happen. We just believe that the natural growth of the country is going to merit the construction of this line within the next few years. So far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, thereon hangs one of the most disturbing facets of this entire proposition. There is no concrete indication that anything is going to happen in that particular territory within the next few years to merit the building of this line.
We are told by the minister that he definitely plans to build it within the next few years. To me, Mr. Chairman, that indicates clearly a lack of confidence that this line is going to be actually built. If these things are going to happen-I believe they will happen, I know they will happen because they have happened so often before in this country-within the next four or five years, they could be speeded up immeasurably, the area could be made more profitable and more interesting, more developmental projects could be undertaken immediately upon the construction of this line. But if we are going to stand back and wait for the normal growth of the territory, we are displaying a lack of confidence, and worse than that we are putting off until some indefinite date in the future the construction of a line that merits building now.
It seems to me, and I think to many others, that we have a choice here between helping the growth of this area through the building of the railways and waiting for the growth of the area to help the building of the railway, the two propositions being unalterably opposed to one another. The development of Canada, almost without exception, has followed not preceded the construction of our

Canadian National Railways great railroads. The west was opened up following upon the construction of the great railway line which this party supported. The other part, the area around Hudson bay, for example, and mining and lumbering particularly, developed as a result of the growth of that railroad that is now known as the Ontario Northland railroad, or the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railroad, as I like to think of it.
We cannot expect people to go into an area, to open up mines, to construct mills, to cut lumber and to do all these things to aid industrial growth, if we, as a government and as a nation, do not have sufficient confidence in the area ourselves to supply them with the basic transportation that it is essential for them to have. Let us remember that if this line is built in its entirety it will have at one end Chicoutimi and Port Alfred. Port Alfred is a deep-water port at the head of the Saguenay river, a port which even now handles a great volume of shipping. Almost all of this shipping is concerned with the area immediately around Chicoutimi and Port Alfred. If the railroad line were built it would run back from there over an area that is rich in timberland, that has great agricultural possibilities, an area of which we do not yet know the mineral possibilities. It will go into Chibougamau, where some of Canada's greatest mines are located, and then over the line that it is already agreed to build immediately and cut back over another area of great mineralization. Ultimately, it will go through Beattyville and into Noranda, thus connecting up the great territory of Ontario and Quebec, which would become tributary to Port Alfred and Chicoutimi. Through the port would then flow, over far less rail miles than are now necessary, supplies for a great part of Canada which must now get them at greater expense through more southerly ports.
Let us remember, Mr. Chairman, that if this government does not have confidence in that area at least the provincial government has, and has backed that confidence by the construction of a road from Chicoutimi into that territory. Approximately $4 million went into the building of the road. At the end of it grew mines where there were no mines before; there grew industry where there was no industry; there grew merchandising and marketing as well as a city, where there was no city before. These things are the result of confidence, the result of a belief in the future and the result of doing something. I am not standing here, Mr. Chairman, to make a political argument out of this thing. I am standing here because I come


from a province which, in the past few years, has grown into something that one would hardly have believed possible.
As I argue for the construction of this railroad line, I am thinking of the man, for example, who threw away his hammer near Cobalt and dislodged a piece of ore that resulted in the building of mines, cities and industries that one would not have believed existed. I am thinking of the fact, that always in the development of this country we have developed one area and said there is nothing beyond that. We did not believe very much lay beyond that. Then, our pioneers have gone forth, our people who would just not take that sort of reasoning, and risked their lives, if they were that kind of men; they have risked their capital if they were that kind of entrepreneur; and they have brought us the things that have made this nation great. They have brought us tremendous areas that are now devoted to agriculture. They have brought us the great watersheds, the great sources of pulp-wood which now floats down to our paper mills.
All these things, Mr. Chairman, have been the result of not sitting on our posteriors and saying that there is no certainty that this proposition is going to pay from the date it is built. They have been the result, rather, of faith, and with that faith came the results which we wanted. The great fortunes, and there have been great fortunes, that have been built in this country have not been the result of wanting something certain. They have been the result of taking a chance, a measured chance based on the confidence that it would turn out the way it should and the way that would be best for the country as a whole.
And so, to sum up, lest someone say subsequently that this is visionary, that this is impossible, that this is asking the government to assume, through the construction of a portion of this railroad line from Chibougamau to St. Felicien, a burden which will continue into the indefinite future, let us recapitulate. We are suggesting that while the idea behind the bill we are now considering in committee is an excellent one, of which we wholly approve, the bill falls short in so far as it builds only one-half of the line which, only in its entirety, can do what it is supposed to do. The half of the line which it is not proposed to build immediately is the half which would connect a great area with a seaport, the half which would traverse an area which is rich in resources, the half which would connect an area of mines, which need smelters, with a community which is

now considering the erection of one smelter, and is planning the erection of another in the field of zinc.
The half of this line, Mr. Chairman, which is not being built is the half which confidence in our country and faith in its future dictates should be built. And, Mr. Chairman, to the extent that people do not build this line, and do not support its building now, immediately, they display to all the world a lack of confidence and a lack of faith for the future of one of the greatest areas in Canada.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I am as capable as the hon. member who has just taken his seat of adding any new material to the discussion. I think he has done very well; but I would point out that this bill has been Considered by one of the best committees of the House of Commons, where we have had before us officials who have given us much information. The minister convinced us that he has been assured it would pay; and all we have to do is to read the reports.
I do not want to attempt to shut off debate, but I believe the road is needed and that the bill meets that need. The minister has convinced us that it will pay.


Mr. Nicholson:: Before the clause carries I should like to say a word. Hon. members will have noticed that in it there is provision to give to the governor in council authority to build such portion of the lines as the governor in council may decide is necessary, prior to December 31, 1964, or such later date as the governor in council may fix.
I think all hon. members will agree that the building of railways is a matter of concern to the people of Canada, including members of parliament. Officials of the railways gave the committee an explanation as to why one part of the railway should be built immediately, but pointed out that the revenue in sight would not warrant the building of the other part mentioned in the bill. I think most hon. members will agree that a quite reasonable argument was presented on the point.
That being so I do not see why the government should ask parliament now to give it a blank cheque to build this other part of the railway any time within the next ten years, prior to December 31, 1964 or, if it is not built by that time, by such later date as the governor in council may fix. I suggest that is a very dangerous principle, and I am sure if the government did not have such
Canadian National Railways a large majority in parliament this kind of legislation would not be presented to us. Therefore I move, in amendment:
That clause 1 be amended by deleting therefrom the words, "or such later date as the governor in council may fix".
As I said before, parliament has always been most anxious to give its support to the building of any railway line that would be feasible; and I should think that ten years would give the cabinet plenty of opportunity to build this extra line. If however by 1963 work on this branch line was started but would not be completed before December 31, 1964, I am sure parliament at that date would be most co-operative in extending the period. But I think it is undemocratic for this parliament to tie the hands of all parliaments in the future to a proposition which is not more definite than the one now before us.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I must confess I have not yet heard any satisfactory explanation as to why the date should be set so far ahead. I am not speaking alone of the amendment suggesting the removal of these words from the clause. I do not know that the amendment will satisfy the situation because, if it were going to be much later than 1964, I am not sure that this parliament would be particularly interested in the matter.
This line could be completed in a comparatively short time; and I must confess I am wholly at a loss to understand the government's position in deferring the date until 1964 if, in fact, it has any intention to proceed. Now that the amendment is before us I should like to hear from the minister, not merely as to why there should be a later date mentioned, but why a date as late as 1964 should be used.


Lionel Chevrier: I am glad the Leader of the Opposition has suggested that I make an explanation. I would point out that the explanation has already been made in committee, because the argument now offered by the hon. member who has moved the amendment was made before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I do not know that he moved an amendment in committee, but certainly he made the point forcibly more than once.
To explain the position I believe I could put it thus: As the matter now stands, the Canadian National Railways have obtained guarantees from a number of corporations and companies, which would confirm the financial estimate of the railway in so far as that part of the line is concerned which extends from Beattyville on the west to Chi-bougamau in about the centre of the arc from Beattyville to St. Felicien. But, in so far as

Canadian National Railways the other half of the line is concerned, namely that part extending from St. Felicien to Chibougamau, the Canadian National Railways, through their officers, have given evidence to the effect that, from a financial standpoint, the position is such that they would not recommend the immediate construction of that portion at this time.
However, they are hopeful that with the construction of the line from Beattyville to Chibougamau industry will be encouraged, and that it will, in fact, see the establishment of a zinc refinery, or even of a copper refinery, in the lake St. John area, perhaps at Chicoutimi itself, in which case it would then be profitable, if the Canadian National Railways obtained the necessary guarantees, to continue the construction of the line on to St. Felicien. So that it may be possible to begin the construction of the east end of the line fairly soon. It may not be possible to begin it within the ten years and that is why the government have seen fit to accept that recommendation of the railways. After all, the Canadian National Railways is the body responsible for the construction of the lines that have been built from time to time with the approval of parliament.
It may not be possible to complete the line within ten years. If that should be so, then it was felt that this authority would enable Canadian National Railways to construct the line even after the ten years, and for that reason the clause is worded as it is.


Mr. Coldwell:: May I just say one word. Since this parliament is responsible when the Canadian National Railways have deficits, we should be called upon to decide, after hearing representations of the railway, whether this extension is economic at the time it is proposed to make it. My hon. friend is on very sound ground in asking the committee to delete the authority of the governor general in council. From time to time we have argued against governor-in-council decisions. This is the kind of decision which under no circumstances should be approved of. If the time comes when the railway can show that this extension is economic, then the railway can come to the house and ask for the authority to make the extension at that time. We should delete this very objectionable feature of the bill at this time.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, in the ordinary enabling legislation of this kind, under which the Canadian National Railways is authorized to construct a branch line, the first section sets out that the governor in council may provide for the railway to build the line from one point to another point within a

certain set period of time, which is a reasonable time for completion. That was the practice followed in the case of the branch line from Terrace to Kitimat, British Columbia, and from Sherridon to Lynn Lake in Manitoba, and I believe also in the case of the line from Barraute to Kiask Falls in Quebec; but here we have two very significant variations.
In the first place, we find the words: "in whole or in part" qualifying the completion, so that the governor in council may authorize only the completion of a part of this railway. As I pointed out, in all the other bills the authorization must cover the completion of the whole line. I repeat, here we have these very significant words, "in whole or in part".
Then instead of having a time set within which the railway could reasonably be constructed, we have a time limit of ten years, to December 31, 1964. There again is a provision completely different from the standard provision written into legislation of this kind.
The amendment of the hon. member for Mackenzie is a sound one, because, while these qualifications "or such later date as the governor in council may fix" are used in the other enabling laws to which I have referred, it was done because there might be some slip in completing by the date set, and therefore the precaution was taken of allowing what I am sure was intended to be a slight extension. But here the effect of the extension is to add it on to the ten-year period.


Mr. Knowles:: From here to eternity.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, from here to eternity. In the first place, that line need be built only in whole or in part, and then it need not be finished until 1964, and then the governor in council may put it off after that time just as long as he sees fit, which may mean that the line will not be constructed for fifteen or twenty years.
The position we have taken is that the government came into the house and asked authority to build the line from Beattyville to St. Felicien. Well, why not go ahead and build it instead of having this qualification of building half now and the other half in five years, ten years, fifteen years or twenty years.
The vice-president of the Canadian National Railways in charge of development indicated before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines that the eastern half of the line would be a development project; in other words, that there was not the traffic there to make the line pay immediately. He advocated it on the basis of its being a development project.

He went on to say the C.N.R. hoped that there would be established at Chicoutimi a great zinc smelter which would handle zinc concentrates from the whole of Quebec and Ontario. This bill covers also a short line in Ontario called the lake Manitouwadge line, and in the lake Manitouwadge area there is zinc ore. The vice-president said it was hoped that zinc ore from as far as the lake Manitouwadge area, which is up near Port Arthur in Ontario, would be taken by the C.N.R. right across to Chicoutimi, and in Chicoutimi there would be a smelter.
There are also of course great power resources in the Chicoutimi area. There is the foundation for a great development in Canada. But at the same time the government takes the position that this connecting line from Chibougamau to St. Felicien need not be built for at least ten years and perhaps longer. How they expect to get a zinc smelter at Chicoutimi with that gap in the line of 139 or 140 miles from Chibougamau to St. Felicien, I cannot quite see. They are expecting private industry to go into Chicoutimi and build a $25 million smelter without the railway being connected. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that does not make sense at all.
Either this is actually a development project or it is not, and if it is a development project which is in the interests of the nation -and the minister said on second reading that it was in the interests of the nation- then the government should go ahead and build the whole railway. Certainly the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mackenzie is a proper one and I would hope that it would be carried by the committee.


Lionel Chevrier: May I refer to the question raised by the leader of the C.C.F. party. I view his query in this fashion. As he knows, in respect of the previous branch lines which were built a statement is tabled in the house within a certain number of days after the house meets. That was the case with the Lynn Lake line and with the Barraute-Kiask line. These reports form part of the subject matter which is dealt with by the officers of the Canadian National Railways in the committee on railways and shipping, and each year it is therefore possible for the members of that committee or any other member to find out what the position of the line is.
The reason why the words, "1964 or such later date as the governor in council may fix", are in there is that we were following practically word for word previous legislation. If my hon. friend looks up section 1 of chapter 20, 1 Elizabeth II, an act respecting construction of lines of railways by the
Canadian National Railways Canadian National Railway Company from Terrace to Kitimat, he will see the same wording, namely:
The governor in council may provide for the construction and completion by Canadian National Railway Company prior to the first day of November. nineteen hundred and fifty-four, or such later date as the governor in council may fix.
Likewise, in 1951, 15 George VI, chapter 44, an act respecting the construction of a line by the Canadian National Railway Company from Sherridon to Lynn Lake, there is a similar provision, namely:
The governor in council may provide for the construction and completion by Canadian National Railway Company . . . prior to the first day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-three, or such later date as the governor in council may fix . . .
Therefore, the wording in both cases is exactly the same. It is not sought here to take the extraordinary powers such as have been suggested. On the contrary, the legislation has been based on the experience of two, if not three, similar lines, and the only reason, which I do not wish to repeat again, other than that which I have already advanced, is what I said in answer to the Leader of the Opposition a moment ago. It would strike me that for that reason we should not accept the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Mackenzie.


Major James William Coldwell: I would like to ask the minister a question. In these other cases the minister has mentioned, is it not a fact that the lines were looked upon as economic projects by the officers of the railway? In this particular case is there not a doubt that the extension eastward would be economic, at least at this time and perhaps for some years to come? The hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra mentioned the possibility of a smelter being constructed, but there is not definite assurance that such a smelter will be built. Consequently, it seems to me that in this particular respect we would be doing something quite different from the cases outlined by the minister when we had assurances that these lines would be economically sound as far as the railway officials could judge. But in this case the railway officials tell us that the eastern extension would not be economic under the present circumstances but might be some time in the future.
My suggestion is that at that time they should come back to the house, go before the committee, and hon. members on that committee can question the officials, though there is no guarantee after that questioning that the matter would be decided upon favourably by the house. That is what I have in mind.
5060	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways


Lionel Chevrier: The answer to the first part of the hon. member's question is yes. The eastern half of the line may not at this time be economic, but that is the very reason why it is sought to have the words in clause 1 of the bill as it exists now because, while we believe it will not be long before the other section of the line is built, it may take more than the ten years. Why should it be necessary to come before parliament when there is already before parliament, by virtue of the report tabled under the last section of the act, an opportunity of having the position explained and examined in the railways and shipping committee and by members of the house.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister will admit that in connection with the Kitimat and Lynn Lake lines we had definite propositions put before parliament and there was no doubt about the lines being built. But in the present situation the railway officials have negotiated on the assumption that parliament will grant approval of the building of the Beattyville extension. I think it is unfortunate that the legislation is before parliament in this particular form. Parliament, I believe, is quite prepared to give support to the spending of $17 million for the construction of the Beattyville branch, but if we pass this bill the railway will be able at any time in the future to proceed with the spending of $17 million for the construction of the remaining 139-mile branch, and I believe that is unfair to parliament.
I believe the minister and the cabinet should be prepared to come to parliament every time there is the expenditure of a major amount such as $17 million, particularly on a branch line. We know from bitter experience that branch lines have been forced on the Canadian National Railway system in the past and have been found uneconomic. Unfortunately, political pressure at election time has been responsible for the building in Canada of branch lines which have been a headache for succeeding governments, and I think no government should ask parliament to vote $17 million for the construction of a branch line by order in council at some time in the future. I hope the minister, after this discussion, will agree to the proposal to limit the expenditure of the $17 million to the end of December, 1964.


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Chairman, there is one question I think should be cleared up at this time, more particularly in the light of the amendment which has been moved just now. The minister has suggested that the line from Chicoutimi to Chibougamau might not be 

feasible and therefore might not be built. I am wondering whether that would mean that there should be a new extension of that branch line from Chibougamau to Chicoutimi. If so, would it not be better, in view of the fact it is necessary to have the whole line completed at another time, to give consideration to a line from Beattyville to Chibougamau and then down to Chicoutimi immediately?


William Alfred Robinson: Is the house ready for the question?


Frederick George Hahn: Could the minister let me know whether he expects the line to become financially profitable from Chibougamau to Chicoutimi before they extend the branch line after 1964?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I think I dealt with that in committee. In the first place the line is not to be built from Chicoutimi, but from St. Felicien to Chibougamau and it was explained by the officers and myself that until such time as the Canadian National Railways are able to obtain sufficient guarantees of traffic they would not begin the construction of the section of the line from that area. The information that the vice-president of industrial research of the Canadian National Railways gave to the committee was that he was hopeful and it was expected that these guarantees would be forthcoming, and when they were the line would be built.
(Translation):


Mr. Gauthier (Lake St. John):: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson). I do not intend to support the amendment because I do not see what purpose it would serve. It is evident that if the eastern section of the railway from St. Felicien to Chibougamau is not built within ten years, it would greatly help the government to be able to extend the time provided for its construction. Hon. members will remember that last week during the debate on the motion for second reading of the bill I obtained from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) the assurance that as soon as we can give for the eastern section the same guarantee as for the western section, the Canadian National will be able to undertake the building of that part of the railroad.
Last Friday, when the committee was examining the bill, I also obtained the same assurance from the vice-president of the company. I therefore do not see the necessity for that amendment, Mr. Chairman, especially since I am confident that within six months or a year at the most we shall be in a

position to give the Canadian National the guarantees they require before a start can be made on the eastern section.
This morning I was in touch with the secretary of the Saguenay council for economic development, who expressed the same confidence. The people of the Saguenay district are determined to work constructively and intelligently for the fulfilment of the project. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am confident that as a result of the guarantees we will give or of the subsidies that may be granted by the government, we shall be in a position to undertake the building of the eastern section of the railroad within a year at the most.
(Text):


Mr. Balcer:: Mr. Chairman, I think this piece of legislation is very peculiarly drafted because what we have before us is, in effect, two different bills. There is one bill which the government has a real intention of going through with. This bill is to build a railway line from Beattyville to Chibougamau. The government should have another bill for the building of a railway from Chibougamau to St. Felicien and should explain to us the various reasons and so forth. The minister might say that I am making a political speech, but it is quite evident that in drafting the present bill in its present form the government was just trying to appease public opinion in the lake St. John region and that that was about all. The government did not have the immediate intention of building the eastern part of this railway. The government had the immediate intention of building a railroad from Beattyville to Chibougamau and it had a general intention, which I am sure is quite sensible, of building another railway when and if the circumstances warrant the building of such a railway. The minister says it will be built if there is enough guaranteed traffic or enough guaranteed business to justify the building of the other part of the railway. I sincerely hope the government and the minister are ready to do that for any part of Canada. I mean, that is just nonsense. I mean, if there is enough traffic for it to be a profitable venture for the Canadian National Railways to build a railway anywhere in Canada, the government and the railroad should do it right away. There is no doubt about that. From the way this bill is drafted I think it is just to appease public opinion in this part of Quebec in the lake St. John area. What the government had in mind was to build a railroad from Beattyville to Chibougamau. At the present time the government has no intention of building the eastern part. The government should not be afraid to say so and should not
Canadian National Railways present such phony legislation. That is the reason why I am speaking.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I could not allow my hon. friend to go unchallenged in connection with the statements he has just made. He made them originally in the course of the general debate when he said that it was not the intention of the government to go on with the complete construction of this railway. May I say that it is, having regard to the circumstances as outlined by the officers of the Canadian National Railways who gave evidence before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. The intention of the Canadian National Railways is quite clear and the intention of the government is equally clear. This is not a matter of two bills, one to build a portion of the line and then to come back later on and build the other portion. It is one bill. This line is considered by the Canadian National Railways and by the government not as two separate projects but as a whole line, the western half of it being built immediately because of the guarantees that have been forthcoming, and the eastern half to be built just as soon as the guarantees are forthcoming. I hope-and in fact it looks as though the assurances will be forthcoming-that the traffic guarantees will permit of the construction of the line as soon as possible after the first half is completed. When my hon. friend says that this is phony legislation, that it is queer legislation and that the government has no intention of going on with the construction of the line, I must say to him that such is not the case at all. I am sure that the House of Commons would not want responsible officers of the Canadian National Railways to come forward with the explanation which they gave in the committee and not be sincere. I am sure that the House of Commons would not believe that they would act in that fashion.
Then there is another statement my hon. friend has made with which I take issue. He said that by constructing first the western half of this line, namely that part which extends from Beattyville to Chibougamau, the effect would be the draining of Quebec traffic out of the province of Quebec into Toronto.


Léon Balcer: I did not say that.


Lionel Chevrier: If my hon. friend had been in the committee, he would know that the position is exactly the converse. In dealing with that problem the officers of the Canadian National Railways explained that the whole intention of the railway in building the first section of the line, namely from Barraute to Kiask Falls, was to develop the timberlands of the Abitibi area so that the
5062	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways pulpwood could be fed down into the mills of the St. Lawrence valley. Certainly it was built with the express object of developing the timber industry and the pulp and paper mills of the province of Quebec.


Mr. Dufresne:: The same thing could be done here.


Léon Balcer: If my hon. friend will permit me to do so, I should like to say that I do not complain about that part of the bill; I agree with it. I mean that I accept his explanation that it would be good business for the C.N.R. to build that part of the railroad. There is no doubt about that. But what I disagree with is when they come here and say that they are going to build the other part some time, from here to eternity. That is what I do not agree with.


Lionel Chevrier: If I may, I should like to carry on with my argument, because I think it has some bearing certainly on what other hon. members have said. It has a great bearing on my position in the House of Commons. When the officers of the Canadian National Railways dealt with the Ontario line, with the lake Manitouwadge line, and when they explained to the committee that a great deal of the traffic, if not all of it, comprising the concentrates of the mines in the province of Ontario would be fed by this line of the Canadian National Railways into the smelters at Noranda, I did not hear any member from the province of Ontario rise and take any objection to Ontario traffic moving down in to the province of Quebec; nor, for that matter, did I hear any member from the city of Toronto do so. On the contrary, I have had members from the city of Toronto say to me that they are delighted that such is the case. After all, we do not build railway lines in any particular region for limited reasons. Railway lines are built for the development of the country as a whole. That is all the officers of the Canadian National Railways had in mind when they proceeded to recommend to the government the construction of this line of railway which should be considered as a whole line and not as two lines.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, there is one statement made by the minister which conveys an impression that is hardly in accordance with what the record shows. He says that this bill is in its wording similar to other bills dealing with construction of this kind. However, there is a great difference. In the case of the bill approving of the construction from Terrace to Kitimat there was a definite time limit of construction to be finished in the present [DOT] year. I believe the total time was just over two years. In other 

similar cases, instead of ten years the time provided is normally two years. In construction of this kind there would seem to be no reason why that is not the figure that might very well be used here. Neither from the record of the committee nor in what I have heard here has there been suggested any reason why a ten-year figure should be included in this case. The statement is made that the construction of the Beattyville-Chibougamau line is going to proceed right away. If that is so, why have a ten-year period for that? And most certainly why have the further provision that it should be left until such later date? It is obvious that it is not intended that this provision should apply to the Beattyville-Chibougamau part of the road. From what the minister has said I think it is clear that this provision applies to the construction from St. Felicien to Chibougamau.
That being so, the question then arises as to why we should extend an already very long postponement to 1964 by a still further possibility of postponement. The government either intends that this line be constructed or it does not. The minister has said he hopes that there will be assurances from those who would use this line and that with those assurances construction would proceed. I need not remind him that the line in Ontario which will have a business connection with the Beattyville-Chibougamau road, the Ontario Northland Railway, was built as a development road. It was built with confidence in the future and with the expectation that the resulting development would justify the expenditure. It seems to me that the St. Felicien-Chibougamau part of the construction forms an essential link in this whole development. As the minister has said, concentrates from Ontario will move into the mill at Noranda. Certainly no one is raising any question about that. That is a very good balance of interest in this matter. It would also seem there are obvious advantages in completing the link and in having a road that will run right through St. Felicien to Noranda and on into northern Ontario so that these areas are connected by that road.
I would not wish to have it suggested that in supporting this amendment I do so with any idea that further representations should be made. I think this is an essential part of the whole construction. The date of 1964 set out in the bill is already too far away, but at least if a date ten years away is going to be placed in the act there can be no such reason as would ordinarily apply to extend that date still further. The reason I support the amendment is simply that I believe this

work should proceed now as part of the construction and as part of the network of rail lines which will open up that whole area.


Lionel Chevrier: The Leader of the Opposition asked why there is a distinction between this bill apd the other bills. Of course one must remember that the other lines were much shorter than this one. This line is 294 miles in length and if you add the Ontario mileage plus the mileage from Cache lake to Chibougamau you have construction of something over 300 miles in length. When you compare that with the 46 or 47-mile line from Terrace to Kitimat and the somewhat longer line from Kiask Falls to Barraute that explains to some extent the difference.
I would not want the committee to think for one moment that Canadian National Railways or, for that matter, the government, feel that the railway should take powers which parliament thinks they should not take. It was the feeling of the Canadian National Railways that because of all the circumstances they should have a ten-year period, and the bill was drafted with the provisions that were mentioned earlier and such as are to be found in the other bills.
But if the committee feels that this is taking powers that should not be taken and if it will please the committee I have no objection to accepting the amendment as it has been moved and leaving it to the Canadian National Railways to build the three lines, or two lines rather-I will put it that way-from now until 1964 in the hope that they will find sufficient guarantees during that period to be able to continue the extension from St. Felicien to Chibougamau. If that will meet the pleasure of the committee then perhaps I can accept the amendment.


George Alexander Drew: In welcoming acceptance of the amendment that has been moved, I do want to mention one thing. The minister has very carefully chosen his words when he said that what he has just said to us now explains to a certain extent the difference. The inclusion of the words "to a certain extent" was very carefully done and I commend him for that caution because it only explains it to a certain extent. The fact is that there has been no suggestion at any time it is going to take ten years to construct that 294 miles of line. In fact I think we are given reasonable assurance that one of the most difficult pieces of railroad construction that has been undertaken in a great many years, that of the line running north from Sept lies for well over 300 miles, is going to be com-
Canadian National Railways pleted in four years. Therefore the minister is quite correct that what he has said only explains it to a certain extent.
Nevertheless, since the date, 1964, has been put in the bill and since it must be assumed that it is going to remain there, I welcome acceptance of the amendment in the hope that this indicates that there will be a re-examination of the other situation and that perhaps on further re-examination the decision may be made to proceed with the construction of the St. Felicien-Chibougamau extension at the same time.


Mr. Campbell:: I want to say a word of
appreciation to the minister for having taken the attitude he has. I listened very carefully to the vice-president of the railway and other witnesses who appeared before the committee, and the information I gathered from the whole discussion was the C.N.R. witnesses went so far as to say that the construction of the eastern part of the line was a dream but that it would give the railroad more bargaining power if they had the right to build the line. I think that perhaps some hon. members are worrying too much about the line not being built right away. What I got out of the whole discussion in the standing committee was that the railway is anxious to build the line and that just as soon as it is economically possible it will be built.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the amendment
carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Alfred Robinson: Is the committee ready
for the question?	Shall the amendment
carry?
Amendment (Mr. Nicholson) agreed to.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause as amended carry?
(Translation):


Mr. Gagnon:: Mr. Chairman, I consider it a duty to participate again in this discussion and to renew my plea for the simultaneous construction of both sections of trunk line No. 1.
The economic development brought about by this railway in our district would benefit not only the people of the kingdom of the Saguenay and of the province of Quebec, but the people of Canada as a whole. This government in 1953 renewed its contribution to the Colombo plan to the amount of $25,400,000, for financial and technical assistance, thus bringing to $76-6 million the total amount devoted by this country to the development of the countries of south and

Canadian National Railways southeast Asia. Would it not be possible also to grant subsidies to the Canadian National Railways to enable them to realize the whole of this project?
On May 11 of this year, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) said:
Some subsidy on such a line may well be justified as it was in the case of the northward extension of the Pacific Great Eastern in 1949.
Could it be that the representations made to this government by the citizens of the Chicoutimi-Lake St. John district, as well as the newspaper editorials on this matter have not convinced the minister of the necessity for such a decision?
The vice-president of the Canadian National Railways, Mr. Fairweather, told us in committee that he was strongly in favour of subsidies for the construction of new lines.
Pending the time when the Chibougamau-St. Felicien section will have brought dividends, I feel that parliament should vote a few million dollars for that purpose.
(Text):
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Girard):
That this clause be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding thereafter the following words:
"provided, however, that the construction of sections A and B of branch line No. 1 shall be undertaken at the same time."
(Translation):


Mr. Villeneuve:: Mr. Chairman, on my return from a journey last week to the riding I have the honour to represent in this house, I was told of the discussions that took place here on second reading of the bill authorizing the construction of a railway line to the mining district of Chibougamau, and I would not like to let this opportunity slip by without voicing my humble contribution, as this question is of great importance to my constituents.
I read the remarks made by the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) during that debate, and I am very much surprised at the unfair accusations of partiality which were levelled against him later. Since my election as member for Roberval, I have asked the help of the hon. Minister of Transport in many circumstances, in the interests of my county. I even had occasion to introduce two delegations to him, and he welcomed them with true understanding; I am certain that my constituents are in a position to appreciate his frankness, his courtesy and his kindness to them, and I say
[Mr. Gagnon. J

that, just as I have every confidence in the minister, their trust in him remains unchanged, for they know the facts, and are able to view the situation objectively.
The future of the county of Roberval, for instance, is dependent upon the decisions which the Department of Transport will take with regard to this Chibougamau railway. My colleague from Lake St. John (Mr. Gauthier) and myself have put this view on record in this house, and mentioned it a sufficient number of times to the appropriate department for this principle to have been embodied in a bill, such as is now the case. That is one of the reasons why the electors of the constituency of Roberval preferred putting their trust in a government supporter, knowing full well that his actions on their behalf would be more effective. Events have proven them right, and will certainly continue to do so. That is, after all, the important thing. I am not here to attack the government which my electors have given me a clear mandate to support. I am here to protect my constituents' interests and even those of the people of Chicoutimi, although, in order to do so, I will have to repudiate certain statements made by the member for that constituency (Mr. Gagnon). The member for Chicoutimi is an independent, and doubtless acts independently of the progress of his constituency if we are to go by certain of his diplomatic absences on the attendance of certain important delegations which have come here to make representations in connection with the Chibougamau-Lake St. John railway, more particularly that of March 1953, or again if we go by the fact that he had remained absolutely silent on this matter until such time as, desiring to show himself under his true colours, he rushed headlong into indiscriminate criticism. He has attempted to make a bugbear of the neighbouring province in order to make us forget his past inertia and biased arguments, now that he has made up his mind to wake up and concern himself with this all-important matter. Such attempts to take credit for something done by others is what we can really expect of these so-called independents.
My colleague from Lake St. John and myself have never stopped concerning ourselves with this vital matter of a railway connecting the mining district of Chibougamau to that of lake St. John. We have obtained from the government as well as from the Canadian National Railways sufficient guarantees to cause us to remain optimistic with regard to the ultimate implementation of this

project which is very close to our hearts and to those of our constituents, for a number of reasons.
Even though the amendment proposed to Bill 442, in the railway committee, by my colleague from Lake St. John and myself was defeated, we remain confident that the Chibougamau-St. Felicien stretch of railway will be built within a reasonable length of time and we would ask the Minister of Transport to continue his sympathetic support, even though some eleventh hour converts should continue their pessimistic pronouncements, thus showing how certain all-important considerations escape them in this connection.


Mr. Girard:: Mr. Chairman-


André Gauthier: Another disappointed man!


An hon. Member:: Another disappointing
man!


Fernand Girard: In spite of the wonderful
statements made by my hon. colleague from Roberval (Mr. Villeneuve), in spite of the other things which have been said, drawing the province of Quebec into the argument, I shall go on, as I did from the start, with the few words I have to say on the subject, without paying attention to the direct and indirect attacks coming from my good friend.
It would have been better for him to have been here when we debated the matter, because instead of criticizing his fellow members from our district, he would have realized that all we were asking was exactly the same thing he himself had requested.
Mr. Chairman, I now leave that matter to say a few words in support of the amendment moved by my colleague from Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon). I must say that I find in the statements of the Minister of Transport himself (Mr. Chevrier) very good reasons for building both sections now.
Did not the minister just say that the government has only one aim in undertaking to build railroads, that is to further the development of our natural resources? Therefore, relying on that one statement alone, I cannot understand why the government does not undertake to build both sections now, because judging from the opinions expressed by hon. members on both sides of the house, nobody doubts that the industrial development in the Saguenay district will be sufficient to justify the building of that section, and I think that nobody would deny, after what the minister just said, that, as far as we are concerned, the "development" of the natural resources of our district is at stake. Otherwise, if they keep on thinking only of financial guarantees,
Canadian National Railways it means that this government is interested only in finding new markets, new outlets, for the Canadian National Railways, and not primarily in the industrial "development" of a district. And as the minister surely does not intend to confine himself solely to a consideration of the dollars and cents that the Chibougamau-St. Felicien line will yield during its first year of operation, he must first of all consider what measure of development would be brought about in the Saguenay district. I feel there is no doubt as to that. This is the reason for my urging the government to support this amendment, so that both sections of the railway may be built now.
Mr. Chairman, during the discussion, reference was made to the provincial government, and that is when we were accused of playing politics. Mr. Chairman, the only intervention on the part of the provincial government in the region has been the building of a five million dollar road. It did not bother to ask whether the road would pay back immediately the amount required for its construction; if it had, the road would have never been built. The federal government must take the same attitude:	it should not consider
only the financial angle and the number of tons guaranteed by contract but should consider whether that railroad will further the development of the Saguenay region.
For that reason, nobody in the house can refuse to support my colleague's amendment, in which the minister is asked to build the two sections immediately.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: When the minister introduced the resolution preceding this bill, for once-and although it is not my habit to do so-I congratulated the minister and the government on their decision to build the Chibougamau railroad. However, at that time, we did not have the explanations given later to the effect that the section that the people of Quebec deem the most important, that is the Chibougamau-St. Felicien section will not be built immediately, but that work on it will be postponed indefinitely.
It is not my intention today to congratulate the government-


André Gauthier: You were very sorry you did so the other day.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: -because I now find that the government has changed its mind. I cannot understand why it is that when the resolution was introduced we were told that a railroad would be built to Chibougamau, while the bill mentions construction of only part of this railway, action on the other part is being put off indefinitely.
5066	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order may I remind the hon. member that if he had listened to the speech I delivered before he extended congratulations to the government on its attitude and decision to build this railway, he would have noted that I said then that we would start building the Beattyville-Chibougamau section before the St. Felicien section. The hon. member would, at that time, have extended his congratulations and his thanks to this government on its decision to build the western section before the eastern section.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The minister took good care not to tell us that the second part of the project would be undertaken only in ten years, or even more, from now. And, according to the second part of this bill, or at least according to section 1, it is possible that that part of the project may never be undertaken, and that is the whole problem, as the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Girard) has pointed out.
One must not always live in the hope of making money; the main thing is to be an optimist. And if the government of the province of Quebec had not anticipated that large mineral deposits could be mined in that area between St. Felicien and Chibougamau, it certainly would not have spent millions and millions on the development of that area.
I want to protest also against this bill because the government's stand on the matter will encourage the shipping of Quebec's natural resources to another part of Canada, and that will be detrimental to the population of that province. I find rather strange the stand taken by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Villeneuve) who, a moment ago, was rather optimistic and expressed such confidence in the government that he was even ready to give it a blank cheque. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am not ready to give such a blank cheque to the government, especially when it introduces a motion which says one thing and a bill which says practically the opposite. I say that the part of this line which, under the circumstances, looks to me to be the more important one is the section which runs from St. Felicien to Chibougamau, and, consequently, I shall vote for the amendment presented by the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon).


André Gauthier: Before the [DOT]question is put on this amendment, I would just like to point out, as I did in committee, that I propose to support the amendment. I have twice, in this house, asked that both sections be built simultaneously, and the proposed change being along these lines, I shall support it. I must say that, like my hon.


friend from Roberval (Mr. Villeneuve), we on this side of the house put our trust in the government, and that the people of Quebec province share this confidence.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: We shall know at the next election.


André Gauthier: As I said, that is why we need not worry about the next election, and we trust that the Saguenay district will also put its confidence in the government, because, by then, we will have our railway. If it is not then completed, it should at least be well on its way.


Georges Villeneuve: Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention that I feel the same way as my hon. friend from Lake St. John with regard to the government, and that I shall also vote for the amendment. I want to tell the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne) that neither he, nor our friends opposite are going to build this railway; it is going to be built by the government through the Canadian National.
I am convinced that will be done soon and that is why I have shown much optimism and have thanked once more the minister for the consideration he has shown and still shows for the population of my riding of Roberval.
(Text):


William Alfred Robinson: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Gagnon) negatived: Yeas, 23; nays, 62.


William Alfred Robinson: I declare the amendment lost.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Issue of securities.


Howard Charles Green: The committee passed an
amendment to clause 4. I wonder if we could have that.


Lionel Chevrier: I was under the impression that the chairman had referred to it earlier. My hon. friend is quite right. Both clause 4 and clause 5 are amended by striking out the words "forty-four million five hundred and sixty-two thousand five hundred dollars", and substituting the words "thirty-eight million seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars" so as to make the bill conform with the resolution passed earlier in the house, and which authorized the expenditure of an amount estimated at $38,750,000.

Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 5 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Howard Charles Green: Next sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting.



PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACT


Hon. W. E. Harris (for ihe Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act to provide for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of death benefits up to a maximum of five thousand dollars for the spouse, or the estate
(a)	of a public servant.
(b)	of a member of the regular forces, or in certain circumstances,
(c)	of a former public servant, or
(d)	of a former member of the regular forces, where the public servant, member of the regular forces, former public servant or former member of the regular forces has paid contributions into the consolidated revenue fund.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the parliamentary assistant going to give an explanation of this resolution?


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: The
bill to be founded on this resolution will provide a scheme of contributory death benefits which will supplement the other benefits already provided in the Public Service Superannuation Act. In the case of members of the regular armed forces, it will provide similar death benefits to supplement the other benefits provided under the Defence Services Pension Act. The benefit will be payable in the form of a lump sum to the spouse of the contributor or, if there is no surviving spouse, to the estate of the deceased. It is designed to provide funds immediately to cover the inevitable expenses arising out of or consequential upon the last illness and death of the contributor.
As the resolution indicates, it will be possible for a participant in this plan to elect to participate after retirement, provided that he regularly makes the required contributions.
I do not think that I need say more about the details of the proposed bill at this stage. Because of its nature the Minister of Finance thinks that the most effective way to deal
Public Service Superannuation Act with the details of the bill will be to refer it to the banking and commerce committee for study and report after second reading, and he proposes to make that motion at the proper time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am sure we
appreciate the proposal that after second reading this bill will be referred to the committee on banking and commerce. I believe the committee will generally approve of that way of dealing with this legislation. The fact that it will go straight from second reading to the committee on banking and commerce means that this is the only opportunity, before it goes before that committee, for questions to be asked and answered here on the floor of the house.
I realize that we sometimes have a little difficulty getting all the information we should like at this stage as to the details of a bill to be introduced after the resolution has been passed, but it does seem to me that the nature of this proposal is such that there are one or two questions which the parliamentary assistant might answer more specifically. I note that the resolution does give one figure, namely, $5,000, as the maximum amount of a death benefit which is available under this legislation. Can he indicate what formula the government has in mind on the basis of which that $5,000 maximum is reached or on the basis of which any lesser amount is the maximum in the case of other participants? Can he also indicate what the contribution, or the premium payable under this legislation, is to be? It seems quite clear from the resolution that the legislation envisages the making of payments into a fund by civil servants or by members of the regular forces, receiving in turn the protection or the benefit of a payment at death either to the spouse of the participant or to the estate.
Our views on the matter might of course be affected by the amounts to be paid in and the corresponding benefits to be received, but generally speaking this proposal looks good to us. I find myself in the position where I have to say almost exactly the same thing I said yesterday with respect to another matter which the same parliamentary assistant was piloting through the house. To the extent that this is good for civil servants we think it is good for Canadians generally. It looks to me that what is being provided is a form of life insurance, term insurance, and very good protection too. Although the figures are not in the bill as to what it will cost, my guess is that it would be much less costly, indeed considerably less costly, than would be the case if the same kind of insurance were purchased from private insurance companies. I can well remember the hue and cry that has been raised in the

Public Service Superannuation Act newspapers and in some quarters in the country when on occasion we have suggested there might be room for improvement in the field of life insurance if it were handled on a government basis rather than on a private basis. But here it is. It is for a select group; it is just for civil servants; but if I read this resolution aright, it is a form of socialized life insurance. It is restricted to one form of life insurance, namely, term policies, which incidentally life insurance companies do not peddle very zealously. But to that extent I suggest it is all to the good, and I hope the parliamentary assistant will answer some of these questions now, bearing in mind the fact that we will not have a chance to ask questions when we are on second reading, and after that the bill will go to the committee.
I should also be glad if the parliamentary assistant would elaborate on his statement as to the possibility of civil servants who are now retired coming under this plan. If they do elect to come under it, what amounts will they have to pay in order to get the benefits? May I ask also whether the benefit provided under this arrangement, or under this term insurance policy, is a fixed benefit, or does it go up or down with the passage of time or with the advance in years of the participant? A colleague of mine suggests that I use the words "the insured". The point is well taken. The resolution refers to these people as participants, but in point of fact they are being insured under this government scheme. I should like to reserve final comment until we have all the details, but on the basis of such details as I can get from this resolution, it looks very good. My hope is that a plan of this nature, good as it is, will before long be available not only to civil servants but to all the citizens of Canada at the same relatively low cost at which I am satisfied the government is in a position to make this insurance available.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Would the parliamentary assistant prefer to have me defer my questions until he has answered the previous questions.


William Moore Benidickson: Go ahead.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then I shall ask my questions now. I listened with interest to the inferences that have been drawn by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, which I have no doubt he has been glad to draw and which the rest of us will have to ponder.
Is this compulsory? When I say "compulsory" I mean for everybody. For instance, does it apply to bachelors and others who may need no death allowances? Secondly,


has there been any contact with representatives of the service forces and of the civil servants to see what their attitude is? One has heard of instances here and there of people who did not like the compulsory feature. Would there be anything in the operation of the act, in so far as the superannuation or the pension benefits are concerned, which would indicate that there was any substantial measure of opposition or discontent in that the measure would also be compulsory? These are the questions I should like to ask, and in particular I should like to know whether any means has been taken to sound out the views of the proposed beneficiaries.


Mr. Pearkes:: Mr. Chairman, there are one or two questions I would like to ask in connection with this resolution. I presume it is of a compulsory nature for all members of the civil service and the armed forces and for that reason I have certain qualms as to whether it is highly desirable that we should compel members of the civil service and the armed forces to take out this kind of insurance.
There are large numbers of persons in the civil service and armed forces who have for years contributed to various life insurance schemes and have provided themselves with such security as they feel necessary or desirable for the safeguarding of their families after death. Are they now to be compelled to take out another $5,000 worth of life insurance which may place considerable hardship upon them, and hardship particularly in the case of a widow? For this additional $5,000 would be subject to succession duties if the estate was such that the succession duties had to be paid.
Then, will it also apply to the female members of the civil service and the armed forces? Many of these young ladies who are in the civil service and in the armed forces would I think prefer to take out an annuity rather than life insurance. They regard the responsibility of providing for their families, should they marry, as the responsibility of their future husbands, whereas if they are single and intend to remain so then they would much rather have security in their old age in the form of an annuity rather than life insurance.
Is there any means in this scheme by which the life insurance could be commuted in old age and used to look after their needs after they have retired from the service and have reached old age?
Now, regarding the paragraph dealing with former public servants and members of the armed forces, does that refer to personnel who have already retired, or only to such personnel as those who will not have

completed their payments up to the maximum of $5,000 and then will be able to make contributions after they have retired? Also, is there any intention of extending this scheme to crown corporations, and does this scheme also include members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, several questions have been raised and probably I should deal with them in the order presented. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised the question of the amounts and the reason for selecting these amounts. The maximum is set out in the resolution and it will be $5,000, but it will be $5,000 or a year's salary, whichever is the lesser amount. That is the manner in which the figure has been arrived at. It is proposed that all people who are contributors under the Civil Service Superannuation Act will be contributors under this scheme, and the reason for that is that when everyone is in a group scheme the rate is much lower.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


William Moore Benidickson: The rate proposed will be 40 cents per month per thousand which, as hon. members will recognize, is a pretty low rate of insurance.
Questions in regard to the compulsory feature of the scheme were raised by the hon. member for Greenwood and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, and one of them raised the point of a bachelor not desiring to take out insurance payable on his death and probably not having any close relative to whom he wished the benefits to pass. However, as I indicated in my statement, this is not intended to create an estate. It is primarily intended to take care of the expenses which normally are connected with death, and particularly if death is preceded by an illness. That, of course, would apply to the single person in the same manner as to the married person.
Then, the cost is much lower if everyone in the group participates, because hon. members will recognize that the group will then include the old and the young, the healthy and those who have not good health.
In the case of the bachelor, he might while a bachelor decline to take insurance but then in a few years he may change his status and be very glad to come into the scheme. If that was left optional hon. members can see the kind of difficulties which would arise by allowing such people to remain outside the scheme. It would not be fair to the original participant to allow these people who have had second thoughts to come in probably at
Public Service Superannuation Act a time when it was strictly to their advantage and when they would lessen the advantage to those who were in the scheme from the very beginning.
The reference I made to the possibility of continuing to participate was not necessarily applicable to a civil servant after retirement. A provision would be made to allow persons who had participated over a certain number of years in the scheme to continue with their payments even if they were leaving for other employment. Similarly, it is expected that where the crown corporations have a desire to allow their staffs to participate, arrangements will be made to provide for that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the parliamentary
assistant leaves that point, do I understand from what he has just said that any former civil servant now retired on superannuation would not have the opportunity to elect for this scheme?


William Moore Benidickson: No, there is no opportunity for someone who has retired. Then, I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre overlooked the point that we already have under the Civil Service Insurance Act an optional insurance scheme, though only a portion of the members of the civil service have taken advantage of that act. From now on, there will no longer be an opportunity to take out insurance under that scheme, and it is expected that this scheme will take the place of the other one.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: May I ask
the parliamentary assistant whether the government will contribute in the same way as those who are members of the scheme? In other words, will the government be contributing 40 cents per month per thousand?


William Moore Benidickson: The intention is that the government contribution will be made at the time when the benefit is payable, and they will pay a portion of the benefit. Under, I think, the Civil Service Act, there is a provision whereby, in respect of employees who have had more than two years of service, a gratuity of two months' salary is paid if they die while in the service. The group insurance, of course, will provide a death benefit amounting to a full year's salary, but it will be in substitution of this gratuity which has hitherto been payable by the government.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: In other
words, the government will be contributing only on death?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes; and of course the government will carry the cost of administration through the insurance department.
5070	HOUSE OF
Public Service Superannuation Act


George Randolph Pearkes: Could I get an answer to the other questions I asked? I asked if there was any form by which there could be a transfer to an annuity. I presume not from what the parliamentary assistant has said-


William Moore Benidickson: No.


George Randolph Pearkes: -and it will only be paid on death, although they are to take care of the terminal illness. Is that correct?


William Moore Benidickson: No. I said that it is frequently the case that there are illness expenses preceding the death of the insured. The amount of insurance that is provided under this legislation is not particularly large and it is considered that on average it will just be sufficient to pay the expenses of that illness, of the funeral and so forth.


George Randolph Pearkes: Are the Royal Canadian Mounted Police included in this scheme?


William Moore Benidickson: I have not that specific information.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope the parliamentary assistant is aware of the very excellent statement on an extremely important principle that he has made this afternoon in presenting this measure. He has pointed out that the value and the secret of social insurance is universal coverage of whatever group one is trying to insure. I can see one hon. member sitting not far from him over on the other side who is enjoying it immensely and I am glad to see him applauding now.


Mr. McCann:: The hon. member is now looking for commitments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have had a commitment from the parliamentary assistant. We have had a recognition of the principle that you can do far more-


James Joseph McCann: Within limitations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -for members of a group when they are all in than when you try to do it on an individual basis. I am sure the hon. member for Spadina agrees with me even if the Minister of National Revenue wants to make a certain reservation. However, there are one or two more questions I should like to put to the parliamentary assistant. First may I pursue the question that my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North put to the parliamentary assistant a moment ago? Has any estimate been made as to what portion, we will say, of the maximum death benefit of $5,000, when it is paid at the death of a civil servant, is covered by the premium payments and what portion is covered gratuitously by the government?


William Moore Benidickson: It is expected that the government contribution to the death benefit will be about one-sixth of the amount payable on death.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, Mr. Chairman, these premiums which are fairly low cover about five-sixths of the cost. I applaud it too, as does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. These premiums which are quite low cover about five-sixths of the cost of this term insurance. We have now been given-


William Moore Benidickson: Plus the government
assuming all the cost of administration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right. What do you want to add for that? Another sixth? No; not that much. In any case, we have now been given the rate, namely 40 cents per thousand per month. The maximum amount is $5,000. That works out at $2 a month or $24 a year for protection in the amount of $5,000. We are now told that that figure covers something approaching five-sixths of the cost. This means that this is a provision which enables civil servants to get term insurance protection at the rate of somewhere around $6 a thousand. You cannot get that from any private insurance company. In other words, Mr. Chairman-


John George Diefenbaker: You cannot get it in Saskatchewan either.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -we are having here a good example of what can be done on an over-all basis by using the insurance principle. We are glad that this step is being taken. As I said a moment ago, we hope the day will come when protection of this kind will be available not just to civil servants but to all the citizens of Canada. We hope that the excellent statement of principle on social insurance that has been given this afternoon will be extended into certain other extremely important and necessary fields. I am glad to see that my hope in this respect is greeted with such pleasant approval by hon. members opposite, both in and out of the cabinet.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am sure we are all
delighted to see the pleasure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is getting from greeting his brother socialists across the gangway. I do not think we should try to deny him any of it at all. I do not think the parliamentary assistant answered my question as to whether any attempt had been made to sound out any representative body.


William Moore Benidickson: I overlooked that question. On a confidential basis the government indicated to the national joint council

of public servants of Canada its proposals in this respect. The council itself had been suggesting that the old insurance scheme should be improved upon. The government also knew, from its own point of view, that the act required some revision from the point of view of present interest rates and the like. As a result, this step was proposed. Representatives of the civil service groups will be invited to come before the banking and commerce committee to express their views.


George Randolph Pearkes: Has any attempt been made to find out whether the armed services would like to participate in this scheme?


William Moore Benidickson: They have not a direct organization. I think that is the situation there.


George Randolph Pearkes: They were told to come in.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I of course support this legislation but I am rather intrigued by some figures which the parliamentary assistant has given us. I should like to know if I have them correctly. A person in the fund will pay 40 cents a month, which is $4.80 per year and the government will then pay one-sixth of that amount, which will bring the contribution per thousand up to $5.60. In other words, the government is in effect gambling $5.60 against $1,000 that so-and-so will not die. What is the mortality rate in the country at the moment? Is the mortality rate not running about nine per thousand? If so, would the gamble, on an actuarial basis, not be $9 per thousand? I merely ask, not in opposition to this legislation but in order to find out whether the parliamentary assistant is really accurate in his statement that the government's share will be only one-sixth?


William Moore Benidickson: I indicated that the government intended to pay one-sixth of the capital amount paid out at the time of death. In so far as the mortality rate, the costs of administration, the experience of the insurance department in the past under the old act and all those things are concerned, I suggest that they are more properly matters that could be delved into when the committee has the bill referred to it.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Thatcher:: I should like to ask one question of the parliamentary assistant. I wonder if he could tell the committee what the annual figure is likely to be that the taxpayer will have to bear if this legislation is passed? Has no estimate been made by the treasury board?
Public Service Superannuation Act


William Moore Benidickson: An estimate probably has been made. I do not happen to have that information with me. As I say, it could be available to the committee.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I think it is not an unfair question. I should like the parliamentary assistant to give that figure, if he would, before the bill comes down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the position of the civil servant after he discontinues or after he is retired but is still alive? Does he continue to make payments or not? Does any change take place in the value of his death benefit after he has retired?


William Moore Benidickson: If he does not continue his payments-it is term insurance-then he does not keep rights under the provisions of the act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The parliamentary assistant says it is term insurance. When does it end?


William Moore Benidickson: It would end upon death during the service or if payments under the provisions of the act are discontinued.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Harris (for Mr. Abbott) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 463, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE ACT


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to provide for the appointment of more than one deputy commissioner and also to provide for the granting of pensions to certain officers and men not at present eligible.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Mr. Fulion:: I notice that the bill to be based on the resolution deals with the appointment of a deputy commissioner and the matter of the granting of pensions to certain officers and men of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police not at present eligible.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act As I know there are a number of what are regarded as anomalies in the present pension situation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, I think it would be appreciated if the minister would give us a general outline of the scheme of overhaul which is contemplated because that might obviate unnecessary discussion.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the appointment of the deputy commissioner, the position is that part I of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act provides that the governor in council may by commission appoint a deputy commissioner. This position was established on the first of April, 1932 and since that time, as is obvious to all of us, the responsibilities and the strength of the force have increased greatly. The senior assistant commissioner, under the authority of an order in council dated March 26, 1953, now receives the same rate of pay as that authorized for the deputy commissioner and is performing duties of equal responsibility. We consider that it is desirable to regularize this situation by providing in the establishment for two deputy commissioners and by cancelling the establishment and salary provision of the senior assistant commissioner. There are therefore, as is obvious, no financial implications involved.
With regard to the proposed pension provisions, there are, as hon. members are aware, two separate pension provisions for the force. One is outlined and referred to in parts II and III of the act and represents the original non-contributory pension for which until March 1949 all members of the force had been eligible. Under these parts II and III non-contributory pension members who have completed over ten years service and who have been discharged for inefficiency or misconduct are automatically entitled upon discharge to a pension of one-half of the disability pension ordinarily available to them on retirement until the age of 65, and then two-thirds of such disability pension after that age. In addition, authority is given to increase that amount, if, according to the circumstances of such inefficiency or misconduct, that seems to be desirable, to two-thirds of such disability pension until 65 and the full pension after the age of 65.
In 1949 a new contributory pension scheme was inaugurated in the force which was to be available for all new members of the force who came on strength after that date and to those old members who wished to join the contributory pension fund. It provided a number of additional features such as an allowance to the widow and children of the member, and other features of that sort which


were not formerly available under the noncontributory pension scheme. But in the new contributory pension scheme there was no provision for a pension in the event of the member of the force in this scheme being discharged for inefficiency or misconduct.
Upon further consideration we now think that the position of the pensioner under the two schemes should be equalized in that respect. That is the purpose of the bill to be introduced by the resolution.


John George Diefenbaker: How many have been discharged for inefficiency or misconduct since 1949?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Seven.


George Randolph Pearkes: At the convention of the Canadian Legion in Montreal in 1952 recommendations were made that those members of the force who had served in armed forces during the war other than armed forces raised in Canada should be permitted to count their time towards their pension. I believe that under the old act members of the force who had served with the imperial forces were permitted to count their time in such service towards their pension from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. But when part V was introduced it was limited to those who had served on active service in the naval, military and air forces of His Majesty's forces raised in Canada. That excluded those members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who had served in the imperial forces.
I very much appreciate the traditional Canadian character of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but ever since the force was formed there has always been a percentage of the men who have seen service in forces of the crown other than those actually raised in Canada. I was wondering whether any provision had been made in these amendments to allow these men with overseas service with forces other than actual Canadian forces in the wars in which Canada has taken part to count that time towards their police pension.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. The present projected act does not contemplate any amendments other than those which I have mentioned.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: Will the amendment give the men who were discharged the same privileges and rights as men who retire on account of sickness?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. They are, I think, under a proper disability by reason of their misconduct, but it does not seem fair that a man who has served for quite a period of time and who commits some serious item of misconduct, perhaps of a momentary character but which means that he cannot be kept in

the force, should be penalized in respect of his whole accumulated pension. This provision is to meet a case of that kind.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of that statement, is it intended that the amendment shall apply to the seven discharged recently? I know that usually retroactive legislation is not to be encouraged, but if it is now ascertained, as the minister says, that it is unfair there should be that discrimination as it were between the two classes, is there any reason why under those circumstances, and after second thought, the provisions of the amendments that will be introduced in consequence of this resolution should not be placed in a position where they would be effectual since 1949.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, there is no such reason. My hon. friend from Prince Albert is quite right, and we propose to secure authority by this proposed legislation to consider the cases of these seven discharged members.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Garson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 464, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



RESEARCH COUNCIL ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) for the second reading of Bill No. 375, to amend the Research Council Act.
Mr. Speaker:: As the house will recall, there was an amendment moved by the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) when we adjourned the debate, and at the request of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) the amendment was allowed to stand so that argument could be presented in favour of the amendment. Hon. members will recall that I had declared the amendment out of order because under our rules 48 hours' notice of the appointment of a special committee must be given in Votes and Proceedings. Unless there are arguments that can be presented now I shall have to maintain the ruling that I made on the earlier occasion and declare the amendment out of order.
I have already declared it out of order, and unless cogent arguments are presented which may compel me to change my mind- for the comfort of hon. members I might say that during the time at my disposal I have looked into the authorities in order to 83276-321
Research Council Act
reassure myself I was on sound ground-I might say now that I think no matter what argument might be presented, I would still declare the amendment out of order. We might as well leave it at that, and say the amendment is out of order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I find it almost impossible not to accept your warm invitation, but under the circumstances there probably would not be much point to it.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) will agree with me that before I made this last pronouncement I had patiently waited for some sign from him that he was going to rise and argue the point.


Frederick George Hahn: When the debate was adjourned on May 11, I was discussing the need for keeping our young men and women scientists in Canada, particularly for research purposes. The minister had this to say about that, as recorded on page 4624 of Hansard for that date:
I should like also to emphasize that research is not a static thing. It is continually changing to meet changing conditions and also, like an organism, must grow from small beginnings. The development of research is not merely a matter of money. Money will not buy trained men if they are not available, so that in looking at and assessing the growth and development of research in any country, one must always keep in mind that it is a changing picture and that it is often impossible to provide at any moment everything that may be desirable.
I would have you note there, Mr. Speaker, that the minister did say money will not buy trained men. What happened to the men that we did have in this country who were trained at the various wonderful universities we have in Canada? Most of them I dare say-I should not say most of them-have gone south of the border. They find it is more lucrative to enter the scientific field there, especially the field of research. I have spoken to a number of them from time to time, and their contention is that our economic standard is of equal value to that of the United States, and therefore they feel that they should be paid as well as their United States counterparts.
I have no doubt but that the minister feels, and rightfully so, that we are doing everything we can to encourage those individuals to stay here. Now that he has pointedly indicated we are entering the research field on a grandiose scale, we might say, we should invite these young men and women to return. In many instances they have not accepted United States citizenship, and have intimated that they wish to return. Possibly a gesture from our government might lure

British North America Act them back so that we would have them available for research purposes. I would heartily endorse what the research council subscribes to, namely that no brilliant young student should be prevented from receiving training because of lack of scholarships or grants.
In so far as grants are concerned, as a young nation we probably are giving as much as we feel we can afford, but I think that the more money we spend on research, the more results we will have and the greater the number of industries that will be set up. This fact has been illustrated by the minister himself. We would be, therefore, getting our dollar's worth, in some instances multiplied many times. My main concern in this regard, of course, is how do our grants compare with the grants and bursaries given by United States universities? What happens to the trained research worker after he has received his education here? What special privileges are we prepared to give to trained personnel who indicate their desire to come to Canada? Anyone who has taken a trip to the United States in recent years, I am sure will have discovered there is an increase in the number of requests for information about the vast mineral fields in British Columbia that have been opened up, the oil fields in Alberta and the mining interests in Ontario and Quebec. We could use many of these personnel if they would agree to come to Canada for research purposes.
It is now five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Since it is five o'clock, the house will proceed to the consideration of public and private bills.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles for the second reading of Bill No. 81, an act to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1952, with respect to the quorum of the House of Commons.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member speaks now he will close the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall be very brief in closing the debate on the second reading of Bill 81, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1952, with respect to the quorum of the House of Commons. As hon. members are aware, the purpose of this bill is to increase the quorum of the House of Commons.
At the present time, according to section 48 of the British North America Act, the


minimum attendance for the house to transact business is fixed at 20 members. As I have pointed out on previous occasions, there has been no change in that figure since 1867. Since that time, however, there has been a fairly substantial increase in the membership of the house. Originally the membership was 181, whereas our present membership is 265. For my part I feel the quorum should be a much larger figure than that proposed in my bill. However one realizes the difficulty of having changes made, particularly when he is dealing with the British North America Act. Therefore my bill proposes simply that we maintain the same proportion that was established when the quorum was fixed in 1867 at 20 members.
Incidentally, as I pointed out previously, the figure of 20 members was carried forward from the figure which served as the quorum in the legislative assembly of the Province of Canada previous to 1867, when the total of members representing the two parts, Upper and Lower Canada, was considerably fewer. It does seem to me that to maintain that proportion and thereby to increase the quorum to 30 members is the least that we should be doing.
Various arguments have been advanced as to why this should not be done, the chief argument being that there are many committees members have to attend. But I press the point that at no time are there enough committees sitting-in fact there are not either rooms in the building or reporters sufficient to make it possible-to take away enough members to make a quorum of 30 members, or even a much larger number, impossible to attain.
It has been said to me in recent days, on occasions when at one time or another attendance in the house has fallen rather low, that if my bill were to pass it would be that much more difficult to keep the house working. It has been said that it would be more difficult to keep 30 members here than to keep 20. Well, if at times the attendance in the house falls within reach of the minimum fixed by law, that is all the more reason why the minimum should be a little higher than it is at the present time, so that we might have a better attendance at all times.
People outside cannot understand why the quorum is set so low. Some have questioned my bill on the ground that it does not fix a high enough figure. As I have said, I think it should be considerably higher; but surely this is the least that we should approve, namely the maintenance of the same proportion as was established in 1867.
This then is the purpose of my bill. If it were to pass the house and receive approval

in the other place and the assent of His Excellency the Governor General, by virtue thereof the British North America Act would be amended. No further steps would be necessary. This is in consequence of the amendment to that act we obtained in the fall of 1949, as a result of which we now have the right to amend the British North America Act, the constitution of Canada, with respect to matters exclusively federal, by a bill put through the parliament of Canada.
It is in the exercise of that right that this bill is presented, and I believe it would meet with approval outside the house if we were to take this step to increase the minimum attendance required in the house. Therefore, I urge hon. members to adopt the bill, which might now be put to a vote.


Mr. Goode:: Because of the illness of the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie) I did not vote.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles for the second reading of Bill No. 4, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (voluntary revocable check-off).
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Industrial Relations


Mr. Elmore Philpoit (Vancouver South):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words in support of the principle of the check-off. It seems to me that in provinces where the principle of the check-off has been applied the ground of difference between employers and employees has been very much narrowed, and that is a condition which should be favoured by anyone in Canada who believes in supporting the best interests of our country.
I am well aware, of course, that there are conditions which do not make this bill as potentially effective in the federal field as would a similar principle applied in the provincial field. But I wish to make it clear that our experience in British Columbia is that since we have had the principle of the check-off available on the basis of a majority vote in any given industry then the relations in key industries such as that at Trail and in other great industrial centres of British Columbia have been greatly improved, and the really marked improvement there has been in the relationships between employer and employee in British Columbia in the past 10 years or so is due to the fact that an enlightened Liberal minister of labour did make certain great improvements in industrial relations. The check-off was one of these reforms which the Liberal minister of labour enacted and I therefore wish to make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that I am in favour of the check-off and believe it deserves consideration by this house.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am very happy indeed to hear the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) expressing himself along the lines on which he has just spoken, and speaking as an hon. member from the province of British Columbia I must say that my own experience in connection with the introduction of this check-off principle confirms what the hon. member has said.
He mentioned that improved industrial relations had resulted in such industrial centres as the city of Trail. Certainly I know that in the coastal areas, where the principle of the check-off has been accepted in the great British Columbia lumber industry, it has certainly served in my opinion to narrow the areas of difference which exist from time to time between employers and employees.
I must confess though that the remarks of the hon. member struck me as being much more in line with the best traditions of Liberalism than have some of the remarks I have heard coming from that side of the house in recent months. Hon. members will no doubt recall that the debate on this particular bill has progressed at a rather

leisurely pace, which may be just as well because it has perhaps allowed some of us who are convinced of the sanity of this measure to cool off a little before making a reply to some of the remarks which have been made. I have before me a record of Hansard containing a speech made by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley) in which she refers to this bill as "such compulsory legislation as is here proposed." It seems to me that one has only to take that phrase from that particular speech to demonstrate how absurd that contention is.
I would like to add that the remarks I have heard on this bill in the previous discussions seemed to me to be echoing the arguments I heard a number of years ago almost ad nauseam from some of the employing interests who were opposed to the introduction of this principle, and which were based upon the supposition that the working people of this country know nothing about maintaining democracy and are less able to look after their own affairs than the rest of the citizens of this country.
I maintain this is an utterly false assumption. Some of the arguments which have been advanced from that side of the house reminded me, in their reference to certain leaders of the trade union movement, of nothing so much as a Tory attempting to describe the actions of the present Canadian cabinet, and while I might admit that people who become somewhat accustomed to power and responsibility may have a tendency at times to abuse that power, I would submit that that is certainly no more true of the leadership of the trade union movement than it is of the government of Canada. Anyone who keeps these things in perspective and who has a proper sense of proportion in connection with them realizes how absurd those arguments are.
This is an extremely simple arrangement that is suggested. Far from being a proposal for compulsory legislation, it is simply a proposal for permissive legislation. It only means that if a group of workers have decided amongst themselves that they wish to adopt this system, the law says that they shall have the right to do it without having to fight an economic battle with their employer in order to achieve it. That is one of the ways in which the agencies of the various levels of government in this country can help to reduce the area of conflict that exists between the various groupings in our society.
I suggest that it is something that we have in many fields within the provinces today and certainly the experience we have had there has been good, in my opinion. Even the new labour act which was introduced

recently by the present government of British Columbia-much as I disagree with many of the sections in it-did not seek to eliminate this particular type of provision. I suggest that there certainly can be no harm in this parliament's setting an example to the people in all parts of the country with regard to allowing this form of democratic right to the workers of Canada.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a word or two with regard to this measure.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member has already spoken.


Charles Edward Johnston: Of course Mr. Speaker does not know that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have before me a list of the speakers in this debate. I understand that the hon. member spoke previously.


Charles Edward Johnston: We are in agreement with the proposal, in any event, Mr. Speaker.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise for only one moment in order to point out that, owing to his having to attend upon public business elsewhere, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) was not able to be present today. However, his views on this bill were given to the house immediately after the sponsor of it spoke on February 23. In his remarks he made it clear that this was one of the many matters which were being studied by his officials, the department generally and himself, with a view to the introduction of possible amendments to the act. In the course of his remarks he asked that further time should be given for the purpose of making those studies and of bringing amendments to the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I remind hon. members that if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre speaks now, he will close the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief in order that the house might come to a decision on this matter before the conclusion of this hour devoted to private and public bills. I am glad that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) made it clear that the absence of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) today is due to a previous engagement. He knew that this bill might be proceeded with today but was satisfied that it might be dealt with in his absence. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has, I think, stated his position with regard to it.
Industrial Relations
May I just remind the house that this is a matter which has been before parliament on a number of occasions. It may seem a bit tedious for me to tell this part of the story again, but I feel that I must remind the members of the house that as long ago as 1948, when the present Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act was first drafted and placed upon our statute books, when that legislation was going through parliament there was one stage at which it had in it the very principle, the very wording, that is contained in the bill that is now before the house. That principle, namely the voluntary revocable check-off, was written into the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act in the committee on industrial relations, on the motion of the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). Despite the fact that the voluntary revocable check-off was written into the bill when it was in the committee on industrial relations, when the bill came back into the house an amendment was moved by another Liberal member to strike out that provision. On a division, the provision was lost in the committee of the whole house. Since that time this identical bill has been before the house a number of times. The votes have varied. The last time that the matter came to a vote was in 1951 when some 67 votes were cast in favour of it, including 17 on the Liberal side of the house, and all those on the opposition side who were present at the time. That was the largest number we have yet obtained by way of a vote in favour of this bill. I hope that today it might be larger, and that one of these days we may win the acceptance of this principle.
May I remind hon. members of the house again that what we are asking in this bill is not a compulsory measure. Rather we are asking for the very minimum of union security, namely the voluntary revocable checkoff. The provision would be that in any case where a union is recognized as the bargaining unit for a group of employees, it would be the right of any employee in that union to request in writing that his dues to the union be deducted at the source and be paid over to the union by his employer. It would be the further right of such employee to revoke that request at any time. In other words, Mr. Speaker, as others have pointed out-indeed others on both sides of the house-this is the minimum form of union security that can be written into any labour legislation. It seems to me that the least this parliament should do is to accent this minimum form of union security and make it the law for those who come under federal labour jurisdiction.
I remind hon. members that in a number of the provinces of this country there is in



S078 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Industrial Relations
existence legislation like or similar to that which is proposed here. I also remind hon. members that in 1953 when this bill was before parliament there was made an amendment that it be not read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the committee on industrial relations. That committee considered the subject matter carefully and in its report indicated its endorsation of the principle. That was the position taken by that committee, with the additional recommendation that the matter be studied by the government in its review and proposed revision of the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. That stand taken by the committee was confirmed by the house when the committee's report was made to the House Of Commons. That then is the last position taken by parliament, namely endorsation of the principle of the voluntary revocable check-off and a recommendation that the matter be considered by the government.
I suppose the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration feels that it is a case of carrying out that recommendation for this consideration to go on. But some of us-including labour generally-feel that there comes a time when action is required rather than just the promise of still further consideration. When this matter was before the house several months ago I was ready to agree to the request of the Minister of Labour that it stand over for still further consideration to be given to it. That was in addition to the consideration given from the time the report was made to parliament in the last session- over a year ago-through the period between sessions and through the time of the election. In addition to all of that, we have given this additional time since this bill was introduced on December 11, and I think the time has come for the house to decide on the principle itself. In my view this house should now support the principle of the voluntary revocable check-off of trade union dues by voting for this bill.
Mr. Speaker:: The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will resume consideration at eight o'clock of the business interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) for the second reading of Bill No. 375, to amend the Research Council Act.
Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with this third instalment of my speech I have only a few more observations to make along the lines I had followed earlier, when I had made reference to getting our young scientists and students back from the United States and other foreign lands to reinterest them in the research work we propose to carry on in this country.
The cost of living is about the same in the United States as in Canada. Wages paid to our industrial workers are about the same, and certainly neither the government nor anyone connected with it should claim we cannot afford to pay these scientists the same amount for the research work we expect them to do as they are being paid by similar organizations in the United States. I would go so far as to say that it seems quite likely at this time that the United States might attribute its success to the fine work its research scientists have done in the last several years; and if one were to check into the persons who are probably responsible for that in all likelihood he would find that a good many of our young Canadian men and women have been responsible to a great extent for that success.
I should like now to leave that field of discussion and turn to one or two statements made by the minister with respect to expenditures made in 1938 and 1939. Industry in the United States spent three or four times the amount spent by the United States government on research. From a standpoint of comparison, the Canadian government spent twice as much as was spent by industry in this country for that purpose. This is a very commendable fact, and those in Canada who are responsible for it should feel quite proud that our government saw fit to spend that much on research, as compared with the amount spent by industry.
Research Council Act
One fact should be kept in mind, however, and that is that a good many of the industries to which reference was made, including such companies as Northern Electric and Westinghouse, have their main offices in the United States. Probably they did not feel they were justified in setting up huge research laboratories in Canada when they could use the knowledge they gained from their Canadian scientists in the United States and pass that knowledge on to their Canadian counterparts.
When one turns to the problem facing the research council today he must see at once the tremendous field offered by the coal industry. I do not wish to spend much time discussing this subject, because all hon. members are aware of the necessity of trying to get our coal industry back on a sound financial basis. It is a fact that not so many years ago we were proud of the fact and, indeed, announced it to the world, that in Canada we had one-seventh of the world's total coal resources. That fact gave us considerable comfort. What should have proved to be one of the greatest assets has, in the hands of this government, turned out to be one of its biggest headaches.
Possibly one of the reasons for this is that we have not done sufficient work in our research laboratories in connection with the utilization of coal. It may be urged that other countries have not spent enough time in discovering a complete utilization of coal, and that their industry has lagged, as well. However, when in trying to excuse ourselves we accuse somebody else we do not give ourselves any legitimate reason for our action. I would ask the research council, through its laboratories, to find more uses for coal so that we may utilize our supply to the fullest extent.
In my correspondence with the research council I have noticed that there is a reasonable amount of co-ordination between laboratories under government jurisdiction and research facilities set up by industry. This is to be commended, and as a result excellent work is being done. I sometimes wonder however whether we have not gone too far in accepting the statements of research laboratories. My view is that we should have a closer check-up to see whether those laboratories are telling the truth. I think more particularly of some of the highly advertised soap products offered for sale in Canada today. We hear of one soap advertised as being 99-44/100 per cent pure, and apparently the claim is made because this soap floats. This does not mean that it is particularly pure; yet the manufacturer is

Research Council Act
permitted to advertise this product as being pure, and the reason given for its purity is that it floats.
Then we have other claims such as, "It makes clothes whiter"; and another soap that "Duz everything". And so on, down through the list. I come to a comparatively new product in connection with a certain type of clothing advertised in Ottawa. I have reference to dacron, which is another form of nylon, and also to orlon. We have several different types of materials made of these synthetic substances; but there is no guarantee as to what value there is in these products. There is a good deal of indiscriminate advertising with respect to them. Our research council has not indicated whether these are or are not good products.
I gather the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) wishes to ask a question.


Mr. Byrne:: No; I was just saying that people voted for Social Credit, but they did not know what they were getting.


Frederick George Hahn: They knew what they had, and they got something better.


Mr. Blackmore:: The same is true of
Liberalism, and look what they are getting!


Frederick George Hahn: I might go so far as to say that they may not have known what they voted for when they got the hon. member for Kootenay East.
To carry on with this discussion, I should like now to turn to some correspondence with the foreign trade service of the Department of Trade and Commerce. This is a letter dated May 10,	1954 signed by
D. G. W. Douglas, chief of the consumer goods division, in which he says, replying to my inquiry concerning nylon hosiery:
In the meantime, however, Mr. Gerridzen, the commodity officer for wearing apparel, has already delved into the matter of testing facilities. This department has no machinery for such purposes and we are, therefore, making outside inquiries as to which agency would be the most logical one to deal with your problems.
I do not censure the department for this because I realize that the Department of Trade and Commerce or the national research council cannot have testing departments for everything. However, if we are going to accept the unqualified word of industry, there is just the possibility that industry may be somewhat prejudiced in its own behalf. For that reason we cannot accept the word of industry, without first making some examination. I suggest that because the textile industry is of such major importance in Canada a considerable amount of work should be done by the research council in an effort to establish ways and 
means of obtaining a product that would sell more cheaply and also compete in world markets today.
Now, Mr. Speaker, over the period, on three separate occasions, friends of mine have said that my time is up and possibly I shall have more to say on the subject at another time.


Mr. Roland Michener (Si. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, although the amendments to the national Research Council Act are more or less formal, this debate gives us an opportunity to consider the extent of this parliament's responsibility in matters of research. It is interesting to note in the estimates this year the extent of the funds which are voted for research. In the Department of Agriculture votes 5 to 15 deal with the science service of that department, and they call for just short of $10 million; in the same department the experimental farm service calls for just over $10 million. Then, in the Department of Fisheries votes 144 to 147 deal with the fisheries research board and call for expenditures of $2,500,000. In the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources vote 329 deals with the forestry branch and, together with the grants to universities for research work, amounts to $1 million. Then of course there is a very large item appropriated for the national defence research board amounting to over $50 million, and we have not yet come to the main agency of research, namely, the national research coun- [DOT] cil, which is listed for $16,081,000. Following that is the atomic energy control board which has $13,500,000 assigned to it. These figures amount to a total of over $105 million, which is to be voted by this parliament for purposes of research. One cannot help but be impressed with the extent of the research work which is the responsibility of this parliament.
In making these remarks tonight I do not approach the work of any of our agencies in a critical or complaining frame of mind.
I believe that we are being well served by the agencies in their respective spheres. I believe the national research council might well consider expending a larger proportion of its budget in grants to universities. My opinion is that to some extent universities, in which much of the actual research work must be done, are cramped for funds which they receive through grants from the national research council, and that perhaps a larger proportion of the budget could usefully be used in that direction. But what impresses one most, Mr. Speaker, is the opportunity that this country offers for research which would be beneficial. It would not be possible to overestimate the importance to Canada of efficient and active research agencies directed towards the maintenance of the

enviable position which Canada has attained today in the world as the third trading nation of the world, in which the material equipment for life and the pursuit of happiness are equal to those of any other country of the world.
We have attained that enviable position through the initiative and enterprise of our people, largely our inventive people and research workers. If we are to proceed from the point we have reached, which I describe as an enviable point, and maintain our position, it seems to me that we must never let that vital spark to this kind of society die down.
We have recognized the needs of underdeveloped and less privileged countries in various ways and are aiding them with very large sums of money, such as the vote for the Colombo plan, to which we are devoting $25 million a year. The difference between such countries and Canada is largely accounted for by the application of ingenuity to the material things that we have and from which we build up our comfort and maintenance in an industrial society.
Canada itself, Mr. Speaker, is an underdeveloped country, and we shall go forward from our present position at a rate which will largely be conditioned by the efficiency and efficacy of our research service. If one looks back over recent history I think it is clear that no one fifty years ago in his best imaginative moments would have conjured up a vision of the society in which we live today. There have been so many changes in the mechanical field that anyone fifty years ago attempting to forecast the life of this country which we enjoy today would have been completely at a loss to foretell what was ahead. I can see that in the future the same relative changes will take place but probably at an accelerated pace. We are living in an age of great speed, and it may be that those of us here tonight, if we were to try to foretell what society in Canada would be like, even fifteen years from now, would be very wide of the mark. What it will be like will largely depend on the efforts of the scientists.
What I wish to direct attention to tonight, Mr. Speaker, is the responsibility of this parliament to see that the best is being done, the best use is being made of the public funds which are devoted to that end. It may be instructive, or at least interesting, to recall what was done in the province of Ontario in recent years with a view to assuring the legislature that it was making proper use of the public funds which it had voted for research purposes. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), who was then premier of Ontario, instituted an inquiry in 1945 83276-322
Research Council Act
under the public inquiries act by a volunteer commission of industrial, scientific, professional and union representatives who were interested in this project, under the name of the Ontario research commission. Its terms of reference were to review the research agencies which existed in the province and the expenditures which were being made to see what overlapping there was, what conflict, what gaps and generally to see what could be done to co-ordinate the work of those various agencies and to make the best use of the funds which were being voted for this purpose.
These agencies consisted of federal agencies with which we are all familiar, the departments of the provincial government, many of whom had research agencies, the universities and the agricultural schools, industry with its private research laboratories and the Ontario research foundation, which was a joint enterprise of government and industry financed by the two many years ago, and doing a sort of custom research work for industry.
In the course of their inquiries they came to some conclusions which were reported and embodied in legislation in 1948 which I had the honour of having some part in. The Ontario research council act which was passed in that year, set up a council whose responsibilities, I believe, can best be described in the words of the Ontario research council's annual report for 1952-53. This report was issued after the council had been in operation for five years, first under the chairmanship of Dr. R. C. Wallace for a number of years, and latterly under the chairmanship of Dr. R. K. Stratford, who is scientific adviser to Imperial Oil Limited.
This report describes the four main interests and activities of the council with which I shall deal briefly. The first one was to provide scholarships, because it was recognized that research can be done only where there are trained personnel competent to undertake the work. Paralleled with the scholarships of the national research council some $50,000 a year was devoted to scholarships and, in view of the remarks of the previous speaker, it is interesting to note that these scholarships have not been used to train scientists to emigrate to the United States, and that the men who were trained in scientific research methods by these scholarships are, for the most part, now engaged in scientific work in the Dominion of Canada. I have not the figures at hand, but I believe some 166 out of over 200 persons who benefited by these scholarships are doing the work for which they were specially trained.
5082	HOUSE OF
Research Council Act
The second feature ol the council's responsibility was that of correlating government research efforts in the province in order to ensure a balance with the needs of the various natural resources. It was intended from the beginning that assistance in each important field of research should be given by an advisory committee representing all the active interests and agencies. These committees were to serve as a medium for discussion and closer co-operation between already well-established research agencies. In addition, the advisory committees would be responsible for initiating further research needed in their respective fields. This might be indicated by problems requiring immediate solution, by future long-term needs, or suggested by research developments elsewhere.
In pursuance of that purpose the council's eight advisory committees are now functioning in various areas of natural and physical sciences. These are agriculture, forestry, fisheries and wild life, highways, industrial research, industrial waste, mines and metallurgy, and aerial surveys. The advisory committees have been very effective in bringing together industrial, governmental, and university research people to examine the problems and supervise programs of research.
By way of illustration, Mr. Speaker, may I refer to the work of one of these eight committees I have mentioned to indicate how such an advisory committee may eliminate overlap, may bring all the workers in one particular field of research together so they are aware of what the others are doing, and so that you do not have two or three working on the same problem leaving other problems completely untouched.
For example, the agricultural research committee is convened three or four times a year, has several subcommittees, and is composed of leading research workers in agriculture, not only in the dominion Department of Agriculture, but also in the Ontario department of agriculture, the Ontario School of Agriculture, the Ontario federation of agriculture, the Hydro Electric Power Commission, the Ontario Veterinary College and so on; there are some 18 or 20 different men whose work is in this research field and who come together periodically to review what is being done in that field, and what work is being carried out in that field by the various agencies.
The third purpose of the council is the establishment of grants in aid to encourage industry to combine to solve problems affecting an industry, and which operates somewhat in the manner of the research organizations to which the Minister of Trade
[Mr. Mlchener.I

and Commerce (Mr. Howe) referred when he spoke of such bodies in Great Britain, though on a smaller scale.
Only two of these projects have been undertaken in Ontario. One is a forest research project at Heron Bay, Ontario, where the Ontario Paper Company Limited and the Abitibi Power and Paper Company Limited are co-operating in a silvicultural program with the provincial government. The other one is in the field of air and water pollution in the Sarnia area where five companies are co-operating with the research council in a study which is under the direction of the council's committee on industrial waste. Here I must emphasize again that this advisory group is a voluntary organization of men who may be described as leaders in our industrial life, particularly in its scientific aspects.
The fourth project which they considered to be essential was that of making known the information which is being accumulated by scientists and researchers, particularly to the smaller industries. It is astonishing to note how much of the industry of this country is carried on by smaller groups which employ 50 men or less. In fact 94 per cent of the industries in Ontario employ 50 persons or less and account for 30 per cent of the province's production. That may not pertain throughout Canada but it does indicate that these smaller industries are in the greatest need of information to guard against obsolescence and backwardness in the industrial struggle, because they are not always aware of what is available for them.
I know that on a national scale there is a great accumulation of information and the Ontario agency, in co-operation with the national research council and its technical branch, have established an information service whose sole duty it is to provide information to these smaller industries so that the best use is made of what is known. It is astonishing how much useful information is already available to these industries which could be put to use and profit in cutting down the cost of production if it were only realized and made available.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have only to apply this excursion into what was done in Ontario to our own situation throughout the dominion. The example I have given demonstrates the effort made by a legislature to see that the best use is made of its research dollars, and I think we should ask ourselves some questions along these lines when we come to deal with the expenditure of $105 million, which is not the entire budget, and

in the expenditures which are being made in other fields in order to see that we are getting the best value, whether there is any overlapping in research, whether there is any waste, and whether there are any gaps to be filled.
It seems to me that that is the area with which parliamentary inquiry should periodically concern itself. I appreciate that the amendment has been ruled out of order and I am speaking in more general terms, but I do suggest that this parliament would be well advised to review periodically what is being done with these research dollars to see that the best value is being obtained. We should ask ourselves whether the national research council as at presently constituted is the right body to co-ordinate the work being done by the various agencies. We should also bear in mind that the national research council is spending $16 million out of $105 million and is therefore by no means the only agency engaged in research which is responsible to this parliament. We should also ask ourselves whether it is the right body to advise parliament as to its over-all needs and expenditures for research.
I suggest that the members of this house should be sure that we are making the most of our research brains and agencies. Let us be sure that there are no duplications. Let us be sure what more there is that can be done. A review such as I have suggested would give assurance to the members of this house that they are making the best use of the money which is voted for research purposes. As I have said, this research plays a vital part in the future of this country if it is not only to maintain the position it has but to remain in the forefront of industrial nations.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Defence Production):: Before the question is put, Mr. Speaker, I think there are several remarks I might be able to make which would perhaps sum up the interesting and useful debate that we have had on the second reading of this bill. First of all I should like to thank the hon. members who have taken part in this debate for the interest they have shown in the important matter of research and for the contributions they have made by their comments. The speeches we have heard indicate not only the importance to this country of research but also the opinion held by many hon. members of this house with respect to that importance and the need for parliament to discharge, with care and attention, its responsibilities in connection with research.
83276-322J
Research Council Act
I thought that the speeches of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and of the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Michener) who has just taken his seat were particularly constructive and helpful. The hon. member for St. Paul's gave an interesting description of some of the work of the Ontario research council. It is true that a number of the provinces have followed the lead given in the wider federal sphere by the national research council and have themselves organized research foundations or councils which have done important and helpful work.	: ,
I should remind hon. members that start-, ing tomorrow the national research council here in Ottawa is holding open house, During this open house the facilities of the council will be open to the public for three days. Members of parliament are particularly invited to come tomorrow afternoon for the opening of the open house and to get: what might be called a preview before the general public are invited. I hope that many members will be able to avail themselves of this opportunity. Any who are not able to come along tomorrow afternoon will be more than welcome during the concluding three days of the week when they can come at any time they wish.
In summing up the debate, Mr. Speaker, I feel that I should refer at some length to the speech made in this debate on Tuesday, May 11, by the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy). The hon. member for Lambton West has shown a great interest in the general over-all question of research and we listened to his speech with considerable interest. The hon. member had placed a resolution on the order paper at the beginning of the session and in his speech he made reference to it. Because of the particular wording of the reference, I think one remark should be made about it. At page 4628 of Hansard of May 11, the hon. member said:
The restriction on time allotted for consideration of private members' resolutions effectively excluded the opportunity for parliament to consider this important question.
As the hon. member saw fit to use those words, I think it should be put on record that, in fact, his resolution-and it was an important one-in the ordinary course of the procedure of this house was called for discussion on December 7 but it was, at the request of the mover, allowed to stand and therefore was not debated on that day. Unfortunately it went to the foot of the order paper and was not reached again.
Several hon. members have made suggestions with respect to a parliamentary committee to consider the broad question of research and also to consider the operations of



S084 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Research Council Act
the national research council. I for one did not think that this suggestion, at the time it was made, was a practical one for this session. However, in the past we have had extremely useful committees on matters of this kind. Several sessions ago there was set up a committee specifically on the national research council. In recent years we have had two separate committees which studied the specific fields of research and atomic energy and I think they did extremely useful and worth-while work. I can see no objection to the possibility of there being a parliamentary committee at the next session or at some future session of this parliament if hon. members feel that it would be a constructive and worth-while committee to have, keeping in mind the other business with which parliament must deal.
The hon. member for Lambton West in his speech made a number of general remarks on the importance of research and the care with which we should look into our activities in research. But taken as a whole and eliminating the matters of general interest and that sort of thing, I think his speech comes down to, first, the suggestion that there should be a committee, to which I have referred and, second, a list of questions which he felt should be answered. I think it was the intent of his speech to suggest that they Were questions of a kind that a parliamentary committee should answer and should report upon to the house. These questions are found at page 4630 of Hansard of May 11. The first one is as follows:
Are we doing enough in the way of research In this country, . . .
Then he goes on to elaborate on that basic question. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the committee could sit for a long time and never come up with a better answer than to say: We never can do enough in research. It could never be said that enough is being done in research. The question rather is this: In all the circumstances how much can we usefully do, and are we spending in the best way possible the money which is provided by parliament for research? But to suggest that a parliamentary committee or any other body would ever come to the conclusion that we are doing enough in the field of research is not, I think, very practical. The second question that the hon. member asked is as follows:
Are our universities in a position to continue to provide the trained scientific minds and undertake the fundamental research necessary to assure the continued development and productive expansion of this country?
That, Mr. Speaker, is a very basic question, and I think it touches on what is almost a Unique feature of the research program

carried out by the national research council in this country and to a more limited extent by some of the bodies set up by provincial governments in connection with research. The extent and the development of the program of scholarships and grants which are provided through the national research council to students who are prepared to enter upon scientific studies and to prepare themselves for work as research scientists are quite extraordinary. I think the best way to give the house an idea of the kind of program that the national research council carries out in this field is to quote a part of the annual report of the council for 1952-53. On page 36 of the report there is the following:
The awards branch-
That is the awards branch of the national research council.
-administers scholarships and grants in aid of research awarded annually by the national research council. Scholarships awarded in science and engineering include bursaries, studentships and fellowships which have values of $600, $900 and $1,200 respectively for the academic year, to which a summer supplement of $500 may be added. In addition special scholarships valued at $1,500 per year and post-doctorate overseas fellowships at $2,500 are offered. The council also awards two classes of graduate medical research scholarships which have values of $1,800 to $3,000 for awards involving graduate training, and up to $5,000 for senior awards in advanced research.
Then it goes on to deal with dental research and with post-graduate fellowships and certain important fellowships that are provided out of private funds but are administered by the national research council. This program, as I said, is unique, and it is a program that has been very substantially developed over the last few years. For example, in the fiscal year 1938-39 the total of national research council scholarships and research grants for that year was $81,378. In 1953-54 that total had risen to $1,909,000; in other words, almost $2 million.
This program is being expanded just about as rapidly as the research council can see the possibility of spending this money satisfactorily. In other words, they try to ensure that any promising science student in this country who wishes to follow advanced studies of that kind in order to prepare himself for research or other scientific work is able to do so without difficulty. As has already been said in this debate, the objective of the research council is that no promising science student in this country should have to give up his training because of lack of financial support. It is never possible to say that everything is being done in a field of this kind, but I think that the way in which this program has been developed, the tremendous increase in the annual amounts

expended and the number of young men who have been trained for scientific work in this way is a very great achievement. I can assure hon. members that it is one feature of the council's work that is a source of great pride and satisfaction to the president and members of the council and to all those connected with the council's work.
On that point I was very interested, as I am sure all hon. members were, in the remarks of the hon. member for New Westminster and the hon. member for St. Paul's with respect to the training of scientists in Canada. The program of the national research council is of course intended in the first instance to provide training in Canada wherever that is possible. However, I think it would be unwise, and not the kind of policy that parliament should favour, to exclude training outside this country, if necessary, so that our students can have the benefit of the research facilities and the university and other facilities for study that are available not only in the United States but in England and European countries. The real problem is to get the services of these trained men in Canada when they have completed their training. Everything that is possible is of course done to ensure that they either remain in this country or come back to this country and take jobs either in the government service or in industry.
The third question that the hon. member asked reads as follows:
Would accelerated efforts in the field of industrial research, resulting in new products, new uses for old products, improved techniques that lower production costs, enhance or help us, an exporting nation in ever-increasingly competitive world markets?
The answer to that is yes, and no parliamentary committee is required to provide the answer. It is obvious that the only answer is the short answer, and it is in the affirmative.
The fourth question he asked reads as follows:
Are our present fiscal policies, in relation to research expenditures, adequate to induce private industry to undertake the amount of research that should be undertaken . . .
Then he goes on to refer to the activities of government agencies. The point of the question is: Are the fiscal policies of this country properly designed to provide the utmost incentive to private individuals and private enterprise to undertake research projects both in basic research and in specialized research in their own fields? That, I think, is one of the very fundamental questions in this whole problem, and I cannot help feeling that if the hon. member had really gone into the question of what our fiscal policies are and how they compare with the fiscal policies
Research Council Act
of other countries he would have come to the conclusion that we are doing just about as much as can be done in this field.	,
The hon. member was good enough to indicate that the interest of the government in this particular feature of research programs dates back at least to the budget speech of the Hon. Charles Dunning, which he quoted and put on Hansard. At that time, and up to the budget of 1944, the situation with respect to incentives to industry to make expenditures on research was that current expenditures on research or research facilities were regarded as an element of expense if they could be established as an outlay necessarily incurred for the purpose of earning the income. In other words, if the research expenditure could be shown to be a cost of doing business, then that was a deductible expense and no corporate income tax was chargeable upon it. In so far as capital expenditures were concerned, they were not allowed as deductions and only normal depreciation was permitted.
Now, the result of this was that the cost of laboratories, pilot plants and the like was not exempt and the current expenditures that could not be directly related to earning the firm's income were not deductible. In making his budget speech in this house in 1944, the then minister of finance, the Hon. J. L. Ilsley, said this, as recorded at page 4181 of Hansard for June 26, 1944:
All will agree that Canadian industry must expand its research and technical development if we are to apply the most advanced technical knowledge to our resources, and maintain our competitive position. By all means, let us borrow from whatever is best from other countries, but what we can borrow is not always what we need.
I believe the hon. member will agree that that statement puts into words fairly well what he had in mind in dealing with this subject, the necessity of expanding research and technical development in order to maintain our competitive position. At that time in 1944, Mr. Ilsley and the government were looking forward to the transition from a war to a peacetime economy, and they were considering ways of assisting the expansion of industry. The government brought into effect with that budget what I feel is, by all standards of comparison, the best system of fiscal incentive to industry to undertake research that any country has today.
The present arrangements are that a research project approved by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) entitles the company to a deduction of current expenses without limit, that is to say up to 100 per cent of all profit can go into research and can be fully deducted. I do not see how that could be improved. A company can
[Stage Direction]
Research Council Act
invest 100 per cent of its earnings in current expenditures on research, and they are fully deductible for income tax purposes.
Mr. Murphy (Lamblon West):: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question?


John Horace Dickey: Yes, certainly.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Perhaps I misunderstand, but is that not subject to approval by a certain committee or organization?


John Horace Dickey: As I said, if the project is approved by the Minister of National Revenue the company is entitled to make these deductions.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Just a
moment, Mr. Speaker-


John Horace Dickey: I am going to go ahead and deal with the whole problem. If the hon. member will just possess his soul in patience I think it will be clear. Even if a research project is not approved, the company is permitted to deduct for research expenditures up to 5 per cent of the total income of the company in the previous year. In terms of research expenditures, that represents a generous deduction.


Joseph Warner Murphy: That is taxable income?


John Horace Dickey: Applications for approval of projects, I am informed, are received at the rate of about two per month. According to the memory of officials in the Department of National Revenue who deal with this subject, only two or three applications have ever been refused. The practical situation is, therefore, that almost every application that has been made by a private company or organization to get this 100 per cent deductibility for research expenditures has been approved. The practice is that the Minister of National Revenue consults the national research council with respect to these matters, and makes a decision.
A very important feature of the system is the definition of scientific research. I think I should like to put that on the record. It is: ... any activity in the field of natural or applied science for the extension of knowledge.
This is amplified further on in the regulations as:
references to scientific research relating to a business or class of business, include any scientific research that may lead to or facilitate an extension of that business, or as the case may be, business of that class.
In other words, that means that while research must be related to the taxpayer's business, it need not necessarily be in the

particular line of production in which he is actually engaged at that time. It may be a similar line or a by-product or some line quite different from the main line of production. Any bona fide research program undertaken by a taxpayer in Canada to further the interests of his business is almost certain to receive this approval.
Now, these expenditures may be made for research directly carried out by the taxpayer, or they may be payable to approved bodies that carry out research for the taxpayer, such as research associations undertaking scientific research related to the class of business to which the taxpayer's business belongs, or something of that kind. It may be an approved university, college or similar institution. Now, the capital expenses, as opposed to current expenditures, are on a little different basis. There is no deductibility for the land. All other items of a capital nature that are directly undertaken by or on behalf of the taxpayer, that is buildings, equipment, machinery, whatever might be required, are depreciable at the rate of one-third of the value per year. In other words, those items are completely written off in three years. I would submit to the hon. member and to the house that is a very generous write-off indeed.
How does this situation compare to the situation that exists in other countries? The hon. member was interested in that. I feel the hon. member will agree that the scale of industrial research in the United States is extensive indeed. The situation there is that the internal revenue code of the United States does not contain any special provision dealing with the deduction of expenditures for scientific research. In administering their particular law, however, the bureau of internal revenue recognizes that most manufacturing businesses have experimental, research and developmental departments, and allows the cost of this work as a deductible expense. I am advised the main concern of the bureau appears to be whether any cost in developing a new process should be capitalized, that is regarded as a capital expenditure, and written off over a period of years or should be classed as a current expenditure.
In brief, with respect to current expenditures, the situation in the United States is just about on a par with the situation in this country prior to 1944. It does not appear to be as generous a provision as we now have in Canada. Though scientific research programs do not have to be officially approved any deduction made by a taxpayer has to meet the general test of being a necessary expense of doing business.

That brings us right back to the situation we had in Canada prior to the fiscal provisions made in 1944. Expenditures on scientific research of a capital nature in the United States do not qualify for any quick write-off but would obtain only the depreciation allowance for property of their class used in the general course of the business. That is obviously a very much less generous provision than that provided in this country for capital expenditure.
In the United Kingdom the provisions of the income tax law which allow a deduction for expenditures on scientific research are similar in many respects to those in the Canadian law. Scientific research is defined as:
Any activities in the fields of natural or applied science for the extension of knowledge.
There is a deduction for expenditure of both a current and capital nature, but the deduction for expenditures of a capital nature must be spread over five years, as compared with three years in Canada. Their law does not have the requirements that the scientific research program must be approved, although it does require that when expenditures are made by scientific research associations, universities and the like, these institutions must be approved. And they have a lengthy definition which ties the expenditure down to research related to the trade in question. This is regarded as quite a bit more restrictive than the situation here in Canada.
In his speech the hon. member for Lamb-ton West referred to provisions made in a recent budget brought down in the British parliament on April 6. He referred to a special 20 per cent write-off for research expenditures. I was interested in that, as it seemed to indicate a change in the situation as I had understood it. With that in mind I looked up the parliamentary debates of the House of Commons at Westminster, volume 526, No. 90, and I believe that portion of the budget speech to which the hon. member had reference is to be found at page 225, where the Hon. Mr. Butler said:
In general, the field over which the new investment allowance will operate will be the same as that of the initial allowance, which applies to plant and machinery generally and to new industrial buildings and mining works.
Looking further, I find that this is not a deduction specifically for research purposes. It is a special allowance made over the broad field of industrial expansion for new plant, new industrial buildings, and new undertakings of that kind. They are eligible for this 20 per cent allowance, whether or not they are connected with research. It is true that if they are connected with research, they may qualify; but it is not a program that is intended specifically to encourage research.
Research Council Act
It is a program that is intended rather to encourage the expansion of business over the general field.
That, I think, deals in some detail with what I believe was the main theme of the hon. member's speech. He went on to ask questions about whether we are doing enough agricultural and medical research. Well, I think the answer to that is exactly the same as the answer to his first question. It can never be said we are doing enough. The question is: Are we doing the best we can in all the circumstances, and with the facilities available?
Then he asked how the situation compares between the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) put some figures on record in this debate on May 11, when he dealt with that subject. I am not going to tire the house by repeating the figures, but I would state briefly that the figures of expenditures on an absolute basis, on the basis of per capita expenditure, and also on the basis of expenditures as related to national income and gross national product, show that Canada has been expanding research, and particularly government research, in a manner that is very creditable indeed, as compared with either the United States or the United Kingdom.
I do not suggest for one moment that we are doing everything that could possibly be done; but I do suggest the general program compares favourably with programs under way in the two countries I have mentioned. The hon. member referred particularly to arrangements being made in the United States and the United Kingdom for special committees or advisory councils. The fact is that for many years neither of those countries found it necessary or thought it advisable to have any organization of the nature of the national research council, which we have had for a long period of time.
We think the job the national research council has done has been pretty effective and pretty worth while for Canada. I do not doubt that the types of organizations selected in the United States and the United Kingdom will be designed to meet the problems with which they are confronted. But I do submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the performance we have had from the national research council indicates that we have followed a pretty clear and pretty worth-while path in that regard.
Then the hon. member asked a final question, which amounted to his wondering whether the national research council is doing enough: Is its work sufficient? Well, that again is a question to which no one can

Research Council Act
give a categorical answer. I think the hon. member will agree that the reputation of the national research council in scientific circles, not only in this country and in the United States, but throughout the world, is very high indeed. Names of many men connected with the national research council, and the work they have done, are known everywhere. Perhaps the most recent and most outstanding honour that has come to this organization, or anybody connected with it, was the awarding of the Kelvin medal to Dr. Mackenzie. That is an accolade that is an honour, not only to the distinguished man who received it but to the organization in which he has worked and which he has headed so effectively for many years.
He would be the last to suggest I am sure that the national research council has done everything possible. I am sure every scientist realizes, perhaps better than hon. members in the House of Commons, the tremendous extent of knowledge as yet undiscovered, and the magnitude of the problem with which research men are faced. Having that knowledge, they realize even better than we do that no one can say, "Well, the organization is doing enough".
We come again to the basic question: Are we doing the best we can, in all the circumstances, and with the facilities available? I believe there is very little more I can add, except to say in conclusion that the national research council does cordially invite members of the House of Commons to come to their open-house tomorrow, and if not then to come later in the week.
In his speech the hon. member for Lamb-ton West used an expression that I thought was quite extraordinary. As reported at page 4632 of Hansard, referring to the development of Canada, and what he termed a new phase in Canadian history, he said:
We are beginning to grow up in spite of ourselves.
Now, that may be the considered opinion of the hon. member. It is not my opinion, and I hope it is not the opinion that is shared very widely in this house and in the country. I do not believe this country has grown in spite of itself, in any sense of the word; but it has grown because of what has been done in this country in many, many fields, and not the least of these fields is the field of research. The circumstances of our development in Canada have meant that a very large proportion of our research has to be done by government, not only the federal government but by other governments. Happily the extent to which private initiative and private interests are making contributions to research is growing every day. I think that the kind of

climate that this government has created in this country, both over the whole sphere of the economic life of the country and also in the measures that have been taken to try to make it possible for companies to undertake research, has been largely responsible for the scale of our progress.
It has taken hard work and an intelligent approach to problems and a willingness by governments, by individuals and by private enterprise to search and to find the best path towards our continued and sound progress, but that has in large measure been done. I hope that we have built well on the foundation that was provided for us by our ancestors, and I hope that our children and our children's children will not consider that we have grown up in spite of ourselves.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few observations, prompted partly by what the last speaker has said and partly by what the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Michener) said. We owe a duty to the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) for introducing the amendment he did, even though it had the fate that amendments sometimes have of not passing the scrutiny of Your Honour. There are other worthy amendments that lie in the same scrap heap, so that we need not sympathize too much with this particular amendment.
We have had a speech at length by the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) answering many of the questions which were asked by the hon. member for Lambton West. I found the hon. member's speech interesting. I was surprised that he picked up so emphatically the phrase, which seemed to me a very ordinary one, used by the hon. member for Lambton West when he said "in spite of ourselves." I would point out to the senior member for Halifax that he did not say "in spite of the government". He just said "in spite of ourselves". I think it is just part of the natural modesty which we on this side of the house try to cultivate. I do not think there is more than that in it.
As I say, I was interested in the speech of the senior member for Halifax who said many interesting things. I was, however, surprised that he emphasized so much "the tremendous increase in the annual amounts expended". He would have been wiser to dwell wholly on the results achieved.
One of the reasons why I think it is a good thing that this amendment was moved is that it has prevented the debate on this bill being just a mere competition in adulation. It would be a very queer person who would not wish to give great credit to the national research council for all it has done. It just so happens

that the officials have been very kind to me this week, and I have them particularly in mind.
It is interesting to look back to the constituting act of 1924 and to find how exclusively at that time it appears to have been directed to immediate utilitarian objectives, but as time has gone on and as we read the last report we realize how far the institute has gone in its operations. Because of the extent of the operations it almost makes one dizzy as one reads the report. We begin with the science laboratories; we go on to the division of pure chemistry, then the division of applied chemistry and on to physics, and so on. I am ashamed to say that there are many words here I do not even know the meaning of. I think, however, there is a danger which is always inherent in an organization which is to some extent in a position of isolation and which is presided over by a man of immense driving energy and who likes to see things done and likes to play a big part in doing them. There is always a question as to whether it goes on accumulating, growing, without any really critical view being brought to bear on it. I say "critical view". I think it is extremely difficult for a committee composed merely of members of parliament to bring an informed criticism to bear on the work of the research council because it is so highly scientific. We admire so much what it is doing that we really hesitate to become anything but a mutual admiration society, and yet that is bad.
There is a great danger that when people get to the top of an organization of this kind they naturally want it to grow. I remember when I was in business my chief saying to me once after a small new department had been founded: "Remember, Jim, you have got a new king now and he will want to have as many subjects as possible". I think that is true in all kinds of relations in life. Therefore I feel that if the result of this debate shows that, we shall be more determined to have a committee which will be able to collect opinions from various people across Canada. The people, for example, that I think would be worth consulting are the heads of provincial research institutes, selected university people, selected manufacturing people and others who can bring to the work of the institute an informed criticism.
When I say "criticism" I mean it only in the sense of trying to assess what has been done, so much of which we know is good. Certainly, I do not know anything that is not good; but I still feel that it would be very desirable if next year-it is too late this year -there could be a committee which, by
Research Council Act
getting the opinions of other experts, would try to come to an informed view as to whether there is a danger of this excellent institution getting the bit in its teeth and running away with it.
Let me say again, Mr. Speaker, that the farthest thing from my mind is criticism. I am sure the council has done and will do great things. All I am suggesting is that in some way the members of this house should put themselves in a position whereby, if it is suggested to them that the council, so to speak, has the bit in its teeth and is running away with it, we can say that is not so because the views of people who are competent to express them have been heard and we are satisfied with the conditions.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this discussion on the assistance for promotion of scientific or industrial research. As the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) has indicated, it was interesting to note that the parliamentary assistant agreed with the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) that some time before too long we should have a committee set up to go into this question of research. I would be interested to know if that question of research is something that has to be looked after immediately. The minister himself indicated that it was not a static thing but something that has got to be promoted and continue to be promoted.
No doubt most hon. members who have given this matter any thought will be in agreement. Research is not only one of the greatest factors in moulding our lives, but within the sphere of research rests the wellbeing of practically every phase of our economy, as well as the future of this great country of ours. We have been particularly and abundantly blessed with practically all the elements known to man and all the impetus possible should be given so that these elements of the field, the forest, the mines, and waters within and around us can be studied by our scientists. The benefit of that study should be passed on to every phase of our economy. It is a field that is as old as man himself. Today we are living in the reality envisioned by the poet who saw "the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails".
In the Globe and Mail of Monday, March 22, there appeared an article bearing the headline: "V-2 Man Says Atom Progress Means War Impossible Soon." I will read part of the extract. It states:
The man who invented Germany's V-2 rocket said today he thinks atomic research will make war impossible within the next 12 months.

Research Council Act
Professor Hermann Oberth said that by then it will be possible to reach any point on the globe within 45 minutes with atomic rocket.
This means that in the case of war all big cities of the enemy can be destroyed within two or three hours. I definitely believe that then no minister will decide himself for a war because he would sign his own death sentence at the same time.
So, by this means, the latter part of that great poem which ends like this:
There the common sense of most shall hold a fretful realm in awe,
And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapt in universal law-
-may come true.
During this session of parliament and during the debates which have taken place we have heard a great deal about the depressed economic conditions of certain sections of our industries. I feel that some small measure of relief can be found for these industries through the field of research, and I would suggest that in many of our industrial fields we could, through the medium of research, definitely establish a more pronounced Canadian trend in the field of textiles, for example, rather than bask in and profit by the ideas promoted, particularly by our neighbours to the south.
I find that in my own business as regards women's apparel, American fabrics are not selected particularly on account of their more reasonable price but rather because of their distinctive patterns and novelty materials. Some phases of our textile industry are recognizing that fact, and I would like to quote in this connection a news item which appeared in the March issue of a Canadian magazine called Canadian Business which carries a story entitled "Salesmanship plus New Products" with a subtitle "A formula for textiles?". That article carries the story of the Bruck brothers who are running one of the largest synthetic fibre mills in Canada. They heard of milium being developed in the United States and they went over to the United States and attempted to get the rights in order to sell that product in Canada. But the American firm which controlled it did not want to give the rights to the Canadian firm because they thought they could promote it in Canada. But the Bruck brothers came back to Canada and through the medium of research developed thermalon and went out and sold it. They made such a wonderful job of it that the people from the states were glad to give them milium.
However, every textile mill has not the capital which the Brucks had for carrying out this type of research activity and they should therefore be given encouragement by the government in that respect. As the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Michener) intimated, it is not every organization or

manufacturing firm that is large enough to have these facilities, but there are a tremendous number of small factories and firms in this country employing people which are a definite part of the economy of this country. Some phases of our textile industry are recognizing that fact.
In this connection I would like to quote from a news item which appeared in the March 3 edition of Style which is a women's wear newspaper issued to the trade. This article carries the heading "Nova Scotian Tartan Will Hit Market Soon" and the item states:
There is something new under the sun ... it's Nova Scotia Tartan.
This should provide good news for manufacturers and retailers alike, especially those who keep an eye on the tourist trade.
I am not going to read the entire article but it goes on to conclude with this:
Already many inquiries have been received about the tartan . . . who will be manufacturing it and when it will be available in any marketable quantity. All these questions will be answered when the copyright and registration have gone through.
Tourists will soon, it is hoped, get their first introduction to the new tartan when they cross the Nova Scotian border and behold the Scottish piper blowing the bagpipes to the accompanying swirl of Nova Scotia tartan kilt.
From the same paper I have taken another small item entitled "Canadian Ideas". The article states:
Better still, who not try to create-and we mean create-some truly Canadian fashions, based on Canadian ideas, history and folklore?
The same thing might hold true on the question of housing about which we have heard so much, and to which I think one of the main objections was that even though down payments have been reduced the price of the houses available is still too high for the average wage earner. I feel that through the medium of research a house could be evolved that would make it possible for the ordinary man to have his own house.
In my own experience as chairman of our district high school board, I know that we were confronted with the problem of building a new high school. The provincial department of education set a maximum of $300,000 as the completed cost of our new school. When we first approached the subject we found that schools were costing approximately $14 a square foot. This would mean that the type of school we wanted completed would be around $385,000 which was out of our reach. However, we went into this matter seriously and found that a new school was being built in Mount Forest at a cost of a little over $9 a square foot. This firm of architects, through the medium of considerable prefabrication and other money

saving devices, was able to prove to us that the school we required could be built for $300,000. That school is now in process of being completed and is already being used to a certain extent.
I therefore feel that through the medium of research we in Canada could do as they are doing in so many other countries of the world. In this connection I would like to quote from an article which appeared in the Journal of Thursday, February 20, under the heading of "Prefabricated Housing". The article states:
I.	F. Fogh, logging development engineer of the Canadian International Paper Company, Montreal, gave a revealing picture of prefabricated housing in Sweden based on a visit to Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark last summer.
He then goes into considerable detail in describing the type of modern house being built over there and goes on:
The saving to the purchaser compared with a similar house built to the same standards by conventional methods was estimated by Mr. Fogh at about $3,000 plus about two months' time.
This development is the result of the efforts of one of Sweden's large combines of water power, iron ore and forest products which was faced with the problem of providing adequate yet economical housing facilities for its workers.
In this connection there is a suggestion I would like to make to the government even though my observation has been that the government apparently sees no good in suggestions coming from this side of the house. My suggestion is one which was urged upon me by the fact that we are paying a large sum of money to an architectural firm in New York for plans for the new national film board building in Montreal. I maintain that as this question has been under discussion for so long and the need for this new building has been realized for so many years, the Department of Public Works should have had the foresight to appoint a team made up of architects, technicians, engineers, draftsmen and so on to study this question. I realize that as this is a specialized type of building, it requires specialists in this field to create it, and I maintain that had this plan been followed we in Canada would have had the benefit of this advanced training for this and any other similar types of buildings that may have to be built in the future. I maintain that this suggestion could hold good for many other departments of the government which, through the medium of long-term planning and research, would have available the men to carry out major projects of this type as they arise.
But how are we going to keep pace, Mr. Speaker? How are we going to ensure the future of Canada in order that she may continue to take her place among the greatest
Research Council Act
nations of the world? I think it is through the immediate assistance and promotion of scientific and industrial research in Canada. But, Mr. Speaker, how are we going to ensure that this great realm of research will have available men with the brains, the courage and the fortitude to carry on the work of our great scientists of today? In this connection I should like to read from page 181 of the Massey report a paragraph which deals with this question:
79. The conclusion presented to us, then, is that the great need is for first-class men to give leadership and inspiration through their own brilliant, original discoveries. The future depends not only on the continued liberality of governmental agencies but on the number and quality of the men induced to work at research. The greatest need is to discover and train these men and then to make sure that they are provided with research facilities and opportunities to enable them to render the services of which they are capable.
I think a group of young people in my riding have come up with one of the answers. I should like to read a resolution that was passed by one of our high school student bodies. It was passed by the student council, Fergus district high school, at their regular meeting on Monday, February 8, 1954, and reads as follows:
That, as possible future recipients of the scholarships and rewards, this council, on behalf of all students in the Fergus district high school, urge the dominion government to organize a committee to bring about the immediate awarding of the scholarships recommended by the Massey report.
At this time I should like to pay a tribute to young high school students who will give serious consideration to a problem which is as old as the world, namely that of the child who through no fault of his own is unable to pursue learning to the extent for which he is fitted by natural abilities. No doubt many hon. members can recall friends of their youth who showed remarkable promise but who on account of their particular status in life were unable to continue at school. Thus Canada was the loser.
In that connection there appeared in the Globe and Mail of March 29 an article entitled "Extending Pure Research" and which speaks about research in the United States. It reads in part as follows:
President Eisenhower has directed the National Science Foundation, an official U.S. government body, to survey the government's research and development program. The stated purposes are to speed the attainment of federal research goals, to stimulate basic research, ascertain possible economies and to propose methods which would safeguard the strength and independence of educational institutions.	.
I have here some figures from the Massey report as compiled by a committee on education of the Canadian Manufacturers Association and published in February, 1950. This

Research Council Act
report emphasized the fact that out of 100 Canadian children attending school, only 22 finished high school, only 3 graduated from college and that 54 per cent of those who dropped out did so for economic reasons.
In 1946 the Ontario department of education discovered that only 7 per cent of the young people who had completed their primary and high school education had registered at a university. To us the disturbing thing is not the percentage but the fact that there is no assurance that this 7 per cent comprises the best qualified students. From page 362 of the Massey report on arts, letters and sciences I quote the proposals- as indicated by the resolution I have received [DOT]-made by that very wide and comprehensive study:
16.	We are proposing that the present scheme with which the federal and provincial governments are familiar, and which is operating satisfactorily, be enlarged. As for the number of undergraduates who should thus be aided, we do not think it appropriate to suggest a precise figure, although it is our view that as far as may be possible young persons who have the necessary ability and diligence should receive reasonable assistance to enable them to become more useful citizens.
Paragraph 17 lists the scholarships to be given to these undergraduates. Rather than take up the time of the house by reading it, I would ask the permission of the house that these be incorporated in Hansard of today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to have these paragraphs incorporated in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Marvin Howe: Paragraph 17 reads in part as follows:
17.	The following plan has been proposed to us and is respectfully suggested for the guidance of the government and of the agencies which may be charged with the administration of these scholarships:
1.	100 annual scholarships of $1,000, tenable for four years, to be known as Canada scholarships. These scholarships are intended to confer not only a valuable award but considerable prestige upon students of outstanding ability and exceptional promise. These scholarships at least, in our judgment, should be granted only after personal interviews.
2.	250 national scholarships annually of $500, to be tenable for four years. These are intended for distinguished and promising students.
3.	2,000 bursaries of $500 a year tenable for four years, for able and diligent students on the basis of need.
4.	A loan fund open to all students whose work is acceptable to the authorities of their universities.
It was interesting to note from the minister's speech how many scholarships are being given by the national research council and it was interesting to note that in the estimates of the national research council

they have suggested an increase in the allowances from $448,500 last year to $563,000 this year. However, these scholarships are only for a few of those students who have completed their university training and are in the form of fellowships and doctors' degrees for advanced studies. I feel that this is a move in the right direction, but I think that the government of Canada, in cooperation with the provincial governments, should go further and should put into force the recommendations that I have mentioned in order that we may be assured that our own Canadian research will have the benefit of all the brains and ingenuity to be found among the youth of our country. The Canadians who will inherit this country, the ones who will have the responsibility of guiding this young giant which is now awakening from its slumbers, are sitting in the classrooms of the schools today. It is our duty and responsibility to help them contribute to the Canada of tomorrow.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a contribution to the discussion of this extremely important matter that is before the house at the present time. I say it is important because it is recognized today by everyone in responsible positions that research is absolutely necessary if modern nations are going to maintain their position among the nations of the world. Ever since the western world applied the scientific method in the solution of its problems it has been possible for the researchers of the western world to carry on almost indefinitely, in terms of physical progress, by means of the art of invention.
Actually with the advent of the scientific method man invented the art of invention. In the physical sciences we of course have some outstanding examples of what this has meant in terms of development in the field of materialistic progress. For instance, the most recent and perhaps the most outstanding example of what can be accomplished as a result of the discovery of the art of invention is the successful completion of what has become known as the Manhattan project. A group of scientists banded together in order to meet the challenges arising from world war II, and by pooling their own knowledge in the field of physics and bringing together the vast amount of knowledge that had been accumulating from the nineteenth century onwards they were able to complete successfully the construction of the atomic bomb. That, I think, demonstrates very dramatically the potentialities, particularly in the physical sciences, that are inherent in the field of organized and co-ordinated research.

It seems that in Canada, as in the other western nations, the emphasis in research has been placed upon the development of the arts of war. In looking at the record of our own national research council we find that it came into existence in the year 1917 largely as the result of the pressing demands that had arisen from Canada's participation in world war I. Since that time the national research council has made definite strides in Canada, and in my opinion its greatest work, as I read the record, has been as a co-ordinating body bringing together various research projects under way in Canada.
These projects largely fall within four fields. First of all there are the projects undertaken by the federal government. Second, there are the projects undertaken by provincial governments. Closely connected with the activities of provincial governments in the field of research are the provincial universities and private provincial educational institutions. Finally we have the very excellent work that is being undertaken by private industry. Today private industry spends a good deal of its time and resources in seeking new areas of activity and new methods of production, endeavouring to increase its efficiency by applying scientific ideas to the field of research.
I should like to support the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) in his submission that there is room for the expansion of research activities in Canada, particularly in areas other than those concerned with the development of the arts of war. Canada is engaged in tremendous activities so far as the arts of war are concerned. The atomic energy project at Chalk River is commanding a good deal of our attention. The new demands of warfare in the Arctic climate are also receiving considerable attention from Canadian researchers. These activities are very necessary and essential to our national defence.
However, I think that we might well give consideration to greater promotion of the arts of peace and the field of domestic research. In this connection I should like to refer to the activities of our provincial governments. Through the provincial agricultural colleges they are largely responsible for agricultural research. In my own province of Manitoba there has been much discussion in recent years about the fact that the faculty of agriculture of the University of Manitoba has not devoted too much attention to fundamental research. Actually the only original research being carried out in the field of agriculture in that province, and also in the other prairie provinces, is being done through our experimental farm services. It seems to
Research Council Act
me that the faculties of agriculture of the respective universities are in an ideal position to tackle the agricultural problems peculiar to their own provinces. I believe some attention should be given by the federal government to encouraging in every way possible the promotion of essential research, particularly in the prairie provinces which are so dependent upon the well-being of the agricultural industry.
While governments, both provincial and federal, are making their contribution together with industry to the field of original research, I believe fundamental research is essentially a function of the universities. From time immemorial, even before the advent of the application of the scientific method to the field of creative thought, our universities have been the custodians of new ideas and creative thought and activity. Our universities, along with the other agencies responsible for carrying on research, have devoted much of their attention to physical research. Indeed, there is an excellent plan of research assistance under federal government sponsorship by means of which the various university faculties are tied into research projects. That applies particularly in the fields of physics, chemistry, electronics and so on, areas which again are essential to the defence of Canada.
I do not have the details on the matter, but I wonder whether the same amount of assistance is being given to university faculties, which are so well equipped to carry on research, as is being given to research projects operating directly under government sponsorship. For example, how would the grant per researcher to one of our Canadian universities compare with the grant per researcher to some scientist directly engaged in the atomic energy project at Chalk River? I would venture to say that the grant to a university scientist would be somewhat smaller than that to the scientist operating at the Chalk River project. I wonder also just how the grant per university for research work compares on a proportionate basis to the funds that are being supplied to carry on the project at Chalk River?
The universities with their highly qualified staff, most of whom have become experts in their respective fields as a result of long years of study in Canada and abroad, are merely waiting for the opportunity to expand their activities in the field of creative research. Not only are there members of the faculty who are qualified, but also the universities are responsible for the experts who, in turn, will carry on creative research activity of the future in the research projects

Research Council Act
that are being undertaken under government sponsorship. We find that the faculty members depend substantially for assistance on their graduate students, particularly those proceeding to the Ph.D. level. Because of the fact they have these graduate students available to participate in research projects, these projects can be carried on with a minimum of expense. The greater the support, the better prepared these graduate students are to carry on further work when they pass beyond the confines of the university and go out to carve out their own careers in their chosen field of activity.
This, of course, applies to the realm of the physical sciences especially in Canada. Perhaps even more so than in countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States, we have restricted our research activities largely to the realm of the physical sciences. There is, for example, no body operating in the social science field that compares to the national research council of Canada. There is a voluntary organization that calls itself the social science research council, but it is not incorporated directly into the activities of the national research council.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if there is room for further development in the physical sciences to deal with the urgent problems that face us, there is definitely a more challenging area of activity open to study and investigation in the field of the social sciences. It is true that the social sciences are comparatively new. Various social sciences, so far as universities are concerned, are relatively new scientific disciplines. Some of them, such as sociology, have not as yet established themselves as a scientific discipline. Even economics, which is often referred to as the dismal science, has its severe critics when it is viewed from the standpoint of a scientific discipline. Notwithstanding all this, Mr. Speaker, I feel that this government, as well as the other agencies who have the necessary skills and resources to promote research activity, would be well advised to give closer attention to the necessity of carrying on their research in the social science field.
Actually the political scientist comes under the classification of a social scientist. We who participate in the activities of the house are well aware that there is a wide area of investigation that we have not even touched so far as endeavouring to rationalize what takes place here, and in the whole democratic processes for that matter. Certainly if we cannot meet the challenge in the field of human relationships, which is the area of interest that the social science concerns itself with, there is not much hope that all the

research we are doing in the physical sciences, particularly in the arts of war, will be of any value to Canada or to any other nation.
In speaking to this very important topic, Mr. Speaker, I would definitely support the hon. member for Lambton West who has made such a comprehensive statement on the board aspects of the subject, particularly in reference to the need for further development in the physical sciences. At the same time, I should like also to suggest in the strongest terms possible that the time has come when this government, through its various departments and agencies, might consider the possibility of giving closer support to the various social science faculties operating in our universities in Canada. This would enable them to pursue with greater enthusiasm the work to be undertaken in this field, and also be in a position to expand. As we view the situation, I believe we are forced to the conclusion that Canadian universities are merely on the fringe of the research that is necessary if we are going to solve the very pressing human problems that confront us in this twentieth century.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to call it ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead. .


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
Business of the House
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Howard Charles Green: Next sitting.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we will take third readings; then the second reading of the Public Service Superannuation Act, which will then go to the committee on banking and commerce. We will then take the committee stage of the act respecting banks and banking; the Bank of Canada Act, and the act respecting savings banks in the province of Quebec; and the second reading of the bill to amend certain acts respecting the superannuation of government employees transferred to crown corporations.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When will you take the mounted police act?


Walter Edward Harris: If that is reached before six o'clock we will take budget resolutions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about going into
supply?


[Stage Direction]
It being seven minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday. May 26, 1954