1954-05-24

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, today the people of Canada are celebrating officially the birthday anniversary of our beloved sovereign lady, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. In this house we will be manifesting our devotion to Her Majesty by spending the day in further consideration of Her Majesty's business, but before we proceed to do that I would like to suggest, with the concurrence of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), with whom I communicated, that we mark the occasion by rising in our places and singing together "God Save the Queen".
Whereupon the members of the house rose and sang
God Save the Queen



RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Langlois (Gaspe).


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will have noticed that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) is in his seat this afternoon. He returned to Ottawa late last night after what I understand was a long and rather fatiguing air journey, and he will be reporting to his colleagues at two o'clock tomorrow afternoon. We had hoped there might be a very early occasion arranged for reporting to the house at a time when the house would not have to be content with his report on what had taken place, but would have an opportunity of asking questions and discussing the matters involved in that report.
Thursday and Friday are to be devoted to the consideration of the estimates and we had hoped that the committee on external affairs would have made its report and that these estimates could be called on Thursday to
provide an opportunity, in accordance with the rule, both for the report and for questions and discussion.
However, it has been found that Thursday would not suit the convenience of some hon. members who would be very much interested in the proceedings, and I would therefore suggest that we do that on Friday, and that as soon as the estimates are reported by the committee on external affairs they be referred back to the committee of the whole and called for consideration on Friday, when the minister would report on what took place while he was away at Geneva, and when there would be an opportunity for questions to be asked of the minister and for hon. members to take part in any discussion that might naturally flow from that report, and from the questions and answers.


REQUEST FOR REPORT ON DISARMAMENT DISCUSSIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. When he reports to the house on Friday with respect to the meetings at Geneva, as indicated by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), will he also be in a position to report on the discussions on disarmament which took place at London and in which I believe he took part?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: The discussions to which my hon. friend refers are discussions of a subcommittee of the disarmament committee taking place in London, as he has indicated. When that subcommittee was set up, it was agreed that those discussions should be held in private. As long as they are going on, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to report on their substance. They have been going on now for a fortnight and no public reports have been made by any members of the subcommittee. There will come a time, however-and I hope before long-when I shall be able to report on the result of these discussions. Eventually, of course, the subcommittee will report back to the main disarmament committee of the United Nations.

Questions


INTERNATIONAL RAPIDS POWER DEVELOPMENT ACT
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 460 (from the Senate), to amend the International Rapids Power Development Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS


SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN PROJECT


Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	How many copies were printed by the queen's printer of the pamphlet entitled ''The Proposed South Saskatchewan River Development Project" dated April, 1S54?
2.	What was the total cost of publishing and printing this pamphlet?
3.	Was the publication of this pamphlet authorized by the Minister of Agriculture or the deputy minister of agriculture?
4.	If not, who authorized the publication of this pamphlet and did such person consult with the Minister of Agriculture or deputy minister of agriculture before taking such action?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1. 2,000.
2.	$84.74.
3.	The original authorization of the publication of a pamphlet on the South Saskatchewan river development project was made in 1949. This was a reprint, brought up to date, on authorization of the director of P.F.R.A.
4.	See answer to No. 3.



POST OFFICE-VACATION LEAVE

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	At how many post offices in Canada are supervisory letter carriers given, in addition to a pay differential, priority over letter carriers on regular walks in the choice of time for annual vacation leaves?
2.	What are the names or locations of such post offices?
3.	At how many post offices in Canada is the choice of time for annual vacation leaves among letter carriers strictly on a basis of seniority as to length of service?
4.	What are the names or locations of such post offices?
5.	Does the Post Office Department follow one practice in some offices and another practice in other offices in respect of the above matter?
6.	If so, by what authority?


Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouih-Clare):: 1.	26.
2.	Montreal, Edmonton, Halifax, London, Victoria, Fort William, Fredericton, Kingston,

Oshawa, St. Catharines, St. John's, Sherbrooke, Sudbury, Drummondville, Galt, Kamloops, Nanaimo, North Bay, Sarnia, Stratford, Trail, Truro, Woodstock, Ont., Kenora, Nelson, Willowdale.
3.	At 86 offices selection for annual vacation leave is made on a seniority basis in the combined classes of supervisory letter carrier and letter carrier.
4.	The offices referred to in 3 are the following:	Arvida, Barrie, Belleville, Brandon,
Brantford, Brockville, Burlington, Calgary, Campbellton, Cap de la Madeleine, Charlottetown, Chatham, Chilliwack, Chicoutimi, Co-bourg, Collingwood, Corner Brook, Cornwall, Dundas, Fort Frances, Granby, Grand'Mere, Guelph, Hamilton, Hull, Joliette, Jonquiere-Kenogami, Kelowna, Kitchener, Leamington, Lethbridge, Levis, Lindsay, Magog, Medicine Hat, Midland, Moncton, Moose Jaw, New Glasgow, New Westminster, Niagara Falls, Oakville, Orillia, Ottawa, Owen Sound, Pembroke, Penticton, Peterborough, Port Alberni, Port Arthur, Port Colborne, Port Credit, Port Hope, Preston, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Quebec, Red Deer, Regina, Riviere du Loup, Saint John, Saskatoon, Sault Ste. Marie, Shawinigan Falls, Simcoe, Smiths Falls, Sorel, Sydney, St. Hyacinthe, St. Jean, St. Jerome, St. Thomas, Thetford Mines, Thorold, Toronto, Trenton, Trois Rivieres, VaUeyfield, Vancouver, Vernon, Victoriaville, Wallaceburg, Waterloo, Welland, Windsor, Winnipeg.
5.	Yes, to facilitate the application of the five-day 40-hour week.
6.	The Postmaster General.



TRAINING OF NURSES, SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. Siuder:: Has any action been taken by the federal government toward the special training of nurses for the handling of poliomyelitis cases in the province of Saskatchewan?


Mr. Martin:: Yes. Under the national health grants program the federal government has just decided to pay almost $1,700 to the province of Saskatchewan to cover the cost of bringing 20 nurses from strategically located areas in that province to Regina for an institute on the latest nursing care of chronic poliomyelitis patients. The funds also meet the cost of bringing a special highly skilled consultant in this field from Seattle. The federal grant covers honorarium, maintenance and travel expenses for the consultant from Seattle, and travelling expenses and per diem allowance for all nurses coming from hospitals outside Regina to attend the institute.



SEMI-STAFF POST OFFICES

Mr. White (Middlesex East):: 1.	What provision is in effect to make practical in semi-staff post offices the 40-hour week?
2.	Will time off work be allowed to compensate for overtime served in semi-staff post offices?
3.	Will extra pay for overtime be granted?


Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmoulh-Clare):: 1.	None. The five-day 40-hour week does not apply to semi-staff post offices.
2.	Yes.
3.	See answer to No. 2.



ROSEHALL NURSERIES LIMITED

Mr. McWilliam:: 1.	What contracts between Rosehall Nurseries Limited of Brantford, Ontario, and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have not been completed and where are the uncompleted projects?
2.	Is there any completion date set for these projects?


Mr. Bourgel:: 1.	One contract. Federal provincial project at Windsor, Ontario.
2.	No.



FISH RESTOCKING, NORTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER

Mr. Diefenbaker:: In view of the serious depletion in the numbers of fish in the North Saskatchewan river, in consequence of the recent pollution, will the government give consideration to restocking that river with pickerel, pike, perch, goldeye, etc.?


Mr. Bourgel:: Under the natural resources transfer agreement of 1930 the prairie provinces administer their fisheries, including hatchery services.
Stocking the North Saskatchewan river is, therefore, a matter of provincial responsibility.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. While (Haslings-Fronlenac):: 1.	Were tenders called for the construction of the new veterans hospital at Ste. Foy, Quebec?
2.	If so, what were the names of those who submitted tenders?
3.	What was the amount of each tender?
4.	To whom was the contract awarded, for what amount and on what date?
5.	When was the contract completed?
6.	What is the total cost of the hospital to date?
7.	How many hospital beds are provided?
8.	Is any further amount required to complete the hospital?
9.	If so, what amount?


METAL MAIL BOXES
Mr. Balcom:: 1. What is the average cost of the metal mailbox as used in (a) urban districts; (b) rural districts?
Proposed Legislation
2.	How many of these boxes were purchased in the years 1951, 1952 and 1953?
3.	How many were distributed for use in each of the above years?
4.	Where were the mail boxes manufactured?
5.	What were delivery charges on mail boxes to Vancouver and Halifax?
6.	When last were tenders called, where and how?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. Gagnon:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Department of Transport or any agency under that department and the CKCH Hull Broadcasting Company Limited and the Canadian Marconi Corporation, in connection with a project for the installation of a television station for the Hull-Ottawa district.


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: I would ask that this motion stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.



PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACT


Hon. Siuari S. Garson (for ihe Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting 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.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: that the house go into committee at the next sitting 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.
5006	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Postmaster General whether any decision has been made generally effective to close lobbies in post offices where boxholders would normally have access to their boxes on Sundays and on any other days? If that is the case, does the decision also apply to other public holidays?


Hon. Alcide Cote (Postmaster General):: am not aware of it. My hon. friend is asking a general question. I know I have considered particular cases. If my hon. friend will give me some more details with regard to the case he has in mind, I shall be glad to investigate it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the Postmaster General a supplementary question? From what he has told me, should I understand that if, in any particular case, a lobby is closed on Sunday, that would be only a particular case and not part of the general procedure laid down by his department?


Alcide Côté: No, Mr. Speaker; I did not say that. I cannot give a definite answer to a general question such as that asked by my hon. friend. We have to take into consideration the hours of work performed by the postmaster. The same cannot be said for all post offices all over the country. There might be some post office where the question that is asked might be considered. I shall be glad to discuss the question with my friend in that particular case.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My point is this-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to the hon. member for Kamloops that he could perhaps discuss this matter at further length when the estimates are before the house.



UNITED STATES SELLING POLICY-EFFECT ON CANADIAN PRICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister's attention been drawn to "The Washington
[Mr. Garson.l

Story" by Shane MacKay in Friday's Winnipeg Free Press under the heading of "World Sale of Feed Stocks Gets Subsidy"? Can the minister indicate what effect this offering of these surplus stocks will have on Canadian prices of rye, oats and barley?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I am aware of the fact that the United States have announced a policy of selling their coarse grains at world prices. It is difficult to assess the effect of this policy until we can be sure just what they mean by "world prices". We believe that we have been selling our coarse grain at world prices. If the United States simply dropped down to our prices, and if it is just a case of dropping down that far, the effect will not be serious. However, we dislike programs of subsidizing exports of any kind. All I can say is that we are watching the situation closely.
[Later: 1


Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: should like to direct to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, a question supplementary to that of the hon. member for Mackenzie. Would the minister care to comment on the press report that bids for Canadian feed grain have been withdrawn as a result of the policy announced by the United States to which he referred?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no knowledge as to whether or not bids have been withdrawn. I know we have sold an unusual amount of coarse grains within the last ten days, but whether recent bids have now been withdrawn I cannot say.



IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
Canada's one millionth immigrant
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tell us whether Canada has received her millionth immigrant; and if so, who he or she was and from what country that person came?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: It is a fact that the one millionth post-war immigrant has arrived in Canada, but no one seems to know who he or she might be. I presume my hon. friend has been reading the press reports on this subject and feels obliged to ask about it. We did give some consideration as to whether or not we ought to recognize the one millionth immigrant. However, we felt that this was a continuing policy and that it would perhaps

not do any particular good if we recognized one more than another. We feel that they are all good, all desirable and all welcome.



INQUIRY AS TO RAISING OF MARKET QUOTAS IN WEST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is he in a position to say now what are the prospects of the market quotas for wheat being generally raised throughout the western provinces in order to provide additional cash for the farmers at this time of year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, it is possible at this time to speed up deliveries from the country. I am told that the outstanding orders for the forwarding of grain will take care of all points that have not as yet reached the five-bushel quota. Over and above the five-bushel quota, considerable progress is being made in bringing all points up to the seven-bushel quota. We believe that situation can be achieved in due course.
The difficulty is that we have a great preponderance of No. 2 northern wheat and there is a limit to the extent that we can block up our facilities in the east by filling them with No. 2 northern wheat. However, we now have a sufficient movement of No. 2 northern wheat to enable us to clean up the five-bushel quota points. I point out to hon. members that the specified acreage is about 70 million acres. On a seven-bushel quota that in itself will amount to a delivery of about 500 million bushels. The special quotas deliverable to coarse grains and for other purposes will raise that amount by at least another 50 million bushels. Hence after we reach the seven-bushel quota we shall be working on total deliveries of over 550 million bushels whereas the average deliveries over the past ten years have been about 510 million bushels.



REASONS FOR SITTING ON QUEEN'S BIRTHDAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: In
view of the appropriate remarks made by the Prime Minister at the opening of our sitting, I should like to direct this question to him. Will he inform the house as to the reasons why members of the House of Commons and not the Senate, the House of Commons staffs and not the Senate staffs, and the press employees in the building must carry on
Inquiries of the Ministry their normal duties on the day which commemorates the birthday of our Queen, in contravention of the normal practice of government and business on this day?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, the proceedings of this house are regulated by the members of the house, and the same is true of the proceedings in the other place. I have been here now for several years and it has been my experience that when parliament was in session on the day fixed for the celebration of the sovereign's birthday this house manifested its devotion to the sovereign by continuing on that day to consider public business.



SAINT JOHN RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? When may we expect the detailed report of the international joint commission which recently recommended in favour of a $200 million power development on the Saint John river basin?


Lionel Chevrier: The international joint commission reports to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and not to me. I have had a word with him about this question, and I think he would want to consult the chairman of the international joint commission before reporting to the house whether or not the report in question can be tabled.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I
should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government received a communication in the last few days from the premier of Saskatchewan or the government of that province undertaking to accept responsibility for one-half of the cost of the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project? If so, what consideration has been given to that suggestion?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The last communication from the premier of Saskatchewan of which I have any knowledge was, I think, on the 28th of April, and that is not quite the form the proposal from the government of Saskatchewan takes. It may be that some would be of opinion that what is involved in the portion of

Inquiries of the Ministry the work that the province would be prepared to undertake would amount to one-half of the cost of the whole power and irrigation project. I have not made that calculation. However, the proposal as submitted is still before the government for consideration and no decision has been arrived at. It has been under active consideration, and I hope it will not be long before we will be able to send a reply to the premier of Saskatchewan.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the fact that the press has made certain references to this letter as given out by the premier of Saskatchewan, would the Prime Minister care to table the letter received from him so that the facts will be clear from that letter?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not think we would have any objection to the letter being tabled, but of course we would not do that without communicating with the premier of Saskatchewan to find out what his views about it might be. But I see no objection to publicity being given to the letter. As far as the federal government is concerned, the matter is one that has to be dealt with on the basis of the national interest of the whole country, and unless there were some reason, such as the letter being part of negotiations that may be varied, I would see no objection to its being made public. However, we would have to communicate with the premier of Saskatchewan before making it public because I personally would not consider that was the final word from the government of Saskatchewan about the project.


Mr. Argue:: I wonder whether the Prime Minister would be prepared to table the government's letter to the premier of Saskatchewan whenever that letter is sent.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That will depend upon certain considerations. If the two letters constitute a disposal of the question there would be no objection to making them public, but if they are part of negotiations that are still proceeding then it is usually preferable to wait until something final has developed before making all the stages public.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that apparently a summary was given out by the premier of Saskatchewan, and under those circumstances I would feel that, regardless of whether or not the letter was in the nature of negotiations, we should have the facts and realize what is taking place. Even if there were negotiations-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I know this is a very important question, but there have been three questions and three replies. The hon.


member is now making his own observations on the appropriateness of tabling part of the correspondence or all of the correspondence and so on. This is not in order at this time in our proceedings. There may be occasions when the hon. member may discuss this very point at great length. I am not suggesting that he should not, but not at this time. If the hon. member wishes to ask a supplementary question-


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege-and I speak on a question of privilege for the members of the house-this is a matter of importance, and the Prime Minister said that because negotiations might be going on-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: After all, Mr. Speaker, you do not need that assistance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister said that in view of the fact that negotiations were going ahead the communications might not be produced to the house under those circumstances. I submit that whether or not negotiations are going on is no justification for refusing to produce the documents.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member had said at the opening of his remarks that he was making them on a question of privilege I would have allowed him to proceed. At this moment, since he has made his statement, I think he will agree that we should now proceed with other business.


Mr. Ferguson:: On a question of privilege, if we are going to delay important questions until later we may not have time to discuss them unless members of the house are willing to sit during July. Important questions should be discussed now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



PUBLIC SERVANTS' INVENTIONS


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


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has the minister in mind adding to what he had to say at the resolution stage?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not really think there is anything to add to what was said at the resolution stage. The explanatory note puts very succinctly the purpose of the bill, which is to substitute a uniform legislative scheme for the various provisions on the subject

contained at the present time in four different statutes. If I may have your permission to refer to the sections, Mr. Speaker, the principle of the bill, which is set out in the third section, is that under the three circumstances set out there inventions made by public servants shall be the property of the crown.
I believe, sir, that explains everything except what it would be more appropriate to explain in committee on the clauses of the bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not
believe there is any reason for us, Mr. Speaker, to press the minister to make a statement at any greater length, although there are certain changes to be made by the bill that are quite far-reaching. It might have assisted the discussion if the minister had given us a general survey of their effect. However, I feel that although it may somewhat lengthen proceedings to do it that way, it can be done by discussion in committee. There is one observation I want to make and that is that, so far as my own study of the changes made now indicates, there would not appear to be in the legislation anything to which we would take vigorous exception. There are one or two points I should like to make when we have reached the appropriate sections.
There is, however, one point to which my remarks do not apply, and that concerns the power given to the governor in council to make rules of practice and procedure concerning appeals to the exchequer court. I mention that now lest it might be felt, from the fact we have not said anything about it, that we find the whole bill acceptable. However, since that is a point of detail, the appropriate time to raise the objection and press it will be in committee on the section. I shall reserve any further remarks until that stage.


Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):: I feel
Mr. Speaker, that I should make a few observations on this bill at this time. You will recall that some time ago, during the introduction of an amendment to the Patent Act, I mentioned the situation of public servants who had invented something while employed by the crown and who had complained on many occasions of the treatment that had been accorded to them. For some time I thought this matter might not come up again because it could be considered by the royal commission studying the Patent Act in the near future. However, I can quite appreciate that this house can dispose of the question without consideration by the royal commission, and since the minister has elected to do so I should like to say a few words about the bill.
Inventions by Public Servants
While it may be easy for some officials to understand, the house as a whole might not be so well informed as to the implications of the provisions of this bill. We are dealing with a patent which is a reward given to an inventor for having disclosed his invention to the public. In the ordinary course of events, Mr. Speaker, a patent is granted freely to any inventor in this country, provided he is the first inventor and makes a sufficient and proper disclosure. In the ordinary course of master and servant, the problems are not too difficult. The invention belongs to the servant, whether or not he has invented something on the time of the master, whether or not he has done so with the machines or tools of the master. The only thing the master usually gets, unless there is a specific contract, is an equity in the invention or the use of the invention for his own purposes, depending on the specific contract, and some benefits from the invention.
The relationship we are considering today, however, is that of the crown and crown employees. This makes the situation more difficult. As between an ordinary person and the crown, the crown can use the invention subject only to such award as might be made by the commissioner of patents. Now, the crown wishes to establish a proper relationship between the crown and the inventor who is a public servant, and that makes the situation quite complicated. The complication arises in view of the fact that the whole system of patents is based on the reward to an inventor for making his disclosure to the public, and because the intention of this bill is to put the servant of the crown, not in an inferior position but in a different position from that of the ordinary servant in relation to his master.
As I stated before, we are interested here in the relationship between the crown and its employees. The distinction being made in this bill, and an important one, is to define what inventions shall belong to the crown and what inventions shall not. The definition, therefore, that may be given in the bill will be of great importance. I quite appreciate that the purpose of this bill, generally speaking, is to cover certain specific cases in which inventors, who are servants of the crown, made inventions while they were employees of the crown and have not acknowledged their inventions to the departmental minister. The provisions of this bill should not be made so strict as to discourage civil servants from giving of their best, so that the public at large may get the benefit.

Inventions by Public Servants
The provisions in our act now are rather stringent. Broadly speaking, we have a provision in the Patent Act, that is section 47, which states:
Every patent granted in respect of an invention made by a person while employed in the public service of Canada, and relating to the nature of his employment is . . . subject to the following conditions:
Generally speaking, the conditions are that the crown is declared to have an interest, and that any royalties derived from the said patent will be divided between the servant and the crown. There is another important provision which may not appear in this bill, covered by subsection 4 of section 47, which says:
Nothing herein contained shall be construed to restrict the right of the inventor to the full enjoyment of his invention outside of Canada.
Now, that is the general situation of an inventor who is a servant of the crown. There is also, however, the National Defence Act, Atomic Energy Control Act and the Research Council Act, which specifically cover the employees of these departments, and which contain stringent regulations. I believe that is understandable because these employees, by their duties, are inventors for the crown. Those acts specifically state that any invention by employees working under those acts belongs to the crown. I thought I should mention those facts in order to illustrate that this situation is not new.
There are broad provisions in the Patent Act covering civil servants, and specific provisions in the other acts covering servants of the crown who are research men. The point now, then, is to find out what is the appropriate course to follow. As I understand it, the government would like to have more uniform legislation on the subject. As I said before, however, the rights and benefits accruing to public servants should not be fettered or reduced so as to discourage them from making further inventions in the public interest. The most important element is that any invention that is not of a type relating to the employment of the civil servant should not be restricted by this bill. This bill should set forth in absolute terms the inventions to which the crown shall have an absolute right, but I am hoping that this definition will release all public servants who are not, by the nature of their employment, directed towards improving and devising new methods, articles or processes. That is the most important part. As I said before, I have no quarrel with restrictions being imposed on people who, from the nature of their employment, are research men.


The second important part, no doubt, is the protection of the rights of any public servant against delays by the minister in deciding whether an invention is or is not of a class which the crown claims to own. An inventor, whoever he may be, should have the right to apply for his patent in Canada. He probably would not go to the expense of doing so if he thought the patent should belong to the crown. But, in any event, any delay in filing an application would be prejudicial in establishing prior conception rights and protecting treaty rights involved in the invention, whether to the crown or to the public servant himself.
I have already mentioned to the minister that the inventor, who is a civil servant, a public servant, might not be restrained from filing an application as soon as he desires.
Another point involved in a patent matter of course is the use of the invention abroad. It is doubtful if the ordinary gratuity which would be granted a civil servant would really cover the value of his invention for use abroad; and in this case under the present bill as I understand it the crown would have the right to the invention the world over. That is understandable. But I wish to point out that it would be hardly fair for the crown to hold the right to inventions universally and not to exercise its right to take out patents in other countries without giving the opportunity within the required time to the inventor to do so.
Perhaps hon. members know that most countries require that application be filed in another country within one year of the filing date in Canada. So if the crown elects not to file the application outside of Canada after the year, we would simply be giving the benefit of the invention to other countries for nothing, whereas we probably would be in a position to charge royalties to our own people within this country. I am sure the minister will bear this point in mind.
I do not wish to deal in detail with the matter of compensation. Under the present statute, in the Patent Act, the right of the ordinary public servant is preserved. There has been no complaint about that and, I believe, there have been no serious difficulties. The public servant is entitled to share his royalty with the crown in accordance with the decision of the commissioner of patents.
I do not know what benefits have accrued to inventors under the other statutes-the National Defence Act, the Research Council Act and the Atomic Energy Control Act.
These matters have not been made public, and I do not know how satisfied or dissatisfied employees are. But apparently they must

be satisfied because there has been no mention, at least publicly, of their dissatisfaction. In any event, there is also the fact that people who are not affected by those acts seem to have been satisfied by the supervisory provisions of the Patent Act, as set out under section 46.
These, therefore, are the general problems involved in the bill. The other acts which deal with other departments are well directed, and it is difficult to associate inventions of ordinary inventors with inventors who are of the research type. I wish the house to bear in mind that under a bill of this kind a cleaner or a stenographer, a physicist or a medical doctor would all be treated in the same way. They would all have to submit their inventions to their ministers, of whatever nature such inventions might be, before filing application. And such filing could not be made without the consent of the minister.
That is why I stated in the beginning that any delay caused by the decision of the minister might have serious consequences for the inventor who invented something of a type which the crown should not hold.
Another point that should be kept in mind is that if the provisions of this bill are carried through, necessarily there will have to be an organization to carry out the provisions properly. It cannot be done haphazardly. There should be a central authority to decide which patents are of a type belonging to the crown. Such authority should decide the type of invention which must be retained by the crown or given back to the inventor. That same authority should decide what gratuity there should be, and also should take appropriate action through a patent solicitor to patent the invention either in Canada or throughout the world, and also to defend lawsuits or to take lawsuits or legal action, wherever necessary. That is, in effect, putting ourselves in the patent business.
While I do not wish to deal with this question in detail, it does bring up a very tricky subject. There are definite facts and opinions on both sides as to whether the crown, once it has expended public money on research, should hold a patent and collect royalties from those who exploit the patent for commerce, or whether it should simply give the benefit freely to the people, and let the inventor have his benefits outside, if he can.
As I said before, I do not wish to take the time to discuss that problem at length. Just the same, however, it does involve the question as to whether the crown, as such, should go into the business of holding, maintaining and licensing patents. Obviously it is done 83276-317*
Inventions by Public Servants under the Research Council Act. Probably it can operate in certain circumstances. And since the matter is not involved here I will not discuss it further.
However, if this bid is to be implemented properly, then a proper organization should be established. At present the departments apply through different solicitors for their own patents. They have different methods of doing it. It might be that, in the opinion of those who are looking forward to proper development, the patent office in time should have a staff equipped to settle all these problems, and that the commissioner of patents, as he does under the old act, should have to settle what inventions belong to the crown, what gratuity should be allowed, and say who should apply for patents in the right of the crown. These of course are matters for regulation and are not matters known to those who are discussing the bill.
In conclusion I have only one further point to make. As I said earlier, I do not know how employees of the government feel about this bill. I have no reason to believe that they are not satisfied; I have no way of knowing that. However, 1 do appreciate the desirability of protecting the interests of the crown in respect of inventions which are directly connected with the kind of employment carried on by public servants. At the same time I am interested in protecting the ordinary individual who, while employed by the crown, develops an invention which is not of that type. I am also interested in servants of the crown who have invented new processes or new articles of manufacture or new compositions of matters which are related to their employment. I should like to see them get a proper gratuity. That is another important point.
If I have searched too deeply I apologize to the house; but since this subject matter is germane to my usual calling I thought I should bring those matters to the attention of the house. I have no doubt that the minister will appreciate that in doing so I am trying to assist him.


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I ought to say just two words about what the hon. member for Ottawa East has just said, particularly about one of the points he has made. There is no desire whatsoever on the part of the government to abridge the rights of public servants as citizens any more than is necessary to protect what under the principle of this bill are felt to be the appropriate rights of the crown.
5012	HOUSE OF
Inventions by Public Servants
My hon. friend drew my attention to the fact that one subsection of section 4 of this bill did appear to go beyond that point, and I thought I ought to indicate now, before we go into committee, that when we go into committee I propose to ask one of my colleagues to move an amendment to that section which will leave to public servants the right to file an application for a patent in Canada without the consent of the minister, so that there will be no excuse for saying that the government or the minister is delaying the filing of the applications. It does seem to me that lawyers sometimes, if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) will permit me to say so, are a little excessive as draftsmen in their desire to accomplish the objects of some of our legislation, and it seemed to me that this was one case where we could indicate right away that they appeared to have gone a little further than was strictly necessary.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I hope the minister understands that this will be taken down and used against him or against the government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Ottawa East has perhaps more experience with patents than any other member of the house, or at least as much, and we are all grateful to him for the interesting and thoughtful contribution which he has made to the consideration of this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Definitions.
John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister give the committee some statistics showing the number of inventions that have been made in the last three years by servants or officials of the crown? What has been paid by way of remuneration, compensation or reward to such servants? In particular, what has been the largest and the smallest payment?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think I can answer that question precisely as the hon. member asked it. I do not think there exist in any one place details as to the number of inventions by public servants because, under the present legislation, there would be no particular incentive for keeping them in that way.
On the question of compensation for those inventions that are vested in the crown, I have some information that I think I can give to the committee that would pretty well answer the question. Under Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, inventions are all handled by a crown company called Canadian Patents and Development Limited, and I am advised


that this company received $679.50 from royalties in 1952 and has had no payment since. Because the royalties have been so small and have not been regular, no system of paying inventors for inventions has been established. It is pretty obvious why this is so. In the case of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, nearly all their inventions are secret and there is almost no way in which they can be commercially exploited. That is not quite universally true.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister the record from the other departments?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was coming to the
research council. The present procedure in the research council is that a regular bonus or royalty is payable to the inventor, which may not exceed 5 per cent of royalties received from the invention. I understand there is some uncertainty as to whether that rather rigid rule is really desirable, or whether there should not be a little more consideration given to the real merits of individual cases. During the two-year period from April 1, 1952, to March 31, 1954, the council paid out a total of $1,480.44 to nine different inventors in accordance with the regulations. I am just advised that the complete figures from 1949 to 1954 are $9,914.01. Therefore no great fortunes are being made by these inventors.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the largest?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed that the largest amount is about $3,500. I have some information about the Department of National Defence. The amounts in all these cases are very small.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Are these the royalties or awards?


John Whitney Pickersgill: These are the awards.


John George Diefenbaker: Certainly they do not get much reward.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the case of the research council and atomic energy which are the most considerable, they represent about 5 per cent net of what the royalties would have been. Up to now no very great sums have been involved. I am informed that during the fiscal year April 1, 1953, to March 31, 1954, in the Department of National Defence a total of $425 was paid in awards to five inventors, two of these being co-inventors. The awards ranged from $50 to a maximum of $200.


John George Diefenbaker: I hope that when this bill is passed the awards will be different from what they have been in the past, because those awards are picayune and certainly they are no incentive to an individual to maintain

the law. Under the section in question, which we are not dealing with at the moment, it is provided that there shall be a penalty of $500 for failure of a public servant to give notice to the minister of an invention. Certainly the awards so far would not indicate that reward for incentive that public servants have a right to expect; for after all they are making a tremendous sacrifice. Many of those scientists are making a tremendous sacrifice, and an award not exceeding $3,000 in one case, and apparently many smaller awards of a few dollars to an individual, are scarcely in keeping with the rewards that a public servant would receive if he were not in the public service.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say a word about that. After all, most of these inventions are made by people in the research council who may not be getting much reward for the incidental inventions which they make; they are being provided with really quite remarkable facilities for the development of their own potentialities by the taxpayers of Canada and with facilities for doing their own work on a scale which, had it existed when I was an undergraduate, would have been very tempting to me.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate what the minister has just said, but we are talking now about the research council and the nature of the research council. The statute as it exists now is absolute and states that any invention belongs to the research council with the provision that gratuities will be paid by the council. However, apparently the system as regards awards and dividends depends on what profits can be made from the marketing of the invention. That comes back to the original point I raised in the latter part of my speech a few moments ago. There surely would not be much purpose in speaking about awards or gratuities for civil servants on inventions made while they are employees of the crown, because I do not think that if the award is based on a percentage of the profits made by the crown organization in exploiting patents such profits could not be very large, and it certainly goes against my principles that the crown should exploit such patents. The crown grants patents, and that it should exploit something which it grants is something about which I am not too happy. However, I hope that this new bill when enforced will bring about a different attitude to the whole system, and that awards will be based on the contribution made by the inventor to the development of research or public manufacture in Canada so that if the crown does not see fit to exploit a patent
Inventions by Public Servants the inventor shall not lose and will not gain any less than he might have gained under the present system in regard to the Patent Act. As I said before, I am not surprised that the amount is not greater because it is based on a system of net profit and I should not expect that the net profit of the exploitation of the crown patent could be very large.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Interpretation.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, paragraph (b)
defines department, and the effect of that, of course, is to provide that a public servant engaged in any department defined according to the act shall come within the scope of the act with respect to the inventions he makes. Now, "department" is defined under this paragraph as follows:
(b) "department" means a department as defined in the Financial Administration Act, and includes a crown corporation named in schedule C to that act;
Under the Financial Administration Act
department means:
(i)	any of the departments named in schedule A,
(ii)	any other division or branch of the public service of Canada including a commission appointed under the Inquiries Act, designated by the governor in council as a department for the purposes of this act,
(iii)	the staffs of the Senate, the House of Commons, and the library of parliament, and
(iv)	any corporation named in schedule B;
It will be noted therefore that under the definition of department given in this bill the departments which are contained in schedules A and B and C of the Financial Administration Act are departments for the purposes of this bill plus any such independent board or commission the governor in council may designate under the Financial Administration Act. But by and large, the effect of that is that none of the departments or agencies mentioned under schedule D of the Financial Administration Act come within the terms of this bill. I would like to know what reason there can be for leaving out schedule D, because under that schedule there are included such agencies as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Eldorado Mining and Refining (1944) Limited, and so on, and various other agencies which are commonly designated as crown corporations.
Now, the employees of these corporations are not going to come within the terms of the bill even though the inventions they made actually come within the scope of their employment and are made with facilities provided by the corporation. Such employees will not be covered under this Public Servants Inventions Act, whereas an invention made by an employee of, let us say, Canadian Arsenals, the federal district commission or
5014	HOUSE OF
Inventions by Public Servants the Park Steamships company would be inside the purview of this bill. I cannot see why an employee of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, to take an example, who makes a discovery or an invention with respect to television or broadcasting with facilities provided by the corporation should not be covered in the same way as an employee of any of the other ones named under schedule C such as Defence Construction Limited, or the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation though I do not suppose an employee of that corporation would make an invention. However, the same thing might be said with respect to the Trans-Canada Air Lines where an employee might make an invention with facilities provided by his employer. If it is fair to include one, I do not see why the other should not be included and I hope the minister can give us an explanation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the explanation is that these companies under schedule D are companies whose employees are not public servants. They have budgets of their own and they manage their own affairs and they may, like any private corporation, have some arrangement of their own with the employees Who may make inventions; but such employees are in no sense public servants and are therefore not included.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think the minister has dealt with the point adequately. Here I agree with the hon. member for Ottawa East that while it is desirable that inventors should have facilities provided by the crown and in accordance with their employment with the crown, it is also desirable that the crown should be protected. Nevertheless, I think it is necessary to be fair to the inventor. While it is true that some of the corporations named in schedule D are separate corporations and have their own budgets and so on, it is not correct to say that none of them are supported by public funds, because I think the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which receives funds directly from the taxpayers of Canada through excise tax payments on the purchase of radio sets and appliances, which device was adopted within the last year to provide an alternative method to the annual grant which parliament used to offer the corporation, most certainly receives a very substantial portion of its revenue from the public through payment of taxes, as distinct from Polymer which is now a self-sustaining corporation and obtains its revenue through the sale of its products.
I do not want to pick any corporation out in particular, but the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation occurs to me as the best example of the sort of thing I have in mind, and I cannot see why an employee of the Canadian 

Broadcasting Corporation, which is a corporation supported directly by the taxpayers of Canada, should not have the same advantage with respect to the invention he may make as that afforded to employees of the other corporations named under schedules A, B, and C of the Financial Administration Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think I can answer the hon. member very easily on that point, particularly on that example. Parliament in its wisdom passed a statute in 1936 called, I believe, the Canadian Broadcasting Act, and it established a corporation which was to be managed and operated by a board of governors and to have employees of its own quite independent of the government. Whether it derives its capital from one source or from another, its employees are not public servants and none of the laws applying to public servants applies to it. It was felt that an act of this kind which deals with what are, by definition, public servants should not be extended beyond the people who are defined as public servants. Moreover, I am not at all sure- I have no knowledge of what the practice is in the C.B.C.-that, like many corporations, it may not have arrangements with its employees about inventions, as many large corporations have. Whether they have any advantage over public servants or not, I am not now in a position to say; but I would greatly doubt it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That last fact hardly seems to me to apply because if it is going to be argued that one reason why it is not necessary to include them within this bill is that they have arrangements with their employees, one could make the same argument and say that the other crown corporations which are included need only make arrangements with their employees, and then they should also be exempted from the bill. I do not think the minister's argument there has any application to the particular circumstance. The fact is that these corporations are recognized and included in a schedule for the purpose of the Financial Administration Act. So they are recognized in the Financial Administration Act as crown corporations. It is nonsense to say that because they are employed in self-sustaining public corporations they are not public servants, because they are in the public service in very important respects, particularly those who, as I have pointed out, in the C.B.C. are employed by a corporation whose activity is in large measure directly financed by the taxpayer. Therefore, I should like to see the minister amend the act so as to include at least some of these corporations in schedule

D. On the other hand, I suppose that if it is possible that the employees of these corporations may receive, by being omitted, advantage which is not granted to the employees of these corporations which are included, then the pressure and agitation on the part of the employees themselves who feel themselves discriminated against, if there should be such discrimination, will eventually result in a new look being taken at the matter. I think it might save time to do it now; but, having made my point, I will not press it further.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Inventions vested in Her Majesty.
Jean-Thomas Richard: Mr. Chairman, I am thinking of the definition:
The following inventions, and all rights with respect thereto in Canada or elsewhere, are vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada, namely,
(a)	an invention made by a public servant
I1) while acting within the scope of his duties or employment, . . .
I want to suggest to the minister that that language might be good if it is properly interpreted, but what I was trying to say in my remarks a while ago-and I want to repeat it-is that it is made clear that it is not just the fact that the civil servant is employed by the government that is to be considered but the fact that he is doing something which is related to the type of work he is carrying on for the crown. For example, if a typist should invent something with regard to a typewriter, it should not mean that the crown should have the right to that invention with regard to a typewriter because she operates a typewriter. But some smart fellow might come along and say that it is related to the scope of her employment because she types and it has to do with a typewriter. I think it would perhaps be better to state that by the invention made by a public servant is meant the invention which is within the scope of his duties or employment.
The only other remark I want to make is with regard to paragraph (b) which I think is almost a repetition of paragraph (a) (i) and which reads:
(b)	an invention made by a public servant that resulted from or is connected with his duties or employment.
However, what I am interested in is to bring to the attention of the minister paragraph (a) (i). I should like to be sure that it is clear that the inventions covered are those which are within the scope of the duties or employment of a crown employee.
Inventions by Public Servants Mr. Pickersgill: On this particular point, Mr. Chairman, may I say this. The hon. member spoke to me the other day. I have examined the various provisions of the statutes that, if the house approves, are being repealed by this bill. I find that the actual phrase used here is one that is used in the National Defence Act. I do not say that fact gives it any greater sanctity than the phrase used in any other act. I sought legal advice which I, not being a lawyer, certainly need on the point, and it was pointed out that if we use some such phrase as "related to his employment" rather than "acting within the scope of his employment" there might be a slight difference. For example, you might take the precise definition of a technician at the national research council which states that he is to do such and such and so and so under the direction of the man he is working for. He would have access over a long period of time to the know-how in a particular field and he might well be the last link in a long chain and he might be, in a technical sense, the inventor though in fact he had really little to do with the development of an important process. If the courts looked at this thing they might say that was not related to his employment. He was employed as a technician. It might even be a stenographer, if I may take the example used by my hon. friend-a really intelligent stenographer such as they would have at the national research council or as they would have to have-and who might, through long familiarity with the thing, just see a particular point that would be of some consequence and would affect a whole process. In a great many of these processes, one single invention, as I understand it-and heaven knows I am no inventor-or one single process in a complicated series of processes that make up modern industrial articles may not in itself be very important. But if the crown did not own that one particular invention and owned all the rest of the processes, it might be useless to everyone. It was therefore thought that this particular language would cover a case such as those I have just mentioned a little bit better than would the other. That is the only point.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I quite appreciate the fact that the minister had something more in mind than to cover the case of the stenographer who was familiar with the subject, but that would be covered by paragraph (b); "that resulted from or is connected with his duties or employment". I am thinking more of paragraph (a) (i), and how to make it more specific. Of course I am sure that a court will take a much narrower view of what is a public invention or a crown invention
5016	HOUSE OF
Inventions by Public Servants than some of us would. I think the principle must at all times be that of legislating in favour of the inventor and not in favour of the employer, whether it is the crown or someone else.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On this section, Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise a point. The opening general words of section 3 vest a right to the invention in the crown. The words are as follows:
The following inventions, and all rights with respect thereto in Canada or elsewhere, are vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada, . . .
-whereas previously with respect to public servants, except those covered by the National Defence Act, the Research Council Act and the Atomic Energy Control Act, rights to inventions of public servants outside of Canada were left to the public servant. I think the point was made earlier by the hon. member for Ottawa East in his general remarks, but I have a note to raise it at this time under section 3. Will the minister tell us why it was considered to be desirable and advisable to take away from public servants, other than those in the three corporations mentioned where the reasons were perhaps obvious, rights to inventions outside of Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. I think the reason is this. If there is to be uniformity, and I think it is desirable that there should be uniformity, it does not seem to me, because someone is employed in the bureau of mines in the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys rather than by the national research council, that, where he is given comparable facilities in every way, he should have greater rights than someone employed in the research council or in the atomic energy control board or, even more, in the Department of National Defence. It seems to me whatever the standard is it should be the same for all of these, if I may hazard the term, genuine public servants. I think my hon. friend's difficulty may arise from this point which occurred to me when I first read the bill, that this seems to be taking away something that might have been thought by us to belong, and which legally did belong, to public servants. But when it is remembered that the inventions covered by this section are only those which are invented as the result of employment or with facilities provided by the crown or in the way that all of us seem to have been agreed, by accepting the principle of the bill, should belong to the crown, and that all other inventions that any public servant may make belong to him, it does not seem to me at all unreasonable that the


crown should retain the rights abroad as well as at home which we say should belong to it anyway.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is an interesting point there. The minister has used an argument here which he rejected a few minutes ago in connection with an earlier section on the question of whether other crown corporations should not also be included. He said then that they were not the same type of corporation, that they did not stand in the same relationship, and that therefore they should not be included under the act. Now he says that they are going to make things the same for everybody so that the person working on highly secret work in the national research council or the Department of National Defence will be in exactly the same position as a person working on ordinary everyday matters in the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.
I do not think the minister should be allowed to have it two ways. He must decide which way he wants to take it. I point out to him that under subsection 4 of section 47 of the Patent Act it was well understood and contemplated that the rights within Canada to inventions made by public servants within the scope of their employment belong to the crown.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The crown has an interest in them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was well understood. Perhaps I will modify it. Under that provision the inventor did not have exclusive rights to the use of that invention in Canada but he did have exclusive rights to the use of it outside of Canada even though it was an invention made in the course of his employment and with facilities provided by the public. The relevant words are:
Nothing herein contained shall be construed to restrict the right of the inventor to the full enjoyment of his invention outside of Canada.
That cannot be held to be in any way an oversight or accident. That is a conscious piece of draftsmanship.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In other words, at that time it was thought proper to give to the inventor exclusive and full rights outside of Canada even though the invention was made in the course of his employment. I am wondering what reversal of thinking has taken place and what is the basis of it that has resulted in this change of position?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If you have four statutes containing four different ways of doing things and you want to substitute one that is uniform

for all, then obviously you have got to make some changes in some of the others. It was just a question of choosing what criteria would be applied in order to get a uniform provision.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would it not be in order to say: "except with respect to public servants in the national research council, atomic energy control board and the Department of National Defence, nothing herein shall be deemed to take away the right to full enjoyment outside of Canada"? There would not be anything very difficult about that. That would merely carry forward the present situation. We are not asking for any change.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course that would be possible. This is one of those cases where, as the gentleman said who failed to invite his father-in-law to his wedding, you have got to draw the line somewhere.


John George Diefenbaker: Who was the father-inlaw?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The putative father-in-law. This is the point. The hon. gentleman has said that we might have made a distinction between people employed by the Department of National Defence, the atomic energy control board and the research council on the one hand and other public servants on the other. There is a broad distinction now in the law which we are seeking to remove. That is the main purpose of this legislation. It would be manifestly unjust not to remove it. After all, the hon. member assumes that all inventions that might be made by the employees of these three organisms would be secret. He imported that consideration into the bill though in fact it is not there at all.
There are over 100,000 men in the armed forces to whom the National Defence Act, as it now stands, applies. It does not matter what kind of invention they make as long as it comes within these categories, the act applies.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is perfectly obvious the purpose of that extra restriction was to cover the secret nature of the work.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suppose the distinction might have been made between what was secret and what was not, but it was decided by the government, after careful consideration of all the alternatives that have been mentioned by the hon. member for Kamloops and quite a number of others that have not yet been referred to, that this was the fairest way to do the thing. It is true that there could be cases where an employee in a department like mine, for example, where no facilities of any kind are provided for the 83276-318
Inventions by Public Servants stimulation of invention and that sort of thing, might invent something. He might invent something having to do with medals or decorations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yours is the department of political inventions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I doubt that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is plenty of stimulation there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But there are a good many other departments of the government, and I mentioned particularly the department of my hon. friend, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. I could equally have mentioned the department of the Minister of Agriculture or the department for which I happen to have very temporary responsibility at the moment, the Department of Fisheries. A good deal of public money is provided for these departments for the express purpose of research and that sort of thing, and it does seem to me it would be manifestly unfair to continue to apply a different set of rules to them from those applied to the research council. Things that exist may sometimes be allowed to go on existing, but when you are making a change like this I suggest it would not be proper to continue one regime for the national research council and the atomic energy control board and a different regime for other departments such as I have mentioned.
So far as inventions are concerned, we are trying as far as possible to protect all public servants. In a sense this is a liberalizing measure as far as the national research council, the atomic energy control board and the defence department are concerned, because we are now making it clear that any inventions made by any of their employees that are quite without the scope of their employment and not done with public money belong to them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is clear this is not merely, as it were, an incidental consequence of the legislation but is a change that was designed and is being carried out as a matter of conscious policy?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The restriction of the rights to the invention outside of Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is also a matter of conscious policy?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I should like to say a few more words on this subject because a while ago the minister said, in answer to
5018	HOUSE OF
Inventions by Public Servants the hon. member for Kamloops, that after all these were crown inventions, that under the bill we were making them crown inventions. But in the ordinary relationship between master and servant the master, the crown, was not, in the past, owner of a patent because the inventor happened to be working for the crown. We are establishing the principle here that if a person is an employee of the crown and invents something within the scope of his employment-I hope this is within the scope of my ideas-the invention belongs to the crown. That is something that is very liberal, if you want to call it that, because it is much more than was ever done before. Now, the hon. member says that research council employees should not feel bad and that we should restrict the rights of inventors in other departments in the same way. Of course, another way of answering the minister and his story would be to invite everybody to the wedding. In other words, we should liberalize the clauses of the Research Council Act, the Atomic Energy Control Act and the National Defence Act, and thus liberalize the treatment of all inventors to give them rights to their inventions outside of Canada in the same way as all other employees had under the Patent Act.
The thing I want to bring to the attention of hon. members is that all these little amendments are amendments to statutes that are technical in nature, but they have a purpose. I do not believe we are through dealing with the question of patents for crown employees. I feel that the matter will come up later. I do not think this is the answer, and I had hoped we would take some time before we came to a decision about this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Duties of inventor.
John Whitney Pickersgill: There is an amendment to clause 4. I wonder whether my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce would move the following amendment:
That the word ''outside" be substituted for the word "in" before "Canada" and that "or elsewhere" be stricken from paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of clause 4.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I so move, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would then read: shall not file outside Canada an application . . .


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to suggest an
amendment to the amendment. I am trying to be helpful. I believe it would be clearer if it were in the following form:
That the words "in Canada or elsewhere" be deleted where they appear in line 15, and the following substituted therefor, "outside Canada."


I think that would make it clearer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very happy to accept the hon. gentleman's suggestion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the Minister of Trade and Commerce would accept the suggestion, and move that amendment?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be happy to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 9-Administration and control of inventions.
Edmund Davie Fulton: The effect of clause 9 is to vest in the appropriate minister the administrative duties of the development or exploiting of any patent issued with respect to an invention made by a public servant. I would point out that these obligations and duties were previously imposed on the commissioner of patents under section 47 of the Patent Act. In other words, previously the situation was that where a public servant made an invention in the scope of his employment and a patent was issued, it was up to the commissioner of patents to determine and to take responsibility for the exploitation of that patent.
Now, as I say, those duties are all to be given to the appropriate minister. Reference was made to this in general terms by the hon. member for Ottawa East on the motion for second reading. He said he felt it would be necessary, in order to implement the bill in its present form, to set up an organization to take responsibility for the exploitation of patents, the registration of those patents overseas, and so on. It does seem to me that there is some point to what the hon. member for Ottawa East has said; otherwise you may get a multiplicity of methods, and perhaps duplication of effort. I make this simply as a suggestion, and I wonder whether it would not be more feasible to leave the administrative responsibility for the development and exploitation of patents, in so far as the technical side is concerned, under the commissioner of patents as it is now by section 47. In other words, we could reproduce, with the necessary consequential amendment, section 47 of the Patent Act, rather than change the system as is being done by clause 9 of this bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, sir, the reason it is done in the way suggested here is that in the drafting of this bill consideration was given primarily to those areas where inventions were most likely to occur, that is in the research council, atomic energy and the

Department of National Defence. Actually, the duties of the commissioner of patents were not to exploit and develop. He really did very little but adjudicate. The crown did not own these patents under the Patent Act, but simply had an interest in them. The patents are now being vested in the crown. The place where the crown has had experience is primarily in relation to the research council, and to a somewhat lesser extent in national defence. The Minister of Defence Production has had some practical experience in the administration of these matters so I am going to ask him to say a word to the committee about the reason why it is considered desirable to do it this way.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I had some experience, Mr. Chairman, with the exploitation of patents in connection with the research council, both during the last war and following the war. There were some patents developed that had commercial value, and applications were made to the government by industry to grant the use of those patents under a royalty arrangement. It was thought worth while to set up a crown company to handle the patents owned by the government, and that was done. Some of these patents are now under a royalty arrangement with certain firms, to some extent.
The reason I think that each minister should be responsible for the exploitation of patents developed in his own department is that he has there advice that is required as to the value of the patent, as to whom should go the credit for the development. If we were to start a competition within a department to see who can claim a particular patent, I think that approach might lead to serious difficulty. At one stage it was suggested that perhaps the right to appeal to the courts should be given. In an institution that is really organized to develop new inventions, such as the research council or Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, I think hon. members can see that system would lead to chaos. But if the minister of the department is to be responsible for seeing that the proper rewards go to the proper people, and that proper arrangements are made for exploiting a patent on behalf of the government, then I think that is the fairest way of handling the situation.


Mr. Drew:: I think there is a question that arises in connection with this matter. I had hoped that perhaps the right hon. gentleman who has just spoken might have enlightened us in connection with it. It is quite possible that, with all the excellent research work that has been done here, there have only been a few cases where the 83276-318J
Inventions by Public Servants terms of rigid secrecy could of necessity apply to an invention. Undoubtedly there have been some.
I believe the right hon. gentleman was present at a time when Sir Robert Watson-Watt described, in a most interesting way, the rather unusual circumstances under which the Germans obtained information regarding the invention of the jet engine, and that actually the German government had instituted experiments at government level before the British government had-despite the fact that the jet engine was invented by a young RA.P. officer named Whittle. I must say that when I heard his remarks on that subject I was tremendously impressed by the fact that every government has a great responsibility, not only to assure that inventions which may be the result of research work either by government employees or by military, naval or air experts should become the property of the crown, under fair conditions and terms, but also that there should be some protection against the possibility of what occurred in that particular case.
As the right hon. gentleman has every reason to know, there was some surprise that toward the end of the war there were Heinkel and Messerschmitt aircraft operating with jet engines of comparable quality, or perhaps in some cases even better quality than the British machines which had been developed from the original British patent.
This is no reflection upon the inventor. It certainly is no reflection on the loyalty and good faith of those sorely pressed and extremely conscientious men who did not see the possibilities of that new invention. It is not very often that a Whittle invents a jet engine or a Watson-Watt invents radar. Nevertheless these things do occur.
I wonder if this is not something that should be under wider discretion than the discretion of a single minister in whose department such inventions might arise. The right hon. gentleman and I have not always agreed on every detail of matters that have come up in the house, but I do recognize his very wide contact with inventions and the handling of these inventions, and I know how readily he will admit that it is difficult to judge in advance the full possibilities of some invention which, at the moment, might seem to be of a radical character, such as the jet engine was at the time it came forward.
Men whose minds were engaged with the immediate problem of defence and the immediate problem of getting engine production felt that this was such a wide departure from the ordinary propellor-driven engine
5020	HOUSE OF
Inventions by Public Servants that their minds apparently simply did not grasp the fact that the jet engine ushered in a new era in air transportation.
I place before the minister the suggestion that consideration should be given to some provision for an interdepartmental committee, or some such committee, that would assure that on the one hand there would be adequate exploitation or development of a new invention and, on the other hand, that an invention which is obviously of a highly secret nature and of peculiar value to our own defence, and that of our associates, should under no circumstances be patented, as was the jet engine, in a way that would leave it open to possible enemies.
In saying this I hope no one will suggest that there is any hint of any reflection on any individual minister. We do not know what minister happened to deal with this problem. But, with that example before us of what has occurred, I place this suggestion before him and would like to hear his observations with respect to it.
If he does agree, in general, then I suggest that section 9 should stand so that consideration could be given to a wider supervision of these patents, and to an assurance that patents in such circumstances will not be filed for application, so that they may not become available to possible enemies of this country.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the first precaution to take is to make sure that every patentable idea developed within the public service be patented in the name of the crown. And to that end we have a crown corporation known as Canadian Patents and Development Limited, which has been functioning for the last four or five years. It has officers who are experienced in patent matters, and has the services of a good patent lawyer. Its duty is to make sure that any patentable idea is patented in the name of the crown. And of course it is the duty of that corporation to make sure that the use of the patent is not granted in any way that could possibly be a danger to the crown.
Perhaps in connection with jet engine development there was some laxity in patenting the idea at the time; I am not sure about that. But I think the real answer is that enemy intelligence was bright enough to pick up an idea that the British government had not fully appreciated-


George Alexander Drew: But they did make it openly available.


Clarence Decatur Howe: own country. Of course the original development was by Whittle; nevertheless the idea was picked up and the development carried on in another country.
I think that is hardly the point in question. That is a matter of making sure that our secrecy provisions are adequate. I believe that the provision in section 9, which is intended to make sure that every patentable idea is patented by the crown, and that the administration of the patent is to be in the hands of a crown corporation, is the best arrangement that I can think of to bring about the security my hon. friend wishes to obtain.


George Alexander Drew: I do not want to labour the point unduly; but I would point out to the minister that under section 6 there is this provision:
Notwithstanding anything in the Patent Act, the appropriate minister may file an application-
And that means an application before the patent office.
-naming the inventor, for a patent for an invention vested in Her Majesty by this act-
And so on.
That means that an invention should be patented and recorded in the patent office in the ordinary way. My point is that a minister, who would not be dealing with patents of this kind in the ordinary course of events, might conceivably, in complete good faith and without the slightest suggestion of laxity or otherwise, file an application for a patent, which would then become open to public examination, and which might conceivably be of the most outstanding importance.
In the case of the jet engine, we must remember that one of the factors contributing to the circumstances under which the Germans obtained this was that there was a shortage of metal at the time. There was reluctance to provide the additional metal necessary for these new experiments. In some way, the danger of this becoming available to the enemy perhaps was not fully recognized. Perhaps it was that they simply did not regard this as anything more than a wildly imaginary device. In any event, the fact remains the patent was applied for. It was registered, and without any subterranean channels the Germans were able to go and obtain a description of that invention from the patent office. My only thought is that there might well be some board, an interdepartmental body, which would assist the ministers themselves so that the possibility of that happening in good faith might not occur. I recognize that in matters of this kind and in the secrecy that relates

to inventions of this nature, the responsibility must rest with the government. I can do no more than place before the government my observations which were impressed upon me by the unusual circumstances under which the German government actually had a head start in the development of the jet engine, although it was a British invention. That was not generally known until well after the war. That was the way it happened. My thought is simply that, perhaps by some committee of ministers or some such advisory group, individual ministers confronted with this problem would then have the advantage of a general discussion where, based upon past experience, they might receive guidance as to whether in fact it should be filed as a patent application at all. What I am really concerned with is the possibility of its getting into the patent office and being examined and perhaps having revolutionary consequences such as the jet engine had, although nobody saw it in advance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I can say a word on this. We all recognize the danger that the Leader of the Opposition has portrayed rather strikingly. Of course you cannot legislate to prevent human error, but we have, in the Patent Act, sections 20, 21 and 22, which impose upon the commissioner a duty where applications for patents which have to do with munitions, or defence equipment, or with atomic energy are concerned-I am speaking of the ordinary act, not of this bill. It is the duty of the commissioner to see that such applications are scrutinized in the kind of way that the Leader of the Opposition has in mind before anything is made public about them. Of course, some private inventor may come along with something that has been scrutinized by nobody but himself. Nobody knows what is in it and he may make the thing public. No law could prevent that. In so far as the law can prevent it, the existing law does make provision in those three sections to which I referred for this kind of security, and it does give authority to the appropriate ministers and to their advisers in the departments of national defence and defence production and in the research council, and so on.
The Leader of the Opposition has put his finger on a problem, but I think we have gone about as far as anybody has yet been able to go toward the solving of it, in the law as it now stands.


George Alexander Drew: It is certainly not my intention to oppose this. I agree with the general purpose; but may I add one more suggestion. Since Sir Robert Watson-Watt, the chief inventor of radar, who is in fact associated with certain activities of government in this
Inventions by Public Servants regard, has made the points he has in regard to the jet engine and the way in which the Germans got hold of it, he may offer some suggestion, if his advice in that field is available.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 10-Awards.
Mr. Michener:: I am not clear from the explanation of the bill what might be the source of the award. Is the award paid by way of a percentage of the receipts from the invention, or is the award paid by way of a grant? Subject to that answer I may have something further to say about the awards under clause 10. In other words, would it be a grant involving expenditures from the consolidated revenue fund?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It may be either a percentage of a royalty, a lump sum or a grant from the consolidated revenue fund, or anything else that the government is willing to recommend to parliament and parliament is willing to appropriate. Of course, in the case of royalties, that would not really arise, but in the case of a grant from the consolidated revenue fund there would have to be an appropriation.


John George Diefenbaker: Where does parliament come in at all in the section?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I take it that the government is always governed by the appropriation acts, and that the government cannot spend public moneys that have not been previously appropriated by parliament for the purpose.


Daniel Roland Michener: The wording is:
Subject to the regulations, the appropriate minister may authorize the payment of an award to a public servant . . .
It seems to me that is pretty definite legislative authority for the minister to pay out money. I just asked the question whether that was authority to make an agreement by which a percentage of the proceeds of the invention would be payable to the public servant, in which event it seems to me it is all right. If it has to do with the appropriation of public moneys, then this section may be a change from the former principle of the payment of awards under the Atomic Energy Control Act. Under that act the payment was made on the recommendation of the governor in council. Here we are not even requiring the formality of that procedure,, but a minister may do it alone.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In fact, I raised the same question with the draftsmen. I have not the advantage of the hon. member for St. Paul's of being a lawyer. I was rather shocked at the language: "the appropriate minister may

Inventions by Public Servants authorize the payment"; and I was told that under the Financial Administration Act and the appropriation acts of course no payment of any kind could be made without there being an appropriation from parliament in the first place and without the treasury board approving the payment in the second place. Of course the treasury board is an emanation of the governor in council; it is a committee of the governor in council, and all its decisions in this regard would have to be ratified by the governor in council. Therefore all that this amounts to is that the appropriate minister may recommend for payment what is felt to be appropriate, but that the payments must be made by law and, as all hon. members know, outside of their own incomes, the ministers themselves have no funds that they can spend by themselves.


Daniel Roland Michener: On that point, Mr. Chairman, where you have a number of ministers involved, would it not be better, in order for these awards to have some uniformity, that they be made by order in council, as they were under the Atomic Energy Control Act? You might have quite a different scale of values in one department by one minister from what you would have in another department. The suggestion I make is that there might be some clearinghouse.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The clearinghouse would be the treasury board. The recommendations would go to the board. Of course section 10 has to be read in conjunction with section 12, which says that:
The governor in council may make regulations . . .
Which will include of course regulations as to the amounts which are dealt with in subclause (c).


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is another aspect to this. Take the case of a minister who decides to recommend, instead of a grant from the consolidated revenue fund, a percentage of the royalty. I can see that there might be what would amount to discrimination between departments. One minister might say:	I
want to encourage inventors; I am going to recommend that 100 per cent of the royalties earned by the crown in the exploitation of the invention be paid to the inventor.
Another one might say that perhaps that is too much and that it should be 50 per cent, and the next minute it might be suggested that 10 per cent would be sufficient, and that seems to me to make it possible that different inventors for equally meritorious work might get a different measure of reward. I wonder, therefore, whether it would not be appropriate to adopt the small amendment suggested by the hon. member for St. Paul's

and restore the words "governor in council" in clause 10. The recommendation must come from the minister in the first place of course, but surely the governor in council far more than the treasury board would be attempting to establish uniformity of award as well as considering the amounts involved. I imagine the treasury board's only concern would be whether there was authority to make a certain payment, whereas I believe the governor in council might take the larger view and consider uniformity as well.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for
Kamloops is very fond of saying that everything done by the governor in council and by the treasury board is done behind closed doors. I do not know whether I am being disrespectful of the crown if I say anything even in the most general terms about what goes on behind the closed doors, but I am going to take the risk and assure the hon. member for Kamloops that the ministers who sit on the treasury board and the ministers who sit as the governor in council or the advisers of the governor in council are the same people.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But there are only six in one case and the whole cabinet, surely, in the other case. However, the minister knows so very much better for obvious reasons.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have had a certain experience of both and I would say, sir, that this kind of question would obtain much more careful consideration in the nature of things at the board where questions of this character and calibre are in fact considered, and even if we put the governor in council in, under authority of the Financial Administration Act, the governor in council would certainly delegate power to the treasury board and it would come to the same thing in the end whatever language we used, and unless we invent a new process the actual disposal of it will be very much the same.


John George Diefenbaker: This is a rather interesting revelation from a very experienced man. Does the minister say more consideration will be given by the treasury board than by the governor in council?


John Whitney Pickersgill: To details yes, and particularly to financial details. That is why the treasury board was set up.


John George Diefenbaker: There are lots of reasons why things are set up though they do not always achieve the end for which they are set up. How many members of the council are on the treasury board? Is it five or six, or does the minister leave the impression that the entire group on the council also sit on the treasury board?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, Mr. Chairman, the treasury board is of course a statutory committee of the council, though I am afraid I have not got the statutory definition of it at hand at the moment. However, I would hesitate to reproduce from a very defective memory-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have it here, may I read it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: By all means.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Section 3 of the Financial Administration Act states:
(1) There shall be a board called the treasury board, consisting of the Minister of Finance, who is the chairman, and any five members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, who may be nominated from time to time by the governor in council.
It appears to me therefore as though there are six.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, a minimum membership of six, though as a matter of fact the quorum for the governor in council is four.


Mr. Campbell:: Mr. Chairman, in the last few lines of this section it states, "any such amount as the appropriate minister and the public servant may agree upon". Now, supposing they do not agree and remain miles apart so that they cannot come to an agreement. Has the minister thought of any method of arbitrating the amount?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any point in the whole bill to which more consideration was given than the point raised by the hon. member for The Battlefords, and after a great deal of consideration the conclusion was reached that when all was said and done these awards are awards given to someone who has, in the time of the crown or with the resources of the crown, created something which belongs to the crown, and that then, as a matter of policy, something be awarded to this person in recognition of that. If the minister and the public servant agreed on what would be suitable then, of course, that would make for a good relationship with the employee. On the other hand, though I stand to be corrected by any lawyer in the house, it is essentially an act of grace and in the final analysis it has to be determined by the minister who is responsible to this house.


John George Diefenbaker: I am wondering whether the minister would consider changing the word "authorized" to "recommend". As the section reads at the present time I would think the meaning of these words would simply be that the minister without regard to the treasury board, the governor in council, or anyone else has the power from parliament, if the bill is passed in its present
Inventions by Public Servants form, to authorize the payment of an award. If the authorization comes from the treasury board or from the governor in council, as the case may be, as the result of a recommendation by the minister, then I suggest that much of this argument would be obviated with the removal of the word "authorized" and the substitution of the word "recommend".


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member has troubled me a little because I am not a draftsman myself and never made the slightest pretension to being one. I was informed by the draftsmen that this was quite the usual form of drafting. I must say that it would have to be recommended to somebody who presumably then would be authorized to do the act and that would presumably be through the governor in council. But I would like if I may to stand this section over for a moment and take this under consideration while we continue with other clauses and I may be able to reach a determination about whether I would be prepared to recommend that the hon. member's suggestion be accepted.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say just a word on this before we pass on to other clauses. I have to rise to my feet again because the minister has stated that after all these are crown inventions, owned by the crown, and we are paying these sums as a matter of grace. That may be true once the bill becomes law but at the moment it is not in accordance with established law that such inventions are the right of the crown and payments be made as a matter of grace. This takes us out of the old section 46 which gave the public servant a royalty which was determined after a report was made by the commissioner of patents and under which the public servant could appeal to the Exchequer Court of Canada if he were not satisfied with the payment which is made.
There is no doubt that the minister is extremely frank about it. Under this present bill the invention in the future will be the whole property of the crown. The inventor is not entitled to anything, as a matter of fact; as a matter of fact, he may never receive anything. I have no doubt that most of them or at least many of them will receive nothing at all; and anything they receive will be as a matter of grace. There will be no manner of appeal because there is no established procedure for granting the ex gratia payment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On that point, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I defer to the learning of my hon. friend; but when he says it is not the law he is not quite accurate. He has
5024	HOUSE OF
Inventions by Public Servants referred only to the Patent Act. In three of the four acts whose provisions are being repealed and for which this legislation is substituted, it now is the law. It is not the law only in the case of public servants covered by the Patent Act by whom only a minority of all the inventions that are apt to be covered by this act are likely to be made.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hence it is not true that parliament is now doing something new. Parliament is extending to a wider field a regime that his existed for a long time in the research council.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Oh, yes. My answer to that statement is that before the enactment of the Atomic Energy Control Act and the Research Council Act, the Patent Act was in existence and it was based on the common law. Once again we are doing something with regard to a majority of civil servants who might number 150,000 as against a few thousand that are employed under those acts. We are restricting the rights of the majority on account of the existing conditions which have been lately introduced by statute for certain councils in this country.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall clause 10 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
Clause 11 agreed to.
On clause 12-Regulations.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This is the section which gives to the governor in council power to make regulations which would include, amongst other things-as has been pointed out-the prescribing of the kind and methods of granting awards, and so on; and it also includes a very important category, as the section stands now, of regulations prescribing rules of practice and procedure respecting any appeal or application under this act to the exchequer court. By an earlier section I suggest that if a public servant questions whether his invention was made within the scope of his employment so as to be within the purview of this act, with the result that the patent to it and the rights to it are vested in the crown, it is a question for the minister to decide. In other words, the minister decides whether it is one of those inventions or not. If the minister gives a decision that is adverse to the public servant, then his only recourse is to appeal to the exchequer court and to try to convince that court that this was an invention made by him in his


own time and not so necessarily related to his employment as automatically to fall within the scope of this act.
That may be a highly important question and may involve considerable financial stakes for the public servant. I should think it would be most likely and most probable that he would go to see a lawyer and that his appeal would be taken to the exchequer court in that way. He would probably go to see patent attorneys and other lawyers as well. What I question here is the desirability of giving to the governor in council the right to make the rules or, as the wording is here, the right to make regulations prescribing rules of practice and procedure respecting any appeal or application under this act to the exchequer court.
There are several grounds on which I question the advisability of that provision. Putting it on its lowest possible plane, the first one is that the governor in council, desiring to discourage servants from appealing, might make regulations as to security for costs and things of that nature which would in effect prohibit the public servant from appealing and in effect take away altogether the right of appeal. I admit that that is putting it at its lowest level, but I am looking at all the possibilities. It may just be possible that government policy at some future time would harden against inventors having any rights to these things and there would be the temptation and the inclination to raise the amount required as security for costs.
In the second place, not even the Patent Act itself confers this right, namely the right of the governor in council to make regulations respecting practice and procedure on appeal to the exchequer court, even with respect to sections 67 to 72 of that act which are the sections of the Patent Act now covering the cases of inventions by public servants. There the appeal is to the exchequer court if the public servant and the commissioner of patents disagree; but the appeal is under the ordinary rules of court, as is the case with every other appeal. The governor in council has absolutely no right to lay down the rules with respect to an appeal.
Finally, as a matter of general practice I suggest that since the exchequer court is given the right-as is every other court-to make its own rules prescribing the practice and procedures in that court, whether it be a motion of first instance or an appeal from another court, it is not necessary to give to the governor in council the power to make rules in this case. Furthermore, I submit that it is undesirable and it is a wrong prin*-ciple to give the governor in council power

to make these rules. It the exchequer court did not have the right to make rules governing procedure on appeals in matters of this kind, such a provision might be necessary; but it now has that power. If this subsection were to carry and were to be included, the result would be that a legal practitioner, in addition to having to look at the rules of court in order to find out the rules applicable to this appeal, would have to go and to search through the orders in council and look in the Canada Gazette to see whether just the other day the governor in council had happened to pass another order in council affecting these rules.
Any member of the committee who is a lawyer will, I am quite sure, agree with me when I say that it is difficult enough now to keep track of the rules of court and that it is not appropriate that, in addition to looking at the rules of court and searching them to make certain that he has the latest amendments, the practitioner should also have to search through the Canada Gazette to see whether the governor in council happened lately to have passed any amendments to the rules governing the practice and procedure on this particular type of appeal. Because I submit that this provision is neither necessary nor in accordance with sound principles I move:
That clause 12 be amended by deleting from subsection (a) the following words:
(iii) any appeal or application under this act to the exchequer court.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the amendment carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will you put the question, Mr. Chairman? Has the minister anything to say as to why the amendment should not carry?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Those in favour
of the amendment will please say "aye".


Edmund Davie Fulton: I just asked the minister
whether he had anything to say as to why the amendment should not carry.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I am not a lawyer. Perhaps I should not keep on apologizing. I am, however, a layman. It seems to me that the amendment proposed by the hon. gentleman would not have any effect because the clause states:
The governor in council may make regulations for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this act, and without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations:
Therefore, whether or not this particular amendment was made, as long as the general
Inventions by Public Servants language stood the amendment would not have any real effect. It does seem to me that any regulation which was made for any other purpose than for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the act would be illegal anyway, and that if the governor in council made the kind of regulations which in fact did what the hon. member for Kamloops said might be done, set up rules of practice and procedure which in effect nullified the right of appeal, the courts would say those regulations were doing that and would not pay any attention to them.
It seems to me that the draftsman put this in for some purpose which I suspect was to enable the governor in council to make exceptions by way of leniency, much more than the reverse, in order to make sure that the ordinary rules would not preclude appeal. But in any case it does not seem to me that it would be possible for the governor in council to do anything that abrogated any rights under the law.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I submit to the minister, with respect, that he is not correct in his interpretation of the effect of paragraph (iii). In my submission the right to make regulations with regard to the rules of practice and procedure respecting appeals to the exchequer court is not necessarily inherent in the right to make regulations for carrying out the purposes and provisions of the act. When you give the governor general in council the power to make regulations for carrying out the purposes and provisions of the act it would, I submit, not be held by a court that the right to make regulations prescribing rules of practice and procedure on appeal was necessarily inherent in that power. An appeal is something quite outside of and apart from this act or the carrying into force of this act. Therefore, unless these words were expressly included in paragraph (iii) the governor in council would not have that power under the general power to make regulations for the carrying into force of the act, which is the reason why these words had to be expressly included.
I agree with the minister on that point, but if I am right it follows that the governor in council would not have that power if they were removed. Therefore the minister is not correct when he says he has the power whether or not the words are there. In short my submission is he only gets the power to make regulations regarding the rules of the exchequer court if he is expressly given the power and that that power is not included in the general power to make regulations regarding the carrying into effect of the act.
5026	HOUSE OF
Inventions by Public Servants
That being the case, inasmuch as I consider it undesirable that rules of the exchequer court regarding practice and procedure on appeal should be made by the governor in council when that court has the right under section 87 of the Exchequer Court Act and can be presumed to be competent to exercise it and indeed does exercise it, I submit that it is not sound to have that provision here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member is suggesting that this gives the governor in council any power to make rules of practice and procedure for the court itself, that of course is obviously not "for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this act", and is beyond the scope of the act. The only rules that could be made would be rules, for example, as to the kind of procedure that the public servant would follow in order to reach the stage of getting an appeal, the kind of form in which he would have to get the minister's determination or the failure of the minister to determine, or things of that sort. It would not be within the scope of the act to make regulations to abridge the power of appeal itself which is expressly provided for in the act.


John George Diefenbaker: This section is very clear. It actually gives the governor in council the power to differentiate between the right of appeal of the civil servant to the Exchequer Court of Canada and the right of the ordinary citizen of the country. Surely we do not want to incorporate in the law a principle whereby every other citizen in Canada shall have certain rights and shall follow certain regulations when appealing to the exchequer court but those regulations shall not apply to civil servants. The minister says that he hazards the guess that the reason is the one given. Certainly we should not depart from the ordinary principle that everyone is equal before the law and by this provision allow the civil servant to be placed in a lower category than every other citizen in the country.
As a matter of fact, under the present provision the governor in council by order in council could simply place a roadblock in the way of the civil servant wishing to appeal to the exchequer court. In one section the right is provided for, but under the regulations the civil servant should be presumed to be in the same position as every other person, namely, that he should be required to put up certain determined security as the basis for appeal. This section permits the governor in council to make a provision


whereby a dangerous immunity from judicial supervision will be granted in so far as civil servants are concerned.
I suggest that we do not wish to set up two types of citizens with respect to right of appeal to the courts, the first being the majority of the Canadian people and the second being civil servants who would be granted lesser rights than those granted to others. I am sure that the other provisions regarding regulations are simply those necessary for the carrying out of the provisions of the act. The section reads:
The governor in council may make regulations for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this act, and . . . may make regulations:
(a) prescribing rules of practice and procedure respecting
(i) applications for patents pursuant to this act-
There can be no objection to that.
- (ii) the determination of questions whether an invention is vested in Her Majesty by this act-
There is no objection there, but I do feel that the third provision respecting appeals leaves the door open to inequity, and I suggest that the minister give reconsideration to it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The intervention of the hon. member for Prince Albert has, I think, somewhat cleared my own mind. He says that we do not want to make one law for public servants and another law for other citizens. We are here making a law for public servants that applies to nobody but public servants, so that that question does not arise at all in this case. The only question that does arise is whether or not we are importing into section 12 any possibility of taking away the rights of appeal that are in the previous sections. The substantive part of section 12 reads as follows:
The governor in council may make regulations for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this act-
Everything else in that section, as I read the English language, depends upon that, That is clear, simple and unambiguous, and if any regulation is made by the governor in council that is contrary to that provision it is null and void and has no effect anyway.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not what the authorities say. I wish the courts could say that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My hon. friend has had a lot of practice in the courts and I have had none, but I think perhaps I can claim to have some little knowledge of what the governor in council thinks he can do in making regulations. I know that the greatest care is exercised by the governor in council to make sure that in making regulations he is within the scope of the statutes, and I am

perfectly sure that the courts would not say for one minute that a regulation that was contrary to the purposes of the act, that was not for the purpose of carrying out the act, was a good regulation or was good law.
It, therefore, seemed to me that the only possible meaning this provision could have is that certain rules will be made as to the procedure by which the appeal reaches the court. Once it reaches the court, the practice of the court applies under the ordinary law. This bill has nothing to do with the exchequer court. It only has to do with the determination of certain questions by that court.
It does appear to me that it is conceivable that the words may not be necessary, but it does not appear to me that they could possibly cause any injury to a public servant. I am, therefore, not disposed to accept the hon. gentleman's amendment.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has opened a door, but he did not go very far. He spoke of his experience, and it is vast in this connection. He left the impression, and the impression was well founded, that he knows of the vast precautions taken by the governor general in council in order to assure that regulations shall not be passed that are contrary to the purposes and provisions of any act. What are those precautions?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, the governor in council does not like to have his face red, any more than anyone else.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not a precaution.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is a regret, more than anything else.


Mr. Churchill:: I have listened to the
Secretary of State, and I feel that we have not been as yet fully informed. Under clause 5 of the bill the right of appeal is granted, and it is reasonable under the circumstances. I still do not follow the Secretary of State in his argument under clause 12, paragraph (a), as to why there should be any necessity for the governor in council determining the rules of practice and procedure for the making of an appeal to the exchequer court. There must be some special reason why it should be this way, when the same procedure is not followed in other statutes.
Once the right of appeal has been granted to the exchequer court, then the court itself will determine the rules of practice and procedure. Unless the Secretary of State is prepared to give us some particular reason that has not yet been forthcoming, it is impossible to support this particular clause in the bill.
Amendment (Mr. Fulton) negatived: Yeas, 31; nays, 48.
Inventions by Public Servants


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Clause 10 was allowed to stand. We shall deal with it now.
On clause 10-Awards.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have drawn on resources outside myself, Mr. Chairman, and I think I can now explain to the committee why the word "authorized" is used and what its significance is. It appears that the procedure, in the first instance, is that the minister makes his submission to the treasury board, and it is either accepted or rejected. When that is done the minister still has actually to authorize the payment out of the appropriations for his department. This term, in that sense, is habitually used in these statutes. It is, in other words, a term of the art.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is clear, is it not, that that item of money will not come back to parliament for parliament to pass upon?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Parliament must first have made some kind of provision out of which any award that is to come from the consolidated fund can be paid.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has any decision been made as to whether a fund is going to be set up to be known as an awards fund from which the payment is to be made or would the intention be to come each year in the estimates to authorize the approval of certain awards? Has any decision been made on that point?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No final decision has been made on that point at all. There are several possibilities that are being explored. Of course, the research council has had a lot of experience in this connection, and those departments where the question is a practical one have practices that are being carried out now. It is intended, when this bill is passed, if it does pass, to bring together an appropriate committee to work out the kind of procedure which will meet this situation.
I would think that so far as coming to parliament for money is concerned, that would probably depend upon whether most of these inventions were going to be exploited by a crown company or whether, in fact, that would be done by the various departments, in which case payment would be made out of the departmental appropriations and they would have to ask parliament for that money.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says now that an appropriate committee is envisaged to work out the general details. In general, that was what the Leader of the Opposition suggested this afternoon. What is the personnel of the committee to be? As a matter of fact, we have spent a great deal of time

Inventions by Public Servants on this bill this afternoon, and the experience has been, in so far as the inventor is concerned, that inventions have been an arid source of reward. Is it the intention that the amount of the award shall be increased? Would the minister also say what the plans are with regard to this committee, of which we have not heard anything until this moment?


John Whitney Pickersgill: So far as the question of whether the award will be more generous in the future than in the past is concerned, that is not a question I can answer. The question of whether or not we are going to increase the scale of awards or change the method of making awards has not yet been considered by the government. Until it has been-if the awards should bear no relationship to the earnings of the invention-and until parliament is asked and has shown it is prepared to provide awards out of public funds, it would be presumptuous in the extreme for me to attempt to forecast what they would be, particularly since, as I said several times, my department will not likely be a very large participant.
As for the kind of committee that is envisaged to advise the government, it will obviously be selected from amongst those public servants who have up to now had the greatest experience with these things.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Will it take any cognizance of the next election?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I doubt if there is any constituency in this country where the number of inventors is so great that they would be apt to turn an election. So that need not be a consideration in anyone's mind.
But, to be more serious about it, I would think that many of the rewards, if one might put it that way, are not in the form of a mere monetary grant in recognition of a particular invention, but rather in the form of promotions, salary increases and improved opportunities for the kind of people who make these inventions. Naturally, if you find in your employ someone who is really an inventive person and who is furthering the work of his department in that way, he is going to go ahead much faster than someone who is not so inclined.
Those factors all have to be taken into account. One must also consider the nature of the invention, its importance, and the nature of its use. All those matters would have to be taken into account. Perhaps it would be proper for me to say that I have had some discussion with the chairman of the national research council and he has emphasized to me the extreme importance of flexibility in these matters. After all, an


invention is something unique: By its very definition it is unique. Thus it becomes difficult to make ordinary and general rules that would apply to 5 per cent of royalties, or something of that sort, and which might work a great injustice as between one very important invention that might be applied only in the field of defence-where the royalties would amount to next to nothing-and another that might have a wide commercial application, but which might not be a very great invention, at all.


John George Diefenbaker: What has been the basis of determination heretofore?


John Whitney Pickersgill: In connection with the national research council, anything up to 5 per cent of the royalties. I am advised that there have been other ways of recognition, however-by way of earlier promotions, and by other means. Merit has been recognized in that way, and it is only proper that it should be so. But what the government is going to do is to try to get the very best advice from those who are most experienced in these matters; and then the governor in council will formulate the regulations in the light of that advice.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time.


Walter Edward Harris: Now, by leave.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Next sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend certain acts relating to several crown corporations in order to prescribe the pension provisions for and the manner in which such pension provisions are to apply to persons transferring from the public service to the corporations concerned.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Chairman, perhaps hon. members would welcome a brief statement as to the purpose of the resolution. As the resolution indicates, the purpose of this bill is to prescribe the pension provisions for and the manner in which those pension provisions are to apply to persons transferring from the public

service to certain crown corporations. It is designed to bring consistency with the new Public Service Superannuation Act and will provide that these transferred employees will become members of the pension plan of the corporations to which they will be transferred.
I should add however that the Public Service Superannuation Act made provision for the entry into reciprocal transfer agreements between the government of Canada and crown corporations to cover the transferability of pension rights when a contributor under that act transferred his employment to that of a crown corporation or vice versa. Thus where these agreements are concluded a transferred employee may obtain full credit for his prior service under the pension plan of his new employer.
Because of its close relation with the Public Service Superannuation Act it is intended that this new act will have effect from January 1, 1954, the day on which the Public Service Superannuation Act came into force.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say only a few words. The object of the bill to be based on this resolution seems to be a commendable one, and one which I believe will meet with general support in the House of Commons.
My main reason for rising is to suggest that the principle underlying this legislation is so important and so commendable that in my view it should be extended to apply on a much wider basis. I believe this is not the first instance of mobility of pension rights being established, and I suggest this move is greatly needed. This is a subject about which my colleague the hon. member for Cape Breton South has spoken frequently; and it seems to me some thinking should be given to establishing a master plan or broadening the Government Annuities Act, or finding some other means to make it possible for people to move from the public service to crown corporations, or from either of those categories of employment into private industry, or to move from one private industry to another, or from private industry into the public service, while at the same time carrying with them their pension rights. In this way, upon reaching pensionable age they would retain such rights as they had earned across their working years.
Undoubtedly great progress has been made in the concept of retirement pensions. Many more pension plans are in effect today; many more people are covered by such plans than was the case ten or twenty years ago, and this is all to the good. But there are many instances where pension plans freeze employees to certain jobs. After they have been
Crown Corporations
on those jobs for a few years their rights are such that it makes it difficult for them to consider moving to other jobs, lest they sacrifice such rights as they have gained. Similarly there are areas of employment denied to people because they have passed a certain age, and an employer may not want to take in someone who has passed that age, when he has no pension rights to bring with him or no way in which he could transfer such rights.
In both those cases the situation would be improved greatly if, as I have indicated, there was greater mobility of pension rights. We support the principle set out in the resolution upon which the bill will be based. If I have any quarrel with this measure, it is that it is so limited in its scope.
My further quarrel with the government is that though this idea has been spoken of around here on many occasions, not only on the opposition side of the house but on the government side as well, so little seems to have been done to establish the mobility of pension rights for all our people, whether they are in public service or in crown corporations or working for one private industry or another.
Let it be very clear that we have not yet had the last word in establishing an adequate pension system for all the people of this country. Many more improvements have to be made, and one of those necessary improvements is to extend this very principle of the mobility of pension rights.


Mr. Pearkes:: Will the transfer of pension rights be applicable to the armed services who have contributed to their pension fund and to the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who have contributed to their pension fund and who subsequently may want to transfer to one of the organizations mentioned in the resolution?


William Moore Benidickson: My hon. friend will find that the categories to which he referred are already referred to in the superannuation act and the schedules to that act.


George Randolph Pearkes: It includes the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, does it?


Mr. Monteith:: I assume there will be a full discussion of this when the bill is presented to the house. I was wondering whether the parliamentary assistant would tell us what crown companies do now have superannuation schemes and what ones have not.


William Moore Benidickson: It is true that not
all crown companies have superannuation schemes. On the other hand, the vast majority of crown corporations are already referred to in the schedules to the Public Service Superannuation Act which came into effect on

Crown Corporations
January 1 of this year. But inasmuch as this resolution has been on the order paper for some time, hon. members will recognize that a bill has likely been drawn up. I should say then that in the bill it is proposed that the crown corporations that will be affected by this resolution will be the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation, each of which has a reference to pensions in its own act, and then by virtue of a reference in the bill the Government Companies Operation Act, the Canadian Arsenals Limited and t'he Polymer Corporation Limited, and the Eldorado corporation will be affected.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Are the superannuation
plans of these various crown corporations consistent in nature? Are the contributions and the benefits the same? Is there a similarity between those plans?


William Moore Benidickson: Probably I can take the questions as notice and be prepared to discuss them in detail when the bill is before the house, as is apparently required in detail by the questions of the hon. member.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I assume it will be all right, too, if the parliamentary assistant would make some comparison between the superannuation plans in the various crown corporations and the superannuation plan as it applies to civil servants who might be transferred to those corporations.


William Moore Benidickson: Yes.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I rise merely to emphasize the importance of the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I believe that the most important social advance to be made in this country now is- let me put it this way-to help people to help themselves. There is at least at this time in our social thinking a limit to what can be done by helping people out of general revenue. But what can be done to help people to help themselves by building up equities in superannuation funds and annuities and that sort of thing has not been fully exhausted. We have not gone very far in that way. As I said, it is the next important advance in our social legislation.
The old age security payments have been a Godsend to a great many people, particularly those people who had small savings and can now use those social security payments to augment them. To use the vernacular, they are sitting pretty, they are economically secure. Perhaps they have not a very lavish standard of living, but at least they have a standard of living that gives them enough to get by comfortably from day to day and, what is more important, to maintain their

self-respect at the same time. Anything that can be done along the lines indicated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will be all to the good.
Unfortunately, as he has said, pensions and superannuation schemes of various kinds today operate to keep people in their jobs. As a matter of fact, they are used sometimes as means of coercion to prevent employees asking for wage increases or better conditions. Employees are often held back for fear of losing the equities they have built up. I myself think it is all wrong. The more freedom of action people have to decide their own lives the better for all concerned. I repeat that everything that can possibly be done should be done to enable people to build up equities for their retiring years.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have one question.
Before I ask that question may I, on a question of privilege, congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway on having enunciated the principle that our great duty is to help people to help themselves. I like to hear him say that.
The question I want to ask, Mr. Chairman, is this. The parliamentary assistant has told us that some crown corporations have no pension plan. Where does that leave the people of Canada? We are the shareholders of a company that has no pension plan, as I understand it. Are we really running up a hidden liability? Can we, when the working days of those people are over, say "good-bye" and do nothing about it, or are there special circumstances connected with those corporations?


William Moore Benidickson: My hon. friend will find that there are temporary circumstances as the result of the temporary nature of the functions of the corporation. Again, I shall be very glad to give him the details when we come to sections of the bill.


Mr. Gillis:: I am not going to say very
much. I do not want to repeat what was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre or the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. His reference to helping people to help themselves has always been the basic philosophy of this movement. I am sorry my hon. friend-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am always ready to
learn.


Clarence Gillis: -seemed to imply that it was news to him. I suggest that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre send him some of our literature and bring him up to date.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will be glad to.


Clarence Gillis: I know you cannot carry on a broad discussion of the principle of the mobility of pensions under the terms of this resolution, but I welcome the step taken by the government at this time. While the bill the resolution foreshadows intends to extend the right of civil servants to take their superannuation rights with them into one of the crown corporations, such as named by the parliamentary assistant, I hope that the principle will be extended beyond that. The Canadian National Railways, for example, can be construed as a crown company and, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway said, an employee who comes under a superannuation plan whether in industry, the civil service, or a crown company, whether he be there for five, 10 or 15 years, has his superannuation paramount in his mind. He is frozen to the job because if he changes that job he will lose his superannuation and will require to start in somewhere else completely from scratch.
I believe the refusal to recognize this principle in the past has militated against the best interests of this country in that a lot of good men, because of the immobility of superannuation schemes, were obliged to stay on the job regardless of whether they, as individuals, could have made a better contribution in some other type of employment. I hope the adoption of this principle by the government will encourage industrial enterprises outside to make similar arrangements. Some have already done that, but not very many.
The whole principle of superannuation is, of course, another matter, but I still do not believe that in the final analysis you are going to find a solution for people who have reached the age of retirement by adopting the kind of piecemeal legislation we have approved in the past. This resolution indicates the government is finally paying some attention to some of the things said over the years, really getting down to business, and working on these problems. Because of conditions in the past we have lost a good many politicians who would have made good members of this house. The provincial superannuation schemes can be taken as an example, particularly with regard to teachers. If a teacher is nominated and becomes a politician he loses his superannuation, and in some provinces his job is completely out. Let us hope, therefore, that the provincial legislatures will read the discussion which will take place on this bill and amend their regulations accordingly, because no doubt we have already lost quite a number of Sir Wilfrid Lauriers and Joseph Howes because of the
Radio Act
restrictions on teachers particularly, some of whom would have made good members of parliament.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I think I should point out to hon. members that interchangeability is not being introduced at this stage in so far as relationship between these corporations and the public servant is concerned. That has been provided for in the past by the acts to which I referred in my opening remarks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But only on a very limited basis.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Harris thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 461, respecting the superannuation of government employees transferred to crown corporations.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



RADIO ACT


Lionel Chevrier: the second reading of Bill No. 446, to amend the Radio Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, section 7 of the Radio Act provides that no person shall be employed as a radio operator on any coast, land, or mobile station unless he is a British subject, and the section goes on to make certain exceptions to this provision.
It has become necessary, by virtue of agreement with the United States for certain operations to take place in Canada by United States' citizens on defence and radar stations, to exempt the operators of radio stations from the provisions of that section. At present the position is, as I previously explained, that none other than British subjects can operate these stations and it is proposed by means of this bill to cover three cases of exceptions.
First, certain aircraft pilots who by virtue of the agreements under the international civil aviation organization may operate in our country. He may fly his plane in our country but there is no point in his doing so if he cannot operate the radio, and in the case of many citizens who are not British subjects that is not possible. We therefore feel that that operation should be recognized by virtue of this amendment.
Then, with reference to the case I mentioned earlier, it was necessary by virtue of

Radio Act
the emergency powers regulations to authorize the Minister of Transport to enter into agreements with the United States government whereby United States' citizens could be exempted from the regulations laid down in section 7. That is also covered by a subsection of this bill.
Finally, there are the cases of landed immigrants who have not been in the country long enough to achieve Canadian citizenship and are not yet British subjects. Great hardship is being imposed upon many of these landed immigrants who cannot, for example, even operate a walkie-talkie in a taxi or operate a motor truck on construction jobs simply because of these regulations. The bill purports to exempt them in the performance of their duties. There is no time limit, as can be seen, such as existed in other bills which were enacted under emergency legislation and then put into various statutes of the Department of Transport. The reason for that is that we think this legislation should be permanent.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, this appears to be an innocuous little bill but we believe it should be carefully scrutinized by the house before being given a second reading. The minister has given us a brief explanation of the effect of the bill, and he did the same thing on first reading. His explanation on that occasion will be found at page 4769 of Hansard for May 17, 1954 where he is reported as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Radio Act provides that no one shall be employed as a radio operator unless he is a British subject. By virtue of the Emergency Powers Act the Minister of Transport was authorized to enter into an agreement with the United States government providing that it could establish radio stations in northern Canada and employ operators who were not British subjects. The object of this bill is to amend the Radio Act in order to implement, by way of legislation, that arrangement and also to include certain landed immigrants to be employed as radio operators and who are not yet British subjects.
Here we are proposing to hand over some Canadian keys to the United States and for that reason in particular the bill deserves extremely careful scrutiny. I would point out that under the present provisions of the Radio Act, which is chapter 233 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, there is a provision enabling the governor in council to make certain exemptions; and it seems to us to be broad enough as it reads without giving this blanket authority to let in any whole group of operators of radio stations. Section 7 of the Radio Act, in subsection 1, provides as follows:
No one shall be employed as a radio operator at any coast, land or mobile station unless he is a British subject.
fMr. Chevrier.]
I would point out that three types of stations are described, namely coast station, land station and mobile station. I would also point out that under the bill now before us authority to exempt is so broad that it covers all kinds of stations; it is not restricted to land stations. Subsection 2 of section 7 of the Radio Act provides for the taking of a declaration of secrecy. It reads in part as follows:
(2) AH radio operators at coast or land stations or on mobile stations shall take and subscribe a declaration of secrecy in the form set forth in the schedule, before a judge of any court, a notary public, a justice of the peace or a commissioner for taking affidavits,-
And so on. The next subsection of section 7 of the Radio Act makes it a crime for a person who has taken a declaration of secrecy to disclose any information. There is this firm provision for making certain that the operators have taken an oath, a declaration of secrecy, and that they can be punished severely for breaking that oath.
Then the present subsection 4 of section 7 of the Radio Act is the one which grants the power to make exemptions. As I said a few moments ago, it seems to us to be broad enough to cover the present situation. It reads as follows:
(4) The governor in council-
Which of course means the cabinet.
-may, by regulation and on such terms and conditions as he may prescribe, exempt from the operation of this section a non-resident of Canada who
(a)	is employed as a radio operator on a radio station in Canada,
(b)	holds a valid Canadian certificate of proficiency or an equivalent certificate issued by the country of which he is a citizen.-
That provision, of course, would make it broad enough to apply to an American who held an American certificate.
-and
(c)	is a resident and citizen of a country that grants a reciprocal permission to Canadian citizens to be employed as radio operators in that country.
If the United States grants a similar permission to Canadian citizens, there is in the act already power for the Canadian cabinet to grant exemption; and that seems to be the basis on which it should be kept. These rights should be reciprocal. If we are to give the Americans certain rights in our country, we should have exactly the same rights in their country. That is what is provided by subsection 4 of section 7 of the present Radio Act. If the situation now is that the Americans do not give Canadian citizens the same right, the government should get busy, negotiate with the United States and get these rights, in which event

there would be ample power under the Radio Act as it stands at the present time.
But instead of that procedure, the minister is asking for the following power. In clause (b) of the new subsection 4 there is to be given power to grant exemption-that is, the cabinet can grant exemption to:
(b) a person who is employed as a radio operator on a radio station in Canada by the government of another country or any agency thereof.
That provision just gives the blanket power to allow American operators to come into Canada. They do not even need to be employed by the United States government. They can be employed by an agency of the United States government and still get the exemption. The clause which I have just read is not confined to the United States. It states:
-a person who is employed as a radio operator on a radio station in Canada by the government of another country-
It might be any other country although, from what the minister has said, I take it that he wants this power in order to deal with American operators of these stations. However, I suggest in the first place that the power is not necessary if the United States give us the same rights that we give them. If it is necessary, I suggest that the bill should be restricted to the United States and should not be made so wide that it covers every country in the world outside of Canada. If it is to apply to the United States, then it should be set out that the power is to be exercised pursuant to an agreement between Canada and the United States. These things cannot be too carefully handled. This should be done by agreement between the two countries rather than by our just writing into our statutes a provision that people can come here from any other country-that is, a citizen of any other country-and can be exempted from our laws.
On the first reading the minister mentioned the fact that there is an agreement between Canada and the United States. We should know what that agreement is. The house should be shown that agreement. Possibly it should be made a schedule to this act. But instead of bothering to do that, the department simply brings in a bill giving blanket authority to allow operators from any other country to run these radio stations in Canada when at the same time our own Canadians running these stations are obliged to take this declaration of secrecy and are subject to these heavy penalties.
The whole Radio Act is an extremely strict one, and quite properly so. But that is all the more reason why American operators
Radio Act
should not lightly be given exemptions. I suggest that it is time the government stopped handing over blanket authority to the United States, something which in effect is being done by this bill.
Then the minister referred to the provision which is now to be written into the act to cover landed immigrants. That is a new approach. That is a new kind of legislation in Canada. At the present time the only person who can be a radio station operator in this country is one who is a British subject. Of course that includes all who are Canadian citizens. I can see that there may be cases where a new settler has come here and wants to get a job driving a taxi equipped with a radio control system. It may be that provision should be made to permit such a person to operate that type of taxi, but to do so we do not need to have an amendment which can exempt every person who is a resident of Canada from the requirements in connection with any kind of station. The amendment would cover coastal stations, land stations and mobile stations. The bill gives the government the blanket power to grant exemption to any landed immigrant.
I suggest that if a provision has to be put into the act to meet this situation the exemption should be restricted to mobile stations. We find that in section 5 of the Radio Act there is a reference to radios installed in automobiles in these words, "a radio receiving set installed in an automobile". Perhaps power should be given to exempt residents of Canada, even though they are not Canadian citizens or British subjects, in the case of a radio installed in an automobile. I do not see very much objection to a provision of that kind, but it should be restricted to the situation that has to be met today rather than providing authority for a blanket exemption.
We regard these two points, particularly the first one, as serious defects in the bill, and in the face of the objections we have raised we are hoping that the minister will go over the bill again in order to see whether or not some change cannot be made to bring the amendment much more in line with the actual situation which exists. There is one other minor point about the bill. In the new subparagraph (a) (ii) of subsection 4 we find the words:
"Holds a valid Canadian certificate of proficiency-
Then these are the words in question:
-or other authority to operate a radio station issued by the minister . . .
That looks as though the minister is seeking the power to issue some new type of certificate. I may not have read the Radio Act correctly but I cannot find out just what is meant by the words "or other authority

Radio Act
to operate a radio station issued by the minister" unless the minister is now asking for a brand new power to grant some new kind of authority for the operation of a radio station which is not already contained in the Radio Act. I place these three points before the house. I am afraid it is not quite as innocuous as it appears at first sight or as it sounded from the explanation given by the minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I can imagine that before this debate goes very far someone on the government side may point out that we on the opposition side have objected to this sort of thing being done by order in council and have contended that if it had to be done at all it should be done by statute, which is precisely what the government is now doing. I hope the minister will not take it for granted, because what was formerly done by order in council is now to be done by statute, which is the correct way of doing it, that that makes the substance of this measure perfectly all right. Before I go into the question of the substance of the bill I feel I should say this word in view of the fact that the bill in part at least is designed to carry forward what was done by order in council under the Emergency Powers Act.
It seems to me that the fact that it is now being done this way by a very simple little bill underlies the fact that it should never have been done the other way. It underlines the fact that the Emergency Powers Act was really a matter of convenience for the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we should not go into the virtues of the Emergency Powers Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are none.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member was not making a little excursion into that field I am at a loss to know what he was doing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is very easy to obey your suggestion that I refrain from going into the virtues of the Emergency Powers Act because I do not think there were any. I simply point out, and I notice that Your Honour has a copy of the bill in your hand, that in the explanatory notes on the righthand page reference is made to the fact that part of this bill is a carrying forward of what was formerly provided by order in council under the Emergency Powers Act. I tried to find the order in council referred to there by a certain number and certain date but I could not find it and the officials in the library could not find it either. Maybe the wrong number and wrong date have been given.


Lionel Chevrier: I will let my hon. friend see it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That will be fine. I did not think it was secret, but there seems to be some difficulty in locating it. I have no intention of going into an excursion on that point, Mr. Speaker, but I do think the simplicity of the bill, which is just one page, emphasizes the fact that if matters of this kind are to be dealt with at all, the way to deal with them is by bringing them before parliament in the form of a bill rather than doing it by order in council under an emergency powers act. I have not much more to say at this stage but as it is six o'clock perhaps I can have a few minutes at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Stanley Howard Knowles: When the house rose at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I had pointed out that if it is the wish of the government to have legislation of this kind, it is far better to achieve that end by the enacting of a statute such as this than it is to do it as it was formerly done by means of an order in council under the Emergency Powers Act. However, I should like to say just a few words with regard to the substance of the bill itself.
I am sure that no one can take issue with the desire expressed by the minister to implement the arrangements that we have under ICAO, and to make it possible for the pilots of planes, where we permit them to fly over Canadian territory, to operate their radio sets. Obviously that is in the best interests of safe navigation by air. Similarly we take no exception to the idea that there should not be on the statute books legislation that denies to certain people, such as landed immigrants, the possibility of making their living by the driving of taxicabs which are equipped with two-way radio sets for the purpose of controlling their operations. If there are sections of this bill that are necessary to achieve those two purposes, then it seems to me to that extent to be quite in order and quite appropriate.
However, when one comes to this matter of making special provisions on a one-way basis for persons who are employed in Canada by the government of another country or any agency of the government of another country, I feel the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green) was not stating it too strongly when he suggested that goes

a little too far. I have no objection to reciprocal arrangements with other countries, and that includes the United States. But it does seem to me that a provision for such reciprocal arrangements-in other words, for a privilege to be granted both ways-is already included in the Radio Act, section 7, subsection 4, paragraph (c). It says that:
The governor in council may, by regulation and on such terms and conditions as he may prescribe, exempt from the operation of this section a nonresident of Canada, who is a resident and citizen of a country that grants a reciprocal permission to Canadian citizens to be employed as radio operators in that country.
If the precise terms of that subsection do not go far enough I would have no objection to that subsection being amended, provided this whole arrangement is kept on a reciprocal basis. It seems to me that is the pith and substance of section 7, subsection 4, paragraph (c) as it now stands. Whatever is provided is on a reciprocal basis. On the other hand, the pith and substance as I see it of the corresponding part of the bill now before us is that we are asked to agree to persons from other countries working for the government of another country or the agency of government of another country in Canada having a special one-way privilege.
I have no desire to stir up any animosity towards any other country, friendly or otherwise; far from it. I see no particular point in trying to whip up any feeling with respect to national prestige or national pride, but it does seem to me it is a matter of common sense, and that it should be a matter of concern to us, that an arrangement like this be kept on a reciprocal basis. The minister indicated to us that the purpose of this part of the bill is to make a one-way arrangement of this kind with the United States, so that employees of the United States government or of an agency of the United States government might have a special privilege as radio operators in Canada. I believe that, particularly at this time in international affairs, when that country seems to be doing a lot of pushing around of other people and doing many things in an effort to get its own way, it would not hurt us to say to that country, this kind of arrangement is all right provided it is on a reciprocal basis. I hope the minister and the government, therefore, will, even at this late date in the stages of this piece of legislation, take another look at it and see if it is not possible to achieve what the minister and the government may feel has to be achieved on a reciprocal basis as provided in the act prior to the introduction of this bill, rather than on the one-way basis set out in Bill No. 446.
Radio Act
Perhaps the minister might let the matter stand in committee of the whole for this point to be considered or, since it does involve relations with other countries, he might be prepared to send the bill to the committee on external affairs. In any event, I hope that further consideration will be given by the minister to the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, and the point to which I have spoken just now, namely that an arrangement of this kind should be kept on a reciprocal basis.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I thought at first, Mr. Speaker, that Bill No. 446 was quite an innocent bill, and it may yet prove to be that. I have not made up my mind as to that. I have listened with keen interest to what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), and again by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It does seem to me that the minister has not given us sufficient information about paragraph (b) to help us make up our minds whether or not we are granting him too much authority. The whole bill places in the hands of the minister quite wide powers, and if he were to be placed in a position where, having granted the employees of the United States certain exemptions under paragraph (b), I wonder what he would say if another country were to come along and ask him to grant the same exemption on the same basis as that granted to employees in the United States?
I can see that he might get Canada into serious trouble by the exercise of the powers granted to him under this bill. It would seem that his safest position would be to say to any country asking for exemption on a one-way basis, well, the act circumscribes my power and does not allow me to grant exemptions unless on a reciprocal basis. We will be glad to sit down and try to work out some such reciprocal agreement. If we cannot, then I just could not grant the exemption. If I were in the minister's place, rather than lay myself open to all the pressures that might be placed upon me after having granted one country and its employees an exemption as provided for in paragraph (b) I would rather be in the position I have described.
For this reason, and for the three reasons already set out by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, I would have very serious reservations about supporting the bill on second reading. If in his closing remarks the minister can shed more light on the necessity for providing the exemptions as set out in paragraph (b), then I might change my mind. But at the moment I must join with those
503S

Radio Act
who have already spoken in asking the government to take a very careful look at the implications in this bill.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to repeat the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Vaneouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
The minister outlined the various types of persons who might be exempt, namely those operating radio stations in Canada, one who holds a certificate for efficiency, and so on, and also made reference to new immigrants coming into this country. He made reference to the pilots who might be flying over Canada and would be anxious to use their radio equipment. He also referred to taxi drivers who might be working on two-way radio systems.
Of course there are a great many other types of people who use radio. I have in mind all those men employed in our coastwise shipping industry, vessels moving between various ports, particularly on the Pacific coast. These vessels use radiotelephony constantly. Then, every fishing vessel is equipped with radiotelephony, and they are constantly talking from ship to ship, or from ship to shore. In fact, any passenger on one of the C.P.R. vessels plying between Vancouver and Victoria, for instance, for a very small charge may speak over the radiotelephone system from ship to Vancouver or from ship to Victoria, or any other point connected by ordinary land-line telephones.
Are all these people expected to obtain special exemption from the minister, or just how does this work? The minister did not explain, and I do not know. If he can spare the time I would appreciate his telling us how it would operate, and how the regulations would apply to men employed on the ships or who are working in fishing vessels off our coasts.
We must also remember that in Canadian waters there are nationals of other countries whose vessels are also equipped with radio and radiotelephone. Just how would it apply either to United States fishermen working in Hecate sound, for instance, or shall we say, to Portuguese fishermen who might be entering our east coast ports off the island of Newfoundland?
We would like to have some explanation on these points. Then, with respect to stations operated by radio operators of another country, I feel I must share the views already expressed by the hon.

member for Vaneouver-Quadra. It does seem to me that it is opening the door rather wide if we allow an operator from any country to come and have the right to operate from any of our northern islands or in our Arctic territory. I hope a full explanation will be given by the minister.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, looking over the bill and the explanatory notes I was wondering whether there would be any objection to incorporating in the bill itself the very clear explanation given in the explanatory notes. As has been pointed out by other members who have spoken, the bill seems to be drafted in a way such as to open the door very wide, whereas the explanatory note clearly limits the operation of the bill to United States personnel. In that respect I should think the explanatory note is a bit misleading. For example we see that it reads in this way:
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Radio Act to authorize the employment of United States personnel as radio operators on United States government radio stations in Canada.
That seems to be very clear, and I doubt whether there would be any objection to it. Then the explanatory note goes on to tell us what was in the order in council-which, by the way, we have not been able to locate. Again quoting from the explanatory note:
Order in council P.C. 3484 of August 8, 1951, made under the Emergency Powers Act, authorized the Minister of Transport to grant permission to the government of the United States to establish and operate radio stations in Canada, and to employ radio operators in connection therewith who are not British subjects.
In the bill itself there is no suggestion that these exemptions will apply only to personnel employed by the United States government on these operations in which the United States government is engaged in Canada, mainly for purposes of defence. It is to that feature of the bill the opposition is quite properly, I suggest, raising objections. Why should it extend now to almost anyone? Why cannot the bill state in its terms the effect of the explanatory notes? Why does the government require such wide powers in this form?
The additions to the section extend to the minister the power to exempt a person who has either the authority to operate a radio station issued by the minister

that is, rather than a valid Canadian certificate-or a certificate of equal validity from some other country.
It is on that ground that objection is taken to this bill; and it would be interesting to hear from the minister just why it is not

possible to express as accurately in the bill itself the purpose and intent we are led to believe is behind the measure from reading the explanatory notes.


Mr. Mclvor:: I should like to ask a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member wishes to ask a question, perhaps he would do so at the committee stage.
If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the contributions made thus far in the debate, and I can assure hon. members that the bill is exactly what it purports to be, namely simply a bill which brings into operation the order in council passed under the Emergency Powers Act. If the bill is examined more carefully it will be found that paragraph (b) is the paragraph which carries into effect the powers which were given to the governor in council under the Emergency Powers Act. There is little or no change in the rest of the act, save the covering of the landed immigrant, which was not there before. The other part of subparagraph (iii) was there exactly as it is; subparagraphs (i) and (ii) were there practically identical as they are now with the addition of the words: ''or other authority to operate a radio station issued by the minister". So that in effect there is little or no change in this legislation from what was contained in the order in council.
Let me deal with the objections raised by the various members who spoke. The objections of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) can be summarized under three or four headings. Perhaps it can be said that he objects to the whole bill as it is now; whereas the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) objects to the (b) part of the bill only, that part which I am sure upon reflection he will agree simply carries into effect the authority to make regulations under the Emergency Powers Act. I will come to that later on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't forget to come to the one-way basis.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, in dealing with the (b) part says: "Why not limit it to the United States; why say in there, a person who is employed as a radio operator on a radio station in Canada by the government of another country or any agency thereof?" The answer is that there might be a request from a NATO country, a country other than the United States, for the same privileges that are being accorded to the United States under paragraph (b).
Radio Act
Now then, dealing with paragraph (b), and here I shall be limited to some extent in what I have to say because a great deal of this I cannot divulge to the house. I think that will explain the position to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. For instance, the Pine Tree stations in Canada are operated now by the United States government. They are in the mid-Arctic, and they are operated partly by the R.C.A.F. and partly by the United States air force. It has been asked, well, why do we not do this on a reciprocal basis? Well, does anyone suggest that we should be operating radio stations in the United States? If anybody sees any reason why we should do it, I would like him to tell me because I am not aware that we are anxious to establish stations of that nature in the United States.
Well, the next group of stations are the United States air bases in Canada which were established prior to union with Newfoundland, some at Argentia, Fort Pepperrell, Harmon field, and I think there is one more, although I am not too sure. All of these stations are in operation now and they are being operated by radio operators who are not British subjects, under the powers contained in the order in council passed under the Emergency Powers Act. The same can be said of our own joint stations in the Arctic. By "these stations" I mean the joint weather stations operated by the Americans and the Canadians for meteorological services. There are, if my memory serves me right, some five such stations. There is one at Resolute, one at Isachsen, one at Mould Bay, one at Alert and the others leave my memory for the moment. These stations are operated jointly with the United States government, by virtue of an agreement which was made on the recommendation of the permanent joint board on defence. This was done as the order in council sets out, on the recommendation also of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). That is why paragraph (b) of the bill is placed therein. All paragraph (b) does is to carry into effect the powers taken under the Emergency Powers Act.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra raised the question of landed immigrants and suggested in his remarks that these should be limited to mobile stations. Let me say to him that a great deal, in fact the vast majority, of radio operations do not apply to mobile stations, but to permanent stations such as radiotelephony and radio operations in various locations which are permanent, in construction and tourist camps which are permanent and in a number of other stations. If an immigrant is not going to be allowed to be

Radio Act
exempt from the operations of that paragraph then many of these jobs cannot be taken by him.
Reference was made to subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) which reads:
holds a valid Canadian certificate of proficiency, or other authority to operate a radio station issued by the minister, or an equivalent certificate or authority issued by the country of which he is a citizen.
That is already in the act save the words underlined. Let me give an explanation of that and I think I can deal with the objection raised by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes).
The certificate of proficiency mentioned in the act is required in the more advanced and complicated type of radio communication such as the type my hon. friend had in mind: ship radio, ship-to-shore operation, airborne radio, such as a pilot who operates under the ICAO agreement over Canada. The pilot will not be allowed to operate radio unless there is evidence that he has met a requirement similar to that which we have here or something that is equal in standing. The proof of that is that we apply in our own country the requirement laid down by the international civil aviation organization.
Then, the certificate of proficiency has also to do with ground stations for communication with aircraft or with shipping. At the terminals all across Canada the terminals are in constant contact with the aircraft overhead going from one station to another and others are also in constant contact with shipping. Here we require a certificate of proficiency that has been approved by the department.
The same can be said of commercial communications where long distances are involved, but most other types of radio operating are dealt with by lesser authority which is not covered by a certificate such as that which I have been referring to. That has also been laid out in the radio regulations, and if any hon. member cares to obtain for himself these regulations he will find on page 6 regulation 13 (2). Perhaps I had better read regulation 13 (1) first and then (2), because they go together. Regulation 13 (1) reads as follows:
(1) No person shall act as a radio operator on any station in Canada without a Canadian certificate of proficiency in radio of such class as may be specified in the licence.
Now, this is the provision on which I wish to lay emphasis:
Nevertheless, the minister may at his discretion permit certain stations or classes of stations to be operated by persons who are not the holders of certificates of proficiency in radio, provided such persons are British subjects and capable of demonstrating to a departmental radio inspector that

they are proficient in the operation and maintenance of the equipment at the station on which they are employed.
Now, that section 13 paragraph (2) is designed to cover cases which are not at all like that raised by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. It is designed to cover the case of the ordinary taxi driver who talks through a walkie-talkie with his office, and the case of the construction camp operator who is in control of a truck with a radio system operating from the truck to the office. However, the fact that he must be a British subject prohibits the landed immigrant from such employment. It seemed to us that it would only be fair and reasonable to allow that individual to operate this lesser class of radio station, if I may so call it that, so that if this bill is passed the regulation which I have just read would remain as it is to cover the secondary class, if it may be so called, and we would take out the words "provided such persons are British subjects"; thus in order to cover the landed immigrant the section would simply read:
Nevertheless, the minister may at his discretion permit certain stations or classes of stations to be operated by persons who are not the holders of certificates of proficiency in radio, provided such persons are capable of demonstrating to a departmental radio inspector that they are proficient in the operation and maintenance of the equipment at the station on which they are employed.
That would not affect in the slightest degree the complicated and more advanced kind of radio communications such as that employed by a pilot in an aircraft in which radio is essential, such as that operated by the mariner on the ship, or the experienced operator on shore who is in constant contact with the ship and equally, such as that used by the operator at an air terminal who is in constant contact with the pilot above.
As regards the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), I think he put his point extremely well because he stated that if only we would put into effect the explanatory notes then he could see no objection to this. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what was done in the (b) part and that, at least for the (b) part itself, is the object of this bill, the other part being there to clarify more than anything else. The object of the bill in part (b) is to carry into effect the provisions of the order in council, and I hope I have been successful in explaining to the house why it would not be practical to secure reciprocal arrangements for places such as those I described earlier.
Finally, there is in my opinion no difference between what is being done here by legislation, and what was being done by

order in council under the Emergency Powers Act. It is simply putting the latter into effect and if we were not to put it into effect I am sure we would have to revise all these agreements and arrangements we have made with the country to the south for the defence of the far north and the mid-Arctic.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Exemptions.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister if there has been any attempt made by the government to work this problem out on a reciprocal basis with the United States. I can see no reason why as a condition of granting these privileges Canada should not have asked that she be given the same privileges, even though at the moment she may have no use for them. Take, for example, the situation which prevails on the west coast where you have the panhandle of Alaska dropping down across half of the western boundary of British Columbia. It may be of great importance some time to the defence of Prince Rupert, for example, that there should be a Canadian radio station on one of the islands off that city, or it may be vital to the defence of Whitehorse in the Yukon that there should be a Canadian radio station in Alaska.
Now, why should it not be possible for Canada to negotiate a reciprocal agreement with the United States under the terms of which the two countries would have similar rights? If that were done then the act as it reads at present is broad enough to give the governor in council power to grant exemptions to operators on American stations in Canada. But this business of the Canadian government apparently not making any attempt whatsoever to obtain a reciprocal agreement with the United States and giving them one-way rights seems to me a very poor basis on which to deal with the United States or any other country, even though it is a friendly country.
The minister has excused himself on the ground that this provision was dealt with previously under the Emergency Powers Act, but he told us today that it is now to be permanent and is no longer an emergency measure at all. I cannot see why the Canadian government should not have made permanent and proper reciprocal agreements with the United States under which Canada has the same rights in the United States as the United States has in Canada. If that had been done there would be no need whatever for the one-way provision.
Radio Act


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the question which my hon. friend puts is this:	Why
should there not be a reciprocal agreement? Well, when the agreements were entered into some time ago, some years ago in fact, with the United States there was no reason to ask for Canadian installations in the United States because we did not require installations in the United States. When the hon. member puts that question to me in that direct fashion the only answer I can give him is that I must be guided by the Minister of National Defence who feels that similar stations are not required by Canada in the United States.
The arrangements which were made in Newfoundland, I presume, were made before confederation. I think my hon. friend would have to admit that these should be continued. That being the case, if we are not going to continue them under the Emergency Powers Act we must continue them by legislation. The joint weather stations that I referred to earlier are operated partly by the United States and partly by Canada. I can say that just as soon as Canada is able to obtain the necessary personnel to operate these stations, she will do so. We have succeeded in taking over a number of these stations but not all of them, because we have not had the personnel. The position was that when these joint weather stations were established we did not have the necessary personnel. We have now been able to train some of them and gradually we are taking those stations over.


Howard Charles Green: The minister did not answer part of my question which was this. Has the government made any attempt to negotiate with the United States a reciprocal agreement under which we would have the same rights to establish in the United States a station operated by Canadians as they have to establish in Canada a station which is operated by Americans? Has the government ever attempted to negotiate an agreement of that kind?


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I could not answer that question. I was not a party to those negotiations. These negotiations covered far more than radio operations. After all, the radio operations in the agreements were only a portion of it. While they were part of it, the powers which were given to these American operators were given through the Department of Transport by virtue of a permission from the minister to the United States government. But when my hon. friend refers to the agreement, I am afraid that I cannot be of much help

Radio Act
because these are matters which were negotiated by a department other than my own.


Howard Charles Green: Am I fair in saying that so far as the Minister of Transport is concerned, he knows of no negotiations for a reciprocal agreement having been undertaken with the United States?


Lionel Chevrier: No, I could not say that; that would not be fair because that would not be the position in so far as I am concerned. I would have to take the word of those who have negotiated the agreements and who, as far as I know, tell me that the position is such as I have indicated it here.


Howard Charles Green: The minister knows whether there have been negotiations for a reciprocal agreement or whether there have not been. Which is the case?


Lionel Chevrier: I told my hon. friend earlier that I was not a party to the negotiations and that I could not therefore be of any assistance in that question. My hon. friend wants me to say yes or no. I am not going to say yes or no. I am afraid that if that information is required it will have to be obtained from some other minister.


Howard Charles Green: The minister knows whether or not there have been negotiations with the United States with regard to a reciprocal agreement.


Lionel Chevrier: There have been.


Howard Charles Green: The minister says there have been negotiations?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Have the Americans turned down Canada's request for a reciprocal agreement?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know that a request has been made. I do not imagine that a request has been made. As I said earlier, there was no requirement for Canada operating such stations on American territory. I have now said that twice.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: Would the
Secretary of State for External Affairs know that? Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs answer that question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot give an answer to that question, Mr. Chairman, but I shall be glad to look into it. I have no knowledge of any negotiations of the kind mentioned by my hon. friend.


Howard Charles Green: I would suggest to the minister that an attempt be made now to negotiate an agreement on a reciprocal basis so that

both countries are treated alike and so that we get in the United States the same rights as they get in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It seems to me that the minister is begging the question, if I may put it that way, when he says that we should not press this point about making these arrangements on a reciprocal basis on the ground we do not need any Arctic stations in the United States. Obviously we have the Arctic; the United States has not, except for the references to Alaska and the panhandle which have already been made. Surely we are taking a valid position when we suggest that when arrangements are given to the United States by Canada, the United States should be prepared to give similar arrangements to this country. If the government were to approach the matter in that way, it seems to me that it could be done, as we have already suggested, under the reciprocal language of section 7, subsection 4, paragraph (c) of the present act. In other words, the minister has not brushed aside as easily as he thinks he has our point in this connection.
While I am on my feet I should like to put one or two other questions to the minister. He said this was a simple bill; and the simplest part of it, of course, is the (b) part which, as he says, carries forward into statute form the provisions of the order in council which was passed under the Emergency Powers Act. I regret that I have still been unable to locate a copy of that order in council, despite my best efforts. However, we can only assume that the summary of that order in council listed under the explanatory notes is a correct one. I point out that according to these explanatory notes we are to understand as follows:
Order In council P.C. 3484 of August 8, 1951, made under the Emergency Powers Act, authorized the Minister of Transport to grant permission to the government of the United States to establish and operate radio stations in Canada, and to employ radio operators in connection therewith who are not British subjects. This order in council will expire on May 31, 1954.
According to that summary of the order in council there are two main features of it. One is the permission to the United States to establish and operate radio stations in Canada. The other is the permission to employ radio operators in connection therewith who are not British subjects. As I see it, the (b) part of this bill carries forward the second of those permissions. It carries forward permission to the United States to employ radio operators in connection therewith who are not British subjects. May I ask the minister this question? Where is there

legislation that carries forward that other permission, namely the permission to the United States to establish and operate radio stations in Canada? The explanatory notes say that that permission was provided in order in council P.C. 3484 of August 8, 1951, and that that order in council will expire on May 31, 1954. Perhaps the minister can find the answer to that question.
While I am on my feet-because others may get the floor if I sit down-may I ask one or two other questions? Since we are talking about reciprocal arrangements, and references have been made to pilots of planes flying over Canada under arrangements made under ICAO, may I ask what the situation is with respect to Canadian pilots of Canadian planes when they fly over United States territory? Do they have the right to use their radio sets when they are so doing, despite the fact that they are not United States citizens? Similarly may I ask whether there are Canadians who go to the United States and get jobs driving taxis with twoway radios? Are they permitted to do so? My assumption is that the answer to these two latter questions is in the affirmative. I assume that there is no prohibition against Canadian pilots in Canadian planes flying over the United States using their radio sets. I also strongly suspect that there are Canadians in the United States driving taxicabs with two-way radios. Those are examples of what might be called reciprocal arrangements in those fields. Why can we not have this other matter on a reciprocal basis as well?


Lionel Chevrier: In answering my hon. friend's two questions may I say that the arrangements are entirely reciprocal in the civil field. My hon. friend referred to ICAO pilots flying over Canada. Reciprocally, Canadian pilots fly over the United States and have the same rights as American pilots have here by virtue of ICAO arrangements. Similarly American tourists who move into Canada in automobiles and operate their radio sets are, by virtue of reciprocal arrangements, covered by the Radio Act. So are we when our own citizens move into the United States and operate car radio sets. There is complete reciprocity in the civilian field. My friend raised another point which is not covered in the bill but is covered in section 5 of the act. If he looks at it, I think he will find the answer to his first question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In the answers the minister gave before second reading of the bill he emphasized that the necessity for the order in council and for the bill we now have before us was largely because of the arrangements we had with the United States for the 83276-319
Radio Act
establishment by them of certain radar stations and the joint operation by ourselves and the United States of some meteorological stations. With respect to the meteorological stations his words, as I recall them, were that these joint stations were instituted on the recommendation of the joint defence board. It seems to me that with respect to both these types of stations the purpose is primarily in connection with joint defence arrangements for the defence of this continent. These arrangements are a necessity to which no one can object.
That being the case, why is it not possible to insert words in the bill which would limit its operation-I refer particularly to subclause (b)-to installations connected with defence, the terms of operation of which installations are the subject of international agreement in that regard? There could be no objection from here or anywhere else to sensible arrangements allowing the United States to use radio operators who are non-Canadians in these stations which they establish under the joint defence arrangements. Why should there be a wide-open provision?


Lionel Chevrier: What section is my hon. friend referring to?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am referring to subsection (b) particularly of the proposed bill. Why not limit its operation to those stations which are important from a defence point of view, which is the justification that the minister himself gave for its inclusion? As it stands now, it is a wide-open provision under which the government has authority to give permission to any other country. The minister said we might get an application from another NATO country. All right; when we get the application let us deal with it. For that matter, we might get an application from any other country whatsoever whether or not it is a NATO country, and without any words limiting it to joint defence the government would have the power to make that arrangement. I do not understand that to be the basis upon which the government puts it, and I feel we should hear from the minister as to why he does not think it should be limited to installations having a defence significance rather than a wide-open power with no limitation whatsoever.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to consider that. Perhaps the committee will want to discuss this further. On the face of it it may be possible to meet that point. As I say, the reciprocity arrangements cover the civil field only, and it might be possible to add some words at the end of (b) which would meet the position and which would not affect the bill. Perhaps I could consider that while the discussion is going on.

Radio Act


Mr. Slick:: The minister referred to the United States bases in Newfoundland which were established under an agreement made during the war. I understand that the bill in no way interferes with that agreement but rather supplements and confirms it. Is that the position?


Lionel Chevrier: Both supplements it and confirms it.


John George Diefenbaker: I wonder whether the minister has a copy of the order in council that was passed.


Lionel Chevrier: I have it.


John George Diefenbaker: Has he placed it on the record yet? I came in late and did not hear the discussion, but I do not remember having seen that order in council at any time among those that were tabled.


Lionel Chevrier: It is not a secret order. I should like to use it during the course of the discussion but I will put the operative words on the record. It is not a long order. I would not like to read it all but perhaps I might put the last part on the record.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister read the full title and any designation thereof? It does not seem to be listed in the consolidated index.


Lionel Chevrier: It is P.C. 3484, privy council, Canada, and is headed, "At the Government House at Ottawa, Wednesday, the 8th day of August, 1951. Present: His Excellency the Governor General in Council." There follow five whereas clauses, and the final clause reads as follows:
Therefore, His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport with the concurrence of the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence, and under the authority of the Emergency Powers Act, and notwithstanding the provisions of the Radio Act, 1938, or any regulations made thereunder, is pleased, hereby, to authorize the Minister of Transport to grant permission, from time to time, to the government of the United States to establish and operate by its servants or agents, at such authorized military establishments and authorized weather reporting establishments in Canada as he may approve, radio stations equipped with transmitting or receiving radio apparatus or both, and to employ or authorize the employment of radio operators in connection therewith who are not British subjects, such permission to be in such form and terms and on such conditions and for such length of time as he may deem advisable in the public interest.
While I am on my feet, I think perhaps the point of the hon. member for Kamloops might be met, although I should like to carefully consider it, by the addition after the word "thereof" of the words "in consequence of a joint defence arrangement with the government of Canada". That might meet

the position of the opposition. On the face of it I do not see any objection to it, but I should like to ask the Minister of Justice to glance at it in the meantime.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I must say that the form of words suggested certainly embraces the point I had in mind so far as subsection (b) is concerned.


John George Diefenbaker: This whole matter suggests the tremendous changes that have taken place in recent years in connection with the surrender of territorial rights or rights of sovereignty in consequence of defence. One only has to go back to 1938 at which time the Canadian government did not feel like granting and did not grant to the British government the right to train airmen in Canada because it might be an invasion of the sovereignty of Canada. I should like to ask the minister this question. With the establishment of these weather stations and radio stations connected with defence what arrangement is there between Canada and the United States whereby Canadian sovereignty will be protected and whereby the population of some of these ice cubes of the north, these islands of the north, will actually remain subject to Canadian sovereignty and that sovereignty will in no way be interfered with as the result of co-operation? After all, that is very important in the granting of these rights.
We are asked to grant certain rights. We are asked to give the governor in council certain powers, and I ask the minister to what degree consideration has been given whereby the granting of these rights shall in no way operate as a derogation of Canadian sovereignty or territoriality? After all, if these rights and the right of occupation, the right to establish radio stations and these other types of stations are given, they might also convey in time the right to claim that territory. Surely there must be an agreement whereby these rights are protected. I should like to ask the minister that question particularly, because after all the granting of these rights by parliament may in the end mean the loss of sovereign rights for Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sure the hon. member realizes, Mr. Chairman, the implication of the problem that he has raised. It is a problem that might well be raised, not on a bill such as this, but on the estimates of the Department of National Defence since the question he brings up is one that has to do with defence installations in the north. If it is not raised on national defence estimates, then at least it could be raised on the estimates of the Department of External Affairs.

I can, however, deal with that part of his question that has to do with joint weather stations because that matter comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport. In so far as those stations are concerned, it is clearly understood, and I refer to joint stations, that the moment we have the required personnel we shall take over these stations. I mentioned earlier in my remarks five weather recording stations that Canada and the United States have established in Canada. They were Resolute, Mould Bay, Isach-sen, Alert and Eureka. Of those five, we are now supplying four. There is still one in the northernmost part of Canada, Alert, that is supplied by the United States. Just as soon as we have the required personnel, not only will we operate these but we will supply Alert just as we are servicing the others now.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says that these matters particularly affect the Department of National Defence. In the sidenote to this bill reference is made to the Emergency Powers Act and also the order in council that was passed under the provisions of that act. As I recall it, when the minister read out the order in council there was a reference not only to the Minister of Transport but also to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that this amendment is to incorporate the order in council in question into the act, the matter does become pertinent to the discussion now and not later on when the defence estimates are before the house.


Lionel Chevrier: I think it is.


John George Diefenbaker: 
Mr. Claxlon:: The hon. member's remarks about Goose Bay are astonishing. Goose Bay is a Canadian airport, operated by Canadians. We have granted, under an agreement which has been tabled in this house, certain rights with regard to the occupation of land by the United States. I cannot conceive of Goose Bay being closed to T.C.A. unless it was closed by reason of weather.


John George Diefenbaker: The reason was given that it was being used for other purposes at that time.


Brooke Claxton: If the purposes were other than weather, they were purposes that were agreed upon by the Canadian and United States defence authorities.
With regard to these other places, we have with the United States a common interest in having weather reports that flow from the weather stations up north. At the end of the second world war a number of those stations continued in operation. Adjustments have been made from time to time, but there is no infringement of Canadian sovereignty. Nothing has been done at any stage that infringes Canadian sovereignty. If there is, it should have been brought to the attention of the Canadian authorities and it would have been corrected at once. It has been a co-operative activity in the interests of both countries because we are both interested in navigation by sea and by air. The reports we get from these weather stations are important to both countries.
We have co-operated in the work of these weather stations. As the Minister of Transport has indicated, plans have been worked out under which the operation of the weather stations is being taken over by his department. Everything that has been done has been in recognition of our sovereignty, which up to recent years was questioned only in view of the United States uncertainty about the sector theory. This is recognized by the weather agreement as a practical co-operative effort, designed for our mutual benefit. There is no reason why anyone should have any question about it, particularly since the minister has indicated that his department, as it qualifies personnel, is taking over the operation successively of all the stations.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In view of the wording of paragraph (b) of clause 6, where the United States is not specifically mentioned, may I ask the minister whether any government other than the United States government is now operating a radio station in Canada or has

Radio Act
placed before the Canadian government an application or request for the operation of a radio station?


Lionel Chevrier: The answer to both questions is no.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Since the Minister of
National Defence is teaming up with the Minister of Transport, perhaps I could get an answer to this question with regard to the little Pentagon that is arising at Washington under Canadian auspices. Has any consideration been given to radio communication between Ottawa and that building in the future? If so, would that not form the basis of a reciprocal agreement?


Lionel Chevrier: So far as I know there has [DOT]been no indication other than what has appeared in the press.
' Mr. Claxion: I might suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that this question of a Canadian pentagon in Washington is totally irrelevant to this discussion. If anyone can build a functional building in Washington suitable for the job that is being done cheaper than it is being done there then I would like to find why their tenders were not received on the call that was made by the Department of Defence Production. But we are talking about radio now, and we have continuous telephone and radio communication with Washington.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the minister going to move ah amendment such as he has drafted, before the clause carries?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. Paragraph (b) of the clause would read:
"a person who is employed as a radio operator on a [DOT]radio station in Canada by the government of another country or any agency thereof, in consequence of a joint defence arrangement with the government of Canada".


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I move:
:	That clause 1 be amended by adding after the
word "thereof" in the 25th line, the following words:
; "in consequence of a joint defence arrangement with the government of Canada".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
v Mr. Green: I have one question to ask before the clause is carried. Is there any certificate required in the case of a plane which flies over Canada pursuant to international agreement? My understanding is that they do not require to have a certificate from the minister's department. I am asking ,the question because in his speech opening the debate on second reading today he gave .that as one reason for requiring the amend-,ment. He said this evening that a Canadian aircraft flying over the United States has the

same right as an American plane flying over Canada. Is it or is it not a fact that the minister has to give the pilot of each of those American planes some kind of permit?
Lionel Chevrier: The answer is no. The
certificate required by the country which subscribes to the ICAO agreement is a certificate given by the government of that country to the satisfaction of ICAO. That is accepted by Canada, just as our certificate of ICAO is accepted by other countries signatory to the ICAO agreement.


Howard Charles Green: This bill was not required,
then, in order that Canada might carry out her international agreements?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, I am informed that up to a point it is, for those pilots who are residents of Canada. Some non-British pilots such as those of K.L.M. live in Montreal.


Howard Charles Green: They would be licensed in the ordinary way, just as a pilot flying for Trans-Canada Air Lines would be licensed?


Lionel Chevrier: They could be; but the object of the amendment is to cover that case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister say
something more with regard to the question I put to him a short time ago. It is difficult to discuss this without having the order in council to look at. I did go across the floor to take a quick look at it in the minister's possession. From my looking at it, it seems quite clear that the permission to the United States government to establish a radio station in Canada is provided under that order in council passed under the Emergency Powers Act. As I see it, that part of the order in council is not being carried forward in this bill. The only part being carried forward in the bill is the permission to persons who are not British subjects to operate those stations.
My previous question was this: Where is the continuing authority for the establishing and operating of radio stations in Canada? When he was answering me earlier the minister said, very briefly, that I should look at section 5 of the present act. Well that is a section with about twenty lines in it, and I shall not take the time of the house to read it aloud. However, I have looked at it and I am not sure where in that section there is any authority for the granting of permission to the United States to operate stations in Canada.
If the authority was there, why was it included in the order in council under the Emergency Powers Act? Or is this just another case of the government using the Emergency Powers Act as a convenience?

I wish the minister would address himself to the matter. He has the order in council in front of him, and that is more than we have. He can see that it says in there that it included permission to the government of the United States to establish stations in Canada. When the statutory basis for that order in council disappears, what is the basis for the continuing permission?


Lionel Chevrier: It is covered in the amendment before the house now. I tried to answer my hon. friend's question, in part, when I said that it had been covered by section 5. Section 5 of the act now says that: no person shall establish a radio station or instal, operate or have in his possession a radio apparatus or on any aircraft registered in Canada, except under and in accordance with a licence granted by the minister in that behalf.
That, I think, covers the point my hon. friend raised.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says the
authority to grant such licence is contained in section 5 of the Radio Act. Why, then, was it spelled out in the order in council under the War Measures Act?


Lionel Chevrier: To deal with persons qualified to operate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister is just jumping back and forth from one question to the other. I recognize that this bill carries forward the right to grant permission to persons to operate these stations, even though they are not British subjects. That part of what was in the order in council is being carried forward in this bill. But the other part in the order in council is permission to establish stations in Canada, and that certainly is not being carried forward in the present bill. The minister now says it is contained in section 5 of the Radio Act, initially. If so, then surely there was a mistake when it was included in the order in council under the Emergency Powers Act.


The Chairman:: Shall the clause as amended carry?


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister put the order in council on Hansard. As a matter of fact, I was not able to find it. The minister has said that it was not secret, yet it does not seem to be included in the registry.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall table it after we finish discussion on the bill, because this is the only copy I have. If there is no further discussion I shall table it now.


John George Diefenbaker: Include it in Hansard.
National Harbours Board Act


William Alfred Robinson: The minister cannot table a document while we are in committee. '*


John George Diefenbaker: It could be included in Hansard.


Howard Charles Green: It would be very helpful if the order in council were printed in Hansard with the debate. Part of it has been put om now.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps when we get back to the point where Mr. Speaker is in the chair I could ask for permission to revert to motions, and then table it.


William Alfred Robinson: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.	A


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting.



EMERGENCY POWERS ACT


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister permission to revert to motions to table a document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lionel Chevrier: I now table order in council P.C. 3484 of August 8, 1951.



NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD ACT


Lionel Chevrier: the second reading of Bill No.. 421, to amend the National Harbours Board Act.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I wish to state now that at the conclusion of this debate a motion will be made to refer the bill to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and therefore my opening remarks will tend to give as complete a picture as possible of the contemplated legislation whilst not burdening the house with lengthy details which can be obtained more efficiently when the measure is before the standing committee.
The National Harbours Board Act was passed by parliament in 1936. It has never been amended since that time, except in 1938, and that was to give the board power to sue and to be sued in its own name in tort. It is evident that over a period of some eighteen years many changes have occurred, and these amendments are being included for

National Harbours Board Act the purpose of bringing the act up to date. The purpose of these amendments is to clarify the existing legal position; to eliminate provisions which have been rendered superfluous by other acts; to remove cumbersome phrases and to make a few substantive alterations. While these are few in number, I should like to list them for the house now.
One has to do with the extension of the provisions of the act, to include additional persons who may be charged for services under the act. At the present time charges are made against owners. This amendment would extend the liability to include carriers and bailees as contrasted with the actual owners thereof. In many instances the carriers or the bailees are the only persons with whom the board has any dealings at all. Also to empower the governor in council to name a temporary member to the board where a member has been delegated to other governmental duties. This situation occurred during the second world war, and it was dealt with under the authority of the War Measures Act.
A new section is provided to eliminate all necessity of swearing in harbour police as special constables of some municipal or provincial police force or the R.C.M.P. The status created would be analogous to that established by the Railway Act for railway constables. To raise the limit of non-tender contracts from the former $10,000, fixed by the way in 1936, to $15,000; to empower the board on the approval of the governor in council to purchase and sell supplies, salvage and so forth; in fact, anything except land or real estate property up to a certain limit designated by the governor in council as the board's bylaws may prescribe. And here I wish to add that all the board's bylaws have to be approved by the governor in council.
There are also express provisions that the governor in council may make bylaws governing the handling, storing and so forth, even on private property in the board's harbours, of explosives or dangerous goods within any harbour under the board's jurisdiction.
There is also a section to enable the board to contract itself out of liability for negligence. In a number of instances, such as the granting of permission to bring explosives into a harbour, or the acceptance of highly perishable goods in storage, the revenue does not justify the risk incurred by the board unless the board, like any private operator in the same circumstances, possesses a capacity of restricting the liability which could conceivably arise through the negligence of some minor board employee.


There is also a clause in the bill to enable bylaws and the charges thereunder to be made binding on other agencies or departments of the crown, whether in the right of Canada or in that of any of the ten provinces, the reason being that the board operates to a large extent as a quasi-commercial corporation and must submit separate reports to parliament on its financial operation.
There is also an express provision in the bill for the acceptance by the courts of a copy of any bylaw, certified by the secretary of the board, as full evidence of such bylaw. This is merely a matter of convenience and is a common provision in statutes of this type.
There is also a clause to broaden the so-called "commutation authority" to cover explicitly commutations, reductions and waivers in respect of board charges imposed by bylaw.
There is a provision in the bill to give a general lien which would be enforceable against any goods of a debtor of the board whether or not the debt was incurred on the specific goods.
The period during which board tolls shall continue to accrue on goods seized and detained would be restricted to a maximum of thirty days. In the absence of such an amendment the period of accrual of charges could be almost unrestricted, and it is considered that this point should be clarified and explicitly covered.
There is an alteration extending the purview of the board's bylaws to all property under board administration as contrasted with the harbours alone. This would, for instance, apply to the grain elevators at Prescott and Port Colborne.
Apart from the foregoing, the bill also contains a few additional but very minor amendments which, like some of those already mentioned, effect no substantive change but serve to make more explicit, or to place in a more logical position within the act, provisions already existing. Such minor alterations would constitute a clarification of those provisions of the act relating to the awarding of contracts and relating to the use of harbours, and so forth, by vessels and aircraft; seizure, detention and sale of vessels and goods; board's right to sue for charges notwithstanding the seizure of goods and the repeal of a few obsolete provisions of the act.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I feel something should be said on this bill by those who are concerned with the seaports of our eastern provinces because of the prominent part played in their life by

the national harbours board. Since the bill is to be referred to a committee for study I will make my remarks as brief as possible.
This is an act to amend the National Harbours Board Act and someone has said that it is routine with no great change in principle. While I would not go that far, Mr. Speaker, I think it might be suggested that it is an example of a government body grabbing more power, and it is an example of government by order in council.
There are one or two sections proposed in the bill which will fill the gap left by the Emergency Powers Act and the following considerations should be kept in mind when we consider the bill as a whole.
I believe most hon. members will agree that it is desirable we should have provision in our statute law for the efficient working of our waterfronts. In this regard we have two important matters that should be considered, and I refer to strikes and to explosions. It is necessary in this day and age that we have sufficient authority to deal with strikes, but we should be careful to consider the arbitrary power that might be given to police officers in dealing with such strikes.
The matter of explosions is also considered in this bill and I feel that in this respect we are still in need of greater restrictions as regards ammunition ships in our harbours. Surely the lessons of the Halifax explosion and others should convince us that we must be more careful in this respect. I think we are still behind the United States in the restrictions placed on ships in regard to explosives, and also in the authority given to the various boards that have to deal with such matters.
This bill has already been dealt with in the other place, and I feel it was given the most careful consideration by the other place both on second reading and when it went before the transport and communications committee. However there are still two or three points which bother me and I will just touch on them briefly now.
The matter of police officers and their policing duties is still a sore point. The bill deals with their appointment, jurisdiction, and authority, and while amendments were proposed in the other place which have cut down the further power sought by them I still feel an explanation will have to be given in committee as to some of their rights and powers. Their jurisdiction has been extended to cover a fifty-mile radius, and I would like an explanation, when the time comes, as to why such an extensive distance has been included.
National Harbours Board Act
Another matter which was referred to by the parliamentary assistant in his very careful explanation is the restriction on liability.
I feel that perhaps the right of the harbours board to be able to contract themselves out of certain liability as regards explosives responsibility in the various ports could be considered, though I feel that if this right is to be passed off to someone else there should be some restrictions on the parties who are to assume that right. In other words, we would not wish to see the responsibility for explosions in our harbours passed on to some bodies who are not in a position to accept this liability and to make amends in the case of an explosion.
Generally, I think the details of the bill are commendable. It is a good measure and we are pleased to see that the financial administration of the board is being changed in some respects so that it may come under the Financial Administration Act.
I believe that down our way the administration of the national harbours board has been fairly good, and I was pleased to see that new appointments were made at Ottawa the other day.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that this is another example of piecemeal legislation. In this legislation hunks have been taken out here and hunks thrown in there and it is rather confusing when one considers it all. But I would like to emphasize that we must be careful to bear the individual's rights in mind when considering this granting of arbitrary power to police officers. That, to my mind, is most important. The phrase "the rights of the individual" is used very loosely nowadays, and one can always argue these matters. Nevertheless when you get local conditions in which police officers of the harbours board come in contact with longshoremen and with men working in the ports there arises a considerable amount of animosity, though the actual criminal negligence that might be a consideration amounts only to petty pilfering, liquor traffic and things such as that. Therefore, we must strike the happy medium between the two, and we must see to it that the officers of the harbours board are given enough authority to conduct their business, though at the same time it must not be sufficiently arbitrary as to interfere with the rights of our citizens. We will be looking closely at this bill in committee.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take up the time of the house in any long discussion on this bill in second reading, though I might say, as one of the representatives for the city
5048	HOUSE OF
National Harbours Board Act of Vancouver, that to our city any change in an act of this nature is of the utmost importance.
I have read the bill through twice and I have found it very technical, so I am glad that the minister is going to refer the bill to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I find myself in the same position as the previous speaker in wishing to emphasize the importance of close and careful study being made of the bill when it is referred to that committee, and the fullest possible information being made available to members of the committee because I do not understand the technical aspects of this measure and I will certainly expect to hear some explanations when the committee meets.
As the hon. member who has just spoken pointed out, there is a change in the granting of authority for the appointment of police officers and I note that in their appointment these officers are to have the powers of peace officers within the meaning of the Criminal Code. That is quite understandable on property which is administered by the national harbours board, but I cannot understand why a special constable should have the authority of a peace officer, within the meaning of the Criminal Code, fifty miles away from the property owned or under the administration of the harbours board. It is because of these technical questions, which I feel should be explained, that I am very glad this bill is being referred to a committee of this house.


Mr. Speaker:: If the parliamentary assistant speaks now he will close the debate.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my appreciation of the reasonable tone adopted by the two hon. members who spoke on this subject here tonight. I wish to refer briefly to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell). I can assure him that it is not the purpose of the bill to grab more power, as he expressed it, but rather that it is brought forward, as I said in my opening statement, only to clarify the existing act and to add whatever modifications or amendments have proved themselves to be necessary over a period of some eighteen years of experience and operation by the national harbours board.
He made some reference to regulations with regard to explosives. There are in force comprehensive regulations made under the authority of the Canada Shipping Act. There are also some regulations made by the national harbours board and also some under the authority of the Railway Act. But with regard to the carrying of explosives in naval


vessels, may I say that this matter comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) exclusively.
Both the hon. member for Saint John-Albert and the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) have expressed some views with regard to the making of harbour constables into peace officers and have also expressed some opposition to their jurisdiction over a distance of fifty miles, as mentioned in the bill. I must repeat here that all we propose to do is to give the harbour constables a status which is comparable to that at present enjoyed by railway constables under the Railway Act.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the parliamentary assistant a question on that point?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Is it not a fact that under the Railway Act the jurisdiction is only half a mile?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: No. I wish to refer my hon. friend here to section 456 of the Railway Act and subsequent sections, especially section 457 which gives the territorial limits of constables' jurisdiction as follows:
Every constable so appointed, who has taken such or made such declaration, may act as a constable for the preservation of the peace, and for the security of persons and property against unlawful acts
(a)	on such railway, and on any of the works belonging thereto;
(b)	on and about any trains, roads, wharfs, quays, landing places, warehouses, lands and premises belonging to such company, whether the same are in the county, city, town, parish, district or other local jurisdiction within which he was appointed or in any other place through which such railway passes or in which the same terminates, or through or to which any railway passes which is worked or leased by such company; and
(c)	in all places not more than a quarter of a mile distant from such railway.


Howard Charles Green: It is a quarter of a mile. I said half a mile.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: It might be more than a quarter of a mile from the place where the offence was committed-it is a quarter of a mile from the railway, but it extends over the distance which the railway runs.


Howard Charles Green: There is a big difference between that and fifty miles.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: To answer this point about the fifty-mile territorial jurisdiction of a constable of the national harbours board I must say, for example, that the harbour of Montreal extends over a distance of some thirty miles and, if my memory serves me correctly, it is in four different municipal

districts. The same thing applies to the harbour at Vancouver. The hon. member for Vancouver East will correct me if I am wrong, but I think the property of the national harbours board in the port of Vancouver extends over the districts of three different municipalities, namely that of Vancouver city, that of Burnaby and that of North Vancouver. That is why it has been found necessary to give this fifty-mile territorial limit to the jurisdiction of harbours board constables.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the parliamentary assistant a question on that point?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Yes.


Mr, Green:: Is it not a fact that the bill gives these constables jurisdiction over all the harbours board property and, in addition, over fifty miles in every direction from the harbours board property?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I must remind my hon. friend that the offence must have been committed in connection with some of the board's property and the fifty-mile limit- and this will be explained in much more detail when the bill is before the standing committee-is, as I understand it, from the property in connection with which the offence was committed. I must give another instance. For example, suppose you have a motorist violating the speed limit on the Jacques Cartier bridge in Montreal. It is rather difficult to determine exactly where the offence was committed. Was it committed just on that line separating the two municipalities of Montreal on this side and St. Lambert, I think it is, on the other side? In addition to that consideration, you must give the board's constable the right to pursue this violator of the speed limit, and he may have to travel quite a few miles chasing the motorist. In any event, as I stated, many more instances and reasons in support of this particular feature of the bill will be given when it is before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I just wish to say that, before this standing committee, every opportunity will be given to hon. members to get any information they wish from the representatives of the national harbours [DOT]board and their counsel, who will be in attendance.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) I move that this bill be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion for second reading of this bill?
Disabled Persons-Allowances


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to t'he standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Paul Joseph James Martin: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting allowances for disabled persons and to provide for the payment to the provinces out of the consolidated revenue fund of amounts in respect of allowances for disabled persons paid by the provinces, to certain persons who have attained the age of eighteen years, and who are totally and permanently disabled and in need of such allowances, not exceeding in respect of any recipient fifty per centum of forty dollars monthly or of the amount of the allowance paid by the provinces monthly to the recipients, whichever is the lesser; and to provide for the making of agreements with the provinces in relation thereto and for the conditions and duration of such agreements.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister going to make a brief statement about the matter at this
stage?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I had thought that if we could agree to have the discussion of the measure on second reading it might avoid duplication and save some time. Of course I am in the hands of the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think it will meet with the approval of hon. members generally that we have the main discussion of this legislation on second reading and in committee of the whole. May I take a minute or two to suggest to the minister that in view of such information as is contained in the resolution now before us I hope he will come prepared at these other stages to deal rather seriously with certain points. I shall refrain from going into them in any detail at this time, but I do wish to suggest that as the resolution now reads it indicates certain inadequacies in the proposed legislation.
The house has been asking for legislation of this kind and waiting for it for a long time, and I do hope that when it is brought in the definition of "disabled"-with those qualifying words "totally and permanently" -will not be so restrictive as to limit the pension to too few of those of our citizens

Disabled Persons-Allowances who need and deserve it. I also want to say that when we reach the later stages we will have something to say about the proposed amount, the age at which it is to be paid, the fifty-tifty division between Ottawa and the provinces, the residence qualification, the means test and other matters. In other words, as the minister knows we welcome this legislation but there is certainly room for improvement in the terms in which it is forecast and we hope that those improvements may be made even before the bill is introduced.


Mr. Blair:: Last year when a similar resolution presented by a private member was before the house I think every hon. member was in favour of it. It is a matter that has been before the house a great many times during the past few years. We welcome this resolution. We are glad that the legislation is being introduced, and we also feel that we would like to withhold our comments until the bill is up for second reading. This is not going to be an easy bill. I quite realize, and I pointed out to the house last year, the difficulties in trying to formulate some type of legislation to cover the proof of disability. At that time I cited the various regulations in vogue in the United States where a bill of this type was brought before the legislative body some years ago. Practically every state to which I referred gives a different meaning to total and permanent disability.
When the matter was before the house last year I remember describing it as a gap in our social security program. Therefore I appreciate the fact that the bill is now being brought in, and we will discuss it clause by clause when it comes up later.


Mr. Caslleden:: I should like to ask the minister a question. He mentioned previously in the house that certain provinces had not passed enabling legislation and others had. I wonder whether he intends to give us that information this evening. Perhaps the Secretary of State can also help us out in this regard. I see him helping the minister. I know that this legislation is being anticipated with a great deal of hope and expectation by people throughout Canada. I have in mind particularly a young couple in my own constituency with four children, three of whom are totally and permanently disabled. This kind of thing is a tragedy. It is a terrific handicap not only to the parents but to the child who is well. I hope that the legislation will cover them. I should also like to know whether or not the enabling legislation in the various provinces will in any way hinder the coming into operation of the act.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


George Hugh Castleden: Would the minister make a statement with respect to the enabling legislation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I had suggested to the house that perhaps this was not the moment for a general discussion of the measure. Having expressed that wish I would not want to violate what I urged on the committee. Therefore I will simply say that when the measure does reach second reading I will be prepared to discuss it in detail and to indicate that the bill in its main features was discussed with all the provincial governments. Generally speaking it represents not a compromise but an acceptance of their most common position, and I am sure when the measure is introduced it will appeal to all hon. members as a very important contribution toward providing assistance to a great segment of our population whom we all, within our capacity, want to help.


George Hugh Castleden: We can all agree with that, but the point as to whether or not certain provinces have passed enabling legislation is not something that you are going to put in or leave out of the legislation. I wanted to get the information. After the very fine discussions the minister has had with the provinces, perhaps he might tell us how many of them have already passed enabling legislation. Could he not give the committee that information now?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Some five provinces have already passed enabling legislation. While I am on my feet, I should like to say at the outset to the house and to the country that, while I am sponsoring the bill, the real author of the legislation is the Prime Minister himself. Within a week of the holding of the last general election the Prime Minister wrote to me from his summer home. He said that he had been giving this matter his attention and he was now of the opinion, although the matter had not been discussed in the months immediately before the election, that this was a measure to which we should now address ourselves. I think that I should pay this tribute to the Prime Minister's humanitarian instincts by saying that this bill would not have been introduced at this time but for the initiative which he himself took.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Martin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 462, to provide for allowances for disabled persons.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT


Paul Joseph James Martin: the second reading of Bill No. 422, to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker-


Donald MacInnis: Before anything is said on this matter, I want to rise on a question of privilege. It is now past ten o'clock, our adjournment time. If we are to continue each evening for some further period then there should be a motion moved in the house to make the procedure regular. I know there are some members who would prefer, if the working day is going to be lengthened, that we should lengthen it in the morning rather than at night. There may be others who are of a different mind, but the house should decide and we should not be carrying on without a vote of the house.


Walter Edward Harris: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is the government's intention, based I understand on the unanimous consent of other parties in the house, to present a motion that commencing next Monday morning we shall sit in the mornings. In the meantime, however, if the house feels that they can do extra work for an hour in the evening, I think perhaps that ought to be done if it suits hon. members. Rather than make a formal motion to cover the whole of the time, we thought that perhaps each evening a decision might be made, having in mind the amount of work done and the general progress made.
If that is not acceptable we could, of course, make a formal motion, but I suggest that we should not. Each evening at ten o'clock, if hon. members feel they can carry on for another hour they might do so, for the time being at least, and for tonight I suggest we might carry on until eleven and consider the situation tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister if he thinks it is fair to other members and to the staff not to know from day to day at what hour the adjournment is to take place? I am not objecting to the lengthening of the day. I have tried to be co-operative throughout with respect to this matter, and the minister will confirm that. However, I do believe there should be something definite for the benefit of all concerned.


Walter Edward Harris: I suppose the government
ought to accept the responsibility. My hon. friend has just said he has no position on it,
Opium and Narcotic Drug Act and therefore I would not want to impose upon him now the order for the rest of the week if that did not suit him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I did not say I had no position. I said I was trying to be co-operative. I stated my position on Friday night, and it was the same as that of the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway. I thought there should be a proper motion-and there could be one even now if you want an extension.


Walter Edward Harris: Could we, for the 57 minutes remaining, continue by consent and consider this tomorrow?


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of National
Health and Welfare moves that this bill entitled "An act to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act" be now read a second time.


George Hugh Castleden: It is ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I understood there was general agreement that we continue for a few minutes. If my understanding was not correct, of course I will call it ten o'clock.


George Hugh Castleden: I do not think there is any general agreement. There are several members who have mentioned ten o'clock. I do not think there is agreement to continue.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If it will help the hon. gentleman, I am willing to continue.


George Hugh Castleden: What good is that?


Mr. Speaker:: Will the minister adjourn
this debate?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If you ask me, Mr. Speaker, I shall do so.
On motion of Mr. Martin the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we shall take the third readings that are ready, and then the bill with respect to the extension of the Canadian National Railways; the resolution with respect to the Public Service Superannuation Act; the resolution with respect to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act; second reading of the Research Council Act; second reading of the bill for which we have just passed the resolution with respect to the allowances for disabled persons; then go into ways and means and take the budget resolutions.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
83276-320J
[Stage Direction]
i
Tuesday, May 25, 1954