1956-03-01

CIVIL SERVICE ACT


Mr. Fernand Girard (Lapointe) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 159, to amend the Civil Service Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Fernand Girard: Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendment is intended, without interfering with the preference now rendered to our veterans, to grant a certain preference to bilingual competitors eligible for appointment as the result of civil service examinations. The bill does not require civil servants to be bilingual but it gives a certain preference to candidates who fit better the bilingual character of the country.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On Tuesday, the 28th of February, 1956, as stated in Hansard of that date on page 1617, I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the following question:
Is it the minister's intention to recommend special security measures to be taken upon the return of Tim Buck from Moscow?
A newspaper report the following day, February 29, incorrectly stated:
A Quebec Conservative member of parliament suggested ironically in the Commons today that Canadian communist leader Tim Buck would need "protection" when he returns from the communist party congress in Moscow.
This news report had the effect, no doubt inadvertently, of leaving the impression that I was asking for protection for Tim Buck, while my purpose was to suggest that protection should be taken against Tim Buck.
I deplore the interpretation given to this question by the press. I believe it is most unnecessary for me to declare again my firm determination to fight, by any means at my
command, communism in Canada. My very question was prompted by my desire to protect the Canadian people from the danger of communism, and the possible and probable stepping up of communist activities in Canada as a result of Tim Buck's return-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I had hoped that the hon. member could finish his statement before I was obliged to intervene. Unfortunately I must tell him that, for the purpose of that question of privilege, it looks as though he is going beyond what is necessary.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has stated his question of privilege and has put the record straight.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY EXPROPRIATION OF PART OF CAUGHNAWAGA INDIAN RESERVE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Casileden (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. What is the amount of the settlement which the St. Lawrence seaway authority has agreed to pay as compensation for the land being expropriated from the Caughnawaga reserve? I regret that I have not given the minister longer notice.


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to send me notice of this question just as the house opened. I am unable to tell him what is the amount of the settlement to which he refers. It will be necessary to consult with the authority to find out whether the information is available and whether it should be made public.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour a question of which I did not have time to give him notice. I should appreciate it if he would give me an answer at some future time. Did the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) or his department receive any representations

Inquiries of the Ministry from woodworkers in eastern Quebec who have been disqualified for their unemployment insurance because they could not afford to pay their train fare to go and work in the bush around Clova, Quebec? If so, can he tell us whether the number of unemployed so disqualified is some 2,000 or over and what steps the department is going to take with regard to the matter?


Mr. J. A. Blancheiie (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour may I take the question as notice? In the meantime I might say that representations have been made to the Minister of Labour with regard to the subject matter of the question and that the matter is being fully gone into. A definite reply will probably be made in the course of the next few days.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: wish to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence. Has the new appointment of commander of No. 6 militia group been made? If not, when may we expect this appointment?


Mr. P. T. Hellyer (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the appointment has not been made. At the moment the matter is awaiting the approval of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney).


Thomas Miller Bell: I should like to ask a supplementary question. When the new appointment is made, will consideration be given to maintaining the same rank that is now called for in the establishment?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, full and careful consideration will be given to all the factors involved.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like
to direct a question to the Minister of Justice in view of the report on the front page of this morning's Globe and Mail to the effect that certain illegal gambling activities in Ontario are protected by federal charter. Has the minister any comment to make?


Hon. Stuarl S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I have not seen the report. If the report is

to the effect that these clubs are engaging in illegal activities, I would not think it would make much difference whence they obtained their charter. In any case this would be a matter for consideration by the law enforcement authorities of the province.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: Is the
Minister of National Revenue aware of the current demand in the city of Winnipeg for a second television station under private auspices? If so, will the government give consideration to allowing a private station to become established there or will they insist on the maintenance of the current government monopoly?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: I am aware, Mr. Speaker, of a request rather than a demand for a private station in Winnipeg. Of course this involves a matter of government policy, and when there are changes in policy they will be announced.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in connection with the 17-nation organization for European economic co-operation, a meeting of which is now taking place in Paris. Has Canada agreed at this conference to make available to European nations large amounts of atomic raw materials, and what is the basis upon which that offer was made by Mr. Wilgress?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: A conference is taking place, but I am not aware of any such offer as indicated by my hon. friend. I will look into the matter and see if I can say anything about it tomorrow.


ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES INQUIRY AS TO SETTING UP OF CANADA COUNCIL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government reconsidered the stand which the Prime Minister announced on January

12 with regard to the establishment of the Canada Council? If not, will the government give further consideration to the establishment of this council at an early date?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The government is giving consideration to that matter, Mr. Speaker.


PIPE LINES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce state whether the time for the financing of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines has been extended, and if so by whom?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I understand the province of Alberta has extended the time under the export permit issued to Trans-Canada by that province. I know of no other extension.


INQUIRY AS TO NEGOTIATIONS CURRENTLY PENDING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: May I
ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if there are any trade negotiations, that is negotiations looking toward trade treaties, under way with any nation at the present time apart from GATT?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, there is the international wheat agreement, of course. That is under negotiation but I know of no other negotiations.


ATOMIC ENERGY
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):
That a special committee be appointed to examine into the role of government in the field of nonmilitary research in Canada, including:
(a)	operations in the field of atomic energy,
(b)	operations of the national research council.
That the committee be empowered to sit during
the sittings of the house and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee and to report from time to time; and that notwithstanding standing order No. 67 the committee shall consist of 20 members.
Mr. J. H. Dickey (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Defence Production):: The
purpose of this resolution is disclosed by its terms as they appear on the order paper. It
Committee on Atomic Energy is to set up a special committee of this house to consider the role of the federal government in non-military research in Canada. In making this study the committee is expected to review the operations of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and of the national research council, and to consider also research in its general aspects.
In previous sessions committees of a similar nature were set up. The first was in 1949, and that committee was known as the committee on atomic energy. In 1950 we established a sessional committee on the operations of the national research council.
In 1953 we had a second committee on atomic energy. All of these committees, Mr. Speaker, did valuable work. However, during the last several years considerable changes have occurred in the organization of the atomic energy project and in its relations to the national research council. Further study by a committee of this house of the activities of the government in both these fields seems to be appropriate at this session. The operations of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and of research laboratories are quite complicated, and a committee of this house gives the members an opportunity to appreciate the problems involved and to obtain much more detailed information on these matters than would otherwise be possible.
There is no question that after the previous committees had met the members of this house had a much better appreciation of what was involved. It is also true that the last five years have brought about an increasing interest in research on the part of hon. members. This has been indicated by a wider variety of questions asked and in particular by the interest in the debate two years ago on the amendments to the national Research Council Act. At that time the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) made a full statement about the operations of the national research council, and accordingly I do not propose to go into any detail today. I would, however, like to point out certain changes which have occurred in the administration and operation of the national research council and in general government support of academic and industrial research.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Might I make a suggestion to the hon. member? There is a microphone a little further away from him. Would it be possible for him to take the place that the hon. member has just vacated, because it is very difficult for hon. members to hear the statement that he is now making. I think the house will appreciate the co-operation of the hon. gentleman.	_


John Horace Dickey: The major changes which have occurred in the organization since 1950 are, first the setting up of Atomic Energy of

Committee on Atomic Energy Canada Limited as a crown company in 1952 . and the transfer to it from the national research council of responsibility for work on atomic energy. The company has now been in existence for four years, and our experience shows that the new arrangement has been entirely successful. In addition, the fact that the president of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is also the president-


Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member is speaking louder but there is a good deal of talking in his general area. This important statement the hon. member is making should be appreciated by all if hon. members around him would speak a little more softly.


Mr. Hees:: If he would hold the speech up a little and speak out.


John Horace Dickey: The president of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is also the president of Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited, and this has meant a consolidation of activities connected with atomic energy, including both research in the atomic field and the production of uranium.
In spite of the necessity of separating Atomic Energy of Canada Limited from the national research council, co-operation between those two bodies has remained extremely close.
The other main change since 1950 has been the completion of several buildings and division of the national research council which were under way at the time of the first committee. The maritime regional laboratory, which was under construction then, is now in full operation.
The division of building research has now a building of its own and has been expanded to something like full size. The division of radio and electrical engineering is now housed in its own building on the Montreal road and the division of applied chemistry has been expanded and also now has its own building.
As far as research in general is concerned, there has been a very considerable increase in activity and interest in the last five years. With reference to government research, I shall not enlarge on the position since it was dealt with during the past two sessions of parliament, except to say that at the present time $70 million per annum is being spent by the federal government on research. I think that one can say with justice that the per capita expenditure on government research in Canada of a nonmilitary nature is now on a level where it compares favourably with any country in the world.
Further, I think that one can well be proud of the quality of the work which is 'Mr. Dickey.]

being done in various government organizations. A considerable expansion has also taken place in government support to university research. As far as the national research council is concerned, this increase has been a dramatic one, the amount rising from a few thousand dollars at the end of the first war to something like $2J million today. In particular university support by the national research council has multiplied by a factor of about five since the end of the second war. There is no question that support from the national research council over the years has been a major factor in the development of university research in Canada.
I should also like to say something about industrial research in which there has been an increasing interest and activity over the past few years. We are at a stage in this country in our industrial development where we must to a greater and greater extent think for ourselves along technical lines. There is a very satisfactory trend in this direction which must be continued. The only way, however, in which industrial research can really develop is on the basis of appreciation by industry that it is necessary. All that the government can do in this regard is to make tax concessions to try to take care through government laboratories of the smaller industries and to help the larger industries in the transition period before they get their own research going, to advise and encourage and to set the example by operating first-rate laboratories itself.
I believe that the Canadian picture in industrial research is encouraging. We have developed research in the federal government to a stage where we can be thoroughly proud of the results. Most provincial governments have also become interested in research with a provincial outlook. Our industries are becoming research conscious and we are giving them every possible encouragement from the point of view of taxation. All in all, I think we are on the right track and the future of Canadian research should be a bright one. However, since we are in a transition period it appears to be an excellent time for a committee of this house to look into the whole question of the status of Canadian governmental research.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, in opening my remarks I should like to reread the terms of the resolution which are as follows:
That a special committee be appointed to examine into the role of government in the field of nonmilitary research in Canada, including:
(a)	operations in the field of atomic energy,
(b)	operations of the national research council.
That the committee be empowered to sit during
the sittings of the house and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered

by the committee and to report from time to time; and that notwithstanding standing order No. 67 the committee shall consist of twenty members.
There are some features of that resolution which I think deserve further consideration. One is that in effect it calls for two inquiries, one into the field of atomic energy and the other into the operations of the national research council. The official opposition support the idea of having these two fields investigated, but we believe it would have been wiser to have separate committees. After all there is a great deal to be considered in each of the fields and during the discussion of this question last session the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated that he believed that there should be two committees rather than one.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, no. Can my
hon. friend quote me on that?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, certainly. At page 6215 of Hansard for July 15, 1955, the Minister of Trade and Commerce is reported as follows;
Next year we shall be very glad to consider It.
There had been discussion about a committee.
I think it is better to have a committee on atomic energy. I believe it is a big enough field.
If other committees in the fields of science are needed, perhaps they could be separate committees.
A second feature of this motion is that it takes out of the scope of the committee the field of military research. I believe the government was correct in not asking this committee to investigate that field, but I suggest that the field of military research is one in which an investigation might save the country a great deal of money. At the present time large sums of money are being spent in this field and there is an increase in the estimates for the current year. Yet parliament has practically no way of checking these particular expenditures.
The other features of this motion to which I should like to refer is that there is severe restriction upon the powers of the committee in that it will not be allowed to send for persons and papers. If hon. members will look at the order paper they will see that Item No. 9 is a motion to set up a committee to consider the work of the federal district commission and that committee is to have the power to send for persons and papers. Item No. 13 covers a motion to set up a committee to consider certain aspects of the criminal law of Canada, which committee is also to be given the power to send for persons and papers. The last item on the order paper is a motion to set up a committee on the Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines. That committee also
Committee on Atomic Energy is given the power to send for persons, papers and records. We believe that the committee on atomic energy and research should be given the same powers. It is my purpose before I sit down to move an amendment to that effect. I hope the government will consider such amendment on its merits.
We believe that this committee is a very important one. In earlier years when there has been a committee on atomic energy the members have acted in a responsible and conscientious way, and I am sure they will do the same thing this year. I know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce would agree with those remarks. I do not believe there has ever been a better committee of the house than the committees that have been set up to consider the question of atomic energy and the operations of the national research council.
Today I propose to deal only with the atomic energy field. The other field, namely, the operations of the national research council, will be dealt with in the first place by my colleague, the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy). In so far as the atomic energy field is concerned, we are not satisfied with the position of parliament. It is quite significant that in making the opening speech in this debate today the parliamentary assistant barely mentioned the atomic energy field. Most of his remarks had to do with the national research council.
I do not intend to belittle the work of that council because we have great admiration for the work it has done. I simply point out that the government itself in its opening statement today has given the house practically no information with regard to the atomic energy field. That indicates very clearly the point I wish to make, that we do not believe parliament is in its proper position with regard to the atomic energy field.
In the first place, there is almost a complete lack of information given to the house about what is happening in this particular field. It is true that each year certain estimates are passed which deal with atomic energy activities but the questioning during the discussion of those estimates is of necessity of a very desultory nature. It is quite impossible to gather much information in that way, and parliament, and beyond parliament, the people, have been getting very little information about what is going on in Canada in this field.
On two occasions there has been a special committee of the house on atomic energy, the first being in 1949. It was only set up after years of pleading by members of all three

Committee on Atomic Energy opposition parties. The original Atomic Energy Control Act was passed in 1946 and at that time, leading off tor the Conservative party, I urged as earnestly as I could that there should be a committee of the house on atomic energy. That request was not granted. Finally, three years later in 1949 the first special committee was set up.
That committee found that the field was so wide and so important that it recommended that a committee be se up in the following year. I have here the recommendation of the 1949 committee which is as follows:
Your committee has been in existence for only six weeks and in that time has been unable to complete its examination into the field of atomic energy development. Furthermore, this field is a new one, is widening rapidly, and may well be of tremendous importance to Canada. For these reasons your committee recommends that a special committee be reconstituted next session.
The recommendation made by the 1949 committee is still a valid and sound recommendation because as we know the field has been widening steadily in the meantime and much more rapidly than anyone expected in 1949. However, the government would not set up a committee again in 1950 and we did not succeed in getting the second committee until the year 1953.
1 believe that what is needed is a standing committee of the house on atomic energy. As things are at present, the Minister of Trade and Commerce alone knows what is going on in this field. His parliamentary assistant may have some information. The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr, Mcllraith), who was chairman of the special committee in 1949 and also in 1953, I believe, may have some knowledge. But essentially the only member of the parliament of Canada today who has any detailed knowledge of the atomic energy field is the Minister of Trade and Commerce himself. I make no comments today about its being that particular minister but I think this is an unsound situation to exist in the parliament of Canada.
This field is much too important to have the detailed knowledge concerning it possessed by only one person. The United States has gone at this particular problem of keeping the elected bodies in touch with the atomic energy field in a different way. I realize that their governmental system differs greatly from our own, but in this particular respect I think we could very well copy at least a portion of the organization they have set up. They have three watchdog committees over atomic energy. One is made up of defence people, a second of scientists appointed from all over the United States, and the third is the congressional committee, a joint committee which is really the congressional

watchdog committee on atomic energy. Their job is to make continual studies of the development of atomic energy and to keep congress fully acquainted with such developments.
I understand they actually have a permanent staff, and right from the start they have been in very close touch with what has gone on in the United States in the atomic energy field. I see no reason why, under our parliamentary system, we should not have a standing committee on atomic energy. I admit that the problem is a difficult one. I am not trying to be partisan at all in these remarks. I admit it is a difficult problem to meet, but I believe that one of the best ways of keeping the membership of the House of Commons informed on what is happening in this field and also of keeping Canadian newspapers and the Canadian people informed would be by having a standing committee.
At one time we met the explanation or the excuse that there was so much secret information in the atomic energy field that it would not be possible to have any such committee. I have here a statement made by the classification officer of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited since this house has been sitting. I am quoting from a dispatch from Chalk River on January 31, 1956, by John Bird. It is a Canadian Press dispatch. In it we find these statements:
Officials of A.E.C. were emphatic in saying that all the atomic information necessary for development work on power stations is available to private industry. Statements to the effect that secrecy considerations impeded the release of such information were termed incorrect.
"There is a mistaken impression that atomic energy for peaceful uses still is hush-hush," said Dr. G. O. Baines, classification officer for A.E.C. "Very little now is secret at Chalk River and other atomic plants not engaged in weapon production."
I believe that industry in Canada now knows far more about the atomic energy field than do members of parliament themselves. Mr. Speaker, parliament simply must be brought into this picture, for several reasons. One is this. It is a new field. This atomic energy field is the most important new field in Canada in the lifetime of any member of this house. There has never been a more important field opened up in the lifetime of anyone in this house today. It is a most important field in war. By reason of the development of atomic energy we were able to win the war in the Pacific in short order. By the same token we might very well have lost the war just as rapidly if the Germans had achieved this development before the allies. It is a most important field in peacetime as well. New questions are raised. There is need for new policies; and the responsibility for those new policies, in the final analysis, is not on the government of

Canada but on the parliament of Canada. How can the parliament of Canada accept that responsibility if it is not informed of what is going on in this field? I point out to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that the government must be extremely careful to keep parliament informed of the developments in this field.
Another reason is this. Now that power is being produced from atomic energy, where and how is it to be used? That is one of the problems that should be faced by this parliament. Last summer there was a conference at Geneva. It was the first international conference on the peaceful uses of atomic energy. Canada was represented and the members of parliament of Canada, by reading the newspapers, learned what the Canadian officials had to say about this field. I have here a dispatch from Geneva dated August 8, 1955. This was all information that could have been given to the parliament of Canada last session. There should have been discussion about the matter here on the floor of the house. I am quoting from a report of a paper read by Dr. John Davis of the minister's own department. By the way, I believe that Dr. Davis is one of the outstanding men in the service of this country today. This report states as follows:
He said-
That is referring to Dr. Davis.
-as many as ten atomic power stations each capable of generating up to 100,000 kilowatts of electric energy, may be required in Canada in the late 1960's or early 1970's.
Dr. Davis told the conference the majority of the plants probably will be located in southern Ontario.
This is important information to people from all over Canada.
Others may be needed in the maritimes and possibly in southern Manitoba.
Dr. Davis also said a larger number of nuclear power plants with a generating capacity of from 2,000 to 3,000 kilowatts could make a more modest contribution to Canada's energy requirements.
They would likely be required in the north country and by industries such as pulp and paper which could use both the power and the by-product heat.
Then there were further reports of the statements made by Canadians at Geneva. I have here another dispatch two days later, on August 10, 1955, in which we find this statement:
The Canadian paper-
That is the official government paper, presumably.
-said that between 1960 and 1970, an increasing number of thermal plants under construction in Canada will be of the nuclear variety.
It said a ratio of one to one in the construction of new nuclear and other thermal plants at that period "would mark the beginning of an entirely
Committee on Atomic Energy
new era-that of the emergence of atomic power as a major, if not the major, source of electricity in Canada."
It is obvious that this atomic power is mobile. It can be carried to different parts of the country. Again, since this house has been in session, we have had a dispatch indicating that atomic power will probably be used at a power station on an Arctic island to generate power for signals between the northern radar chains. Just about ten days ago Mr. W. J. Bennett, the president of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, was quoted as follows:
Mr. Bennett said that Chalk River scientists are considering design studies for a small reactor which would supply power and space heating in remote areas of northern Canada where the cost of conventional thermal fuels is excessive.
Development of such a reactor would make possible a vast reduction in northern costs. Fuel now is transported to outposts at a cost ranging to 9100 a ton. With adequate heating supplies vegetables now imported at great expense could be grown in glass houses far within the Arctic circle.
Northern Affairs officials look forward to construction in such small reactors as a major contribution to the extension of the boundaries of settlement.
Then another reason that this field is of such great importance is this. A large segment of the mining industry of Canada is now directly involved in the atomic energy field. I refer to the mining of uranium ore. Fortunately Canada has large uranium ore resources. We are one of the most fortunate nations in the world in that regard. That is one reason why we should always be in the forefront in this particular field. But the mining of uranium ore is not like the mining of lead and zinc ore in my old home district of Kootenay in British Columbia or in the other mining districts of Canada. While the mining of those ores is under provincial control, the mining of uranium ore is under the control of the dominion.
It is under drastic federal control exercised I believe through a crown company, Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited. There are regulations for the mining of this ore. It can only be sold to that crown company. A smelter cannot buy uranium ore without the consent of Eldorado. Furthermore, Eldorado is the sole processor in Canada of uranium ore. This field of mining uranium has expanded in a tremendous way. I have here the latest report of the atomic energy control board of Canada for the fiscal year 1954-55. We find on page 9, under the heading "Prospecting and Mining", the following:
Several events combined to make the year under review very significant for uranium mining. Production was larger than in any previous year because it was the first in which the plant of

Committee on Atomic Energy
Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited at Beaver-lodge in northern Saskatchewan was in operation for a full year. Also, for the first time, production at this plant was augmented by ore shipped to it from private properties in the district. In addition, contracts for large production from one property in Saskatchewan, and three in the Blind River district of Ontario were negotiated and production from these is expected to begin shortly. The scale of these operations is indicated by the fact that the purchase price of concentrates to be delivered under these contracts totals over $338 million. Promising results were obtained at several other properties in fairly advanced stages of exploration.
This report is over a year old and I have no doubt that the situation is even better at the present time. The report also has this to say:
Prospectors were active in almost all provinces and territories and more persons were searching for uranium than for any other metal, and many new discoveries were reported.
Then there is a report dated October 27, 1955, in which Mr. Bennett is quoted as predicting that Canada would be producing $180 million worth of uranium in 1958, making it the third ranking metal in gross dollar value in the Canadian production picture. As I pointed out, here is a mining field in which the dominion government is supreme and members of parliament should know all about the uranium policy of this government. Having been given that knowledge, they should be in a position to make suggestions as to ways in which that policy could be improved. I need only point out the great confusion that last year followed upon certain statements by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, then by the Prime Minister, and then again by the Minister of Trade and Commerce with regard to the uranium policy of this government.
Another reason why this is of such importance to parliament is that the development of the Northwest Territories is involved. It was in that area, at Great Bear lake, that the first mine was developed, and Eldorado, through its subsidiary known as Northern Transportation Company Limited, has a very important part in the opening up of northern Canada. We have had some rather bitter complaints from residents of the Northwest Territories about the rates charged by this crown company in northern transportation. I have here a dispatch dated November 27, 1955, reporting representations made before the Gordon economic commission concerning what were alleged to be these outrageous charges levied by this crown company for transportation in the north.
The report says:
Spokesmen for one community-the famed goldmining town of Yellowknife-charged that the federal air transport policy is bankrupt and that

a federal crown company operating in the north is making fantastic profits on water shipping.
The article goes on:
But all agreed that the most urgent need is for more transportation facilities and a reduction of high shipping charges.
. . . While discussion centred on the rail line, Yellowknife emphasized that much could be done to reduce shipping tolls by reassessing federal policy.
A federal crown company, Northern Transportation, was making exorbitant profits-about 350 per cent on the federal investment-in water shipments on the Great Slave lake and Mackenzie river routes.
"It is hard to believe," said Yellowknife's spokesmen, "that the federal cabinet is aware of the exorbitant profits which its own company is extracting from the relatively few people who live in the Mackenzie river area. We do not believe that the people of Canada as a whole would condone this exploitation.
Now, that statement may have been exaggerated, but in any event this question of transportation in northern Canada is under the control of a crown corporation operating in this atomic energy field, and that particular question should also be very carefully investigated by the parliament of Canada.
Another reason in support of my submission that parliament should be put much more fully into this picture is the amount of money that is involved. This atomic energy development in Canada has already taken a great many millions of dollars of the taxpayers money, and it is taking more every year. Parliament votes the money and should know all the facts before this money is voted. I believe that in the last four years parliament has voted something like $120 million for this purpose. The votes for this year, as I estimate them, aggregate something over $36 million.
Last year the Minister of Trade and Commerce under questioning about the expenditures told me, as reported at page 6215 of Hansard for July 15, 1955, the figure for this current fiscal year 1956-57 would be $34,066,000. As I say, the estimate now introduced is at least $2 million higher and no doubt there will be supplementary estimates. He said:
It goes down. This is a big year; $34,006,000 next year; 1957, $31 million;-
I am not sure from the figures whether the minister was referring to last year or this coming fiscal year. I took it originally he had in mind that the expenditure for 1956-57 would be $31 million, but no matter which of these figures is correct the expenditures are very heavy. Parliament has a responsibility to examine much more fully than it has done in the past into these figures. We should have an effective check on the expenditure, and there is no such check at the present time. Take, for example, the new

N.R.U. reactor. When the announcement was first made that it was to be built we were told the cost would be $30 million. Last year the minister said at page 6155 of Hansard that the cost would be between $35 and $40 million. This year we read in the papers that the cost is now up to $50 million. I hold in my hand a dispatch from the Vancouver Sun dated December 8, 1955, which says: Atomic pile cost now $50 million Chalk River, Ontario.
Cost of the N.R.U. atomic energy reactor has been boosted a second time by $10 million.
Whether those figures are accurate is beside the point. The fact is, the reactor is going to cost many millions of dollars more than parliament was told it would cost in the beginning.
Another reason why parliament should go much more fully into this field is in connection with what is happening today. Today in Paris the nations are meeting to set up what is known as the international atomic energy agency.


Mr. Martin:: In Washington.


Howard Charles Green: The dispatch is from Paris. Am I correct in saying Paris, or is it Washington?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I understand there are two. One is meeting in Washington, and another, made up of a group of European nations, is meeting in Paris. I think that is the situation.


Howard Charles Green: Just last week President Eisenhower signed an order committing 85,000 pounds of uranium 235 to peaceful purposes over the next forty years, thereby clearing the way for huge financing operations to build nuclear power plants in those parts of the world that are not able to build them themselves. The reports indicate that at least $1 billion worth of nuclear fuel would be available for sale or release to private power stations during that period.
Canada from the start has been one of the nations in the lead in the atomic energy field. I think it is very praiseworthy that we are helping to establish this international agency. The purpose, of course, is to spread peaceful atomic knowledge as widely as possible in the world and to work out the allocation of reactors and atomic fuel for the nations that are not fortunate enough to be able to develop these particular things themselves. Here again Canada is stepping into this broader aspect of the atomic energy field and parliament should have a chance to keep informed at all times about those developments.
For the reasons I have outlined, Mr. Speaker, the official opposition urge that this
Committee on Atomic Energy committee, which is to be set up this year, be given very wide powers and great latitude. The members of the committee should be taken to Chalk River, and also be given the opportunity to visit Beaverlodge in northern Saskatchewan and the refinery at Port Hope. They should inquire into the activities of all governmental agencies, the atomic energy control board, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited, and Northern Transportation Company Limited. In addition, they should be given a thorough explanation of the government's uranium policy and be put in a position where they can make recommendations which would lead to the promotion and the better control of the mining of uranium in Canada.
Then, another very important question which they should be allowed to consider is the extent to which Canada can stand on her own feet in this field. I pointed out earlier that we have the uranium and that we started out with the leading nations, United States and Great Britain. It does seem of great importance that we be able to stand on our own feet. For example, we are not yet able to process fully our own uranium ore. I hold in my hand the report of Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited for the calendar year 1954. On page 7 I find:
As indicated in previous reports, the operation of the new refining circuit will permit the company to produce a purified or metal grade product.
They are referring, of course, to the Port Hope plant. I continue:
This is an essential step towards the production of uranium metal in Canada.
Last year Mr. Bennett said he anticipated that Canada might soon be in a position to carry out all three stages of uranium processing at its Port Hope plant, thus ending the necessity of exporting it to the United States to finish the product for use in our own reactors. In the press this week I find a warning given in Vancouver by Professor G. M. Volkoff of the University of British Columbia that Canada could find herself buying back her own uranium in the future in the form of complete power units manufactured in England or in the United States. He was speaking to a natural resources conference in Vancouver and he said:
Now is the time for Canada to manufacture and export complete nuclear power plants to the rest of power-hungry world.
We cannot be too careful to adopt policies in this country which will enable us to process our own raw materials in Canada to the greatest extent possible. I hope that in this atomic energy field we are not going to get in the same position we are in in some of the

Committee on Atomic Energy others, such as the iron ore field and others I could mention, under which we dig out the ore and let it go to the United States and buy back the finished product which has been made by the people of the United States.
Another aspect of this question where we think Canada should stand on her own feet in this field is in the production of heavy water. All of our atomic energy reactors at Chalk River use heavy water as a moderator. I have been a member of the two atomic energy committees which have been set up. I visited Chalk River on each occasion, and I call on the other members who served on that committee to endorse my statement that we were told on each occasion the heavy water for Chalk River was produced at Trail, British Columbia. We were told that the plant had been installed by the United States atomic energy commission. There was not any doubt of that; but we were told that the heavy water came from Trail. That statement has been made time and again in the intervening years. I have four or five press dispatches confirming it. One appeared in the Ottawa Journal of May 19, 1954, which reads:
Since Canada entered the atomic energy field her experience has been with experimental reactors partly controlled or moderated with heavy water produced at the Trail, British Columbia, smelter plant.
The next dispatch is dated January 25, 1955, and it appears in the Journal again. It reported a speech by Mr. Bennett. It refers to the new reactor, and reads as follows:
The experimental reactor would use heavy water, produced at Trail, British Columbia, as a moderator or control agent and possibly also to cool the plant.
A press dispatch dated April 27, 1955, which also appeared in the Journal, reads in part as follows:
Heavy water, produced at Trail, B.C., smelter now costs between $720,000 and $1,200,000 a ton. This must be cut because the demand by 1970 is expected to be several hundred tons a year. Methods also must be found to speed output, now about six tons a year from Trail.
An article appeared in the Vancouver Province dated December 9, 1955, written by John E. Bird, reporting on the NRU reactor, which reads in part as follows:
N.R.U. will use heavy water to moderate or slow down the activity of the reactor and to keep it from generating too much heat and melting the fuel rods.
. .	. Heavy water is produced by a highlytechnical electrolytic process at the smelter plant at Trail, B.C., at a cost of about $60 a pound. N.R.U. will contain 43 tons valued at more than $5,000,000.

I also have here a report entitled "Canada's Atomic Energy Project" issued under the minister's own name in March 1953. We find at page 326 a description of the early difficulties in setting up the atomic energy plant. It says:
. . . but of greater importance to the Montreal laboratory was its dependence at that time-
These are the significant words:
-on the United States for the manufacture of heavy water and the reduction of Canadian uranium to the form of metal.
Yet this year when dispatches appeared reporting that the plant at Trail was to be closed down the minister told this house, and I am quoting from page 833 of Hansard:
The government of Canada has never had any interest in the plant nor has it obtained any material from that plant.
I questioned him, pointing out what we had been told when we were serving on the atomic energy committee, and he confirmed his earlier statement. He said, as reported at page 834 of Hansard:
I am surprised that the hon. member has been told that the heavy water at Chalk river came from Trail because it is not to my knowledge that that is the case. We purchase our heavy water from the atomic energy commission of the United States and it is my understanding that it comes from quite a different source.
The point I wish to make is simply that in the first place there should not have been that misunderstanding. Somebody obviously was wrong. I do not know whether the minister was wrong in the statement he made last month or whether the information given to us down through the years was wrong.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Could it not be that the hon. member who is speaking is wrong?


Howard Charles Green: I admit I can be wrong, just like the minister.


An hon. Member:: But not as often.


Howard Charles Green: He made one statement directly contradictory to the statements that have been made down through the years by other people who are also in a responsible position in the atomic energy field.


Mr. Rowe:: You are quoting the minister's own statements.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the minister will be able to explain why there is this difference. I do not, however, wish to deal particularly with the difference in the statements. What I am getting at is the possibility of Canada producing heavy water herself.
We also urge that provision be made for a permanent atomic energy committee of this house and also that every hon. member of

the house should be given the opportunity of visiting the plant at Chalk River. I am sure that suggestion will meet the support of all hon. members who have not yet been there. I think it would be very beneficial to the nation as a whole if all hon. members of parliament who are not to serve on this committee were to be given the chance of going to Chalk River to see what is actually being done there.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that Canada having been in the forefront in the atomic energy field must stay there. It is a wonderful opportunity for this nation. I believe there has been nothing of more importance in recent times in so far as the development of the nation is concerned. In fact, if there is proper leadership and proper activity in this field it can do a great deal to make Canada one of the greatest nations in the world. But that can only be done, Mr. Speaker, if parliament is kept informed and is kept in this picture. That in effect is the essence of my plea today, that parliament be put right in this picture and be kept in this picture throughout.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy):
That the motion be amended by inserting after the word "house" in the sixth line thereof the following:
"to send for persons and unclassified papers and records."


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I think the minister or the government will have to give a very good explanation as to why the authority to send for persons, papers and records was left out. It may be that there are reasons connected with the atomic energy development which require a certain amount of secrecy. That may be a valid reason, but as I say I think a very strong reason will have to be given to the house; otherwise I think the house should vote for the amendment just moved.
I find it difficult to understand why the house has been denied this right when the resolutions for other committees which have been set up contain such a provision. There may be a special reason in this case, but I think we should be told what the reason is if one exists.
I should like to say also that I agree wholly with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) when he says that parliament should be kept fully informed of all developments in this field. I believe the hon. member made a suggestion that is worthy of consideration when he said that hon. members of parliament might be given the opportunity of going to Chalk River and of seeing what is being done there.
Committee on Atomic Energy
I have served on previous atomic energy committees, and speaking as one who has served on those committees and who has been at Chalk River several times, and who has had the opportunity of meeting the scientists who are working with reactors and in the various laboratories located there, I wish to say that I learned a great deal and I have developed an interest in this field which I might otherwise not have had although right from the day the first atomic scientists' bulletin was issued in the United States I have subscribed to these bulletins and have tried to follow the developments they have outlined as well as I could and the warnings they have given and the uses which they have indicated -can be made not only of one product, heat, but of the by-products to be used in medicine and in scientific fields generally.
I said that I had enjoyed the work of the previous committees and found the information useful. I should also like to say how much I was struck with the devotion as well as the ability of the scientists engaged at Chalk River. I was amazed to find how many of them were young. I have forgotten now just how many were under 30, but it was quite a number. I do remember that there was only a mere handful who were over 40 when we went up the first time, and I think when we went up the second time as well.
I was shocked last week to read that Dr. Cipriani had passed away. He was one of the foremost scientists in the world in this field and a more charming personality I have never met. In outlining the work of the atomic energy commission and that of his own particular field of medicine, not only did he give us the information which could be given but he did it in such a manner that we did not forget it. I just want to say that when we go there this time I know we shall miss Dr. Cipriani.
This committee will be dealing also with research. I am not sure that it was wise to put research and atomic energy before the one committee. It is a big field. We may be able to cover it, but having been on committees which have inquired into both atomic energy and research in the past I am of the opinion that two committees might have been advisable.
Now that atomic energy and atomic developments are under a crown company I think it is wise that we should go into the operations of that company. I have a great deal of sympathy for the idea that crown companies should be brought before parliamentary committees, annually if you will but at least periodically, in order that their operations

Committee on Atomic Energy may be examined into carefully by such committees. I think that that would be a step in the right direction. I know how difficult it is for members of parliament to attend to the business of the house and serve on committees. I do not think you could call every department and every crown company before a special committee to be examined every year, but I think it should be done periodically. We do examine two crown companies each year, Trans-Canada Air Lines Limited and Canadian National Railways, and from time to time we have the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation before a committee of parliament.
It is true that there is a tremendous interest in research. The establishment of the national research council years ago was something that has been of great benefit to our country. There is one criticism, however, I should like to make and that is that much of the result of the research which could be of guidance and indeed of some importance to the consuming public of this country is not made public.
In the United States they have the consumers' association. This began in a small way in one of the universities. They have a large population in the United States and consequently it was quite within the realm of possibility to set up an organization with sufficient funds to do a proper job for the consumer. That is what is being done by the consumers' research association in the United States. I often read the magazine they put out. I call it a magazine although they refer to it as a bulletin. I find therein a great deal of information regarding domestic supplies and other things which one might be inclined to buy from time to time. They make an appraisal of these different items.
I know that work of this description is being carried on to a limited extent by our national research council and the result of that research might be of great benefit to the people of this country who provide the funds for the research council. Those of us who were on the committee several years ago saw the results of investigations which had been made of a widely advertised detergent-I think I mentioned this before in the house-which while it may have washed clothes at the same time it would have destroyed them. Yet the people of this country had no information regarding those experiments carried out in the laboratories of the national research council.
I should like to see the people of Canada reap a direct benefit from research of this description carried on by the national research council. I am not indicating that that is the
[Mr. Coldwell.l
kind of research which the national research council does in any big way; I think it is more or less of a sideline with them. They have more important fields of research in which to operate. During the last few years we have provided the national research council with more laboratories situated on the Montreal road. I am sure we have all seen the impressive buildings in that area and I have no doubt that as time passes the facilities will be expanded and the national research council will be performing even greater services for our country and for industry than ever before.
I think that this committee will be one of our worthwhile committees and I am glad that my hon. friends have suggested that I be a member of the committee again this year. I am looking forward to participating in its work.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra suggested that the committee might go into military research, on the atomic side and, I believe, on the more general research side as well. I do not know how feasible that would be but I agree with his argument that there is possibly a waste of money which should be looked into and which might result in savings. I am convinced that the Department of National Defence should be examined into most closely by this house. We do not do it. I doubt if there are more than a few hon. members of the house who know what the expenditures of the department are, how they are made and to what extent they can be justified by those who make them.
I have every sympathy with any suggestion that is made for an investigation into the expenditures of the Department of National Defence provided it is made by parliament. I am not impressed with any arguments that it should be made by an outside body. I think the time has come when this house should go into those expenditures and therefore I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. friend's suggestion with regard to military research.
I do not think I need to say anything more. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra covered a great deal of the ground which others might have been inclined to cover, and I am glad that he did. I think the time for appraisal of the work of the atomic energy authority and the national research council will be when the committee makes its report to the House of Commons. We shall then have authentic information before us and be able to speak more intelligently about what is going on in both fields.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the motion of the right

hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) for the appointment of a special committee to examine into the role of government in the field of military research in Canada, including operations in the field of atomic energy and the operations of the national research council. Not only is the importance of these matters increasing but the necessity of continued and accelerated research in every field of endeavour is in my opinion becoming increasingly more urgent as the days go by. Not only is research essential to the raising of the standards of living and the development of our economy but in many respects it would appear that research is necessary for our very survival itself.
I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). With respect to the atomic aspect of this motion, he stated that we as members of the House of Commons have very little information regarding the operations of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and developments in the field of atomic energy. As I listened to the hon. member I thought he had gleaned considerable information from different sources, and he certainly appeared to speak with some degree of authority on the various aspects of the situation. However, as he has said, I believe there is room for more information to be given to us with respect to the activities of these various corporations and the research that is carried on in connection with them.
With respect to the suggestion that there should be two committees rather than one, I believe it has considerable merit. As we think of the two fields that have been mentioned, it would certainly appear that one committee would not have the time to study and examine their operations fully. Therefore I think the suggestion that there should be two committees is a good one, and as it is a suggestion that has been advanced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in times past I believe that possibly more consideration could be given to that matter.
The amendment that has been proposed will receive our support because we feel that in the setting up of a committee of this kind there should be avenues open to the members within their terms of reference whereby they can make a detailed study and examination of the entire situation. With regard to the first term of reference that is given for the guidance of the committee, namely, to examine into the role of government in the field of non-military research in Canada including operations in the field of atomic energy, we were of course ushered into the atomic era in 1945 when the impact of atomic power 67509-108J
Committee on Atomic Energy was first demonstrated in the bombing of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan.
It seems to me a rather sad commentary on human intelligence that what has been called man's greatest achievement is the discovery and utilization of an energy that is capable of blasting man into oblivion. It seems to me that it was as a result of the fear and impetus provided by the prospect of world war that this energy was brought into being at the time that it was. We are living now in a day when this main deterrent to war must be converted to peaceful uses. Rather than being the destroyer of mankind it must be brought to a position where it becomes his servant and is developed in the interests of peace and for creative purposes. On page 8 of the ninth annual report of the atomic energy control board for 1954-55 we read the following:
During the past year there were developments of great significance in the power reactor program in Canada, notably the decision to design and construct a demonstration power reactor. This decision marked the turning point in the research and development effort which began in 1942. It is the first and an essential step in applying the nuclear information which has been accumulated in the post-war years.
Research in this field as far as possible uses of atomic energy are concerned is more or less in the preliminary stages and we believe that as research continues this tremendous energy and force will be utilized for the benefit of mankind and will take the place of many of the sources of power being utilized at the present time.
I do not propose to say any more about the first part of the motion dealing with atomic energy but I should like to refer to the second part which has to do with the operations of the national research council. I understand that the council has now been functioning for a considerable number of years and has been doing most commendable work in the various fields of investigation. The objectives of the national research council are very broad. They include the ascertaining and tabulation of various agencies in Canada which are carrying on scientific and industrial research, the noting and scheduling of lines of research and investigation that are being carried on, the co-ordinating of these agencies to prevent overlapping and the inducing of co-operation between these various agencies. One of its purposes is to acquaint itself with the problems of technical and scientific research and to apply that knowledge and skill to the solution of the various problems that confront industry. Its purpose as well is to make a scientific study of unused resources, waste and the by-products of farm, forests, fisheries and

Committee on Atomic Energy industries. It also has the purpose of enlarging the pool of scientific manpower available in these particular fields.
I have already stated that the council has done very commendable work, and I think we would do well to commend them today for the progress that has been made. On page 10 of the 38th annual report of the national research council of Canada for 1954-55 I find the following under the heading "General Statistics":
The national research council In 1954:
(i)	provided $2-5 millions to support fundamental research in the universities . . .
(ii)	employed 548 scientific staff, 711 technical personnel, 775 general service and administrative staff, and some 100 postdoctorate fellows;
(iii)	operated four laboratory divisions in the sciences; applied biology, pure chemistry, applied chemistry, pure and applied physics; operated three engineering divisions . . .
(iv)	answered technical inquiries from Canadian industries at the rate of 7,500 per year.
Certainly I think that shows a fine picture of the work that is being carried on. We commend the council for their activities and urge them to enlarge the scope of those activities, realizing the importance of their inquiries in all phases of research.
The resolution before us deals with the operations of the national research council. I suppose it takes in as well the various areas of research that are open to it. I realize, of course, that there are those avenues of research which are opened up through secondary industries, on the by-products of gas, oil and coal production. Included in the objectives of the research council we also find research in connection with our forest industries. Certainly this is an extremely wide field for research. Just to give an illustration of this particular field, I should like to refer to an article in the British Columbia Lumberman of February, 1956. It is entitled "Better Residue Use, Automation, Said Keys to Lumber Marketability". From this article I should like to read just a brief paragraph:
Mill residues can be used for hardboard and particle-board production, paper, and paperboard.
Then a little further on it continues as follows:
Several studies are under way to treat sawdust before its application to overcome the temporary nitrogen depletion induced by the sawdust. This treatment of sawdust would improve its characteristics as a soil conditioner.
This product is extremely important in the field of agriculture.
If pretreatment can be accomplished at a moderate cost, the potential market is vast.
I also had brought to my attention the research that is being carried on with respect to decadent cedar. This perhaps is of vital interest in the British Columbia economy because I am told that from a point just north

of Kamloops up as far as Prince George, and also in the Smithers and Terrace areas and along the coast there are billions of feet of decadent cedar. This constitutes a serious fire hazard and up until recently it has just been looked upon as something to be despised and something that caused a great many problems to the forest service. Research is being carried on into a pressed wood constructed of this decadent material. It has now been tested out. For instance, it was used in the steps of a bunkhouse in a lumber camp. Part of the step was constructed from fir, part from oak and part from decadent cedar pressed wood. After a period of use, with loggers treading on it with their great caulked boots, it was discovered that the fir had fairly well disintegrated, that the oak showed considerable wear but that little impression was made on this board that was made from decadent cedar. It would therefore appear that in this particular field of research alone vast fields are open. In this case I have cited, not only can they clean up the hazard that is caused by this condition but they can also place a valuable product upon the market. Others that have been mentioned in this particular reference to the research council included the fisheries. Possibly we can speak about that matter on the estimates at a later date. But all of these various fields open up tremendous avenues for research and for development. We feel that this is an extremely important aspect of our economy at the present time.
What about the role of government in these particular fields? I believe there is room for participation by various agencies. I think industry can play an important part in these research developments. Certainly it is doing that. A brief presented to the royal commission on forestry by the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association gives an illustration of what industry is prepared to do and is doing in the field of research. At page 29 of this brief we find the following:
Company research programs
All of the Integrated companies of the pulp and paper industry maintain research laboratories and full time crews engaged on various research programs and multiple investigations. In addition, all of these companies contribute considerable sums towards the various fundamental and applied research programs carried out by the Pulp and Paper Research Institute in Montreal. This organization is recognized as one of the world's leading institutions in the realm of cellulose research.
The total expenditure on this research by the above companies to improve technology, quality of product, processing and the practice of forestry, exceeds $850,000 annually. More than 90 research technicians are engaged full time in British Columbia on this work.
The above companies also contribute considerable sums from time to time to the British Columbia research council to aid in the work of various objective programs carried out by the council, as

well as a number of minor items of research and investigation outside the actual operations of the companies.
Industry is not prepared just to sit back and say that it is a government responsibility, that it is a field in which government should carry the load, but certainly is making a worth-while contribution in this field.
Our educational institutions are doing a remarkable work in this connection as well. Some of the provinces at least have set up research councils. I can speak for the province of British Columbia, as I know a little bit more about it than I do of the others. In that province the facilities have been greatly expanded and work is going on at an accelerated speed in the various fields of research in the forestry industry and in others. As I say, industry, our educational institutions and provincial governments are carrying on to the best of their ability. Personally I think that the federal government should accept considerable responsibility in this particular regard, encouraging all the agencies to intensify their studies to the end that our resources be utilized to their fullest possible extent. It would seem to me that they could assist from the technical point of view, the financial point of view and in many other ways as well. This afternoon we welcome the setting up of this committee and hope that its inquiries will stimulate interest in this vital work which is so essential in our modern age.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the amendment which has been proposed and which would provide that this committee may send for persons and papers, I should just like to give a few of the reasons why the government believe that the amendment cannot be accepted.
First, let me say that there has been complaint about the fact that the committee is to investigate both the national research council and the field of atomic energy. Hon. members will recall that last year I placed the same motion on the order paper calling for a committee that would include both. This motion was allowed to stand on the order paper all during the session. Several times I pressed the house leader to call it, and he said the opposition were not willing to have it considered.


Howard Charles Green: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, when the minister makes a statement like that the only thing I can do is get up and contradict him. He does not know what he is talking about.
Committee on Atomic Energy


Clarence Decatur Howe: Did you ask at
any stage of the session that it be brought forward? You and I agreed on the wording of the resolution, but did you at any stage ask that it be brought forward?


Mrs. Fairclough:: That is a far cry from saying we did not want it brought forward.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I wanted it brought forward, but the fact is I did not succeed in getting it brought forward. I was told the reason was the opposition did not want it brought forward.


Howard Charles Green: That statement is not correct. I do not think the minister is very fair or very wise in dragging up now a year later what somebody else told him that somebody else said. I was acting for the opposition in dealing with the house leader and there was not any misunderstanding between us whatever.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sure there was not. The result was that the motion was not brought forward.


Mr. Murphy (Lambton West):: On the same question, Mr. Speaker, the minister has spoken about the reason for the committee not being set up. As a matter of fact, before Easter I discussed the question with the hon. member who, we expected, would be chairman of the committee. The motion was on the order paper at that time. I indicated to him, and we had previously expressed the same idea, that we wanted witnesses called. Before the Easter adjournment I asked the hon. member, who represents one of the Ottawa ridings, if we could have witnesses called. He said that the proposed resolution did not call for that, but he would try in some way to arrange that witnesses could be called without changing the terms of reference.
Later on, Mr. Speaker, when the expected chairman asked for a list of our witnesses I was the member in my party responsible for giving the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra a list of some 20 expert witnesses we had prepared. The list included the presidents of some universities, some scientists, representatives from the chemical industry and other scientific bodies, as well as one or two industrialists, a representative of the agriculture industry and from labour. When the government saw that formidable array of witnesses the motion was never called.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not wish to make a point of this. I just wish to point out that the resolution was put on the order paper early in the session last year and the motion was never brought forward for the consideration of the house. It has been put on the order paper this year and it is being considered today. I sincerely hope the motion

Committee on Atomic Energy will be approved and that the committee can undertake its work early in the session. If there is a complaint that it is unreasonable to expect one committee to investigate both branches of science, the committee could easily adjourn part of its work until next session, when it could be reconstituted and complete its work.
The reason the government has not provided for the calling of persons and papers is that this committee is carrying on its investigation in a field in which there are important secrets in the possession of those who would naturally appear before the committee. It has been said that much of the work at Chalk River has been declassified, and that is true. Canada has always taken the view that the work there should be declassified unless there is a very good reason for continuing secrecy. I think a witness to the fact that important secrets are in the possession of the staff at Chalk River is the security provisions that are observed at that place. We spend enormous amounts of money simply to protect the security of Chalk River. We have guards around the property. It is very difficult to get access to the property, except through Ottawa.
Why is secrecy preserved? The reason is that at Chalk River we do a considerable amount of work for the atomic energy commission of the United States having to do with the field of weapons. There is hardly any period when we have not had work of that kind in process at Chalk River. The reason is that the pile there is able to do some work which no other pile can carry out successfully. Then, too, we have almost free access to such information in the non-military field as is acquired by the atomic agency in the United States and also the atomic agency in the United Kingdom. The reason we had that complete access is that Canada has a wonderful record in the field of security. We have never had a serious breach of security from the Chalk River plant, and I think no other country can say as much about its own security.
I believe those who have served on similar committees in the past will know that both at Chalk River and in the research council any person will be produced, provided he is a senior man in the organization. So far as the production of papers is concerned, there are papers the secrecy of which must be guarded. It is much easier to let the senior personnel decide what papers can be produced without a breach of security, rather than to let the committee make that decision. If today this parliament decided that a committee would be appointed with authority to send for papers, I believe the flow of papers to

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited would be very sharply curtailed not later than tomorrow. Where there are secret documents in the possession of the organization, to authorize a committee to ask for those secret documents, with authority to demand that they be produced, would be fatal.
If there were any complaints that the right persons were not appearing before the committee, there would be a reason for the amendment before us today. If there were any suggestions that papers which could be properly produced before the committee were not being produced, then there would be a reason for this amendment. I claim that when there are papers that could not possibly be produced to the committee, and when there may be junior personnel in the both organizations unfamiliar with security regulations who might be asked for by the committee and allowed to talk freely in the fields which were their own particular responsibility, you would be creating a very dangerous situation indeed. That is the reason for the government's inability to agree to the amendment that is before us at the moment.


Owen C. Trainor: Will the minister permit a question?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Owen C. Trainor: Does he maintain that all wisdom in the atomic energy field is concentrated in Canada at Chalk River?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; the difficulty is that all the wisdom in several countries is on file at Chalk River, and much of that wisdom is still under security provisions. It was received under security provisions; and it is the duty of those at Chalk River, if they have material of that type in their possession, not to produce it to a parliamentary committee or to anyone else.


Owen C. Trainor: May I ask the minister
another question? Would it not be possible for the government to indicate in regard to any request made that the information requested was classified?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is what we can do at present, but if the committee had the authority to ask for the information, whether classified or not, they could say, "We have authority to have it produced and we want it produced". What would be the position of the government then?


Owen C. Trainor: I do not think there is any request or demand for classified information in this amendment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I agree. In this amendment, of course, you are asking for the authority to demand the production of

classified information. Under the resolution on the order paper you get anything that is not classified simply by asking for it. We claim that the resolution that has been sponsored by the government gives the committee everything that can be produced both in persons and papers.


Owen C. Trainor: I do not quite concede the point the minister makes. I think it is still possible for the government to maintain control over classified information and allow the committee to get evidence with regard to unclassified information from people outside of government circles.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, as far as persons outside government circles are concerned, the committee is free to call anybody it likes. I am sure they would come before the committee without being sent for.


Howard Charles Green: Because of the way the resolution is drawn the committee has no power to send for persons.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The committee can invite persons to appear. I know one man who lives in Sarnia who is just burning to appear. He would come without an invitation, and no doubt will. But if it is a matter of sending for persons and papers outside the possession of government departments, and if my hon. friend will amend his amendment to that extent we might consider it.


Howard Charles Green: To what extent?


Clarence Decatur Howe: To send for persons not employed in the government service and papers not in the possession of any department of government.


William Earl Rowe: What others would you get?


Clarence Decatur Howe: You will get the others, anyway.


William Earl Rowe: You mean daily papers?


Joseph Warner Murphy: May I ask
the minister a question? This is very important. Do I understand the minister to say that he would be willing, if the amendment were so altered, to permit the committee to invite persons other than people at Chalk River and at the national research council? Would we be free, if we were members of that committee, to invite scientists and others to give evidence, and to send for papers? I am quite sure there will not be any difference between the minister and any member of that committee respecting classified material, because there never was a member on that committee, and I hope there never will be, who wanted to have classified material.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister whether it would be satisfactory if the restriction were
Committee on Atomic Energy put in that classified papers could not be seen? I had not the slightest intention of asking for classified papers, and I do not believe any other member of the house would, either. The minister knows very well that the work done by the previous committees indicates very clearly that they have a very deep sense of their responsibilities to the nation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Permit me to
ask my hon. friend this question. Has the experience of earlier committees not convinced him that the officers who appeared before the committee had a very real sense of the importance of the committee, and did they not produce any paper that could properly be produced and brought forward? Have not the members of the government service produced what has been asked for by the committee?


Howard Charles Green: The committee has not been
in a position to ask that people be brought before it. It may not be considered essential at this time that other people should be asked to appear. On previous occasions the committee simply had not the power to ask for anybody or to ask for any record. Government members also compose a majority of the committee. I think they are probably two to one. I do suggest the amendment could be worded in such a way that classified papers could not be sought. Certainly I have no desire at all to have classified papers produced. But we believe the committee should be in the position that as the members proceed with their work, if they think so and so should be called in, perhaps a civilian research man, it can send for him. Even then it would be still within the power of the government majority on that committee to say no, we do not believe that man should be called.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I
have been a member of this committee since it was first set up some years ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who has the floor?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I have been at
Chalk River and at Deep River on different occasions, and I have sat with the committee in Ottawa at the research council. I would say without any thought of contradiction that the key men in the organization appeared before that committee. They did everything possible to give the committee the information we asked for. To my knowledge there has never been any information we tried to get that was not made available to us, and I for one would want to' go on record as being very satisfied with the way in which the scientists and others engaged in research at the national research
1712	HOUSE OF
Committee on Atomic Energy council and at Chalk River produced the evidence we asked for, and with the way in which we were received at Chalk River. We were shown all over the entire organization. They were only too glad to furnish information on any questions that we asked.
In so far as classified information is concerned, I agree with the hon. member who has just spoken. No one would expect to see other than unclassified information. I do not believe the committee will have any trouble at all in getting any reasonable information that the organization would have at this time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing the amendment, and the amendment would certainly put jt within the power of the committee to demand the production of classified information. For that reason the government must oppose it.
As far as the work of the committee is concerned, we are glad to have the committee go into every branch of atomic energy. We hope it will take an interest in Eldorado Mining and Refining. That is a fine operation and covers a broad field. We are very glad to have it explore the relations between Eldorado and the private uranium industry; we are glad to have the work of Northern Transportation explored.
I may say that each year since Northern Transportation has been in operation the rates on the Mackenzie have been reduced, and I rather expect there will be another reduction this year. The reason that has been possible is that the capital of the company has been expanded, the standard of equipment raised and improvements put in for traversing portages. It has been able to maintain a high standard of service and at the same time lower the costs of that service. The work of Northern Transportation Company has extended to the distant early warning line, and there again these might be classified material which cannot be produced; but I think almost any work of the Northern Transportation Company can be investigated by the committee without difficulty.
I would remind hon. members that the rates of Northern Transportation Company are approved by the board of transport commissioners. A hearing before the board of transport commissioners is necessary before there can be a revision of rates in that area.
I would also remind hon. members that there are competing services in the area which have a hard time getting along and each time there is a reduction in the rate by Northern Transportation there is a good deal of hardship caused amongst the competitors. However, the committee is free to weigh all 

those factors, and I would be very interested to see the report of the committee in that connection.
Mention was made of the fact that Canada at the moment does not produce uranium metal. Considerable progress has been made in that direction. We have had no great urge to get on with that phase of manufacturing, for the reason that we were able in the early stages to buy our metal from the United States at prices lower than we could possibly obtain by manufacturing the metal ourselves. That situation is changing, and I think within another 12 months Canada will be manufacturing its own metal.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister allow a question in that connection? There was a reference in the press yesterday to the fact that Mr. Wilgress, the permanent representative of OEEC in Europe had stated to the representatives of the 16 or 17 nations belonging to that organization.-I am not sure what the number is-that Canada would make uranium in raw form available to European countries within that organization. Has there been a change of policy by the government in this regard, or has there been a decision made?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not see the
statement by Mr. Wilgress, but I assume he said that if the organization then being considered was set up, Canada could make it available-I presume he meant uranium oxide -which is the next stage before the metal. We could do that and would be glad to do that if there were proper international security. Without the security and without international rules it is very difficult to make uranium available to any country except the United States and the United Kingdom. But if proper organizations were formed and proper rules established, it might be possible to make uranium oxide available to other countries.


John George Diefenbaker: What is Canada's plan for control?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is a meeting being held in Washington with a number of nations who are considering what organization under the United Nations will establish the rules of the road. There is another organization meeting under the auspices of NATO in Europe which is also considering the problem. I assume these efforts will be joined in time and eventually we will get international rules which will provide the proper security. We hope so.
Mention was made of heavy water. The heavy water operation at Trail was one of the first established by the United States. Reference was made to the Montreal laboratory which was established in 1942 and disbanded in 1944. I think probably the small

quantities of heavy water which were used in that operation were obtained from Trail. That was one of the very early experimental operations, and I daresay at that time Trail may have been the only source of heavy water.
However, the process for making heavy water has been greatly improved and the cost of heavy water has been substantially lowered. The heavy water we bought for Chalk River was purchased from the atomic energy commission of the United States. It was delivered to Chalk River in trucks direct from south of the border. While I cannot guarantee that some of the heavy water did not come from Trail I would think it highly unlikely, from what I know of the transaction. However, I will be glad if the committee will look into that matter in its sessions this year and if I am wrong I shall be glad to be corrected.
I do not know that anything more needs to be said. The important matter before us today is whether or not the government motion shall be amended. As I say, we feel this particular amendment cannot possibly be accepted, and we trust that a vote can be held shortly.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Mr. Speaker, like other hon. members who have preceded me in this debate I welcome the setting up of this particular committee. As a matter of fact the resolution itself has a rather familiar ring, because over the last three years, as Your Honour knows, I have had a resolution on the order paper to set up a committee to study ways and means of accelerating research in Canada.
Today there is naturally more interest in research than five years ago or even two years ago. We are in an atomic era, an age of automation, and our emergence into this period has been a long, slow process. The subject of research today is vital not only to this government and to governments on lower levels but to industry, labour and agriculture, and in fact it is of interest to every segment of our economy.
I was interested in what the minister's parliamentary assistant had to say respecting industry. I do not think any hon. member can stand up and say that it is the responsibility of government to do things that industry should do for itself. I do, however, maintain that crown companies, for instance, Polymer, which are under the jurisdiction of the government, could and should give leadership.
Speaking of research, they have given leadership. The report is available to anyone in this house or to anyone in Canada, wherein the president of Polymer said one or two 67509-109
Committee on Atomic Energy years ago that because of research the operations of the plant had been extremely successful. I was very glad to see that because for a number of years I, like everyone else, was conscious of the necessity of research. If we as a trading nation are going to maintain even the position we hold today it has to be done, I think, by more intensive research and by more money being spent in the field of research. While I did maintain in the past that we should take an occasional look at the tariff structure I have also maintained, as the minister himself said a year ago in discussing this matter, that in many instances industry could cut out frills and reduce costs.
On that very subject, according to authorities which I have read, our country is in the same position as the United States was in 1920 with respect to research. That to me is most lamentable. True enough many of our industries here are branches of industries in the United States or in some other foreign country and have depended too much in the past on the research done in those particular countries. I think we will all agree with that. I should like to point out, however, that industries in this country should become more research conscious. It is true that some of the large industries have constructed laboratories and have hired scientists and technicians but the strange thing to me, and I think all hon. members will find it strange, is that very few of the top scientists in this country are working in industry.
I do not mind making a startling statement when I say, .as I suggested a moment ago, that many of our top industries are simply branches operating in Canada, such as the chemical industry and I might mention particularly the oil industry; we know Imperial Oil Limited is a subsidiary of Standard Oil of New Jersey. In recent years they have been spending a great deal more on research than in the past, but they were dependent on the research carried on by the parent company. Here we have a large organization which is not spending in proportion to what another Standard subsidiary is spending, and I refer to Humble Oil Company. I think the statement was made the other day by its president, Mr. Jack White, that they were spending many millions of dollars this year on research. That was an encouraging statement. They are enlarging the laboratory at Sarnia, and will now be more independent of the parent company.
But other oil companies do not have their laboratories in this country. I can think of one company with its refinery not too far from the city hall in Sarnia which depends for its research work upon engineers in New

Committee on Atomic Energy York. There are other established oil companies in this country which also have their research done by the parent companies. They make no attempt to hire engineers and graduates from our own universities in order to establish research branches which are so important to the success of any company.
Industry in this country must realize that the time has passed when they can depend upon their parent companies for research. If we are going to maintain our position as a trading nation we must take advantage of the knowledge of these engineers and scientists. The companies that do take advantage of this knowledge are the ones that will be successful. I could quote the statements of different companies.
What is alarming to me and I think to every hon. member of the house is that we do not seem to have a co-ordinated research plan in this country like they have in Great Britain. There they have a scientific committee and if I mentioned that one thing without saying anything else this afternoon I think I would be doing a lot to impress my fellow members in this house with the importance of this subject. They have had this committee for years. It sits in the house in London and is composed of members of parliament with a member from each scientific society or association. They have about 175 to 190 members who meet regularly. The chairman is a senior member of the government.
No change was made in this practice even during the time the Labour party was in power. The committee advises all departments of the government on matters with which research is connected. I should like to refer briefly to "This is Britain" a monthly news letter issued by the United Kingdom information office in Ottawa. This particular issue is dated May, 1954, and I quote:
The parliamentary scientific committee, which has been described by Lord Samuel as "unique in its history and, indeed, unique among the parliaments of the world", recently published its annual report for 1953.
The committee is referred to as one of a number of informal, unofficial, all-party groups which have grown up spontaneously but which had managed to establish itself with more continuity and formality than some of the others. It goes on:
Membership is open to members of parliament of any party in both the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and also to the nominated representatives of those scientific and technological organizations in the country which, under its constitution, can be affiliated. No organization can be a member of it which is engaged in promoting some scientific process or project for profit or commercial gain.
iMr. Murphy (Lambton West).]

It states further:
Membership in 1953 comprised 163 members of parliament and representatives of 85 scientific and technological institutions.
The aims and activities are said to be:
1.	Provide members of parliament with authoritative scientific information from time to time in connection with debates.
2.	Bring to the attention of M.P.'s and government departments the results of scientific research and technical development which bear upon questions of current public interest.
3.	Arrange for suitable action through parliamentary channels whenever necessary to insure that proper regard is had for the scientific point of view.
4.	Examine all legislation likely to affect the above and take such action as may be suitable.
That is amazing in view of what has taken place in the thinking of many people in this country and in Great Britain with respect to research. I have here a report of one of the Haldane lectures by Sir Henry Tizard dealing with research. This was delivered on May 5 of last year, and the lecturer drew upon his own wide fund of experience in order to discuss some of the problems which exist. He went on to discuss the problems which arise from the intellectual gap between the man trained in science and the man trained in the humanities, and advocated that the majority of future administrators should have a broad scientific education.
I think many will agree that it would be preferable in this atomic age and age of automation if more members of the government were scientifically trained. I am not criticizing the government because of its present set-up, because we who were members of previous atomic energy committees know that never at any time was there any conscious spirit of politics in any of our discussions. The committee members have had a high regard for each other, and I hope that spirit will be maintained. An astounding thing about research in this world is indicated in this lecture, where it states:
Fifty years ago there was very little conscious effort to enlist the help of science in problems of defence.
In other words, 50 years ago there was very little interest in science or in research. The lecturer went on to say:
Mr. Harold Cox, a Cambridge mathematician and economist, probably presented a very general view when, after referring to French and German developments, he said: "We shall be far more strengthening our national position by buying the best that foreign inventiveness can give than by making wasteful experiments at our own expense".
The attitude in that regard has changed. In another lecture on the strategy of research delivered on January 12, 1956, we find the following:
During the past 50 years research has changed from luxury into necessity of existence.

I think it is about time that industry in Canada took upon itself the responsibility of having its research work done in Canada and not by the parent companies regardless of where they may be situated. This scientific committee in Great Britain has been referred to by the leaders of government for the past several years as a body which was mainly responsible for Great Britain being able to get out of the difficult position in which it was after the war and again become a great trading nation. That was not only the opinion of members of the house and of the different governments in Great Britain; it was also the opinion of casual observers outside of Great Britain.
I should like to emphasize that because, after all is said and done, what these experts can say on the subject is much more important to us than what I can contribute. I have a report here from the United States department of commerce dated February, 1952. It is headed, "The Rising Inventive Competition of Great Britain, A Challenge to U.S. Development Engineers and Manufacturers." In the report they have this to say:
One of the principal instrumentalities in improving their industrial and scientific economic position is their parliamentary and scientific committee, which in itself is an unofficial partnership of members of the houses of lords and of commons on the one hand and members of the national scientific and engineering institutions and of recognized research organizations and bodies on the other.
I am naturally interested, Mr. Speaker, in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra which I seconded, because in my former resolutions I have always asked for witnesses to be called. I do think that if the committee were empowered to call outside witnesses, witnesses other than those in the employ of crown companies, we would get the benefit of their advice, and in my opinion it is vitally important that we should have it.
On the matter of the scientific committee in Great Britain, I recall that a couple of years ago Sir Robert Watson-Watt spoke to a club in Ottawa. He is certainly well known to all members of the government, because he was an adviser to the defence board during the war. At that time he pointed out how important it was to have a scientific committee such as they have in Britain, where complacency has no place.
In the past I have quoted many authorities. I am on record over several years. In fact I am on record to such an extent that one individual, writing in the January issue of a magazine called Canadian Chemical Processing Outlook, incorporated a good deal of what I had said and made several suggestions which have been made by me in the house on 67509-109J
Committee on Atomic Energy more than one occasion. I should like to take this opportunity to correct one thing he said. He stated that all members of all the different parties in the house had agreed to a scientific committee. As a matter of fact the matter was never discussed to that extent, and I believe I am the only member in the house who ever suggested it. To that extent, at any rate, he is wrong.
I have said before that we would like to have such witnesses appear before the committee, and I hope that during the dinner hour or later the minister will change his opinion; because if we were able to call such witnesses it would provide the medium for a combined approach, political, educational, industrial and agricultural, to the question of research in Canada and what parliament could or should do to accelerate efforts in this field.
When the minister spoke a few minutes ago he said that one reason we should not call witnesses or send for papers or records was that all the wisdom of several countries is, according to him, on file at Chalk River. I do not know whether or not that is accurate. I have always had the idea that the McCarran act, introduced in the United States because of espionage here during and after the war, was used as the excuse for that nation not to pass on any information to Great Britain and Canada. Whether that legislation is still in effect I do not know, but if it is I wonder whether the minister made his statement more or less off the cuff and it is not actually correct.
As I said earlier, if we have the power to call witnesses we would like to call those I mentioned a while ago. We would like to call those engaged in agricultural and scientific research and the presidents of universities, because our universities are in a desperate situation today. They are called upon to face many problems and their presidents could give us ideas that I think would be important to the members of the committee. In addition, we could hear representatives of agriculture, labour and industry whose contributions I believe would be valuable to the committee.
I say this because, after all is said and done, no civil servant is going to come before any committee and say anything that is contrary to government policy. We would not expect him to do so. But the independent witness is free to come here and give evidence from his own experience that I think would be valuable. As another reason for not calling such witnesses the minister said something about them going to Chalk River. It was never our intention at any

Committee on Atomic Energy time that these witnesses would go to Chalk River or would see anything of a classified nature in the form of either documents or machinery. While I am sure the committee will serve a most useful purpose, I am satisfied it would be much more effective if we could hear such witnesses.
I should like for a moment to reply to a statement made by the parliamentary assistant in introducing the resolution. He mentioned that Canada spent $70 million last year on research. That is only about $4.50 per capita. I have gone on record before, and the statement has never been challenged, that in the fiscal year 1954-55 the United Kingdom spent $15 per capita and the United States $25 per capita. In the same year the central governments of those countries, the United Kingdom and the United States, spent $11 and $15 per capita respectively. These amounts are far in excess of the per capita spending in this country.
We also have in Canada a problem that has been discussed for ten or eleven days, the disposal of agricultural surpluses. I am one of those who believe that politics will never solve the farm surplus problem. I also believe that if we made better use of our scientific knowledge agriculture probably would not be in the position it is in today. It is a rather strange thing that Holland and Denmark, where agriculture enjoys the highest reputations as a profession, do not have any problem in disposing of their agricultural products. They have adopted scientific methods. In other words, they have successfully adapted industrial methods to farming. There is no such thing as a subsidy for agricultural products in either of those countries.
Of course in this country we find that we have terrific surpluses of agricultural products that are hard to dispose of. I might mention here that two or three years ago the chemurgic industries in the United States acquired and disposed of about $1J billion worth of surplus farm products which were hard to dispose of, and in fact a good part of them would have become waste if those industries had not acquired them. I think the same thing could be done here if our research were co-ordinated, which it would be if we had the scientific planning to which I referred a while ago.
We have research done by the provinces, by various departments of the federal government and in various universities. But there does not seem to be any planning to get the best out of the research, and to get the most out of the money spent on research.

I believe we must bear in mind that the universities today are facing some difficulty, as I said a while ago.
Something which is important to us in this country is the upsurge of engineering education in Russia. They have already surpassed the western world in the number of engineers they have graduated. It might be easy enough to say yes, they graduate 50 per cent more engineers than do the United States, Britain and Canada, and that would not mean very much because it might be possible that those engineers were not properly trained. But as a matter of fact, we now know that those engineers they graduate in Russia are top trained men. As a matter of fact they were a revelation to our own scientists and to those of the western world who met at Geneva some time last year. We might as well face the problem here, namely that we must give more attention to education in this country.
I think the only way in which we are going to get more students in the universities to take up engineering is to initiate our work in the collegiates, through our teachers and boards, and see that these scholarly students in the higher grades are given an opportunity or are induced, really, to take up engineering as their life work. When they get to university we should probably adopt the same system as they have in Britain, with bursaries. In any event these smart, intelligent students should be encouraged to take up engineering, mathematics and physics in order that they can make in this country the contribution we need from our own people. We must not let these people, after they graduate, go to the United States or any other country. That trend has been going on for far too long. Years ago I said that, in the case of these engineers, the crown companies should give leadership in hiring them and also in the payment of their salaries.
Just the other day, Mr. Speaker, we regretted very much to see in the press a report that 40 or 50 of these young Canadian graduates in engineering left one of our Toronto area airplane factories to join a similar industry in California at a 100 per cent increase in salary. In order to see the demand there is for engineers in that country all you need to do is pick up the Sunday New York Times. This country in the past has faced and is going to continue to face the emigration to the United States of our top scientists and graduates in engineering and physics because they are going to pay them 50 to 100 per cent more than we are paying at this time. If we are going to keep them, we must pay them more money.

I will say this. There are in Canada many scientists-we see them at Chalk River-to whom the salary or remuneration is not one of the considerations for staying in Canada. The man to whom the leader of the C.C.F. referred this afternoon is one of them. He was so devoted to his work that it did not make any difference to him whether he had $50 a day or $10 a day. He drove an old 1929 Ford car to go fishing and he was happy in his work.
But the engineers who graduate are not all of that kind. These young people will have families to support, in all probability, after a few years. We must keep them in Canada. We are going to need them. Industry must take the responsibility of hiring these people to do research in this country.
To the crown companies of this country I say, give leadership to the other industries in this country and pay the salaries to which these people are entitled, and thus prevent them from going to the United States or some other country. It has cost the taxpayers of this country no less than $25,000 to educate each of these young men. Let us keep them here. They are an asset to this country. We want them. As this country develops, with all our wealth of natural resources which no other country in the world possesses- they are hardly scratched-these men are as necessary to us as are the minerals that are in those underground deposits.
If it is necessary for this government to make grants for education, let it take the responsibility that is necessary in order to maintain our economic position in the world today. Let the government make these grants. We must have engineers. Somebody might hesitate to take the grants. There is no reason why in some way or other moneys could not be made available to these students. I will say this. Because of the high taxation in this country the revenues of many universities have been drying up. I suggest that donations, up to a reasonable amount, made to universities by people or companies be exempt from income tax. I hope that more will be granted in the future than has been granted in the last few years in order that we may meet the challenge which this country faces.
I am going to say this, Mr. Speaker. This subject reminds me, as I think it does most people, of what the Red Queen said to Alice:
... it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast.
On reading that statement first, as I recall it, I thought there was not much to it. But I think anyone interested in this particular subject will read it a second time.
Committee on Atomic Energy
For three or four minutes of the time at my disposal, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with a problem which we faced last fall, in spite of what the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra said about my dealing with research. I may say that I am going home tonight so I will not be obliged to face his comments. I will not say any more about the matter.
Last fall, Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians not only in Ontario but all across this country were alarmed by the statement made by Mr. R. L. Hearn, the Ontario hydro chairman. I think it was made some time in September or October. He warned the Canadian government, and I know this appeared in the press of Ontario, to broaden its atoms for peace program or miss the boat. To me the statement was most important because, as you know, the Ontario hydro, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and a certain electrical company-the three of them-are participating in the construction of a plant to produce electricity from nuclear power. He suggested that more industry and utilities participate, and that the shutters of secrecy surrounding most of this country's atomic research should be removed. He went on to say that with the completion of the St. Lawrence hydro project and the additional power from the 50,000 cubic feet per second now being developed above Niagara Falls, Ontario will have used up all its hydro potential.
In Ontario we do not have oil or gas to any extent. Down in my area we have some, but it is not a big factor when compared with the total consumption. In this province we have a great deal of uranium. We do not know-and maybe we shall not know for a century-how much uranium there is in the province of Ontario, let alone in the other provinces of Canada. This resource should be developed. I foresee the time, probably in about 15 years, when we will be able to develop hydro power from atomic energy more cheaply than we are getting it today from water resources.
The president of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, I think it was sometime in November, said in New York that Canada is considering an exchange of information on the peaceful uses of atomic energy with a number of countries besides the United States and Great Britain. In my opinion the irony of that is that here we were willing to exchange information with the United States and Britain, yet the United States would not give us any information, or very little. As I understand it, she would not even give Great Britain any information regarding how the Nautilus was powered by atomic energy, when some people from Great Britain were in the United

Committee on Atomic Energy States last fall. The president of Atomic Energy says he is going to make this information available to other countries. I assume that is quite all right.
It is unfortunate that the western democracies do not share the information they have on atomic energy and other aspects of this atomic era. It simply means that if the United States is ahead of Britain in one development and will not release the information, Britain will probably get it within a year or two, because there is no such thing as keeping such information very long. The scientists in one country are as good as in another, and they will get the information sooner or later. We all know of instances in which scientists in different countries have come up with the same idea at different times.
It was profoundly disquieting to read that our Soviet rivals had already passed the western world in the industrial application of atomic energy. More important, it is increasingly evident that the Soviet union intends to use the industrial atom as an instrument of foreign policy, along with and perhaps in preference to the military atom. Nations which are poor in natural resources, whose resources are poorly distributed and which are now emotionally and politically unstable, could become our industrial equals and unfriendly competitors through the use of atomic power reactors donated by Soviet Russia. The only way out of the world's political and economic dilemma is to provide the power for agrarian nations to become industrialized, and for partly industrialized nations to industrialize completely.
I think we must now face up to the fact that in the atomic age dollars are no longer power. The prime material power is the absolute power of atomic energy. With the atom, mankind has finally secured a key to power unlimited, and power is the prime mover of industrialization. We must use industrial atomic energy to increase the living standards of the so-called have-not nations. As a back bencher I express the hope, for what it is worth, and I think the hope is shared by many members of this house, that the western democracies today, as they face the challenge of the U.S.S.R. and her satellites, can work together as a team and pool such information as we have been discussing in order to be collectively in a better position to challenge any forces that might be interested in overpowering us.
We have today a resurgence of industry through atomic energy. There is a great deal of interest in different countries in atomic energy today where even a few years ago there was not. As an illustration, France has
IMr. Murphy (Lambton West).]
a department of government to deal with research. As a matter of fact, this year Italy has spent more money on research than any other European country. These smaller countries, Mr. Speaker, like Norway and Denmark, and some of those in western Europe, are spending a great deal more per capita on research than we are. Strange as it may seem, they appear to have recovered economically and are today in a competitive position. If we in this country are to meet foreign competition in foreign markets and in our own markets, we must do so through research.
I am going to say that nature, history and geography have combined to richly endow this country, but prosperity and employment are not ensured simply because those resources lie within our boundaries. They will be ensured only to the extent that we as a people utilize those resources. As I said a moment ago, and I think it is worth emphasizing, today we should be in a position where we process more of these resources instead of buying back the finished products after manufacture in foreign countries.
The papers are filled with articles these days by scientists and industrial leaders speaking of the need for accelerated research and the dangers of our continued dependence on other countries. We knew last year, Mr. Speaker, that Britain, which is foremost in the field of research, had no unemployment. The same situation prevailed in the United States, whereas in this country we had a goodly number. I will not mention the number because I do not want it even suggested I am making political capital out of this sacred subject.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: am sorry to interrupt, but I am afraid I must inform the hon. member his 40 minutes have expired.
I shall recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron) in just a moment. First I should like to presume to make a suggestion for the consideration of the house. I am not going to make a ruling, though I and my predecessor in the Chair are a little worried. It is quite obvious that a number of hon. members, knowing this motion was coming up, have prepared material for speeches on various forms of the role of government in the field of non-military research in Canada. At the moment we have not that resolution before us. We have an amendment which we are supposed to be debating which states that there shall be added to the resolution the power of the committee to send for persons, papers and things.
If we are going to stick strictly to the letter of the law of the rules, that is what

we should be debating at the moment. My suggestion would be, if it meets with the approval of the house-and I am not trying to impose my will on the house-that anyone who has a speech to make on the question of whether the committee should have the power to send for persons, papers and things, should do so. Then we should dispose of that amendment one way or the other in order that speeches which may be made on the more general aspects of the role of government in research will be more in order. As I say, I am not proposing to impose this view upon the house. Perhaps in order to find out whether it meets with your approval or not I might at this moment ask, is the house ready for the question on the amendment?


Howard Charles Green: May I point out that you cannot discuss the amendment apart from the body of the motion. The motion sets out what this committee is to do, and the amendment proposes an alteration in the method by which that work is to be done. I submit that a speech having to do with the general work of the committee is perfectly in order even while the amendment is before Your Honour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: am not arguing that point of view. A great deal of material included in members' speeches might have a bearing on whether or not the committee should have the power to send for persons, papers and things. I did express the view, which I still hold, that a great many of the more general remarks being made on this question of government role in research are not really strictly applicable to the question of whether or not the committee's powers should be extended but is more applicable to whether or not there should be a committee.
However, if it is not the view of the house I have no intention of enforcing that opinion. It may be that on occasions we shall have to ask members not to get too far afield from that aspect of the resolution which has to do with the amendment now proposed.
The hon. member for Nanaimo.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I think what I have to say will come within the ambit of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, and support his contention as to the necessity of the committee having power to call before it certain witnesses, witnesses who would not necessarily be available however willing the government might be to provide them from among their own employees. I believe that in considering this question, Mr. Speaker, we have to face the fact that today science has become so specialized that very often the opinions of eminent figures in
Committee on Atomic Energy one branch of science are of little value in considering another aspect of the same question.
The matter I want to discuss this afternoon is one that I have raised before in the house on other occasions, namely the possible genetic effects of our activities in the atomic field. In order to place before the house the serious view that is taken by many eminent scientists with regard to the possibilities of the atomic age, I want to quote from an article by Dr. A. H. Sturtevant, of the California Institute of Technology, who is generally regarded as one of the leading geneticists of the United States. He had this to say on the danger of mutations from high-energy irradiation. He sets forth the facts in this form:
1.	High-energy irradiation produces mutations.
2.	The frequency of induced mutations is directly proportional to the dosage of irradiation. There is almost certainly no threshold value below which irradiation is ineffective.
He cites numerous other basic facts with regard to that, and later on he has this to say:
The "maximum permissible" exposure will become a matter for careful consideration If nuclear reactors come to be widely used as power sources, since under those conditions also there will be an increase in the background radiation. The amount and character of such increases will depend in part on the type of reactors used, and on the details of their design and operation-and it is a matter of public concern that this factor, as well as economic ones, be taken into account in a program for the non-military development of atomic energy.
I suggest this to the house, Mr. Speaker, that a committee that has not the power to call before it competent geneticists as distinguished from physicists to give their opinions to the committee on the possible dangers of an atomic energy program is a committee that is not going to be able to ask the questions that we should be asking very definitely today.
I listened carefully to the minister's reasons for refusing to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, and I wondered just how it is going to be possible for this committee to do what the resolution suggests it ought to do, namely examine into the non-military operations in the field of atomic energy, if that committee is not going to be able to call before it competent witnesses to give it some idea of the possible results of whatever program may be revealed to us during the sittings of that committee.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, I wondered whether the minister's objections to this amendment were not perhaps based on his reluctance to assume the difficult job of riding herd on the government majority on that committee; because of course it is perfectly obvious that if the government members on the committee

Committee on Atomic Energy are on their toes then no witnesses, no papers and no records will be asked for that would in any way embarrass the government or endanger the secrecy of classified information. But I do seriously suggest, sir, that we are not going to obtain an effective picture of our atomic energy program unless we have some idea of the possible dangers of that program for peaceful purposes.
I hold in my hand an extract from the Canadian Chemical Processing magazine of April of last year which contains an article by Professor James G. Foulkes, M.D., of the University of British Columbia, on the question of the dangers of background irradiation. In this article Dr. Foulkes quotes Dr. H. J. Muller of the United States, another leading United States geneticist, a gentleman who you will recall, Mr. Speaker, was refused permission by the atomic energy commission of the United States to appear before the recent Geneva conference on atomic energy. It was generally supposed at that time that Dr. Muller's evidence as a geneticist would be embarrassing to the United States defence authorities.
Dr. Muller is quoted in this article as saying:
Despite a number of unfortunate publicized statements by non-geneticists casting doubt on the mutagenic effectiveness of small doses of radiation, the work has gone so far as to make it inconceivable, on physico-chemical grounds, for a single ionization track traversing a cell nucleus to be without its proportionate probability of inducing a gene mutation.
He goes on to say:
Such considerations have led one scientist to conclude that "the long-range genetic danger of exposure of mankind as a whole to low-level, but widespread and persistent radioactivity, is the most ominous of all the dangers of the atomic age."
I have read the reports published by our government on this matter, reports published by the atomic energy control board of Canada, by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and by Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited, but I have not found the slightest reference in any of them to any investigations or research in this matter. Apparently we are prepared to go ahead blindly, not to consider the possible genetic results, and hope that the economic benefits may blind us to any possible dangers to the human species. I think, Mr. Speaker, this is a question on which we have to ask some very serious questions, and this committee is not going to be able to ask them if the Minister of Trade and Commerce persists in refusing to allow it to call competent witnesses to give us advice on this matter.
A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to get in contact indirectly with one of the


leading geneticists of Great Britain, Professor J. B. S. Haldane. A member of my family is studying biochemistry and genetics under Professor Haldane. In discussing the danger of genetic mutation from both military and non-military uses of atomic energy, Professor Haldane asserted that while he could consider it was not yet probable that the increase in background irradiation was sufficient to cause dangerous mutations, he was very insistent on this point that no one knows. And because no one knows, Professor Haldane has instigated an inquiry and an investigation at the British atomic energy centre at Harwell into the mutation effects on various laboratory animals of exposure to radiation at the level that we can expect with the widespread use of atomic reactors. I would feel much happier in my own mind, Mr. Speaker, if I could see some evidence in Canada of a similar anxiety and care to insure the future of the human species. It may sound laughable, but I say this. There is no one in this chamber, not a single soul, whose opinion is of any value.


Mr. Gillis:: And not many outside of it, either.


Colin Cameron: There are a few outside, but hon. members of the government and of this house persistently close their ears to the warnings of the few people in the world who know.
I suggest, sir, that such a course can only lead to catastrophe. I would hope that whether or not the government decides that it is going to permit a committee of this house to investigate these activities and call before it competent witnesses, we shall have before long some statement from the government which will indicate that it realizes that the development of atomic power is fraught with very great danger and its operations must be conducted with the utmost care.
I have heard, for instance, no indication from the government nor have I seen in any publication in this country an indication that the serious and difficult problem of the disposal of atom waste has been in any way effectively coped with. It is a problem to which the scientists of Great Britain are giving a great deal of attention at the present moment, and it is a cause of great anxiety to them. We in this country appear to be quite blandly indifferent to the possible problems we are creating. I suggest that while we may revel in the idea of endless power produced for a minimum of expense we should also realize there is only one purpose in producing power in any way at all, and that is to add to the happiness and satisfaction of human beings. But we are not going

to do that if we permit in succeeding generations more and more deleterious mutation. Scientists tell us that the probabilities are that they are nearly all degenerative in nature and cumulative in their effects.
1 should like to see this committee set up, and I should like to see this committee have some inclination to reassure us on this point, because this happens to be one of the things which once done can never be undone. Once we have succeeded in creating a level of background irradiation that does carry with it this danger, there is nothing on earth that we can do to reduce that level in the future. It is there for good, or for evil in this case.
I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce will realize that the people of Canada through the hon. members of this house are entitled to the utmost frankness in the way of disclosures of information about the program that has been undertaken by the government. I hope if he is not going to do that he will then alter this resolution so this committee will not be described as one which is to examine into the operations of the government, because obviously it is not going to be allowed to do this; but it will be described instead as a committee of this house to receive certain information from the government with regard to its atomic energy program.


Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I am rather in agreement with you that we perhaps should be discussing more particularly at the moment whether or not the amendment should stand, and I am a little hesitant to begin the remarks I intended to make in view of the opinion you expressed a few minutes ago, with which I entirely agree. I wonder if the house at the moment is ready for the question; if so I would then rather talk on the main substance of item No. 15 on the order paper, which is before us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: I
think perhaps I was the one who initiated this. I might say in view of the opinion held by several hon. members-and perhaps the opinion is held by a large number of hon. members in the house-and in view of the nature of the speeches which have been made since the amendment was moved, I think if the hon. member's speech deals with the role of the government in research he will find himself in no difficulty with the Chair.


John Hornby Harrison: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I greatly welcome this committee to inquire into the fields of atomic energy and the national research council. I think the committee will do extremely useful work in
Committee on Atomic Energy disseminating information to the general public about such bodies as the national research council that the public at the present time does not have the advantage of learning.
I think at the moment we should realize why we are faced with the necessity of setting up such a committee. The reason for that, I believe, is quite apparent. The reason is the growth of the uranium industry in Canada during the last three or four years. We might ask, too, why we have had such a growth and how we have developed a uranium industry in such a short period of time. I think it is entirely due to the foresight and optimism of our Minister of Trade and Commerce. We owe a great deal to the minister in this as we do in many other respects.
Because of his foresight I am in a position to say to you now that in my riding we are presently producing about three-quarters of the uranium produced in Canada. This has come about within the last three years, and is entirely the brain child of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In that regard as in many other matters in which his foresight is apparent in this country, I think he has contributed more to the standard of living of the Canadian people than any other man either living or dead.
I should like to join with those hon. members who a few minutes ago observed that they hoped this committee would be able to look into the operation at Chalk River as has been done before, and also that it might look into the production end of uranium in the Beaverlodge uranium area. I do hope the committee will be able to do this because tremendous strides in production have been made in that area in the last two or three years, and I think it should be looked into.
As I mentioned a moment ago, I think the people of this country are poorly informed concerning what bodies such as the national research council do. This was forcibly brought to my attention last fall when the new mill at the Gunnar uranium mine at Beaverlodge was opened. The Gunnar mine is unique among uranium mines. There is nothing like it in the world and very likely there will not be another mine like it. It is the only open pit uranium mine in existence. As such it is a potentially low-cost operation.
To give hon. members some idea of how it works out, may I say that a charge of 300 pounds of dynamite produces about 15,000 tons of ore. The ore is picked up by 3-yard shovels and dumped into 30-ton Euclid trucks, which then make a quarter mile run to the ball mill. This plant was designed on a test tube basis by a gentleman named Ross in the national research council.

Committee on Atomic Energy
I want to give hon. members some idea of what research can do for industry. Mr. Ross asked that 100 tons of ore from the mine be sent to Ottawa for processing. After a year's research he found that there were four processes which could be made applicable to the ore, and he picked out the acid leach process for the Gunnar mill. He designed the equipment from the test tube investigations and mining men who were present at the opening, such as Jules Timmins and others who had spent their lives in mining, said that it was the first time that they had seen a mill anywhere approach its rated capacity within less than a year or perhaps two years. In this particular instance the mill reached 125 per cent of its capacity within two weeks, something that has never occurred in mining in any place in the world.
That was due entirely to the research done by this Mr. Ross at the national research council in Ottawa. The net result is that you have an operation there that can compare most favourably with operations in other parts of the world. Other operations lose from 5 to 10 per cent of uranium, but this process was 99J per cent perfect as far as recovery of uranium from the ore is concerned. It is even better now, and I understand at the present time they get 99 f per cent recovery.
It will be seen from this what research can contribute to our economy. This mill was designed for 1,250 tons a day, but within two weeks of its opening was handling 1,500 tons of ore a day. This is a different type of operation from the Federal mill at Beaver-lodge, only 20 miles north. There they are mining in a conventional manner. They process about 650 tons of ore a day, and it takes nearly twice as many men to do the job as at Gunnar.
When I go into this district I am always asked when the Minister of Trade and Commerce is going to go in there to look at what they consider he is responsible for. They are quite ready to admit that that place would not exist if it had not been for the foresight of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I hope that when this committee goes to work it will be given an opportunity to go in and look at the mills up there.
I can tell hon. members that at Gunnar they will find a perfect example of automation. There are four chemical processes which are of a split second change nature. The changes from one to the other are all done automatically from a panel. No one is required for the operation of the plant. If there is a breakdown in any part of the process that is indicated on the panel, which also indicates where the trouble is and what


has to be done to fix it. Practically all the men are employed in actually getting out the ore and keeping in repair the machines used for drilling and so on. There are two or three supervisors walking around the plant, but they are all you will see.
If this committee goes anywhere I hope it will visit the Beaverlodge area where it can see the Eldorado mill. The Gunnar mill is to be expanded from 1,250 tons to 2,500 tons. The Lorado mill is to be constructed this year with a capacity of some 1,500 tons. This expansion will place Canada in 12 months' time at the very top of the world's uranium producers. If the committee does go there I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce will go along so that the people up there will be able to congratulate him upon his outstanding foresight, imagination and, something for which he is often criticized, his optimism.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon there was some discussion about the form of the amendment I had moved, during which a question was raised with respect to whether we were trying to get permission to send for documents which were classified as distinguished from unclassified documents. I think it is common ground that no one in the house has any intention of asking permission to send for classified documents, and in order to clarify that point I would ask the consent of the house to make a change in the amendment so it will read: "to send for persons and unclassified papers and records."


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman leave to amend his amendment in the sense he has indicated?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take part briefly in the discussion tonight because I feel that we are dealing with one of the most important subjects that could come before the House of Commons. In my opinion the subject of research, as we move into the age of automation, is going to be increasingly important as we attempt to grapple with the industrial changes that will arise and, more important than the industrial implications, the sociological effects that will follow in the wake of the increasing trend toward automation.
In my remarks tonight I am going to concentrate, as has already been emphasized, on

the amendment before the house. The slight modification in form that has just been presented by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra makes the task somewhat easier, because it seems to remove the one objection that has been forthcoming from the government side up to the present time concerning an amendment of this kind. I feel it is very important that the committee have the privilege of calling for persons and papers; otherwise the basic purpose of the committee is going to be thwarted.
By very definition the subject of research requires the broadest treatment and access to every available source of information. Because of that it is important that there be no artificial restrictions imposed. As has been pointed out by previous speakers, the resolution as it stands on the order paper is somewhat restricted in nature, in that it confines the discussion to the fields of atomic energy and the operations of the national research council.
I listened carefully to the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) in his introductory statement, and I noticed that there was some hope for a broadening of the terms of reference when he added to the two main categories an additional broad category in words to this effect, that the committee would consider research in all its general aspects. If his 'interpretation of the phrase, "consider research in all its general aspects", is similar to mine, then I feel we have a fairly broad approach to the problem of research available to the committee.
I had intended to concentrate on one aspect of the problem, but just before the house rose at six o'clock the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron) introduced a discussion of the probable genetic effects of atomic radiation on human beings. As he indicated, this has been one of the burning issues that have arisen in popular discussion since the advent of the atomic age. The hon. member for Nanaimo suggested that there had not been much formal action taken by way of consideration of the effects on human heredity of atomic radiation.
I should like to add one small piece of information to that which he has already placed before the house. Last fall the subject of the peaceful uses of atomic energy received somewhat prolonged consideration at the general assembly of the United Nations. One of the recurring topics under that general heading that appeared in the committee discussions there was the probable dangers to human heredity from the increasing level of atomic radiation. At the present time some 20 nations are meeting in the United States in an
Committee on Atomic Energy attempt to set up an atomic energy commission which will have as one of its major considerations the gathering and the sharing of information on all aspects of the peaceful uses of atomic energy. This, of course, would include all available information concerning the probable effects on human mutation.
I use the word "probable" advisedly, because actually very little scientific research has taken place concerning this problem. There have been plenty of armchair scientists who have indulged in speculation concerning the facts, but there is very little concrete scientific data. The phrase "armchair scientists" was used, incidentally, by the late Dr. Cipriani, who was Canada's expert on this matter at the last general assembly session of the United Nations, and I join with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold well) in regretting sincerely the sudden passing of that eminent physicist.
Dr. Cipriani, who had given some consideration to the problem of the genetic effects of atomic radiation, had come to the conclusion as a result of his investigations that there was no immediate danger. He quoted by way of example some rather interesting experiments that had been taking place in Sweden. Sweden has done some initial experimental work in this regard because it is a small country, and there they can control the data with which they are working. To a large extent the population is homogeneous and occupies a small geographic area. One further factor of importance is that the level of radiation is considerably higher in Sweden than in most other areas.
Some very worth-while work is being done on the effects of atomic radiation on human heredity, and I am sure that when the atomic energy commission arranged by the United Nations Organization at its last general assembly session is functioning adequately, this problem will be coped with successfully. I merely add those words in passing.
I now come to the main subject with which I wish to deal tonight. Of course I support the position taken by the other spokesmen of this party, namely the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra, and the hon. member for Lambton West, who from time to time in this house has taken the lead in urging action on the general problem of stimulating research activity in this country. I should like to come back to the aspect that I have stressed cn two previous occasions in this house when there has been an opportunity to discuss the general subject of research. I refer to the role of government-to use the phrase that is included in the general resolution-in social science research.
1724	HOUSE OF
Committee on Atomic Energy
The resolution stresses non-military research in Canada. From the use of that phrase I take it that the government, in putting forward this resolution, is trying to get away from the emphasis that has dominated research activity in this country ever since the founding of the national research council in 1917. It grew out of the emergency of world war I. Since that time the major emphasis in research in Canada has been on the military aspects, the development of weapons or, as that particular type of development is popularly known, the hardware aspects of research.
In Canada a small beginning has been made in the realm of social science research on the part of the government as well as on the part of voluntary organizations. We have in Canada a social science research council which is largely a voluntary group, and we also have a humanities research council. They have been doing notable pioneering work in the important area of social science research. The government also is operating in this field to a certain extent. For example, the national research council includes one psychologist in an advisory capacity, so that at least the door is slightly ajar for the entrance of social science research activity. The defence research board has moved a little bit further into the area because it is employing psychologists to deal with some of the general problems of human relations that arise when you have men concentrated together in the various branches of the armed forces.
Perhaps the most worth-while contribution in the field of human relations, however, has been in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, where we find sociologists and social psychologists doing some excellent work in the problem of the integration and assimilation of our new citizens. That is an extremely important task to which this particular department has devoted some attention. Then of course you have any number of economists operating in the Department of Finance as well as in the Department of Trade and Commerce and similar departments, so that in a small way and in a rather uncoordinated fashion the government is playing a role in the newer scientific field of social science research.
I bring this subject before the house tonight, Mr. Speaker, because as the motion stands there does not seem to be much opportunity for further consideration of this important aspect of research in Canada. The scope is going to be narrowed stringently indeed even though the senior hon. member for Halifax indicates that there will be opportunity for discussion of general research problems.


Unless we have the motion amended to provide for the calling of persons and papers the door will be pretty well shut to a consideration of the government role in social science research.
It would mean, for example, that there would not be the opportunity of calling in any representatives from our universities. Almost from time immemorial, universities have been the centre of creative activity in western civilization. I fail to see how it would be possible to deal adequately with research generally if we do not have the opportunity of calling before the committee some representatives of Canada's outstanding universities. It would be an extremely short-sighted policy indeed that would deny us this opportunity. Actually it would result in the work of the committee being almost fruitless.
Coming back now to the major emphasis I want to make tonight. While the government has done something in the realm of social science research, the voluntary groups have been much more active, particularly the Canadian social science research council. At the moment this council is faced with a rather difficult situation. Its traditional source of funds is drying up. Unfortunately Canada has depended largely upon United States foundations for the funds with which to carry on the important work of providing fellowships and scholarships at the graduate level in the area of social science. Each year recently the Canadian social science research council has been providing some 130 research fellowships. The money for those fellowships has come largely from two sources, namely the Rockefeller foundation and the Carnegie foundation. The Carnegie foundation, for example, has been contributing $90,000 annually. These contributions come to a total of some $8 million since it was first established in 1911. The Rockefeller foundation has been contributing $35,000 annually, and altogether a total of $12 million since it was established in 1914.
The Americans are becoming extremely reluctant to support Canadian research activity in this way. The difficulty first arose because of the report of the royal commission on the arts and sciences known as the Massey commission, which at that time was trying to encourage a more active participation on the part of the government and the people of Canada in our own social science research activity.
The introductory statements of the Massey commission said something to this effect: We have gained much from United States aid. In this preliminary stocktaking of Canadian cultural life it may be fair to inquire

whether we have gained a little too much. Granted that most of these United States donations are good in themselves, it does not follow that they have always been good for Canadians. We have not much right to be proud of our record as patrons of the arts. Is it possible that, besides the munificence of a Carnegie or a Rockefeller, Canadian contributions look so small that it seems hardly worth while making them? Or have we learned, wrongly, from our neighbour an unnecessary dependence on the contributions of the rich? Perhaps we have been tempted by a too-easy benevolence, but this leaves us in an undignified position, unworthy of our real power and prestige.
Now it seems that United States sources of support of the kind I have indicated took exception to the criticism of their contributions in this way. It was meant, of course, to be a prod to greater Canadian participation, but unfortunately it has had just the reverse effect. In the words of Blair Fraser, who was writing in Maclean's magazine last September 3 on this problem, the United States benefactors are now taking the attitude so far as Canada is concerned, you put up or shut up. Unfortunately there has been a very discouraging effect on the growing demands on the funds available from the voluntary Canadian social sciences research council.
In recent months there has been an attempt to influence Canadian industry, as well as the Canadian government of course, to meet the growing needs in the area of human relations. There has been no success as yet so far as the approach to the government is concerned because, as we know, no attempt has been made to implement the recommendations of the Massey commission in this regard. Last year the W. Burton Hurd memorial foundation was established, and a considerable effort was exerted to interest Canadian industrialists in making substantial contributions to this memorial fund.
Speaking personally, Mr. Speaker, I know of no more worthy name that could be associated with this fund. I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) looking at me. I think he came under the influence of Professor Burton Hurd in his days at Brandon College, back in the twenties when Brandon College was evidently turning out C.C.F.'ers. I came under the same influence in the thirties when the same institution was turning out Conservatives. Later Professor Hurd went to McMaster University where he chaired the department of political economy. His name, therefore, as one of Canada's outstanding economists, one of Canada's pioneers in the field of population
Committee on Atomic Energy studies, should have rallied enthusiastic support. Unfortunately it did not, and only $15,000 was realized through this effort. Unfortunately the money was not of the foundation type; it was not a continuing sum of money. It was a one contribution proposition only.
In this area of social science research, therefore, the situation is becoming extremely critical from the financial standpoint in the first instance, and also from the lack of co-ordinating effort to adjust to this obviously growing need. The government is moving gradually into the field in its various departments, but we are moving so slowly we are not even keeping pace, to use the phrase that the hon. member for Lambton West used this afternoon. As technological change increases as a result of the progress toward automation, we are going to be left far behind.
We are already behind in this matter of trying to gather the necessary information. We can only do that as the committee is permitted to bring before it people from the universities. Activity of this kind is largely confined to the universities. We can only get the necessary information concerning the needs and the action required if we are permitted to bring before the committee the men who are endeavouring to deal with the growing problem under the various circumstances and conditions I have outlined.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce gave us one argument for not agreeing to the amendment before us, the problem of guarding classified information. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that difficulty would be entirely removed if the revised amendment presented by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra is taken into consideration. I would certainly suggest that all hon. members should see their way clear to support this very important amendment.
One final word. I feel that in a committee of this kind we can only make a beginning in tackling the challenge of research. If it is going to be successful, if we are really going to meet the challenge of the changing situation, it should be a continuing committee, and we should have the opportunity each year of bringing ourselves up to date with the changing circumstances.


Clarence Gillis: Ordinarily, Mr. Speaker, I would not speak on a resolution to set up a committee. But since the amendment has been moved I think I have something to say on this particular subject. I am not posing as an expert on atomic energy or research. I do not suppose there are many in this house who could.
1726	HOUSE OF
Committee on Atomic Energy All we know about the subject is what we have read in the press, lectures we have heard and conversations we have had with people who have attempted to make a study of it.
I think the idea of setting up the committee is timely. I am not particularly concerned with the matter of national research, but I am concerned about the peaceful uses of atomic energy. If you once got into that subject in all its ramifications, you could talk a long time and perhaps get tangled up so badly you would not know where you were when you finished.
I am going to stick to one aspect of it, and that is this matter of radiation. The people of Canada, and perhaps the people of the world, require some assurance on that subject. Since 1945 we have heard many statements broadcast and there have been panel discussions on the subject of what atomic blasts are doing to the world. For quite a while people were jittery. Today they have become kind of apathetic. Since 1945, despite all of the warnings and so forth, nothing has happened here, although we did have the demonstration of the Japanese fishermen getting badly burned by the fall-out from an atomic explosion that took place a long way off. The matter is still being discussed. The time has come for the Canadian government to begin to get as much information as there is available on the subject for the purpose of reassuring our people that at least they are making some study of the matter.
Along with the hon. member for Bran-don-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), and a couple of other hon. members, I had the pleasure of attending a portion of the last session of the United Nations under the capable leadership of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). When you go there as an observer you do not have any particular duties to perform. You have a free hand. You can sit in on any of the committees that are sitting, and also attend the general assembly when it is in session. As the hon. member for Brandon-Souris mentioned, at the last session of the United Nations the political committee talked at great length on this subject of the effects of radiation on genetics, and what radiation was going to do to the human race in the future. After sitting there day after day and listening to the discussions of men who are perhaps the best informed in the world on the subject, at least a little of it rubbed off on us. In addition, we did have the pleasure of meeting with the late Dr. Cipriani, who was an expert in that line at Chalk River, and we had discussions with him. It is unfortunate that a man of his age IMr. Gillis.l

and his knowledge and personality had to leave us at this time and take his knowledge with him.
You meet some people whom you never forget. He was that kind of person. He told us a lot about this particular subject. He was the kind of person who does not use the technical language that is used by some people. He seemed to be the kind of person who could get down to where you were and talk to you in understandable language. I gathered from what I heard in that committee, and from what the late Dr. Cipriani had to say privately on the subject, that not much is known about the effects of radiation.
There always has been a certain build-up of radiation in the world. That build-up takes place to a greater extent in some countries than in others. I think I am correct in saying it was mentioned that the north of Scotland had a higher radiation build-up than any other section of the world. The Scandinavian countries, and I suppose British Columbia, would have a higher build-up than the prairies. There always has been a build-up in radiation. You get it from many things.
Dr. Cipriani's judgment was that it was difficult to say very much right now as to whether or not it was building up to the danger point, for the simple reason that there is no data on it. No formula has been perfected by the different countries as to how to get a uniform measurement. Each country was using a different formula, with the result that what one country was doing could not be compared with what another country was doing. The committee's job was to try to set up an atomic energy agency that would function within the structure of United Nations.
Of course there was difficulty for a long time in getting it set up because every time the matter of radiation measurements and that kind of thing came up they had their opposition there also. The opposition would appear with a bombshell and say, "We must discontinue the blasts for a long time".
They finally agreed on setting up an agency. It has been set up. The scientists of the world have formed a committee. That committee is either meeting now or will meet shortly. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris says it is meeting now. Their objective is to get some data on the radiation build-up that has taken place in the world since the discharge of the atomic and hydrogen bombs. Until that agency gets proper measurements that will be comparable in every section of the world I do not think anybody can say anything with any authority

as to what the situation is today with respect to radiation and genetics. That data is not available.
Now is a good time lor the Canadian government to demonstrate to our people that we are interested in this particular subject. Perhaps the Minister ol Trade and Commerce was quite correct when he objected to the first amendment and said that classified material that was on the secret list should not be made public. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has amended his amendment and is now asking only for the right to call witnesses and have unclassified material; that is, material that is not on the secret list, which he thinks should be made available. I do not think there is much on the secret list today, anyway.
I am supporting the amendment because I think it is necessary that we should begin to tell our people that we are making an active study of the subject.
While attending the United Nations session I was impressed with what the United States was doing in this field. For example, for three weeks at least while I was there they had a display of all the equipment that is used in the atomic energy field in the Carnegie building just across from the United Nations building. They took the uranium right from the ore state and traced it down to the splitting of the atom. Every machine that is used in any of these plants was there in miniature form operating exactly as it operates in a real plant. They had a capable man on each machine to tell exactly what the function of the machine was. There was a lot of equipment there, because it took me exactly three hours to go through the display and get a little idea of what each of the machines was doing and of the possibilities of the atom in the future in a peaceful way.
I was amazed to find the things you can do with that material today. In the development of agriculture, for example, there was a demonstration of what it will do for wheat and the many ways it can improve it. We were shown how perishable foods are preserved; but the thing that impressed me most were the possibilities of the atom for medicinal purposes, for health purposes. There was a demonstration showing the improvement in the X-ray machine and the use of isotopes in determining what is wrong with the human body. There is no guess work any more with the new equipment they have in the X-ray field and with the use of the isotopes for determining what is wrong with the body. According to the lecture I heard there is no guess work any more. This new equipment shows every tissue in the human
Committee on Atomic Energy body; it shows what is going on. The technician can tell the doctor what is wrong.
They tell me that most of the large hospitals in New York are equipped with that type of equipment. It is very expensive and it is scarce at the present time, but they assured us it would not be far in the future until most of the larger centres will be furnished with that kind of equipment. If we are sensible, and I think from all indications we are now learning how to live together in the world through fear, if through nothing else, we can put the atom to use for peaceful purposes. If we do that, the possibilities are unlimited.
My understanding is that the government of the United States has provided all that equipment. It must have cost a lot of money. They put on that demonstration, as I understand it, at Geneva and then they took the equipment over to the last session of the United Nations for all to see. If I had seen nothing else, my trip to New York was worth while because of that demonstration and the possibilities it illustrated of the use of the atom for peace in the future.
I think we are missing the boat when our government is not keeping as closely as possible in touch with that kind of thing and showing our people the possibility of using this atom, which is scaring everyone today because of the possibilities of war, for peaceful purposes. We should be playing up the constructive uses of the atom and playing down the idea of war. As I said before, I think we will have peace for some considerable time through fear; but in order to guarantee that peace we should harness the machine that can be used for destruction and put it to the constructive uses I have mentioned; and we should gain the support of the Canadian people and people throughout the world for the constructive use of the atom.
For the reasons I have mentioned I am supporting the amendment. I believe it is right to set up a committee; but in addition to having a committee I believe it should be able to call in men from the Department of External Affairs and men from the atomic energy plant at Chalk River who would be able to tell the committee what is being done by other governments and what our government is doing to co-operate with other countries in this field.
We are not disseminating enough of that kind of information. I think we could make a start with this committee if we accepted the amendment that has been moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. That is my main purpose in rising, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, now that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has moved his amendment

Committee on Atomic Energy and has pretty well specified what he needs in the way of evidence and documents, the acceptance of his amendment.
As the hon. member has said, anything that might be secret would be off the official list. Our acceptance of his amendment would probably shorten this debate. It would be good business if the minister would accept the amended resolution and let us get the committee set up and get down to business.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention a phase of research which I think should be covered by this committee. It is a field that means a great deal to a large number of Canadians, and it is a field which is apt to be overlooked. I refer to the general fisheries research field which should be considered by this proposed committee.
For authority to consider fisheries under this motion I would think that part (b) of the operations of the national research council would be sufficient. Section 7 of the Research Council Act, chapter 239 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, states, and I quote just the last part of the section, Mr. Speaker:
The council . . . also has the duty of advising the committee on questions of scientific and technological methods affecting the expansion of Canadian industries or the utilization of the natural resources of Canada.
The role of the federal government in fisheries generally is a matter of constitutional charter, but I think it would be sufficient to state that section 91, subsection 12 of the British North America Act, which gives -the federal authority the right to regulate and limit sea coast and inland fisheries would be enough authority here, with the exception of course that the provinces still retain provincial and civil rights in regard to fisheries.
I would hope that the powers of the committee, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has suggested in his amendment, would include the right to call for all papers- those would be unclassified papers-and persons and records.
There is generally a new interest in the exploration of the sea. A few years ago it was all air but today, with the increasing interest we find in the sea, we read of the frogmen in the deep, underwater television and all these new ideas concerning the ocean depths. This brings to mind the potentialities of this seemingly small but important fishing industry that has no strong lobbying power and no great industry upon which it can rely for subsidy and assistance in research. Nevertheless it is an important factor in our future.
In order to begin I ask the question, just what is being done now in fisheries research?
[Mr. Gillis.l
I am pleased to report that as far as I can see personally we are making very good progress in this particular field. As the Minister of Fisheries recently said-and I must admit that the Minister of Fisheries is research conscious-when he addressed the Fisheries Council of Canada on January 4, with the commissions and other bodies today it is necessary to keep up and continue research in all branches of fisheries.
Recently I had some questions and answers tabled with regard to the money that is spent by the government on fisheries products in relation to the total market value. If my quick arithmetic serves me well I think it is fair to say that on fisheries research we are spending between one-half and three-quarters of 1 per cent of the total market landed value of our fisheries. This is comparatively good, I think, but like everything else it can be better, and I suggest that further stimulation needs to be given to fisheries research and perhaps better coordination.
What would be some of the problems into which this committee could inquire regarding fisheries research? I suggest that there would be the small problems that are encountered from day to day, such as the problems of lobster fishing and of the seasons, all of which have to be looked into. Last year we had the unusual circumstance of herring cluttering up the lobster traps due to a peculiar condition which caused their death. This was a matter that required scientific investigation. When the results came out it was found that this particular heart condition affecting the herring was depleting the lobsters.
Then there is the problem in connection with clams and green crabs which is causing so much trouble. The clam industry goes back to the days of Champlain, when he found it necessary to rely on these lovely, delicious clams to help sustain life in the early days in Canada.
There is another problem which is a continuing one, and which the Minister of Fisheries has said presents one of the greatest challenges to the department. I refer to the decline in salmon production. This is a field which deserves considerable attention. According to information which has been tabled, the value of research in this connection has been made clear and I admit that the figures given are good when considered in relation to the total value of the salmon catch. But we are getting nowhere as far as the salmon industry is concerned.
As far as the situation in New Brunswick is concerned, there are said to be four or five reasons for this decline in salmon production. First there is the industrialization,

which is inevitable. Then there is the spruce budworm, which brings in the Department of Agriculture. There has been a conflict of statements in this regard. Some research experts say that the spruce budworm has had no effect upon salmon production, while others say that it has had a direct effect. I believe the fisheries research authorities have said that this spraying has been going on for only a few years and that the cycle of salmon growth will not have been completed for one or two more years, and that therefore definite conclusions cannot be reached in this respect.
This is a problem for our research experts, and I submit that this committee should satisfy itself that such problems are looked into. If this were done we might be able to reverse the serious decline of 66 per cent which has taken place in our salmon industry from 1930 to the present time. Japan has shown the way in recent years. By the use of modern research methods they have been able to triple their salmon output.
Having said that, I come to the third question. What could be done in this fisheries research field? There are many solutions for the problems confronting the salmon industry, but one that comes quickly to my mind is the successful efforts which have been made to hurry the growth of young trout and salmon. This biological discovery was made by chance by a fisheries expert in the mari-times, whose name I think was Kenneth Shillington. He found that by segregating hardy types of salmon and trout he could increase their growth as much as one pound a year. If this discovery is fostered and promoted by our experts it should prove a quick solution to the problem that confronts both the commercial fisherman and the angler.
Further research work should be done in connection with lobsters, in the use of the new steel traps and in other ways. Coming to clams again, this problem is more of a technological nature, in the development of new diggers and other efficient methods of fishing.
If this committee finds it feasible to call in the fisheries experts there are two questions which should be foremost in their minds. First there is the biological inquiry that should be made. Most fisheries experts will agree that we have to consider the life of the sea from a strictly biological point of view. What is that life like? Where does it exist? In what parts of the sea will it be found? Ocean currents, temperature and the like all have to be considered.
After this fundamental biological knowledge has been taken into account and the complete
Committee on Atomic Energy life history and environment of the particular fish ascertained, then we would be prepared to consider the second or technological aspect. That of course would take in the complete life of the fish up to its eventual delivery to market.
In this connection I think we should consider what has been done in this field in other countries, and I would refer in particular to legislation passed in the United States on July 1, 1954. While this legislation might not be completely feasible for Canada, it has provided co-ordination and stimulus for the fishing industry in that country. This legislation is commonly known as the Salton-stall-Kennedy act and was the result of successful lobbying by Messrs. Saltonstall and Kennedy. The legislation provided that the department of the interior, under which fisheries comes, would receive 30 per cent of all tariffs obtained from the import of fish products. The pertinent part of this legislation which I intend to quote will give an idea of what my theme is this evening. The act was set up:
(1)	to promote the free flow of domestically produced fishery products in commerce by conducting a fishery educational service and fishery technological, biological and related research programs, the moneys so transferred to be also available for the purchase or other acquisition, construction, equipment, operation, and maintenance of vessels or other facilities necessary for conducting research as provided for in this section, and
(2)	to develop and increase markets for fishery products of domestic origin and (3) to conduct any biological, technological, or other research pertaining to American fisheries.
In the report of this committee a further significant matter was brought out. That is the fact that this legislation in itself did not provide everything. It was a fact that when the legislation was being lobbied, promoted and discussed in the United States it was necessary to set up committees and call in experts in the various biological and technical fields of the fisheries industry to make their statements and offer their independent suggestions as to the future of the industry. That should be the lesson of this legislation for us. It was not enough in itself; it had to have the expert stimulation that was so necessary.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I should like to review the thoughts I have expressed. I pointed out that I believe the committee should consider research into the fishing industry in as detailed fashion as possible. We should inquire what is being done. I suggested that our fisheries research in Canada is good. However, it has to be better because we have a small new industry and continual promotion is essential. Having said

Committee on Atomic Energy that, I dealt with one or two problems into which inquiry should be made. I suggested what could be done, what might be put before the experts or what the experts might do to help the industry. Finally, 1 mentioned the Saltonstall-Kennedy legislation. I think we should definitely take note of it and, if it is within the powers of the committee, invite an expert who has dealt with this matter in the New England states to appear before the committee.
I call for greater emphasis on and greater investment in this necessary part of our industrial life in Canada. The fishing industry is so essential to both coasts of this country that we should be certain it is given due promotion. We must always remember that the economy of the maritimes is lagging, and the fishing industry is lagging within that economy. I hope that this committee, with amended powers, will take note of my plea for the necessary consideration of an important phase of our industrial life.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I was one of those who urged last session that such a committee be set up then. I urged it on the basis of a rather important statement made by President Eisenhower of the United States. The committee was not set up last year; unfortunately it did not function. However, we are happy to support the setting up of the committee this year, and also to support the amendment that has been moved providing for the calling of persons and papers.
In reading the resolution closely I find that the most pertinent part of it, as far as I can see, is that which refers to the role of government. The motion reads:
That a special committee be appointed to examine into the role of government in the field of nonmilitary research in Canada, including:
(a)	operations in the field of atomic energy,
(b)	operations of the national research council.
I hope I have not read the motion incorrectly, but as I read it, it does not really call for the setting up of a committee to examine the operations in the field of atomic energy or the operations of the national research council proper. Rather it calls for an examination of the part the government should play in these matters. I do not know how extensive its work would be, and I am suggesting that perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce overlooked that point.
If we take the resolution literally, any examination into the field of atomic energy itself or into the operations of the national research council could possibly be ruled out. The chairman of the committee could say that we are not concerned with these things, that all we are concerned about is the role


the government is going to play in them, whether it is going to enter into these fields or whether it is not, whether the government should take over the results of the work of the national research council and run the whole show of atomic production, or whether that should be left to private enterprise.
I trust that is not the intention of the government and the actual meaning of the wording of the resolution. I take it, and I am sure the house is under the impression, that the actual meaning is that the committee can examine into all questions covering operation in the field of atomic energy and concerning the national research council. I point that out because I do not want anything to happen once the committee is set up.
Reading the resolution again, I refer to the pertinent point, the role of government. I suppose everyone knows what the word "role" means. I thought I did, but for the sake of making sure I sent for an English dictionary. I find that the first definition given here is "actor's part". I hope the government is going to be a little more than an actor in some drama, because usually actors are sort of fictitious individuals who portray a good deal of unreality. However, the definition continues and says, "One's function". I think that is the definition that is meant by the role of government, what the function of government should be with respect to these various fields of research.
In anything a committee does, Mr. Speaker, in anything parliament does, in anything the government does, and with respect to all laws passed in this house, I am sure we should have one particular objective in mind. I believe we have reason to ask one pertinent question, particularly when it comes to the discussion of the work of this committee. As those who are responsible for the eventual destiny of the nation, I think the one over-all and fundamental question that we have to deal with is this: What is the purpose of life? In the matter of this resolution, I do not think we should look at it with the idea of seeing, for instance, how a corporation that enters into the business of atomic energy could make a million dollars. Rather I think we should look to see how, through the discoveries that are made and the development of these sciences, the nation can reach that ultimate objective of a full life.
When we begin to think of the subject in those terms I fancy several extremely important factors are brought into operation. The first one I am going to speak of is this, and here I ask another question. We should ask ourselves this question: What are we

able to do in the realm of physical or material sciences to reach the objective which I have already stated, namely the full and abundant life for the Canadian people? We have now reached an age when, in the material sense, nothing seems to be impossible. Through scientific ventures we seem to be able to do almost anything which the human mind conceives.
We now talk of the discovery of atomic energy. We perhaps think of this energy as a new thing, but it will not be too long, perhaps within the space of a generation, until we shall be talking of another new type of energy, namely solar energy. As the nation progresses, one thing displaces another. Before we get atomic energy to a place where it is recognized and used by the nation, it may become almost obsolete overnight through the advent of solar energy.
There is another matter I believe the committee and the government should take into account when we are thinking of research into all these modern sciences, and it is this. What do we produce these modern appliances for? What do we produce anything for? Is it not for the good of the people? Do we not investigate these various fields of science with a view to bringing into operation the result, whatever the case may be, for the benefit of the people of the country? Is that always done?
While I believe that private industry is playing its normal part and perhaps more in these matters, I am wondering whether private industry recognizes its purpose. Is the purpose of private industry to make millions? Is that the ultimate purpose? Of course if we live in a dollar complex and simply say, "It is the purpose of life to build up a fortune", then we are just missing the object of life. The purpose of industry is to produce, and the purpose of production is to satisfy the requirements of the nation.
Let us consider this field of research. For instance, I am told that we can produce steel so hard that it will never wear out. I am told that. I read that in various journals that come to my desk. Then I ask the question: Are these things that are built of steel built to be used? Are they built for permanency? Let us consider the automobile. It is possible to manufacture an automobile of steel that will never wear out. Why do we not do it? The reason is that when they manufacture an automobile, they manufacture it for the purpose of it wearing out. The same is true with regard to anything else. As my friend the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) says, it is the same with the electric light bulb. I fancy they could manufacture a light bulb that would burn forever,
Committee on Atomic Energy or burn for a lifetime. Why do we not do it then? The reason is that eventually, if we do that, we shall come to a place where industry will be slowed down.
Let us look at the matter fairly and squarely. Suppose it is slowed down. Even today we find that labour is beginning to recognize that problem and say, "We will do things now by working 30 hours a week instead of 40 hours". Suppose that is so. What about it? Suppose we can do these things by working 10 hours a week. What about it? Why not? Let us go on a holiday for the rest of the week. Why not? If the function of an economic system is to produce an abundant living, why not? I think this consideration enters the picture, namely that industry, in the course of economic events, must get back its investment before the new can displace the old.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. I feel sure that the hon. member for Macleod will not consider that I am being unreasonable if I point out to him-as he pointed out to us at the beginning of his speech-that this resolution deals with the role of government in research. I think he is perhaps getting rather far afield from the role of government in research.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to stay within the subject of the role of government. What I was trying to point out was this, and I was coming to it as the next point. One of the things government should do, if it is in the realm of research and discovers certain things that can be put into production and operation, is so to manage the affairs of the country that they are put into operation now, and not a generation from now. Things should not be held back by reason of the fact that there are huge investments in the present role of industry, and they must be recovered before the new thing can be put on the market.
That is what I was coming to in respect of the role of government in these matters. I think the role of government in this respect is certainly to make available to the people the results of research. If the results of research are not made available to the people, it is all going to be for nothing as far as this generation is concerned.
I do not know what we have done toward making available to the people the results of research, even with the national research council. I believe that private enterprise has done a pretty good job by itself in research, in development and so forth. I believe the government should synchronize its work with private industry for the purpose of giving the results of research to the people of Canada.
1732	HOUSE OF
Committee on Atomic Energy
I have another point in my notes, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure you would rise again and remind me that we are dealing with the role of government in research. I was going to say that I am quite certain if the government paid attention to the importance of providing the people of Canada with incomes sufficient to make the results of research available to them, this research would go ahead at a pace such as we have never seen before. In the end the results of research have to be passed on to the people. The only way the people are going to get those results is by buying them.
I pass that on to the minister. I know he is aware of it. But I know he would get up and say, "Well, I am the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Defence Production. National research comes under my department, but the functioning of the economy of the country is in the hands of another department, so you will have to get after them." I thought I would just express some of these views, because I believe that angle of our national objective should be pronounced.


Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: As you
have just reminded the house, Mr. Speaker, we are considering the setting up of a committee to examine into and report on the role of government in research matters. This proposed committee could be one of great benefit and far-reaching significance. How well it does its work, and how well it can do its work, seems to depend to some extent on its powers. We have that secondary issue before us by way of an amendment.
It seems to me that this committee should have a scope which permits it to go beyond the hearing of evidence from those now engaged in scientific research in the various agencies of the federal government, and to call from industry and the academic world from all parts of Canada people who are able to contribute advice or information which the committee will need if it is to give any clear lead as to what is the proper role of government. I believe we all concede the importance of research, and I need not dwell on that. We also recognize the government's need of advice which can be obtained through the instrumentality of a committee such as this.
The federal government is not the only government to set up a committee of this kind, or to obtain assistance from advisory sources. I refer to the advisory committee on scientific policy which has been performing similar functions for the government of the United Kingdom. I should like to indicate my view of the importance of what is done in the field of research by quoting from the seventh
IMr. Hansell.l

annual report of this United Kingdom committee. It makes this very significant summary:
Today a country's wealth and power are largely determined by the extent of its scientific knowledge and by its capacity to use that knowledge.
To me that means a country's standard of living and its capacity to defend itself. A country's wealth and power is largely determined by the extent of its scientific knowledge and its capacity to use that knowledge. Those are the issues on which the government wants assistance from this committee.
I suggest that the importance of research and scientific knowledge is such that the government cannot afford to be wrong if it is to keep Canada in its proper place amongst the nations of the world. At the moment there is no single agency which has the oversight of all the multifarious research activities in which people engage, some under the aegis of the government and some under provincial and industrial direction. There is no single agency today which is in a position to oversee the entire field and give the advice which this committee will be asked to give. It is true that there are a great many agencies, and we all know the more important of them. One of them is the national research council, but even it does not cover the whole field and is not in the position which this committee will be to review and advise the government on its proper role.
Perhaps there is a parallel here between the C.B.C., which is actually engaged in broadcasting as well as regulating broadcasting, and the sort of supervisory commission which has been suggested as necessary and desirable to regulate the C.B.C. and the private agencies. This committee would stand above the national research council and look over not only its work but other research activity in the country in which the federal government could possibly be interested.
Another agency of the federal government, as is well known, is the committee on scientific research of the privy council, comprising six or seven ministers under whose direction the national research council functions. Then we have the research branches of the various departments of government, beginning with agriculture which has been engaged in this field the longest, and running through mines, the board of grain commissioners under the Department of Trade and Commerce, fisheries and some other departments which have fairly substantial research branches. Then we have the universities. We have industrial laboratories, some engaged in very extensive research such as that done by the pulp and paper companies.

Then we go on to agencies under provincial jurisdiction. Alberta has a research council. There was a research council in Ontario, and there is the Ontario research foundation today. As I have said, there is a multitude of agencies now working toward the desirable end of applying scientific knowledge to the good of Canadians and the Canadian life.
I think I might illustrate the problem which is before the house by referring to the experience which the Ontario government had seven or eight years ago when, under the leadership of the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), who was then premier of Ontario, they set up a commission under the public inquiries act which had almost the same terms of reference as are suggested for this select committee of the house. It was to consider what was the proper role of the provincial government in this field of research; where it could properly spend money in research and where it should not, and how its responsibilities could be correlated with those of the federal and other authorities so there would not be overlapping, and all would be integrated for the greatest usefulness. That commission, under its terms of reference, recommended legislation under which an advisory council was formed and functioned for several years with the sole purpose of assisting the government in determining how far it should go in spending public funds on research.
If I may refer to that Ontario commission briefly, the first task it undertook and recommended was that of providing more trained personnel through scholarships, something which the federal government is now doing on a more extensive scale through the national research council scholarships, which were paid out in the sum of something over $600,000 last year. Ontario research scholarships in the amount of $50,000 annually have provided advanced training, post-graduate training, for a number of people who are now available for scientific research. It is obvious that the basis of research is the people who are trained to do it.
That was the first proper role of government which was recommended. Then the council set about co-ordinating the work of federal, provincial and private agencies through advisory committees which were established, one in each of seven or eight important fields, such as the advisory committee on agriculture and the one on fisheries and wildlife. I believe that similar advisory committees have been usefully serving the national research council.
These committees bring together at one time and place and several times during the year all the men and women who are engaged
Committee on Atomic Energy in a specific type of research, where they exchange experiences and learn what each other is doing and avoid in that way the duplication which is so easy and so wasteful in the scientific field where there is so much to be done.
Then there were grants in aid of specific research, and so on. That effort to obtain proper advice is a parallel to what we are doing here today. The complication which exists because of the federal nature of our government is one of the problems that make it particularly necessary that such a committee should review periodically the role of government. There has to be not only the co-ordination of the federal government activities with those of industry, private institutions and universities, but the provinces also have a jurisdiction. There is the problem of integrating the research expenditures and work of eleven governments that operate in their own fields.
Another difficulty which may arise from the reference which is made in this resolution is the distinction between civil and military research. The resolution limits the committee to inquiring into non-military research in Canada! It may not be easy to say what is non-military. A very interesting example came to my attention the other day. There are two researchers, Dr. K. C. Fisher and Donald Smith, who are doing research in the Arctic area on a very humble little animal known as the lemming. I do not recall the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Har-die) mentioning this animal among his pets in the very interesting address he gave the other night; but the lemming is a celebrated animal in the Arctic which, according to tradition, is reputed to commit mass suicide by rushing into the sea and drowning itself.
There are two university professors looking into this matter at the expense of the federal government under the defence research council; therefore it is a military type of research. They are trying to find out how the lemming lives in that cold climate and whether he does or does not drown himself en masse. They are trying to find out all about the lemming. It is a very interesting piece of research. The suicide theory has been exploded, and I expect that in the long run some very useful information for civilians who live and work in the north country may come out of this. I mention it simply to point out the difficulty in trying to draw a clear line between what is civilian and what is military in the research field.
I am sure this committee will not be circumscribed in inquiring into matters which are on the borderline, as everyone has freely agreed it should not have the authority to
1734	HOUSE OF
Committee on Atomic Energy call lor documents which are classified or which are necessarily secret for defence reasons.
If the committee proceeds with full power,
I suggest that some of its likely subjects of recommendation are, first, the field of the actual doing of research, which is part of the work of the national research council today. It is engaged in carrying out actual specific research projects, and in very substantial numbers. This is a proper role of government.
In Ontario, the Ontario research foundation does that same kind of work. It is a co-operative effort of government and industry, the capital having been put up some years ago by the two, with industry subscribing part of the capital and the government the remainder. It is a custom researcher. It receives orders from industry and carries them out, and gives the answers where it can and charges a fee. I daresay that is the method under which the national research council carries on some of its work. This is one proper role of government, the actual doing of research.
Then a second role is that of sponsoring research by others, either by financial grants in aid, or in the case of industry I should think probably by matching similar contributions by industry. In the case of universities, very extensive research is carried on today under grants from the federal government as well as from the provincial governments, and that is a proper role of government.
Then there is the problem of co-ordination of the work among the various agencies I have mentioned. The committee will undoubtedly have something to say about that if it does its job well.
The most important role of government is to make known the results of useful research when those results have been obtained, because after all the application of scientific knowledge gained through research to the ordinary affairs of life is what creates the wealth and power to which I referred earlier in this speech.
There is one other matter which is also of considerable importance, and that is the problem of utilizing the scientific personnel and facilities of the country to the best advantage. As I said, there is a limited number of people and limited facilities, and this committee could properly inquire into the use of those limited facilities.
Finally there is the question of providing more personnel. It seems to me that this is one of the most important problems which this committee could consider. We all know that as soon as an engineer gets his diploma from a university today he is offered a job
[Mr. Michener.l

at an attractive salary, and he is strongly tempted to stop his education at that point and begin working. He may be married by that time; he wants to get a start in life, and away he goes into business. This has been carried on to such an extent that today there are practically no engineers doing postgraduate work, and that to my mind is a most serious concern which should be placed before this committee and should be the subject of a recommendation.
I appreciate that we are getting into the field of education, and there complications of jurisdiction arise; but that does not mean that we should not do our part to solve the problem of creating more post-graduate work in the engineering field so there will be more qualified people who can do this essential work necessary to maintain Canada as an industrial nation in this twentieth century.
I suggest that what we need in Canada is a Canadian M.I.T.-and I think the minister will know what I mean-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know what you are talking about.


Daniel Roland Michener: -when I refer to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I not only don't know what he means but I don't know what he is talking about.


Daniel Roland Michener: That is an institution where not only under-graduate engineering but postgraduate work is given the greatest possible emphasis. I am not prepared to say how we can establish something comparable to this in Canada, but I do suggest that this is a field of inquiry into which this committee could very usefully look and for which it could find some answer.
Another reason why engineering-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Don't forget that.


Daniel Roland Michener: -is not the subject of so many scholarships is found if you will look at the national research council, where you will find that scholarships granted for postgraduate work are relatively small as compared with those granted to chemists or physicists and others engaged in those fields which we sometimes call the purer sciences. But there is another side to this problem of post-graduate work for engineers, and that rests with the professors. The professors in the engineering field are able to do consulting work to their own advantage during the summer months. They do not have the same interest or compulsion, perhaps, to establish and promote graduate schools in the engineering field.

That concludes what I have to say except for this final word. This committee can be of the greatest importance in directing public funds into channels which to my mind are as important as any thing for which public funds can be used. The statement with which I began, to the effect that the wealth and power of Canada largely depend upon the use which we make of our scientific knowledge and personnel, is not an overstatement.
I hope the committee will be given sufficient power to do this job, and that it will have done a productive job when it is finished.


Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues on all sides of the house in welcoming the formation of this committee to undertake an examination into the role of government in the field of non-military research. I do hope, however, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce will accede to the request embodied in the amendment to the resolution moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. That amendment as further amended at eight o'clock would give this committee authority to send for persons and unclassified papers and records.
The minister did make a case, I think, as regards classified records or documents. I do not think any hon. member of the house would want to have any part in running any danger of making available information of a classified or secret nature. I believe, however, the amendment with the restriction as to papers and records being only those which are unclassified would certainly get around that problem.
As for the matter of sending for persons, the minister suggested it was possible that persons who are concerned with the government in the field of atomic research or the operations of the research council might inadvertently let loose some classified information if they were being examined by members of that committee. I think if individuals in the government service can be trusted to the extent of having access to classified information, we can certainly trust their discretion not to reveal information of a classified nature in appearances before a committee such as is proposed. I therefore hope that the minister will accede to the amendment as amended.
There is one phase of the operation of this committee which I think is quite important. Outside of the field of government activities, atomic energy research and national research council research, we have the problem of the role of government in encouraging and assisting research undertaken by industry generally, in other words
Committee on Atomic Energy by private interests. I hope this committee will have the opportunity to examine most fully the policies of the government through an examination of members of the government and members of the proper government departments as to the policies and procedures being followed by the government in encouraging private enterprise, corporations or industries to undertake a larger part of the job of essential non-military research in Canada.
Very obviously a good part of the government's role in private research is involved in the operations and the policies of the income tax department. I believe that much more could be done by the government through income tax concessions in various forms to encourage private industry to itself undertake a greater measure of essential research. I also believe the government could encourage industry to stimulate purely creative research backed by industry by allowing as credits for income tax purposes, in other words the deduction from taxable income, grants to foundations, universities and scholarships awarded by corporations or industries to universities in order to further stimulate the broad field of research in industry in Canada.
One side effect, and an important one, of any expanded research program in Canada, both that undertaken by private industry and that undertaken by the government, would be in effect a measure of conservation of one of Canada's most vital resources. I refer, of course, to the research brains developed in Canada. There should be provided in Canada opportunities for our research brains to undertake creative employment within Canada in all phases of industry, and thus slow up the migration of a good part of our Canadian-produced talent to the United States and elsewhere in the world where the opportunities for research are greater than they are in Canada today.
In the few moments that remain before ten o'clock I should like to speak briefly about one or two phases of research in the hydrocarbon field which, of course, is of considerable interest to western Canada where we have such huge reserves of all forms of hydrocarbons. We have something like 40 billion tons of coal, and in the bitumen sands there is estimated to be something between 100 and 300 billion barrels of liquid bitumen. Then there are our vast resources of crude oil and natural gas.
In connection with the tar sands there has been co-operative research by government and industry for a good many years. This research has been in the usage of the tar
1736	HOUSE OF
Committee on Atomic Energy sands and is most vital to Canada, because those sands contain in the form of bitumen more than the entire resources of conventional crude oils in the world. Those tar sands constitute for Canada and for the world resources of almost limitless magnitude for the centuries ahead, when the more conventional types'of oil may be depleted.
For many years the national research council has undertaken extensive research into better methods of separating the bitumen from the sand, and so has the Alberta research council. During the last world war and for some years afterwards private industry undertook similar research. In the last year or two there have been some new developments.
A rather interesting one occurred more or less by accident. A man who was not a trained researcher, who was not a trained chemist or an engineer, carried out some experiments in the basement of his home in Calgary to determine some simple means of separating the bitumen wrapped around the grains of these tar sands of northern Alberta. By accident he finally hit on something which has considerable promise.
He found that if the bituminous sand was mixed with kerosene and then put through a centrifuge with cold, salty water there would be brought about a separation of the bitumen and the sand. In the last two years some hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent by private groups in an effort to turn this idea into an economically feasible method of separation of the bitumen and the sand.
Research is being carried a little further in an effort to develop more efficient and more economical means of mining these huge beds of bitumen sands in northern Alberta. Research is being carried on to a limited extent in connection with the next problem of what to do with the bitumen once it has been mined and separated from the sands.
There is a big field for the future in which government and private industry can spend not only a great deal of money but effort and time in the hope of arriving at a solution of the great problem of turning these tremendous natural resources into something that can be used for the good of this country.
In connection with coal there has been a great deal of research both in Canada and elsewhere in the world. Coal is now being turned into a great many products used by mankind. Some of our women are now wearing clothes made from coal, and there is a whole host of medicines derived from coal. Cosmetics and a full range of other products in everyday use are derived from the basic

product of black coal. The national research council has done a great deal of fine work in the development of coal-fired gas turbines, and research at McGill University has accomplished a great deal in that regard as well. This is a field of research which if continued to an effective conclusion should open up new prospects for one of Canada's depressed industries, the coal industry of the maritimes and the prairies.
Until a few years ago natural gas was considered a waste by-product of oil, but in the last two decades gas has become not only a fuel but a major raw material for the production of a whole host of chemical and petrochemical products. For example, during the last war natural gas which had been going to waste in the Turner valley field near Calgary, at a place called Hell's Half Acre, was used to produce munitions for the allied war effort. Natural gas combined with air provided the means of making munitions. That particular wartime plant near Calgary is now in operation combining the components of natural gas with the components of air to turn out fertilizers. The ammonia plant is now playing a most important part in the economy of that community, and is providing a sizeable portion of the chemical fertilizers being used in this country, with considerable left for export.
This procedure of turning gas and oil into a host of products has resulted from research. Today many products are being produced from hydrocarbons which are found in abundance in many parts of Canada. As an instance we have the gas, a petroleum byproduct, which provides the artificial rubbers being produced by the Polymer Corporation at Sarnia, and then we have everything from fertilizers, medicinal products, clothing and a whole range of chemicals that are now being produced. In the years to come there will be a long list of all sorts of products which will help to make Canada and the world a better place in which to live.
On motion of Mr. Nickle the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris:: As I indicated last week, we will begin tomorrow with the Department of Fisheries. If we happen to complete that department we shall take the resolution with respect to the special committee on railways and shipping. I assume that there may not be very much to be said on that, and it may go through. If there is still time we will take the resolution standing in my name on the order paper.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.