1959-04-06

Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which it seems to me affects every hon. member of this house. I have in my hands the St. John's Daily News for Thursday, March 26, in which, with reference to the announcement made by the Prime Minister regarding the terms of union, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) is quoted as follows:
Mr. Browne was quoted on radio station CJON as saying "There are 22 other members in the cabinet of Canada and I cannot expect to push my opinions down their throats."
Now, sir, it seems to me that in view of-


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: -the well understood doctrine of collective responsibility-


William Joseph Browne: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I can only hear one member at a time, and I am waiting to hear what the question of privilege is.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In view of the well known doctrine of collective responsibility it seems to me that the house is entitled to know from the hon. member for St. John's West, in view of that extraordinary statement, whether in fact he did concur in the decision of the government of Canada to repudiate the solemn obligation under the terms of union.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to prevent the hon. member for St. John's West from speaking to the question which has been raised as a question of privilege, but I do not see that it is a question of privilege.



RESEARCH


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, a special committee, representative of all parties, with power
to call witnesses and send for documents and papers, should be appointed for the purpose of examining and reporting upon the advisability of providing inducements to promote and accelerate activities in the field of research.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy on this occasion to speak on this subject from this side of the house. As you know, this matter has been of great interest for several years, not only to members of the House of Commons, but to the public in general throughout the country, and I am not overlooking those who are interested in science and research, including those in the research council, universities and different engineering and chemical societies. I have urged in the past, Mr. Speaker, that this committee be set up and given the power to call witnesses other than those on the government payroll.
For the record, I might state now that this subject has been discussed on three different occasions, in 1953-54, in 1955 and in 1956. Committees were set up on three different occasions to study the activities of the atomic energy control board and the national research council. But it was the idea of members of our party that in addition to those representing the atomic energy control board and those from the national research council, we should hear evidence from parties such as presidents of universities, the heads of industries, the heads of labour organizations including labour economists and also those such as Dr. Spinks, Dr. Stratford and others who made representations before the Massey commission some years ago.
It was in 1956 that the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) in discussing this subject also asked for an amendment to a motion which was before the house at that time concerning the national research council act. He asked that the motion be amended in order that we could send for persons, unclassified papers and records. That amendment was defeated in the house by a vote of 72 to 127. As a matter of fact all the members of the Conservative party were supported by the other two minority groups, namely the C.C.F. and the Social Credit. We feel that the committee would serve a much better purpose if it were allowed to call these outside witnesses. I think today research is one of the most important aspects of our economic life.
2250	HOUSE OF
Proposal to Increase Research Activities
I should like now to give the house a definition of research, because it is extremely broad. To me the term "research" is something like the term "time". It is a relevant term. Time may mean a fraction of a second or a millennium. In my opinion-and I think the house will agree with me-the term "research" is equally broad. The Oxford dictionary defines research as the endeavour to discover facts by scientific study of the subjects, which includes innovation, the development of new, better and more efficient ways of doing anything requiring human effort.
This country and the free world today are facing problems that are increasing in their importance, and I refer particularly to inflation. The part I hope to contribute will deal with productivity, in turn relating to research. I have a good example of that, for instance, in my own riding, where we have an extremely high productivity per person. In view of the evidence that has come before our committee on mines, forests and waters, 1 intend to relate something for the consideration of this house. It is in connection with the development of the Athabasca tar sands, something that was announced just a few weeks ago for the first time in Canada by one of our well-known scientists in that particular department. His name is Dr. Convey, who made a great contribution in that committee.
Before I go into that matter I should like to say that in Britain, as I have emphasized on previous occasions, they have a standing committee known as a parliamentary and scientific committee which deals primarily with questions relating to research in that nation. I am not going to repeat what has been said in previous years about the functions of that committee or what it has accomplished, but it is on record in many magazines which contain scientific data, emphasizing the success of that particular committee in Britain and giving that committee credit for bringing Britain out of the unfortunate situation in which she found herself after the second world war.
In former speeches, which I will read as part of the record, to which I know the advisers of the government have access and no doubt have studied, and will study, various representations were made when we argued on behalf of accelerated research in this country, not only in connection with meeting competition at home, but also to meet competition abroad. We have had illustrations of our accelerated research, as a matter of fact, in the agricultural field, in health and in other fields, and these are very important.
Mr. Speaker, on the question of productivity, which I think is very important, I would


now like to refer to a matter which was dealt with by this government just a few days ago when I asked the productivity per person per year in the 20 highest levels in this country. I think this is very pertinent information for this house, because it concerns a very important aspect of our national economy; and as I intend to argue later on, if we are going to beat inflation, which is our main problem in this country and elsewhere in the free world, we must increase productivity.
Before I submit these figures I realize, of course, that industries vary, productivity varies, and we must take all that into consideration. In Sarnia, which is an area which I have the honour to represent, according to the figures tabled by the government our productivity was $1 short of $22,000 per man per year. That is about twice as high as the next city, Beauharnois, which showed $11,000 odd; and the lowest in the 20 was Lachine with $7,153. That is the productivity per man per year. The tabulation also shows the average per capita for one year is $7,000.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that one way to overcome inflation, which is the curse of the free world today, is to increase that productivity. I am not suggesting that it can be done overnight, but I am going to say in all sincerity that there is a responsibility on every Canadian and every person in the free world to do their part in increasing that productivity, thus eliminating the curse of inflation. I say without hesitation that if we all put our shoulders to the wheel, whether we belong to a union or are one of the white collar workers, no matter what position we occupy in this country, if we did a little more and probably earned a little more we would put inflation into the background within weeks.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to refer to an advertisement which appeared in a recent issue of the Saturday Evening Post, I believe about a week ago, inserted I believe by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. This is one of the most important advertisements which I have read, and I am going to outline a few of the ideas contained therein. It says that there is a cure for inflation; that even a little inflation is bad. It goes on to say what the government can do. It can pay its current expenses out of its current income. This calls for discipline and courage in government. The article adds, under the subheading "What we can do to help" the following words:
We can urge and actively support economies in government-whether federal, state or local. This does not mean endangering national security or affecting vital services, but it does mean helping the government to limit spending to services which are truly necessary.
Cutting government expenditures is a job for everyone, if taxes and our government debt are

to be reduced. Reduction of both is extremely important in our fight against inflation.
Another paragraph reads:
We can buy prudently. It is always wise to get full value for our money. But, in time of inflation, it is even more important.
But I think the most important part of all is the paragraph which I am now going to read:
We can give a dollar's worth of value for every dollar we earn. Increased productivity is an effective way to help defeat inflation. Here is what President Eisenhower said about productivity :
"... if our efficiency does not increase, if our productivity does not rise, we . . . will tend to fall into the costly error of overpaying ourselves for the work we do. Along that road . . . lies the spur to further inflation."
I should also like to quote an article written by Mr. Solomon Fabricant which I happened to come across a few days ago. The title of the article is "Basic Facts on Productivity Change". It is described as occasional paper No. 63, and it was printed by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., in the United States. I am glad to say we have a representative on that committee. Mr. Fabricant is, I think, one of the best recognized economists in the free world, and here is what he has to say on page 1 of this pamphlet, which was published in 1959:
Productivity deserves the attention that it has received, for it is a measure of the efficiency with which resources are converted into the commodities and services that men want. Higher productivity is a means to better levels of economic wellbeing and greater national strength. Higher productivity is a major source of the increment in income over which men bargain and sometimes quarrel. And	higher-or	lower-productivity
affects costs, prices, profits, output, employment and investment, and thus plays a part in business fluctuations, in inflation, and in the rise and decline of industries.
Indeed, in one way or another, productivity enters virtually every broad economic problem, whatever current form or new name the problem takes-industrialization, or research and development, or automation, or tax reform, or cost-price squeeze, or improvement factor, or wage inflation, or foreign dollar shortage.
Productivity, as I think every member of the house would agree, is clearly allied with research, and we have contended in the past it is the responsibility of government to take the lead in accelerating research in this country in order that we may be better equipped to meet competition, particularly from abroad. In addition, as I have already emphasized, it has an important part to play in curbing the inflationary spiral.
I remember asking in the course of one of the speeches I made some years ago whether we were doing enough in the field of research in Canada, and the questions I asked in those days-and they were asked
6,	1959	2251
Proposal to Increase Research Activities by other members of this party besides myself-are even more important today than they were at that time. In the interval we have witnessed the arrival of the sputnik, a 1957 scientific venture of such importance that I do not think anything has excelled it during the last century.
I should like now to refer to our position in research with respect to what is taking place in our northland, the part of Canada which lies north of the mainland in the Arctic regions. I also intend to refer to the tar sands, because this subject was before the committee to which I have referred, and Dr. Convey made the startling statement that the tar sands in that area, which cover some 17,000 square miles, contain as much as 300 billion barrels of oil.
That is an astronomical figure. It is probably two and one half times the known resources of the remainder of the free world. If we calculate it according to the estimate of one barrel per cubic yard, the figure would be twice as great. In terms of dollars and cents, Mr. Speaker, that is well over $900 billion, if we use the figures of Dr. Convey. This is another figure which is almost beyond the comprehension of the human brain and it is something that we in Canada can be very proud of because we are very fortunate in having so many metals. I submit that now we must find greater use for many of those metals because we are finding, through research, that plastic is taking the place of lead, and so on. We have our gold lying underground instead of being used.
I want to relate what I mentioned a moment ago to the Athabasca tar sands. There have been some eight underground explosions in the United States, and as a result of those explosions it has been decided that the Richfield Oil Corporation, in conjunction with other interests, will make a similar test in Alberta which they expect will be successful. It is claimed by the scientists that they can now separate the sand from the oil which will again, as I say, be a tremendous benefit not only to this country but to the free world.
The point I am coming to, Mr. Speaker, is this. It is proposed that in this-I will not call it an experiment though in a way it is- there will be associated the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, the Department of National Health and Welfare, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the Alberta research council, the Alberta conservation board for gas and oil, the Richfield Oil Corporation and also the United States atomic energy group. I mentioned a moment ago that this technical group includes representatives from the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, and I believe our atomic energy board will be represented as well.
2252	HOUSE OF
Proposal to Increase Research Activities
Here we have a huge enterprise far surpassing anyone's imagination, with a potential which may be the greatest asset the free world has ever known and, according to our information at the moment, we in this country are going to rely entirely on United States research methods and application. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the recovery of the oil is to be brought about by exploding small atomic bombs some 1,200 or 2,000 feet below the ground, as the case may be, or some 200 feet below the tar sands. I was hoping to get information before I spoke today as to the number of bombs that would be required. They claim that this is going to be a successful operation. My submission is that we in this country should now accept our responsibilities as one of the foremost members of the commonwealth and establish our own separation plants in Canada for the purpose of doing in Canada the work that was proposed to be done by the atomic energy board of the United States.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that it was said in this house some years ago by the then minister of trade and commerce that we could make atomic bombs. We are still interested in using atomic energy for peaceful purposes by making bombs in this country. We now make cobalt and other bombs and we use isotopes for agricultural, medical and other purposes. Because we have probably the second largest known uranium ore bodies in the world-I think South Africa is first; as I recall the figures I think we produce about 30 per cent of the world's total-this project could be undertaken in this country.
It will be an expensive project. I noticed a proposal in the press on Saturday by the present president of Rio Tinto. He is calling for a joint federal-provincial research program of sufficient magnitude to assure Canada's position in the nuclear energy field. He believes that both the federal and provincial governments can count on the assistance of private industry. I assume he is referring to the uranium industry, which is a big industry in this country and still in its infancy. Therefore I suggest to the government in all sincerity that this is a new approach, a Canadian approach, to develop our uranium industry more or less independently of any foreign country but still within the British commonwealth of nations.
I make that suggestion because the development involved would require so many millions of dollars and so much export of plutonium and the other by-products that it would probably necessarily mean an association with the commonwealth, and our best customer which would be the United Kingdom. I see no reason, therefore, why this


idea cannot be explored now, not next year, to see whether or not this industry can be developed in Canada in conjunction with the private uranium interests-and their supply is huge-together with the financial assistance and co-operation of the United Kingdom. This may involve the expenditure of $750 million. I am simply drawing this figure out of a hat, but from what I know of the expenditures involved in the United States and elsewhere in developing fissionable products with a separation unit or industry, it would involve probably that amount of money or even more.
I say in all sincerity that we are just at the morning, you might say, of the atomic era. Now is the time for us to accept the challenge. The situation in the world being what it is today, I have no doubt that in this country this industry and this idea will receive favourable support. I am sure the Minister of Trade and Commerce has reviewed this idea personally, and I hope that before too long, before this operation takes place in the Athabasca tar fields, we can have the program under way. We know that uranium will be purchased under an agreement with the United States for some three or four years more, but we should not have this uncertainty in the business field. I think there is some uncertainty, though most of us cannot help but see a great future for the uranium industry in the development of atomic power for peaceful purposes.
Together with the idea of developing atomic energy for peaceful purposes we could have small nuclear power projects for use in this country and also for export. We may also be able to export these fissionable materials to other than commonwealth countries. I want to say here that I regret, as I think most people do, that we are handicapped in our ability to obtain valuable information from the United States because of legislative enactments made some few years ago in that country. As a result primarily of the espionage and spy trials in Canada the United States has not seen its way clear to share much of its information on matters having to do with fission with Great Britain and Canada in particular. I regret this situation, because after all we are in a great partnership, a partnership so important that it must not be allowed to break up; otherwise the security of the free world is in danger.
I have mentioned the oil and tar sands. Canada is engaged in the oil and gas industry, and research is so applicable to that industry. No country in the world today can surpass the reserves of oil and gas that we have. We are in a most enviable position, and I think most members will agree that in the days to come a great deal of our research will be in the petrochemical industry. We in Canada

have a high cost economy, but because a smaller amount of manpower is required in the petrochemical industry we can develop that industry successfully. Its development is only in its infancy. Up to now oil and gas have only been discovered in one part of our country and, unfortunately, not in other parts. Therefore it is going to cost something to transport these products.
So far as oil and gas are concerned, the important thing the government has under consideration at the moment is the setting up of an energy board. This is more important today than it ever was in the history of Canada, because this is the most important industry in Canada today. In the early days we had an agricultural economy, in later days a sharing of the economy by industry, but in the days to come I think our big development will be in the petrochemical field. As I said before, and it is worth repeating, we are in the enviable position of having such huge reserves of oil and gas. One reason there is such high productivity in Sarnia is that it is a petrochemical area. There are other areas in Canada, such as Montreal, which can be equally important because they must get their end products from gasoline or oil as the case may be.
I want to mention here that some time ago a few members of parliament went to Sarnia with me and visited the Polymer Corporation plant and some of the other chemical plants. They were astonished to find that the new Imperial Oil petrochemical plant, which cost approximately $30 million, is operated by eight men on a shift or 24 men to cover three shifts a day. That does not include maintenance men. We did not see any there that day, because it is a new plant and the number of maintenance men will be very few. I mention that as an example of an astonishing development through research, a development that means a great deal to the economy of Canada because we must increase our productivity. Automation has been under way for years. In my view it will be accelerated, because only through such acceleration can we have increased productivity.
There is another point I should like to mention. It concerns our situation in Canada, of having industries whose parent companies are in the United States or Great Britain. During the same tour to which I have referred we also went through the Dow Chemical plant, which cost $75 million to $90 million. The vice president took us on a tour of the plant, and I was very glad to hear him tell the members of the House of Commons who were present that the Dow Chemical plant had more Ph.D.'s than any other industry in Canada. I never realized that before, though I knew they had a large, highly 66968-9-143
Proposal to Increase Research Activities trained technical staff of engineers and others with higher training. To me that meant only one thing; it meant that in Sarnia there was a research laboratory that I had not realized was as important as it is.
That brings me to this point. Since discussions about research and the necessity of accelerated research first started in this country a number of plants have set up research divisions. Incidentally, I had the honour of being present when some of these laboratories were opened. I am only going to mention a few of them. In the last few years research divisions have been opened by Dupont, C.I.L., Shawinigan Chemicals, Polymer, Imperial Oil, Dow Chemical, Consolidated Mining and Smelting, Canadian Chemicals, International Nickel and others. Perhaps some hon. members have read the statement received in the mail this morning from Imperial Oil, or will read the one which I hope will come to hand within a few days from the Polymer Corporation. Former Polymer reports prove conclusively to anyone interested in reading them that the success of that huge crown corporation has been the result of research, and that industry certainly has an excellent research team.
-I mentioned a while ago that Dow Chemical was apparently doing more research than I thought was the case. I want to suggest now that many more United States industries with branch plants in Canada could well establish research divisions in this country, staffed with Canadian workers, in the same way Dow Chemical has done. I wish to give some reasons why United States industries could well consider establishing research divisions in this country. In the first place, the cost in Canada is lower. Unfortunately the salaries of Canadian scientists are not as high as the salaries of scientists in the United States, with the result that the cost of research is lower in Canada.
We welcome United States and other foreign capital to this country to aid in our development. We do not have the money to develop our country. We have the resources, and I submit that if United States industries would establish research laboratories in this country, as has been advocated over the years in practically every speech in the house on this subject, it would bring about better relationships.
I know that there are some who think there is too much United States investment in Canada. I do not agree with that view, and I do say that greater participation in research programs by Canadian subsidiaries of United States companies would make for better relationships.
Public relations is a very important aspect of the association of any two countries, and
2254	HOUSE OF
Proposal to Increase Research Activities especially our two countries because of the differences which have arisen as the result of quotas on many of our agricultural products as well as lead and zinc. Lead and zinc are perhaps not so important today as they were some years ago. The demand for copper is growing. Plastics are replacing some of the other base metals, and no doubt research will develop other uses for these products in the future.
There is another reason, and that is this would permit beneficial research work to be carried out in secluded spots. It is not necessary to have a research laboratory located at the back door or front door of an industry. In fact the best work is done by scientists who are remote from the industry. They are not the type of men who are going to punch a time clock. A research division could well be established in this country 500 or 1,000 miles away from the parent industry. This plan would make use of engineers who might be barred, because of quota restrictions, from entering the United States but who could be admitted to Canada.
I feel, therefore, that further representations could be made with a view to encouraging United States industries to set up research divisions in Canada. United States participation in our economic life is here and is here to stay. It is becoming more important every day. In order to make this participation more Canadian, these industries must take part in the fundamental approaches to our problems.
I am going to say now, Mr. Speaker, that since the government has been the major spender of funds in this field more stress should be laid upon research contracts, whether they be with industries or universities. I have maintained in the past that every campus should have a research team. Then those who want to obtain a greater amount of detailed knowledge in any particular field will go to the particular university in Canada specializing in that field. We have not had that situation in Canada, I am sorry to say. This fact was borne out three or four years ago when a team from a well known organization in Britain visited our universities and came to the conclusion that this country needed advancement in that particular field.
I do not believe the government should employ universities to do applied research. If that has been the practice in the past I do hope that in future this field will be left to industry.
I must say here, Mr. Speaker, and I regret not having said it earlier in my remarks, that I should like to pay high tribute to our scientists and engineers in the national research council and in the atomic energy field


at Chalk River. I was fortunate enough to be a member of the committee that visited Chalk River and, as a layman, I must say it required hours of intensive study to glean even the faintest idea of the job they were doing. This was one of the most interesting committees of which I have ever been a member. I am hoping, of course, that we will have another one, because it is important that the people of this country know what the government is doing, and know why so much money has to be appropriated for this purpose. As the years go by much more money is going to be required, not only by government but by industry as well to accelerate and promote research in this country.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must advise him that his time has expired.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, it would be much easier to speak to this resolution if it were couched in more specific terms. The resolution reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, a special committee, representative of all parties, with power to call witnesses and send for documents and papers, should be appointed for the purpose of examining and reporting upon the advisability of providing inducements to promote and accelerate activities in the field of research.
The operational words in this resolution would appear to be "the advisability of providing inducements". Now, so far as the idea of increasing and accelerating research is concerned, I am sure everybody in this house would be entirely in favour of that. If special inducements were required to bring this about then that, too, I am sure would receive hearty support from all sides of this house. Why this committee should need the power to send for documents and papers to achieve this objective is a little beyond my comprehension.
Specifically, the resolution calls for a committee to seek ways and means of increasing our research facilities. As I said, no one could quarrel with that objective, and I am sure every member in every part of this house will support it wholeheartedly. However, this resolution presupposes that we are not now doing as much as we ought, and that point I think is debatable. Research facilities are very costly, and what a country like Canada can afford to provide in that respect is limited by our population and by the financial resources we can allocate to that specific activity.
We must bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that we have a national research council which has done excellent work and has made a contribution to the world of science of which Canada can very well be proud. We think of the research work that has been done with

respect to the Arctic; the development of Arctic clothing for our troops; buildings for the Arctic. Then there was the atomic reactor at Chalk River which was a pioneer venture in that line, and the cobalt bomb. These are notable contributions which I think stand out all the more as Canadian contributions in view of the limited resources at our disposal.
Then we have the fisheries research board. While this body works very quietly and perhaps does not make the headlines, the fisheries research board is doing commendable work in exploring new types of fishing equipment and in finding ways and means of packaging and processing our fish in order to lower handling costs. In addition we have the Connaught laboratories. In that connection we can take pride in the contribution made through the discovery of insulin and more recently in the development of the Salk vaccine. Over the week end I was told, I do not know how true this is, that there were news reports to the effect that some Canadian scientist had developed a process for separating strontium 90 from calcium. I have not had the opportunity of verifying that report, but if it is a fact then that is a contribution which I believe the whole world will applaud.
I think the future health of our children and the effects of atomic fall-out are subjects which occupy the minds of people living everywhere, in all civilized countries. Then we have some research going on at various universities all across Canada. I think it was at McGill University that Dr. Rutherford first carried out the experiment which laid the foundation of nuclear physics. On top of that we have a fair amount of industrial research being carried out by private enterprise. Hence the amount of research already going on in Canada at the present time is not inconsiderable.
The resolution presupposes that this amount is not enough. Of course if we can find ways and means of improving our research facilities increasing the number of projects or providing new ideas for research, the committee will make a useful contribution. Certainly I cannot see how such a committee can possibly do any harm.
The resolution states that the purpose of the committee would be "to promote and accelerate activities in the field of research". Mr. Speaker, there are many fields of research. I presume that what this resolution means is that the purpose would be to promote research generally. I would prefer that the resolution pinpointed certain projects upon which the committee might concentrate. What I have in mind is research carried out to try to find solutions to our great national problems. At the present time we have several 66968-9-143i
6, 1959	2255
Proposal to Increase Research Activities national problems. We have a tremendous wheat surplus. We have a coal surplus in Nova Scotia. That coal cannot be sold economically in competition with coal from other countries. In my own province and along the Atlantic seaboard we have tremendous fish resources which do not yield a profitable return to the producer.
It seems to me that one of the answers to these problems must lie in the development of new products from these sources. If we could only find a way of using half our wheat surplus in order to produce some other product, our agricultural problem would be solved. If we could find ways and means of developing new products from our Nova Scotia coal the problem of the coal mines in Nova Scotia would be solved. If we could develop products such as plastics from our fish products in Newfoundland, our fishing industry would be much better off. If such a committee were set up, Mr. Speaker, I think these are the specific avenues to which I should like to see some attention directed.
The hon. member has laid great stress on productivity as a cure for inflation. I am afraid I cannot agree with him there. We have always increased our productivity, whether little or much; sometimes it has been 2 per cent and sometimes it has been 4 per cent, but an increase in productivity has not had much effect on inflation. Even if we could increase our productivity tenfold, unless the benefit of that productivity was passed along to the consumer I cannot see how it could possibly have any effect at all on the problem of inflation.
I would therefore make this suggestion. Before we set up a committee to seek ways and means of increasing research facilities or of developing some form of inducement- because all this procedure is going to cost money-it might perhaps be wiser if the committee confined its activities to finding ways and means of consolidating and co-ordinating the research facilities we already have. I believe there is room there for thought. In a country like Canada, with such a variety of interests, such a variety of climatic conditions and such a variety of natural resources, it is difficult to co-ordinate research projects and it is quite easy for unnecessary duplication to exist.
I should therefore think that the first duty of this committee would be to assess the facilities that we already have, and to seek ways and means of consolidating them in order to avoid any overlapping. Then if the committee could assure the house that it was practicable to spend a large sum of money on additional facilities, I am sure everyone on this side of the house would be glad to support such an expenditure.
2256	HOUSE OF
Proposal to Increase Research Activities


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member tor Lambton West has persevered in this general field now for many years. I wish to compliment him and to congratulate him on bringing this general subject before the House of Commons for discussion from time to time. I do not think I have listened to anyone introducing a private member's motion who made a better speech and received less attention in the house than did the hon. member who spoke this afternoon on this subject. A larger number than usual of private conversations were going on. There was a background rumble. Almost nobody seemed to be paying attention to the speech.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Only half a dozen members are present in the opposition.


Hazen Robert Argue: What I have said is no reflection on my part-on the contrary-on the speech that has been delivered by the hon. member. I think it is the inevitable result of the general attitude of this government toward private members' days and private members' resolutions. We seem to be getting into the position where it is the accepted practice that when a private member's resolution comes before the house, a vote is not taken on the motion. Every devious means under the rules is used to avoid a vote. The private member's motion, though it may be very innocuous and though it may be non-controversial, and as far as anyone reading Hansard is concerned everybody may seem to be for it, is either lauded to death by being talked out or somewhere along the line in the proceedings a member, usually on the government side of the house, stands up and adjourns the debate.
Then there seems to be another innovation in this general method of dealing with these motions and it is this. If there is a controversial one-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is departing from the subject matter before the house. I think there may be times and occasions when he could make these remarks, but it does not seem to me that he ought to take for that purpose the time that is allotted to this debate.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a plea that this motion be voted on. It is of sufficient importance that it should come to a vote. As far as we have been able to learn this afternoon the subject is not a controversial one. I would think no one is opposed to it, so surely this motion we are discussing is the kind of motion on which the government should allow a free vote, as on occasions in the past when we have discussed other private members' motions.


I think it is in order to mention how this particular motion got on the order paper in the first place. Of course the hon. member filed the motion, as dozens of motions have been filed, on the order paper. There was a practice existing for a long time that private members' motions were introduced for discussion according to the time they reached the office or hands of the clerk of the order paper; the motions were taken in the order in which they reached the clerk's hands. With this motion, as with others, in recent times the practice has been to have a kind of grab bag; they all go into the bag and a motion is pulled out. I do not think that is the best method of closing the order in which motions are placed on the order paper. I do not think it is in keeping with the best parliamentary procedure.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I cannot allow the hon. member to follow that line at this time. His remarks are really dealing with the business of the house, and the order paper is the business of the house. We are now discussing a specific motion.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I think it is proper to get on the record the means by which these motions come before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: There is a time when everything can be put on the record relevant to the business of the house. The only matter which is relevant now is the motion which the hon. member for Lambton West has moved.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if the acting leader of the government would be good enough to permit a vote on this motion, when the matter goes to the appropriate committee for discussion one of the question on which a good deal of research might be undertaken is the whole question of how we handle-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's speech will shortly be terminated if he does not follow a more relevant course.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, as to the terms of this motion I had noted some time ago that I was going to challenge the Minister of Trade and Commerce to make the position of the government known, because in his department there is a kind of carryover from the time of Right Hon. C. D. Howe, who was at one time in charge of that department, of many of the questions and many of the general areas of research which have been raised by the hon. member who introduced this motion. I think it would be most enlightening if hon. members could be given the position of the government on this question.
Mr. Speaker, it is all very well for a private member to introduce a motion, and

for one hon. member after another to get up to speak on the subject matter of the motion. But it would be most interesting to hear what the government's view is on the subject raised by this particular motion. Somebody may say to me, "Well, all right; this is a private member's motion and we should not have a statement from the government in the field of research." But I submit that if any private member's motion, and I am talking of this motion in particular, is to serve the purpose set forth in the terms of the motion, it is necessary to hear the position of the government.


Mr. Brooks:: Well, let us hear your position. You are supposed to be making a speech on this.


Hazen Robert Argue: You will get my position. I think I have already congratulated the hon. member, if the minister happened to be in his chair at that time, for the great work he has done in this regard. I said that we supported the terms of the motion. I would be very interested to hear from the minister what the government's position is, and I would ask him this question. Is the minister prepared, or is any member of the cabinet this afternoon prepared, to state the position of this government, as to whether or not it favours the establishment of a committee for the purpose of examining and reporting upon the advisability of providing inducements to promote and accelerate activities in the field of research?
Surely the hon. member who introduced the motion has the right to expect a reply from a member of the government. It is one thing for cabinet ministers to talk about the need for general research, but in a debate like this which has been initiated by a member of the Conservative party it would seem that now is the appropriate time to hear from the government what its position is. I see that we now have two cabinet ministers in the house, which is not bad for a private member's motion; I have seen the attendance of the cabinet down to a smaller number than that.
Mr. Speaker, there are a great many areas in which research would be most helpful to this nation. A number of them have already been mentioned. I would suggest that in the field of health there is need for expanding research in the field of cancer. The Minister of National Health and Welfare stated in the house the other day that there is no great effort being made in this field by the government. There is co-operation with the cancer society and some small sums of money are made available, but there is no co-ordinated or substantial research initiated by this government in this field.
Proposal to Increase Research Activities
The greatest killer of all, we are told, is heart disease. Here is a field in which this government should take the lead; and a lead, I might add, Mr. Speaker, in co-operation with other governments, because the field of health is one which is not confined to the borders of any given country. In the field of health a substantial amount of very valuable work might be done even if this committee never went beyond it. In the United States congress there are representatives who have taken a great interest in establishing international associations to develop research in the field of health. This is certainly something which Canada should promote at every opportunity.
There is great need and opportunity for research in the general field of mental health. For many years in Canada people with mental illness have been confined to mental institutions not much better than our jails. These institutions are merely places of detention, where little care or treatment is given the patients. This attitude toward our mentally ill is changing in our nation. As we approach mental health in a progressive manner a larger and larger percentage of cures is obtained. Here is a field in which research is necessary; it is a field of great opportunity.
Much mention has been made of the need for research in the general scientific field, particularly in regard to the various problems affecting the petrochemical industry in Canada. That is an industry of growing importance. It is an industry with growing problems in which research might be most helpful. There is also the question of how Canada's research in the Arctic region could be increased and expanded. There is a growing body of very disturbing evidence that Canada knows little about its north, that in the field of research in the north Canada is far behind.
As a matter of fact Canada today is to a very large extent dependent for knowledge of its own northland on reports made by scientists of the U.S.S.R. Canada can certainly not be happy in a position such as this, and there is no question but that we should be exploring our own land and developing research in this remaining frontier. From evidence which is already in the hands of the public, and evidence given before a committee of this house during the present session-I understand I may not refer to this evidence and I will not do so in any specific way-it is clear that prominent scientists feel there is a crisis in research as far as the Canadian northland is concerned.
This is a most important motion, because it is so comprehensive and because it deals with the whole field of research in general.
2258	HOUSE OF
Proposal to Increase Research Activities The Prime Minister has in the past waxed very eloquent about the need for increased research and the need for more scientists. Now we should like to see something more than eloquence, something more than campaign speeches in this field; and I hope the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who makes such a worthy contribution in his own department and who as a cabinet minister is so highly regarded among hon. members-my deskmate keeps reminding me of the very high regard in which the minister is held, and I share his view-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: He has been doing some research.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am very glad to hear that. I am going to ask my deskmate to tell us in what category, as a result of his research, he places the other cabinet ministers, because I understand that he places the Minister of Veterans Affairs very high on the list. I think he could make an interesting contribution to this debate if he would inform us how the other cabinet ministers stack up. But I should like to hear from the Minister of Veterans Affairs and from other senior cabinet ministers what attitude the government takes toward this motion.
There are other areas of research, in addition to those I have just mentioned, which require immediate attention. For instance, I think the committee could do marvellous work in inquiring into what could be done to bring employment opportunities to the half a million Canadians who are unemployed today. Surely this is the kind of emergency proposition which the committee should take into consideration. This is important not only because of its effect on the lives of those Canadians who are unemployed, but because of its bearing on the taxpayers throughout this country who have to find the payments which must be made and need to be made to those who are out of work. Here is an opportunity-and perhaps this is most important of all-to restore the $2,000 million of production which is lost because half a million people are idle. Surely, to add $2,000 million to the gross national product of this country is something which would be worth a great deal of research on the part of such a committee if this motion were allowed to pass.
Then again there is the question of inflation. We are going to hear something about the government's stand on inflation in the budget, in addition to the comments we have heard from the government so far this session. But when we have seen the dollar eroded by 50 per cent in the last generation it is obvious that this is a question which must surely deserve a great deal of research.


Then there is the whole matter of the position of the agricultural industry and the way it has been allowed to lag and fall behind. If I might be allowed, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that there is another subject of research which this committee might well undertake, namely to inquire whether the technique of deficiency payments is one which is scientifically correct and which should be used to a greater extent than at present-


Mr. Speaker:: I admit that the hon. member has used a certain ingenuity in suggesting these various fields of research, but it seems to me that he is taking liberties with the motion.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, when they ask me back in my constituency, back in Saskatchewan, what the difference is now in the way parliament operates with a reduced opposition, I tell them that in many respects it is very much the same as it has always been; that the most controversial question in the House of Commons is often problems affecting agriculture. So this is a question upon which heated comments are often made. However, you have ruled that this is not a matter for research under the terms of the motion now being discussed, so I will continue-


Mr. Caihers:: I hope not for long.


Hazen Robert Argue: What was that?


Cecil A. (Tiny) Cathers: I hope not for too long.


Hazen Robert Argue: Now, that is a brilliant contribution. The hon. member is improving. I think that is one of the most brilliant statements he has made for some time. He is on the record, anyway, so we have noted his attendance today.
The next item I have in my notes refers to the need for research in the whole field of labour legislation in this country. This is one of the questions which vex our democratic procedure. It is a question to which Canadians all across the country are giving deep thought, and I hope it is a question which the hon. member who introduced this motion would agree is suitable to come within the terms of his proposal, and one which would lead to the betterment of life in this country for all Canadians.
There are many subjects which could be dealt with. One of the questions which such a committee could discuss is how the whole field of research in this country could be co-ordinated so as to improve our standard of living, and so as to retain sovereignty for the Canadian nation. We are all aware-and certainly from reading speeches made by hon. members opposite, supporters of the

government are aware-of the need to guard Canadian sovereignty and the need to go forward with the development of research in the north, in the field of national relations, to ensure that the integrity of the Canadian nation is maintained. Here is a comprehensive sphere in which this committee could do very valuable work.
I have listened on many occasions to the hon. member for Lambton West speak on the need for scientific research, and I know that when he introduces this motion he does so because he believes-and I agree-that he is doing something which is most useful and which is providing a very valuable subject for debate in this house. I hope the members of parliament associated with him, and those in the other parties, will do justice to this motion by allowing it to come to a vote and passing it unanimously, thus demonstrating to the country that parliament is interested in research and that Canada in the days ahead will use research in order to increasingly promote our national well being.


Mr. Alexander Best (Halion):: Mr. Speaker,
I am very happy to support the resolution of the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy). To my mind this is one of the most important resolutions which could be placed before the house. The whole subject with which it deals in rather large and general terms is to my mind again one field which perhaps has more potential for contribution by this government and by the actions of such a committee than almost any other field that we could investigate and embark upon.
Of course, a resolution of this type and nature has been before the house for several years, and I feel that every member in the house must congratulate the hon. member for Lambton West on his interest and tenacity in pursuing this subject. It is one which is perhaps controversial only to a degree; I would say, to the extent one carries out investigations into research itself or the extent of government aid to research. We can see this generally in the speeches that have gone immediately before from the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). I would just comment, however, that the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo in his remarks, with which I would generally agree, was negative; the tenor of his remarks was negative. He said he could not see how this committee could possibly do any harm. That might be true, but I think it is a rather negative observation on the tremendous need we have in Canada to study and to accelerate this whole process of research.
6,	1959	2259
Proposal to Increase Research Activities
I would also add that several of our present cabinet ministers have spoken on this resolution in the past and supported it actively in the years when they were in opposition. I would strongly urge that action on this committee be taken, and that the government set it up as reasonably soon as possible. There is a counterpart of this committee in Great Britain. There they have a very interesting committee which has had a most useful effect over the last few years. It is called the parliamentary and scientific committee.
The first one was founded in 1939 and it included members of all parties of the House of Commons of Great Britain. It replaced at that time the former parliamentary science committee. The present committee in Great Britain is one of a number of informal parliamentary groups. Incidentally, membership is open to members of parliament and to nominated representatives from various other institutions such as universities and other non-profit institutions. This standing committee, acting as it does on a regular basis, provides an interchange of most important information, a constant interchange of information between those trained scientists and the members of parliament, or those people, in other words, who are legislating upon matters which must inevitably affect the growth of scientific progress in any country.
This is something which I believe is called for here, although the structure of our committee might be somewhat different. It is something that we very much need in Canada and it is something which this resolution calls for. I think the need for research in Canada is unquestioned. We have a history of research going back many years, but it has been the experience of all countries of the world that almost inevitably governments, either federal or provincial, as we have them in Canada, have had an ever increasing part to play in the fostering and advancing of research.
In the general sense of scientific and fundamental social research it has been the feeling that these are fields which it has not appeared wise to leave entirely to industry or to universities. They are fields which need some co-ordination in research and in many instances it comes down to matters of finance from governments. I think this is particularly true in Canada today. We are a small nation of some 17 million people; we are a trading nation, tremendously dependent upon export and we are a nation facing the problem, as the hon. member for Lambton West mentioned, of productivity and ever-increasing costs and the problems of competition,
2260	HOUSE OF
Proposal to Increase Research Activities competition within North America and competition all around the world.
This puts a premium on research in Canada. We do not have the great internal markets which many nations such as the United States, for instance, have, and which cushion them somewhat against costs. All of which creates a need for greater ingenuity with which to produce industrial products. This, of course, is just one aspect, the economic aspect, of fundamental research and applied research, and the eifect which it must have on each and every one of us in the products we buy and their relative costs. Because of the position in which we now find ourselves Canada should probably be in the very forefront of research expenditure on a per capita basis. Probably there should be a premium placed on our ability in Canada today to use our ingenuity, our research establishments and our brain power to make up for the problems we have in a widely scattered population and the heavy costs which they generally incur.
We have as well the tremendous defence problems with which the free world and we in North America are faced. These problems of defence are dependent, of course, partially upon scientific research. We have our own defence research board, of course. This is a fundamental problem and one which is typical today. We have seen, of course, in the last two or three years particularly, that defence can shade almost imperceptibly into economic defence as well. In other words, defence research may be connected partially with producing products in a more imaginative fashion and at lower costs to compete in the economic structure which we are facing more and more in this world and which is allied to our military defence problem. The threats that we have been facing from Russia are a culmination of those two facts, with the problem of economic defence or offence thereby causing our research interests to come to the forefront more and more in the last two or three years.
This committee would be a tremendously important thing in Canada. It could gather together from all across our land leaders in the scientific world, leaders in industrial research, people from various government departments, many of whom are now engaged in fundamental and applied research and, I think perhaps most important of all, leaders from our universities across Canada, those institutions which to my mind must be the bulwark and the foundation of fundamental research in this country.
We have faced in Canada this growing need for additional research and we have been feeling our way, so to speak, into the


interrelationship between the various parties involved in this problem. By "interrelationship", of course, I mean our federal and provincial governments, our various educational institutions, our industries and other groups of that nature. I should like to treat this interrelationship as a part of the problem which this committee, if set up, would study, because while I feel that financial aid is, of course, a most important necessity on the part of the federal government, I think that can only be carried out as a result of concurrent studies of the interrelationship of our various research organizations. They are complex. They have grown gradually as is natural with a small country, but they have now increased to a fair size and complexity and perhaps there are changes to be made which might be of great advantage.
Before the first world war Canada was engaged in a very moderate amount of research in various places. We were then and are still to a certain extent a country of tremendous natural resources and the problems then wrere more those involving engineering advances, transportation, power and utilities. The focus was more on moulding our vast raw resources into a coherent whole which could make this country function as a unit. We are still, of course, particularly in view of our emphasis on our north country, faced with the problem of the heavy structural integration of Canada as a whole.
The first world war brought up a number of interesting matters and one might say that it more or less started the Canadian government on the road to its role in research. This came about in 1916, I believe, when the Canadian government and the government of Great Britain, incidentally, set up very similar groups to study research in their respective countries. At that time the Canadian government created a cabinet committee of six ministers and on their recommendation an honorary advisory council for scientific and industrial research was established. From that we have seen the rise of the present national research council.
The background of development in Great Britain is rather interesting. It came about partially because of the tremendous industrial surge of Germany, the government of that country having taken a very active part in fostering research before the first world war. In Great Britain this had been done to a limited extent but research had largely been in the field of the various learned societies such as the royal society and the royal institute of London. The German government, however, played a very active part and the results of its active participation in research were reflected in

German industry. We saw there at that time a very rapid technological build-up.
Partly as a result of this there was considerable stimulus in Great Britain and Canada toward the formation of a committee which would involve the government more in productive research. The setting up of the national research council after that time grew out of the cabinet committee and in 1928 the government started the erection of a national research council laboratory which was opened in 1932.
In the following years until 1939 or 1940, research activity on the part of the government grew slowly but at the time of the second world war there was a tremendous expansion in this field. Throughout the second world war various laboratories across the country, including several here in Ottawa, were engaged in defence research. This was still within the scope of the national research council and the effort during those war years was naturally of a more applied nature having in mind technological advances, the solving of various problems and successes which could contribute directly to our war effort. Some of the matters one might mention which were the subject of research were various medical fields, radar, biological warfare and so forth. Those are some that come to mind.
However, after the war it became obvious that the defence part should probably have a separate entity, and separate representation. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the whole structure and interrelationship of the defence research board as it came into being and that of the national research council and other organizations would bear close scrutiny by such a committee as it is proposed should be established. The encouragement of research by additional funds must be related to the structure and interrelationships of the various bodies now engaged in fundamental research.
The defence research board was created shortly after the second world war and was set up in much the same manner as the national research council, with which I should like to deal again in a few moments. Representatives of each of the armed services are members of the board and at the present time, as well as over the past few years, there is considerable interlocking of membership with the national research council. However, structurally the defence research board is a unit and entity within the Department of National Defence.
The defence research board has made a very considerable contribution to research in this country. It gives grants in aid of research to universities and operates as well
Proposal to Increase Research Activities an extensive system of laboratories throughout the country. Much of its research, of course, has been devoted to applied work of direct interest to the armed forces. One can think of laboratories such as that at Suffield, Alberta, the northern laboratory at Churchill, Manitoba, the medical laboratory in Toronto and the armament and research development centre at Quebec city as examples of the places at which these activities are carried out. While in the defence research board the emphasis has been on applied research, there has been considerable success as well with fundamental work, some of it carried out at universities.
The national research council was the predecessor of the defence research board, from which the latter split off as a separate group. The national research council consists at the present time of some 21 members, four of whom are paid officials. The remaining 17 are selected from the universities and industry. I would suggest that a number of these people be interviewed by the committee and be asked to present their thoughts on Canadian research because I think that in a general way their experience is probably more widespread in the field of Canadian research than is the case with the members of any other single group.
The president of the national research council presides over the council and is also in charge of the laboratories which the council operates. Three vice-presidents, paid officials of the council, are responsible for administration, medical research and science respectively. The national research council is not a government department but a separate organization which has the responsibility of the operation of its own laboratories and for assistance to scientific and engineering departments of Canadian universities in pursuing research work. The council, as members know, reports to the committee of the cabinet and it is the chairman of this committee, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill), who presents the council's budget to parliament.
It might be said that aid from the national research council to universities for research is substantially greater than that from any other Canadian body. These funds for research are devoted to both fundamental and applied research. There are various scientific divisions within the national research council such as applied biology, pure and applied physics, and pure and applied chemistry. Those are some of the divisions that come readily to mind. Laboratories are not operated by the council in the field of medical research. The vice president
2262	HOUSE OF
Proposal to Increase Research Activities in charge of this subject works with universities and other institutions in this particular field. The vice president in charge of medical research also presides over the medical committee which recommends awards and scholarships to be made in the medical field.
There are as well, and I think this is an interesting point, some 28 associate committees of the national research council for the purpose of planning programs of research and education as well as bringing into these committees representatives of the various government departments, universities and industries which are directly involved in research.
Of course, one would be remiss if he did not mention nuclear research in Canada. This, in many of its aspects, is again the outgrowth of work done by the national research council. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, a crown company, grew out of the work that had been done some 10 years previously in the national research council. This crown company collaborates with industry in the development and use of atomic energy. We have, as well, the atomic energy control board which handles the distribution of radioactive materials in Canada and awards grants in aid for research in this field to various educational institutions.
I should like to go back for a moment, Mr. Speaker, to the question of where we go from here, particularly as that question relates to the national research council. As I said before, I feel that the universities should be the mainstay of fundamental research in Canada. I feel, not being critical of the council as such, that we have a basic problem of organization in that we have a unit which is both running laboratories on its own, with a very considerable staff, which has considerable investment and production interest, and which is also granting funds for similar or different research to other institutions, mainly universities. This dual role is perhaps a difficult one, perhaps an unwise one, for an institution or a council to be undertaking. I would say, however, it was probably a natural procedure. However, the question arises as to whether or not these roles would be better separated in the future.
We have, as an example, in Great Britain, the formation of three councils. These councils are the medical research council of Great Britain; the agricultural research council of Great Britain; and the department of scientific and industrial research, which is actually a government department and takes up, so to speak, the other areas of industrial and technical research, general biological, physical and chemical research. There are,


in this way, three divisions and not the one organization as we have at present in the national research council. These three organizations report directly to the cabinet. I think that possibly this is a move which might be studied by this committee, if it were set up. Advice could be sought on this question from the people in industry, from the members of the national research council themselves, from the scientists in various government departments engaged in research as well as from the people in universities who are the recipients of a considerable proportion of the money which the national research council grants each year.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that the increase in the funds* for the national research council has been a very encouraging sign. We can scan the expenditures of the national research council and find that in the year 1952-53, for example, $15,400,000 were expended, and much the same in the following 2 years. Coming along to 1955-56, we find that just over $16 million were expended; 1957-58, $20.2 million. Then we see, in the estimates for 1958-59 and 1959-60 very significant increases. In 1958-59 the figure is $25,992,000, while in 1959-60 the figure is $30,133,000. This is a very rapid rate of increase and is, I believe, an important sign of the increasingly important place given to research in this country. I feel that one of the most important points in this connection is that the larger proportion, perhaps 75 per cent or more, of the budget each year is spent on the council's own laboratories, staff and research work. The remainder is used for grants in aid of research and scholarships to universities.
The amount spent on these grants in aid of research and scholarships has jumped very appreciably in the last two years. We had an item in the estimates last year, 1958-59, of almost $6 million for scholarships and grants in aid of research, while in 1959-60 this item has risen to $7,957,000, an increase of $2 million in that period. This money goes largely to our educational institutions. We do not have in these institutions a separate body of research workers but instead, a constantly growing and self-perpetuating body of graduate students, teachers and others who are encouraging and engaging in research. This is a fundamentally sound point about which the people in the research fields across Canada feel rather strongly. It is unwise to separate, to put a wall around a research institution, aside from certain ones connected with defence work, and lose close communication with educational and teaching institutions such as our universities.

This is an important matter. I believe that research should be connected with the universities and educational institutions as much as possible. I would advocate, Mr. Speaker, that this committee might examine the British scheme. As the hon. member for Lambton West mentioned, research groups could be attached to universities across Canada. I can think of no country that would benefit more from the establishment of specialized teams. For example, these people could look into certain aspects of biological, medical, or chemical research and other fields. We, in Canada, can rarely afford the manpower, or the finances of having more than one of these highly specialized groups, but perhaps a council could formulate a plan whereby we could overcome this fundamental problem which we have in Canada today by encouraging research groups.
In many of our specialized fields we simply do not have in Canada adequate facilities for training. A university by itself can generally afford-speaking financially and also in a manpower sense-one man and one man only who is a specialist, let us say, in the diseases of fish, and this subject is used just as an example. It is necessary to give training to graduate students and personnel in universities in order that we can have these people trained and employed in Canada. The need is great. There is a crying need in many fields. With these research groups, one group per specialized field, so to speak, and many of these groups attached to our educational institutions right across Canada, we could give training in depth of knowledge. I think this would be a tremendous step forward in the way of progress.
I might add while mentioning the establishment of a separate medical research council, that a committee headed up by Doctor Farquharson of the university of Toronto, vice president of the national research council in charge of medical research is now studying organization problems. This committee established by the Minister of Trade and Commerce is investigating this whole situation, and should report sometime in the near future.
The small research groups which have played such an important part in general research in Great Britain would be one of the important matters that we should deal With. I would think that this committee, should be one which would first of all make an over-all survey of existing research in Canada, look at the over-all picture first of all and see what areas are most in need of federal assistance or federal reorganization of bodies which come under our jurisdiction. But the committee after that could go on
6, 1959	2263
Proposal to Increase Research Activities as a continuing group which each year during the sessions of parliament or perhaps at other times than during the sessions of parliament could continue to study the various aspects of research in Canada and keep the members of this house up-to-date on the various specialized fields. There is a gap- and I think this gap probably widens each year-between technological and scientific research advances which have made our world almost a wonderland, and our knowledge of them; our ability to legislate in the fields- because we must deal and grapple with these problems-has not increased to a comparative degree. There is a liaison gap there which this committee could fill and where it could play a part which would be of tremendous importance in the years ahead.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I were not to mention some other research which is going on in Canada at the present time. We have various government departments, of course, engaged in the field of research. The Department of Fisheries has a fisheries research board, with stations on the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts, and another station, I believe, in the province of Quebec. The Department of Mines and Technical Surveys has a mines laboratory. The Department of National Health and Welfare maintains laboratories generally for the protection of public health. The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources has a forest research division and a forest products laboratory. We have seen these various areas of research. One can also add to this the various provincial institutions which are engaged in research, largely applied to industry, particularly industries in the provinces concerned. The federal Department of Agriculture sponsors a great deal of important research. We have seen the reorganization of the federal Department of Agriculture. I refer to the reorganization of the experimental farm services and the science service portion of that department. I think this is a natural outflow of the interrelationships which come about in research. In this day and age one cannot be, let us say, a wheat plant breeder without some knowledge of plant pathology, genetics, soils and so on. The various departments which had been separated and are being brought together in this reorganization scheme provide an example within the Department of Agriculture of an over-all reorganization and channelling of information and research. We should look at this example when studying research in this country. The Department of Agriculture for many years has carried on much useful research in Canada. Probably one could look again at our universities. I have mentioned that the universities are the main stage of
2264	HOUSE OF
Proposal to Increase Research Activities most of our fundamental research drama, and I believe this should continue.
We can look at our industries. The industries in Canada are spending a considerable amount of money on research and development. I think the figures would indicate that in 1955, for instance-and I am reading from the commercial letter of the Canadian Bank of Commerce of September 1957-between $65 million and $66 million were spent during that year. But again in this small country of ours we face a problem. Many of our large companies, those most able to conduct research, are subsidiaries, so to speak, in many cases, of parent companies in Great Britain or in the United States, and the research activities have been carried out by those parent companies to the detriment, perhaps, of research in Canada; certainly to the detriment of the development of personnel and institutions within the particular industry in Canada.
But this situation is changing. The hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) mentioned the chemical industry. I think that is a prime example. In the chemical industry, the engineering industries and the forest products industry we have seen the growth of laboratories. I think we should challenge industry to increase the growth of industrial research. In our tax laws, allowance is made as some five per cent of taxable income is deductible if used for research by companies. I am not certain as to the situation, Mr. Speaker, but it would be interesting to know in how many cases that five per cent of taxable income deduction for research purposes was made use of by various industrial companies. In some cases, if the projects are approved, that figure can be larger than five per cent.
Two or three years ago the industrial foundation on education was organized. I think there is here a potential opportunity for small companies and medium-size companies with related interests to band together and form research organization. I believe there are one or two of these in existence in Canada at this moment. They have been a very successful part of the research scene in Great Britain, where they receive government encouragement and some government assistance. In various cases industrial or trade groups could join together and pool some of their resources, within the framework of competitive industries, in order to solve a number of research problems so as to make better products or increase productivity. This then, is the research scene as I see it in Canada at the moment. I think that a first and long step forward would be the establishment of this committee of the House of Commons, to examine the whole of the research
.

scene and report back to this house. There is no doubt whatever that we need increased research facilities and probably increased reorganization in our various institutions. I am sure that this committee could serve as a foundation for information to the government, and as an ideal liaison group to accomplish this purpose.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the splendid address made by the mover of this motion and I, like those who have gone before me, would like to congratulate him for his long-standing interest in this subject of such vital importance to Canada, to its parliament and to its people. I know that for many years the hon. member has pioneered in this particular arena in presenting his views and calling for greater consideration of the question.
I have listened with great interest to the most comprehensive coverage of the question of research presented by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Best). I, in my turn, should like to address a few remarks to you, sir, on the question of research as it affects the field of the social sciences. I may say that if my remarks are brief, such brevity is not at all proportionate to my interest in this great question and to the heartiness of my support of the resolution before us. I was quite interested in the discussion of the hon. member who preceded me dealing with the subject of industrial research and technological and technical research. All of this is of tremendous importance, and in the fast-moving world in which we now live we have daily reminders of the vital importance of this very question. There are some who say that international competition and conflict at the present time may appear occasionally to be due to something which is taking place in the classrooms or the research laboratories of various nations. But while that is of tremendous importance, I think we must also regard those matters which are not of a technical nature. I was most impressed to read in the first annual report of the Canada Council words to which I subscribe wholeheartedly:
The country's surging growth, with the promise oii still greater prosperity and even more leisure, poses its own problems. Life and business are likely to become more complex. People will need more "know-how" in industry and business and also greater skill to manage themselves, to enjoy their leisure, to control their environment and to use their machines. All this points to the need for more education-more training of engineers, scientists, and business men, of course-but also for greater numbers of inspired and talented teachers, of artists, humanists and social scientists, and of thinkers of every sort.
Material prosperity alone will not make a great nation. As we press on to push back the frontiers

of material progress, we must aim to advance on the spiritual front, and advance in our artistic expression as a nation.
I agree with the preceding speakers who emphasized and underscored the need for encouragement and advancement of research, which the proposed committee would undertake. But I believe that in the field of social sciences the need is even more acute. In this field few institutions are engaged other than the universities. I was much impressed when the member for Halton pointed out that the fundamental role must be played by the universities, and I think too that it is only in a limited area that the research function can be totally separated from a teaching function.
I was impressed when the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) told us about the increasing research programs of various business corporations. I think this is all to the good, but in the field of social sciences, except for economics and perhaps for those fields of psychology related to personnel management, the burden is left almost completely to the universities. When we consider the need for the furthering of research facilities we must look to the existing functions, roles and opportunities of our Canadian universities. Surely in this field we find very little room for complacency. We find that university faculties are overworked, with too many classes and too little time for research. They use the expression in universities that the head of the department holds the chair in that subject. One Canadian university professor said that he had not a chair but a settee, since he headed three departments and taught four different subjects.
We find, too, that equipment is inadequate and that it is difficult to meet the ordinary demands of the undergraduate population which is ever increasing in these times. You cannot carry on social science research without an adequate library, to say the least. You find, too, that the trained minds who must carry out research in the field of social science are troubled by economic considerations which limit their usefulness in the research aspect of their work. Many university professors instead of pursuing a research program during the vacation period find it necessary to engage in the rather arduous and onerous duties of teaching summer school. When I refer to this question, I am not speaking academically; I understand from personal experience just what is involved. Often the sabbatical leave arrangements are very inadequate. Sometimes the grants which are given are given reluctantly and niggardly, if at all.
Now may I go to something which the hon. member for Halton touched on when he spoke for other areas of research. We find in
6, 1959	2265
Proposal to Increase Research Activities a country like Canada that we are constantly losing our trained researchers. It is said that we normally find that about 50 per cent of Canadian graduate students leave Canada and carry on their research work or their teaching work in the United States. It is necessary for many of them to go to the United States or the United Kingdom to carry on their Ph.D or perhaps their M.A. program, and then having been established in a United States university the opportunities are such that about half of them do not return to Canada.
Then there is the old question of too few scholarships and fellowships for the student in social science who has the aptitude, ability, interest and desire to proceed, but who because of lack of financial backing must forego a career in this field. There are of course grants to students in this category, and I am happy to say that over the recent years they have been increasing. It is significant-I believe this observation lends timeliness to the resolution of the hon. member for Lambton West-that until very recently the funds which were assisting Canadian students in the field of social sciences came from such organizations as the Carnegie Foundation, the Guggenheim Trust, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Nuffield Foundation, or from the private generosity of that great benefactor of education, Lord Beaverbrook; in other words, from sources outside this country. In the field of individual contributions to education from those of its citizens who are blessed with this world's goods, Canada lags far behind the United States and the United Kingdom.
In the overall field of assistance to worthy students the figure for Canada is quite significant. It has been estimated-I have the figures here for 1954 and 1955-that in Great Britain 72.9 per cent of all students registered at British universities were in receipt of some kind of scholarship or bursary. In the United States in the same year 55.9 per cent of all university students enrolled in state universities were in receipt of either all or part of their tuition fee, while 20 per cent of those in private universities were receiving assistance. In Canada, for the same year, the figure for all students was estimated at 14 per cent. This refers to a situation which existed some two or three years ago. Since then the improvement has been considerable, though not substantial.
The hon. member for Halton referred to the national research council, that splendid body which was established in Canada under the administration of Sir Robert Borden. In the field of the social sciences there is no such body. The closest we have to it is a private organization, the Canadian Social Science

Proposal to Increase Research Activities Research Council, which in May of this year will come of age and celebrate its twenty-first birthday. This group of dedicated and interested scholars looking over the field 21 years ago was shocked at the state of research into the social sciences of this country.


Mr. Winch:: Are they not shocked now, 21 years later?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: They found, 21 years ago that at the undergraduate level geography was taught in only four of the universities, anthropology in fewer still; they found that statistics, sociology and other social sciences did not appear in the curricula of several of the leading universities, and that when they did appear they received scant attention. This Canadian Social Science Research Council discovered that at post graduate level 21 years ago there were 12 scholarships or fellowships offered in the social sciences and 14 in the humanities as compared with 96 in the natural sciences. In its first report, the committee observed:
Considering post graduate scholarships in Canada one is apt to wonder whether they are as much a recognition of scholarship in itself as they are a means of helping along those who have chosen practical careers-studies that are expected to yield a dollars-and-cents return. This emphasis is probably to be expected in a country where so much attention can still be devoted to undeveloped resources, but experience of the 1930's has been such as to make us wonder whether, even from the purely practical point of view, there ought not to be more encouragement given to the study of the social and economic mechanism that enables the resources to be used.
In this connection it is encouraging to report that in the 21 years of this research council's activities much has been accomplished, and that just before the creation of the Canada Council it was possible for it to distribute annually some $150,000 to worthy Canadian institutions of learning and to ambitious and deserving students in Canada.
I feel that if such a committee as is now suggested could be established, it could bring to itself no more valuable and no more highly informed witness than Dr. John Robbins who for 20 years has been secretary of the Canadian social science research council. I am confident that no man in Canada is so familiar with or so deeply concerned about the problems involved in this aspect of research as he is. The Canadian social science research council is still performing a very important role, in that with regard to certain grants made by the Canada Council it is the selecting body. In addition to assisting scholars, the council has also assisted publications, and there is no field of journalism in Canada in which there is greater difficulty in maintaining a situation of solvency than that facing

the learned publications which a mature society must require. In this instance I should be remiss if I did not say that the establishment of the Canada Council was one of the greatest moves in the direction of improving research, especially in the field of the social sciences and the humanities. That was a wonderful step forward and something which I applauded most heartily. As I have seen it function, I congratulate still further those who sponsored this magnificent development.
But though the Canada Council is a mark of national initiative in this field of research, I think still further initiative should be shown on the national level and therefore it is altogether appropriate that we should be discussing the resolution now before us. I think that we in Canada can offer inducements of a tangible kind to stimulate research into many untouched and uncharted areas. They say a country becomes mature when it begins to become aware of its past and take an interest therein. I used the expression "uncharted," and I used it advisedly because in so many areas of Canada's growth and development we find great vacuums so far as research and study are concerned. We have a great dearth of secondary material in the field of history alone. For instance, in Canada we have now, happily, one fine modern work on the great statesman, Sir John A. Macdonald. But why should we not have a dozen? We might compare the situation with that in the United States where the whole field of historical study has become so vast that the volumes on Lincoln alone would establish a very substantial library. There are many figures in the Canadian past which deserve the attention of Canadian scholars. We need our great statesmen assessed by those who were not their contemporary admirers or detractors, though there is an important role for contemporary scholarship as well. There are many other figures, besides prime ministers, whose contributions to the country should certainly be recorded. One could think of many such men. Joseph Howe might be one. Sir Clifford Sifton could be another and I should personally like to see something written about Sir Sam Hughes.
There are other subjects besides history. Canadian scholarship might direct itself to ecology. We are in the midst of a vast change in our urban-rural relationships, yet most Canadian students study sociology today from texts which were written by United States authors about United States conditions. About parliament itself, about political parties, about the whole process of our political institutions, there is much yet to be done, and the inducement and the encouragement of research in this field alone would I think present a very

worth-while challenge and opportunity to the kind of committee we envisage in this resolution.


Harold Edward Winch: If it is allowed to pass.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: There is much, of course, which can be done to assist scholars and stimulate scholarships but, of course, always to leave the scholar free; for intellectual independence is an absolute necessity in any kind of good research.
Perhaps such a committee as we envisage might move into new fields of Canadian endeavour in the field of research. We might inquire into the possibility of developing a policy similar to that of the United States congress where they select political science students and take them down to congress where they are attached to a member thereof and become a part of his routine operation. Something similar might be done in this country, although I know immediately there would certainly be the problem of office space and facilities which hon. members know are not nearly ample in this building.
Our various departments might usefully introduce into their operations students on an in-training planning basis to further their research into various important questions of international relations, governmental organization, administration and the like.
There are many situations which I might discuss, Mr. Speaker, which may be further benefited by the establishment of the kind of committee we have been talking about this afternoon. While I would agree with the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) that much has been done and while I am happy to say that the situation is improving, I think we would be something less than realistic if we did not recognize that the question of research not only in the field which I have been discussing but perhaps in the more seemingly immediate fields that have been discussed by the house does require the urgent application of the kind of measures set forth by the mover of this resolution. I therefore, Mr. Speaker, am happy to support him in his presentation and to congratulate him on his devotion to this important topic.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, ever since this motion was introduced this afternoon by the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) every speaker has supported it, its principle and its objectives. I know some of us could spend a great deal of time in expressing our support of it but as far as I am concerned it is more important to have this matter decided than to spend between 20 and 40 minutes saying that I am in agreement with it. Therefore, sir,
Proposal to Increase Research Activities I hope that I can establish a precedent by saying that I support this motion, its principle and its objective and I sit down hoping it will come to a vote.


Mr. H. C. McQuillan (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I hope I will not be as brief as the hon. member for Vancouver East but in speaking to this motion if I appear to speak primarily in connection with the forest products industry it is because I have spent most of my life in that field. I recognize and am very well aware of the urgent necessity of a great deal of research in the field of forestry. For years I have been attending lumbermen's conventions, pulp and paper and other such conventions and in every instance it has been stressed before those conventions that there is a need for research in the field of forest products.
I hold in my hand an editorial which appeared in the Canadian Lumberman of November, 1958 and which outlined their views on the matter. It expressed the feeling of a great part of the industry and reads as follows:
But an industry which plays such a vital role in the economy of the country should not be left to founder, dependent on the research and development of the giants in the industry. If these giants consider it a sound business principle to establish the means of improving techniques and practices for continued prosperity, should not the federal government consider it an equally sound principle? The thousands of smaller companies are dependent upon government research for their new ideas, and the government must look to the small businesses for the country's continued prosperity. There was never a tree that was not at one time a seedling.
We have urged in the past, that a separate department of government should be established with sufficient funds and facilities to fully exploit the forests. Ottawa has never refuted the arguments, but does nothing to alleviate the situation.
I feel it is time to alleviate the situation.


Harold Edward Winch: Don't talk the motion out, though.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: The hon. gentleman who just interrupted me said at one time that I had rocks in my head. I sometimes wonder what he has in his.


An hon. Member:: A vacuum.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: In summing up Canada's economic prospects in the field of forestry the Gordon commission spoke of the need for forestry and forest research. The commission summed it up in this way:
Canadians must guard against overrating the strength of their position in forest and mineral products: for most of such commodities, there are many closely competitive sources in other parts of the world.
This further emphasizes the need for research in that field.
2268	HOUSE OF
Proposal to Increase Research Activities
In February I had the pleasure of attending the opening of a new forest products laboratory in Vancouver. It was a credit to the government. The people in that department were very pleased to have such a building which would allow them to work with greater efficiency and produce better results than they had produced in the past. But it struck me that it was only a small part of our requirements in the field of research into forestry and the forest industry. I notice that according to a publication of the dominion bureau of statistics approximately $1,070,000 is being spent by the Canadian government in forest products and forestry research. The pulp and paper section of the industry itself last year spent something well over $6 million. The lumber industry fell off rather badly and spent a matter of $150,000. This is primarily owing to the fact that most of the lumber is produced by smaller companies and they have not the facilities or the means to finance and to pursue research in that field.
Last year I spoke before the mines, forests and waters committee about one particular phase of research which is most vital to us in British Columbia particularly, namely that of finding greater use for one of our finest primary forest species, the western red cedar, of which we have in one small part of the coast of British Columbia something like 75 billion feet. So far we have not been able to use it successfully in the making of pulp and paper because of certain chemical aspects of the wood and the chemical effect on the digesters in the pulp and paper plants. Yet if we are going to derive the most from our forests we must find a use for this low grade cedar product, particularly if we are to continue to maintain our pulp and paper and lumber production on the coast.
We also heard in that committee from a very eminent British Columbia forester, Mr. Ian Mahood, who came here to appear before the committee. He emphasized the need for research in the field of silviculture. He pointed out that one of the greatest problems in British Columbia was to maintain a rapidly producing forest with high productivity in close proximity to the existing plants and developed roads. He pointed out that some countries in the world are making great progress in this particular field. He spoke about the recommendations of the late Mr. Gordon Sloan who acted as a commissioner to investigate the forest problems in British Columbia. He recommended the lumping of research by all agencies, government, industry and university. He also spoke about the necessity of studies of tree seed production and collection, the development of strains


of trees best suited to the geographical climate and soil condition, the suitability of species to site and many other things that would assist in the rapid growing of our forest in close proximity to existing plants and road developments in order that we may maintain a competitive position in the world markets for forest products.
I think most of us are fairly well aware of what the forest industry means to British Columbia and to Canada. Taking the overall picture, it means something in the neighbourhood of $2,400 million a year in production and I believe it means over $1,500 million a year in total exports. This is an industry to which research is vital. The government has not been too generous in the field of forest research, particularly in the field of silviculture. I do not begrudge the money spent on research involving other products but when one compares the expenditures one finds that in the case of rubber $4,307,000 was spent in 1957 and $1,200,000 odd in the case of textiles. I do not say that these amounts are too high by any means-probably they are not sufficient-but the money that has been allocated for forest research is far too meagre for an industry on which the province of British Columbia depends for the greatest part of its livelihood and the whole of Canada depends for a great part of its livelihood. I take great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in supporting this motion and I hope, as the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) does, that it will be approved by the house and we will have action.


Mr. E. L. Morris (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, when I enter this building through the main doors I am sometimes stopped by the use of the adjectival word "wholesome" in the inscription carved above the main entranceway:
The wholesome sea is at her gates, her gates both east and west.
One would suppose that one would read the words "cruel sea" or perhaps, with poet Dick Diespecker of Vancouver, the "furious sea", or perhaps the "menacing sea". But no, the inscription is, "the wholesome sea is at her gates, her gates both east and west."
I have waited for this debate to speak for a few minutes on the subject of research into the sea, the sea around us, the cruel sea, the mysterious, menacing sea. It could be made a wholesome sea for when we come, as I hope we will, to establish a committee I would hope that in due course that committee would cause to be brought before it persons of expert knowledge who would help it to investigate the development of the sea for future generations as a source

of chemicals and minerals far more abounding than those in our constituencies in the land base areas of Canada.
There is far more food in the sea than there is on the land. The sea is the mother of us all. The sea is the master of our planet. The land is its slave. Three-quarters of the surface of our cooling cosmos is inhabited by the sea. The sea at its greatest depth far exceeds the height of the highest mountain. Briefly, because I come from a coastal riding, because I am a man who lives on the shore of the sea, it seemed to me that I might enliven this debate on research for a few moments by saying a few words about research into the sea and by holding out some idea of what a committee of parliament might bring before it for further examination.
Most of the research into the sea that we have done in Canada has been provoked by the necessities of our military position. At the commencement of the second world war the Royal Canadian Navy had no scientific establishment and was doing no research into the sea. The national research council, largely through the devotion of two of its senior officers, had kept alive a study of acoustics. One of these, Dr. Field, a former student of Dr. Boyle, both from the national research council, established an acoustics department of the national research council in 1930 and at the start of the war what we knew of underwater sound transmission came largely from this study of acoustics and from information made available to Canadians by research teams of the royal navy.
We should remember when we come into this house to discuss defence that it has been the fashion this session to discuss air interception. This inevitably gives rise to a discussion of the circumstances and particulars surrounding the CF-105. This discussion has no particular bearing on another peril, however, which some people consider to be even greater than the peril of air attack. I refer to the peril that lies under the mysterious sea, the peril of submarine attack. We now have truly submersible craft, craft which can journey through the Arctic ocean at the height of the winter season. This was proven by the most recent voyage of the U.S.S. Skate. The feasibility of this undertaking had already been established, that is the possibility of traversing the Arctic under the ice, but last month the U.S.S. Skate established that it could be done during the worst meteorological time in the Arctic.
These submersibles which may some day be turned against us, and for a defence against which we require all the research talent and energy we can bring together, are now capable of long endurance at high speeds
6, 1959	2269
Proposal to Increase Research Activities under water and are also capable of launching missiles from under water in relatively undetectable locations. We must remember that in the single month of January, 1940, 100,000 tons of allied shipping were lost to magnetic mines. At that time the German navy had 45 operational submarines. Today the Soviet union has over 600 at sea, any one of which has more striking power and capacity to destroy North America than any German submarine.
In 1940, following that terrible month of January, two professors from Dalhousie university in Halifax were asked by the Royal Canadian Navy to commence research into the perils of the sea. Doctors G. H. Henderson and J. H. L. Johnstone were asked to commence inquiries into defensive measures Which could be taken to protect allied shipping against the perils of the magnetic mine. Dr. Henderson visited London. I do not know that this story has ever been fully told. Sufficient time has now elapsed that interest can be assuaged without national security being in any way imperilled. Dr. Henderson went to the United Kingdom. It was, perhaps, logical that Halifax should have been chosen as the place upon which to base this research.
Back in the terrible days of the war Halifax and its sister city of Saint John were indispensable to this nation. Alas, sometimes we are subsequently forgotten, but thereby hangeth another tale. Dr. Henderson returned and visited Dean Mackenzie at the national research council. A small amount of money and a small number of personnel were made available. During the war, in my harbour, 3,800 allied vessels carrying the produce of every one of our constituencies, carrying the sinews of war, underwent degaussing at a range established in Bedford basin adjoining Halifax harbour.
It is typical of military weapons that as fast as you find defensive measures against them they are superseded by new types of equipment or new techniques of use. At the end of the war a separate naval research establishment was created. I refer to the laboratory of the defence research board which has its headquarters at Dartmouth across the harbour from Halifax. Here is concentrated, in conjunction with applied research of the Department of Fisheries oceanographic station at St. Andrews, New Brunswick, almost all the substance and total of Canadian research into our greatest physical asset, the wholesome sea which is at our gates. This research is largely concentrated in these two locations. Here, since the war; here, since the creation of separate physical facilities in 1952, in the town of Dartmouth,
2270	HOUSE OF
Proposal to Increase Research Activities a small group of scientists and their professional and clerical staffs have rendered a service which I would not want to defame by a constituency address.
It is typical of most scientists that they are interested, a priori, in the achievement of their scientific research, not in its application. It is typical also of the naval scientists that they are indeed the most silent members of the silent service. Some of the results of this research, which are possible of limited civilian application, would be of incalculable benefit to Canadians. The naval research establishment in Dartmouth is presently preoccupied mostly with work of a highly secret nature, classified security work having to do with the detection of submarines, the increase of fire control mechanisms and the improvement of ordnance as a defence and as a direct countermeasure against submarines.
However, in addition to this classified work, the story of which will have to wait perhaps for some future generations, there has been some other work done. It is this type of work which I would hope that a research committee would inquire into and expand, if possible. The naval research establishment at Dartmouth has conducted continuing experiments with a hydrofoil craft. It is interesting to tell, and I think for the first time publicly, that the modern hydrofoil craft now visible in Halifax harbour under trial actually originated with a request of the then general officer commanding the Pacific region, now the distinguished Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes), who asked during the late war that the Suffield experimental station produce a portable smokescreen device to be used in amphibious assaults. As a result of this request research was conducted which revived experiments first conducted in 1907 by Alexander Graham Bell, John A. D. McCurdy and Casey Baldwin at Bras d'Or in Nova Scotia. These were the three men who had, in fact, created the Silver Dart, the first heavier than air craft to be flown in Canada and who also created the first hydrofoil craft. It is interesting that as a result of all our research we have come back, after several years, to their basic prototype. This hydrofoil craft is the forerunner of a new ship design because the research establishes that the hydrofoil principle can now be adapted to other vessels.
The naval research establishment at Dartmouth has also been engaged in research into scale formation on the coils of freshwater evaporators used by our ships at sea. We as Canadians have an enormous capital investment in naval ships. Yet if we had no fresh water aboard them, men could not stay at sea for indefinite periods. In this regard,


it is interesting to note that our sister parliamentary group, namely the United States congress, has voted $10 million for advanced research in that country into the conversion of salt water into fresh water. The United States' secretary of the interior, Mr. Seaton, early last month announced that that research in the United States had advanced to such a degree that it was now possible to procure fresh water from salt water at a cost of one dollar per thousand gallons. This compares with a present cost of fresh water to domestic households in the city of Ottawa of approximately twenty cents per one thousand gallons. I mention this matter lest any hon. member from an inland constituency think that the result of research into the sea would have no direct bearing upon his constituency. My farm member friends across the floor of the house must surely be interested in any venture which can produce fresh water from salt water at a reasonable economic cost. If the cost can be further reduced the impact upon the world's food production would be inmeasurable.
The naval research establishment at Dartmouth has also done pioneering research into marine paints to prevent or resist corrosion and rusting, particularly below the water line. The naval research establishment is also examining and researching the use of other alternative materials for ship construction. Finally, in this symbolic recital of this incalculable work, may I say that the naval research establishment is engaged, in conjunction with the fisheries research stations, in basic research into oceanography. Here we come face to face with the future of our world, for the sea, the wholesome sea, contains more minerals than does the land area, more chemicals and more food life. Yet in today's atomic age it is a little saddening to reflect that we know more about the moon than we know about our own sea.
At the naval research establishment in Dartmouth even as I speak experiments are being conducted into such basic research information as thermal gradients and salinity gradients off the Nova Scotia coast which is one presenting peculiar problems for oceanographic research for not only does the temperature of the water change in location and as it deepens, but it also changes with the seasons.
I cannot overemphasize to my fellow members of all parties in the house, the absolute indispensability to the welfare of all the people in all the parts of Canada who sent us here of the research which is conducted today, by chance in my constituency, into the nature of sound transmission in the sea. It is now theoretically possible for a submarine to lie under a layer of water where there

is a sudden change in temperature or even in salinity and there be relatively unreachable by detection gear. It is possible that this research into the sea will be the means whereby, in conjunction with other defence mechanisms, we shall buy our survival in an atomic age. But I would hold out the hope-as I know would other hon. members [DOT]-that this research into a special field, namely research into the sea, would some day be useful to us not in protecting ourselves against death from nuclear-headed, underwater-launched missiles but that it would be useful to us in transmitting to all the world's peoples the hope that at long last we shall be able to gather in the bounty of the sea and that when we enter this building we shall not ceaselessly wonder about the adjectival use of the word in the inscription over the main door:
The wholesome sea is at her gates, her gates both east and west.


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, it has been said that 40 years of scientific research on a national scale or basis has made it possible for Canada to keep pace with the exploitations of its own vast resources as well as with the accelerated economic development noticeable in all parts of the world. This statement is found in a recent edition of the Canada Year Book. We may or may not agree with this statement. It is clear that the great research in the past has brought great benefit to our country. In listening to the debate this afternoon we have learned that there are many fields in which research is still necessary. For that reason I think the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) is to be congratulated for having brought this motion before us in order to give us the opportunity of reasoning with the government with a view to having it set up the committee that he has suggested.
In going over the past we have seen that as a result of the first world war the government at that time set up the national research council. Then in 1924, as a result of experience, it was reorganized. This council has given leadership in many fields of research and has provided grants and scholarships to encourage research. Because of the experiences of the second world war, the defence research board was established in order to give leadership in research necessary for the defence of Canada. We have already proved the necessity of research and the benefits of it. Today we are considering the advisability of reviewing our efforts in the field of research.
I therefore raise two fundamental questions in respect to this. Should we not now consider our capacity to extend such research? Have we sufficient facilities to train
Proposal to Increase Research Activities the personnel necessary to develop such research? Does our educational system provide the opportunity and the incentive which will produce the research personnel necessary for the work that is to be carried out? Secondly, to what extent should we endeavour to develop the full intellectual potential in our human resources? The answer to these questions would involve research in numerous fields and problems related to education, such as the teaching and training of our gifted children, the use of television in our educational system, the teaching and training of our handicapped children, the curriculum requirements for our present society, and the financing of education.
The federal government has recognized the need of assistance and the importance of research and education, and is giving increasing assistance. The provincial governments have recognized the need and importance and are giving it increased assistance also. Universities have been expanding research facilities, and they have been assisted by government and private grants. Some local boards have recognized the importance of research, such as the Toronto board of education, which has set up a research department and is providing space for this department in its new administrative building. I submit that this house has ample proof of the need to set up a committee to study the needs in the field of research, and I would like to suggest that when this committee is set up and meets it should study the need of research in the field of education.
To support this view I quote from the brief to the federal government from the Canadian teachers' federation presented in 1958. On page 9 of that brief they state as follows:
Research is an important aspect of improvement of education. In Canada there is no co-ordinated program of educational research. While the work done has been creditable, it has suffered from want of financial support except in the case of a few projects financed by grants from foundations, mostly in the United States.
The Canadian teachers' federation for the past five years has maintained a research division which costs approximately a quarter of its annual budget. The education division of the dominion bureau of statistics renders a valuable service in the provision of statistical research but it is greatly hampered by lack of staff. A few of the faculties of education in Canadian universities are conducting some research. However, all of these add up to a very inadequate program if Canada is to remain abreast of some other countries and in line with changing conditions in our social, economic, and scientific advances.
The federation recommends that the federal government give consideration to providing at least some of the financial support necessary to establish and maintain a central bureau of educational research. Such a bureau could co-ordinate work now being done throughout Canada, stimulate
2272	HOUSE OF
Proposal to Increase Research Activities
and conduct new research and generally render a service to this aspect of the improvement of education.
I emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that if we are going to consider the research problems into our physical assets we cannot overlook the need of the skilled researchers to carry out this work. We must give encouragement and assistance to the educational groups throughout this country to provide the opportunities and facilities to train research workers, and for that reason I think it is necessary that the federal government study in any project such as this the implications which it would have in the educational field. I sometimes wonder what is the percentage of the personnel involved in the research which is being done which have been trained in our own universities or school system. I also point out that in the field of research itself education is a very fertile ground in which this research should be carried out, and I hope that in the consideration of a committee which may be set up there is not overlooked the need of research in education.


Mr. Murray Smith (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, like others who have spoken on this resolution, my first words must be words of congratulation to the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy), who has proposed this resolution and who has put forward his case in support of it so ably in this house today and on previous occasions. In preparing to speak on this matter I did some research in Hansard, and I found that the past contributions of the hon. member for Lambton West and of many of his colleagues who were then sitting in opposition were most informative. I would suggest that if anything is left out in today's debate it would very likely be included in past debates on this matter in this house. In particular I would refer hon. members to a speech made by the hon. member for Lambton West on May 11, 1954. This speech may be found in volume 5 of the revised Hansard for the 195354 session at page 4630. There he suggests that in dealing with this topic we ask ourselves several questions, and I would suggest to the house that those questions which are found on that page are just as applicable today as they were at that time. I will not repeat those questions as they are somewhat lengthy and I am sure there are others who would like to speak on this matter. I therefore merely refer the members of this house to those questions which may be found in Hansard.
There are a great many aspects of research that could be dealt with, and it is difficult for any hon. member to touch upon them all. We have heard from various quarters today


and we have heard various aspects of research discussed very fully and ably. To my mind research is essential for our survival both from a military and an economic point of view. We are all well aware, I am sure, of the tremendous advances which have been made in soviet Russia in the field of research and in the field of education. They have made advances in the field of military weapons, and these advances are all quite well known to us in this house. They have made advances in industry, in agriculture and in various other fields, and these strides have enabled them to compete for and obtain world markets from which they were previously excluded.
In order to discuss the present situation in Canada I should like for a moment to refer to the situation which existed in this country in 1938-39. I must apologize for the figures to which I will refer, inasmuch as they are not completely accurate figures, and this is for the simple reason that it is very difficult to obtain accurate figures in terms of dollars and cents when one is discussing this subject. However, I am sure that even though these figures may not be completely reliable they will serve to illustrate the situation which existed at that time. In 1938-39 the amount spent by the Canadian government on research was between 40 cents and 50 cents reckoned on a per capita basis. This figure applied not only to Canada but also to the United States and to the United Kingdom. In comparison, the expenditure on a per capita basis by industry in Canada during the same period was approximately 20 cents, and in Britain it ranged between 30 cents and 50 cents. In the United States, on the other hand, the surprising amount of $1.70 per head of the population was being spent by private industry. Today in Canada, as nearly as I can find from the material I have accumulated, the government is spending approximately $1 on research, on a per capita basis, and private industry is spending $1.35. These figures, though they may not be accurate, as I have explained, are somewhat below the figure which the United States was spending in 1938-39, and for that reason I ask the question: is Canadian industry doing all it can in the field of research? Regardless of what they are spending, are they realizing their total potential? I think this is one aspect of the subject which the committee proposed in this motion might study in detail. Having studied it, the committee would be in position to recommend to the government how industry could be encouraged to spend more on research. It would also be in a position to offer guidance to industry in developing its products and competing for markets.

I think many of us at the present time see far too many situations where parts of industry-certain aspects of industry-have become wholly dependent on government contracts. One cannot help but ask the question: are such companies doing anything for themselves. One cannot, of course, apply this criticism to every industry in this country, but I think there are certain industries which feel that there is a gold mine underneath the centre block and that all they need to do is raise enough fuss and they will get contracts. Such firms are completely disregarding one of their responsibilities as free enterprise companies in a free enterprise nation, and that is basic research-to come up with a product and then to sell it.
I wonder if I might call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
William Murray Smith: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was discussing the question of whether or not private industry was fully performing its duty in the field of research. 1 pointed out that some industries seem to have become wholly dependent on government contracts. Once those contracts have run out or, in the interests of the nation as a whole, have been terminated, a situation arises which is lamentable both from the point of view of the company and the country. I suggest that a committee such as that proposed in this resolution would do much to guide and encourage private industry to promote research in fields which would be beneficial to themselves and to our economy.
I should like now to turn for a moment and look at this matter from the point of view of the student. I have a recent copy of the Winnipeg Tribune, which paper I am sure all members will agree, because of its unbiased treatment of political matters, has become the spokesman for western Canada. A news item in this paper refers to a genius hunt proposed by Dr. O. M. Solandt, who was at one time chairman of the defence research board and is now vice-president of research for Canadian National Railways. He suggested that we go on a campaign to find the geniuses in this country and to put them to work doing basic research. The question that immediately comes to my mind when I read such an article is, what are we going to do with all of those geniuses when we find them, and I am sure that if we went on such a hunt we would find a good many? How are we going to support them? To
Proposal to Increase Research Activities touch on this a little more specifically, the curriculum in the field of education has not been brought up to date with the times; consequently a student who is ready to go into research is approaching 30 years of age. Because of certain biological and economic factors-he is either out of funds or is married and raising a family-he runs into a great many difficulties in going into research. I am sure we will all agree that it is not a paying career. A committee of this kind could find out whether we are making the best use of our bursaries and our scholarships, and possibly could channel them into hands that are more deserving or into areas of the country which require a little more assistance than some other areas.
The committee could also make recommendations with regard to the structure of the Income Tax Act in so far as it affects students, and also the Unemployment Insurance Act in so far as it affects students. In this way they would be providing an opportunity for more students to go on with their education and eventually do basic research.
From the economic point of view, we have heard a great many people in this country say that the high cost of labour is pricing a great many of our products right out of the world markets. Here basic research is essential to find newer techniques in the field of manufacturing and to find out and promote new products which we could sell to other countries.
Basic research is essential to our survival. We must find new defences to any weapons of warfare that may be developed in other countries and we must also put on the drawing board weapons which may be used for retaliation should the need arise. Today we have the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb, and much is being done in this country in promoting the development of atomic energy for peaceful uses; but I do not think we should conclude that the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb are the ultimate so far as weapons of warfare are concerned. I think the past 10 years have indicated through the strides which have been made, that even more destructive weapons may be found, for instance, in the field of germ warfare. In this regard we must be prepared to meet any weapon that may confront us in the future and to do that research is very necessary.
Nothing that I have just said is to be construed as criticism of what is now being done by the defence research board, by the national research council, by atomic energy or by those private industries in this country which are promoting research and are doing all they can.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like heartily to endorse the resolution standing
2274	HOUSE OF
Proposal to Increase Research Activities in the name of the hon. member for Lambton West. I do so because in my maiden speech in this house on May 22 last year I made a recommendation that the government set up a committee to study the whole field of education in this country. Therefore I heartily endorse the resolution we are discussing today.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in rising to discuss this resolution is not to delay its passage but, on the contrary, to assist it if I can by the brief remarks which I intend to make.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) spoke earlier this afternoon and indicated the position of the party in so far as we on this side of the house are concerned. All I intend to do is to put a few brief remarks on Hansard which will perhaps indicate to some further degree the position which we take.
The resolution of the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) seeks the appointment of a special committee for the purpose of examining and reporting upon the advisability of providing inducements to promote and accelerate activities in the field of research. The word "inducements", of course, is one which has a very broad meaning and it is one under which many matters could be considered. I am not here to attempt to define the term. My only thought at the moment is to say that I would have hoped that the hon. member would have told us in perhaps a little clearer language just what was meant by the term. Nonetheless, that does not derogate from the fact that we on this side of the house think that in essence the resolution is a good one.
In fact, I think that the house knows full well the attitude and conduct of the former administration with reference to research. I have no intention of recalling what that is. Neither have I any intention of going into the details of what was done by the previous administration in the field of research, in the field of atomic energy and in many other fields having to do with the development of natural resources. If I felt that I would not be taking up the time of the house I would go into them in greater detail. However, as one member has stated already, I believe that this is a matter which should be disposed of as quickly as possible and I have no intention of delaying the passage of the resolution.
I did rise, however, with one other purpose in mind, to put on Hansard the attitude of the Liberal party with reference to this matter. It has already been discussed in the house but not under this heading and I thought I should like to read at this time


the statement of policy approved by the party so far as research is concerned. It is in these words:
We propose to establish a national science commission to co-ordinate, promote and sponsor scientific development and research in Canada. The purpose would be to ensure, through appropriate financial assistance and the effective use of our resources, an adequate program of basic and applied scientific research through the national research council, the defence research board and other government agencies, together with industry and the universities.
I believe that most other hon. members who have spoken on the resolution have touched upon the various aspects of this Liberal party program. I put it on the record first for the purpose of saying that it goes beyond the terms of the resolution of the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy). I would have hoped that a commission would have been set up for the purpose of dealing with the very matters that the hon. member has in mind. However, he suggests a special committee and while I am not in disagreement with the resolution, far from it, I believe that the purpose that the hon. member has in mind would be more quickly and adequately attained by the adoption of the proposal I have placed on the record.
Nonetheless we on this side of the house are in agreement with the resolution on the whole and will support it. Without saying more I feel I should ask hon. members if at this stage it would not be advisable to dispose of the resolution by having a vote on it so that the committee will be set up in order to deal with the matters the hon. member has in mind in his resolution.


Mr. J. A. McBain (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased this evening to support the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy). In his resolution he suggests a special committee, representative of all parties to examine, to promote and accelerate activities in the field of research. In my view no person in the house is better qualified to propose such a resolution than the hon. member for Lambton West, for he represents an area which has become known as the chemical valley of Canada and the products manufactured in this valley are widely distributed and widely known all over the world. I am sure that since he first became a member of the house in 1945 he has seen at each session the growing need for a much greater acceleration in the field of research. I wish to congratulate him for bringing this most important subject before the house for discussion not only on this occasion but during other sessions.
The hon. member for Lambton West, speaking on the subject of research on May

11, 1954, proposed a series of questions and I wish to quote a few of them at this time. As found at page 4630 of Hansard his questions were as follows:
1.	Are we doing enough in the way of research in this country, in view of the vast and varied natural resources now known to exist in commercial quantities in Canada?
2.	Are our universities in a position to continue to provide the trained scientific minds and undertake the fundamental research necessary to assure the continued development and productive expansion of this country?
3.	Would accelerated efforts in the field of industrial research, resulting in new products, new uses for old products, improved techniques that lower production costs, enhance or help us, an exporting nation is ever-increasingly competitive world markets?
4.	Are our present fiscal policies, in relation to research expenditures, adequate to induce private industry to undertake the amount of research that should be undertaken other than by government agencies, if we are to continue to enjoy a high level of capital investment so essential to high employment and general prosperity in this country?
5.	Does the government do enough in the way of agricultural, medical and other research, in fields where this can best be accomplished by the state in the common interest of all its citizens?
6.	How does the degree and extent of research in this country compare with comparable efforts in the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries with whom our primary and secondary producers must complete in export markets?
I feel that these questions, Mr. Speaker, were important in 1954, almost five years ago, and are just as important and probably more so today than they were at that time. Tonight I wish to discuss one phase of a research program and that is in the field of agriculture. Research in agriculture has been concerned largely with practical problems and in this regard contributes greatly to the industry. But viewed as a specific program it means finding wider outlets for agricultural products; it means finding new uses in a wider field for edible and inedible agricultural products, for as we continue to expand in industry a greater need arises for raw materials. Much of this raw material can come from our agricultural products.
I wish to give credit to the tremendous contribution our agricultural scientists have made in the field of agriculture in the past. If it had not been for the contribution of a great scientist, Dr. Saunders, we would not have had Marquis wheat. Later, when rust threatened the varieties of wheat grown in western Canada, research again came to the rescue and a new variety was introduced that was fairly immune to the rust spores. What would be the position of our agricultural producers today if we did not have scientific agricultural research to improve and produce new varieties of cereal grains?
6, 1959	2275
Proposal to Increase Research Activities Our production per acre probably would be back where it was 25 years ago.
It was not too many years ago that soybeans were first introduced commercially into Canada. The area in which it was felt they could be successfully produced was confined to the so-called banana belt of southwestern Ontario, namely the counties of Essex, Kent and Elgin. The area in which they are grown today has been extended to include many counties in Ontario, as a result of the use of new varieties. Scientific research has made possible the manufacture of products from soybeans that are too numerous to mention. Today these beans are grown in practically all the counties of southern Ontario from the county of Essex to the Ottawa valley.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) is now faced with ever-increasing surpluses of a number of agricultural products. He is faced with the problem of how and where to dispose of these surpluses. Dry skim milk powder happens to be one of these products of which we have a large surplus. This is a product that has been manufactured within recent years. I feel that with a greatly accelerated research program some use may be found for this skim milk powder other than as a food. The same remarks may apply to many other agricultural products that are in surplus supply.
I have heard it stated on many occasions that 60 per cent of our population depends directly or indirectly on agricultural products or products manufactured therefrom. Before resuming my seat, M. Speaker, may I say that, if given the opportunity of participating in an accelerated research program and presenting views before the committee suggested by the hon. member for Lambton West, the agricultural industry will not only receive benefits but others engaged in other types of manufacturing industry throughout the country as a whole will also receive benefits.


Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to take this opportunity, like previous speakers, to offer my most sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) upon his introduction to the House of Commons today of a most pressing and timely subject which certainly merits the interest and general discussion of the members of this house. Just a few minutes ago the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Smith) drew our atttention to the fact that this problem is one which must be faced not only by governments, be they federal, provincial or municipal, but by all segments our society; -government, industry, community associations and labour.

Proposal to Increase Research Activities
I am more than pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Lambton West, at the outset of his remarks, decided to offer a definition of the word "research". Referring to the Oxford dictionary he gave us a classical definition of exactly what the word "research" means. I say this is most important, Mr. Speaker, because in a very few minutes I want to point out that we are dealing with a subject which is part and parcel of a wider, though not necessarily more significant, subject. I refer to the delicate question of dominion-provincial relations.
If you would permit me to digress for a moment, Mr. Speaker, I should like to relate to this house an incident which occurred a few years ago. At that time I had the privilege of watching a number of sittings of the United States congress. They were dealing with a bill which was essentially a bill related to education but which touched upon many aspects of research. While we must admit that the United States federal constitution is not exactly like that of the federal constitution which governs the Dominion of Canada, one had to admit that congress was experiencing a certain amount of difficulty in securing the passage of this educational or research bill. The reason was that, not unlike the provinces of Canada, the states of the United States of America guarded most jealously their rights over education. Speaker after speaker, therefore, had to get up and demonstrate that this was extraordinary legislation they were attempting to pass, and that certainly it was being passed because of the emergency conditions which, to a certain degree, did exist in relation to research and education. This is one question we can ask ourselves today in relation to domestic and world events. Do emergency conditions exist, not in the definite and dogmatic sense of the word "emergency", but do emergency conditions exist in relation to this problem?
As I said before, the problem of research which has been discussed today must not be necessarily mixed up with the problem of education per se, although it is readily admitted that both research and education are most definitely interrelated. I think that although we as federal legislators are not keen to get up in this house and discuss in their entirety simple matters which fall essentially within the provincial domain, we must be realistic in tackling any question of research in this federal house. We must be realistic and admit that this problem is only going to be solved with harmonious dominion-provincial relations. It is upon this basis that I should like to make a few brief, pertinent remarks.
I do not want to enter the field of partisan politics at the moment, but it is a fact that
[Mr. Grafftey.l
when this administration assumed office dominion-provincial relations were not good. I think it is fair to say that past Liberal ministers of finance-certainly, it seemed that way to many of us who were residents of the province of Quebec-did not even care to recognize that there was such a thing as a problem existing in connection with tax matters. Since the present administration has come to power the whole atmosphere has begun to change. Time and time again we can see that we have at least recognized the problems and we are going to try to work them out under harmonious and friendly conditions.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I should like to revert to my initial remarks. I should like to say that it was extremely important that the mover of this motion attempted to give us a very reasonable definition of the word "research".
Many provincial leaders in the province of Quebec naturally have worries when they see a motion of this type in relation to research. Naturally they have worries as to what we think research actually means. Let us consider, for example, the many French-speaking classical colleges and schools in the province of Quebec. What will be defined as research or as aid to research in relation to these institutions? I think it is a well known fact-and it might as well be spoken about and aired frankly in this house-that under the terms of the British North America Act the provincial authorities in the province which I represent guard most jealously provincial rights over education. But that fact should not make us pessimistic in dealing with this most worthy resolution. It should only make us more aware of the absolute necessity for defining the word "research".
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks on the problem of research in relation to some statements made by an illustrious Canadian, a great Christian, a humanitarian, a great scientist, neurosurgeon and neurologist and now in his later years a great author. I refer to Doctor Wilder Pen-field, O.M., director of the Montreal neurological institute. I think that we as Canadians should be proud to count him amongst our most illustrious citizens.
I have made a few brief notes here, Mr. Speaker, on some remarks made recently by Doctor Penfield on education and research at the twenty-third annual meeting of the Montreal neurological institute on May 14, 1958. While his report has particular application to the above-mentioned institute, many of his remarks have broad significance in relation to the field of research. As he takes a look at research in Canada today, especially higher

research, he feels that the best educated and trained nation is the strongest and happiest and best able to defend itself and to realize its own potential. The problem of the institute is the problem of many similar institutions in the field of higher education and research. They teach graduate students. They are carefully selected scholars and expert technicians prepared to take up their life's work. Like Doctor Penfield did, they are laying plans. Some will found university or hospital units of their own. Undoubtedly they will secure research grants from some foundation, government or patient.
Doctor Penfield feels that research institutions like nations must take a long view. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, as has been said by many hon. members who have spoken today, Russia and the communist forces are putting a great deal of emphasis on research and development programs. I think we should not regard the whole situation in an atmosphere of panic. While I happen to be one of those who believe that in many ways we have a superior and better educational system than the Russians have, a great many teachers and professors liken our position with respect to the Russians, to that in a sailing race.
Again I should like to underline this whole competitive spirit when I say that we should not always be comparing ourselves in this way or should not always be comparing our methods of research and education with those of the communist countries because comparisons do not always lend themselves to clarity in this instance, as each nation and each group of nations has its own particular background. But at any rate, a great many teachers and professors have likened our research race with the Russians to that of a sailing race; when they say that coming along towards the finishing line there is a great group of sail boats and the majority of the western nations' boats are away out in front but unfortunately the Russian's genius for research or the Russian aptitude for research has the ability to place that one boat far out in front, invariably under extremely perilous conditions.
Very often in research we must permit men to go forward without counting dollars all the time. We must permit men to go forward not always considering whether or not their particular research program will pay dividends in the immediate or near future. We saw that the defence administration of our neighbours to the south not so many years ago made many serious cutbacks on their research program with regard to their defence establishments. Thus in the opinion of many people came about the fact that the U.S.S.R.
66968-9-144
Proposal to Increase Research Activities were able to produce sputnik before the United States were able to produce any similar weapon.
Doctor Penfield goes on to note the stalemate in Canadian education as, for example, in the province of Quebec. He notes that Quebec has returned university grants from the federal government. As he realizes the provinces, as I said before, claim prior responsibility with regard to education per se, Doctor Penfield states; "Let us agree that the provinces are right; let us agree that the actual terms of confederation should be respected on this point." But then the centrifugal aspect of the problem is presented. What now? Are institutions of higher learning to waste away while discussions of political advantage are carried out? Must research stop? Should graduate students stop their work and go abroad?
Viewing the provincial stand he offers a compromise and the compromise is this. Let the national government rescue research in Canada. If this is done in the most effective manner there will be no interference with provincial plans for education. Research is a field in which the provinces take little interest. Yet on the federal level, as has been mentioned previously in the house today, we have a national research council. He feels we might take a look at educational foundations such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Nuffield Foundation.
Mr. Speaker, I fully realize that perhaps already too much has been said in periodicals and magazines with regard to the fact that our educational systems in the western world during the past years have catered to mediocrity. But in all frankness, I must sincerely count myself among those who agree with this general proposition.
Much has been said time and time again throughout the western world about the rights of the backward student. Too little has been said about the rights of the neargenius, the bright student and even the genius, who are oft times bored to death because our educational and higher educational institutions are geared to the dictates and tastes of mediocrity. Democracy throughout the past years has been noted for its ability to key itself, better than any other political system which history has ever known, to the true aspirations of the individual. As has often been said, Mr. Speaker; the spark from heaven, who picks it up? The crowd, never; the individual, always. It is a research program and research considerations such as we are discussing in this house this evening will cater more to the real needs not only of individual genius but of individual
2278	HOUSE OF
Proposal to Increase Research Activities initiative which is going to build up a bigger and better and a more productive Canada, not only materially but in all those ways which make a strong and young democratic nation such as ours play its real part in world affairs.
(Translation):


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliette-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with very great pleasure this afternoon to the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) when he proposed this resolution which has to do with research. I also was very happy to hear all hon. members who this afternoon made suggestions and spoke of the significance of research in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, research is at the root of all progress in any country. In that field, we should not leave too much to luck or chance. Developments must be prepared and the march of science must be guided into proper channels. Research should not be restricted to the scientific field but should apply to all areas likely to improve the lot of man. In a country like ours, at the crossroads of two ages and two worlds, it is important to adjust research first to modern conditions and then to the geographical pattern.
Modern conditions, for instance, tend to promote research in the great Canadian Northland, and to intensify it in that area so as to discover the mineral wealth of our soil, like oil, gold or other resources. In the geographic field, research must be activated in that direction so as to improve and develop means of communication throughout the country as they are essential to the uniform development of all parts of a country.
Mr. Speaker, in Canada research can be as vast as the country itself, but must be proceeded with in the same way as was the case for our other natural resources. Canada to date has produced excellent research workers to whom we owe the advance of our country and who have achieved an enviable reputation among the world's scientists.
This afternoon, we in this house had the pleasure to hear the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Best), and hon. members were immediately reminded of the famous development we owe to those two great Canadians, Dr. Best and Dr. Banting, the discoverers of insulin.
Many of our research workers have become prominent in all fields of science. In the field of agriculture, need I mention the famous Marquis wheat, which is a Canadian development? That wheat continues to make Canada better known throughout the world.
Need I refer to such prominent research workers as the late brother Marie Victorin, a great scientist, who had the things of
[Mr. Grafftey.l

nature at heart but always remained in the field of science. He specialized in the field of plants: botany.
Need I mention Professor Lower, an historian of great renown, or Canon Groulx, a great research worker whose many historical accounts can be found today in all Canadian libraries?
For the moment research in Canada must be placed in its natural setting. Research is being made in the field of science, of pure and applied science. In the field of pure science need I mention the wonderful work accomplished by the National Research Council whose fame is well established throughout the world? In the field of applied science, we have in Chalk River an atomic energy laboratory and it is worthy of note that the research work being carried out there is solely directed to peaceful uses. Canada may not be as advanced in the field of research, as other and more prosperous countries of the world, for instance, the United States who have monopolized the best brains in the world. In fact, Berkeley University, in California, has seven Nobel prize winners among its teaching staff.
Canada is forging ahead in agricultural research, in industrial and scientific research of all kinds, and it can be said that our country, proportionately speaking, considering its population and its financial means, is second to none in the field of research.
In the field of agriculture, for instance, if we refer to pamphlet A52-258, issued in 1958 by the Ottawa Central Experimental Farm, we note that that service comprised 33 experimental farms, one experimental farm for fur bearing animals, 20 experimental substations, 2 research laboratories, 2 forest nurseries, and 244 illustration stations.
In 1958, for instance, there were in the province of Quebec 5 experimental farms, as follows: Caplan, Ste Anne de la Pocatiere, Lennoxville, l'Assomption and Normandin, as well as 3 sub-stations, one at Lavaltrie, in the constituency of Berthier-Maskinonge, one at Ste Clothilde and one at Fort Chimo. According to the latest annual report of the Department of Agriculture, there were in the province of Quebec, in 1957, 44 demonstration farms a figure surpassed only by Saskatchewan with 52 farms.
Mr. Speaker, in all those farms experiments are being conducted to enable Canadian farmers to produce foodstuffs that can compete with those produced by the other countries.
According to the public accounts for the financial year 1957-58, the experimental farm division-and when I say experimental

farms, I mean research in the field of agriculture-included 435 permanent salaried employees receiving an annual salary of $5,000 or more. Among those, 53 only have aa French-Canadian name. Furthermore, 31 other permanent salaried employees received, for the same period, travelling expenses amounting to $500 or more. Among those, 6 have a French-Canadian name.
Mr. Speaker, allow me at this stage to outline in detail the expenses incurred by the experimental stations in the province of
Quebec.
Stations	Amount
Caplan	
$	56,722Ste Anne de la Pocatiere	
$	287,370Lennoxville	
$	318,635L'Assomption	
$	190,966Normandin	
$	184,678Ste Clothilde	
$	50,092that is a total of	
$1,088,463
made available to experimental stations in the province of Quebec.
Each of the following federal stations benefited from an expense budget which is higher than that of the better treated station in Quebec: Nappan, $322,204; Charlottetown, $322,863; Fredericton, $431,423; Kapuskasing, $361,647; Brandon, $336,223; Swift Current, (including soil laboratories), $689,911; Lethbridge, $674,363; Lacombe, $368,501; Beaver-lodge, $362,239; Summerland, $541,472; and Agassiz, $333,395.
This shows, Mr. Speaker, that each one of the experimental stations I just referred to, which are located in other provinces of this country, has a more substantial budget than any other experimental station in the province of Quebec. That is why I urge the government to consider the feasibility of increasing the appropriations in order to speed up research in the field of agriculture, especially for the experimental farms in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I consider it a privilege to have in my riding the federal experimental station of L'Assomption. As I just said, the vote granted to this station for purposes of experiment and research amounts to $190,966. In my opinion, it is a meager budget. Once again, I call upon the authorities concerned to consider the possibility of increasing the amounts of money made available to the officials of this station to step up research. I also take this opportunity to urge the Department of Agriculture authorities to hire more staff at the L'Assomption experimental farm, so as to promote research.
66968-9-144i
Proposal to Increase Research Activities
There are many experiments being conducted at the L'Assomption experimental station, but unfortunately, due to a lack of sufficient staff and funds, those experiments are not carried through as far as they should. Thousands of dollars more would have to be voted to stimulate research for the discovery of milder varieties of tobacco, because as you know, Mr. Speaker, the federal constituency of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is the leading tobacco-growing area in the province of Quebec. There would also be a need to develop milder varieties of cigar tobacco, as well as other varieties with greater resistance to disease, drought and cold weather.
Mr. Speaker, there should also be more research and more experimentation into the field of chemical fertilizers, in order to develop fertilizers better adapted to our needs, and to increase the yield of Canadian tobacco growers. There is also need for studies in the field of fertilization and into the effects of irrigation on the quality of tobacco and on the soil.
Again in connection with the experimental farm at L'Assomption, there is need for increased research into field crops, gardening and poultry raising.
Mr. Speaker, it is also most important that our research centres obtain the funds they need for medical research; they should be given the necessary funds to step up research in the fields of heart disease and cancer. When a war breaks out, millions of dollars are found for armaments. Today, millions of dollars should be made available to research laboratories to enable them to step up their work against cancer, because we all know that no cure has yet been found for cancer of the blood. Canada has many research laboratories. Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to remind you of the importance of the University of Montreal's institute of microbiology, directed by an outstanding professor, Dr. Frappier. This laboratory enjoys a worldwide reputation; it is a credit not only to the province of Quebec but to the country as a whole.
In the industrial field, many research projects are being carried out. Companies make millions of dollars available to their technologists in order to further scientific progress. Do I have to mention to you that, in the province of Quebec, the city of St. Hyacinthe has a school of research on textiles which is held in high repute even beyond the province of Quebec?
The paper-making school in Three Rivers has a miniature paper mill which is the most

Proposal to Increase Research Activities important in the world. In fact, it is ahead of the one found in Grenoble, France.
Research in mining, lumber and paper must also be intensified.
Research in refining and petroleum must also be carried out on a larger scale.
Scientists must be encouraged to do research work, to intensify their research, for instance in the field of humanities, history, folklore and literature.
In the field of history, need I recall the name of Mr. Jean Bruchesi, recently appointed Canadian ambassador abroad? It is a recognized fact that he has done much research work in the field of history.
In the field of folklore, need I recall the name of the late Father Oscar O'Brien, and the Alouette Quartette? We also have men who have specialized in literature, including fiction, poetry and radio writing. As for radio, is it necessary to mention the name of Reverend Father Seguin? Many professional journalists also do research work.
Mr. Speaker, we have many scientists, but unfortunately, we may not have enough of them in the field of philosophy and sociology.
In what manner can we promote research? Provincial governments should be encouraged to grant scholarships to students. The Canadian government should also be encouraged to increase the number of scholarships granted for research only or for the exchange of students between countries. Funds should be voted to improve the laboratories, to encourage young people to work in earnest. Finally the necessary grant should be made to research institutions.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the national research council be made to act as co-ordinator of research in Canada. Research knows no boundaries.
Perhaps one of the best means of simplifying research would be to adopt the metric system. In the light of studies that have been made, there is no doubt that the adoption of the metric system would help simplify research. Both from a scientific and a practical point of view, the metric system has the unique advantage of being the only decimal-based measuring system where all units, whether geometrical, electrical, thermal, mechanical, optical, or dynamical, are logically interrelated on the basis, as I said, of decimal multiples and submultiples.

It is because of its clarity, its logic, and its efficiency that the metric system, after its creation in 1801, rapidly became the most widely used measuring system in the world. It is now used throughout Europe (except in the British Isles), in all countries of Central and South America-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is rather stretching the significance of this very broad resolution when he begins to suggest the adoption of the metric system.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the metric system in relation to research. I wanted to take the opportunity afforded by the debate on this resolution to deal with it but, in any case, I will have the opportunity to speak on the matter in more detail in the near future.
Mr. Speaker, still as far as research is concerned, I strongly urge students in agriculture, the agronomists, those who have a master's degree in science or a doctorate in agriculture, to go into the federal services. At the present time, according to a list of the staff of the Department of Agriculture, the proportion of French-speaking technicians who should be working in that department is not adequate. I do not want to blame anybody, Mr. Speaker, but I strongly urge the students in agricultural schools, the agronomists, those who have a master's degree or a doctorate to apply for employment with the civil service commission. With their technical training, their general education, the agronomists of the province of Quebec are indeed as well qualified as if not better than, other agronomists of this country. I strongly urge them to go into the federal services. They can look forward to a career, to a future where they are solely needed.
I said earlier that experimental farms in the province of Quebec do not have, proportionately speaking, their fair share of the national income. We do not have a sufficient number of technicians in federal experimental farms of the province of Quebec to do efficient research work.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say a few words on that resolution which, in my opinion, is very important to the economic future of this country. I congratulate the hon. member who sponsored it and I can assure you that this resolution has certainly pleased not only all hon. members, but also all scientists, all those devoted to research in our Canadian universities.
(Text):


Mr. John Drysdale (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad of the oppor-

tunity that the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) has given to me by putting forth such a resolution because it enables me sincerely to express some of my views, especially in the field of scientific research. I feel, sir, that the criticism that we see from time to time in the newspapers and hear from people across the country to some extent as to the lopsided representation in parliament is justified. By that I mean we have the talking groups of lawyers, school teachers, labour leaders and so forth, as opposed to perhaps the working people, those who are actually doing things, such as the scientists.
Since the beginning of this session I have listened to some observations made on perhaps one of the most outstanding things that affects us world-wide, namely the international geophysical year, which was conceived by scientists down in the United States in April, 1950, and which finally came into existence and ran for a period of 18 months from July 31, 1957, to December 31, 1958. During this time some 30,000 scientists and technicians from some 66 nations took part in a crash program of data collecting to enable us to know a little bit more about this world. I feel, as one of the members of the talking class, being a lawyer, that I am in a rather inadequate position to put forth perhaps the point of view of the scientists; but I feel nevertheless that it is one of the inadequacies of parliament that we have no scientific representation in this group who is able to speak on such an important and noteworthy resolution. Therefore, I have allotted the task to myself with a certain amount of temerity.
The most important aspect of research in the international geophysical year which interested me was the matter of space research. This was accomplished through several means; first, the sounding rockets; second, the earth satellites; and, third, what they call deep-space vehicles. In the first category of the sounding rockets, some several hundred rockets were launched from the United States, the Soviet union, Britain and Japan. In the second category of earth satellites, during the international geophysical year some four were launched from the United States and three from the Soviet union. During this same international geophysical year the only deep-space vehicle launched was launched by the United States, namely the Pioneer, which went up to a distance of some 80,000 miles.
Hon. members may ask what were some of the results that we have obtained so far from
Proposal to Increase Research Activities the international geophysical year? First, and perhaps the most important in the matter of space research, was the discovery of the Van Allen radiation layer. This is an area of very intense radiation extending from some 600 miles to some 21,500 miles above the earth. Apparently this particular radiation layer is not so dense at the poles. This is of interest to the space research people in the sense that it may pose further difficulties when man eventually travels out into space.
One of the other things which has come out of the international geophysical year so far and which is of interest to us is in contrast with what was thought in 1492 at the time of Christopher Columbus. People laughed when Christopher thought that the earth was round. We have had a vision since 1492 of a round earth. Yet the scientists taking part in the international geophysical year have said that the picture they have now is of a pear-shaped earth, one that is flattened at the poles and somewhat pear-shaped toward the South American region. One problem which has been raised by the activities of the international geophysical year and which would benefit from interest on the part of such groups as ourselves is the question of the distance between the Atlantic and the Pacific because even in this modern age the exact distance is not known. True, it may only be a matter of one or two miles that is involved but even though we are in a scientific era it still is not known.
Another matter of interest is the question of the effect of the tidal waves actually involved in the earth. The earth too has tidal waves exactly the same as water. In fact, the scientists say that places like Hawaii rise and fall several inches in the course of one day. It is hoped that the research of the international geophysical year will give more definite information regarding this particular matter.
I think also of the question of space rockets and space research. As parliamentarians I think we should be very much interested. However, since the beginning of this session I do not believe we have had anything but oblique reference to the international geophysical year and its accomplishments. The postmaster general of the United States of America is interested in transporting mail by rockets. I wonder whether the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) of Canada has given any consideration to the matter or is similarly

Proposal to Increase Research Activities interested. Perhaps that is a slightly facetious reference but we are actually in the space era and recognition is being given to such possibilities.
The resolution of the hon. member for Lambton West covers the providing of inducements to promote and accelerate activities in the field of research. So far as scientific research is concerned, I think that one of the first things that we as members of parliament must do is to show some interest in the subject. In my opinion such a committee could give consideration to the establishment of a parliamentary space committee to study this matter and receive reports from scientists as to what is actually going on in other parts of the world with regard to space and other scientific research. I feel that this matter should be of interest and I think that in the very near future we will see the establishment of a ministry of space. With our rather simple legal principles regarding space ownership permeating down to the centre of the earth and somewhere into the upper regions, it will become very important to Canada to have a clear understanding of what control it can and will exert with regard to outer space.
I realize that a small country like Canada does not have the money to enter into space research to the same degree as the Soviet union, Great Britain and the United States but nevertheless I believe that as members of parliament we should show some leadership and take an interest in space research. I believe that the United States has such a government committee and if we had a space committee there could be liaison with their committee. We would then be able to keep in the vanguard of development instead of being still on the ground back in the horse and buggy era while other nations are looking upwards. I believe that the resolution of the hon. member for Lambton West provides an opportunity for Canada to take the necessary scientific leadership.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, like the speaker who has just taken his seat I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) for bringing this matter before the house again. Since I have been a member I know that the hon. member has always taken a very keen interest in this subject and has contributed a great deal to the discussion of it during the time he has been in the house. I should also like to note that while in the past all members of the house have not been entirely in favour of the type of resolutions now before us there has, I am very glad to
[Mr. Drysdale.l
say, been a change of heart in some quarters. I was very happy to hear the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) and the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) indicate that they were in favour of the resolution.
I was particularly glad to hear this in view of the fact that on March 1, 1956 a similar motion was presented to the house by the parliamentary assistant to the then minister of defence production. The motion at that time read as follows:
That a special committee be appointed to examine into the role of government in the field of non-military 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.
The arrangements provided for that committee were very similar to the committee the hon. member for Lambton West has in mind but with one important difference. The resolution now before us provides that the committee can call for witnesses and send for documents and papers and goes on to say that the committee should be appointed for the purpose of examining and reporting on the advisability of providing inducements to promote and accelerate activities in the field of research.
The only difference between the two resolutions is that the committee envisaged by the hon. member for Lambton West would have the power to send for experts in the person of professors, scientists, technologists of various kinds, and for documents and papers so that the committee would have concrete information on which to work and would not be working on speculation. However, back in 1956, and I think this is important, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Green) moved an amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Lambton West, to the government motion, that amendment being in these words:
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."
It is interesting to note that on that date, March 1, 1956, the members of the government then in power voted against that amendment, the result of the vote being 127 nays and 72 yeas. At that time the three opposition parties, the Progressive Conservatives, the C.C.F. and the Social Credit, all voted in favour of the amendment. It is for this reason that I am very delighted to see that spokesmen for the Liberal party in the house

today have indicated their support of the motion now before us. Apparently they have had a change of heart in the meantime, possibly due to the fact that they now sit across the floor.
I do not wish to take up the time of the house by reiterating what has already been said by many other members, nor to bring before the house questions which I am sure are in the minds of the general public. I refer, of course, to the necessity of basic research being increased in Canada because of the very rapid advancement by what may be considered the potential enemy, namely the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. There has been repeatedly brought to everyone's attention by the press, radio and prominent speakers the extent to which Russia has been able to mobilize her vast resources of men and raw materials, and also her almost machine-like production of scientists, engineers and technologists. I well recall that in 1956, I think it was, I made remarks in this house dealing with this subject. I do not intend to repeat them now. It is nothing short of a miracle the extent to which Russia has been able to emerge from virtually a feudal economy almost 38 years ago into practically the world's leading industrial power. This has been accomplished by encouraging scientists, technologists and basic research. I think we can learn a lesson from that.
It is true that in this country, the United States and other western countries we have developed a very high standard of living. We have done very well. I think there is a growing tendency, because we have done well from a material standpoint, for our people to sit back, rest on their oars and say, "Well, we are there." The fact that somebody else is coming along makes little difference. But, Mr. Speaker, the people of Asia, Africa and those countries newly formed since world war II do not have what they call luxuries and what we consider as daily necessities. They are getting pretty tired of getting along on mere subsistence. They are looking with eager eyes toward countries which will help them and which can produce what they consider to be the luxuries of life and which, at the present time, we consider to be the necessities. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is more and more coming into the position of being able to do this. If we continue to permit the U.S.S.R. to give help and provide the materials which they will be able to do in the future, then there is no question but that we will have lost the economic war which is being waged in the world today. We will certainly have lost it in so far as the underdeveloped countries are concerned.
6, 1959	2283
Proposal to Increase Research Activities It is true that we have been very helpful to these countries, but if we were going ahead at the same rate as Russia we might do a great deal more. We would not have the worries we have at the present time.
Now, coming a little closer to home, I would say that this problem of encouraging basic research is certainly of great interest and importance to Canada from a domestic point of view. I know that various members have already mentioned the question of basic research. It has been dealt with by others probably better than I could deal with it. However, I should like to point out three things. If a committee such as the one suggested were set up and had the power to send for experts, to send for reports, to look into the matter as carefully as possible, it is quite likely that three of the major domestic problems in Canada might be on the way to solution, not complete solution, but at least a start made toward the solution of these problems.
There is the problem of seasonal unemployment in Canada which we have because of our climate. There is the problem of the huge surpluses, agricultural and otherwise, that have been built up in this country. There is the problem we have as a result of the loss of our domestic and export markets because of high production costs in Canada. In so far as seasonal unemployment is concerned, I am quite sure that if such a committee as is proposed in this resolution were established, scientists and engineers could be called who might suggest avenues of research in the field of winter construction. It is a well known fact that the great problem of seasonal unemployment in Canada is created by the fact that the building industry cannot carry on work during the winter. I know some progress has been made in this field. Only last winter in my own city I saw a bridge being built which had a plastic dome arrangement over it and work which could not have been done heretofore except in the summer months was being done. This bridge was largely built during the winter months.
Further research along this line would greatly improve the possibility of carrying out construction programs in the winter. This would aid in solving some of the problems we have in connection with seasonal unemployment in the building industry. Needless to say, this would be of great importance to this country and in particular to the people who are employed in the building industry. I know of one or two construction firms who are spending considerable of their own money, in a small way, in an attempt to produce metal frames for these plastic domes. These metal frames are put together like the mechano sets with which the youngsters play.
2284	HOUSE OF
Proposal to Increase Research Activities Instead of the wooden frames, which have to be thrown away, these light aluminum frames can be put together quickly to carry this plastic dome, then dismantled and used somewhere else. This is only one example, but it illustrates the type of thing which I have in mind. The results of these projects could aid greatly in ironing out the hills and valleys, as the statisticians call them, in the graph of winter employment in the building industry.
Then, there is the problem which faces the fishing industry in the wintertime because of severe weather. I am quite sure that research into this problem could improve the possibility of conducting fishing operations during the more rigorous winter months. This is the sort of thing that this committee could do which would be of practical help to the Canadian people and to those of us who are busily trying to find methods of solving the seasonal unemployment problem in Canada.
The second thing I have in mind is the huge surpluses we have built up in the various agricultural products. The ones that come to mind, of course, are wheat and dry skim milk powder. No doubt hon. members can think of other things. It is very difficult for various reasons, as all hon. members I am sure are aware, to dispose of these surpluses even on a giveaway basis or at a very low price. I think an effort might be made to find substitute uses for some of these large agricultural surpluses. A scientist friend of mine said that some of his associates were working on the problem of converting some of these agricultural products-I have forgotten which ones but I think wheat was one-into some type of plastic which could be readily used. This would provide a market for some of these agricultural surpluses, and this is another example which illustrates the type of thing that could be investigated by this committee.
Then, of course, there is the very important question of the loss of our domestic and export markets because of the high cost of production in Canada. We all know that Canada faces stiff competition as a result of the low wage levels in Asiatic countries. For example the employees in the plywood industry in Japan receive 20 cents an hour, while in Canada they receive $1.65 per hour. Certainly we in Canada have not the slightest desire to reduce our wage levels. Until such time as the wage levels in these countries catch up to our level, we must find some way of manufacturing in Canada which will enable us to compete with these low wage economies in the east.
There are two ways we can do that. First of all, this committee could look into ways


and means of producing new and better products. This would be one method of competing with these low wage economies. The second and obvious way is to find new and better methods of producing present day products. This, again, would be something that this committee could investigate and thus contribute a great deal to the economy of the country. Of course, we all know that many large firms are already spending a great deal of money, time and effort on research, but I do not think there is anyone in this house who would not agree that our research effort in Canada cannot be greatly improved upon.
If this proposed committee had a chance to call all sorts of experts, look into records and information which is available I am sure it would make a helpful recommendation to the government as to how research could best be improved and increased and what inducements would be necessary. It may not be entirely a matter of money. There may be some other method. However, there must be some way of improving and helping to increase research in Canada generally. In particular, I think this committee could look into the possibility of improving research with respect to those three problems I mentioned, namely seasonal unemployment, the disposal of our huge surplus of agricultural products and the loss of our domestic and export markets owing to the high cost of production in Canada.
I should like to close my remarks at this time because I do not wish to go into details. Those are three broad principles which I think could be looked into carefully by this committee. By doing so I think it could contribute a great deal in helping the government to deal with these three problems which have always been with us.


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, this resolution proposed by the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) calls for the setting up of a committee to examine and report upon the advisability of providing inducements to promote and accelerate research activities in many fields. I may say that all hon. members who have spoken here today seem to be in favour of this motion. The hon. member who preceded me said that he hoped the Liberal party was in favour of it and would speak in favour of it. I may say that the members of the Liberal party are very much in favour of this motion and have not provided speakers in the hope that this motion might be voted on before ten o'clock tonight. I have listened to one Conservative speaker after another rise in his place here this afternoon and speak in favour of this motion. If they keep on talking until ten o'clock they will in effect

kill the motion and put it at the bottom of the list, and it will never come up again for discussion this session. One would suspect that they have orders from higher up to keep this debate going on. If they are serious about the matter, I should like them to allow this resolution to come to a vote. I should like to move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas) that the question be now put.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member his
motion in written form? If not, will he write it out?


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution that has been proposed by the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) has created a good deal of interesting discussion and debate this afternoon and evening. He has challenged us all to give great thought and consideration to his resolution proposing the setting up of a special committee to deal with research as it would affect Canada and our research problems. I propose to talk for a few moments about a field in which I am most interested.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. I believe there is a motion before Your Honour at this time. If the hon. member wants to speak at this stage I think he must speak to the motion. If I am wrong in that interpretation, I hope Your Honour will put me right; but my understanding is that there is before the house a motion which must be dealt with.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Speaker, this is all very nice as a bit of clever stage play but the actual fact is that on a motion of this type the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) or any other hon. member is entitled to debate the merits of the original resolution.


Harold Edward Winch: No.


Howard Charles Green: What we are having presented in the house tonight, Mr. Speaker, is another example of Liberal closure.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, oh.


Howard Charles Green: There is the same objective, with slightly different methods, that we saw in the pipeline debate.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a word in connection with this matter. Apparently my hon. friend, during his holiday or recess-whether it was out in his constituency or elsewhere-did not seek, as it were, to establish between the two sides of the house the friendship for which he is so well recognized; but the contrary. Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am going to come to the point of order in a moment- 66968-9-145
Proposal to Increase Research Activities


Mr. Speaker:: I should not have allowed the minister to depart from the point of order because I now find that the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) also wishes to do so. I think we should stick to the point of order.


Lionel Chevrier: What I was going to say is that there is a motion now before Your Honour. While the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) does not like the motion and seems to indicate that it is closure, the fact is that it is just the converse. This is not an attempt to bring about closure but it is an attempt to bring about a decision on the matter. The point of order I raise is that there is a motion before Your Honour and I think we should deal with it.


Mr. Speaker:: Can the hon. member give me any citation which indicates what is relevant on a motion of this kind; I refer to the previous question.


Lionel Chevrier: The citation I would give to Your Honour is that which is found at page 20 of the rules, namely standing order 32(1) (c) which reads as follows:
32 (1) The following motions are debatable: Every motion: . . .
(c)	for the previous question;-
This standing order can also be read in conjunction with standing order 63.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: Read standing order 51.


Lionel Chevrier: Standing order 63.


Thomas Miller Bell: Read standing order 51 first.


Lionel Chevrier: I have no objection to reading standing order 51.


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: Try
citation 196 of Beauchesne where it is stated that debate may continue on the original question.


Lionel Chevrier: Does my hon. friend wish to speak on the point of order? If he wishes to do so, he is quite at liberty to do it. However, I am discussing it now and I am bringing to Your Honour's attention the section which I read earlier and on that basis I say that the motion is debatable.


Howard Charles Green: There is no point of order in that. At page 165 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, paragraph 196, we find the following:
196. The previous question is moved when the original question is under debate, in order to force a direct vote on the original question before an amendment is proposed. The form of the motion is "That the question be now put."
That is exactly what the hon. member for Welland (Mr. MacMillan) has moved. Then there is this very pertinent sentence:
Once it is proposed, the debate may continue on the original question.
2286	HOUSE OF
Proposal to Increase Research Activities


Lionel Chevrier: Then the whole point is, what is the previous question? There is a distinction to be made between the original question and the previous question. My hon. friend has not made that distinction, so until he brings before the house a rule dealing with the previous question, which he has not done and which I do not think has been clearly established in this house before, then I submit the discussion should be on the motion now before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no doubt about the procedure. The motion is debatable, and the debate can continue in much the same fashion as it did before the motion was put, and the members who have spoken before are free to speak again.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before the other debate developed, I propose to speak on this special research committee more in line with the field of agriculture. I think one should realize just how important research is to this great country of Canada, and one need only think of the great amount of research that was put into the development of the St. Lawrence seaway and what has developed from that research field. Never before in the history of Canada would a research committee be more necessary than it is today, especially in the field of agriculture as mentioned here this afternoon and this evening, due to the large amount of surplus agricultural products in Canada. One only need think of the situation that prevailed during the last war when Germany practically ran her whole regime on the lowly, humble potato and its by-products. They made many things from the potato, and I would think that if we had the research committee that is proposed here today, possibly something similar could be developed from wheat, which is in great surplus in this country at the present time. It is quite conceivable that many products could be made from wheat if the time, the money and the research went into this major problem. It is not many years ago that casein was developed from milk, and from casein they made plastic, and from plastic has developed many, many products.
So I would think, Mr. Speaker, that with the co-ordination of a research committee such as proposed it would go a long way toward helping us develop some other products from our surplus agricultural products. It is generally realized, I believe, that even with the great increase in population and the rising living standards, Canada can produce more than it consumes for many years to come. I think of the field of plant pathology, where many new and better


varieties could be propagated in order to produce for Canada some of those products which we are now importing from other countries. I think of the large amount of vegetable oil which comes into Canada from the United States from which we make margarine. I think the field of research could develop suitable varieties from which we could get these vegetable oils. It was that great president of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, who once said that if we buy goods from other countries, they have the money and we have the goods; but if we produce the goods at home or grow the crops, then we have both the goods and the money. It was on that principle, along with the building of a great population, that the United States is now one of the greatest countries in the world.
I think that is a model which we should be inclined to follow more, and with a research committee we could direct our thoughts along these lines. I think that such a committee, if established, would go a long way toward co-ordinating the field of agricultural research. We have across Canada, as you know Mr. Speaker, many experimental farms and also many agricultural colleges. Each is very sincere in developing experimental work, but I think we lack very much a co-ordination between these two great bodies, the agricultural colleges and the experimental farms. If they would coordinate this research it would do away with the great waste of time and money which we have today.


Mr. Peters:: Let us do a little research into the waste of time we have had here today.


Alfred Dryden Hales: The hon. member has had his opportunity.


William Arnold Peters: This is what the Canadian people are asking for.


Alfred Dryden Hales: My hon. friend has had his opportunity to speak this afternoon. If they would co-ordinate this great research field it would save much time and money and considerably more research work could be done if one organization co-ordinated the whole field of experimental agricultural work. We have had wonderful results in the last few years in Canada in the field of agricultural research study. One only has to stop and think of the development of the famous Macintosh apple, which apparently originated in western Canada, and also the development of the world famous Marquis wheat. One also has only to stop and think of the great strides and improvements which have been made in the study and research of pasture grasses and pasture improvements so that today we are raising practically

double the number of livestock on the same acreage of grass that we were able to do a few years ago. It is not many years ago that we had to import practically all our tobacco for human consumption, whereas today, owing to the results of great research and study, tobacco is now grown in Canada to fulfil our needs. One only has to think of poultry to be reminded of the great results which rdiearch has achieved. Some 20 years ago it took 14 weeks and 12 pounds of feed to raise a three pound broiler chicken. Today this can be done in nine weeks and on seven pounds of feed, and the scientists are looking toward a goal which is even more promising, a three pound chicken raised in six weeks on six pounds of feed. Such great strides as this have been brought about through science and research, but I think that even more might have been accomplished had we received the benefit of a co-ordinating committee set up to direct the results of this research.


Harold Edward Winch: Are you going to talk this out or vote for it?


Hazen Robert Argue: Are you going to read out this one?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member who has the floor has a perfect right to speak without interruption.


Hazen Robert Argue: But not to read his speech.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I wish the hon. gentleman had prepared a speech for me that I could read.


Hazen Robert Argue: He admits he cannot read it.


Alfred Dryden Hales: One can go on to speak of the many directions in which research has proved of value. Today in the city of Ottawa the fisheries council of Canada is meeting. I dare say that they have a research council, but I think they would be appreciative if there was a committee in Canada to coordinate all the work which is being done in the industry. I think, for example, of the great lakes system in which at one time there was a bountiful supply of lake trout which could be caught at almost any time. But the lamprey eel has caused such devastation that it is now almost impossible to catch a lake trout. Research will be of great value in helping to overcome this dreaded lamprey eel.
I understand that an agriculture research council exists in Great Britain and that it is achieving wonderful results. The council reports directly to the cabinet on the problems with which it deals, and I believe that we in this country, with our vast natural resources would find such a research coordinating body of particular advantage. It is not so long ago that we were ridiculed about our vision of the great north and 66968-9-1454
Business of the House
ridiculed for planning to build roads from igloo to igloo. But great research has been carried out in the northern part of Canada, to the extent that only recently over 70 million acres of land has been sold or leased for development by the oil industry. But the most important function of this proposed committee, as I see it, would be the coordination of all the research being done in connection with all the various industries in Canada, because with this co-ordination one can expect greater achievement and greater results. In the course of this debate we have heard some very interesting remarks concerning the wide ramifications of research, and the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) by introducing this motion has provoked long and serious discussion on this subject. I maintain that for a young country such as ours, with our vast natural resources, there is a particular need for a research coordinating board in order that we may make the greatest use of the natural resources with which we have been endowed.


Harold Edward Winch: The hon. member is not checking the clock, Mr. Speaker. Is it okay if I count down?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is not contributing to the debate by such tactics and I would ask him to refrain.


Harold Edward Winch: Every member has supported this motion.


Alfred Dryden Hales: May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business is for tomorrow, and for as much of the week as the leader of the house is able to give it?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we will begin with item No. 39 on the day's order paper, the resolution concerning the bill which deals with freight rates. Then we will take item 30, second reading of the bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act, and next item 35, the resolution concerning the federal-provincial tax-sharing arrangements. On Wednesday we will commence with item 33, second reading of the bill to provide for the appointment of parliamentary secretaries to ministers. As has already been announced, the budget will be brought down on Thursday evening. We expect that estimates will be taken either on Thursday or on Friday, and perhaps on both days, and they will be the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. The intention is to resume the budget debate a week from today and to carry right through with the full eight-day debate.


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

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Argue: 1.	Has any recent analysis been made of the air,
water, or milk supplies of any of the following cities to determine the amount of nuclear fall-out produced strontium 90 or other long-lived radioactive isotope present:	Vancouver, Edmonton,
Whitehorse, Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Churchill, Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec, Saint John, Moncton, Halifax, Charlottetown, St. John's?
2.	If so: (a) What was the nature of the findings in each case?
(b)	How do these compare with the supposed tolerable limit in each case?
(c)	Has there been any significant increase in any instance since 1945?
(d)	If so, in what respect?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of
National Health and Welfare):
Air
1.	Gross beta activity in air has been measured at the following stations. No analysis has been made for long-lived isotopes:-
St. John's, Halifax, Ottawa, Churchill, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Whitehorse.
2.	(a) There were marked fluctuations both with time and location. (When relatively high readings were obtained, the radioactivity decayed rapidly.)
(b)	They are well below the maximum permissible level.
(c)	Yes.
(d)	In 1945 there was no measurable strontium 90.
Water
1.	Yes, for rainwater at the following stations:-
St. John's, Quebec, Ottawa, Churchill, Winnipeg, Edmonton.
2.	(a) 1958 (Ottawa) 5 millicuries per sq. kilometer, (Quebec) 7 millicuries per sq. kilometer. Levels for the other stations are being calculated.
(b)	Because rainwater is not usually consumed as rainwater no maximum permissible level has been established. However in terms of drinking water the above strontium 90 values are well below the maximum permissible level. In addition, before rainwater reaches the normal drinking water supplies, a number of natural and artificial filtering processes take place reducing the strontium 90 content further.
(c)	Yes.
(d)	In 1945 there was no measurable strontium 90.
Milk Supplies
1.	Yes, at the following stations: -
Moncton, Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Vancouver.
2.	(a) There are reported in CNHW (RP-1), July 1958, and AECL No. 678, July 1958.
(b)	They are well below the Maximum permissible level.
(c)	Yes.
(d)	In 1945 there was no measurable strontium 90.


RADIATION LEVELS IN CANADA
Mr. Argue: 1.	What radiation levels have been reported in Canada following nuclear bomb tests (in roentgen units for comparison) for each of the last four years?
2. What is the minimum lethal dose (in roentgens)?
3. What is the supposed tolerable level (in roentgens) ?
4.	Is there any disagreement among scientists concerning (a) the minimum lethal dose; (b) the supposed tolerable level?
5.	If so, what are the nature of their contentions, and the names and qualifications of the scientists who made such statements?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of
National Health and Welfare):
1.	Direct measurements of radiation levels in Canada following nuclear bomb tests have not been made because the daily and seasonal variations in the natural background radiation levels are greater than the slight increases produced by nuclear test explosions.
Rough calculations of radiation levels can be made by making certain assumptions and using measurements of the level of radioactivity in air and in rainfall and snow. Such calculations are not being carried out on a routine basis because of the large uncertainties involved. However based on computations for Ottawa rainfall the radiation exposure due to weapon tests is estimated to be 1 per cent or less of that from natural sources, cosmic and terrestrial.
2.	A lethal dose for the individual is not defined, but it is generally agreed that a dose of about 400-500 roentgens will cause death among 50 per cent of the group exposed. However, this dose has to be delivered rapidly. For small doses given over a long period of time, the corresponding figure would be much higher.
3.	For workers using radioactive materials an exposure of 5 roentgens per year, but not exceeding 60 roentgens before the age of 30 and not exceeding 200 roentgens per lifetime exposure, is considered acceptable.
4.	(a) There is no major disagreement with regard to the range of lethal doses.

(b)	There is no major disagreement with regard to the maximum permissible exposure for workers using radioactive materials. There is disagreement with respect to the possible consequences of low levels of exposure to whole populations. The degree of uncertainty with regard to the effects of low levels of radiation upon exposed individuals has been very clearly stated in the report of the United Nations Scientific committee on the effects of atomic radiation.
5.	The nature of the possible difference of opinion has been indicated recently in an exchange of letters which has appeared in the pages of the Sunday edition of the New York Times, between Professors Linus Pauling and Barclay Kamb of the California Institute of Technology and Dr. Miriam P. Finkle of the Argonne national laboratory. The opposing contentions in this case related to whether it is likely that there is a threshold level of radiation below which there would be no effects at all even in large populations, or alternatively whether there may be very slight effects upon the incidence of leukaemia and bone tumours, which, in view of a world population of two and a half billion people, might nevertheless affect substantial numbers of individuals in the world as a whole. Professors Linus Pauling and Barclay Kamb are respectively professor of chemistry and assistant professor of geology at the California Institute of Technology. Dr. Miriam P. Finkle is in the division of biological and medical research of the Argonne national laboratory.


FISH CONTAMINATION BY NUCLEAR FALL-OUT
Mr. Argue: 1.	Have any communications been received by the Canadian government from any foreign government or agency thereof, or from any other official source, that the fish inhabiting the waters adjacent to our coasts have become contaminated or affected in any way by nuclear fall-out?
2.	If so, what were the nature of such communications?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Minister of
National Health and Welfare):
1.	No.
Questions
2.	See answer 1 above.


BACKGROUND RADIOACTIVITY
Mr. Argue: 1.	Is any agency of the federal government conducting experiments to determine the level of background radioactivity beyond which there will be danger of genetic mutation in living organisms?
2.	If so, have any conclusions been reached as a result of these experiments?
3.	Have any hypotheses been formulated?
4.	If so, what are the nature of these?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Minister
of National Health and Welfare):
1.	Studies of this nature are not being made because it is believed that the number of mutations produced by exposure to radiation varies in direct proportion to the dose, and that even very low levels of radiation from natural sources cause some of the mutations which are occurring all the time in living organisms. It should be added that although estimates have been made of the possible genetic consequences of an increased amount of radioactivity, the basic information on which these estimates have had to be based needs to be improved.
2,	3, 4. See answer 1 above.


C.N.R. TRAIN WRECKS, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Argue: 1.	How many train wrecks occurred on the
Canadian National Railways lines in Nova Scotia, during the periods between July 1,	1957 and
February 1, 1959, and January 1, 1956, and July 1, 1957?
2.	What was the cause of each such train wreck during the above period?
3.	What was the cost of each such train wreck during the above periods?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
1,	2 and 3. The management of the Canadian National Railways advise that the term "train wrecks" is not a precise one, but the tabulation below includes all mishaps of any kind where damage was $750 or more and, as such, classified as reportable accidents.
Statement of Train Accidents on C.N.R. Lines in Nova Scotia for Periods Shown
Cause
Period	Mechanical Conditions	Track Conditions	Mechanical Rule & Track Violations	Miscel- laneousJan. 1, 1956	Number ...	. . 30 5	9	None	11	5to	July 1, 1957	Cost 	. . $ 24,441	$ 52,859	-	$ 40,179	$ 22,238July 1, 1957	Number ...	.. 23 5	2	1	11	4to	Feb. 1, 1959	Cost 	. . . $180,094	$ 11,780	$21,699	$170,395	$ 12,430
Questions


TRAINING OP MUSEUM CURATORS
Mr. Argue: 1.	What facilities are there in Canada for the training of museum curators and other museum staff?
2.	What facilties in Canada are being used for the training of museum curators and other museum staff?
3.	What is the function, and what are the duties and responsibilities of a museum curator?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister
of Northern Affairs and National
Resources):
1.	The national museum has sponsored a week-long seminar-and proposes to sponsor others-for the training of museum curators. The national gallery has a scheme for the training of curators for art museums whereby the trainee receives instruction for an entire school year. Week-long seminars for museum curators are sponsored by the Canadian museum association. These have been held at Jordan, Ontario, at Halifax and at Victoria, and they are arranged by the regional museum leaders of the association. The association also sponsors week end "workshops" which have been held in a number of centres. Workshops are also sponsored by the Ontario historical society, principally for the curators of small historical museums. Members of the Canadian museums association are eligible to undertake home studies for the certificate of the museums association of Great Britain, and several members are currently enrolled in this scheme.
With respect to the training of museum staff other than curators, most of the larger museums in Canada accept individuals who are willing to be employed without pay on an apprenticeship basis with the object of learning the techniques and methods of museum work. The national museum of Canada and the Royal Ontario museum have accepted trainees on this basis, some of whom have been supported by museums sponsoring them and others by grants from the Canada Council.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	One of the main responsibilities of a museum curator is to preserve and exhibit (as may be appropriate) the contents of the museum or museum section for which he is responsible. The duties and responsibilities vary greatly according to the type of museum concerned, its size and the nature of its contents. They also vary with the emphasis placed on the various phases of the museum's activities. A curator of a large museum normally acquires specimens to add to the museum's collections, studies them, records data about them and supervises
their storage and preservation. He supervises the preparation of exhibits displaying them to the public, and explains their significance by the production of scientific reports and papers, which are publicized in scientific and popular periodicals and by means of lectures, radio, television and other media.


BRANCH DIRECTORS, NATIONAL MUSEUM
Mr. Argue: 1.	By what authority were the positions of director of the human history branch and director of the natural history branch of the national museum of Canada created?
2.	On what date was this done, and by what legal instrument were these positions authorized?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister
of Northern Affairs and National
Resources):
1 and 2. Pursuant to section 9 of the Civil Service Act and under the authority of the Financial Administration Act, the position of director, national museum of Canada was established and approved by treasury board minute 503905 of May 18, 1956. The then government later decided to seek legislation to divide the national museum into a museum of natural history and a museum of human history and decided to create an additional position of director. This additional position was recommended under the Civil Service Act, concurred in by treasury board and approved by the governor in council effective December 28, 1956 as shown in a supplementary list of positions.


NATIONAL MUSEUM BRANCHES
Mr. Argue: 1.	By what authority was the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources empowered to divide the national museum of Canada into two branches?
2.	On what date was this done and by what legal instrument was it carried out?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister
of Northern Affairs	and National
Resources):
1 and 2. Pursuant to section 9 of the Civil Service Act and to the Financial Administration Act, the change of departmental organization to provide for the division effective January 1,	1957, was recommended by the civil	service commission on December 18, 1956, concurred in by treasury board and approved by the governor in council on December 28, 1956.


FARM EMPLOYMENT PLACEMENTS
Mr. Regier: 1.	How many persons were placed in farm employment in 1958 through national employment offices?

2.	How many persons were placed in farm employment in 1958 through the immigration department?
3.	What is the distribution as to males and females in question (1) and (2)?
4.	How many farm employers employed (a) only one person; (b) two persons; (c) three to five persons; (d) more than five persons?
Answer by:	Hon. Henri Courtemanche
(Secretary of State):
1.	89,335.
2.	5,794.
3.	(1) 59,055 males; 30,280 females.
(2) Statistics not available.
4.	This information is not available.


C.N.R.-TRANSFER OF AIR BRAKE SHOP
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did the Canadian National Railways move the air brake shop work from Port Arthur to Neebing in the last three years?
2.	If so, how many men were involved in the switch?
3.	What were the reasons for making this change?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
The management of the Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Yes, in 1957.
2.	Five.
3.	From an operational standpoint it is considered that Neebing is the appropriate location to perform such work.


C.N.R.-TRANSFER OF AUXILIARY
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did the Canadian National Railways move the auxiliary to Neebing from Port Arthur in November, 1958?
2.	If so, how many men were involved in the switch?
3.	What were the reasons for making this change?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of
Transport):
The management of the Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Nine.
3.	Studies indicated that Neebing is the appropriate location. In the event the auxiliary is required west of Neebing, there is a time saving through this relocation.


C.N.R. CLEANING PLANT
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Is the Canadian National Railways planning a cleaning plant at either Port Arthur or Neebing?
2.	If so, when will this plant go into operation, what will be its capacity, and how many men will be required to man the plant?
3.	How is such cleaning work being carried on at the present time, and how many men are involved?
Questions
4.	Will the new cleaning plant have any effect upon the work being done at the Port Arthur repair tracks?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of
Transport):
The management of the Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	A car cleaning track has been constructed at Port Arthur.
2.	The plant will go into operation this spring. The capacity of the track is approximately 150 cars. Estimated cleaning staff will be approximately 15 and an additional 10 engaged in making light repairs and upgrading cars.
3.	Cars are now being cleaned for paper loading at Neebing, for paper and flour loading at Port Arthur, and for general freight on the freight shed tracks. Eleven men are now engaged in this work. Two men are also employed at Port Arthur and two at Neebing engaged in light repairs to cars which are being cleaned.
4.	The men engaged in the light repairs on the new cleaning track will be under the jurisdiction of the Port Arthur repair track foreman and will not result in a decrease in the Port Arthur repair track staff.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY  MARINE INDUSTRIES CONTRACTS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Since January, 1952, has Marine Industries received and/or carried out any contracts for the St. Lawrence seaway authority?
2.	If so, what was the nature, cost and location of such contract?
3.	Who have been the executive officers of Marine Industries during this period?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
1.	Yes.
2.	Dredging channel, lake St. Louis. Award contract prices, $8,219,000. Awarded March 18, 1955.
Dredging approach to seaway, Montreal harbour. Award contract price, $10,636,000. Awarded March 9, 1956.
Dredging and channel improvements, Cornwall island. Award contract price,$13,-411,000. Awarded January 25, 1957.
Dredging lake St. Francis, Lancaster bar. Award contract price, $384,000. Awarded March 18, 1955.
Supply of sounding sweep No. 2. Award contract price, $65,500. Awarded June 27, 1958.
3.	Officers who signed contracts were:
Dredging channel, lake St. Louis-J.
Edouard Simard, president; C. Hawken, secretary.

Questions
Dredging approach to seaway, Montreal harbour-J. Edouard Simard, president; L. N. DeRome, managing director, dredging.
Dredging and channel improvements Cornwall island-J. Edouard Simard, president; C. Hawken, secretary.
Dredging lake St. Francis, Lancaster bar- J. Edouard Simard, president; C. Hawken, secretary.
Supply of sounding sweep No. 2-Arthur Simard, vice-president; C. Hawken, secretary.


DR. RICHARD S. MACNEISH-NATIONAL MUSEUM APPOINTMENT
Mr. Argue: 1.	On what date was Dr. Richard S. MacNeish first appointed to the staff of the national museum of Canada, and to what position was he appointed?
2.	Did this position come under the Civil Service Act and regulations?
3.	Was this position advertised by a civil service competition?
4.	If so, (a) Did Dr. MacNeish apply? (b) What was the position advertised for, and the date it was advertised? (c) What names appeared on the civil service eligibility list? (d) In what order were the names listed? (e) How many persons applied? (f) What was the closing date for the receipt of applications?
5.	Was Dr. MacNeish a British subject or Canadian citizen at the time he applied for this position?
6.	If not, has the civil service commission been notified that he had applied for naturalization papers either as a British subject or Canadian citizen by the closing date for the receipt of applications for this competition?
7.	If not, on what authority was Dr. MacNeish permitted to compete in this examination?
Answer by:	Hon. Henri Courlemanche
(Secretary of State):
1.	Dr. Richard S. MacNeish was first appointed to the staff of the national museum of Canada on June 20, 1949. He was appointed to position, MR-MMU-5 as an anthropologist 3.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) Yes.
(b)	This position had become vacant and, since it was considered that no one in civil service possessed the qualifications required, it was advertised as an open competition on March 30, 1949.
(c)	The name of Dr. MacNeish was the only name on the eligible list for this competition.
(d)	See (c).
(e)	Two.
(f)	April 23, 1949.
5.	No.
6.	The civil service commission had not been notified that Dr. MacNeish had applied for naturalization papers as a British subject or a Canadian citizen by the closing date for the receipt of applications in this competition,
7.	Dr. MacNeish's application was admitted to competition 49-4450 by authority of P.C. 24/3539 of July 15, 1949, which exempted him from the requirements of section 33 (1), now 32 (1), of the Civil Service Act. This section of the Civil Service Act reads as follows:
"No person shall, without the authority of the governor in council, be admitted to any examination unless he is a natural born or naturalized British subject and also has been a resident of Canada or Newfoundland for at least five years."


STATELESS PEOPLE
Mr. Martin (Essex East): Is Canada being represented at the conference of 30 nations convened to prepare an international agreement to eliminate or reduce the number of stateless people in the world?
Answer by: Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Acting Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):
Yes.


BANK OF CANADA BUILDING, HALIFAX-HEATING
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	What is the estimated cost per annum of heating the new Bank of Canada premises at Halifax. Nova Scotia, with (a) oil; (b) coal?
2.	How many gallons of oil will be required and from what country will it be purchased?
3.	How many tons of coal would be required to heat this building?
4.	What would be the cost of moving such a quantity of coal into the Ontario market from Nova Scotia at the highest subvention rate per ton applicable?
Answer by: Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):
1.	Not of government record.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.

Tuesday, April 7, 1959