1954-03-18

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, March 18, 1954
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. Thibaudeau Rinfret, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, Thursday, the 18th March, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Secretary to the Governor General. (Administrative)
(Translation):

SALE or FRENCH LANGUAGE NEWSPAPERS IN CAFETERIA


Mr. Heclor Dupuis (Sf. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to look into the advisability of putting on sale a morning and an evening French language newspaper in the parliamentary .cafeteria? I believe I am speaking on behalf of a large number of my colleagues in making this request.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall be pleased to give consideration to the hon. member's request.
(Text):



THE PRIME MINISTER


Mr. Speaker:: If Hansard could have
registered the genuine sentiments of admiration and affection felt in all parts of the house for the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), sentiments which prompted the enthusiastic applause we have heard in the last few seconds, no words of mine would require to be spoken. I know that all hon. members, however, want me to tell the Prime Minister that we are very pleased to see him back in his seat in the house from his good-will tour around the globe and looking so well.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: 
of SHAPE where I heard a concise but very instructive report from General Gruenther. I was also shown some interesting old Canadian archives that are still in Paris, although I think we have photostats of them in our own archives here. But there is something in just feeling these things that have come down from two or three centuries, though perhaps after my visiting the Orient two or three centuries would not have appeared to me to be so impressive as they were when I was examining these old documents relating to Canada's early history.
From there we went to Germany and I was delighted when I met for the first time Dr. Heuss, the president of the German republic. He is a man with a long university career, and with the appearance and the charm of a man of great culture. He confirmed the impression we had all formed of Chancellor Adenauer when he was here and which was also confirmed by the impression made upon me by the chancellor's colleagues in the ministry, namely that the leaders in these days in Germany are looking to a future where gains will not be dependent upon war but where they will be the result of good international relations between that country and all its neighbours. I think that the chancellor and his colleagues are most anxious to provide for a future where they will be allowed to live and where it will be their pleasure and satisfaction to let others live alongside of them.
I then had the privilege of visiting the troops at Soest under Brigadier Anderson. The barracks that are being provided there are magnificent. Everything has not yet been done but I should just like to give one little illustration that impressed me. When I asked the brigadier about the school facilities, he said they were coming along but that his own young son who is 7J years old was attending the German public school. When I reported that fact to the chancellor, who I found had already heard of it, he said that our men were all behaving in the manner best calculated to make them accepted as true and sincere friends and as people for whom his German population would always have respect and admiration.
The next day we flew to Grostenquin. There I found the morale of our men to be very high, in spite of the fact that all the difficulties have not yet been overcome for them. The commander of the squadrons there, with his wife and their three children, are still living in a trailer but for that 1 had admiration. The officers are giving the men the impression that whatever are the difficulties, they are no greater for the men than

they are for the officers themselves. I think that is one of the explanations of this high morale I found everywhere among our troops. They all felt that they were human units in a joint endeavour being made by themselves and by those who were commanding them. It was at Grostenquin that we had our first disappointment. We had expected to go the same afternoon to Zweibrucken but the weather was still bad; we were experiencing the seasonal continental weather at that time. The plane that had gone from Grostenquin to Paris to bring the ambassador up to take part in our visit had not been able to put down at Paris and had come back without him and we were not able to get into Zweibrucken. I am sorry because I greatly appreciated the privilege of saying to these men, on your behalf, Mr. Speaker, and on behalf of my colleagues, that we realize that they are doing a large portion of our share in this general undertaking to maintain peace in the world. The time that we would have taken to visit Zweibrucken was taken up by visiting Guesslin, one of these farming villages in Lorraine. I must confess that I was somewhat depressed at the feeling that there might be still quite a large number of these villages or farming communities in France-the like of which we have not in this country-which do not appear to have changed greatly through many of the past decades. But every person we saw seemed to be good-humoured and seemed to feel that they were living quite comfortably but it was obviously under conditions with which our people in Canada would not be perfectly satisfied.
From there we flew to Rome. We got there late in the evening and came down from considerable heights to ground level rather quickly. I therefore found, when I stepped off the plane, that there was not much that I could hear. Then there was such an array of klieg lights that I found that within a few seconds there was not much that I could see. Hence for a moment or two I was, more than usual, in strange surroundings. But that condition disappeared and the warmth of the welcome that was accorded to us there was really quite moving.
We were invited to meet President Einaudi, another university man whose whole career until recently has been in the field of study and teaching, and who certainly has no other desire than to see the whole world at peace and' to see all the people of the world have the opportunity to pursue the kind of careers of which his own is one of the examples of what an intelligent man would prefer to do rather than engage in the horrible business of destroying each other. I met the new 83276-197
18, 1954	3101
Prime Minister's World Tour prime minister, Mr. Scelba, and several of his colleagues who are quite firm in their resistance to communistic influence in their country and quite confident that that resistance is and will continue to be successful.
Personally I had another disappointment in Rome, one that was shared by several of those who were accompanying me. We had hoped to be received in audience by His Holiness the Pope but the condition of His Holiness' health was such that he was not able to receive anyone at all. I went and paid my respects to Monsignor Montini who, as hon. members know, was here a little over a year ago. I also wished to see Monsignor Tardini but was told' I might not be able to see him because he was at that moment closeted with the Pope. We went around to his office just the same to leave cards and just as we got there Monsignor Tardini was coming out and was able at that time to give us very encouraging news of the state of health of the Holy Father. Unfortunately there have been relapses, and the state of his health is still giving grave concern.
The next day was quite a memorable one.
I was received by the mayor of Rome, mayor Salvatore Rebecchini at the capitol. They put on a great municipal demonstration at the capitol and pointed out to me where Tarpeian rock was and' warned me it was not very far from the seat of the mighty to this Tarpeian rock. They seemed quite conscious that under the democratic institutions as they existed 2,000 years ago and as they still exist the difference is perhaps no more than our colleague, the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), mentioned some time ago when he said that the transition from a private car to an upper berth was always something that could happen in politics. I was presented with a silver replica of the famous wolf with Romulus and Remus getting what would look from the replica to be a very welcome meal provided by the wolf.
Then we flew to Bahrein. As hon. members know, that is an island under a British protectorate. We were greeted there by what I suppose would be the crown prince, the eldest son of the reigning sheik himself, Sheik Ibn Salman Heklealifa, who extended cordial greetings, much to my surprise, because I had not been informed we were going to be received there. We were just stopping there as a matter of convenience to avoid travelling further by night. We stopped' with the Hon. Mr. Burrows, the British political resident in that island. We were told that it was a place
3102	HOUSE OF
Prime Minister's World Tour where it never rained, but we were also told that for three days preceding our arrival it had rained quite steadily, and that was quite evident from the state of the airfield because it was rather splashy when we put down in spite of the great skill of the pilots of our plane.
The next morning we went on to Karachi. There we were received by our old friend, Prime Minister Mohammed Ali, with the cordiality those who know him can well imagine for themselves. We were put up at government house with the governor general, Ghulam Mohammed, who wanted' to be especially remembered to our Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). It appears that for quite a long period he had some of the cares our Minister of Finance still has, and he always has retained an affectionate regard for a fellow sufferer as a result of their meetings at several international conferences.


An hon. Member:: The extortioners must stick together.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I also had an interesting conversation with Sir Mohammed Zafrulla Khan and met for the first time there, although I did meet his opposite number in other countries as well, a minister of parliamentary affairs. We do not call our Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) a minister of parliamentary affairs, but it was explained to me that his functions were very much like those of our good friend, although he combines them with being minister of law. Here we prefer to call our minister the Minister of Justice, but there they are content with the feeling that their law may mean the same thing as justice.
We went up to Peshawar and stayed there with the governor, Mr. Shahbuddin, a brother of the former prime minister of Pakistan, Mr. Nazimuddin, so that evidently political changes do not always have all the repercussions that they might be expected to have. These governors are appointed by the central government, and the brother of the former prime minister is still the governor and is a very cordial and very likable gentleman. We went up the Khyber pass right up to the Afghanistan border. A barbed wire fence marked the border and there was a guard just on the other side. We were warned we must not step over the line marked by the barbed wire, but I did go right up to the fence and extend my hand which was taken very cordially by the captain of the guard. I expressed feelings of good will and he said he was sorry that I was not going to visit his country. We warned the photographers that perhaps it


would be just as well not to make any pictures of that incident because we did not want to get the captain of the guard into any embarrassing situation.
But when I got to Delhi I met the ambassador of Afghanistan to India. He had heard of the incident and thanked me for expressing good will to the guard and also expressed his regrets that I was not visiting his country. He did that in the most perfect French, which I am sure the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) would admire as much as I did. The drive up the Khyber pass is most interesting because it reminds one of the centuries that the pass has been the gateway for invasion into southeastern Asia from the time of Alexander the Great right on down. We were very cordially received by the Khyber Rifles, whose mess is at the head of the pass. On the way up we met many of the tribesmen who were also most cordial, almost embarrassingly so. They presented me with two sheep. I was told that we did not have to go through the whole of the ancient ceremony. The ancient ceremony implied that the recipient of the sheep was to turn them back to be sacrificed and roasted immediately for a feast that was to be shared. However, Mrs. Roosevelt has established the precedent that it is quite sufficient to put your hand on their heads as a token of ownership, and then ask the donors if they will not excuse you from remaining for the other festivities because of your other engagements.
At Peshawar I met a friend of our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), a Mr. A. E. Palmer, who has been there for a couple of years as an agricultural expert. He knew all about what had taken place in the Lethbridge area, and is quite encouraging. He says that though they have good irrigated wheat lands, they have only been getting an average of ten to twelve bushels per acre, while in the Lethbridge irrigated areas the least they get is thirty-five bushels and it goes up to sixty. By selecting seeds he had been getting forty or more from demonstration plots. He is quite firmly convinced they are going to be able to bring in and demonstrate the adaptability of the kind of seed that will enable these people to double or perhaps treble the amount of wheat they get from the same land.
I think that is the kind of thing that is being done under the Colombo plan and the technical aid plan, which is most practical and appropriate. It is not possible for the production of this continent, even if half of it were turned over annually to the hundreds of millions in those countries, to make very much difference in their standard of living.

Whatever is done under these plans can be added to the result of their own productive effort and the improvement of that effort, but it can be only the kind of addition that the oil fields are making to the economy of Alberta, which still has as its sound foundation the agricultural production of that great province.
Mr. Palmer is also firmly convinced that they can make sugar out of beets better and more profitably in the northwestern frontier province of Pakistan than they can make it out of sugar cane. He has convinced Mr. Sardar Rashid Khan, who is the chief minister of that province, that is probably so, and it is going to be tried out. Of course, they realize that growing beets is quite a lot of work. The work has to be done right down close to the ground, but these people do all their work sitting on their haunches so it is not going to be anything backbreaking to them to thin and weed rows of sugar beets.
Then we went to Lahore, that great old city, not the largest but perhaps one of the most interesting we did visit. Unfortunately the governor, His Excellency Mian Aminuddin, was indisposed but his Begum and members of the government met us at the airport and took us to government house where we were magnificently entertained and made most comfortable. There was a large dinner party given that evening, perhaps not only on our account, but it was the next to the closing day of the annual horse fair and agricultural show at Lahore. There were many people who had come, not because there was going to be a visitor from Canada, but to see the very interesting show that was being provided. Among others at this dinner there was the Prince Ali Khan, His Highness the Maharaja of Jaipur, the Maharani of Jaipur, Prime Minister Malik Khan Noon and other members of the government. It was a very impressive oriental dinner party in magnificent surroundings. We have not the like of these palaces that are being used by the native governors and were formerly occupied by the representatives of the controlling powers.
I went for about half an hour to this horse show the next day, really more to see what a holiday oriental gathering was like than to follow the incidents on the program. I found there is not very much difference between the appearance of a holiday crowd in the east and the appearance of a holiday crowd in our own country. I saw there another confirmation of the fact that men, women and children are much the same all over the world. I saw something also that made me still think of home. It was a musical ride by the governor general's guard.
83276-197J
18, 1954	3103
Prime Minister's World Tour It was very well done, but I remembered the musical ride I had seen performed by the R.C.M.P. at the time of the coronation in London. I think I would be very hard put if I had to decide which was the more impressive of the two. In both cases the performance seemed to me to be perfection. There was exactly the same rhythm in the bearing of the men and the action of the horses. They were beating the time much better than I was doing when I was reviewing those guards of honour that were lined up at most of the places where I stopped.
Then, of course, we saw some of the beauties of that spot, the Shalimar gardens. These gardens were laid out certainly more than a century before those of Louis XIV at Versailles, which might seem to have been the pattern. Then when we got to India we saw the gardens that had been laid out around the palace at New Delhi, which was built only a quarter of a century ago. They are perhaps more like the Versailles gardens than the Versailles gardens are like the Shalimar gardens, so it would seem these things can move from east to west and back to the east. Everything that is done by man not to mar the beauties of nature but to make the beauties of nature more apparent and striking is much the same all over the world.
I also had an opportunity to see for the first times these great red forts that were erected in the sixteenth century and afterwards by the Moghul emperors. This country must have been extremely prosperous at one time because these red forts, the temples they contain, the palaces and different apartments that are provided are of a splendor that cannot be other than the reflection of a state of considerable prosperity at the time they were provided.
At New Delhi we were also received in the governor general's palace, that is the one that was erected when New Delhi was being provided as the new capital. I got the impression, and told Prime Minister Nehru, that it was a good thing it had been done before the minister of public works had to get an appropriation from parliament to provide it, because it was done on a scale for which it might be difficult to get appropriations in a democratic assembly. Perhaps it is a good thing. There are already 360 million people in India and the population is increasing all the time. It may be a good thing the palace was provided on that scale, with seventy-odd acres of gardens around it, for that set the scale for all the establishments of this new capital.
There is a lot of land there that does not look very attractive for agricultural
3104	HOUSE OF
Prime Minister's World Tour purposes, so they are going to have plenty of space to develop their new capital to meet the requirements of these hundreds of millions of population. There is a possibility, perhaps even a probability, that they will get back to a state of prosperity which enabled the red forts to be built in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
The Prime Minister, Pandit Nehru, devoted a lot of time to me, for which I am very grateful. Our conversations, were, of course, very frank and very intimate. I am not going to be guilty of any breaches of confidence, but he was at great pains to explain to me his views of the historical development of the political regimes and economies and the cultural developments of the successive civilizations of these old countries, and the results of the ferments that are now taking hold among those hundreds of millions of people.
I should like to mention one or two things I saw. I saw the Qutab Minar, a great tower almost 300 feet high, I think, of huge blocks of cut rock and marble. One wonders how that was done thousands of years ago. We have no record of the cranes or other equipment they used to do those things in those days. But the blocks were raised to great heights and put together with some kind of cement or mortar that our contractors do not use in these days.
Alongside of the Qutab Minar there is the "iron tower", the "iron pillar". It is two hundred feet high. I am told it has been there for hundreds of years, and that it is practically pure iron-over 99 per cent pure iron. It is not oxidized; it has not suffered at all through all those years, and I am told that we just cannot do those things today. We cannot produce iron of that purity. And that is just one of the other things that lead me to believe that human nature has not changed through all these long centuries, and that we should not be over-proud of our achievements at the present time. I say that because there have been achievements in the past that we cannot equal today. We have much that we can pass on in industrial know-how to those great nations of the East, but there has been developed there long before our era much that could be used by us in our own lives.
We went to Agra and saw the Taj Mahal. Well, that is something which is a marvel to behold, and just makes one wonder how it was done. Perhaps it may have been a part of welfare state legislation. There are records showing that it was seventeen years in the building, and that 20,000 people were employed in constructing it. It is quite evident that neither time nor money were
EMr. St. Laurent.]

factors, and it is obvious that the aim was perfection, and I think that perfection was achieved.
At Fatehpur Sikri we saw another of these red forts that Shah Jahan had erected, within which was a little temple enclosing the shrine of the saint who had promised him a male heir-and more than carried out the promise when, within the normal period of time, there were two male heirs born to the same favoured queen. This prompted Shah Jahan to erect a fort there

in which he did not reside very long because, I am told, the climatic conditions and the conditions of the water were not conducive to long life.
From there we returned to Delhi. I had been honoured at Peshawar with an honorary degree, and again received a similar honorary degree at Delhi. I found there was a generosity in the East in respect of this function that I had not experienced in the West. I brought back with me two gorgeous red robes that were presented to me as the accompaniment of the degree of doctor of laws that was awarded to me by these ancient seats of learning.
At Bombay we stayed with Governor Sir Girja Bajpai who is well known to many of us who have attended meetings of the international assemblies, and was also greeted by the chief ministers and charged by them, as I had been on other occasions, with the best wishes and greetings to our houses of parliament. I was privileged to attend a meeting of the assembly of the people in the parliament at New Delhi and to hear Mr. Nehru make a speech, of the tour d'horizon type, on external affairs. And it was quite impressive to me to find there in the East exactly the same atmosphere we have here in our House of Commons accompanying their introduction of the democratic processes which have been found so advantageous in the conduct of public affairs of free men and women.
From India we went to Ceylon, and were the guests of the government of Ceylon at Temple Trees in Colombo and of the Governor General, Lord Soulbury, at the King's Pavilion in Kandy. We were also entertained by Sir John Kotalawala, Prime Minister. We met Sir Oliver Goonetilleke, the Minister of Finance, who, as happens in many countries has, apparently, the right of veto on any proposals that come from any of his other colleagues and who, I am told, is keeping the finances of his country on the kind of footing that had been agreed in London a year ago, and that was confirmed at the recent meeting in Sydney.
I will not mention the monuments that have come down from ancient history connected

with Ceylon. But we were taken to the Temple of the Tooth at Kandy. We did not see the tooth but we saw all kinds of treasures that have been placed there by kings and grandees as their tribute to this shrine, which is of such importance to those of the Buddhist faith in the whole of the East.
I went to the home of the late prime minister, D. S. Senanayake and deposited a wreath on his tomb there. We were received for tea in their home-and that is something that is not generally accorded to visitors. I think it was a tribute to the genuine and sincere friendship for and confidence in Canadian visitors. What struck me at Kandy was the tremendous progress that is being made under Sir Ivor Jennings, Vice Chancellor of the University of Ceylon, in transferring the campus from Colombo to Kandy. They have a beautiful setting there. Hon. members will know that Sir Ivor Jennings was for a year or two connected with the University of British Columbia; and I am not sure that in selecting this site for the new campus he had not remembered the physical situation of the University of British Columbia.
He is one who does not seem to be too fearful of the restrictions of the minister of finance because, just the day after we were there, I saw a report that the university council wanted some 20 million rupees more than had already been provided for the work that was going on. Many resident quarters have already been provided. Their main administration building is there. I was told that about one-third of the faculties had already moved up to Kandy from Colombo. They do not feel that it will be very long before they will have the whole university provided for up there. It will be a university to take care normally of some 2,000 students. Alongside of it is Trinity College, which is attended by five hundred or six hundred bright young men, teenagers, whom it was my privilege to see and to whom it was my privilege to say that we looked upon them and their generation for the implementation of this universal desire for peace and good will throughout the world.
From Colombo we went to Indonesia and were greeted by President Soekarno and were received at his home. That is another of those magnificent palaces provided under the former regime and now being used under the independent government of the people themselves. Prime Minister Sastroamidjojo was also very kind to us. Hon. members will recall that he was the first ambassador of Indonesia accredited to Canada while he was still ambassador at Washington and was here not long ago in his capacity as accredited ambassador of his country to Canada. The
Prime Minister's World Tour president has never visited this hemisphere. I think he is looking forward to doing so, and from my conversations with him I know he is keenly interested in what goes on here. He had heard about the oil fields in Alberta; he had heard about the work of the Aluminum Company at Kitimat; he had heard about the iron ore in northeastern Quebec and Labrador and also of the St. Lawrence seaway project, and inquired about the details of those projects, as did others in several other countries. I was quite surprised at the fact that there was quite a lot of accurate information about the development that is going on here, and which they found so astounding and so encouraging. I got the impression that these people welcomed the development of this new Canadian nation as an element that was going to be of benefit to the whole world in its intercourse in the family of nations.
I got the impression that they felt that this is a new country that is developing and one that requires good relations with the whole world, and that its growth and strength will be an element of stability that will be helpful to us all. It was heart-warming to find these ancient civilizations of the East did feel that this country in its development was taking on increasing importance in world affairs, and that its influence was always apt to be helpful for stability and peace.
In Manila the president, Magsaysay, was also very cordial, as one would expect, and there one did get the feeling that the influence of North American ways had produced greater effects than it had in any of the countries we had previously visited. The president was most cordial. A couple of days before he had a bout of toothache and had two teeth removed. He seemed to be most cheerful and relaxed. Some of his friends told me they had hardly ever heard him make so delightful a speech in such a light and friendly tone. I was quite surprised next morning when they told me that he was rushed back to the hospital as soon as we left to have some more teeth extracted. He certainly had been able to conceal his physical suffering, if there had been physical suffering, and there must have been, because one does not go back to a dentist in the middle of the night to get some teeth extracted unless there is something pretty painful about it.
We went from there to Korea, and I shall have another opportunity of expressing views about the situation in that country. The morale of all our men is splendid. I was very happy to find that since the actual fighting has ceased they have been able to overcome by their own efforts many of the inconvenient features that interfered with their physical comfort in the surroundings in which they

Prime Minister's World Tour find themselves. But there again, one has the vivid impression that it is the human touch of the officers that contributes largely to this family spirit that you feel between the men and the officers, and this conviction of each and every one of them that he is a Canadian doing a Canadian job for himself and for his fellow Canadians in this participation in the joint effort to prove aggression to be unprofitable.
I accepted there the hospitality of General Taylor, the commander of the Eighth Army, for whom our men have, I think, quite as high a regard as they have for their own officers. They told me that he treats all under his command on exactly the same footing, and that there is no difference whatsoever in his regard for those who belong to the Eighth United States army and those who belong to the other units of the United Nations who are co-operating with that army. I went up to see the demilitarized zone, and saw on our side an impregnable defence line, and I was told that what was being done on the other side was just about the same. Their intelligence is that on neither side are there any evidences of preparations for offensives being made, but that on both sides they are very strongly entrenching their existing lines. I hope there may not be any resumption of offensive on either side, because that would appear to be something that would necessarily prove to be very costly because of the condition in which those defensive lines have been put during the armistice period.
From there I flew back to Seoul in a helicopter with an open door and perhaps about a hundred feet from the various levels of the surface. It is a terrible country in so far as terrain is concerned, and one cannot see why any one of those hills that were the scene of such bloody battles was of sufficient importance to justify the kind of fights that were made for their possession. They are all the same, but the line has to be held somewhere. This one has no particular strategic importance, but the one behind it has no greater strategic importance. They are all like that, back to the capital city of Seoul. Therefore one appreciates that if there was to be a demonstration of the futility of aggression it had to be made with firmness and it had to be made in that very difficult terrain.
We had dinner with President Khee, who is not too firmly convinced that the state department is always right; but I did not get the impression that he was going to do very much about it.
In Japan we got the same friendly greeting and the same friendly care. I was really

touched. I have no doubt, of course, it had been organized, but there were thousands of youngsters from perhaps five to 15 years of age lining the streets with Canadian and Japanese paper flags, waving them and grinning all over their features, showing every demonstration that it was for them a joyful occasion. Perhaps that was because of the fact that it was during school hours. Nevertheless I had the impression that these thousands of youngsters were being made aware that there was a country called Canada, and that they were there to see the representative of that country. I believe it will help in their geography lessons, and it will probably keep them conscious of the fact that there is such a country and that that country wants to be their friend, and wants them to be our friends.
The same cordiality was manifested by His Majesty the Emperor and by the Empress. I had been brought up to believe that they were of another species than just ordinary mankind, but there could not have been a more intimate family atmosphere than that provided at this informal luncheon. I say the luncheon was informal, but the preparation were quite formal. I had the Emperor's carriage provided for me. It was the second time it had been used since the war. The first time was for the vice-president of the United States, though probably it had been used on some other occasions. I understand the carriage is provided for an ambassador when he goes to present his credentials. But the imperial carriage and the whole cavalcade passed through the streets in weather conditions reminiscent of the coronation parade in London last June. But it was a very intimate, human reception we were given by Their Majesties in the palace. Prime Minister Yoshida and members of his cabinet, with whom I chatted, said in so many words that their military men had entered upon a terrible undertaking in 1941 with the expectation of making gains, but that the Japanese people had realized that no gains had been made, and that it was not likely in this age, and with the present methods of warfare, that war could mean any gains for anyone in the future. I got the impression that they were sincere in their views and that they did not want or expect to see their country at war again.
I had the privilege there of meeting the men on our destroyers Haida, Cayuga and Crusader, and there again I found the same high morale, and the same feeling among those to whom I spoke, that they were Canadians carrying out Canada's share and doing their part in a job which Canada and many

other nations feel should be done in the interests of stability and peace in the world, and that they were proud of the fact that they were doing it well. This high morale of our men in Korea is due in large measure to the success which has attended the operations of our rotation scheme. They know they are there for a set period and so far there has been no breakdown in the rotating of these men, and they do not expect that there will be any breakdown. They know what they are up against, for what period they are up against it, and when they may expect to come home. When they do they can, if they so wish, re-enlist for another tour of duty. The fact that there is this precision, and that it is not only paper precision, but actual working precision in the terms of their duty there, has much to do with the spirit in which they accept the discomforts. It is not all the pleasant feature which I witnessed in the sounding of the retreat by one of these battalions when they were going through their ceremonies of lowering the flag at eventide. They know what they have to do and they are satisfied they are doing a good job, and doing it well.
At Honolulu we were also very graciously received and I was taken around by Admiral Stump on his boat to tour Pearl Harbor and have pointed out to me what happened on the morning of December 7, 1941, how it happened, and why it is that there are still the remains of no less than 1,000 American seamen in the Arizona on whose deck we were and where it was my privilege on behalf of all of us to deposit a wreath.
We then visited the aircraft carrier Boxer and were shown what a modern aircraft is and what it can do if ever it requires to be done. I believe all those men are prepared, and feel as we do that that state of preparedness and readiness may be sufficient to avoid the necessity of ever having to bring these planes into action.
It was with perhaps some increased confidence, that that state of preparedness and the high morale of our friends all over the world will bring about that happy condition, that I come back to my duties in this house and invite you, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues not to complacency, but to a feeling that what is being done at the present time is of sufficient value to make it worth while to continue doing it.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, with all other hon. members of the house today I join in welcoming the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) back in such obvious good health after his extended and very important trip.
Prime Minister's World Tour
I had the privilege of meeting him at the airport last evening on his return, and I must say that his colour and appearance of constant sunshine seemed even more in contrast with the cold breezes at the Rockcliffe airport last night than it does here in the chamber this afternoon.
The Prime Minister left with the assurance that he represented all Canadians in conveying a message of good will to the people of those countries he was about to visit. It was in that spirit that he left, and it is in that spirit that we welcome him back here today.
All of us were interested that he perhaps paid great attention to the advice which Sir Winston Churchill gave him in the early stages of his trip. In fact, the Prime Minister looks so well that some of us might reasonably wonder if the senior prime minister of the commonwealth might not have imparted to him some further advice on how to keep the kind of health that we would all like to enjoy.
The Prime Minister has expressed his belief that some useful purpose would be served by the presence amongst the people, and particularly the children of other lands, of one whom they recognized as a Canadian. I think every one of us will heartily agree with what he has said in that respect. Undoubtedly at this time expressions of good will, manifestations of friendship, and the indication of a real and continuing interest in the welfare of other nations within the free world and beyond, are things that form an important part in the building of that better understanding which is the very cement of the structure of a strong, united and free society throughout the world.
I have no doubt whatever that the very fact that the Japanese school children and other school children were doubtless given a holiday or a half holiday on that occasion will remind them for many long years that, on a particular day in their youth, they had the opportunity to see and to pay their respects to a representative from Canada.
It was in the belief that Canada would be represented in that way that we all extended our good will at the time of the departure of the Prime Minister. The advantage of these contacts cannot be overestimated. Certainly to deal with human beings as individuals with whom some intimacy has already been established greatly facilitates those formal exchanges that are such an essential part of the business of every country today. We have heard a review of an extended trip such as no predecessor of the Prime Minister has had the
3108	HOUSE OF
Prime Minister's World Tour opportunity to take and in a time which, only a few years ago, would have seemed utterly impossible. I think many of us- perhaps not the younger members of parliament-will recall the excitement with which in our youth we read Jules Verne's "Around the World in Ninety Days". That was a fantastic dream in those days.


An hon. Member:: "Around the World in Eighty Days".


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am corrected.
I am told that it was eighty days. We will reduce it by ten to be conservative. In those days that was a fantastic picture of speedy travel. Nowadays, with modem aircraft, these contacts can be made so much more quickly. We all know that the speed of aircraft is constantly increasing. As that speed increases, undoubtedly useful purposes will be served by extending even more contacts of a similar nature in the years ahead. We have heard the Prime Minister review the scenes which have passed before his eyes. I have no doubt he might echo the words of Tennyson that we all remember:
I am a part of all that I have met;
Yet all experience is an arch wherethro'
Gleams that untravell'd world whose margin fades For ever and for ever when I move.
This world indeed is becoming a better-known world. Trips like this help to make that fact a reality. As the Prime Minister has indicated, a later occasion will be accorded to deal with certain details of the trip and to discuss certain political aspects -and I use the term in the broadest sense- of the visit he has made. Today our purpose is simply to welcome him home; and we do that with a whole heart.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, there is little that I can do but echo the words so well spoken by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew). When the Prime Minister left we all realized that we were sending abroad one who, in himself, represented to a remarkable degree the culture of the two major nations which have built up this country that we call Canada. That he has done that ably and well, we know. We felt before he left that he would do so.
This afternoon we enjoyed a travel with him around the world. He has come back to us with a knowledge of people of different countries, of different climates and of different' cultures which is not accorded to any of the rest of us. In his leadership of Canada in the next few years I am quite sure that he will be able to make a still greater contribution to bringing about a better understanding between ourselves and other people 

like us and those great peoples of the Orient with their ancient ways and cultures.
I was happy to know that a holiday was given to the school children in Tokyo. I was interested to know that they had waved the Japanese flag and the Canadian flag. I wondered just what Canadian flag they were waving as he passed through the streets of Tokyo. However, we will let that matter pass. Perhaps we shall be able to inquire into it on an occasion when we discuss some other features of the trip that one does not intend to refer to this afternoon.
I want to join with everyone else in the house in welcoming the Prime Minister back. 1 know I speak for all my colleagues. In fact, I know I speak for everyone in the house because already the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has spoken in the same strain. We welcome the Prime Minister back. We are glad that he looks so fit. We know that he has played an important part in bringing about a better understanding not only between Canada and the peoples of the Far East but between occidentals and orientals wherever they may be.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I hasten to say at the outset that I join with the other members of the house in extending to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) a very hearty welcome on his return to this house and to say how pleased we are that he comes back looking so well. I know something of the rigours of the kind of travel he has been doing during these past several weeks. It was a difficult regimen under which he had to operate. I am sure we are glad to see him back in as good a state of health as he is now.
We followed each day the reports that were carried by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of the journey which the Prime Minister took. During the first week or ten days after he left we found that the C.B.C. shared the spotlight between the Prime Minister's journey and that of the Queen and her royal consort down in New Zealand and Australia. But during the past two or three weeks I think that the Prime Minister and his progress pushed Her Majesty somewhat into the background so far as the reports of the C.B.C. were concerned.
Japanese friends in Tokyo sent me a sheaf of clippings telling of the Prime Minister's visit to Japan. I was very glad to see the enthusiasm with which his visit was received. On an occasion of this kind one is tempted to speak too long, but there were some heartening things in what the Prime Minister said this afternoon that I just cannot resist commenting on briefly. One of them was the

assurance that today it is felt that France is being run by Normans. Let me hasten to say that I too would think that country is in no serious danger as long as it is run by Normans. They tell me that there is only one thing harder than the head of a Norman and that is stone, so we have some hard-headed men in control of things in that country. That is what they need. I am told that these people trace their lineage back to the light-bearers of the tribe of Benjamin. I was glad to hear what the Prime Minister had to say about that country.
I was also very happy with his reference to the influence of the mother of parliaments in the countries of the East. I could not help thinking, while he was mentioning his visit to the people's parliament in New Delhi, what a wonderful contribution Great Britain has made in the matter of parliamentary government and how she has sown the seeds of that great institution over much of the world. That is a heartening thing.
It was heartening to me also that the Prime Minister should give us the assurance both in press interviews and here today that he feels there is a good chance that this old world can escape a global war for at least, as I think he said in one press interview, the length of his lifetime. I am of the opinion that the journey he has taken must have contributed somewhat to that understanding which will make it possible for us to enjoy a period of peace. I was glad to hear him finish his remarks today with the statement that he came back convinced that the state of preparedness in which we and our friends have got ourselves is of sufficient value to keep on doing it. I think that is right. I do not wish to take any more time now except to say once more that while some people may refer to the journey that the Prime Minister took as a pleasure-seeking junket I do not think that is right at all. I am convinced that he has been able to do immeasurable good as a consequence of the arduous journey which he took around the world.


Mr. Mclvor:: On a question of privilege-


Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak as a Canadian. I think the Prime Minister's (Mr. St. Laurent) tour around the world was a most historic event.


Mr. Speaker:: Although I hesitate very much to do so on this occasion, may I tell the hon. member that there is a ruling to the effect that on motions following a statement by a minister only one representative of each of the three opposition parties shall speak. I understand that this is a different occasion but I should like
Prime Minister's World Tour to say that if I allow the hon. member to speak I will have to allow all hon. members. I should like hon. members to be reasonable because we must carry on with our business.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe the Prime Minister's tour has been one of the most historic events that we in Canada have ever seen. It is one of the finest things in which we have ever participated. We Canadians are at times too prone to believe that there are very few countries the equal of Canada. Quite possibly that is because of the great country in which we live and the tremendous opportunities all Canadians have. But irrespective of who the man may be and the position he may occupy in the dominion, he cannot really visualize the things he needs to know about countries with which we are now coming in contact almost daily unless he takes a trip similar to that of the Prime Minister.
I am sure that the government will agree with me when I say that in order for both sides of the House of Commons to get a true picture-and I suggest this without introducing any political feeling-the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) should be afforded the same opportunity so that he could see with his own eyes the things he should see to be able to be the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition with full knowledge and so that he might be able to speak intelligently on matters pertaining to the welfare of Canada and the world. I say that with all sincerity, and I believe if the question were put to a vote the house would agree that it is a sensible and sane suggestion from the point of view of better government and the general betterment of Canada and the countries with which we associate.



THE BUDGET


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to announce that it is my present intention to bring down my budget on Tuesday, April 6, at the usual hour of eight o'clock.



QUESTIONS


HEALTH PROGRAM


Mr. Boisvert:: 1.	How many beds have been provided for the care of psychiatric patients since the national health program started?
2.	For what types of institutions were these beds provided?
3110	HOUSE OF
Questions


Mr. Robertson:: 1.	11,909.
2.	Mental hospitals, 5,210; Mental defective institutions, 6,226; General hospitals, 473.



COLWOOD NAVAL MAGAZINE, B.C.

Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	How many civilians were employed at the Col-wood naval magazine, British Columbia, during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1953?
2.	What is the total amount in salaries paid to the civil servants employed at this magazine during the above period?
3 What was the total sum paid in wages for prevailing rate employees, during the year ending March 31, 1953?	, .
4. What were the total expenses incurred in operating this magazine, during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1953?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	123, not including corps of commissionaires.
2.	$159,887.69.
3.	$230,810.56.
4.	$470,460.51, which includes salaries and wages and payments for services of corps of commissionaires.



INDIANS AND ESKIMOS


Mr. Mang:: What proportion of Indians and Eskimos receive a medical examination and X-ray each year?


Mr. Robertson:: Case finding is an unremitting activity which takes place every time an Indian or an Eskimo requires medical attention. Each time a patient is admitted to a departmental establishment he is given a medical and X-ray examination. This applies as well to most non-departmental hospitals in which Indians or Eskimos are cared for.
In addition to this routine procedure 15 or 16 survey parties annually survey areas which are not sufficiently close to departmental hospitals to have constant adequate medical coverage. These surveys are arranged so that they take place at a time when they will be most effective and will reach the greatest number, e.g.-in conjunction with annual official treaty visits or with the annual eastern Arctic patrol.
As a result between 50 per cent and 60 per cent of all eligible Indians and Eskimos are seen each year. The coverage would be greater if it were not for the nomadic nature and unavoidable absence of some natives from any type of survey.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


Mr. Brown (Brantford):: 1.	Since April 1, 1953 to date, in how many cases were family allowances payments suspended because of improper absence from school on the part of the children?
2.	Since April 1, 1953 to date, in how many cases were family allowances payments reinstated on account of the children involved having resumed attendance at school?


Mr. Robertson:: 1.	From April 1, 1953 to January 31, 1954, family allowances payments were suspended for one or more months in respect of 7,066 children because they did not attend school as required by law.
2.	From April 1, 1953 to January 31, 1954, payment of family allowances was reinstated on behalf of 4,538 children who resumed attendance at school.




Mr. Brown (Brantford):: Is there any loss of family allowances when a beneficiary fails to report a change of address within a prescribed period of time?


Frederick Greystock Robertson: Under the family allowances regulations, a beneficiary is required to report a change of address to the regional director within 90 days from the date on which the child moved to a new address. If she fails to report the change of address within this time, payment of family allowances ceases the month following that in which the move took place and may only be resumed the month following that in which the new address is reported.



EX-MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT HOLDING POSITIONS UNDER FEDERAL JURISDICTION

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many ex-members of parliament are now in federal government positions, or in positions in connection with any courts, diplomatic missions, boards, commissions or agencies, the appointments to which come under the jurisdiction of the federal government or under the crown in right of Canada?
2.	Who are such persons, what position does each one hold, what is his salary, and on what date was he appointed?
3.	How many former members of the House of Commons have been summoned to the Senate since October 14, 1935?
4.	What are the names of all such?
5.	How many of these are still members of the Senate?
6.	What are their names and on what date was each summoned?


Mr. Pickersgill:: 1. The government keeps no record of whether persons appointed to the positions outlined in this question are ex-members of

parliament and therefore there is no practicable method of preparing a list from official records unless every individual position was scrutinized.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3,	4, 5 and 6. No official list is kept which would indicate whether persons appointed to the Senate were former members of the House of Commons but a full list of senators appointed since October 14, 1935 could be supplied and it would no doubt be a relatively simple matter to ascertain from unofficial records open to all members of parliament which of these persons had been members of the House of Commons.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE, DAUPHIN-* EMPLOYEES

Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: What quantities of wheat were sold by each signatory nation of the international wheat agreement, during the years 1959 to 1954, and who were the purchasers in each case?


Mr. Dickey:: Return tabled.


TORONTO MEAT PACKERS
Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	Have any Toronto meat packing firms had their branding privileges suspended by the federal Department of Agriculture? If so, what are their names?
2.	What are the names of the inspectors who inspect such firms' beef?
3.	Are they employed by the federal Department of Agriculture?
4.	What is the section of the act providing for such breach of the act?
5.	What penalty was imposed?
6.	Have their licences been cancelled?
7.	Have these firms been allowed to resume their operations?
8.	If so, for what reason?
9.	What was the price of beef at the time of the suspension of the said Toronto firms (a) for red brand beef; (b) for blue brand beef; (c) for cows' hinds?
Inquiries of the Ministry COMMUNICATIONS


SALE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH SYSTEM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: May I ask
the Minister of Transport whether any arrangements are being made by the government with Canadian National Telegraphs to absorb the employees of the government telegraph and telephone service in British Columbia, on terms which will have definite regard to their seniority and superannuation rights in their present service?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I have not received notice of this question. I can say, as I have already indicated, that when the facilities of the government were sold to the British Columbia Telephone Company and the Canadian National Telegraphs, there was an understanding that, subject to the employment requirements of the two private companies, it was the intention of both companies to go as far as they could in retaining the employees of the government telegraph and telephone service.
While I know that does not answer fully the question my hon. friend asked, that is as far as I can go at this time. If I can get on with my estimates I shall be able to discuss the whole matter prior to April 1.


EASTER RECESS-PROVISION FOR TRANSPORTATION OF MEMBERS BY AIR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister in connection with the Easter holiday. It is my understanding, either rightly or wrongly, that the appropriation available for members to travel by air will expire as of March 31. Is there or is there not to be provision, when Easter falls in the month of April, to rectify that situation?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): I shall have to have the matter looked into. It would not be the intention of the government to impose any hardship on members as a result of this Easter adjournment. I shall have to have the matter looked into carefully to see if anything special has to be done in that regard.


DUMPING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: In
view of the very great danger to the vegetable growers market from the large surplus
3112	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry of onions this year, will the Minister of National Revenue say what action the government will take to protect that market? I believe that a tariff of one cent per pound will be removed following March 31, and in view of the fact we have about 60 per cent more onions still unsold or enough to take care of the Canadian market well into May, has the government given any consideration to a measure that might prevent dumping of the large United States surplus?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: That is a question of which I
have not received any notice. I shall have to look into the matter. I think the hon. member knows that there is a seasonal tariff that comes into effect about the time our own produce comes on the market. However,
I think his question has to do more with the selling, or what he calls dumping, of what might be a surplus supply in the United States. I shall look into the matter.


William Earl Rowe: Supplementary to that, probably it is unfair to expect the minister to answer today, and I appreciate his saying he will give the matter consideration, but in view of the extraordinarily large amount of onions still unsold, will the minister give consideration to some measures to protect the vegetable growers? I think we have over 60 per cent more than we had this time last year.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York Wesi):: When
the minister is investigating that, will he also investigate celery, because the same situation holds true in connection with that item.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: May I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if he can now tell me anything further as to the date on which I might expect the answer to my question about Mr. Banks?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: I hope that return will be ready for the hon. member tomorrow.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: I had proposed to direct this question to the Secretary of State for External


Affairs who was here earlier this afternoon, but since he is not here now I shall direct it to the Prime Minister in a slightly different form. Will the Prime Minister consider the advisability of indicating to the appropriate representatives of the government of the United States how unfortunate it would be if a man holding an official appointment under the congress of the United States came here to discuss United States political affairs, as it is proposed Senator McCarthy will on April 20?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I shall bring the question to the attention of my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and have the matter looked into.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask
the Minister of Justice whether he will table in the house the report on loss leader practices which we are informed Mr. T. D. MacDonald has lately made?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: As that report has already gone to the restrictive trade practices commission, I believe a much preferable course would be to have it disposed of there on its merits with an opportunity to those affected by it to make representations. Then the final report of the restricted trade practices commission could be tabled here.



VANCOUVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: May I ask the Minister of Justice if the government has made any decision yet in regard to the prosecution of the gas and oil companies in Vancouver arising out of the commissioner's report?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In reply to my hon. friend's question, Mr. Speaker, may I say that we have not reached an opinion on that. We have not any advice from counsel as yet.



NATURAL GAS AND PETROLEUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: Inasmuch as the Minister of Trade and Commerce has now returned from Washington, is he in

a position today to answer more specifically the question I raised in this house on Monday, March 15, relative to joint Canadian-United States co-operation in regard to the development of markets for Canadian petroleum, natural gas and by-products?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: There has always been a desire between the two countries mentioned to co-operate. I visited Washington and called on Mr. Kuykendall, the chairman of the federal power commission. At his invitation I also met his colleagues. We talked over mutual problems, and I think it would be his feeling, as it is mine, that we do co-operate on matters affecting our two countries.



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING


Lionel Chevrier: That a sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, be appointed to consider the accounts and estimates and bills relating thereto of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, and Trans-Canada Air Lines, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys; and that the said committee be empowered to send for persons, papers, and records and to report from time to time and that notwithstanding standing order 65, in relation to the limitation of the number of members, the said committee consists of Messrs: Benidickson, Carter, Cavers, Churchill, Conacher, Dumas, Fairey, Follwell, Fraser (Peterborough), Fulton, Gillis, Hahn, Hanna, Harrison, Healy, James, Knight, Langlois (Gaspe), Macdonnell (Greenwood), MacLean, McCulloch (Pictou), Murphy (Westmorland), Pouliot, Shaw, Villeneuve, Weaver.
He said: It has been my practice in connection with the establishment of this committee to make a very short statement, and then if there is any purpose or opportunity, to leave further remarks until a later stage in the debate. All I wish to say now is that this is the usual annual motion that is placed on the order paper for the purpose of establishing a committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government. To this committee are submitted the annual reports of Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, and Trans-Canada Air Lines, and any other matters in connection therewith, upon which the committee seeks to obtain information.
While I am on that point, I should like to say it is this committee that discusses many of the questions which arise from time to
Committee on Railways and Shipping time during debates in this house, and particularly it is where the position of the Canadian National Railways may be explained in regard to making public certain information which for competitive reasons it is not advisable to give. It is to the witnesses of this committee who will be here that inquiries could be addressed. I am sure that the same kind of answers will be given by the witnesses there, with the reasons therefor, as are given in the house. I want to add this, too, that the annual report of the Canadian National Railways was just handed to me before I came down to the house. I am hopeful of being able to table it on Monday, so that members may have copies of it in their boxes. There is a small profit again this year of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $250,000 -I believe it is $244,000. This is the second year since the recapitalization of the Canadian National Railways in which there has been a small profit. And it is, too, a fact that the budget which the officers of the railways will bring down for discussion will be, at least in my estimation, an optimistic one for the year 1954.
The officers of the Canadian National Railways will hold themselves in readiness to submit to questioning before the committee, and it is my hope that it will be possible to bring the officers here during the last week of the month of March. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that is all I have to say at this stage.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in one way it may seem that, really, there is nothing to be said at all, except to follow along with the minister in agreeing with this resolution which sets up a committee to consider the report. In one way it may seem that it is not worth adding anything to at this time.
But there are a few things I would like to bring to the attention of the house, because of what I think is the very great importance of this committee, and, I will add, the very great difficulty of feeling at the end of this work that one has really done all that the House of Commons expects one to do.
The president of the railways, at the hearing last year, referred at one point to railway accounts being a "statistician's dream"-by which I took him to mean that they were accounts so complicated that only a statistician could really feel that he had got to the bottom of them. In any event I invite the house to consider the great importance of the work done by the committee, by reason of the great magnitude of the operations carried on by the Canadian National Railways, and now to an increasing extent by Trans-Canada Air Lines.
3114	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping
The gross earnings of the Canadian National Railways, according to the last report I read, were well over $600 million and the earnings of Trans-Canada Air Lines not very far below $100 million. So that we have very great enterprises to consider. And when we bear in mind further that in the committee we are always asked-and I think rightly so-to recommend further heavy capital expenditures, it almost makes one dizzy at times to think of the amounts which have been recommended by the committee from time to time-recommended on the basis of careful reports given to us, and questions freely answered. Nothing could be said by way of criticism of that.
There was only one place last year where I was disappointed we did not get figures asked for and that was when we asked for comparative figures in respect of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I mention this because I hope the minister will make a special effort to see that we are given those figures this year.
There also occurs to my mind a question which I believe is often in the minds of members in the opposition. We work, doing our best, without any research staff-or virtually no research staff. It so happens that some of us who will serve on this committee are also serving on the banking and commerce committee, as well as on one or two others and, without the services of a research staff, it is difficult for one to feel that he is making the contribution he would like to make. One does his best, but he inevitably goes into a committee feeling that he is not prepared as he should be.
I want to stress again the responsibility this committee assumes; because at the end of our two days-usually it is only two days -we are asked to assume the responsibility for recommending large sums by way of further expenditures, further investments of the public money, on behalf of the Canadian National Railways-which already has a very large investment.
As I have already implied, I do not think those of us in the committee should represent to the House of Commons that in those two days we can do what we would like to do. If it were possible in some way to provide us with something in the nature of a staff to explore the figures and to answer some of the technical questions we would like to have answered, I believe a better job could be done.
I was interested to hear what the minister said about the likelihood of better figures for the year 1953, because until he had said that I had felt that the railways, like many
[Mr. Macdonnell.I

people, were perhaps having a rather difficult time. Carloadings do not show a very glowing picture at the moment. I have the figures for the last six months of 1952 and the last six months of 1953. The figure for the six months in 1952 is 1,407,000 cars while in 1953 it was 1,329,000.
Perhaps even more significant are the figures for the first two months of this year as compared with the first two months of 1953. The carloadings for January 1953 were 209,891, while in 1954 they were only 179,290. For February 1953 the figure was 190,719 and for 1954 it was 185,000.
In answering a question concerning the unfortunate shrinkage in staff, when we were discussing unemployment, the minister on February 11 had this to say:
X can say at this time that these lay-offs have been necessitated because of a decline in traffic-I speak now of course only for the Canadian National Railways-due to a number of factors, one of them being the decline in the traffic in the United States. There are a number of connections made by the Canadian National Railways at border points with United States railways, and the traffic coming in from there has declined substantially. There is also a substantial decline in other commodities in several parts of Canada having to do with coal and grain; and there is also the factor, I am sorry to say, of dieselization, which has added to the difficulties.
I should like to quote a word or two from Mr. Donald Gordon before the committee which met a year ago, when he was speaking to us about the earnings in 1952. He referred to the surplus of $142,000 and pointed out that if it had not been for the decreased interest charges there would have been a substantial deficit. He also referred to the divergent trend of costs and rate levels, and had this to say at page 15 of the report for last year:
It is not surprising to find that the system ratio of operating expenses to operating revenue has worsened from 81-99 per cent in 1928 to 94-02 per cent in 1952, Indeed, were it not for a remarkable increase in efficiency of the railway machine, having regard to the higher traffic levels the financial results for 1952 would have been vastly different. The benefit of this over-all improvement in productivity amounts to many millions of dollars; all of this and more has been passed on to employees and the users of railway services. It is represented on the one hand by increased compensation, and on the other by the lowest average level of freight rates to be found in any country in the western world.
May I read at length what Mr. Gordon had to say about freight rates, at page 50. It was pointed out to him that freight rates had increased 98 per cent since 1928. But Mr. Gordon said:
We are permitted to raise our rates to that extent of freight traffic. But the practical thing is this; There is a great deal of traffic on which we cannot raise the rates. We cannot raise them on the Crowsnest pass, and in connection with competitive traffic, and in regard to agreed charges, and things

of that kind. So, if you try to explain just what has come about, you get into what is called the effective increase, and the effective increase in Canada turned out to be about 68 per cent.
We can all sympathize with Mr. Gordon's difficulties and I shall have a word to say about that later, but when we are considering the scrutiny which is given to the railway operations, and when we consider-and certainly if you accept-what I said a little while ago about the difficulty of a committee stepping in and in two days feeling that it had mastered this thing, then you will agree with me when I say it is desirable from time to time that there should be an outside scrutiny such as we had some years ago in the Turgeon report. I want to read briefly from that because recommendations are made there which I think are very important and which should be brought to the attention of the house. First of all, I wish to bring to the attention of the house a recommendation made by the Turgeon commission in the following terms, as found at page 280 of their report:
All this leads to the question whether the policy of close co-ordination and central control to which parliament seemed inclined to commit itself in the Transport Act of 1933, should not be invoked once again with the view to its extension rather than to its restriction which has been the trend of more recent enactments. If this policy of 1938 can be revised and made effective it should properly have its beginning in the establishment of a strong control organism capable of taking the task in hand. Today there are three separate bodies, each charged with the control (a more or less extensive control in each case) of a part of Canada's transportation system. They are the board of transport commissioners, the air transport board and the Canadian maritime commission. It must be difficult, with this dispersion of control, to apply to all of Canada's transportation agencies like principles of regulation for the accomplishment of a common purpose, viz., that of enabling each agency to perform its service advantageously and properly as part of a national transportation structure. The tendency of a separate independent body is to formulate policy affecting transportation without regard to the relationship of the various agencies to each other. This anomaly should give way to the constitution of a central authority which will be able to take in hand the major task of co-ordinated control, having at its disposal all the benefits acquired from the experience of the separate bodies in recent years.
Another recommendation of the Turgeon commission which should be mentioned is found on page 218, where they speak about the simplification of accounting. They recommend-and I shall read very briefly here-


Lionel Chevrier: Uniformity.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Uniformity. They recommend:
Thr.t the railway act be amended so that the board of transport commissioners shall:
(a) be empowered and directed to prescribe as soon as practicable a uniform classification and system of accounts and reports for rail items for the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways. Such classification and system of accounts and reports to distinguish clearly between rail and nonrail items.
Committee on Railways and Shipping
I shall not read the rest of it; the reference is there. My understanding with regard to that is that it has been relegated to an accountant in Montreal for report and the report has been made. One would hope that action can speedily be taken. It is now three and one-half years since the Turgeon report. Perhaps one cannot use Churchill's phrase, his routine phrase: "Action this day." We cannot expect that from the minister, but I would suggest that he might speed it up as far as he can.
Another recommendation of the Turgeon commission had to do with equalization of freight rates; and even those of us who do not know as much about the railway business as we should like to, realize what a terribly difficult, complicated and perplexing task that is. The Turgeon commission has a good deal to say about that, and, as I say, that has at least begun. I understand that the equalization rates have already been applied to first-class freight but only a beginning has been made on commodity rates. I can understand a good deal of difficulty in it in the midst of frequent applications for further rate increases, but three and one-half years is a long time. I hope that it can come along before too long.
Then, I want to say a little about the importance of the Canadian Pacific Railway as a yardstick. We talk about that a great deal and I do very sincerely say that even those of us who prefer that as much as possible in our country shall be done by private enterprise realize the background which brought about the formation of the Canadian National Railways. We have understood the difficulties that surrounded it in its discharge of its task, but we have always taken the position that it was a very fortunate matter that it had a competitor. We never would have been reconciled to its being a monopoly. Personally, I would be prepared to pay a substantial amount of taxes every year even if I felt a monopoly could save money, to avoid having a monopoly. I do not believe that but I would be prepared to pay a substantial amount of extra taxes every year if it were necessary to prevent such huge power getting into the hands of any body of men as to run all the railways of this country.
But I come back now to the usefulness of this yardstick. I feel that in the C.P.R. you have an organization which is acclaimed the world over as efficient, which has grown, developed and expanded in an orderly manner. It has had a much more fortunate progress to its present high position than the C.N.R. has, because after all the C.N.R. was originally a conglomeration of a good many
3116	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping railways, and I suppose the day has not yet dawned when the president of the Canadian National Railways may not find some fine morning another railway is dumped in his lap.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the hon. member permit an observation? While he has been very fair so far in the remarks that he has made, may I remind him the matter which he is discussing now is before the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of the board of transport commissioners having to do with the rate fixed and the rate of return to the C.P.R., and therefore the Canadian Pacific Railway as a yardstick for freight rates, has been appealed by the Canadian Pacific Railway. The decision for leave to appeal is now before the Supreme Court of Canada. In view of that, I had hoped that the hon. member might have attained his point in discussing it so far as he has.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I thank the minister for bringing that to my attention, but I think I have an answer, which is this. I was using the word "yardstick" in the broadest way merely as a means of comparison. I was not for the moment thinking of it as having a technical application. If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to use the illustration by saying very definitely that I am not using it in any narrow, technical or arithmetical sense, but I need not emphasize it very much further anyway. I would like to say that if we are going to take advantage of the comparison-perhaps that word will get away from the difficulty-we shall need to have full figures available, and I hope that Mr. Gordon and his very able assistants who come before the committee will see that this information is fully available this year.
There is another matter I wish to bring to the attention of the house. Once or twice in the committee I have raised the question of the composition of the directorate of the Canadian National Railways. Let me say quickly that it is not with the intention of speaking critically of any member of the board that I raise this issue. They are all men of high reputation and good standing in their communities, and the last thing in the world I would wish to do would be to raise any question about any of them. My point is that I think there ought to be a larger and more representative board. Having been a director myself in a small way I do not take directors too seriously and I know managements do not spend their time thinking about what the directors are going to say. Indeed, I have remembered for many years a story I heard about the general manager of a company who was asked what the shareholders and directors would think about


something he was doing. He said, "Shareholders! Directors! Who do you think is running this company?"
But to speak seriously again, I do feel that in this case a larger and more representative board, more representative in the sense that it contains representation from more elements within the community, would be more suitable.
This is particularly important in view of the fact that the railways, I believe, may be facing problems of special difficulty, in spite of what the minister said this afternoon about a relatively favourable 1953 report. I shall suggest when the committee meets that the question of a larger board of directors whose experience can be made available could be a great asset. I would like to develop that for a moment. After all, the railways deal with every business in Canada, in every area of Canada, and I would suggest that the executive officers would welcome the widest and best informed advice they can get. I suggest again, Mr. Speaker, as I have done in the past, that the question of the extension of the board, so as to make it more widely representative, might again be considered.
There is little more I wish to say, Mr. Speaker. I repeat, as I did at the outset, that this committee has a most important task to perform. The amounts involved are very large, the service that the railways render is very important, the difficulties the railways are facing are not lessening, but increasing in many ways, and for that reason I am glad the committee is being appointed, and I hope we will be able to do useful work.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome this
motion to set up once again this special committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government. We believe it is a good idea that our Canadian National Railways, our Trans-Canada Air Lines, and our West Indies Steamship Lines, should have the opportunity to appear before a committee representing the members of this house so that these members can ask questions and the officials of these companies can discuss what is our business with the representatives of the people of Canada.
I was glad the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) was able to give us some advance information with respect to the annual report of the Canadian National Railways, which he expects to table in a few days. I was particularly glad of the statement that again this year that report will show a slight margin of profit. This gives one the opportunity to say once again that we are pleased that parliament was given the opportunity a year or two ago to deal with a bill regarding

the capitalization of the Canadian National Railways so that that capitalization might be put on a more realistic basis than was the case for a good many years.
However, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Transport well knows, there is another aspect concerning the affairs of the Canadian National Railways with which I am not so well pleased. I refer to the fact that nothing has yet been done regarding the position of a great number of retired employees of the Canadian National Railways.
Let me say before I go any further that I am fully aware of the change that was made in respect to the C.N.R. pension plan effective January 1, 1952. I am aware of the fact that the results of that change were in the main twofold. The potential pension position of employees still in the service was improved by the change in the plan. It is also true that quite a large number of retired employees of the Canadian National Railways, men who were already on pension prior to January 1, 1952, had their pension position improved. That is fine as far as it goes, but it still remains true that a very large number of retired employees of our own Canadian National Railways are being asked to get by on pensions which are ridiculously low.
The Minister of Transport yesterday answered some questions of mine which are hardy annuals. I wish the day would come when it would not be necessary for me to put these questions on the order paper, but it appears that that day has not yet arrived. Yesterday the minister gave me in detail, by placing them on Hansard at page 3072, figures showing the pension position of retired employees in the various brackets set out in my questions. On that score his answer, of course, was satisfactory as he gave me the information which I had requested. But in relation to another set of questions of mine which appeared on yesterday's order paper, numbering six in all, the minister chose to give his answer orally. It took him about 10 or 12 lines in Hansard to give that answer, but it amounted to one word. That word was "No", and it applied to all six questions.
I will not take up the time of the house in reading these questions. They can be found at pages 3070 and 3071 of Hansard for March 17, 1954. But I may say briefly that they were questions asking whether any further consideration had been given to the pension position of retired employees of the Canadian National Railways since the matter was last debated in the House of Commons on May 12,	1953. Specifically I asked
whether consideration had been given to the
Committee on Railways and Shipping plight of those people by the Canadian National Railways. I asked also whether the Canadian National Railways had made representations to the government on the point. Further, I asked whether the government had on its own initiative considered the matter. To all these questions the answer was "No".
As I look at the figures that were given to me yesterday and the figures that have been given to me in response to questions in previous years, I begin to wonder whether the government is sitting back hoping that the grim reaper will solve this problem so far as the government is concerned. One of the groups of people about whom I have been asking questions from year to year is that group of employees who are on pensions of less than $25 a month. There are not very many of them. I desire to make it clear that it is because of a plan that was in effect many years ago that there are some pensions that low. Nevertheless, there still are some of these retired employees of our government-owned Canadian National Railways whose pensions are less than $25 a month. In 1949 the Minister of Transport reported that number to me as 55. Two years later that number was reduced to 24. Two years later still, in 1953, it was reduced to 17. Yesterday the minister announced that the number had been reduced to 14. Unless some of those 14 are fairly hardy specimens, judging by the rate of decease,over the last five years, it will be only a matter of another two or three years until that group will no longer be with us.
In addition to that group whose pensions are less than $25 a month, there are still a great many whose pension is only the basic $25 a month. In 1949 their number was 2,743; in 1951 their number had grown to 3,256. Since that time that number too has been dropping. It dropped to 3,206 in 1953, and yesterday the figure given in Hansard was 3,200. I think the reason that number is dropping may be, in part, because of the decease of persons on those pensions and in part because of the improvement made in the pension plan with respect to the change that came into effect on January 1, 1952. The fact that that plan improved the position means that in the course of time this problem will not be as great as it is now. But I suggest that it is most unfair and most inhuman for the government just to sit back and let time and the grim reaper take care of this problem. I suggest that it is the responsibility of the government to provide some supplemental allowance for these people.
3118	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping
I am going to say something more about that matter. I think I have an additional argument this year, one which I have not had in former years and which I welcome strongly. Before I advance that argument, I should like to summarize these figures that I have been throwing out, by putting them on Hansard in tabular form. I am not asking for the consent of the house to put any figures on Hansard without reading them. I am going to read them, but I will read them in such a way that I think Hansard can record them in tabular form. The figures are as follows:
Number ol Persons on Pension
Amount of pension	1949	1951	1953	1954Less than $25 per month	..	55	24	17	14$25 per month	
2,743	3,256	3,206	3,200$25.01 to $49.99 per	month	5,870	6,008	5,832	5,087
Total number of persons on
pensions of less than $50
per month	 8,668 9,288 9,055 8,301
Sources: Hansard, March 28, 1949, page 2056; March 12, 1951, pages 1129, 1130; March 16, 1953, page 2953; March 17, 1954, page 3072.
I am well aware that the reading of figures or the reading of a table does not, through the process of reading it to the house, convey anything very significant. But I hope the minister and hon. members who are interested in the plight of these retired C.N.R. employees will look at this table when it appears in Hansard tomorrow. In the first instance, hon. members will note what I have already pointed out in so far as that group who are getting less than $25 a month is concerned. Time, I regret to say, is taking care of that problem. Unless the government acts soon, there will not be much the government can do for these people. They are dying off at the rate of 3 or 4 a year, and there are only 14 of them left.
As to the others, those on pension of $25 per month or between that and $50 a month, the figures are interesting in this respect. I might say that I have studied the whole set of figures and the picture is what I shall now indicate. They are interesting in that they show that up until the time the new pension plan came into effect the number of people on inadequate pensions was increasing every year. It is shown in this table that the number in 1951 was greater than the number in 1949. With the coming into effect of the new plan -and it came into effect on January 1, 1952- the numbers in these brackets who were on these lower pensions started to decline. Time may solve that problem too, only it will take much more time because there are many more of these people, and there are still people coming on these inadequate pensions, some even coming on only the basic pension of $25 a month.


The table shows that in 1953 the total number on pensions of less than $50 a month had dropped from 9,288 to 9,055; and the figures the minister gave in answer to my questions yesterday show that the total number of persons on pensions of less than $60 a month had dropped to 8,301. In other words, there is a drop of something like over 700 in the last year. I think it would be a mistake to assume that it will continue at that rate and that one could count on this problem being solved in the next 12 or 13 years. I think it is fair to say, however, that that number will go down a bit from year to year. I suggest two things. The fact that it will go down is no reason that these people should just be allowed to die off by a process of slow starvation on these inadequate pensions. The other point I suggest is this. The fact that it would require a less and less amount of money each year to supplement these pensions to some proper level takes away any excuse the government might have for not putting an item in the estimates to cover the plight of these people. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, that is my request to the government, that they put an item in the estimates to provide a supplemental allowance to Canadian National Railways pensioners whose pensions are less than $50 a month. I submit they should at least be brought up to $50 a month, and I think a more reasonable figure, one I would be quite justified in requesting at the present time, would be $60 a month.
I said a moment ago that there was one additional argument in my quiver this year that I did not have last year, and I think I see by the twinkle in the minister's eye that he knows what it is. It is probably something he will boast about. I notice in the estimates that have been tabled for the fiscal year 1954-55 that we now have two items providing for the supplementing of the pensions of retired railway workers. One of them is an item we have had there for over thirty years, an item to supplement the pensions of people who worked for the old Intercolonial Railway. That item was first put in the estimates shortly after world war I to increase the amount of the pension retired employees of that railway were receiving. The pension they were receiving was a pittance. Even with the supplement added the amount they get is still but a pittance, but at least the principle is there. That need was met by an item in the estimates. It was put there in the early 1920's and has been there every year since. The amount keeps declining. It is down this year to $12,250.

Following item 478, to which I have just referred, is item 479 which reads as follows:
Supplemental pension allowances to former employees of Newfoundland railways, steamships and telecommunication services transferred to Canadian National Railways.
It is a new item. The amount is $17,000. We will get further details about it later in the session. Perchance members of the committee may obtain some information about it in the committee. At any rate, I welcome it. Is it not clear that if that can be done, not only for retired employees of the old Intercolonial Railway, as we have done for over thirty years, but also done now to supplement the pension allowances of former employees of the Newfoundland railways who were transferred to the Canadian National Railways, no one can gainsay the fact that the same thing could be done for the 8,301 retired employees of the Canadian National Railways whose pensions are still less than $50 a month?


Lionel Chevrier: The argument has no application to the point my hon. friend is making.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall be interested in hearing the minister try to develop that assertion. To me it is merely an assertion. If it is possible to supplement the pensions of one group of railway workers in this country, bearing in mind particularly that all of them are government railway workers, surely it is possible to supplement the pensions of other groups of retired railway workers. I know that the minister is more or less resigned to hearing me make this speech two or three times a year. He knows it is coming whenever this motion is put on the order paper. He knows it is coming when we reach the particular items in the estimates. But I submit that it is time this question was taken, not just as one about which to debate, one to deal with in terms of the minister's arguments versus mine, but as one that should be dealt with on humanitarian terms, on a basis of justice and in fairness to these retired employees.
I hope that either here and now, or in the special committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, or when we are considering the estimates later, other members will indicate that they feel as I do about this matter. Communications have certainly been sent to a great many members of the House of Commons by organizations representing retired Canadian National employees. Those communications have come from organizations in the maritimes, from Toronto, from Winnipeg, from Edmonton, from Vancouver, and from other places as well. I do not think it is out of place for me to say that secretaries
18, 1954	3119
Committee on Railways and Shipping and other officials of some of these organizations have informed me of the favourable replies they have had from other members of the house. Of course the favourable replies are all from private members but they are from private members in all parties. These organizations have been assured that they have the support of quite a number of private members of the house. I hope they will indicate that support either now or privately to the minister if that is the way Liberal members prefer to operate.
But in any case I submit that these veterans of service with the Canadian National Railways deserve more than merely speeches and debates in the House of Commons. They deserve a supplement to their pensions, and I submit that the figures I have placed on the record, and which I have been able to put together from information the minister has been kind enough to give me, demonstrate the seriousness of the situation and the need for action. There was a time when the men themselves and some of us dared to hope that the Canadian National Railways might deal with this matter itself. That day seems to be gone. The pension plan has been revamped and put on an actuarial basis that does not provide for any supplement to these people.
I think it is pretty clear now that the only body that can do anything for these people is the federal government, and I suggest that the government, having put two items in the estimates covering retired employees of the Intercolonial Railway and former employees of the Newfoundland railways, should complete the picture and put an item in the estimates to provide supplemental allowances to retired employees of the Canadian National Railways whose pensions are in these lower brackets and whose pensions, in my view, should be brought up to a reasonable figure.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take only a couple of minutes. I had not intended to speak on this motion because it is one that is brought forward every year for the purpose of setting up a committee to look into the annual report of Canadian National Railways, its steamship lines and so forth. Usually the committee is composed of very competent members of parliament, and I think they usually do a good job. However, the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to which we have just listened is one that we have heard on other occasions, and I am sure that this group, as well as others, will support him in his plea for consideration for these particular pensioners.
3120	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping
But I am led to another thought. While his plea may be for these particular pensioners, there is a principle involved, one that applies pretty well to all industrial pensions. The fact is, whether it is the Canadian National Railways or any other company, that usually industrial pensions are paid for jointly by the workers and the company. A fund is established and the pensioner, of course, is putting by during his years of labour a certain portion of his salary, which is tantamount to saving for his old age or when he is retired.
Now, at the time that pension fund is set up and the amount of the contribution is struck, the amount of this pension looks fairly good and most of the employees are rather happy that they will have something on which to retire. When the day comes for their retirement and they receive that amount that the pension calls for, they find themselves in rather straitened circumstances by reason of the inflation that has taken place. Their pensions are worth only about half of what they expected they would be worth. In my view, this is a serious situation. Perhaps this condition will apply to all industrial pensions, and particularly those that were established some ten, fifteen or twenty years ago.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this condition cannot be corrected by the companies themselves. While the situation of those special individuals to whom the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is referring might be corrected by the Canadian National Railways, generally speaking where the value of the pension has been reduced by reason of inflation, that situation cannot be remedied by the industry itself. It can only be remedied by government financial policy. Until the government adopts a financial policy that will remedy it, then in my opinion the situation will not be remedied.
I have a friend who is a retired banker.
I know, of course, that I cannot speak about that particular subject because we are talking now about Canadian National Railways. I bring it up only to indicate that the banking profession has usually been considered an admirable profession. Some of these retired bankers are today poor men, and can hardly exist on the pensions they get. Those pensions looked good when the scheme was set up, but by reason of the government's financial policy the value of the dollar has been reduced. I just want to make these observations. I am sure that the committee will be in competent hands, and that once again good work will be done.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: am always very pleased to see this committee set up, Mr. Speaker. I have had the


pleasure of serving on it for a number of years, and it is always an education to sit down with the officials of the Canadian National Railways, the Trans-Canada Air Lines, and the minister who heads up that aggregation. There is a lot to learn if one pays attention to what is taking place.
In my opinion the good feature of this committee is that you have organizations like Canadian National Railways, Trans-Canada Air Lines and the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships who come to the House of Commons once a year and meet the representatives of the people. They give a detailed report on their business for the information of this house, showing how they functioned during the past year. I believe that is an example of something, particularly at this time. It would be impossible for organizations like Canadian National Railways or Trans-Canada Air Lines to get into difficulty that would cause them to go into liquidation. The members of this house and the leaders in government would have an opportunity of looking at the programs and policy with a view to keeping the organization functioning, if that were in the best interests of the economy of the country.
Now, that is something my hon. friends to the right should bear in mind once in a while when they decry the idea of public supervision or ownership of any organization. For example, the textile industry is a very important industry in the economy of Canada. During the past few months we have seen mills close their door with very little warning, and as a result the future of whole communities has been jeopardized. This all adds up to bad planning, bad supervision and no contact with the general public or those responsible for the economy of the country. The same thing is true in many other organizations. There is no need for me to enumerate them. When an industrialist can pick up the phone, call in a message to a radio station and have an announcement made over the air that will close out an industry in a section that may affect two or three towns and may mean that the livelihood of the people is destroyed, I think that clearly indicates the complicated economic picture that has developed in the world.
From time to time on this North American continent it is necessary for the representatives of the people to take a look at any given industry in any section of the country. In this way many of the things that are happening in the basic industries could be prevented. By means of this committee a huge organization like Canadian National Railways that means so much to the country, or Trans-Canada Air Lines, that means so much now

and is going to mean more in the future, can come once a year to put their problems before the members who are elected from the various communities and thus keep the people informed as to what is going on in these organizations. Such industries as coal, textiles, steel and packinghouses have a great influence on the economy of Canada. I believe the time is coming when we are going to have to have a look at the management of these organizations to prevent what is happening in some of them today.
I am glad that the minister was in a position at this time to announce that at least the Canadian National had no deficit. For many years we sat in this house and listened to the huge deficits of the Canadian National. It just took a little common sense and judgment on the part of Canadian National officials and government representatives to realize that a revision of the capital structure was necessary. This was done, and the picture is brighter today. I am always glad to see the committee set up because I learn a lot in that committee. I have no hesitation in saying that I get more information and more education from that committee than through any other function I perform in the House of Commons. I look forward to the committee every year, with a great deal of interest.
There are many things I could say, but I am sure full discussion will take place before the committee, and I shall not speak at greater length now. I would rather talk face to face with Mr. Gordon and his officials about some of the problems I think it is within their province to correct-if we can get them in the right mood.


Mr. Jean-Frangois Pouliot (Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, I have been very much interested in what has been said by some hon. members who have spoken on this motion. I appreciate the fact that I shall have another opportunity to meet with my colleagues to discuss the affairs of the Canadian National Railways. I was sorry that I was attending the meeting of a committee when the minister made his cheerful statement concerning the past and the coming year in relation to the operations of the Canadian National Railways.
The committee we are now asked to set up is a very useful one. It is only fair that members of parliament who vote moneys by way of subsidies for the support of the Canadian National Railways should be entitled to some information concerning the expenditures of that organization. At times there are some complications. We are told that the company should follow the usual rule in business, that of rendering an account to members of parliament.
Committee on Railways and Shipping
The case of the railways is a peculiar one. In the first place I wish to tell the genial Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) that, as always, he can rely upon my support. But it would be well for the officials of the railways to realize that members of parliament are in duty bound to exercise certain controls in respect of the way the railways are administered. That is only fair. We are asked questions by our constituents, and when we are not in a position to answer they are stunned; they cannot understand it. Therefore I hope the officials of the railways will realize that instead of having any bad feeling toward them, each time members of parliament attend sittings of the committee on railways and shipping and ask questions it is for the purpose of helping those officials in the administration of the railways. We do not ask those questions to cause trouble. Some officials seem to be under the false impression that when members of parliament ask questions they are opposing the railways. This is not so; we are trying to help them, and it is unfortunate that sometimes the officials do not seem to understand this.
Sometimes decisions made should be more carefully considered beforehand-and I am thinking of the closing of some shops. The railways should consider the effect of this action on the communities concerned. As the Canadian National Railways are supported by the people of Canada, the officials of that system must give consideration to our people in all their dealings. I am not going to insist upon this at great length, because I am sure the Minister of Transport does not miss any opportunities to remind the railway officials of their duty. And so much the better for them. The officials may not like it, as sometimes they do not seem to like the questions asked in committee by members of parliament, but some good comes from that questioning. Fortunately members of parliament realize that decisions have been taken at times too quickly, and that something must be done by way of compensation. This is particularly true of my own county, and I am thanking the government for what was done.
The Canadian National Railways has a long history. At first it was a government railway. The Intercolonial was operated under the direction of the minister of railways; and older employees and members of their families are still under the impression that the government is in control. That is not the case, but it is in their minds.
I know the purpose of the minister is to leave the railway board free to administer the railways to the best of their ability. This
3122	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping has been government policy for a long time. On the other hand members of parliament are responsible for what is done by the Canadian National Railways, and because of that we are entitled to make observations for their benefit. I am not going to complain about what has been done in the past; I am concerned with the present and the future of the railways and their employees.
Very often we see officers of the railways, now grown in importance, who asked us when they were in smaller jobs for our support to gain promotions. But as soon as they get their promotions they say, "No politics with the railways; we are above politicians; we do not want politicians to interfere". To get. their promotions they held us by the sleeve. That is the story of human nature. They were not independent when they wanted something. They got it, under false pretences; and now they seem to be very independent and give us the cold shoulder. They will not listen to what we say, not on their behalf but on behalf of the railways.
Human nature is weak. Some errors may be committed by humble employees of the railway as well as by those in high office.
I am not going to insist upon this point, but I am sure all hon. members know what I mean. Why be so hard on a man with a family who may have made a mistake but who, in doing so, caused no damage to the railways, and who would like to be reinstated? Those questions should be reconsidered, because the ones who have suffered an injustice have the sympathy of the community.
With reference to the pension paid to old employees of the Intercolonial, it will be recalled that some time ago engineers, conductors, brakemen and firemen were paid only $1.25. They were paid a very small salary. The pensions of some of the employees of the Canadian National Railways are based on that salary. The government has contributed an amount to the provident fund of the railway and I hope it will be increased as a matter of justice to help those employees who were good servants of the railway at a time when the railway was administered by the minister of railways and canals. It is with the best disposition and the friendliest spirit that I am conveying these remarks through you, sir, to the Minister of Transport.
If the officials of the railways read Hansard, they will realize that all that has been said here has been said for their own good and that of the railways.


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg Soulh Centre):: I do not propose to speak at any length on this occasion, but I wanted to say, as others before me have said, how much interested those of us are who are members of this particular committee. We do gain from that experience a great deal of useful information by firsthand reports from the gentlemen who are the heads respectively of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National Steamships and Trans-Canada Air Lines. I recall that from the work of the committee last year and the year before I myself gained quite a bit of important information from hearing these firsthand reports.
There is no doubt that western Canada has as great an interest in railway problems as has any part of this country, and more than most parts because we are so dependent upon the railway. We have not the shipping facilities that are enjoyed by the east and the west coasts and by central Canada with its great lakes system. To us then in western Canada the railway system ranks as the most important link for us with the rest of the world. The importance of the railway system in western Canada is easily observed from a map showing the extent of the railway system stretching for so many hundreds of miles and criss-crossing the great western prairie country where such abundant crops are grown. Now we find the development of the railway system stretching farther and farther northward, notably recently into the northern parts of the province of Manitoba in connection with the mineral developments at Lynn Lake. Therefore, so far as western Canada is concerned, the problem of the railways ranks of the highest importance. And throughout the years people from western Canada have very naturally taken an interest in the railways and their problems.
We are very much concerned with the question of freight rates and watch that problem with a great deal of interest. We naturally hope that when the C.N.R. makes its annual report it will indicate a profit and not a loss, because if a series of losses occur annually then the freight rate question comes to the fore, and in the last few years we have seen the circumstances surrounding that problem and the great increase in freight rates since the war, imposing an additional burden on the producers in western Canada and the consumers in that area.
From our point of view since we grow huge crops of wheat and other grains which must be disposed of in large part on the world markets, freight rates rank as a matter

of major importance. Those of us who come from western Canada view with a measure of alarm, certainly with regret, the fact that the issue of the Crowsnest pass rates on grain is raised from time to time and not discussed in its fullest implications. The impression is erroneously conveyed to the public that that rate that was set a great many years ago is not now applicable under modern conditions. The erroneous aspect of the argument is that attention is not paid to the enormous increase in volume of traffic to which those Crowsnest pass rates apply, and the railways are benefiting from the development of the west and of the crop areas and from the tremendous development in the volume of grain shipped over our railways. Consequently, those of us from western Canada have to keep a wary eye on all matters in connection with freight rates.
We shall be interested in hearing the report of the president of the Canadian National Railways with regard to the effect of the changes in freight rates on the business of the railways, the effect in so far as the subsidy is concerned that was provided last year for the so-called bridge between the east and the west north of the great lakes. These and other problems will likely be brought to the attention of the president of the Canadian National Railways, and I hope we will get complete answers, as we have in other years got complete answers, on virtually all the problems raised.
I am sure there will be an interesting discussion with regard to the passenger traffic on the railway and its comparison in the subsequent report that we shall receive from the Trans-Canada Air Lines with the increase in passenger traffic of the air lines. I think I recall last year the prediction on the part of the air lines that the great majority of passenger traffic would soon be via air, and its effect therefore on the railways is a matter of considerable importance.
We got from the T.C.A. an equally able report on the development of that method of transportation, and that adds to the interest of the committee. 1 have just one final word to say. I note that the minister himself is not on the committee this year.
I was wondering whether he was going to come on. Last year he was not placed on the committee at first, but later he was put on. It is of interest to me because of the fact that in the house, when questions are asked concerning these institutions, we are referred to the Canadian National Railways itself and to the Trans-Canada Air Lines. It is not easy to see the division of responsibility as far as the government is concerned.
18, 1954	3123
Committee on Railways and Shipping
As I say, I notice this year the minister is not going to sit on the committee. Therefore I presume he is leaving it wide open to us then to direct our questions to those who are at the head of those three bodies that will be under consideration and he himself is to play no part in our deliberations.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I remind hon. members that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief, because judging from the contributions in the debate thus far it would appear to me that the affairs of the Canadian National Railways are in good hands and are operated satisfactorily, since on the whole there has been little or no criticism in the course of the discussion this afternoon. There are a number of things which have been brought to the attention of the government during the course of this debate, but it is not possible for me to deal with them all. However, I feel I must at least give some attention to one or two of the matters that have come under discussion. It is impossible, of course, to deal with all the suggestions or points made by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), but there are one or two matters with which he dealt which I would like to take a few moments to discuss.
One had to do with freight rates and that was also discussed by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) who has just resumed his seat. The position with reference to freight rates as regards western Canada and even the country as a whole is far better now than it has been for some time. I do not mean, of course, with reference to the general impact upon the cost of transportation, but with regard to the recommendations of the royal commission on transportation.
The recommendations of the royal commission on transportation have been implemented almost in their entirety, save for one or two exceptions. Dealing generally with freight rates, following the recommendations of the commission parliament enacted changes and introduced amendments to the Railway Act. One of them was to ask the board of transport commissioners to make an investigation with reference to the equalization of rates. That has been done in part, and a recent order has been issued by the board of transport commissioners equalizing the rates whereby the amount of differential was reduced or made to disappear making freight rates in the whole of
3124	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping western Canada from the Pacific coast to the Ontario boundary almost equal. Class rates in the east and west were brought closer together by an earlier order of the board which had the effect of reducing them in western Canada by 5 per cent, and increasing them in eastern Canada by about 10 per cent.
The bridge subsidy brought in two years ago, following the recommendations of the royal commission, covered a subsidy of $7 million concerning the bridge from Capreol through Sudbury, and on through to the head of the lakes to the west. The effect of that subsidy of $7 million, payable to the railways for the maintenance of their trackage, has been to reduce east-west rates by about 8 per cent.
Then the one and one-third rule was brought into effect by virtue of an amendment to the Railway Act which had an effect on all the western provinces, particularly Saskatchewan, Alberta, and a large part of British Columbia, and they received the benefit of the transcontinental rate plus one-third. Most of the recommendations of the royal commission in that respect have been implemented.
The other two matters to which I wish to direct my attention are the conditions of employment on the Canadian National Railways, and the question of pensions. Unemployment on the Canadian National Railways and the so-called lay-offs have not been nearly as serious as the house was perhaps led to believe during the earlier part of the session. I would like to place on record some of the figures which are pertinent to this issue. For example, in 1939 the average number of employees in the Canadian National Railways was 78,129. In 1951 that had climbed to 121,191, and in 1952, the last year for which figures are available, the total was 127,930.
The total payroll for 1939 was $122 million. For 1951 it was $381,654,000 and in 1952 it was $405,541,000. The average earnings per employee in 1939 was $1,500, roughly speaking. In 1951 that had almost doubled to $3,149, and in 1952 the average earnings per employee in the Canadian National Railways was $3,170.
With reference to lay-offs I have figures covering the period up to January 31, 1954. The total of 1,492 covers the reduction in the mechanical department staff at the main shops throughout Canada. The breakdown is as follows: In the Montreal shops 427; in the Atlantic region 248; in the central region 268; and in the western region 549. The reason why the western region total is larger than


the others is because it concerns four provinces, and has to do with the shops at Trans-cona, Fort Rouge, Calder and Port Mann. Therefore, the total lay-off in the mechanical staff department was 1,492.
Generally speaking the total lay-offs in the Canadian National Railways in all spheres of activity amounted to 6,400 employees. These can be broken down into 2,200 maintenance of way men, 2,300 mechanical staff, and 1,900 others. While I include maintenance of way men who had been laid off at the end of January 1954, I should add that I know that since then many of them have been taken on again because these men are laid off and taken on dependent on the work that is being contemplated, so that whether we include the total number, or whether we only give the number in the mechanical shops, it is a very small proportion of the employment figure for 1952 which I gave a moment ago, namely 127,930 employees. What were the reasons for this? I would just like to take a few moments to give some of the reasons, and some of the hopes for the future.
The railway business is dependent upon the general activity in transportation services in the country as a whole. I said on an earlier occasion and I repeat now that the operations of the Canadian National Railways compare favourably with those of any other on the North American continent, and with those of the sister railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway. The decline in traffic is because of a drop in international traffic, that is traffic which is connected with Canadian National Railways at the boundary line, and also in the United States branch of the Canadian National Railways operated south of the border.
There has also been a reduction in the level of activity because of the extended use of diesel locomotives. These locomotives have been put into operation substantially in western Canada. Steam locomotives are being supplanted by oil burning equipment. The position in the maritimes I know is a serious one and causes much concern to all hon. members from that part of the country. However, due to certain conditions, which the president of the Canadian National Railways mentioned during the sittings of the committee last year, the program in that part of the country is on a longer term basis than that in western Canada.
Those features, namely the current level of traffic, particularly in the last four or five months, from September last year to the end of December of this year, are fully responsible for these lay-offs or reductions

in employment. However, I am happy to say that for the present year, namely the early months of 1954, the figures indicate a slight improvement in the activities of the Canadian National Railways. I am informed that it is anticipated the physical volume of business in 1954 will not be too far removed from what it was in 1953. In fact, I do not think it will be much more than 1 per cent less than it was last year. That would indicate the soundness of the economy of the country as well as the stability of the operations of the Canadian National Railways.
I turn to this much discussed question of pensions. I would not want the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to think that he is alone in the advocacy of increased pensions for retired employees or present employees of the Canadian National Railways. If I have ever given the impression in this house that such was the case, I want to correct it immediately because there are coming into my office letters from members of parliament from all sides of the house, and more particularly from this side of it, making themselves advocates of the pensioners, retired or otherwise, of the Canadian National Railways. However, I think that the house is not fully conversant with this position. Perhaps the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) is the one who, in his discussion of it, put his finger on the circumstances as I understand them.
In order fully to understand the pension position of the employees of the Canadian National Railways, I think it is important that we go back somewhat to ascertain and to see what happened in past years. In order fully to appreciate the implications of the railway's basic pension plan of $25 per month, it is essential to go back to before 1935. Prior to that time, that is January 1, 1935, the Canadian National pension plan was based upon the former Grand Trunk Railway pension plan which provided generally a pension to employees on the attainment of age 65, equivalent to one per cent of the employee's highest ten-year average salary, multiplied by the number of years of service. A careful study born of the depression in the years immediately preceding 1935 demonstrated to management that the Canadian National system should no longer sustain the financial burden of this "free" pension plan.
However, since employees then on the Canadian National payroll were considered to have some moral right to protection against a revision in the plan under which they had previously been working, the 1935 amendments undertook, among other things, to provide a service pension calculated on the basis of 83276-198
Committee on Railways and Shipping the former Grand Trunk plan up to January 1, 1935, with a guaranteed contractual basic pension of $25 per month in any event. Thus the 1935 rules, as regards service prior to that date, preserved the former scale of free pension benefits to all employees and, through the medium of the guaranteed minimum, improved the position of many.
The next point I wish to make is that subsequent to 1935 those who were willing to pay approximately one-half of the cost of pensions arising from service after that date were afforded an opportunity to increase their pension benefits. Thus, an employee is permitted under the 1935 rules to supplement his free pension by contributions up to 10 per cent of his compensation, such contribution, with interest, being matched by the company to a maximum of 5 per cent of that compensation, with the company further guaranteeing that if the employee makes a 5 per cent contribution his pension will not be less than that payable to him under the former rules.
As regards employees who joined the service subsequent to January 1, 1935, the company provided a free pension of $25 a month which the employee was privileged to improve by contributions as aforesaid. The revised 1935 plan thus consisted of a small free pension plus a supplemental annuity on a money purchase basis within the aforesaid limits. It is therefore apparent that the Canadian National employee had only to contribute his share to the fund to obtain a pension considerably higher than $25 per month. It should be remembered also that he would have made no contribution in respect of the $25, and that the company would make a substantial contribution to the supplemental annuity if he took advantage of that offer.
Despite the provisions made for increased pension benefits, based on voluntary contributions, many employees obviously preferred the non-contributory guaranteed basic pension only. I am informed by the Canadian National management that in spite of periodic campaigns by management and labour representatives who supported the revised provisions the number of actual contributors has been disappointing. Out of 114,028 Canadian employees eligible to contribute only 41,828 had elected to do so as of December 31, 1953.
At January 1, 1952, some 3,200 retired Canadian National Railways employees, as has been said here, were receiving the basic pension of $25 per month. At July 1, 1952, there were, over and above that number, 190 former Canadian government railway employees, retired under the provident fund act, who were receiving the minimum pension of $30 a month. The position of these
3126	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping men was this, and here I stop to deal with those who are retired and those who are still working.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the debate be now adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: It the minister were able to conclude within a minute or so, we might be able to pass the motion. The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod has not yet arrived.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to conclude it I could do so, but I am afraid that I cannot. I could do so in three or four minutes.


Mr. Green:: Go ahead.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to conclude this part of my observations, if possible. There are two parts to this question. First, there are those who are retired-and I think my hon. friend and other members are particularly interested in them-those who are retired and entitled, in addition to the $25, to receive the universal old age pension, or to receive old age assistance between ages 65 and 70, with a means test. In some cases that will mean a pension of $80 and in other cases a pension of $100 per month, if husband and wife are both over the age of 70 or between the ages of 65 and 70.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Retired judges can get the old age pension too.


Lionel Chevrier: Retired judges are on a different plan altogether.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They certainly are.


Lionel Chevrier: The plan here is that an employee was entitled to contribute. I wish I had time to put on Hansard the circular that the president of the Canadian National Railways had sent to the employees of the railways with reference to part 1 and part 2 of the revised pension rules effective January 1, 1952, wherein it is said to be possible for those who were in receipt of the basic pension to make a contribution and those who were in receipt of an already increased pension to receive a greater pension provided they made a further contribution. Unfortunately I have not the time to put on Hansard what I would like to put there at this particular moment, namely what was set out in that circular.


Mr. Fleming:: Why not put it on Hansard? Put it on by consent.


Lionel Chevrier: If I can put it on by consent,
I now table the circular that the chairman of the Canadian National Railways sent to all officers and employees from his office in Montreal on March 7, 1952.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister unanimous consent to put this circular on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lionel Chevrier: The circular reads as
follows:
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS Office of the Chairman and President
Effective 1 Jan. 1952
Montreal, March 7, 1952
To all Officers and Employees:
The employees will have seen from my "23" message, dated March 5th, and references in the press, that the directors have made some revisions to the existing Canadian National Railways pension plan. As advance information for the employees there is given below a short description of the plan as revised. The detailed rules and regulations will be completed in due course, printed in booklet form, and a copy furnished to every employee.
The description given below will give the employees a fairly good idea regarding the provisions of the revised plan but employees approaching retirement age, particularly if they are contributing to the pension fund, are advised to communicate with the superintendent of pensions who will furnish to them such additional information they may need to exercise the options which are available to them. It will be appreciated that it is not possible in such a brief description to set out every detail of so comprehensive a pension plan, and it must be understood that the actual rules will be the governing factor in determining eligibility for and the amount of pensions.
D. Gordon
Chairman and President.
Short description of a revised pension plan for Canadian National Railways
The revised plan is in two parts.
Part 1 is the existing plan with some amendments designed to make better provision for present and future employees who become disabled, and also for early retirement. It provides a basic pension of $25 per month at the expense of the company, and also for a supplemental pension at the joint expense of the company and the employee. It is optional with the employee whether he contributes or not. He may contribute an even percentage of his compensation from 1 per cent to 10 per cent and the company will match his contributions after 10 years service but not in excess of 5 per cent. The amount of the supplemental pension is that which the joint contributions with compound interest will buy. The plan makes provision for benefits for service prior to 1935 when the present contributory plan was established.
The employee may select the type of pension he wishes, that is to say he may elect to take it in the form of an annuity payable during his life time, or payable during his life time but guaranteed in any event for either 5, 10, or 15 years, or in the form of a joint life and last survivor annuity. The amount of a guaranteed or survivor type annuity is of course less than the single life annuity but is the actuarial equivalent of the single life annuity.
As amended the plan provides pensions for disabled employees provided they have attained age 50 with not less than 20 years service. If the portion of the pension payable at the expense of the company is less than $40 per month (on a single life basis) the company will grant a special disability allowance so as to increase its portion of the pension to $40 until the employee reaches age 65. If an employee with these age and service requirements should die in service the pension board may grant a survivor benefit equal to one half the amount of such employee's pension, on a single life basis, but excluding the allowance referred to. Such benefit

will be payable during the life time of a surviving spouse, or for 10 years from the date of the employee's retirement, whichever period is longer.
Normal retirement is at age 65 with 20 years service, but provision is made for early retirement with reduced pensions. For each year below age 65, one additional year's service will be required, so that an employee may retire at age 64 with 21 years service or age 55 with 30 years service, or anywhere in between where the age and years of service add to 85.
The optional and flexible provisions of part 1 are considered by many employees to be preferable to a more rigid compulsory contributory plan. It allows employees considerable freedom to shape their railway pension to their needs as they see them.
Part 2 is designed to meet the requirements of those who wish to obtain larger pensions and who are willing to join a plan under which contributions are compulsory. Employees will be covered by part 1 unless they elect to transfer to part 2, which election will be irrevocable. They will be given ample time to make their election.
Under this part the employee must contribute 5 per cent of his compensation and the company will pay the balance of the cost. The pension will be a percentage, based on length of allowable service, of the employee's average compensation during the last 5 or 10 years of service whichever is more favorable to the employee. The percentage will be 1 per cent for each year of service up to 20 years, li per cent for each year during the next 10 years, and \\ per cent for each year over 30 years service. Fractions of a year will be computed proportionately. This pension will be payable during the life time of the employee. On the decease of the employee one half the pension will be payable during the life time of a surviving spouse, or for 10 years from the date of the employee's retirement, whichever period is the longer.
A provision is also made for pensions to disabled employees. These benefits are available to employees who have attained age 50, who have at least 20 years allowable service, and who are certified by the company's chief medical offcer to be unfitted for further service by reason of permanent physical or mental disability. If an employee with these age and service requirements should die in service the pension board may grant a survivor benefit similar in terms to the one referred to in the preceding paragraph.
The normal retirement date is age 65 but a provision is made for early retirement with reduced pensions, the age and service requirements being similar to those referred to under part 1.
The pension benefits are conditional on the employee having paid 5 per cent of his compensation throughout the period of his service from January 1st, 1935 or from the date he last entered the service if entry was later than January 1st, 1935, until the date of his retirement. An employee whose total contributions prior to date of transfer are less than the required amount will be permitted to make good the arrears during his remaining service by additional contributions, or lump sum payments, but if arrears are not made good the pension will be reduced proportionately.
An employee who transfers from part 1 to part 2 and who had contributed under the existing plan in excess of 5 per cent of his compensation, will receive repayment for the amount of the excess.
That position was recognized by the general chairman of the association of the men when he wrote to Mr. Cooper, the chairman of the pension fund of the Canadian National Railways, thanking him for the benefit of the assistance that was given by the officers of 83276-198i
Committee on Railways and Shipping the Canadian National Railways in connection with this plan. I should like to put that on Hansard but I do not have the time. I refer to it and it can be found at page 112 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the sessional committee on railways and shipping of Tuesday, April 29, 1952. But I commend that letter to the consideration of the house. It indicates surely that the railways have given this matter careful consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to conclude.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since you have asked unanimous consent to put documents on the record, surely one should be permitted to ask a question about them.


Lionel Chevrier: If I am allowed to conclude my remarks in time of course 1 will be glad to reply, but I should like to conclude because time is of the essence at this moment. In the light of the foregoing circumstances Canadian National Railways considers that it cannot now be reasonably contended that the employer should further augment the free pension. The Canadian National employee is better off than his counterpart on other railways and in many industries in that he has a pension for which he has paid nothing and he has or has had the money he otherwise would have been required to contribute if the plan had been compulsory.
For the aforesaid reasons Canadian National Railways has informed the government that it cannot in equity make any increase in the so-called basic, but more accurately termed, free pension of $25 per month. The government's position in that respect is that notwithstanding what has been said, but having regard to the legislation that has been placed on the statute books, such as universal old age pensions, and having regard to the possibility of old age assistance with a means test, it feels that under the circumstances it should not take any action at this time to increase the basic pension.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A very unsatisfactory reply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
3128	HOUSE OF
Privilege-Mr. Adamson And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
An act to promote the construction of new houses, the repair and modernization of existing houses, and the improvement of housing and living conditions.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. In tonight's press I see a report by the Canadian Press to the effect that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) had stated that I wished Canada unilaterally to raise the price of gold in Canada. This so shocked me, as it is the very antithesis of everything I have said on the subject for many years, that I ask the right for complete and absolute denial at the earliest possible occasion-which is now.
What I advocate now, as in the past, is not that Canada set a price for gold, but that she, as the world's third trading nation, establish a free market for gold in Canada, so that an acceptable price may be arrived at, based on the open market decision within a country not employing exchange or currency control. This is the whole basis of my argument about gold as a monetary unit, and as an agent of convertibility. I introduced a bill this session on this very point.
I regret I had to be out of the house in the dying minutes of the debate on gold, and I regret that my point was not understood about the free market. I hope the minister will understand this-and I see he is in the house. I know he did not misstate the point deliberately, but I wish to correct it now. What I said in the debate on the bill was that Canada should take the lead and establish a free market for gold, so that a price could be arrived at within a free economy- not that we could artificially peg the price at $50, or any other amount, which would be quite impossible.
I agree with the minister in what he said. I wish merely to correct any misunderstanding, because his suggestion is the very antithesis of everything I have said in the house for years.
[Mr. Knowles.)


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I regret very much if I misconstrued the meaning of my hon. friend's remarks.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker; and I also thank the minister.



EXPORT AND IMPORT PERMITS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, March 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chevrier for the second reading of Bill No. 374, to control export and import of strategic materials.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I had not quite concluded my remarks yesterday afternoon at the dinner adjournment. It is always a temptation, when one's remarks in any debate are divided into two instalments, to repeat on the second occasion much of what was said on the first. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I intend as best I can to resist that temptation.
However, there is one observation I must make in regard to one point I was seeking to emphasize yesterday. I referred to a form of export control which the government had made use of when, on December 14, 1953, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) announced that the Canadian government had undertaken to limit the shipment of Canadian oats to the United States to 23 million bushels during the period from midnight December 10, 1953, to midnight September 30, 1954.
I said that that action was taken by the Canadian government in view of an imminent breach by the United States congress of the principles of GATT. I see that in the Canadian Press despatch reporting my remarks yesterday the comment follows that I did not say what that breach would be. Let me take that up and make quite clear what that breach of the principles of GATT on the part of the United States congress would be.
The explanation is to be found at page 861 of Hansard in the statement made to the house on December 14 last by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. His statement proceeds:
We have now been advised that the tariff commission-
That is, the tariff commission of the United States.
-has made its report to the President and that this report recommends restrictions on imports of oats into the United States. It was. of course, hoped that the President would not find it necessary to act

upon this report. It can he taKen for granted that both governments wish, if possible, to avoid getting into restrictions and counter-restrictions.
The imminent breach of the principles of GATT to which I referred was the threat that the United States congress would act at that moment to impose restrictions upon the importation of Canadian oats into the United States. Canada has supplied practically all the oats imported into the United States market. This is a matter of high importance to the Canadian producers of oats. What I complained of then, and most emphatically complain of today, is that the Canadian government should apply restrictions upon the export of Canadian oats to the United States with a view to forfending, apparently, the imposition of restrictions by the United States congress on the importation of Canadian oats into that country.
If the United States congress is determined again to commit a breach of the spirit and letter of the general agreement on tariffs and trade then the responsibility for that breach should be left precisely where it belongs-on the shoulders of the United States congress. And it is highly improper for the Canadian government, in the exercise of the power it possesses under the Export and Import Permits Act, or any other statute, to come to the rescue of the United States congress in that situation and impose export restrictions upon Canadian producers of oats.
We were not told by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, when he made this statement in the house on December 14, what was the statutory authority under which the government was proceeding. One can only infer that it must have been the Export and Import Permits Act, which is being replaced by the measure now under debate. But whatever the authority was, I say that it was an improper exercise of that authority on the part of the Canadian government.
I had also dealt yesterday with a question which is coming to the fore in the capitals of not a few countries in the west, that of trade with Russia-trade, not simply in strategic materials, but the whole question of trading relationships with Russia. I reviewed what had been said in the United Kingdom recently in that regard. May I refer to a dispatch emanating from one other European capital on the same subject. It is a dispatch from Brussels under date of January 31, and contains this announcement:
Belgium and Russia today signed a new trade agreement worth 5,000,000,000 Belgian francs ($100,000,000) in trade to each country.
Russia will export to Belgium and Luxembourg cereals, small cars, celluloses, manganese, chromium, coal, tar, asbestos, cast iron, furs, tobacco, canned goods and other products.
Export and Import Permits Act
Belgium will supply Russia with textiles, fish, vegetable oils, hides and skins, lead and chemicals as well as other products. In addition Belgium is to construct 10 cargo vessels, 10 cold storage ships, floating cranes and other marine equipment to be delivered to Russia over the coming three years.
The volume of trade under the new agreement is double that of last year.
In view of what is being said from London and from Moscow these days on this subject, and in view also of reports such as the one I have just read, I ask again in this house: what is the position of the Canadian government with reference to this subject of trade with Russia? It is one thing to restrict export of strategic materials, anything that by any stretch of the imagination could be of assistance to a nation that may be bent on aggression. There is no one in this house who would give anything to any aggressor nation that would be of the slightest assistance in furthering the aggressive intent of any such nation. But I think we should know what is the policy of the Canadian government on the subject of trade with Russia.
Now, sir, I wish to speak on another aspect of trade in relation to a bill that deals with attempts to control the export of what are called strategic materials. This is a rather different subject because, although it relates principally to any nation behind the iron curtain, it is a nation, in view of the United Nations' action, which is in a different category. I refer to China.
Trade with China is restricted, as the house will recall, under a resolution passed by the security council of the United Nations back in June, 1950, immediately following the violation of the border of South Korea when the communist aggressors burst over it and sought to overrun the southern part of the peninsula. That resolution of the United Nations has been binding upon Canada as a loyal member of the United Nations. Under that resolution Canada as a member is bound to prevent shipments of munitions and arms to China or to any intermediate country through which such shipments might eventually reach China.
As long as our relations with the United Nations are such as they are, and as long as relations of the United Nations are such as they are with Red China, I urge, Mr. Speaker, that it should be made quite clear that Canada will stand firmly behind her obligations as a member of the United Nations and behind that resolution. We do not wish to contemplate that the present situation may last forever. It is only a cease-fire that exists in Korea today. No one who hopes seriously for better days can contemplate that this situation can continue indefinitely in Korea. But, Mr. Speaker, as long as Red China stands in the category of an aggressor,

Export and Import Permits Act branded as such by a finding of the United Nations, then I submit that it is the duty of Canada as a loyal member of the United Nations to stand firmly behind the present resolution which prohibits the sending of arms, munitions and implements of war either to Red China or to any nation through which such material may reach Red China. And similarly, I think that through the United Nations Canada must keep a very close examination upon trade that other nations are carrying on or proposing to carry on with Red China.
I have before me a dispatch coming from the United Nations, New York, dated February 7. It is a little lengthy, Mr. Speaker, but I think that every bit of it is of striking interest in relation to this subject. It reads:
Red China's trade with the non-communist world rose sharply during the first half of 1953, a United Nations survey showed Saturday.
The U.N. figures, published in the monthly bulletin of statistics, showed:
1.	Communist China's exports to the free world increased from $151,100,000 in the first six months of 1952 to $205,100,000 for the corresponding period last year.
2.	Her imports from non-communist countries rose from $112,200,000 in the first half of 1952 to $163,300,000 for the first half of 1953.
3.	Countries increasing their trade with red China included Britain, France, Belgium, West Germany. The Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries, Italy, Austria and Japan.
4.	While communist China's trade with the free world was increasing, the trend of Russia's trade and that of her eastern European satellites was just the opposite. There was a drop in the total trade between communist and non-communist countries of Europe.
Although the total dollar increase in red China's trade with the free world was not substantial when compared with the total volume of world trade, there was a percentage increase of approximately a third in both imports and exports.
The United States and India were the only major countries to have reduced their trade with the Chinese communists.
The table listed red China's exports to the United States for the first half of 1952 at $22,500,000 and those for the first half of 1953 at $4 million. Exports from the United States to communist China were listed at zero for both periods.
Britain's imports from red China rose from $4,500,000 to $10,900,000 and those of British overseas territories increased from $89,700,000 to $120,300,000. Western Europe's total imports from communist China increased from $26,400,000 to $55,400,000.
Britain's exports to red China increased from $1,800,000 to $8,700,000.
May I just observe before leaving that subject, Mr. Speaker, that it is clear that a large number of countries of free western Europe have been increasing their trade with Red China. These are countries that are members of the United Nations. It is quite clear that this trade therefore is not in so-called strategic materials. Nevertheless, I do submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter that must have close attention on the part

of the Canadian government. There have been suggestions emanating from Europe that there should be a re-examination of the category of strategic materials with a view to narrowing the list of goods whose export to countries behind the iron curtain is prohibited. This is a matter that should be engaging close attention on the part of a government like our own which has a considerable interest in external trade. Even though we are doing no trade with China ourselves now, Mr. Speaker, we still have the liveliest interest in the matter of the trade of other free nations with China.
It will I am sure be the unanimous view of this house that it is imperative that every reasonable step be taken to prevent strategic materials that could be of any use in the aggressive plans of any nation behind the iron curtain falling into the hands of such a country. But we must have a statement of policy on the part of this government. When this house is asked to vest in the Canadian government very wide powers with reference to the export of Canadian goods as well as to the import of foreign goods into this country, it is imperative that there be a statement from the government and from the minister as to the policy of the government.
I asked, as I mentioned yesterday, on a previous occasion, now six weeks ago, for a statement on the part of the Minister of Trade and Commerce as to the position of the government with reference to trade with Russia. The minister's answers were evasions; but the time for evasion has passed, the time for a statement of policy from the government has come, and this bill should not be allowed to pass through until there has been an adequate and comprehensive statement by this government on its policy with respect to trade with these countries.
It will be recognized, of course, Mr. Speaker, that trade has an important part to play in improving relations between the countries of the world, not only between the western nations but between countries that have been behind the iron curtain and the west. That is the view that is coming to the fore, and more prominently in Europe today. It is most opportune that the Minister of Trade and Commerce returned last night from two days spent in Washington as a member of the Canadian delegation which went there for the purpose of discussing mutual questions in relation to trade. It is therefore appropriate that the house should hear tonight from the Minister of Trade and Commerce in relation to the subject of trade between Canada and the United States, in relation to these questions which are under discussion between the free countries as to

their plans in regard to trade with nations behind the iron curtain, and with respect also to the matter of strategic materials.
Let the house realize that this bill purports to confer very wide powers upon the government. It is an enabling bill. It is a bill which vests very sweeping powers in this government. Many of its provisions are of the kind with which many of us in this house do not agree. They give such wide powers to the government that it would allow this government, if it chose, to use these powers so as to create discrimination between Canadian importers, and also discrimination as between exporters. It puts power into the hands of the Canadian government over wide sections of the whole Canadian economy. Powers of this kind should not be vested in government except under the compulsion of strictly emergent conditions.
That brings me, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, to the matter I raised yesterday. I urged upon the government a course which I believe is highly necessary and opportune. I recalled that when this measure came before the house in 1947, on the suggestion of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Mac-donnell) it was referred to the banking and commerce committee. This subject of export and import control has not been before any parliamentary committee since 1947, seven years ago. There has been no detailed review of the operation of export and import controls by a parliamentary committee in seven years. It is a matter of high importance. The whole structure of our controls is before us again in this bill by which the government seeks not only an extension of those powers in point of time, but an extension of those powers in terms of their nature. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is necessary at this time that the whole structure of the operation of our export and import controls should be submitted to careful study by the banking and commerce committee.
I am well aware as a member of that committee, Mr. Speaker, that the committee has a substantial volume of work before it during this session. It is studying, under reference from this house, amendments to the Bank Act and the Bank of Canada Act, but the indications are that the time these two measures will absorb this year in the committee is not at all comparable with the time that the study of two similar measures occupied in the banking and commerce committee ten years ago, at the time of the last decennial revision of the Bank Act. Therefore, I believe it is quite clear that the banking and commerce committee has time to give this measure, covering the whole of
18, 1954	3131
Export and Import Permits Act our export and import controls structure, the kind of careful review and study it ought to have now.
Let the house remember that there is a provision in this bill which contemplates that the control powers shall be in effect for three years until July 31, 1957. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the house ought not to part with wide powers such as this, to vest special powers of this kind in the executive branch of government for a period of three years, powers which can only be justified on the basis of an existing and present emergency necessitating the taking of energetic measures with respect to what we call strategic materials, without very careful scrutiny. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge that this measure should be sent to that committee for adequate study and for limitation of the period during which this measure is to have effect without further extension.
This is the kind of emergency legislation, and the powers it confers on the government are of a kind, which the house should not confer in any event for more than a year at a time, so that it retains control itself over the executive branch of government and guarantees in that way that it will have returned to it each session for review the measure itself and the actions of the government in pursuance thereof.
There are continuing dangers in a measure of this kind. Let us, in recognizing the fact that great dangers exist, realize that there is a need for effective control over strategic materials, and let us see to it that parliament retains a close check-rein before parting with powers as broad as these.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the C.C.F. group believes that a bill such as the one under debate is necessary in these troubled times. We believe it is necessary not only to control the shipment of strategic materials to certain countries in the world, but we believe also that it is necessary to use these powers to a greater extent to handle the export and control of certain peacetime products such as exist in surplus in this country today.
I listened both the other day and this evening with a great deal of interest to the speech made by the hon. member for Eglin-ton (Mr. Fleming). I believe the speech he delivered is probably as far removed from the attitude the C.C.F. group takes on this measure as it is possible to be.
The hon. member stated that on December 14 last the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) announced that restrictions on the sale of Canadian oats to the United States
3132	HOUSE OF
Export and Import Permits Act would be imposed. No one in this country likes to see restrictions being placed on the sale of Canadian oats to the United States. The hon. member for Eglinton said that such restrictions should not have been placed on the export of our oats to the United States by the Canadian government. He said, in effect, "Let the United States defy GATT, and let them if they want defy GATT and place an embargo on shipments of oats to the United States". I would far rather see producers in this country toeing able to ship 23 million bushels of oats to the United States than leave it up to the United States to break GATT, as I am certain they would and thus possibly keep Canadian oats out of the United States altogether. Certainly it is better to have some plan-


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe the hon. member is stretching the words I used. I did not say the United States should or would place an embargo on Canadian oats. What I said was that if there were to be restrictions imposed the responsibility should be put exactly where it belongs. In this case the responsibility was that of the United States congress and that is where the responsibility should be allowed to rest. The Canadian government should not be expected to snatch United States' chestnuts out of the fire.


Hazen Robert Argue: an hour and a quarter, say what the policy of the Conservative party was with regard to trade with Russia.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I must say that the speech did not last for an hour and a quarter.


An hon. Member:: It just felt like that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It may have seemed like that to the hon. member but may I say that, counting yesterday's instalment and today's, I think the length of it was forty-nine minutes. However, I did not expect my hon. friend to come any closer to accuracy than he has.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member was going to argue with the statement I made that he failed to enunciate the policy of the Conservative party with regard to trade with Russia. Instead, he rises to quarrel as to whether he spoke for an hour and a quarter, an hour and ten minutes or an hour and twelve and a half minutes. In any event, it was a long statement from the hon. member and as far as that long statement was concerned, there was no reference whatever to the trade policy of the Conservative party. Perhaps the speech was made too near their recent convention for the Conservative party to have a policy on trade with Russia. Of course, I think the Liberal party is in the same position when it comes to trade with Russia. When you ask them what their policy is, the Minister of Trade and Commerce who ordinarily does not do much skating, skates around the question and from his reply we really do not know what the government's policy is with regard to trade with Russia.
I should like to see all possible steps taken by the Canadian government to promote an increase in trade in ordinary peacetime goods and goods that have no strategic value. I think that the more trade nations in the west have with nations behind the iron curtain, the less danger there is of a global war. Any action with regard to trade that will raise the living standards of the people in western nations and that would, of course, help to raise the living standards of people in the iron curtain countries is something that I believe is in the interests of all the people of the world and of peace.
I therefore say that the C.C.F. believe that our government should take all possible steps to promote ordinary peacetime trade with the Soviet union. In that respect I might say that we are travelling in very good company. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Right Hon. Winston Churchill, in a speech delivered on February 25, emphasized the

importance of increasing trade with Russia as a means, not only of raising the living standards of the people in the nations involved but also as a means of reducing international tension and of promoting peace in the world.
When the hon. member for Eglinton came to discuss trade with China he did not take a neutral, non-committal position as he did in discussing trade with Russia. Instead, he said that a resolution had been passed by the United Nations banning trade with Red China and that he felt that no such trade should be undertaken. I can agree with that statement as far as it goes. But I believe the time is coming when steps must be taken to open peacetime trade with China.
The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) has returned from a tour around the world. I am sure that he himself has learned a great deal from that tour. Even though his reference to recognition of China has been modified at various times, I believe that at some time in the not distant future Canada must recognize the government that is in fact the government of China today. With that recognition by Canada and other nations in the western world I trust will go an opening of trade and a reduction of trade barriers, because I believe that trade in peacetime goods with China, as with Russia, is in the best interests of the peoples of the world and of peace. As we all know, a conference is to take place at Geneva in April for the purpose of discussing Far Eastern matters. As a result of that discussion I hope China may be recognized and that peacetime trade with China may be resumed once again.
I believe there are other sections of this bill that could and should be of real importance to the people of Canada but those sections today are not being used. I refer to clause 3, subclause (b), which says that this bill provides laws to implement an intergovernmental arrangement or commitment in reference to the export of commodities. I take it that it is under that very section that there is now a restriction on the sale or export of Canadian oats to the United States.
I believe that under that section there should be co-operation between Canada and the United States in distributing and selling surplus commodities in various countries of the world. We have in Canada many surplus commodities that are held in surplus supply in the United States. There should be active co-operation between Canada and the United States to share the market that is available and to undertake measures to increase the market for foodstuffs and other 83276-199
Export and Import Permits Act commodities that are in surplus supply. But as I see it, there is no real co-operation between the two governments. There is no agreement as to sharing of markets. Instead, Canada operates on its own and the United States operates on its own. In such a competitive atmosphere, Canada is likely to lose.
Before this debate is concluded I should like the Minister of Trade and Commerce to make a statement as to the results of the recent conference between four members of the Canadian cabinet and representatives of the United States government. Of course I do not know all of the decisions that might have been taken. I can only refer to the Canadian Press report that appeared in today's Montreal Gazette. In it there are quotations from the joint communique that was issued after the conference took place. We have seen other such conferences in the past.
I suggest to the government that unless some concrete agreement was made as to sharing of markets the result of this conference is likely to be as barren as other conferences on the same subject. I remember that on May 6 of last year, for instance, a resolution was passed unanimously by the house before the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made his trip to Washington. That resolution read as follows:
In view of the impending departure of the Prime Minister for Washington this house desires to record its opinion that further and more vigorous efforts should be made by the government to bring about the removal of the restrictions imposed by the United States on the importation of Canadian agricultural products, in violation of the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
That resolution was passed unanimously by the Canadian House of Commons. The Prime Minister of Canada and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), armed with this resolution passed unanimously by parliament, went to the United States, met officials of the United States government, yes, met President Eisenhower, and asked that the United States lift the restrictions then in effect on Canadian agricultural products. As far as I know, that conference resulted in the lifting of no restrictions.
But since that time there has been further restriction, this time imposed by Canada, it is true, on the exportation of oats to the United States market. We know that restriction came about only because we feared that if we did not restrict the export of Canadian oats we might end up by losing the United States market completely. In other words, the delegation headed by the Prime Minister
3134	HOUSE OF
Export and Import Permits Act of Canada which interviewed President Eisenhower last May on this subject came back with no results.
It is true that a very long communique was issued following that conference. It can be found at page 5055 of Hansard of May 9, 1953. But even though it was a fine-sounding communique, even though both countries affixed their signatures to it, little or nothing came of the statement. The statement issued following the conference just concluded does not give me any more hope than the one issued following the conference a year ago. A Canadian Press dispatch in the Montreal Gazette of March 18 contains the following with respect to the recent conference:
"The ministers of both countries recognized that if surpluses were to be disposed of without regard to the impact on normal trade, great damage might be done, not only to the commerce of Canada and the United States, but also to the world economy", the communique said. "The ministers reaffirmed that it is the continuing policy"-
Listen to this.
-"of their respective governments in disposing of agricultural surpluses abroad to consult with interested countries and not to interfere with normal commercial marketing."
It was precisely because the United States had, by action taken in the United States, been grabbing one market after another that Canadian cabinet ministers went to Washington, and apparently the best they could get from the conference was the statement containing the words that the ministers reaffirm that it is the continuing policy of their respective governments. Apparently the United States is going to keep on doing in the future what it has done in the past. There is an appropriation of $1 billion in the United States that may be used to dispose of their surplus products.
I am in favour of plans for the disposition of agricultural surpluses when that disposition results in feeding hungry human beings, but I do not like to see Canada let the United States do all the disposing of surplus commodities in that way. I think there should be some joint plan between Canada and the United States so that a program to dispose of surplus products may be undertaken with some agreement in order that Canada too may be able to dispose of some of her own agricultural surpluses.
I should like to see the parliamentary assistant, if the minister is unable to take part in this debate, tell us what real hope there is that Canada may have a substantial market for wheat and barley in Japan, Spain and other countries where reports of late have indicated the United States is moving in with gifts of food attached to the supplying of armaments. If these reports are correct, we are not going to be selling to


these countries even as much grain in the future as we have in the recent past. Apparently the Americans are getting rid of their wheat in the following way. They say to Japan: Buy a dollar's worth of bullets and we will package a dollar's worth of wheat with the bullets and send the dollar's worth of wheat free.


John Horace Dickey: On a point of order, I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but this bill has nothing to do with the disposal of surpluses or anything of that kind. It is a bill dealing with export and import permits on strategic goods, and I do not think we can get into a debate on this bill on the broad subject that the hon. member has been discussing for the last ten minutes or so.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point raised by the parliamentary assistant, I hope-I am sure that he has-that he has looked at the bill rather closely and has observed that in the first place it is entitled "an act respecting the export and import of strategic and other goods". Then, under the section dealing with exports he will see that it says that the governor in council has power to implement an intergovernmental arrangement or commitment dealing with the export of strategic and other goods. It is because of that power that is in the bill, the same type of power that is now apparently being used under another part of the legislation to restrict the export of Canadian oats, that I am bringing this problem to the attention of the parliamentary assistant and the government.


John Horace Dickey: The hon. member is not even correct in that, but certainly there is no section in the bill that has anything to do with the disposal by the United States government of their surpluses.


Hazen Robert Argue: There is nothing in the bill that has anything to do with the disposal of United States strategic materials, but it is possible under the legislation, and in fact I believe it is being done, for Canada and the United States to agree mutually to control the export of strategic materials.


John Horace Dickey: My point of order was that discussion on the bill should be with respect to its principle and not the subject that the hon. member has been discussing for some time.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am perfectly agreeable to that. Discussion should be in accordance with the bill, and that is what my speech has been directed to. Perhaps I should refer the parliamentary assistant to clause 5 which reads as follows-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I did not want to comment on the point of order raised by the parliamentary assistant because I thought that he and the hon. member for Assiniboia were trying to compromise as to the value of their respective points. But when the hon. member begins to direct his attention to specific sections of the bill he knows that at that particular moment I am entitled to intervene and call him to order. He referred to section 3 (b) a moment ago, and I thought that was perhaps the end of his references to sections. But if he continues it is my duty to tell him it is not in order, when discussing the principle of a bill on second reading, to refer to particular sections of the bill.
While I am on my feet may I say that I take into consideration the remarks which were made by the parliamentary assistant, and we are largely guided by the knowledge he has in connection with the interpretation placed upon this bill by hon. members who intervened in the discussion. Personally, I confess that I was somewhat puzzled in listening today to the hon. member for Eglin-ton, and to the speech that is now being made by the hon. member for Assiniboia, because of the broad title of this bill and the fact that the words "other goods" were included in the title. I am hopeful that hon. members who have studied the bill will keep in mind that we must not go beyond the scope of the bill, and I shall rely on them to be reasonable about that.


Hazen Robert Argue: I appreciate your comments, Mr. Speaker. You are correct, as you almost always are, that a member should not refer to specific clauses in a bill during discussion of the principle of the bill. Certainly, the assertion of the parliamentary assistant that this bill deals with strategic materials is correct, because those are the materials that the government has dealt with under this measure.


John Horace Dickey: My assertion was not that this bill deals only with strategic materials. It was simply that it had nothing to do with the disposal policy in relation to surplus materials.


Hazen Robert Argue: This proves exactly what I was saying, that the government has decided to use this legislation in a certain way, but because the legislation gives the government power to do certain other things, I believe some of those other things should be done. If the parliamentary assistant will pursue the bill somewhat farther he will find there is an additional principle in the bill, and that is that action may be taken by the government to see that those things done under the Agricultural 83276-1991
Export and Import Permits Act Prices Support Act, the Fisheries Prices Support Act, the Agricultural Products Act, the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act may be fulfilled. While the parliamentary assistant and the government are emphasizing one principle of the bill, I am emphasizing the other principle of the bill.
I believe that a measure such as this should be used in co-operation with friendly countries to control the export of commodities now in surplus supply in this country. I am hopeful, as I have said, that in so far as this measure relates to strategic materials, it can be dropped even before 1957 because of the lessening of world tension and because of the increasing belief that peace is assured. But so long as we are in the kind of world we are in today, the C.C.F. believes that a measure such as this is necessary. Even though this measure is adopted we trust that the government will take steps to expand trade with the iron curtain countries in peacetime because we believe that by expanding trade you will lessen international tension. As time goes on that will make this bill, in relation to strategic materials, no longer necessary.


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


John Horace Dickey: I
believe, Mr. Speaker, the majority of the points that have been raised in the debate on second reading could perhaps best be dealt with at the committee stage. However, there are one or two points to which I should address some brief remarks.
The first is with reference to the remark made by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) in relation to the extension in time of this bill. The extension proposed is of the same length as the extension that was agreed to by parliament the last time the present legislation was before parliament. This period was selected because of the views that had been expressed at that time. The hon. member said in his remarks this evening that in his view the period of the bill should be for one year only. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we could discuss that more fully at a later stage, but the fact is that this is a period that should be convenient. The actual working of the legislation is under the review of parliament, not simply at the end of that period but at each session. During the discussion of the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce any matters which hon. members feel are of importance in connection with the operation of this act can be brought forward and completely considered by the house.

Export and Import Permits Act
There is one other matter I feel I should mention. It is the suggestion made by the hon. member for Eglinton that this bill should be submitted to the banking and commerce committee. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members, that that suggestion, which was made in the debate yesterday, was given careful consideration. I regret to say it was felt that suggestion could not be met, and that at this time this bill would be submitted for consideration of the committee of the whole house.
One of the major reasons for that was alluded to by the hon. member himself. The banking and commerce committee has before it very important legislation referred to it by this house, and legislation that will occupy the committee for some time. I was glad to hear the hon. member give an optimistic estimate of the manner in which the committee could deal with the legislation that is now before it. I hope that his prognostication is correct. I am sure his colleagues on the committee agree with me in that.
However, I do believe that the serious and important legislation the committee has at the present time will take some weeks, and there would be a considerable delay involved if this bill had to await the completion of the work now before that committee. I do not wish to suggest for a moment that this is a bill in connection with which there is any great haste. But its provisions are important and we are anxious to have the house consider fully the proposals contained in the bill and to explain, not only to the house but through parliament to the country, exactly what the proposals are; then to have them enacted into law. In this way the present legislation could be replaced by legislation which we believe is better designed to meet the requirements of Canadian business and Canadian trade under present circumstances.
One other matter is in connection with the remarks of the hon. member for Eglinton and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) in regard to the embargo on the export of oats from Canada to the United States. The fact is that that is not really relevant to the present discussion, because that action was taken under powers contained in the Canadian Wheat Board Act and is related only to that act, and not either to the Export and Import Permits Act, that is now the law of this country, or to the present proposed bill.
The hon. member for Eglinton asked very particularly that there be a statement with respect to the policy of the government in connection with trade with Russia and
[Mr. Dickey.1
other iron curtain countries. The hon. member for Assiniboia also laid some stress on that point, but from a quite different point of view. The hon. member for Eglinton quoted a number of press dispatches relating to statements made respecting government policy in the United Kingdom. And as I understood the hon. member, he intimated his belief that the government of the United Kingdom had made satisfactory disclosure of government policy, and he wished that the Canadian government would do likewise.
Mr. Speaker, I think if I read first some of the quotations used by the hon. member from press dispatches from England, and then read the statements by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in this House of Commons, that he also read, it will be clear-and I believe the hon. member will agree with me-that the statement of policy of the Canadian government made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce is on all fours with the stated policy of the government of the United Kingdom, and is as complete and as clear as the statements to which he referred.
As reported at page 3097 of Hansard the hon. member for Eglinton quoted from a dispatch from London dated January 29, in which he referred to statements by a board of trade spokesman. The final paragraph of that quotation setting out the policy of the British government is as follows:
It is, however, a firm government policy to encourage any possible increase in the trade of nonstrategic goods.
And, farther down on the page:
Britain wants to extend trade with communist countries in Europe "to the maximum, consistent with security needs".
And then, in the second column, referring to further comment from the British board of trade:
"We welcome any increase in trade with Hussia, provided it is within the non-strategic field."
In the light of those three quotations I should like to read the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce which were quoted by the hon. member and to which I have referred.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the hon. member permit a question? Perhaps he could save the trouble of reading the minister's statement on the point if he would tell us whether he is authorized to say on behalf of the government that the statements which have just been read do represent the policy of the Canadian government with reference to the same matter.


John Horace Dickey: I think I can deal with that by reading what is already on the record. The

words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce are quoted by the hon. member at page 3096 of Hansard, as follows:
Trade between Canada and any country behind the iron curtain is carried on subject to permit.
That means a permit under the present act.
In other words a permit must be issued by my department for any transaction concerning exports to those countries. There has never been any prohibition against trade in certain commodities, while there is a definite prohibition against trade in commodities that are on the restricted list.
That, as I understand it, is the policy of the Canadian government on trade with iron curtain countries-


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is very different from the British statement.


John Horace Dickey: -that there is no prohibition on certain commodities, while there is definite prohibition against trade in commodities which are on the restricted list. Then the minister goes on:
I refer to strategic materials. Subject to that reservation, if any Canadian merchant can arrange trade with Soviet Russia, his application will be considered by the department.
I believe that this is on all fours with the statements made with respect to government policy in the United Kingdom on the same subject.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No resemblance.


John Horace Dickey: The hon. member also asked a question as to whether or not Canada is consulted in connection with representations regarding the number and kind of items on the so-called strategic list. The answer to that question is yes. As I pointed out in my statement on second reading of the bill, at the opening of the debate, this list is under continuous review by an international coordinating committee. Canada is represented on that committee. All these matters are discussed in the committee, and we are fully consulted and advised about them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take up the theme that the parliamentary assistant has just mentioned. As I understood him, he has sought to convey the impression that the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the house on February 17, as recorded at page 2170 of Hansard, puts the Canadian government policy on all fours with the policy of the government of the United Kingdom, as declared by Prime Minister Churchill in the passages I quoted in my speech yesterday, reported at page 3097 of Hansard.
Export and Import Permits Act
I submit to the committee that they are two different things. What the Minister of Trade and Commerce was doing, in reply to a question on February 17, was simply stating the present practice. He simply says that-
Trade between Canada and any country behind the iron curtain is carried on subject to permit . . . There has never been any prohibition against trade in certain commodities, while there is a definite prohibition against trade in commodities that are on the restricted list . . . Subject to that reservation, if any Canadian merchant can arrange trade with Soviet Russia, his application will be considered by the department.
That is simply a statement of the present position under the act; but it is not a statement of policy at all.
What Sir Winston Churchill was saying, in clear terms, was that Great Britain wishes to extend trade with communist countries in Europe to a maximum consistent with security needs; and, further, that it was firm government policy to encourage any possible increase in the trade of non-strategic goods. And, again, the Prime Minister of Great Britain called for more trade with the Soviet union and eventually a relaxation of cold war embargoes as a means to reaching a workaday understanding with Russia.
Surely there is no need for any secrecy in the matter. We have legislation before the house dealing directly with this question of control of the export of strategic materials so-called and other goods. It should not be difficult for the government to put before the house a statement of policy. If the parliamentary assistant concedes the statement of the Canadian government to be on all fours with the statement made on behalf of the British government by Prime Minister Churchill in the passages I have just quoted, it should not be very difficult for him to rise in his place and say so, and at the same time say that he is authorized to say so on behalf of the government, in view of the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, although he is back in Ottawa today, has not seen fit to be present in the house during the discussion of this bill.
If the parliamentary assistant, I repeat, will say simply that the policy of the Canadian government is the same as the policy of the British government as indicated in the passages I have just read, then I need ask no further questions. It will be then quite clear, but until he does I think we do not wish to be told that some of these evasive statements made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on February 17 are somehow or other to be pictured as being the same as the statements made on behalf of the British government by Prime Minister Churchill.

Export and Import Permits Act Therefore if the Canadian government's policy is the same as the policy of the British government as it was described, then perhaps the parliamentary assistant can say so very simply now.


John Horace Dickey: I do not think I can do any better than repeat what has already been said. I presumed that the hon. member for Eglinton had quoted with approval the statements that he used in the debate yesterday afternoon, and on reading those carefully I came to the conclusion that they expressed exactly the same principle that had been expressed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in this house. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said very distinctly and in clear words that so far as nonstrategic goods are concerned there is not, and there never has been any prohibition against trade with Soviet Russia or with any iron curtain country. With respect to strategic goods there are those prohibitions. They exist and we recognize and abide by them.
As I understand it, from the quotations which the hon. member put on Hansard as representing the position and the policy of the United Kingdom government, that too is their policy; that they are prepared to trade with the iron curtain countries provided that it is within the non-strategic field. That is the position in Canada, and as I understand it, from the quotations put on record by the hon. member, that is the position in the United Kingdom.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would like-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I had not finished my point, Mr. Chairman. There is no sense in my hon. friend standing in his place and quoting again the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, what he said on February 17, because it does not touch on the matter of future policy. It is simply a statement of the present practice; it is not a statement of policy. It does not say at all that it is the policy of the Canadian government to seek more trade with the Soviet union or with other communist satellite countries. Surely, without my hon. friend referring to the remarks of the minister again, he ought to be able to say very simply, in the light of the statements made by Prime Minister Churchill as to the policy of the British government, whether the policy of the Canadian government is the same. Then all he needs to do is to say that it is the same and to say that he is authorized to say so on behalf of the government. But let us not have those references back again to the Minister of Trade and Commerce which do not bear on this question and are not an answer to the question.
[Mr. Fleming. 1


Mr. Cresiohl:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I shall be glad to answer questions as soon as I get an answer to mine. I have asked a question of the parliamentary assistant-


Leon David Crestohl: Seeing that the hon. member is having some difficulty and doubt as to just what our policy is, I wonder whether he can tell the committee, or suggest to it, what the policy should be as suggested by his party.


Mr. Hodgson:: We are not the government; you are the government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not propose to be diverted from my question by the very interesting interjection of the hon. member. It may well be-


Mr. Lesage:: That is why you will never be over here.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. member feels it necessary to run interference on behalf of the parliamentary assistant I can assure my hon. friend that I intend to stay with this question until we get a clear answer. It is a simple question. I thought at one stage that the parliamentary assistant was going to say so and clear it up in that way, but instead of that he keeps coming back and reading the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, which does not touch on the point at all. Therefore I renew, Mr. Chairman, respectfully, the same question that I have asked, which admits itself of a simple answer. Then we shall have an answer and we can leave the matter there.


John Horace Dickey: If the hon. member does not regard the very clear words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce as being an answer I am afraid that I will not be able to be any more clear than was the minister; but I can tell him this. This is a free enterprise economy, and the government does not do business with Russia or with any other government in the normal course of events. But the policy of the Department of Trade and Commerce and the government is to give every assistance to Canadian businessmen in seeking business that may be available in Russia or behind the iron curtain and in dealing with any serious inquiry that they receive from such countries for non-strategic materials.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is a review being made of the list of various materials now considered strategic in the hope that the list may be relaxed?


John Horace Dickey: There is a continuous review. There is the continuing committee to which I referred in my statement a few moments ago which has this list under careful scrutiny, and changes are made according to agreements reached in the light of the circumstances at any given period.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I take it from the reply of the parliamentary assistant that at this time Canada is promoting a relaxation in the list of strategic goods? Before the parliamentary assistant replies to that I might tell him that according to the statements of Sir Winston Churchill the United Kingdom is reviewing the strategic list and is hoping that there may be-to use the Prime Minister's words-a substantial relaxation. Can the parliamentary assistant say whether Canada is supporting Prime Minister Churchill in the United Kingdom stand, namely, that there should be a substantial relaxation in the list of strategic goods?


John Horace Dickey: This review is carried on co-operatively. We are continually questioning whether or not any particular item is strategic, whether it has strategic implications, and the purpose of that review is to keep the list within the bounds of the national security of this country and of the other countries involved, but to keep it also from being unnecessarily broad in any of its classifications.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the parliamentary assistant say whether there has been any relaxation in the list during the last three years or whether it has been building up and has become more comprehensive? I take it from the statement made by Prime Minister Churchill that little if anything has been done in the way of relaxing the list of strategic materials over the last three or four years. Has this review within the last few years resulted in any relaxation?


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Chairman, there has been progressive relaxation over the last two or three years. I do not think it could be taken from the statement the hon. member attributes to Mr. Churchill that there has been no change. There have been changes, and I believe they have been in the direction of limiting the number of strategic items.


Hazen Robert Argue: I appreciate what the parliamentary assistant has said, and I hope that further action will be taken towards an increasing relaxation of the list of so-called strategic materials, naturally keeping in mind all the time the safety of Canada. In order to acquaint the parliamentary assistant with exactly what Prime Minister Churchill said,
Export and Import Permits Act
1	would like to quote part of the statement he made on February 25, as reported at column 592 of the British Hansard for that date:
But a substantial relaxation of the regulations affecting manufactured goods, raw materials and shipping, which, it must be remembered, were made three or four years ago in circumstances which we can all feel were different from those which now prevail-a substantial relaxation would undoubtedly be beneficial, and beneficial in its proper setting bearing in mind the military and other arguments adduced. We are examining these lists and will discuss them with our American friends.
I take it, Mr. Chairman, from the remarks of the parliamentary assistant, that the Canadian position is substantially the same as that in the United Kingdom, and that Canada, in any review of the list, will be on the side of a further relaxation.


John Horace Dickey: I might just tell the hon.
member and the house that our objectives are the same.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether we are on the clause I think we are, but it seems to me we are discussing things which are relevant to clause 2. Are we on clause 2?


Some hon. Members:: No, clause 1.


Ernest George Hansell: I would like to ask some
questions on clause 2, but perhaps I had better wait.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Definitions.
Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I realize clause
2	deals with definitions, but in paragraph (a) it states:
(a) "Area control list" means a list of countries established under section 4;
I am somewhat mixed up and perhaps you will call me to order as my remarks might be attributable to section 4, but I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant whether it is anticipated that countries in the area control list will be countries outside of the iron curtain. It seems to me that the countries which might be regarded as potential enemies of Canada would be those which we term iron curtain countries. However, I would like the parliamentary assistant to clarify that if he can.
I do not believe we should have any dillydallying around in respect to this matter. The bill is an important one in that it controls the export and import of strategic materials which it is anticipated may or may not go to our potential enemies. If it were not for that latter provision there would be no particular reason for this bill.
Paragraph (b) sets out the list of goods which have been established as being strategic,

Export and Import Permits Act but as far as I can see all goods which might be sent to a potential enemy country must be considered strategic goods. I am not saying that we should break off any particular type of trade with our potential enemies. I believe we have got to be humanitarian in our outlook toward these things. Canada is a country which produces vast supplies of agricultural products which in the main are food products, and I believe we should attempt to dispose of our food products, if we can, to people who need them. If the people behind the iron curtain need food the humanitarian thing to do is to let them have it. But as far as I am personally concerned anything apart from food, and perhaps clothing, is a strategic material.
There is another point I would like to make while I am on my feet, and it is simply this. Once again I see no reason for dillydallying around. If we want to feed the people behind the iron curtain who may be hungry, then I believe we should do so even though, if we believe the propaganda, the iron curtain countries are the only ones with a high standard of living. We know, of course, that is not true. But if we do ship foodstuffs to iron curtain countries, as the hon. member for Assiniboia has suggested, then I believe it would be one of the best deterrents to possible war. However, that will not work if the people behind the iron curtain do not know that that food comes from Canada. What assurance have we that they would know? Is this food going to be labelled "Made in Canada"? I rather doubt it. I do not believe communist strategy would permit their people to learn that they are living on foodstuff which comes from what they would call a capitalist country.
All these things are part of the picture and I would like the parliamentary assistant to reply if he can. Perhaps my remarks have been somewhat general but I will repeat my first question: Are any other countries, apart from iron curtain countries, likely to come within this control area? The parliamentary assistant may not know, as a country which may be regarded as suitable for this list one day may not be suitable the next.


John Horace Dickey: In answer to the hon. member's tost question with respect to countries within the area control list I would say that under the bill now before us, if and when it becomes law, it is not anticipated that there will be any countries on the area control list outside the iron curtain. The situation at the present time is that the area control list, under the present legislation which is now in effect, does include a number of countries bordering on the countries behind the iron curtain and which now have to be included. But with 
the powers that are provided for in this bill we anticipate that we shall be able to eliminate all those countries from the area control list and limit it simply to the iron curtain countries.
On the second question with respect to the nature of strategic goods, of course that is a difficult question and one that is continually under review by the committee to which I have already referred. However, I can tell the hon. gentleman that no food or foodstuff that is produced in Canada and is in surplus supply in this country is on the strategic list as a commodity that cannot be exported to any part of the world.


Howard Charles Green: Clause (d) of section 2 defines "minister" as meaning the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and including any person authorized by him to perform his functions. The powers of the minister under the act are very wide. For example, permits can not only be issued but can be cancelled, amended, suspended or reinstated. There are also other very wide powers. In actual practice what persons are authorized by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to exercise these functions?


John Horace Dickey: That is a power that is in the present act. The official who is authorized is the chief of the export permits branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Howard Charles Green: Only the one official in the department is authorized to act as the minister or for the minister?


John Horace Dickey: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Export list of goods.
Donald Methuen Fleming: In subclause (b) of clause 3 we find the words "to implement an intergovernmental arrangement or commitment". Will the parliamentary assistant tell the committee what governmental arrangements and/or commitments are now in existence?


John Horace Dickey: The only one, as I am informed at the moment, is the United Nations resolution relating to the shipment of arms and materials of war to Red China.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Do we not have under this category the understandings entered into between certain of the western nations apart from the United Nations resolution? I understood that the western nations had certain understandings with reference, for instance, to the definition of strategic materials. Have no agreements or arrangements been arrived at, for instance, among the NATO countries?


John Horace Dickey: I am advised no. The situation referred to by the hon. member comes under

section (a) which is regarded as related to the security of Canada and there is no firm intergovernmental arrangement or commitment that deals definitively with that particular situation. The only arrangements that can be properly described under the wording in section (b) is the United Nations resolution to which I have referred.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then will the hon. gentleman tell us more about the existing arrangement that is based upon subclause (a) which he has just mentioned?


John Horace Dickey: The NATO countries and some other friendly nations which are not members of NATO have a committee that meets in Paris where there are discussions of the list of strategic goods; where the interests of all these countries, including Canada, are represented; and where decisions are taken in common with respect to that list. Those decisions are observed by the member governments represented on that committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I presume that is a committee meeting from time to time in Paris?


John Horace Dickey: I think it is in almost continual session. It is a continuing committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In Paris?


John Horace Dickey: In Paris.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. gentleman will recall that in the passages I quoted last night from reports that came from London, there was one that I quoted from, as reported at page 3097 of Hansard, in which appeared these words:
... it was stated authoritatively that Britain will submit new proposals for a revision of the embargo list to the United States and France through British embassies in the two capitals.
I presume that those proposals will be submitted to all the nations which are parties to the present arrangement. Last night I asked whether the Canadian government had been consulted in this respect. Can the hon. gentleman answer that question now?


John Horace Dickey: Yes. That is correct. These proposals would be discussed in that committee. I am not advised as to whether or not any definite action has been taken by the British government as indicated in the quotation put on Hansard by the hon. member; but I can assure him that if those proposals have been made or if they are made in the future, they will be referred to the committee to which I have made reference.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Can the hon. gentleman tell us what is the position of the Canadian government with reference to proposals for a revision of the embargo list?
Export and Import Permits Act


John Horace Dickey: We have not seen any proposals, so far as I am aware, arising out of the statement put on Hansard by the hon. member.	.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is the statement under date of February 25.


John Horace Dickey: But in answer to the hon. member for Assiniboia I made it clear that our objectives were similar to those in Great Britain and that our representatives would be authorized to discuss their proposals in the light of those objectives.


Howard Charles Green: What is the situation with regard to scrap metal? I realize that it would not be permissible to export that material to countries behind the iron curtain but at one time at least there were restrictions on the export of scrap metal to the United States and possibly to other countries which are not countries behind the iron curtain. What is the position today?


John Horace Dickey: I am advised that the export of scrap is under permit. Permits are freely issued for export from eastern Canada. There are some restrictions in western Canada because of local conditions and local demands which have to be provided for.


Howard Charles Green: That hardly seems fair to western Canada. They cannot export their scrap to the United States. They cannot send it back east without paying an extremely high freight rate. Yet the scrap metal from eastern Canada can be exported to the United States. How is that discrimination justified?


John Horace Dickey: I am informed that the western dealers have no complaint. They are currently getting $23 a ton for scrap whereas the eastern price is $21 a ton. I understand that they are quite satisfied with the position at the moment.


Howard Charles Green: I am not so sure of that. I think perhaps it is a case of being satisfied because they cannot be anything else, for the government has them by the neck. But what about the export of scrap metal to Japan? Is that permitted?


John Horace Dickey: Yes, I am advised that exports are permitted to Japan and that a substantial quantity has moved from Canada to Japan.


Howard Charles Green: Section 3 (c) reads as follows:
To ensure that there is an adequate supply and distribution of such article in Canada for defence or other needs.
I presume these permits are required for scrap metal on the basis of "other needs".


John Horace Dickey: Yes, I am advised that is correct.

Export and Import Permits Act


Howard Charles Green: Would there be the same power to control the export of iron ore to Japan?


John Horace Dickey: Yes. I am advised there would be if it were in short supply, but I understand there is no supply problem in that connection.


Howard Charles Green: I am very glad that the parliamentary assistant has made that statement because the Minister of Trade and Commerce has told me on other occasions that he has no power whatever to control the exportation of iron ore from British Columbia to Japan. The parliamentary assistant has now admitted that there is that power under this legislation. I would point out that iron ore is not in plentiful supply in British Columbia. We have very limited reserves and we are extremely anxious to have a smelter established on the west coast and are very much afraid that if the export of iron ore to Japan in large quantities is permitted the result may be that it will never be possible to establish a steel industry on the west coast.
I have here a return made on March 9 giving the amount of iron ore exported from the west coast to Japan in 1953. The amount was 958,046 tons, nearly a million tons which, for our deposits, is a very large amount. The year before the amount was 794,311 tons. I suggest that the government look into the possibility of expanding the permit system to cover the export of iron ore so that if it is a fact that there is a shortage of iron ore on the west coast exports to Japan can then be controlled. We are in the position now that our iron ore is being exported to Japan largely in Japanese bottoms and we are buying finished steel from Japan at a price perhaps ten times or more the amount we get for the iron ore. As I understand it, at the moment the government has no permit system so far as iron ore is concerned. Is that correct?


John Horace Dickey: It is not under export control now.


Howard Charles Green: Then I would ask that the matter be looked into and that some sort of export control be set up so that the department can at least prevent the export of iron ore to an extent that will be detrimental to the development of a steel industry on the west coast.


Ernest George Hansell: I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant a question with respect to subsection (a) which reads:
To ensure that arms, ammunition . . . will not be made available to any destination wherein their use might be detrimental to the security of Canada.
Are we to assume that once any such material leaves Canada for the designated country we have no further control over it? What I have in mind is this. Suppose, for instance, that we shipped some material to

Czechoslovakia. Have we any control at all over what that country will do with it? Is there anything to prevent Czechoslovakia from sending it to some other iron curtain country, to Hungary, let us say, or some other country-even to Russia, if you like? Are we to assume that once it gets to the country of destination we have no more control at all with respect to it?


John Horace Dickey: No, Mr. Chairman. Czechoslovakia is behind the iron curtain and we would not send arms, ammunition or anything of that kind there. There is export control on movements to that country.


Ernest George Hansell: That is not a perfect illustration. Let us say we send it to some other country that is not behind the iron curtain and they do not have any such restrictive measure. It may be a good bargaining point for them to get some of our material and then trade it to some iron curtain country at a price for something they need. Is there anything to prevent that?


John Horace Dickey: Yes. The problem to which the hon. member refers is that of transshipment, for instance, an export from Canada to country A, which is outside the iron curtain, being received in that country and then transshipped to some country behind the iron curtain. That is a matter that is under careful and continuous study by the committee in Paris to which I referred, and one of the main purposes of the bill is to enable us to deal with acts which take place in Canada which contribute to such transshipment. That is one of the important new aspects of our control mechanism that we are establishing by this bill.


Solon Earl Low: In other words, the effective control is to determine the reliability of the shipper to start with. If he is not reliable you will not licence him. If he proves unreliable after he has a licence then you have recourse to the penalty provided in the act and you can take away his licence for the future.


John Horace Dickey: Yes. In general terms that is correct.


Howard Charles Green: Has the parliamentary assistant got figures as to the scrap metal exported to Japan in 1953?


John Horace Dickey: No. I am informed we have not got those figures. We can get them for the hon. member. I am also informed that the exports of scrap to Japan have been what is known as distant scrap, scrap that cannot be moved to Vancouver economically to be sold in the market there.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.

On clause 4-Export list of countries.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Clause 4 relates to the establishment of a list of countries to be called an area control list. I referred last night to the list of countries established under order in council of January 13, 1953, as set out in the first column on page 3096 of Hansard. Has there been any change in the list of countries since that date? In the second place, is any further change now in contemplation?


John Horace Dickey: I am advised that there has not been any change in the list since that date, but there are very extensive changes contemplated if and when the present bill comes into force. As I explained to the hon. member for Macleod, when the bill comes into force we foresee the possibility of eliminating all countries from that list except those that are actually behind the iron curtain.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does that mean that Hong Kong will be dropped from the list? It has a peculiar and special position as the commercial gateway to China.


John Horace Dickey: That is a special case. We do not know whether or not it can be eliminated but that matter will receive consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Import list of goods.
Hazen Robert Argue: On clause 5, I wonder whether the parliamentary assistant might inform the committee what goods are on the import control list because of the scarceness of the article in world markets? In other words, what commodities are on the import control list under (a) and then what commodities, if any, are on the import control list under (b), which is to implement any action taken under the Agricultural Prices Support Act. the Fisheries Prices Support Act, the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act or the Agricultural Products Board Act?


John Horace Dickey: In answer to the hon. member's first question there are no items on the list because of scarcity, and there is one item on the list under (b) and that is butter.


Hazen Robert Argue: What act does that come under? Is it carrying out the Agricultural Prices Support Act?


John Horace Dickey: It is the Agricultural Prices Support Act, I understand.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: Can the parliamentary assistant tell us whether this import control list is to be a list of goods for which import licences are to be granted or a list for which import licences are to be refused?
Eocport and Import Permits Act If it is for those to be granted, would he tell us how it will achieve the purpose of the act?


John Horace Dickey: In actual fact, Mr. Chairman, the list includes items in both categories.


Colin Cameron: Can the parliamentary assistant tell us how an item which appears on the list as one for which import licences are going to be granted under subsection (b) will ensure the best possible supply and distribution of that article? How is the granting of a licence going to improve the situation beyond the position which would be obtained if a person were free to import it without a licence?


John Horace Dickey: I am informed in some
instances it is necessary to establish a quota, that is a ceiling, on imports. For that reason an article would be included in the list.


Colin Cameron: I would point out that the purpose of paragraph (a) is to ensure the best possible supply. Presumably that would be the most plentiful supply.


John Horace Dickey: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I
could explain by giving the hon. member an example. When sulphur was in short supply in the world it was placed on the list of imports and permits were granted in order to see that sulphur got to the essential users, for instance, defence industries and that sort of thing.


Colin Cameron: So it was not to
control the import; it was to control the distribution after it came into the country?


John Horace Dickey: No, it was to control imports as well because there was an international arrangement with respect to the distribution of the world supply of sulphur.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to say a word about clause 5 dealing with imports. I think the case for exports, prima facie, seems reasonable. We all recognize the necessity of restricting the export of strategic materials. I find myself, therefore, somewhat sympathetic to the export part of this bill. However, to use a slang phrase, I am absolutely from Missouri with regard to the import part of it.
The clause, of course, begins with these words to which we have grown so accustomed that even we in the opposition do not resist them as much as we should. It reads:
The governor in council may establish a list of goods, to be called an import control list, including therein any article the import of which he deems it necessary to control for any of the following purposes . . .
I want to recall to our minds what these very simple words mean, because we are apt to forget. What that means is that four

Export and Import Permits Act men, because I understand that four is a quorum of the cabinet, can establish a list of goods and put on a restriction against the import of them. It means if you are in the importing business your business can be ruined by a decision of which you know nothing, and of which there is no publicity until it suddenly comes down on you. Then, you find you are the victim of it. There is no appeal from it.
We all know there have to be orders in council, but I do not think we should allow ourselves to take them as the ordinary course of business. I think we should always expect to be satisfied how far they are necessary. Let us look at this clause on that basis. I noticed that in his remarks on March 16, page 3067 of Hansard, the parliamentary assistant seemed to take for granted that he needed

to say nothing about paragraphs (a) and (b) of this clause. He confined himself almost entirely to paragraph (c), which is new. I read what he said:


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is ten o'clock; how about reading it tomorrow.
Clause stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris:: Tomorrow we shall take third reading of the bill to extend the time of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act; then continue this debate and then take the bill having to do with fire losses on government property; then in committee of supply and take mines and technical surveys.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 19, 1954