1956-04-18

COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

[Stage Direction]
Second report of special committee on estimates.-Mr. Tucker.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there is a question on the order paper for a written answer, No. 326. I had the answer prepared, and I mentioned it to the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and he suggested that he would prefer to have the answer to the question orally rather than file that short answer. If there is no objection, I would be prepared to do that.
The first part of the question is:
How many orders in council have been passed since January 1. 1955?
The answer, as of March 31, 1956, is 4,938, which includes 2,565 minutes of the treasury board.
The second part of the question is:
Are any of them secret?
None of the orders is classed as secret but as I stated in the house on January 31, as found at page 702 of Hansard, when discussing certain orders for the shipment of arms, there are some orders which should not, I think, be made public in fairness to the other countries involved in certain of the transactions approved in such orders although, as I stated at that time, I would be prepared to make those orders available confidentially to any hon. member who might wish to see what they contained. The third part of the question is:
Do any of them vary, alter, suspend or abrogate any existent legislation?
Yes, there are certain of them that do but only where and to the extent that legislation provides for such action being taken by order in council.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: May I ask the Prime Minister a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. gentleman ask the question when we reach orders of the day? Question 326 on the order paper is answered.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MacLean: 1.	What is the total of all rents paid by the federal government for accommodation in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, from March 31, 1953 to March 31, 1956?
2.	To what landlords were these rents paid?
3.	What amount was paid to each?


GAGETOWN, N. B., AND VALCARTIER, QUE.   CIVILIAN HOUSING
Mr. Boisvert: What is the average cost per unit of government owned housing for civilian personnel, at Gagetown, New Brunswick, and at Valcartier, Quebec?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 55-Mr. Ellis:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents, exchanged during the past 12 months, between the Postmaster General or any officials of his department and the postmaster at Hamilton, Ontario, or any organizations or individuals, relating to the suspension of letter carrier James Erskine.
Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the first part of the motion asks for the tabling of copies of all letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents exchanged during the past 12 months between the Postmaster General or any officials of his department and the postmaster at Hamilton, Ontario. I submit that such correspondence, memoranda or telegrams are of the nature of departmental communications and as such have always been privileged. Therefore I cannot acquiesce in this request.
With regard to the second part of the motion asking for copies of similar correspondence with any organizations or individuals relating to the suspension of letter carrier James Erskine, I have no objection to that part. However, I might point out that I believe all of it has already been tabled on the motion of the hon. member for Hamilton West, but if there is any other correspondence I shall be glad to table it.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion carry subject to the reservation made by the Postmaster General?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 59-Mr. Dufresne:
For a copy of all payrolls and lists of materials in connection with the work done at Riviere-au-Renard, county of Gaspe, Quebec, during the year (a) 1553; (b) 1954; (c) 1955.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 61-Mr. Diefenbaker:
For a copy of all correspondence, since January 1, 1952, with any companies from which the government or any minister or department received estimates of costs, on the basis of 1953 prices, for the construction of the South Saskatchewan dam and irrigation project.
Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as I stated two days ago, the answer given to the question previously asked contains all the information in this matter which I think should be given in the public interest. The only correspondence on file is the firm tender made on behalf of three different contractors in a confidential letter. I do not think it would be fair to those contractors to ask them to consent to publication at this time of the figures in their tender when general tenders may be called for at some time in the future. I do not think it would be fair to these individuals to have that information put on the records of the House of Commons at the present time. When I asked the hon. member the other day to allow the question to stand, I really intended that he would withdraw it from the order paper until such time as it became a matter which could be made public information.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister himself referred to the amount that was estimated by these several contractors. He having referred to the document, I submit that the house is entitled to see it.


Mr. Speaker:: The result of the vote has been announced as: Yeas, 60; nays, 138. I am afraid I will have to correct the result of the vote. I am sorry to have to do that because I know that the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Dupuis) was in the house while the bells were ringing. It is unfortunate that he did not have a chance to reach his seat but he must vote from his seat when a division takes place and the Speaker is in the chair.


Mr. Thatcher:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are not at that stage yet. Because I must rule that the vote of the hon. member for St. Mary should1 be eliminated, the result of the vote is: Yeas, 60; nays, 137.
Furthermore, I wish to remind hon. members again that last year we amended the rule so that it reads now that no member may enter the house when the question is being put. See standing order 12 (2).


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS, HULL AND OTTAWA  RENTALS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 63-Mr. Coldwell:
For a return showing a statement of the amounts paid by the federal government and its agencies for the renting of buildings and premises within the cities of Ottawa and Hull, annually since 1938.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 64-Mr. Coldwell:
For a return showing a statement of the amounts spent or authorized to be spent by any department of the federal government or by the federal district commission or the national research council for the erection of public buildings in the cities of Ottawa and Hull since 1938.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 65-Mr. Coldwell:
For a return showing a statement of grants or amounts paid by any department of the federal government or authorized by parliament to be paid 67509-192i
Inquiries of the Ministry to the federal district commission, the national research council, to assist the cities of Ottawa and Hull in the provision of bridges, extension of sewerage and water systems, removal of street car tracks, street improvements and beautification, including areas directly under control of the federal district commission, and any other expenditures, by any department of the federal government within the boundaries of the cities of Ottawa and Hull since 1938.
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection, to what I take to be the real intent of this motion. It is not to extend to the ordinary work that is done by the federal commission to the lawns and walks of the government. In spite of the general language of the last two lines, it is to apply only to the kind of expenditure that is referred to in the preceding part of the motion.


Mr. Coldwell:: Yes, that is what I had in mind.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 66-Mr. Nowlan:
For a copy of all payrolls for work, labour and services performed, as well as a copy of all accounts and vouchers for goods and material used or supplied In connection with repairs, additions or construction of the government wharf or wharves at Canada Creek, Kings county, Nova Scotia, during the calendar years 1952 and 1953.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 67-Mr. Diefenbaker:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and memoranda of telephone conversations, since June 1,	1955, between John Merriam, president of
Northern Natural Gas Company of Omaha, Nebraska, N. E. Tanner of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, and the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, or any of them, containing the terms of or referring to any negotiations for the purchase of gas by Northern Natural Gas Company from Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister comment on the accident which recently occurred to the United States D-124 Globe-master, particularly with reference to the security arrangements which were made regarding the aircraft after it made its forced landing?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able to make a statement tomorrow when I expect to have all the relevant facts in my possession.
Smith (York North) Stick
Stuart (Charlotte)
Tucker
Valois
Villeneuve
Weaver
Weir
Weselak
White (Waterloo South)
Winters
Wylie-137.

Inquiries of the Ministry



REPORTED ACTIONS OP UNITED STATES TROOPS FOLLOWING ACCIDENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: have a question to ask of the Minister of National Defence, which he may wish to take as notice. What I want to know is what authority, if any, armed United States troops have on Canadian territory to threaten Canadian citizens who were following their legitimate business, particularly when that is on an R.C.A.F. airport? I wish the minister would explain that tomorrow.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I shall be glad to deal with that tomorrow, but I do not accept all the alleged facts on which the question was based.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour? In view of the announcement by the railway unions that they are prepared to accept the report of the railway conciliation board, can the minister say whether he has had any report from the Canadian Pacific Railway, and also can he assure the house that the government-owned Canadian National Railways will go along with the recommendations of the government-appointed conciliation board?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: I can only reply, of course, to the first part of my hon. friend's question. The reply to that is that I have not yet had a statement of opinion from either of the railways on the conciliation board report. I have received one from the unions' representatives.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Milton Fowler Gregg: May I refer to the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on February 15, 1956, the subject matter of which has been referred to in the house and elsewhere. This question divides itself into three parts. The first part of the question is:
During the period from October 2,	1955, to
January 25, 1956, how many persons, by provinces or by regions, were refused unemployment insurance benefits by reason of their inability to meet the requirements of section 45 (2) of the Unemployment Insurance Act?
[ Mr. Campney.]
The answer to that part of the question is this. In the period October 2, 1955, to January 31, 1956, 99,462 claimants failed to qualify for regular benefit by reason of section 45 (2). The breakdown can only be given by regions:
Atlantic region	 14,456
Quebec region	 29,664
Ontario region	 27,622
Prairie region	 16,244
Pacific region	 11,476
99,462
Of these claimants 90,269 had sufficient contributions to qualify for seasonal benefit of ten weeks or more.
The second part of the question is:
By provinces or by regions, how many of these cases have been reviewed?
The answer is as follows. For the purposes of the re-examination of contribution records, all the 99,462 claimants who had failed to qualify for regular benefit were notified to present their insurance books to the local office.
Twenty-two thousand two hundred and ninety (22,290) of these failed to respond and it is assumed they are not interested at this time. It is believed the majority are gainfully employed.
The remainder, 77,172, were re-examined and these were located as shown in the following table. I might interject here that 64,484 of these had already established claims for seasonal benefit prior to the commencement of the re-examination. The breakdown of the 77,172 is as follows:
Atlantic region	 12,489
Quebec region	 22,881
Ontario region	 15,268
Prairie region	 16,354
Pacific region	 10,180
77,172
The third part of the question is:
By provinces or by regions, how many of these persons have been put on unemployment insurance benefits as a result of the reinterpretation of section 119 (b) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, announced by the Minister of Labour on January 25, 1956?
The answer is as follows. The number put on regular or seasonal benefit following re-examination, which applied the new interpretation of 119(b), was 6,002 and these were located as follows:
Atlantic region	 1,238
Quebec region	 1,975
Ontario region	 983
Prairie region	 936
Pacific region	 870
6,002
The re-examination of this group also resulted in another 6,000 seasonal benefit

claimants establishing an additional entitlement to regular benefit for varying periods prior to the commencement of their seasonal benefit periods.
On March 28, the hon. member asked if I would be in a position at this time to state whether or not I consider it desirable to amend section 45 (2) of the act. I would like to point out that section 45 (2) contains one of the basic conditions underlying entitlement to benefit. To fully appraise its total effect, a lengthy period of operation in necessary in order to provide sufficient data by which conclusions may be reached. The act has been in force for six months, and this is not considered to be a period of sufficient duration for appraisal purposes.
I think, however, that a significant trend is indicated by the most recent statistics. These figures show that, while active claimants at the end of February, 1956, were about 18 per cent lower than at the end of the same month in 1955, benefit payments in February, 1956, were only 10 per cent less than in the previous year. Indications are that this trend continued through March.
I wish to assure my hon. friend that I have a keen interest in the application of section 45 (2) as well as in many other sections of the new act, and, as soon as a proper appraisal can be made, the house will be informed of the results.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question? Can the minister say what is the present position of the some 70,000 persons whose cases were re-examined but who were not put on regular benefits? This figure is obtained by subtracting 6,000-odd from 77,000, the figure the minister gave. Is consideration of any kind still being given to their position with respect to regular unemployment insurance benefits?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, their position is being studied in that regard.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received word from either the airport board or the airport manager of Vancouver international airport to the effect that all light aircraft will be banned from the Vancouver field and sent to Langley because the Vancouver field is too crowded? If so, is he aware that the Langley field is not ready for this at this moment? What action does the government intend to take to make it fit?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: I think I can dispose of the question very simply by saying that I have not, nor has my department, received word from either the airport board or the airport manager at Vancouver international airport to the effect that all light aircraft will be banned from Vancouver field. No communication to that effect has been received by my department, and I should like to say that my department has issued no order banning light aircraft from Vancouver airport. I think, Mr. Speaker, that takes care of the second question concerning Langley airport.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs aware of the fact that the state department in Washington had copies of Ambassador Stuart's controversial speech prior to its delivery? My second question is, does the minister concur that silence on the part of the state department gave consent?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: It would be quite normal for the state department to have an advance copy of a speech of this kind given by one of its representatives abroad, and I believe that was the case in respect of this particular statement. I have nothing to say in regard to the second part of the question.


REQUEST FOR COMMENT ON DISBAND- MENT OF COMINFORM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would he be prepared to say what his opinion is regarding the announcement by the Soviet government of the disbandment of the cominform and also of its desire to mediate in the Middle East and whether he regards that as just another unctuous subterfuge?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the disbandment of the cominform may result in the reduction of interference by the forces of international communism, centred in Moscow, in the domestic affairs of other countries, it is greatly to be welcomed. Whether it will in effect have that result of course remains to be seen. So far as the second question is concerned, I think

Trade Agreement with U.S.S.R. the co-operation of the Soviet union, particularly through the United Nations, in the solution of Middle Eastern problems is greatly to be desired.


ORDERS IN COUNCIL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the answer he gave to the order paper question in the name of the hon. member for Prince Albert. Can the Prime Minister say whether any, and if so, how many, secret orders in council passed prior to January 1, 1955, are still in effect?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I will have to take the hon. gentleman's question as notice, because from memory I could not give any answer. I do not know that there are any but I will make inquiries.


CANADA-U.S.S.R.-APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT SIGNED AT OTTAWA, FEBRUARY 29, 1956
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved:: That it is expedient that the houses of parliament approve the ratification by Canada of the agreement on trade between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, signed at Ottawa on February 29, 1956, and that this house do approve the same.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on February 29 I took pleasure in announcing the conclusion of a trade agreement between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I stated at that time that an opportunity would be provided for a debate on this trade agreement in advance of its ratification. Now that the time has come for this debate, it is appropriate for me to make a few remarks.
One of the principal features of this agreement is the exchange of most-favourednation treatment between the two governments. The effect of this is to put Canadian commercial relations with the U.S.S.R. on a basis comparable to our relations with most other countries. Hon. members no doubt understand what is meant by "mostfavoured-nation treatment". In the time-honoured terminology of the tariff, this means that imports from a particular country will be treated no less favourably than those from any other country. Most-favourednation treatment has reference to tariffs and related matters in the field of commercial
policy. Most-favoured-nation treatment does not entitle another country to any unique advantages but merely guarantees that the country will not be discriminated against in trade matters.
Imports into Canada from the U.S.S.R. are now admitted, under the provisional application of this agreement, at the rates of the most-favoured-nation tariff schedule. Mostfavoured-nation treatment does not involve, of course, the application of the British preferential rates of duty to imports from the U.S.S.R.
In our country, most trade is conducted under private auspices. Most decisions regarding purchases and sales abroad are made by private people. The government, of course, plays a most important part. In promoting trade relations with other countries, by tariff policy and by other means the government establishes a framework of arrangements to expedite trade and sometimes to regulate trade. It is an inherent feature, however, of our business system and of the government's policy that the Canadian people shall be as free as possible to decide what they will buy.
It follows that in negotiating a mostfavoured-nation agreement with the U.S.S.R., or any other country, the government does not attempt to stipulate that certain things shall be imported into Canada and that other things shall not be imported. Aside from the effects of the tariff, such matters are not in general subject to governmental regulation. Canada does not undertake in this agreement, therefore, to purchase any specific goods from the U.S.S.R. The major undertaking given by Canada is that imports from the U.S.S.R. may compete on equal terms with imports from other countries in the most-favoured-nation category.
Under the agreement, Canada also receives most-favoured-nation treatment from the U.S.S.R. The meaning of this undertaking is quite different in a state trading country than it is in a private enterprise country such as ours. Soviet purchases and sales abroad are made within a framework of governmental policy by officials of state trading organizations. Accordingly, the agreement includes a general undertaking whereby each government accords most-favoured-nation treatment with respect to sales or purchases involving exports or imports. This clause offers to Canadian exporters a prospect of competing on commercial terms for sales to Soviet state trading organizations.
Certain escape clauses are included in the agreement, to be used if unanticipated difficulties should arise. These escape clauses are comparable in their effect with those contained in the general agreement on tariffs

and trade. For example, provision is made for the imposition of import restrictions, even on a discriminatory basis if necessary, in the event of balance of payments difficulties. In this connection, I should also mention the letter from the Canadian government which forms a part of the agreement, reserving the right to establish values for import duty if any Russian products should enter Canada in such increased quantities as to cause serious injury to domestic producers. This letter is similar in purpose to the multilateral escape clause which is included in the GATT and it is similar in its terms to a letter which forms part of our separate trade agreement with Japan.
When I first announced this new agreement, I made clear that it will not affect our strategic export controls. A provision is included which recognizes that either government may apply prohibitions or restrictions of any kind for the protection of it's essential security interests. This provision would take precedence, if necessary, over any other provision of the agreement.
One of the clauses in the agreement refers to the treatment of merchant ships. This clause was studied very carefully before we agreed to include it. The practical effect is to give a continuing assurance to the Russians, for a period of three years, that their ships will continue to enjoy in our seaports such as Vancouver as favourable treatment as the ships of other countries. In other words, the provision simply confirms the kind of treatment which has been available all along to ships of U.S.S.R. registry.
I should also say something about the provisions which refer to the legal status of persons, access to courts and arbitration. These do not establish any new procedures for settling disputes that might arise in the conduct of trade between Canada and the U.S.S.R. They merely indicate the facilities that are available if any such disputes should arise. These provisions will, no doubt, be recognized as useful to traders and trading organizations in both countries. There is nothing in this agreement that might force Canadians to go before Russian courts, rather than to Canadian courts, nor force them to choose arbitration for the settlement of disputes. I mention this because there might otherwise be some misunderstanding about these particular provisions on the part of people who may not have had an opportunity to examine the legal problems which are involved.
From the Canadian point of view, by far the most important part of this agreement is the letter by which the government of the U.S.S.R. guarantees to purchase and take
Trade Agreement with U.S.S.R. delivery from Canada, during the three years of the agreement, a total between 1,200,000 and 1,500,000 metric tons, i.e. between 44-1 million bushels and 55-1 million bushels of wheat, in annual lots of between 400,000 and 500,000 tons, i.e., between 14-7 million bushels and 18-4 million bushels. The exact amounts to be purchased in the second and third years, within these annual amounts, will be determined by the government of the U.S.S.R., taking into account the volume of Soviet goods sold to Canada. The total over the three years, however, will amount to not less than 1,200,000 tons and the amount in any individual year will not be less than
400.000	tons. The Russian purchases of wheat are to be made at the prices and on the terms at which the Canadian wheat board is making sales to its major customers at such times as the Soviet purchases take place. The U.S.S.R. has already purchased mcfre than
400.000	tons for delivery during the present year.
The agreement is written to terminate at the end of three years. At that time the two governments could agree to extend it. The conditions governing an extension would have to be worked out in the light of our experience in the three-year period.
I shall not attempt to predict to what extent there may be a long term demand for Canadian wheat in the U.S.S.R. This agreement provides a demonstration that the government is prepared to move vigorously, on commercial terms, into any market that develops. If there should prove to be a continuing market in the U.S.S.R. that we can satisfy, then we shall be all the more pleased. To the extent that it is possible to do so, we are establishing ourselves in a good position at present. It is reasonable to expect that there will be at least some continuing basis for Russian purchases of wheat from this continent, even if that country should not be short of grain. From the point of view of transport, it is cheaper to ship wheat across the Pacific to far eastern ports of the U.S.S.R. than to transport it overland from the major wheat growing areas in western Russia.
As for other Canadian commodities, it may well be possible to develop trade in nonstrategic goods that the U.S.S.R. needs and that are competitive. The very fact that a trade agreement has been concluded indicates perhaps a willingness on the part of the U.S.S.R. to trade more with this country. To a very large extent, Canada and the U.S.S.R. export similar things. The potentialities of trade, while valuable we hope to both countries, would thus seem to be fairly limited. I do not wish to create the impression, therefore, that there will be a large market in
3042	HOUSE OF
Trade Agreement with U.S.S.R.
Russia for very many Canadian products. At the same time, it is realistic for exporters to be alert to such opportunities as may develop and to take advantage of them.
My colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) will no doubt wish to take part in this debate. I would like to refer particularly to the part he played in making this agreement possible. During his trip to the U.S.S.R. late in 1955, the Secretary of State for External Affairs initiated the discussions on trade which led later to the negotiations which took place in Ottawa.
I am informed that the U.S.S.R. was represented by able experienced officials who conducted themselves throughout the negotiations in a straightforward, businesslike manner.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: Mr. Speaker*, it is a coincidence-and I am sure not more than a coincidence-that the government is presenting to the house this afternoon for ratification this trade treaty with Russia on the day that Premier Bulganin and Mr. Khrushchev are arriving in Great Britain for a widely heralded visit which has attracted the attention of the western world.
It is natural that at the outset, when the house is invited to ratify such an agreement, we should ask what steps have been taken by the other party to the treaty to ratify it. We are told that under the Russian practice the signing of the agreement by their authorized officers itself constitutes ratification on the part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In submitting the agreement to both houses of the Canadian parliament for ratification and approval the government is following Canadian constitutional practice. I think we will prefer it to the Russian practice.
The elements of this agreement have been clearly stated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) on two occasions, namely on February 29 and today. The agreement is accompanied by an exchange of four letters, two from each of the parties to the other. In approaching the resolution now under debate I take it that we are entitled to look at all five documents, for certainly the letters have extremely high importance for us in our approach to the question of ratification and approval of the treaty.
The minister has indicated that the treaty gives to each of the parties unconditional most-favoured-nation treatment. It is an agreement that is to run for a course of three years. There is no automatic extension provided. Extension is permitted only if the parties agree on such extension within a period of three months prior to the expiration of the three-year period on February 28, 1959.
rMr. Howe (Port Arthur).]

The agreement and the letters contain safeguards and there is, of course, the important collateral agreement on the part of the U.S.S.R. to purchase Canadian wheat.
I should like to embrace this opportunity of paying tribute to the Canadian officials in whose hands the negotiation of the treaty was placed. We do not have many opportunities in the house to express our tribute to competent public servants to whose hands great responsibilities are committed. In the Department of Trade and Commerce there are some outstanding officials in whom I am sure all parties of this house have confidence when important responsibilities such as the detailed negotiation of such an agreement as the present one are placed in their hands. There were difficulties in the way of arriving at any kind of agreement. There were the difficulties of misunderstanding. There were the difficulties of hostilities that had been created over a period of time and there were language difficulties. There were the difficulties involved in breaking new economic ground. In arriving at any agreement under those circumstances, and in the face of those difficulties, I am sure the house recognizes the important and thoroughly praiseworthy work of competent officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce.
I suppose the minds of some of us are naturally carried back today to May 12, 1954. In many respects the business on which the house is engaged this afternoon is reminiscent of the business that engaged the house on the date to which I have referred. It was the day on which parliament was called upon to ratify the trade agreement with Japan. There we were dealing with a nation which had been a late antagonist in the war, and at the hands of whose armed forces and authorities many Canadians had suffered unspeakable cruelties. Yet, sir, we had to recognize that there were not only important economic interests at stake in our trade relations with Japan but also far-reaching political issues and involvements in the kind of world in which we have to live in this postwar era. We saw on that occasion a trade relationship with Japan under which Canada was enjoying substantial advantages, and we saw also the strategic position that Japan holds in the Pacific, particularly in view of the way in which the communist rule had marched to the coast of the mainland. So we in this house by, I think, unanimous decision resolved that it would be a good thing for Canada, indeed a good thing for the world, if Canada and Japan entered into that trade agreement.
In approaching the question of a trade agreement with Russia there are some factors that are different from those that entered

into our thinking in connection with the Japanese trade treaty. There are others that are common to both. We have not had the extensive trade and economic interests in common with Russia hitherto that we had with Japan at that time. Our political relationships with Russia are very different from those which the western world has sought to establish with Japan in the postwar period. On the other hand, we are not unmindful, sir, that while Russia was our ally in world war II, and Japan was our mortal enemy, nevertheless in this postwar period we have been living in the era of the cold war. We are not unmindful of the crimes of the Kremlin which have been perpetrated upon suffering mankind in the past decade and more. Nevertheless, sir, recognizing the existence of these crimes, virtually all of which are yet unatoned, we think that there is merit in the present measure.
Let us examine the extent of our trade and economic interests with Russia so that we may see in their true proportions the economic interests of which this treaty takes account. Our trade with Russia has been almost insignificant in amount for some time past. I give you, sir, the figures on Canada's export to Russia for the past four years. In
1952	it amounted to $421; in 1953, $478; in 1954 there was an increase to $4,854,311; in 1955, a reduction to $2,680,153. The major items in our exports to Russia in 1954 were pulp sulphite, canned meats, barley and cattle hides in that order. In 1955 our leading exports to Russia consisted of pulp sulphite and nonedible vegetable oils. We exported no barley to Russia in 1955.
On the import side I offer these figures for the same period. In 1952 we imported from Russia goods to the value of $2,234,413; in
1953	the figure dropped to $824,007; in 1954, it dropped further to $687,081; and in 1955 it dropped further to $628,156. Our imports from Russia in those years consisted almost entirely of fur skins. It will be seen, then, that our trade with Russia has been insignificant in amount in recent years.
It would be well for us not to expect perhaps too much from the agreement now under discussion. The minister has said this afternoon, and of course correctly, that it will depend on the alertness of the salesmen of Canadian goods to their opportunities in the Russian market. It is true it will depend upon that factor, but our sales to Russia will depend on a great many other factors as well, not the least of which will be government policy in the U.S.S.R. I noted with no little interest that when I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in the house on February 29 as to what might be 67509-193
Trade Agreement with U.S.S.R. expected in the way of trade his answer was extraordinarily cautious. My question, sir, is found at page 1662 of Hansard. It was put to the minister at the conclusion of his statement, and reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister what is the best estimate of the dollar value of the import and export trade that is expected under the terms of this pact?
The minister's reply was:
Mr. Speaker, I said once before that I had lent my crystal ball. I am afraid I cannot give the hon. member an answer.
Now, when we find the Minister of Trade and Commerce taking refuge in a reply as cautious as that one, we cannot fail to be impressed, because that is rather unlike him. Therefore, I say, sir, that it would be well for us, I think, not to attach too much hope to a wide extension of trade with Russia as a result of this agreement, or to read into it particular political significance.
May I say, sir, that it is the intention of Her Majesty's loyal opposition to support the present motion for ratification of the agreement, and I should like to put that support upon several broad grounds. In the first place, sir, this is an agreement whose purpose is to provide for an extension of trade. Articles 1 and 2 of the agreement give full effect to the principle of unconditional most-favoured nation treatment. We have subscribed, as I believe all political parties in this house have subscribed, to the principle of multilateral trade. We in this part of the house have had occasion to complain, as we do still complain, that the government's trading policies have resulted in a dangerous concentration of our external trade. Therefore, we are glad to welcome any extension of trade on a true multilateral basis.
In the second place, sir, we regard, as I have no doubt all political parties in this house regard, trade as an important asset in establishing conditions which will make war more and more distasteful to nations. The hope of establishing commercial relationships is associated in the minds, I am sure, of all hon. members with the desire to see more links created among nations of the world that will make peace advantageous to them and to create at the same time more reasons for making war more and more disadvantageous to them. And so, while we have not changed our views in regard to certain aspects of our possible trade with Russia- and I am referring now particularly to trade in strategic materials-nevertheless, we do subscribe, as I am sure all hon. members do, to the view that the closer commercial relationships become in the world the greater is going to be the incentive to peace.

Trade Agreement with TJ.S.S.R.
In the third place, sir, the prospect of selling Canadian wheat to the U.S.S.R. is naturally an important factor weighing to the advantage of the present agreement. We have, under the agreement that is collateral to the main pact, an undertaking on the part of the U.S.S.R. to make purchases of Canadian wheat of undesignated grades in those next three years, a guaranteed minimum of
400,000	metric tons per annum, or, expressed in terms with which we are more familiar, 14-7 million bushels per annum. And, then, there is the over-all guarantee of the purchase of 1,500,000 tons of wheat in the 3-year period, which is, in the figures with which we are better acquainted, 55-1 million bushels. The price will be the price prevailing at the date of individual sales and, under the agreement, is to be the price at which Canada, through our wheat board, is selling to other large foreign purchasers.
In his reply to questions on February 29 the minister stated that the wheat that the U.S.S.R. is to take represents a fair distribution over our milling grades of wheat. Sir, we have in Canada such a huge surplus of wheat that any opportunity at all to sell a significant portion of it is bound to commend the co-operative support of hon. members.
In the fourth place, sir, among those reasons why we support the present motion for ratification and approval is the group of safeguards that are contained in the agreement and the accompanying letters. The minister has referred to those today as escape clauses. For my part, I prefer to call them safeguards, and there are five in particular that I think are deserving of comment.
In the first place, there is clear provision in the second paragraph of article 3 of the treaty for the retention by Canada of full power to take whatever steps may be necessary in relation to strategic materials. That paragraph reads:
The provisions of the present agreement shall not limit the right of either contracting party to apply prohibitions or restrictions of any kind directed to the protection of its essential security interests.
Sir, that, in the view taken by Her Majesty's loyal opposition, is a safeguard of vital importance; for, without such a safeguard, I do not suppose it would be possible for parties in this house to support the agreement.
Now, the definition of strategic materials is not static. It has undergone revision from time to time since the western nations were first called upon in the Korea and post-war Korea period to take steps to place embargoes upon the sale of strategic materials to countries behind the iron and bamboo curtains.

There may be further changes in store, changes that I say should only be brought about in the closest association and consultation with the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America; but that there must, in the conditions still prevailing in the world today, be restrictions and embargoes upon the shipment to countries behind the iron and bamboo curtains of certain strategic materials is, in my submission, incontestable. Therefore, sir, I attach the highest degree of importance to that first safeguard.
The second of those five safeguards is the right reserved to the Canadian government to apply special duty values. This right is reserved, not in the formal terms of the agreement, but in the first of the accompanying letters by which the Canadian government reserves the right to fix, under the Canadian Customs Act, values of goods for ordinary and special duty under certain defined terms where Russian goods are imported, or are likely to be imported into Canada:
... in such quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to domestic producers of like or directly competitive products.
In such cases the right is clearly reserved to the Canadian government to fix values for ordinary and special duty purposes.
There is always the concern and fear in matters of this kind when a country under a free economic system enters into trading agreements with a country operating on a state trading basis, particularly a communist country, that there is every likelihood of the dumping of the goods of the communist country in the other country. We have had some experience in Canada with tactics of this kind. We will not forget the situation of two years ago when we had such an experience with goods imported from Czechoslovakia. Hon. members will not, I am sure, forget the experience of the western world with Russian dumping in the thirties. This particular safeguard is therefore also of the highest importance and the house will be entitled to demand of the government in relation to this safeguard the strictest vigilance to assure that Canada will not be permitted to become a dumping ground for undervalued Russian goods.
The third of these five safeguards, sir, is the preservation of the commonwealth trading preferences. Under article 7 there is clear provision that the agreement, providing as it does for unconditional most-favoured-nation treatment, is not to have any application to the "exclusive advantages accorded by Canada to members of the British commonwealth of nations, including their dependent territories, and to the Republic of Ireland".

The fourth of these safeguards relates to Canada's exchange position and balance of payments, for under the first paragraph of article 3 of the agreement we have the clearest provision that while no prohibitions or restrictions are to be applied by either contracting party on goods imported from the other, nevertheless a clear exception is made in this article for "import or exchange restrictions applicable to all countries in like circumstances for the purpose of safeguarding the external financial position and balance of payments". In the kind of world we are living in, safeguards of that kind have become imperative.
The fifth of these safeguards, sir, is contained in article 4. I do not attach any great value to this particular safeguard but I mention it for the purpose of making a comment upon it. Under this article the merchant vessels of each contracting party and the cargoes of such vessels shall, upon arrival at and departure from the seaports of the other contracting party and during the time spent in such seaports, enjoy the treatment accorded to the most favoured nation.
Now it is quite obvious that the wheat sold to the U.S.S.R. by Canada under the terms of the letters accompanying the agreement will move via the Pacific, no doubt from Vancouver to Vladivostok on the Russian side of the Pacific. We have already seen press comment on the fact that one Russian ship loaded wheat at Vancouver for shipment to Russia since the agreement was entered into. That is all very well, sir, but it would be of more interest to Canadians if there were some prospect of Canadian bottoms being used for the shipment of this Canadian wheat from Canadian ports to Russia. This is one place where, had the government not permitted the Canadian merchant navy to evaporate in post-war years, there might have been a real opportunity for Canadian bottoms to share in the advantages that might be hoped for from these shipments of Canadian wheat to Russia.
We in Her Majesty's loyal opposition attach great value to these safeguards and particularly to the first four which I mentioned. Their value will, of course, depend upon the use that is made of them and that in turn is going to depend upon Russian government policy; but it will depend as well on the vigilance of the Canadian government.
There is no indication as to what commodities the U.S.S.R. will endeavour in particular to sell to the Canadian market. It would have been of interest to us to have had some indication; indeed, it might have offered some hope of additional safeguard where it seems to me some safeguard is required. I think 67509-1935
18, 1956	3045
Trade Agreement with U.S.S.R. it to be deplored, sir, that there is no guarantee in this agreement that Canada shall not be asked to import goods manufactured by forced labour behind the iron curtain. By this agreement it is entirely left to Canadian purchasers to assure themselves if they choose to do so, that the goods they are purchasing from Russia are not goods manufactured by forced labour.
In the second place, sir, I should like to remind hon. members of the inherent dangers of state trading. It is inevitable, when trading between two nations is done either on one part or on both parts on the basis of state trading, that political dangers will be inherent in these trade relationships and any rupture of them that may follow. Look at the problem of enforcing contracts; look at the problem that the Canadian exporter faces in selling to state purchasing organizations in the U.S.S.R. Suppose contracts are cancelled; suppose there is a default in payment or in performance of contractual obligations on the part of the Russian state trading organization. Should this happen, is there going to be any effective redress? Well, sir, I do not think anyone can be too confident that under those conditions there will be any effective redress whatever.
It is not many months ago that a good many manufacturers in the United Kingdom thought they had reason to cheer when wider trading relationships were established between the United Kingdom and Soviet purchasing organizations, but a good many of them faced a rather disturbing and disillusioning experience not long after when a great many of the contracts were cancelled by the Russian purchasing organizations and these British exporters learned to their dismay that they were without any effective redress. Let us not forget that there are also serious political dangers inherent in state trading and in particular in state trading with communist countries.
The third matter to which I draw attention follows from the last one I have mentioned and relates to article 5, under which Canadian citizens and other natural persons domiciled and carrying on business in Canada and juridical persons constituted in accordance with the laws in force in Canada are to be entitled in the U.S.S.R., in respect of persons and their property, to treatment on a basis no less favourable than that accorded to the natural and juridical persons of any other state.
Let us be realistic. I doubt very much whether the government is going to say that in the light of experience, in the light of well recognized facts, there is very much comfort or assurance for Canadian exporters

Trade Agreement with TJ.S.S.R. in provisions of that kind, in relation to well-known Russian judicial procedures.
The fourth matter to which I draw attention, in trying to bring about a sound and fair understanding of this agreement and what it contains, as well as its limitations, is the danger that wherever Russian trade organizations go there is always the danger of espionage. I do not need to remind hon. members of the experience that Great Britain had with Russian trade organizations in the 1920's, when they thought they were engaging in beneficial mutual trade. We in Canada have had enough experience of our own, in regard to the use that Russia has made in times past of diplomatic relationships, to put us on our guard against the inevitable danger that is inherent in Russian plans of any kind of using channels of this kind for espionage purposes.
Having attempted that appraisal of the features of this agreement, let me say in conclusion that all of us, I am sure, must try to see this agreement in its true perspective in relation to the whole world-wide context of today. Russian political and economic tactics are inscrutable. Nevertheless, this agreement may, at least on superficial view, fall into its place in a pattern with which we are becoming familiar, a pattern that is not, in many of its elements, unwelcome in the world today, a pattern that we have associated with the so-called postGeneva period of the past ten months.
Whatever may be the true purpose of Soviet policy in relation to these facts, we have witnessed a number of extraordinary reversals of Russian tactics in this period. One thinks of the exchange of visits of diplomats and the press; of the Austrian treaty, with the withdrawal from Austrian soil of Russian forces of occupation; of the release by Russia of the bases which it held in Finland; of the current denunciations of the memory of Joseph Stalin; and, within the past 48 hours, the announced disbandment of the Cominform.
Whatever in the Geneva spirit and the post-Geneva period has resulted in consequences such as some of these-and I mention in particular the Austrian treaty, which of course is welcomed as a contribution to the relaxation of international tension-at the same time hon. members will not have forgotten that the Geneva conference was followed, within a very short time, by the visit to India by Mr. Bulganin and Mr. Khrushchev and the series of lies and falsehoods that characterized their speeches to the Indian people in relation to the western powers.


Hon. members will not have forgotten either that the point of greatest tension in the world today in the Near and Middle East stems from the sale by Russia and Czechoslovakia of arms to Egypt and other countries and Russia's adamant refusal to curtail those shipments of arms in the interests of the relaxation of tension and the threats of war in that vital and disturbed area.
It will not be forgotten that it still remains the policy of the Kremlin to stir up trouble against the west wherever opportunity offers. We will not have forgotten that the concentration camps are still flourishing in Russia, that the satellite countries are still under Russian occupation and that personal liberty is suppressed in all those countries.
Whatever tactical changes may have contributed in certain quarters to the easing of the tensions, we have no reason to think that there has been any change in the deep-seated and fundamental aims of the Kremlin policy. Those aims remain as they were defined long ago: world revolution and world domination by the Kremlin.
I am sure all of us in this house will wish to be on our guard against being misled into doing something that fits in with some change in Russian tactics, the purpose of which simply is to weaken the resistance and the will on the part of western nations to stand firm against the dangers that Russia has created to the peace and security of the free nations of the world. We well know that the purpose of Russian blandishments in the past ten months has been to the fullest extent possible to weaken NATO and the will of the western nations as expressed in NATO. There have been some evidences, some perhaps disturbing evidences, of the success of the Russians-disturbing from our point of view -but we may be hopeful, and we may at the same time, I think, discharge our duty to be realistic.
Canada, like all the western nations faced with a decision such as we are called upon in this Canadian House of Commons to make today, cannot in the face of our world duty take a deliberately unfriendly course. It is a duty of the western nations, in the kind of world we live in today, while being realistic, to avoid taking deliberately unfriendly courses. When an opportunity offers to make any contribution toward easing tensions in the world today without any loss of essential interests on the part of our country, then I conceive it to be our duty to take that course.
We have not forgotten the young Canadians who lie in Korean graves today, whose sacrifice is attributable to aggression that was,

if not ordered, at least abetted by the Kremlin and the government with which this treaty has been negotiated. Hope is a virtue but it is our duty, while being hopeful, to be realistic. Therefore if I may attempt to define in a word the view that we take in supporting this trade agreement with Russia I would say this: we believe that Canada should try, in the world of today, to be friendly and at the same time to be vigilant, to be realistic, to keep our guard up and to keep our powder dry.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) has said, I have no doubt that this treaty will receive the unanimous approval of the house. I hope that in the course of the debate the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) will accept the invitation extended to him by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to participate in the debate. May I also suggest that I think the house would appreciate hearing a word or two in the same connection from the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) in the course of the discussion of trade with Russia because he too had opportunities to see the internal conditions of that country.
I also want to join in the well deserved tribute paid by the hon. member for Eglinton to the officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce. You know, from time to time in the house we hear about the bureaucrats and what they have or have not done, and it is refreshing that we are able at times to express our appreciation of the work which has been done by the permanent officials of the departments who serve not only their departments but the country so well. The Department of Trade and Commerce has such officials within it to whom we can pay that tribute.
I was very happy indeed to accept the invitation extended by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the luncheon he gave when he entertained the Russian negotiators and also to accept a subsequent invitation from them to dinner in the Chateau Laurier. I think that those of us of all parties who met them on those two occasions will realize that they were a very able group of men. Not only are they a very able group of men but individually they are charming and cultured men, and if they were wholly representative of the Soviet union what a better place this world would be than it is today.
I am one of those who have made some study of the history of the past and sometimes when I have listened to speeches that have been made regarding relations between the western world and the Soviet union and have
18, 1956	3047
Trade Agreement with U.S.S.R. read our newspapers and our literature I have been very forcibly reminded of some of the literature, history and speeches of the 30 years following the French revolution when France was as great a bogey to the countries of western Europe as the Soviet union is today. When I say "bogey" I do not mean something that is not real, because I think that in those days the leaders of the French revolution did threaten the very basis of the society of western Europe.
But as time passed the tensions eased, and little by little the western Europeans and the French were able to accommodate themselves to their different republican and monarchial views. So, perchance, we are now witnessing the evolution in the world-I hope this is so but I will not say I am sure of it-of the accommodation of the two differing points of views that are so prevalent in the world today and that at last, perhaps over a very long period of time without war, we may manage to live together and to find ways and means of co-operating more and more. I say that because this, I think, is one of the methods by which better understandings, the easing of tensions and mutual co-operation for the common good can be brought about.
We in this party have long urged that we should try to trade with countries that we say are behind the iron curtain. I should like to see not only the recognition of the fact that there is a new government in China but also trading channels opened so that we might be able to exert some influence within that country and offset to some extent the reliance of that country on the Soviet union. Because I believe these things I am very happy indeed to congratulate those who negotiated the treaty, to express to the government our support of the agreement and to say that I am quite sure that both economically and politically it will be beneficial to us and to the world at large.
There are, of course, as has already been pointed out both by the minister and by the hon. member for Eglinton, difficulties in negotiating treaties of this description with countries with trading organizations that are so different from our own, and I think it is good that in this particular instance those difficulties were overcome. I have no doubt that in coming to this agreement the negotiators for the Soviet union intend and the government of that country intends, as we intend, to carry out the agreement and to give it full effect for our mutual advantage.
As a member representing a constituency that is vitally interested in the marketing of grain, I am very glad to note that, while it is not written into the agreement, agreements were reached for a substantial sale
3048	HOUSE OF
Trade Agreement with U.S.S.R. of the commodity upon which the prosperity of my own constituents and, let me also say, to a very large extent the prosperity of this country, really depends. It was once said in the house, I believe, that no group of people in a measurable period of time had produced so much new wealth for this country as the people who homesteaded, who took up land on the western plains and put that land under the plow. That was true in those days and it is true today although not to the same extent because our forest industries, mining industries and manufacturing industries have forged ahead in recent years.
However, it is still true that a very large number of people and a very large section of our economy depend upon the ability of this country to market wheat at a price that will return to the producer not only the cost of production but a sufficient amount to enable him to maintain a good standard of living and to buy the goods that he needs in order to keep our manufacturing industries going fully ahead. Therefore, from the point of view of the economy of Canada, and particularly from the point of view of a western member of parliament, the agreement to take quantities of wheat, a minimum quantity and a maximum quantity under the conditions outlined, is indeed something which makes this treaty very attractive to us.
I could not help thinking this afternoon how this agreement is now being received in this house. I remember that a year ago there was considerable criticism in this house and in the country in some quarters because of the government's sale of some 9 million bushels, I think it was, of wheat to Poland and of the financial arrangements that were made at that time. I have no doubt that the Poles benefited from the acquisition of that wheat and that our export organization will be paid in full for the wheat as under the agreement the payments are required. I think that was a beneficial deal and I think, of course, this one is even more beneficial. There is, of course, one feature of the agreement that we must keep in mind. While we -talk of the maximum amount of 55-1 million Ibushels of wheat, we must remember that that maximum amount is dependent upon Canada's taking goods from the Soviet union. In the words of the understanding, the amount to be taken during the second and third years of the agreement shall be finally determined with due account being taken of the volume of sales of Soviet goods in Canada and Canadian purchases thereof.
As has already been said, we have no indication as to what those goods may be. I do not know what the Russians can send


to us. As we have been told, they have been sending furs to Canada. But we are a fur-producing country ourselves. I do not know what other commodities we can obtain from Russia to the benefit of the Canadian economy and to our mutual advantage-our special advantage being, of course, that we are able to sell the maximum amount of wheat. Perhaps, as the debate goes on, we might have some suggestions as to what the government had in mind as to the commodities that might be imported into Canada. Of course it was fully understood that the commodities which came into Canada would not be dumped here. Mr. Borisov, the leader of the delegation, acknowledged receipt of Canada's reservation of the right to establish its own value for duty on any Russian product which might enter Canada in such increased quantities as to cause serious difficulty to Canadian industry. In the same way we protected the valuation of the commodities that we might import.
To my mind this agreement is of primary importance not only to the wheat producers, not only to Canada but indeed in a large measure to the rest of the world as indicating a willingness to trade and perhaps as a contribution to the easing of the tensions in the world today. This agreement gives the right, of course, to traders from Canada to go to Russia to sell their commodities and for Russian agents to negotiate in Canada with our people who may be inclined to buy commodities from Russia, and provides for their entry into our respective countries and their protection under the laws that govern our own nationals and their nationals. Whatever we may think of those laws within Russia, at least we are on the same basis as far as the words of the agreement go. But I should like to see something beyond this. For example, I should like to have seen the parliament of Canada, through Mr. Speaker, accept an invitation for parliamentarians to visit that country and for Canada to receive a similar delegation from that country. I should like to see cultural exchanges between these two countries. I should like to hear Russian musicians and I should like the Russians to hear Canadian musicians. I should like to see Russian ballet; and I should like to see our Winnipeg ballet have an opportunity, if the exchange were made, of performing in the Soviet union. I think that nothing but good could come from the opening of these channels that have been closed to us over the years.
One is not obliged to accept the ideology of an individual in order to have friendship. Within this country we have sharp differences in our approach to philosophy, sometimes in our approach to religion and in our

approach to social thinking. Yet within our country we are able to respect one another's views and to live together in unity. I think the day will come when that statement will be true with respect to the entire world. As I said earlier in my remarks, I hope that what we are witnessing is an evolution across the world in that direction. We are wrong if we think in blacks and whites. We must recognize the fact that between the extreme of the one and the extreme of the other there is a line that is rather fuzzy and grey. But the very fact that that line is there is a hopeful sign and gives some assurance that we may at last be able to understand each other just a little bit better.
I am not going to go into the details of the agreement. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) went into the safeguards in it and expressed his views with regard to them. In discussing a treaty of this description I do not believe it is wise to promote anything in the nature of ill-feeling and suspicion. I think we should stick to the terms of the treaty itself and the benefits that we expect to derive from it. I hope that it will work out to the advantage of Canada. Of course I also hope that the Soviet union will receive benefits from it. However, I hope primarily that it will be beneficial to us in this country. In so far as we have been able to secure the sale of what is quite a large quantity of wheat, I am sure it will be beneficial. The wheat will pass through Vancouver, so we are told. Hence it will assist the port of Vancouver. It will go from Vancouver to Vladivostok because the Russians say quite openly-and I think quite properly-that it is cheaper to transport Canadian wheat from Vancouver to Vladivostok than it is to ship wheat from the Ukraine and the wheat fields of Russia by rail to Vladivostok in order to feed the people who have become established in eastern Siberia.
I do not intend to pursue this matter further, Mr. Speaker, except to say that we support the signing of this agreement and express our appreciation to the competent officials-and indeed to the government which employs them-for having negotiated a treaty which I believe will be of benefit to Canada and will assist in easing tensions across the world.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, we look upon this trade agreement as a straight business deal and one that may be of advantage to both parties concerned. Under the agreement each party accords the other unconditionally most-favoured-nation treatment but article 7 provides that this shall not apply, or perhaps I should say is not to
Trade Agreement with U.S.S.R. interfere with the exclusive advantages accorded by Canada to British commonwealth nations. In addition certain reservations were made by Canada to prevent serious injury to her domestic producers. Whilst that provision was not actually in the agreement it was in a letter written by Canada to the U.S.S.R. and I understood the minister to say that the letter is actually part of the agreement.
It looks to us to be a very fair agreement. I believe, or perhaps I should say I hope, that it may help to liberalize the thinking and the views of the Russians who come to this country. No doubt some people will say to me that I am indulging in wishful thinking, but on the other hand if we give up that hope in matters of this kind we indeed face a bleak future.
Now, at the time of the signing of the agreement the U.S.S.R. agreed to buy from us between 1,200,000 and 1,500,000 metric tons of wheat over a period of three years at a rate of between 400,000 and 500,000 tons a year. I thought the clause governing the difference between the 400,000 and 500,000 tons that the U.S.S.R. may buy in the second and third year to be a very sensible one. This provision reads:
The quantity of wheat between 400,000 and 500,000 tons purchased by the Soviet union during each of the second and third years of the validity of the agreement shall be finally determined with due account being taken of the volume of sales of Soviet goods in Canada and the Canadian purchases thereof.
Personally I think that is a very sound principle. I should like to see a principle of that kind embodied in practically all the trade agreements that we have with other countries. I think it would be a very good thing if we could have that principle embodied in the trading relations between this country and the United States because if that were the case we would not today be suffering from an adverse balance of trade in the neighbourhood of a billion dollars. This is a sound principle because it does recognize that trade is a two-way street and that we should at least be prepared to buy a certain amount of goods from them if they buy from us. It is true that the amount of wheat provided for under the agreement signed after the trade agreement was established is not very large. It is between 40 million and 50 million bushels in round figures. After all, though, a number of deals for 40 million or 50 million bushels would add up to a very considerable sum and would certainly help to move the surplus wheat. I am satisfied that this agreement will be supported wholeheartedly in western Canada.
3050	HOUSE OF
Trade Agreement with U.S.S.R.
There is no doubt that there is some fear regarding article 5 of the agreement. This article provides that Soviet citizens, when engaged in business activities in Canada, will be accorded the same favourable treatment as accorded the citizens of other states and the U.S.S.R. reciprocates in regard to Canadians in the U.S.S.R. The point upon which I should like to hear the Minister of External Affairs speak, when he does speak, is as to whether or not the treatment given by Russia to citizens of other states is as favourable as the treatment that we will give to the Russians when they come to this country. I understood the minister to say that this will be no different from any other agreement that has been made with other countries. However, I believe that past experience has been that Canadians over in Russia have not had anything like the degree of freedom that perhaps we have allowed Russians in this country. I understand that situation is improving and I hope it may improve still further in the future.
We welcome this new market for wheat from which we will receive Canadian dollars or United States dollars. It will no doubt help us with our problem in regard to the United States. I am glad also to have the assurance that no strategic materials will be shipped. It is rather difficult these days, I think, to define exactly what strategic materials really are because so many foods actually can be used in the manufacture of munitions. On the other hand, I do realize that there are certain goods which can be very definitely classed as strategic materials and those materials will be barred from shipment.
I am also interested in the question that has been asked the minister concerning what commodities are most likely to be exported by the U.S.S.R. to Canada. I hope he will give us a little bit more information on that. I am hoping that we may get some interesting commodities because we have heard so many boasts from Russia that they were the first nation to produce this or that. I am hoping we will get some of these "firsts" shipped over here, some new commodities we have never seen before. No doubt if that proves to be the case there should be quite a wide market in this country for commodities of that type.
I think also it would be a good thing if we could buy from the U.S.S.R. some of the things we are now buying from the United States. In that way we might help to reduce our imbalance of trade with that country. I believe the minister, himself, will agree that our trade with that country is now top heavy. If we can do anything to encourage


the purchase of commodities from nations on the other side of the Atlantic instead of buying from the United States, it would be a good thing for this country and might encourage the United States to buy a little more liberally in this country.
I hope also that we will have some words from the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) regarding his experience while he was in the Soviet union. I have read some interesting accounts of some of his experiences, and I am sure all of us in this house would enjoy hearing them at first hand. In closing, I would say we intend to support the agreement because we do believe it will be of advantage, not merely to Russia, but very definitely to the farmers of this country.


Mr. A. H. Hollingworih (York Centre):: In
the first place I should like to congratulate the minister and his officials upon their brilliant negotiation of this splendid trade agreement. I should like also to commend the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) for his constructive approach to this agreement and for the very many salient facts he brought out about trade with the Soviet union. The crux of the matter is, of course, that Russia wanted to buy our wheat and that we had the wheat to sell. In other words, this wheat market may be of incalculable value to Canada. I think that is the basis of the agreement and the point we should keep in mind.
It is a very favourable treaty, I would say, to both sides; but naturally we are interested in it primarily from the Canadian point of view. I think there is a great deal to be said for this agreement. The hon. member for Eglinton pointed out that in 1954 Canadian exports to the U.S.S.R. amounted to $4,854,000, and in 1955 to $2,680,000, and that the products exported were mainly pulp sulphite, canned meats, barley and cattle hides. It will be noted, Mr. Speaker, that there is no mention of wheat because we did not export wheat at that time. If one considers the minimum per annum to be shipped under the agreement, one will see that 14 [DOT] 7 million bushels of wheat per year will be exported; and if one takes the price of $1.25 per bushel as a minimum, it will be seen that we will be receiving about $18,375,000.
When one considers that our imports from the U.S.S.R. in 1954 and 1955 were respectively $687,000 and $628,000, one will see that this agreement will result in a very substantial and favourable balance of trade from the Canadian point of view. That is extremely good, Mr. Speaker, and as the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) has just pointed out, it will take care of our imbalance with other countries to some extent.
I should like to point out it is conceivable that the market established for wheat in the

U.S.S.R. may provide other markets. I have in mind particularly butter, of which Canada is a considerable producer, and second, farm implements. Hon. members will know of the trip to the U.S.S.R. recently made by Mr. James Duncan, president of Massey-Harris. It is to be hoped that other Canadian businessmen will establish and expand their contacts with the Soviet union. I understand that last year only $10,000 worth of farm implements were sold to the U.S.S.R., but conceivably this could be greatly expanded, particularly when one considers the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that it is cheaper to export, say, wheat from the west coast of Canada to Vladivostok than to take it across the Soviet union. Conceivably it would also be cheaper for the Russians to buy farm machinery from Canada than it would be to take it across from European Russia.
Finally I might compliment the minister also on what the hon. member for Eglinton called the safeguards, or the escape clauses, in the agreement. Of course we all realize the importance of making sure that strategic materials are not shipped to the U.S.S.R. It is also equally important that, as a result of this agreement, unfair competition should not result to Canadian producers and manufacturers. I think the minister has taken care of that in the agreement in every possible way.
I concur in the views of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) that it is desirable to expand our cultural relations, and that any economic and social intercourse between the Russian people and the Canadian people is all to the good. We all appreciate our way of life, and any kind of communication with the Soviet union is certainly to be desired in promoting world fellowship and to ease world tensions.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the minister and his officials who carried out the negotiations so brilliantly in connection with this treaty.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Mr. Speaker, there are one or two brief comments I should like to make on this particular resolution. There is no legislation which has come before the house in recent years which will be more welcomed in western Canada. I think the minister and his officials should feel very gratified today. This is an excellent business deal for Canadians.
I welcome this agreement for two particular reasons. In the first place, it is going to sell a substantial portion of our western wheat surplus to the Russians, as I understand it about 45 million bushels over the next three years. I think it is a good agreement also, because any kind of trade agreement between the east and west tends to
Trade Agreement with U.S.S.R. strengthen mutual relations and understanding among the peoples of the world. I hope this agreement is only a prelude to other agreements which our government will make with iron curtain countries. At this moment I think particularly of China.
I would like today to give a little advice to the Russians. If they really want to increase their trade under this agreement they might emulate in certain respects the people of the United States. I think they might consider making certain investments in Canada. Generally speaking, trade follows investments. We have heard a great deal in the last week or so about foreign investments in this country. Some people profess to see something sinister in these investments. As I see it, nothing could be further from the truth. If the Russians have a little extra capital that they would like to put into our country, perhaps it could be used to advantage by Canadians.
In the field of investment and trade it seems to me that we Canadians must recognize certain basic economic facts. Our post-war boom has been based largely on foreign investment, mainly American. If it were not for that investment I do not suppose we would have such projects as Arvida, Kitimat, Ungava, International Nickel and Steep Rock, much of our oil development and the like.
I am sure most thinking Canadians are delighted that there is such a large influx of outside capital coming into this country.
I cannot get very worried about the fact that foreign countries have established subsidiaries in Canada, whether they are Dutch, Belgian, Russian, or American. They employ Canadians; they use Canadian materials; they pay Canadian taxes, and they are helping to develop our country. I think outside companies, particularly American, have invested in Canada not because they want to dominate our country but simply because, as investors, they see a chance to make a lucrative profit in Canada. God help the employment picture in the Dominion of Canada if those countries, especially the United States, should suddenly stop the kind of investing they have been doing in the past 10 years.
There is another field where I would suggest the Russians might emulate the people of the United States, and that is with respect to the activities of Ambassador R. Douglas Stuart. In my opinion Mr. Stuart was one of the best ambassadors ever to be sent to Canada. I think he has done an excellent job. There has been criticism of a speech he made recently in Vancouver. It seems to me that all he was doing was talking elementary common sense. He gave us a few hard economic facts in a friendly way, and I do not think we should resent them. Mr. Stuart has
3052	HOUSE OF
Trade Agreement with U.S.S.R. carried out his duties well and when he leaves Canada, in my opinion, our country will lose a real friend. Therefore I say to my Russian friends, perhaps they would do well to emulate some of the activities of Mr. Stuart.
This resolution could open a new era in Canadian trade. I believe the treaty will be advantageous to both countries.


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I will start with a comment made by many an hon. member in this house, that I had no intention of entering this debate; but both the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and the hon. member for Acadia suggested that because I had been in Russia last summer I should make some comment.
My visit to Russia last summer was primarily a visit that had to do with whaling and fisheries. I have reported to my colleagues in the cabinet on the things I learned there, and have made very long reports to the scientists of our fisheries research board, to the senior officers of my department, to the fisheries association of British Columbia and to the fishermen's union of British Columbia on the fisheries aspects of my visit. When my estimates were before the house I told hon. members that I was more than willing to appear before the standing committee on marine and fisheries to report and be questioned on those aspects.
However, I was in Russia for two and a half months, much longer than I expected to be there, and did have the opportunity of crossing the country from the Baltic sea to the Pacific ocean, and then north to the Bering sea. In that time I had the opportunity to appraise in my amateur way what trade possibilities there were. I must agree with the earlier comments of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that at the moment there do not seem to be very many fields in which we can engage in a mutually profitable trade.
There are pretty obvious reasons for that. We are both northern countries. Well, that is not quite right. We think of Russia as a northern country, but it came to me as somewhat of a surprise when I was there and studied the maps to see how far south Russia does go, down to the boundaries of Persia and Afghanistan. They produce almost all their own cotton, for example; they produce all their own tea, but in general they have the same northern resources as we do.
One of the things that impressed me most of all was the tremendous amount of untouched natural resources, especially in Siberia. Therefore we cannot expect very much of mutual trade in natural resources. As far as the other great block of trade in 

which this country engages is concerned, consumer goods, I think it is generally known that Russia is very short of consumer goods. The living standards of their people are considerably below the standards of people in the western world, and since they have not enough consumer goods for their own people I think it unlikely that we can develop our trade in consumer goods from them.
The field wherein we have an opportunity for trade as far as exports from our country are concerned is in foodstuffs. Hon. members have already commented with favour on the arrangements made by this treaty for the sale of a considerable quantity of Canadian wheat to Russia. I think perhaps we may also have an opportunity of selling fish products. Russia today is the second largest fishing nation in the world, but they are net importers of fish. Canada is the sixth fishing nation in the world but actually we are the second largest exporter of fish in the world. I hope that perhaps when the Russian minister of fisheries is in Canada this summer we can explore the possibilities of exporting fish to Russia. Iceland today has a very satisfactory export fisheries trade with Russia.
I believe, however, in this matter of exporting foodstuffs to Russia there is a point which my hon. friends should not overlook, and that is how intensely productive free farmers and free fishermen are. This country with a population of 16 million people produces an abundance of food not only for its own people but can afford to ship foodstuffs to Russia, a country of 225 million people which has such enormous resources but which, under collective development, certainly has not been able to achieve the productive record of our free society.
I am of the opinion that the remarks of the hon. member for Eglinton and the speakers who followed him concerning this particular treaty are right. This treaty does represent the opening of a new door, and certainly if we have a free exchange especially of our businessmen in Russia seeking trade opportunities, undoubtedly more trade will develop. This will be greatly to our own advantage, of course, because of the special conditions in the wheat agreement providing for minimum sales, and providing that sales will increase according to the level of purchases from Russia which are made by the Canadian trade.
When I was in Vladivostok on the way out, the mayor of Vladivostok came to see me and asked me to send a wire to the mayor of Vancouver. It was an extremely interesting wire, in which he expressed the hope that trade relations would be resumed in order

that both these great Pacific ports could [DOT]enjoy the sort of trade they had some years ago. I very gladly sent that wire. In that particular the mayor of Vladivostok was not very different from the mayor of Vancouver or the mayor of any other Canadian town who wants to see the development of his home city. Actually I believe the wheat is going to leave from Vancouver, which is a very good thing for that port. Possibly it is going to be received in the new Russian port of Nahodka, some 70 miles north of Vladivostok. Vladivostok is now primarily maintained as a naval port.
I would like to agree, too, with the other speakers that this is more than just a trade treaty; it is a very positive step forward in trying to build up better understanding between ourselves and the Russian people.


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very pleasant occasion when hon. members of all parties are so unanimous in supporting the resolution before us. I shall try not to interject any sour notes in my remarks. I feel that the Minister of Fisheries who has just resumed his seat and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have performed a most valuable public service not only for Canada but for the entire western world in having visited the U.S.S.R. last year. I am convinced that if it had not been for their visits this resolution would not be before us this afternoon.
I say this is a good thing for the western world, because I think our two ministers have made some contribution toward the establishing of better understanding. I believe a great deal is to be gained by exchanges of ideas. Everyone will, I think, agree that these two ministers are probably in a better position to point up to the Canadian people our important values which we must always maintain. In spite of some unfriendly Canadian performances, I think that the Russian farmers who came to Canada last year went back home feeling that the Canadian people on the whole were somewhat different, and perhaps a little better than the people they expected to find here.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the Minister of Trade and Commerce as he proceeds to develop this sort of trade. My sympathy stems as a result of some of the things which have been said and done by hon. members in this chamber. I was thinking of an occasion a week ago yesterday when for no apparent reason the Leader of the Opposition took it upon himself to refer to the visit to Great Britain today of Bulganin and Khrushchev and the visit to that country a short time ago of Serov. While I am not permitted to quote the exact words used to
Trade Agreement with U.S.S.R. refer to people we cannot change or do anything about, I am convinced that referring to them as butchers, thugs and murderers, and referring to those who employ Serov as being in the same category, must make it more difficult for those who are negotiating further trade with the people in the country concerned.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a week ago today, when my leader raised the question of Paul Robeson being barred from Canada, said he thought hon. members should be well aware it is not the policy of the government to admit known communists to this country either as immigrants or visitors. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think the Canadian people are quite competent to meet and hear and see whom they will, without the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration employing that sort of language.
This brings me to the sort of problems we are going to have to face very soon. This agreement provides for the firm sale of some 44-1 million bushels of wheat during the next three years. It also provides for the sale of 55-2 million bushels which will be sold on the condition that certain goods are admitted to Canada from Russia. There is a difference between the two figures of approximately 11-1 million bushels.
At this point I want to say that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is an extremely lucky person. When we were discussing some of these problems earlier in the year I am sure the minister had no information to the effect that Europe was to face a disastrous winter which would create such a large demand for Canadian wheat. We rejoice with the minister in that our surpluses are now going to be depleted to a large extent, but I think the minister must not lose sight of the fact that in spite of the unfortunate and disastrous winter in Europe every major wheat-producing country in the world has embarked on a subsidized program which will result in large surpluses of cereals in years to come.
Consequently a country such as Canada, which has depended to a large extent upon the export of cereals, must now pay attention to deals like this under which we can sell an additional 11-1 million bushels of wheat during the next three years providing we buy some goods from Russia. It is not going to be easy to bring in from Russia sufficient commodities to balance that sort of transaction without causing some inconvenience and some disruption to certain Canadian industries. Nevertheless, I think it is in the public interest that we face the fact that these new problems are on our doorstep, and I think they can be solved.
To illustrate the sort of problem that arises, may I give the following illustration. Last
3054	HOUSE OF
Trade Agreement with U.S.S.R. year when the Polish deal was announced I was naturally interested, because our Saskatchewan economy is very closely tied up to wheat and my constituency is particularly interested in the port of Churchill. I was anxious that some wheat, if possible, might move through this port, so I contacted the Polish legation here to find out whether their attention had been drawn to the very decided advantages there would be in having wheat go out through Churchill.
It was too late to get any of it moving last year, but this year I have had some discussions with the people at the Polish legation who have been negotiating these contracts, and their proposition is very reasonable. They point out that they are going to be in the market for wheat for the next ten years at least, and that they probably could buy $10 million worth of wheat from Canada per year if we would increase our purchases from Poland from very little to $5 million.
Their experts who were working on it realize that they cannot expect to sell us wheat, butter or bacon. They have made a very careful study of our imports and the countries from which we import. They pointed out that since we have an unfavourable balance with the United States, we might consider buying from Poland some of the goods which they are prepared to sell, instead of from the United States.
Last year cement was one of those commodities. Last year we had to buy quite a large amount of United States cement and pay a very high premium for it. Polish cement did not get into Canada. This year negotiations were under way again for Polish cement. I happened to meet, at one of those social affairs where members meet people from all over the world, one of the Polish people who had been working on this problem. I asked him how our wheat sales had been going and how the Canadian wheat was measuring up to standards. Apparently our grade 5 wheat blends very satisfactorily with their wheat. They are well satisfied.
I asked how our trade was. That was not so good. It was explained to me that the expert who has been negotiating is a lawyer who does not know much about cement. The competition is very keen, and they were anxious to bring in two cement experts, but they were having some trouble in getting visas to allow them into Canada. I suppose the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is very particular about who comes in and who stays out.
I said, "If I can be of help, do not hesitate to let me know". They were very pleased with the courtesy that has been extended to them by the Minister of Trade and Commerce


and his staff. They explained that it was better to have these things done through the regular channels, and I agreed. I said, "If you find you are going to lose sales or you cannot get by, give me a call".
The day before I went home for Easter I received a call. The Secretary of State for External Affairs was away at Washington. I discussed the matter with one of his officials and pointed out that at some point they had to say yes or no to this sort of request, and I did not think it should take a month to decide whether or not two cement experts should be permitted to enter Canada. However, when I came back after the Easter recess I found that a decision still had not been reached. I think six weeks is too long to take to reach a decision as to whether people should be admitted into Canada.
Whilst one minister of the crown says that hon. members are well aware it is not the policy of the government to admit known communists to the country, I think we would be surprised if any experts from Russia were not communists. I am sure the Minister of Trade and Commerce did not take that point of view when he was asked if he would permit a trade delegation to come to Canada.
I submit that if we hope to be able to sell the additional 11-1 million bushels of wheat involved in this particular transaction, somehow or other we have to be able to clear the applications that come from people who are involved in these transactions. If we do not want them to come that is our business, if we do not want trade, but I think every member who has spoken in this debate has agreed that this particular transaction is certainly in the national interest of Canada. I am sure it would not be completed if it were not in the national interest of Russia, and I am sure that in the years to come we are going to be obliged to have dealings with people who do not go to the same church, who do not have the same coloured skin as our Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, or who do not happen to hold our particular political views.
When you go into your store at home, the manager of that store does not ask these questions. I submit that in this day and age, when we are trying to ease world tensions and trying to promote trade, some of the speeches that have been made in the house and outside the house might well have been left unsaid.
Before I conclude I wish to say again that I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Fisheries have made this transaction possible, and they deserve high marks for it. I wish the Secretary of State for External Affairs would act

on the suggestion I have made on a number of occasions, that provision be made for the visit of an all-party delegation from Canada. I am sure it would not do any harm and might do some good. There are other industries in Canada, in addition to the wheat industry, that might be interested in an exchange of ideas. The fact that Mr. J. S. Duncan, president of the Massey-Harris Company, a world-wide organization, took time out of a very busy life to go to Russia and spend some time there does suggest that those of us who are charged with looking at the over-all economy of Canada might follow the example set by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Fisheries.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Before the motion carries I might say a few words in connection with it, and deal with one or two points that have been raised. This discussion, which has shown, I think, that there is unanimity in all quarters of the house that the motion should "be carried and that the treaty should be ratified, as one which will be to the advantage of our country; may even carry with it some political, as well as economic, advantages.
The question of the background of the negotiation of this treaty has been raised. The negotiation of the treaty goes back to last autumn, when an invitation was extended to me to visit the Soviet union. I was asked at that time what I would like to see and what subjects I would like to discuss with representatives of the government in Moscow. After consultation with my colleagues, it was suggested to the authorities in Moscow that one of the subjects would be the development of trade between our two countries. For that purpose an official of the Department of Trade and Commerce accompanied me to Moscow. Possibly, Mr. Speaker, I can add at this time my tribute to that which has been paid by others to the excellent work done by that official, the associate deputy minister of trade and commerce, and other officials of that department and other departments of government, including external affairs, who were concerned with this matter.
These preliminary discussions in Moscow made it clear that there was a reasonable possibility of negotiating a mutually advantageous treaty between the two countries. We made it clear in Moscow, before the negotiations were referred back to Ottawa, that there could be no inclusion of materials on our strategic list in any trade negotiations and, on the other hand, that we would expect a commitment from the Soviet government for the purchase of wheat. It was also made clear in Moscow that the negotiations should
18, 1956
Trade Agreement with U.S.S.R. be resumed in Ottawa and brought to a conclusion, if possible, here. As the house knows, that was done.
The Soviet government sent a team of trade experts to Ottawa where there was quite a serious and indeed at times difficult negotiation of details of an agreement, with eventual success. It was found by those on our side that those who were representing the Soviet union were competent, straightforward and frank negotiators and, as has been mentioned already this afternoon, personally very agreeable people to deal with. I think we can take satisfaction that the negotiations have resulted in the treaty which is now before the house.
There were difficulties, of course, as would be natural and, indeed, inevitable when negotiations are taking place between representatives of countries which are so different economically, politically and in every other way as those of the Soviet union and Canada. Some of these difficulties were honest ones arising out of misunderstandings of constitutional procedures. For instance, we are today asking the House of Commons to approve ratification of this treaty. In Soviet practice no such approval is, of course, required and, indeed, legally and constitutionally under our own system no such approval is required because ratification is an executive act. It was hard to make the Soviet representatives understand that while legally the executive could ratify and the agreement could go into effect at once, it was our constitutional practice-and a very good practice it is-that no international treaty or agreement of any significance at all, whether political or economic, should be ratified by the executive without the approval of the legislature.
This particular agreement, Mr. Speaker, is substantially the same as those which we have in the field of trade and commerce with most other countries. For instance, for some years we have had most favoured nation treaties with Poland and Czechoslovakia. It is true that these arrangements were made before the communist party took over the governments of those two countries, but the treaties remained after the governments became communist. No special difficulties have been found in the application of the treaties since that time and they have, I think, been of value to our country. There are a good many trade agreements of this type between the Soviet union and western countries, including the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Austria and the Scandinavian countries. It is true there is no such agreement between the United States of America and the U.S.S.R. but hon. members will know, of course, that the administration in Washington is now

Trade Agreement with U.S.S.R. seeking congressional authority to dispose of surplus agricultural products to the Soviet union.
I think it will be agreed that this agreement is advantageous to our country in the field of trade and commerce. I think it will also be agreed that no wider Canadian interests, political or economic, are likely to be jeopardized in any way by it. It certainly does not make us unduly dependent, for instance, on the Soviet union as a market for our wheat. Desirable as it is to find markets wherever we can it would, I think, create some uneasiness if this particular market were too large in relation to our total sales, but there is certainly no danger of that happening under this agreement. As hon. members know, the commitment in any one year will amount to between 15 million and 18 million bushels of wheat, which is comparable to our exports to Belgium or to the Federal Republic of Germany, and compares with a figure for last year of 31 million bushels to Japan.
During the course of the discussion the question has been asked, what commodities are we likely to receive from Russia as a result of the trade which we hope will develop between the two countries? That, of course, is a very difficult, indeed an impossible question to answer, especially in the case of trade between two countries in one of which trade is conducted under our system of individual enterprise and free initiative and in the other by a state trading organization. But, as has already been pointed out, production is developing, production is growing in the Soviet union, and it may well be that during the course of the agreement it will be possible for the initiative of Canadian traders to express itself in the development of trade, including imports from Russia, which will be of benefit to this country. I myself have no idea in what direction that trade will move but it is, I think, certainly safe to say that we are beginning a new era of trade development with a country which is already showing increasing strength both in the field of industry and in the field of agriculture.
While it is perfectly true, as my colleague the Minister of Fisheries has pointed out, that under our system of free enterprise and initiative our per capita production capacity is much greater than that of the inhabitants of the Soviet union or, indeed, of other communist states because of the nature of our social and economic organization, nevertheless while that may be true per capita the figures for production in the Soviet union in recent years and the planned figures for the next five years are very impressive indeed. In this connection may I quote some remarks made by the president of the Massey-Harris


Company who visited the Soviet union last year, as members know, and who has made some very interesting reports on his visit since his return. In a speech in Ottawa not many weeks ago he said:
Agriculture is one of the weakest spots of the Russian economy. The process of regimenting the peasant, dispersed as he is over large areas, with his natural yearning for the ownership of a piece of land, and his greater independence and individuality than the city worker, has proven to be a difficult nut to crack.
But I do not wish to weary you with details. I will go no further than to state that, to our eyes, the Russian system of agriculture is undermechanized, bedevilled by bureaucracy, cumbersome and wasteful of manpower.
But he went on to say this:
The vitality and drive of the Russian dictatorship and of its people is, however, clearly illustrated in this field also-
That is the field of agriculture.
-by the fact that during the years 1954 and 1955, they brought under the plow 70 million acres of virgin land, an area so vast that it exceeds by 10 million acres the size of the United Kingdom.
Then, as to what had been done in the field of industrial production he had this to say:
Thus it is that having largely recovered from the damages of war, Russia's economic strength has taken a great step forward during the past five years, and you may have seen in the press only a few days ago that her new five-year plan includes an all-out drive to increase her industrial production by 1960 to two-thirds of the U.S. figure for 1955. In this plan, Russia now declares that she has it within her means to become the world's mightiest industrial nation. Having observed the manner in which Russia in the past has met and frequently exceeded her five-year objectives, I am not prepared to shrug off these recent assertions as being mere boastfulness.
That is what Mr. Duncan says. He continues:
Do not let us forget, when one considers the amazing increase of Russian industrialization in recent years, that it is based in no small measure upon the good old premise of hard work, to which we also used to be dedicated. Much can be accomplished by a nation where all men and all women work 48 hours a week.
So, Mr. Speaker, when we are approving a trade arrangement with the Soviet union we are approving an arrangement with a country which is making great strides forward in industry and in agriculture. There are political as well as economic implications in that fact.
It may be asked-indeed it has been asked, though not in this debate-whether the Soviet union will carry out the obligation which it has undertaken to Canada with respect to wheat purchases. I think we may have confidence that it will do so. Selfinterest, if no other reason, would dictate that it should do so. Apart from its need for wheat, a failure to do so would damage its international reputation in trade matters,

and it would appear to be a little bit more sensitive about that reputation now than it was some few years back. Certainly we would regard any failure to fulfil its wheat obligations as a violation of the trade agreement itself. The exchange of letters re purchase of wheat is as binding-and it is understood to be so-as are the articles of the agreement itself.
It should also be emphasized-and this has been pointed out also this afternoon, more particularly by the hon. member for Eglinton-that in this agreement there is nothing which would prejudice in any way our security interests because of the safeguards that have been written into the agreement. It may well be that because of this agreement the Soviet union may wish to set up in this country certain trade facilities for the carrying out of the agreement, more particularly the obligation to purchase wheat. For that purpose it may wish to open a trade office in this country.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the government has already received from the Soviet government a request to that effect, namely for the opening of a small trade office more particularly for the purpose of purchasing wheat. That request is now under consideration and a decision with regard to it will be taken very shortly. No request has been made for the opening of any office with diplomatic privileges or immunities, and the government would not be disposed to agree to the establishment in this country of any diplomatic office outside of the embassy in Ottawa.
Trade is one field in which it is possible for us to bring about at this time a more normal relationship with the Soviet union without prejudice to our own security or our own ideals, and without diminishing in any way our close association with our friends in other parts of the world. In this treaty we are not, of course, giving the Soviet union anything that we have not at least in equal measure given to all friendly countries long ago. It would have been unreasonable, in my opinion -and I think this opinion is shared in all quarters of the house-for the Canadian government to have failed to take advantage of this opportunity to enter into a sensible and useful agreement. I think we would have been open to justifiable criticism from responsible and moderate people, both here in Canada and abroad, if we had turned our backs on the possibility of a reasonable working relationship with the Soviet union in this field.
We all long for the day when there may be sufficient mutual trust that reasonable arrangements of this kind, even with communist countries, not only in trade but in many
Trade Agreement with U.S.S.R. other fields, will become the rule rather than the exception. If this trade agreement and the experience of both countries with its operation over the next three years help toward that end by reducing suspicion, we shall have good cause to be satisfied with it on political as well as economic grounds.


Mr. Green:: May I ask the minister whether he can say where this Russian trade office is to be located in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think the suggestion made by the Soviet authorities was that' it should be in Vancouver. That would be the most convenient place from the point of view of wheat shipments.


Mr. Donald D. Carrick (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a few words on this agreement. First of all may I say that, like all other hon. members of this house who have spoken thus far, I am in favour of the agreement. I do not desire to sound any discordant note, but the agreement raises a problem which must trouble other hon. members of the house. I refer to the problem that is raised of diplomatic and trade relations with a country the principles of whose government we abhor.
I represent a riding in the city of Toronto that probably contains more ethnic groups than does any other riding in Canada. It has been my pleasure to be closely associated with the leaders of a number of those groups, and I am familiar with the views they hold with regard to Russia. In my riding there are representatives of ethnic groups from the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. I need only remind hon. members of the house that it was in 1940 that the Russians invaded those countries when Germany was attacking Poland. They were driven out of some of those countries by the Germans, but the Russians re-established themselves in 1944.
I mention these facts only to indicate the depth of the feeling that is entertained by the people who come from these countries. The same hostility is felt by people who have come from Poland and Czechoslovakia, and by people who have come from the Ukraine and Byelorussia, both of which at the present time are parts of the Soviet union.
We ask ourselves how these conditions came about. We know that the conditions were created because of aggression by the U.S.S.R. We know that one principle adopted by the U.S.S.R. at the present time, as a natural consequence of communism and atheism, is hostility toward religion. We have seen evidence of persecution of churchmen in all these countries. We know the U.S.S.R. now has its paid agents and fellow

Trade Agreement with U.S.S.R. travellers in every democratic country whose sole object is to subvert the democracies in which they are living. We know also beyond doubt that the ultimate object of communism is domination of the world.
Everyone is in favour of improving our relations with Russia, but it is my respectful submission to the house that lasting improvement in these relations can only be based upon the principles of justice. It is not possible to have a system of justice prevailing until the peoples in those countries have been given the opportunity of getting the kind of government they want, and not the government that is forced upon them by the U.S.S.R. There cannot be justice until the slave camps have been abolished in the U.S.S.R., and we will never feel at ease until it ceases to be the policy of the U.S.S.R. that they will endeavour to subvert the democratic countries.
May I just say this, that while I welcome the agreement I hope it will not have the effect of lulling us into acceptance of the injustices we know exist in the U.S.S.R., and that we may use the better relations that may be established as a means of working toward the removal of these evils.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say
just a few words, and in doing so I join in the chorus of approval that is being expressed for the agreement, ratification of which is now before the house.
I do not wish to repeat any of the arguments or points that have been made, but there do seem to me to be one or two things that might yet be said. I have been interested in the statements made from the government side to the effect that, though the negotiations in the end were successful, they were not without their difficulties along the way. I can well imagine that there were a number of difficulties, not only because of the language problem but because of the different approach to trading that obtains in our two countries. I can imagine that, just as in any sort of bargaining each side wants to get the best possible deal, undoubtedly that would be the case in these negotiations. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the fact we are witnessing today is that these negotiations, serious and difficult though they have been along the way, were at last successful.
One does not want to read too much into any result such as that, but I think we should take hope from the fact that it is possible, in the very difficult field of trading, for the representatives of our nation and of the Soviet union to sit down and work out an agreement which is mutually satisfactory. Let us hope that means that by persistent


effort, by practising the virtue of patience, by determination, we may yet achieve better and more satisfactory relations between our two countries in other fields for the good of mankind and for the peace of the world. I hope that what we are discussing today is only a step in the direction of improving relations between our two countries.
I have been interested also, Mr. Speaker, in the comments made by the Minister of Fisheries and the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning the standard of living that now obtains in the Soviet union. The Minister of Fisheries referred to the scant volume of consumer goods he found in that country. Both he and the Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to the low productivity per capita that obtains in Russia as compared with the productivity per capita of our Canadian economy. The Secretary of State for External Affairs was quick to point out that though the per capita productivity may be lower in the U.S.S.R. their absolute productivity in terms of volume is of course very great.
As one who, like the two ministers and Mr. J. S. Duncan and others, had the privilege, although 10 years ago, of spending a few days in the Soviet union, I am interested in the reports that have been made by those who have visited that country more recently. I felt then, as these gentlemen do now, the sense of vitality and drive, the vigour of the people, despite what the Minister of Fisheries said about the standard of living of the people being low by comparison with our standards in this country. When I was there that was certainly true in such things as food, clothing and shelter, though as I reported to this house after my return from that visit in 1946 one had to admit that the Russians were in a different world when it came to the theatre and the cultural field. The interest of these people in those things is much greater than their interest in food, clothing and shelter, and that interest was being expressed in many more of them getting advantages of that kind than is the case here.
What I wanted to say particularly, Mr. Speaker, was that I think we would be deluding ourselves if we were to assume that the low volume of consumer goods which obtains in that country will always be the case. It certainly was the case when I was there and the Minister of Fisheries says it is the case now. One of the many interesting visits I had while there was to a Soviet factory in Moscow. My father was a railway machinist, and I know something of what machines look like in a factory. I knew the kind of machinery I was inspecting in that factory. It consisted mainly of lathes and planers. I asked

through an interpreter what this factory was producing and I was told it was producing mainly lathes and planers. Then I asked where this heavy machinery was being sent, and to what use the lathes and planers produced in that factory were to be put. The answer was that they were being transported to other factories which were to make more lathes and more planers.
I wondered, of course, when some consumer goods would come out of the process.
I was told that along the way there were certain things produced, but only in limited quantities. In fact in this very factory which was producing lathes and planers they were producing a few baby carriages. There seemed to be quite a contrast between the heavy character of the lathes and planers and baby carriages. The point was that their main interest at that time, and I take it from the Minister of Fisheries it probably still is so, was not in consumer goods. Their main interest was in more and more machinery to produce still more machinery.
Surely what we must realize is that one of these days that process of mechanization will reach the point where they will start to produce consumer goods. When they do that volume, as we can imagine, will be of tremendous proportions. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that when that day comes, when their system permits or arranges for people to start to have more consumer goods, it is going to be to the advantage of Canada or any western country, to have already established trading relations with these people.
My guess would be that when that day comes they will in the main produce their own consumer goods. But since we recognize that trade is a two-way street, that trade is a means whereby we can both profit, we producing the goods that we can produce most economically, and another country doing the same, it seems to me it is quite possible that the day may come when to the advantage of the Russian people and to the advantage of any other nation that is trading with them, there could and will be trade in consumer goods.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we would be following the part of wisdom, both for our own standard of living and for theirs, and thereby for the good of mankind and the peace of the world, if we would develop, on the basis of the agreement that we have now established, further trading relations, and if we would keep active and alive the kind of negotiations that have been carried on leading up to this agreement which the house is now prepared to ratify.
I join in the commendation that has been paid to Mr. Sharp and others who did the
Committee on Atomic Energy main part of the work in connection with these negotiations. I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce will keep other people alert on the job so that as conditions change in that country, as change they will, we shall be in on the ground floor for trading relations in these other fields.
Toward that end, Mr. Speaker, as well as for other reasons mentioned, for the good of the peace of the world, for more understanding amongst our peoples around the world, I support the plea that has been made again today by the hon. member for Mackenzie to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that there should be more visits back and forth between that country and this, including visits by members of parliament.
I think exchanges of visits by other people from other walks of life would also be important and valuable both for us and for them.
I hope that what we are doing today will suggest to the government that more thought should be given to this as well as to what I have already suggested, namely a continuing interest in the possibility of developing trade relations with this country in other fields.
I am sure we all agree that in this way, the way of trade, the way of seeing more of each other, the way of mutual understanding, the way of raising the standards of living in our countries the world around, lies the possibility, if we will make use of it, of establishing a more secure peace for mankind. On that basis I join with all the others who have spoken in supporting the motion which is now before the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, March 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):
That a special committee be appointed to examine into the role of government in the field of nonmilitary research in Canada, including:
(a)	operations in the field of atomic energy,
(b)	operations of the national research council.
That the committee be empowered to sit during
the sittings of the house and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee and to report from time to time; and that notwithstanding standing order No. 67 the committee shall consist of 20 members.
Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, in order to conclude my remarks before six o'clock I shall be very brief and condense the remarks I had intended to make at this time.
As on other occasions, I feel that the resolution before the house proposes to deal with
3080	HOUSE OF
Committee on Atomic Energy a very serious problem in a rather unsatisfactory way. A committee has been suggested which has been stripped of the powers necessary to do the type of job which we feel should be done at this time. I know Your Honour will take serious objections if I reflect on the vote on the amendment to this particular motion, but I think the fact the committee is not able to send for persons, papers or records seriously handicaps it in the type of work which we think it should carry out.
There are one or two other disappointing aspects to the debate on this resolution. The first I feel is the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the government. I feel that they were constrained to proceed with the setting up of this committee by pressure from the official opposition group, and that having set up this committee they think they have discharged their responsibilities in this particular field.
I am also disappointed in the approach to this problem as expressed by Conservative speakers. I have read very carefully the remarks which hon. members to my right have made, and I have concluded that their main argument is that the government ought to be giving greater assistance to private business in the field of research. I have come to the conclusion that that is the burden of their arguments; that private business wants further assistance from the government, and that as far as they are concerned they see this particular move as a means of reaching that objective.
When the hon. member for Broadview spoke in this debate he referred to the United Nations report published last January showing the percentage increase in manufacturing production, and he placed on record some very interesting figures. The figures indicate that in the 6-year period from 1948 to 1954 the percentage increase in manufacturing production in Japan was 230 per cent; in West Germany, 205 per cent; in France, 38 per cent; in India, 36 per cent; in the United Kingdom, 33 per cent; in the United States, 22 per cent; and in Canada, 17 per cent. These figures are very interesting, but the inference I draw from them is that private business has not been doing the job. It is an indictment against the free enterprise system. What he is saying, in effect, is that since Canadian business has failed to keep pace with industrial research it is up to the government to get into the field and give it a further handout.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that is the main burden of the argument presented by members of the official opposition. If we look at the role of the government in research I think we shall find that already business


in Canada is getting very substantial assistance in the way of tax concessions. They are in a position to carry on research work in order to keep pace with business in other parts of the world. We know that in recent years corporation profits' have increased to such an extent that there is no reason why Canadian business cannot spend more money on research.
Every time the old age pensioners, or persons on war veterans allowances or pensions, come to the government and ask for additional assistance, they are lectured by the spokesmen of private enterprise. They are told that it is demoralizing to accept government help, yet the amazing thing is that when it comes to government assistance, assistance from the public purse, the industrialists of this country are out there with both arms thrown wide and fingers open waiting for assistance.
As far as the national research council is concerned, I noted in their report for 1954 that during that year 7,500 technical inquiries had been made on behalf of private business in Canada at the taxpayers' expense. The point I am trying to make at this time is that rather than looking upon the research program merely as a means of providing greater assistance, or additional assistance, to private business, we ought to be looking upon the research program and the effect it is going to have on the country as a whole.
I think many spokesmen for business have expressed similar points of view. I note that in a recent issue of the Financial Post Dr. Stratford, who is I believe the president of the research council of Ontario, pointed out that there is very little industrial research being done by private business in Canada. He points out that in his opinion not more than a half dozen Canadian firms are doing a proper job of research; yet many of these firms that are doing little or nothing in the field of industrial research are spending fortunes on advertising and so-called public relations. Their profits have increased greatly in the post-war years.
It seems to me that if corporations are increasing their profits they have an obligation to spend more of their income on research. The shocking situation revealed by the hon. member for Broadview when he spoke a few days ago in quoting the United Nations report that Canada lags far behind the other nations of the world in respect of industrial research indicates the failure on the part of Canadian business to meet its obligations.
Hurrying along, Mr. Speaker, I should also like to refer to a statement made by Mr. B. M. Brophy, who I believe is a former deputy

minister of trade and commerce. In an article which appeared in the Financial Post on June 11, 1955, Mr. Brophy said:
Canadian dependence on foreign research and development is too well known to need emphasis. Indeed it can be argued that much of our industrial development has been the result of the know-how provided for us by the parent companies of our foreign based concerns.
A little later in the same article he says:
We should have no quarrel with this arrangement for obtaining know-how, in our present circumstances, but is it adequate in the light of our ambitions? Is not a more appropriate approach warranted to this problem of obtaining such a vital ingredient of industrial progress? Should we not inject some plan and purpose into our own managerial thinking? After all, Canadian requirements in the field of research and development are not identical with those of other countries.
We have here a spokesman for the Ontario research council, a man who was high up in the government a few years ago, telling Canadian business the same thing. It is time the business interests of this country stepped up their own research programs, yet we find that the main burden of the argument proposed by some hon. members in this house is that the government's role in the field of research should be to give additional assistance directly to private interests.
As Canadians I think we are extremely proud of the role of our national research council. I believe the work they have been doing is quite indicative of the greater service which they could render to Canada if their facilities were greatly expanded. It is not necessary for me to burden the house with statements made by various individuals from time to time pointing out the fact that we are falling behind in turning out scientists and technicians from our universities. It is quite obvious that while the national research council must be the focal point of any research program in this country, we have to have a broadly based program, and that means giving greatly increased direct assistance to our universities. I realize that the national research council has made grants and that these amounted to $2,500,000 in 1954, but this is a paltry amount in terms of present needs. Any research program must be based upon the Canadian educational system. We have to provide for a greater flow of high school graduates into our universities in order that we might do a more effective job. It seems to me that this is the main role of the
Committee on Atomic Energy government in a research program. I think Canadian business with its increased profits and with the tremendous expenditures which are made on advertising could well afford to spend a greater part of its income in the field of applied research.
As far as our research program in general is concerned, I suggest that it has to be broadly based. This brings up something which we have been arguing for a long time. It involves federal assistance to education in Canada. It seems to me that we are not going to have our young men and women entering universities unless we have high school graduates, and high school graduates depend upon our whole educational set-up.
As I have already said, we in Canada feel justly proud of the work done by the national research council although I think its employees are grossly underpaid. I suggest that as a result of their low salaries they are indirectly subsidizing Canadian industry. A great number of inquiries have been made by private businesses in Canada, and they have been accommodated to a large extent by the national research council. Since the employees of the council receive very low salaries, salaries far below those which they deserve, they are in effect providing a substantial subsidy to private industry. If we are thinking in terms of a research program I think we will have to provide more adequate remuneration for those Canadians who are taking part in that program.
I have some other remarks I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, but unless another hon. member wishes to speak I shall conclude my remarks now to facilitate the taking of the vote.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Harris:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will start with the trans-Canada highway and then take the St. Lawrence seaway authority; then a resolution which will appear tomorrow morning under motions with respect to a branch line of the Canadian National Railways, then the transport control resolution and the housing resolution.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In that order?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


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

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


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace): For each of the last ten fiscal years, how many Inquiries have been received by the Post Office Department concerning delays or non-delivery of nail matter?
Answer by: Mr. Kirk, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Postmaster General:
	Delay	Non-Delivery
1945-46 	
60,146	112,9381946-47 	
58,795	120,3531947-48 	
45,021	112,6501948-49 	
42,969	112,5411949-50 	
38,114	120,8981950-51 	
38,251	117,0131951-52 	
37,679	117,9091952-53 	
30,458	164,3321953-54 	
36,754	131,4031954-55 	
39,641	127,927



LIGHTHOUSE-KEEPER VACANCIES

Mr. Robinson (Bruce): 1.	How many lighthouse-keeper positions have become vacant since January 1, 1954, by provinces?
2.	How many of these vacancies have been filled by transfers of keepers from other lighthouses, and at what locations?
3.	How many of these vacancies have been filled by persons who had not been previously lighthouse keepers?
4.	At what locations and on what dates?
Answer by:	Mr. Langlois, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
Information covers full-time positions of lightkeeper under the civil service commission and does not include part-time appointments. Positions are open to public competition only after qualified lightlceepers have been given an opportunity to apply for transfer, promotion or favourable demotion to a vacancy.
1, 2, and 3.
-	Vacancies since Jan. 1, 1954	Number and location of vacancies filled by transfer or promotion	Vacancies filled by persons not previously lighthouse keepers	Positions abolishedNewfoundland	7	6 3	Prince Edward Island	3	Nova Scotia	17	5-Devil's Island, St. Esprit Island, Cape Sharpe, Jersey man Island, Scatari.	12	
New Brunswick		10	5-Swallowtail, Machias, Long Eddy Point, Grand Harbour, South West Head.		i
				
Quebec		8	4-Little Metis, lie au Marteau, Etang du Nord, Point des Monts.		i
				
Ontario		19	6-Long Point, Toronto Harbour West Gap, Kincardine, Welcome Island, Point Abino, Pelee Passage.	9	
				
	9	2-Langara Island, Pointer Island...		
				
	73	23	44	6
4. Newfoundland-Burnt Island, Dec. 1, 1955-St. Lawrence Point, Jan. 16, 1956- Ferrolle Point, Nov. 5, 1954-Fortune Head, June 16, 1954-Peckford's Island, June 28, 1954-Baccalieu Island, July 1, 1954.
Prince Edward Island-Shipwreck Point, June 6, 1955-Souris East, July 11, 1955- Point Prim, Sept. 8, 1955.
Nova Scotia-Ouetique Island, Dec. 1, 1955 -Lockeport Gull Rock, Nov. 1, 1954-Green Island, Feb. 1, 1955-Owl's Head, May 1, 1955 -St. Paul's Island South Point, Sept. 15, 1955 -Jeddore Rock, Oct. 13, 1955-West Iron-bound, April 29, 1954-Woods Harbour, May 3, 1954-Port Mouton, Dec. 1, 1954-Cape Roseway, Oct. 26, 1955-Fourchu Head, June 6, 1955-Apple River, April 27, 1955.

New Brunswick-Upper Fox Island, April 15, 1955-Big Duck Island, Aug. 1, 1955- Portage Island, Nov. 1, 1955-South West Wolf, Nov. 12, 1954.
Quebec-Heath Point, March 1, 1954-Bird Bock, Sept. 17, 1955-South West Point, Anticosti, April 1, 1954.
Ontario-Michipicoten Island, April 5, 1954 -Port Stanley, July 1, 1954

Port Dalhousie, Sept. 1, 1955-Niagara-on-the-lake, June 21, 1955-Otter Island, April 1,	1956-Great
Duck Island, April 1,	1956-Main Duck
Island, April 10, 1954-Peninsula Harbour, March 27, 1954-South East Shoal, March 25, 1955.
British Columbia-Green Island, Feb. 8,
1954-	Egg Island, May 3, 1954-Triple Island, June 17, 1954-Ivory Island, June 24, 1954 and Nov. 23, 1955-Cape St. James, March 2,
1955-	Addenbrooke Island, Sept. 9, 1954.



&quot;HANSARD&quot; DISTRIBUTION

Mr. Bryce: How many Hansards were distributed or sold during each of the years, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954 and 1955?
Answer by: Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of State):
Subscriptions-Unrevised Edition Free distri-
Sessions	Sold	bution	Total
1951	

 4,345	7,755	12,100
1952	

4,560	7,240	11,8001952-	53	.	4,700	7,100	11,8001953-	54	.	4,620	7,430	12,050
1955 

 4,580	7,198	11,778
In addition, 100 sets are placed in stock to meet demands for single copies, sales of which are not recorded separately.



RAILWAY MAIL TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 39 7-Mr. Knowles:
1.	What proportion of the mail transported by rail is carried by (a) the Canadian National Railways: (b) the Canadian Pacific Railway?
Questions
2.	On what basis is the apportionment of mail between the railways made?
Answer by: Mr. Kirk, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Postmaster General:
1.	Payments are based on size of postal cars used and distance mail is conveyed and not on mere volume of mail. The proportion is best indicated by the record of payments which for the fiscal years 1953-54 and 195455 were-
C.N.R.	C.P.R.
Fiscal year 1953-54 $7,291,792.69 $7,211,491.27 Fiscal year 1954-55 7,032,856.37	6,854,943.62
2.	The most expeditious dispatch and routing of mails, with due regard to economy in operation.

Mr. Dufresne: 1.	Was the keeper of the lighthouse at Madeleine-Centre, Cap-Madeleine, county of Gaspe-Nord, retired recently, and what is his name?
2.	Has a successor been appointed to this position?
3.	If so, what is his name and is he a veteran?
4.	Did the civil service commission advertise an examination in connection with this vacancy, and on what date?
5.	Were all applicants notified as to date of examination?
6.	What are the names of veterans who filled in applications?
Answer by:	Mr. Langlois, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
There is no light station known as Made-leine-Centre. If the question refers to the Cap-Madeleine light station the answer is as follows:
1.	No.
2,	3, 4, 5 and 6. Answered by No. 1.


Thursday, April 19, 1956



COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

[Stage Direction]
Second report of special committee on estimates.-Mr. Tucker.