1952-06-03

Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I
desire to table the French edition of the report of the administration of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1952.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister, in view of the absence of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and his parliamentary assistant. This question arises out of the statement made by the veterinary director general in British Columbia recently to the effect that the clean-up of the foot-and-mouth disease having been accomplished, Canadian cattle would be admitted into the United States as early as September. Will the Prime Minister indicate to the house whether such is the case?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I read with interest that dispatch reporting what the veterinary director general is supposed to have said and I hope it is true. I hope there will be no more outbreaks; and if there are no more outbreaks, I hope the United States administration will recognize the situation and will give effect to it at the earliest possible moment.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General or to the Minister of National Defence. I do not know to which one it should be directed. It is with regard to a man who is serving in Korea and who
has not received any mail since February 27. I can give the minister the letter-there is nothing personal in it-the man's address and all particulars. Mail has been sent to him. I am informed that there must be, somewhere, a considerable amount of mail directed to him; but he has not received any since February 27.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: If the hon. member will give me the letter I will go into the matter with my colleague, the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote), and see what, if anything, can be done.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works) moved: that the house go into committee of supply.



SUGGESTED COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I propose to take this opportunity to renew the discussion of a subject that has been raised on earlier occasions, and to bring before the house once again a proposal that has been made, without success, by various members of this party from time to time. It seems to me that this is a particularly appropriate time to raise the question of the possibility of taking some positive action to revive the traditional trade within the commonwealth, and particularly with Great Britain.
When I say that this seems to be a particularly appropriate time, I say it in view of the fact the trade fair now taking place in Toronto is serving to emphasize the vital importance of trade in our economic affairs and in the economic affairs of the free world.
May I say that I had the privilege of being at the trade fair yesterday when it was opened by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe); and I do think that Canadians have every reason for satisfaction that this fair should be so well patronized by Canadian producers, and also that it should have attracted such excellent exhibits from so many other countries.
There are, however, certain aspects of that trade fair which, it seems to me, call for attention from all of us who recognize that there is perhaps no other highly developed country in the world which is so dependent upon the maintenance of external trade as is

Suggested Commonwealth Conference Canada today. Those who visit that fair will see very convincing evidence of the extent to which Germany, Japan and Italy have rebuilt their productive capacity, and are once more capable of exporting machine tools, steel products, textiles and fine equipment of all kinds which are going to compete in the markets of the world in a manner which will call for the attention of every company and every individual interested in the export trade.
One of the most interesting exhibits at that fair-perhaps the most interesting in many ways-is the very large exhibit from Germany. No Canadian needed to be told that Germany is capable of producing machinery and steel products of all kinds of the very finest type. At that fair they will see that Germany has revived that production, and that never at any time were they producing steel products generally, cutlery and things of that kind, of a finer quality than is to be seen there. The same is substantially true of Japan and Italy and of other countries that only a short time ago were simply beginning to rebuild their industrial capacity.
1 was speaking to one of the exhibitors, amongst the German group, who was interested in textiles. He pointed out the very high quality of the textiles that they were seeking to sell here in Canada. He pointed out that it was of high quality, but that nevertheless they were able to sell it at a favourable price because their wage levels were lower in that country than in Canada. It was interesting to me that this representative of a German textile firm should have seen fit to point out that very obvious fact to me when I was examining those textiles which might be competing with Canadian textiles in the near future.
However, there was another point in connection with these products from Germany, Japan and Italy which was not pointed out, and which perhaps was not so apparent. We sometimes are inclined to forget that Germany, Japan and Italy wiped out their accumulated obligations, wiped out the enormous debts they had created in building up their military potential for war, which they lost, and by an extreme form of inflation, which practically wiped out the value of their money, they liquidated for all practical purposes their huge accumulated government obligations. Therefore, the people of those countries are not being taxed in very substantial sums today for the payment either of carrying charges or of capital repayment on past obligations.
This country, which found it necessary to assume heavy obligations because of German, Japanese and Italian aggression, still finds

itself in the position of paying both maintenance charges and capital charges on those accumulated obligations. They constitute a very substantial figure in the total of the tax moneys which are collected from our people. Then also, as compared with us, the people of Germany, Japan and Italy are not assuming defence obligations on the scale that we are. It may be that they will soon do so. Up to this point they have not been permitted to undertake expenditures of that kind.
We find, therefore, that from the tax point of view, as well as from other points of view, these countries are in a very favourable position to compete with us and to compete with other countries which have carried forward the obligations which they incurred during the years of war, and the obligations which we are now accepting as part of the common effort to preserve the freedom which we won during that war.
It may not be easy to determine what the exact amount is, but it would appear that part of the cost of everything that we must sell in the export market resulting from taxation alone would be close to 25 cents on the dollar. That is a very heavy figure to include in the price of the things that we must sell in competitive markets of the nature which we now see opening out before our eyes. No longer are we in the fortunate position that, with our capital producing capacity maintained, we have such great advantages over those other countries. Their capital producing plant has been greatly restored; much of it is new and of the very finest type. Much of it was produced on the North American continent. That modern plant will be competing all over the world with the exports of this country, of Great Britain and of other countries which are carrying forward heavy past obligations and assuming new obligations for the defence of freedom.
For these reasons it seems that we should examine the whole question of external trade, both export and import, with a sense of urgency and with a recognition of its importance, such as we have not been impelled to recognize at any time since the days before the last world war.
In referring to the trade fair I am of course speaking only of industrial production. But we also have in this country a great and primary concern with agricultural production and agricultural exports. We start with one simple fact, a fact emphasized only a few days ago by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in a speech he made about the importance of the export trade to Canada,

when he pointed out that of every dollar that Canadians earn one-third is earned by export trade.
No other highly developed country in the world is nearly as dependent upon the maintenance of export trade as we are, for our continuing prosperity. It is with the recognition of that fact that I suggest we should examine at this time our position, and why we should be seeking the return and expansion of our traditional markets at a time when those traditional markets have been lost or are being greatly reduced in respect of those lines upon which we depended so greatly.
There is no doubt about the fact that on a percentage basis there has been a serious reduction in our exports to the United Kingdom, that traditional market upon which we have depended so largely in the past. There has been some attempt to minimize the seriousness of the situation so far as the United Kingdom market is concerned by pointing out that in current dollar figures there is an increase in the dollar value of the exports from Canada to the United Kingdom.
We are told that the dollar exports to the United Kingdom have been increasing month by month this year. That is true. But I am going to suggest reasons why we should not have any false sense of satisfaction from the figures placed before us. I shall suggest reasons why we should examine how these figures are made up, and why it is that there is a dollar increase at this time.
During the first four months of the present year there was an increase each month over the corresponding month last year. There was an increase in January of 3-2 per cent over the figure for last year; there was an increase of 10 per cent over February of last year; there was an increase of 28-1 per cent over March of last year and there was an increase of 29 -3 per cent over April of last year. But there is another figure against which that must be balanced. During those same months there was a decrease each month in the imports of this country from the United Kingdom. In January the decrease was 9-6 per cent; in February, 6-5 per cent; in March, 7-8 per cent and in April, 20 [DOT] 6 per cent.
Therefore we see that as our exports are increasing month by month percentagewise over the corresponding months last year, our imports from the United Kingdom are at the same time decreasing to a considerable extent. That indicates further dangers which must be faced in connection with our exports to the United Kingdom.
Suggested Commonwealth Conference Then, Mr. Speaker, there are other considerations in connection with trade which I think should be borne in mind. We are told that our export trade with the United Kingdom is increasing. We are told that in dollar value it was higher last year than it was in the years immediately before the war. In current dollars that is true. But we have heard in the house a term used which should be employed if we are to see what has actually been happening. That term is "constant dollar value"-that is, the real value of our dollar in what it will buy at any given time.
I have before me a break-down of the figures supplied in the prices and price index compilation of the dominion bureau of statistics. From these I have found that the position on the basis of constant dollar value is far from reassuring. I see that in 1938 we exported to the United Kingdom, in the dollars of that time, goods to the value of $340 million. In 1939 we exported goods to the value of $328 million, while in 1947 the value of our exports to the United Kingdom amounted to $751 million. Last year it amounted to $631 million, which was an increase from $470 million in 1950. In dollars of last year that looked like a reassuring increase. But when these are reduced to terms of a constant dollar value, to the actual value of the dollar as worked out by the dominion bureau of statistics, and when you take the general wholesale price index, you find these results in connection with our exports to the United Kingdom:
Constant
dollar
value
million
1938		 $333-3
1939	  330-5
1950	  222-5
1951		 262-7
In other words, in constant dollar value, in terms of buying units in the hands of our people, exports to the United Kingdom last year and the year before were substantially below the constant dollar value of our exports in 1938 and 1939. This has come about at a time when the value of our exports to the United States, in terms either of current dollars or of constant dollar value, has been increasing by leaps and bounds.
We have been told in this house that there is no reason for alarm about our export situation. As I recall the words, we were told that we could sell what we could produce. When we examine these figures we must all begin to wonder why it is that so many people are wondering about their exports at this time. There is no use telling the cheese producer in this country that he can export all that
2846	HOUSE OF
Suggested Commonwealth Conference he can produce. There is no use telling the hog raiser that he can sell in the export market all that he can produce. There is no use telling the cattle producer that he can sell all that he can produce. There is no use telling the poultry raiser that he can sell all that he can produce. They know differently.
They know that these markets have either disappeared or been reduced to a mere trickle in some ol the most important lines of our historic export trade. True there is a large export, but that is made up mainly of raw materials required for defence production and defence preparations. I am not questioning the wisdom of supplying to the manufacturers of Britain essential raw materials required for the production of those things needed for the common defence of freedom. I do not think that we should be misled, however, by the fact that this demand, superimposed upon their ordinary production, is what has largely accounted for the maintenance of our export figures to the United Kingdom at this time.
In very substantial measure the same is true of our exports to the United States. We are exporting large quantities of unprocessed and semi-processed materials which could very well be manufactured in this country to the advantage of Canadian workmen in every part of Canada. I qualify my remarks by saying that as a partner in a great combined effort to preserve the peace and to defend freedom we should not be unwilling to contribute those things which are essential for the common defence of our freedom.
Nevertheless, in connection with our exports both to the United States and to the United Kingdom, I think the time has come to recognize that this may be a costly type of export in the long run, whatever temporary advantages we may seem to get. A very considerable part of that export is made up of raw materials which are being sent out of Canada in a form which gives to us the lowest dollar value and the lowest factor possible.
I think we might well re-examine the possibility of greatly increasing our own production of finished articles from some of these raw materials in a way that will give Canadian workmen jobs from our own raw materials instead of exporting them: always with the qualification that I am not suggesting that we should place a barrier against the supply of raw materials essential for the common effort.
We have learned in the past that it is not wise to put all our eggs in one basket and to become completely dependent upon the United States for exports no matter how friendly our own association with that great country may be. We have had most convincing


evidence in the past that there may come a time when the people of the United States will not welcome imports on a large scale of those things which they are producing in their own country. We know what happened in the early 1930's when barriers were raised against the exportation from this country of agricultural products upon which our agricultural economy had been so dependent.
I believe that there is a better understanding today between our two countries in regard to our common problems. Nevertheless we must not forget at any time that the United States and Canada are largely producers of similar products, both agricultural and industrial. For that reason we are always confronted with the possibility that if producers in the United States can fully meet the demands of their domestic market we may find it extremely difficult to sell products of that kind in that country.
Again I would point out that there is an exception. Undoubtedly we will be able to sell in the United States raw materials of the kind which they need for industrial production there. I can only repeat that no matter how friendly our relationship with the United States may be we should not disregard their success in following a policy of rational self-interest. We should not forget that the reason for the immense success of industrial production in the United States has been that the government of that country has at all times decided that the first concern of the government of the United States was to create employment for the workers of the United States. The reason they were able to absorb such immense immigration into the United States over the past seventy-five years was the fact that they decided that they were concerned first of all with industrial production in their own country. Certainly no one in the United States could possibly criticize any Canadian who said that, while bonds of friendship could not be closer or warmer than are the bonds of friendship between our two countries, we also believe in the same policy and we think that we should use our resources to create employment not only for the Canadians of today but also for those millions of potential Canadians who can come here if we fully employ the resources that we possess.
If we accept that proposition, then our exports to the United States may not be as large in the years ahead, and we may therefore find ourselves in the position of needing export markets and needing them very soon. It is with that thought in mind that I believe we should be exploring every possibility of reviving these traditional markets which are not markets in a country with a production

parallel to ours but are markets in a country which to a very substantial extent has a complementary production and greatly needs the things that we can sell. I am not limiting my arguments to the United Kingdom. I direct them to the whole commonwealth because I believe that there are many types of production that are required in very large quantities in the other nations of the commonwealth.
I think there is one very significant reason why we should be seeking every possible means to reopen and expand our normal export business and to increase trade with the nations of the commonwealth. To the extent that trade is in itself the very lifeblood of our economy in Canada we should be seeking to revive and expand those channels of trade for which our communications are already established. This country grew up as a nation with great communicating lines east and west to the seaports on the Atlantic and the Pacific. Reduce or fail to expand that overseas trade and we not only injure our whole domestic economy and place it in a precarious position because of its dependence upon what happens in the United States but we also reduce the opportunities that should be open to those seaports which were intended and are designed today to carry our trade to the seaports of the world across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
These are all reasons why we should be seeking in every way we can to overcome the greatest barrier in the way of the expansion of that trade. I am certain that no one in this house will suggest that we are selling all that it would be desirable for us to sell to the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan or to any other part of the commonwealth or the areas associated with it. Explanations are offered as to why that business cannot be maintained. I find, for instance, that in the Economic Record issued by the United Kingdom information office in April of this year there is a statement which puts forward the official point of view of the United Kingdom with respect to this subject. It reads as follows:
United Kingdom imports have to be cut. . . Britain, would far rather buy more from Canada, not less. It is not because of socialism or nationalization or the incompetence of politicians that cheese purchases have had to be wiped out this year. It is just that the dollars are not there-as simple as that. Canadian buying from Britain is dropping steadily. In 1951 it averaged $31-9 million a month; this year it is running at $22-5 million. That is why British purchasing in Canada is having to be cut further despite the United Kingdom's hunger for the things Canada produces.
3, 1952	2847
Suggested Commonwealth Conference
There is also the recent statement of the minister of food for Great Britain, the Hon. Mr. Lloyd George. He said:
For balance of payment reasons we are regretfully compelled at present to confine our purchases of Canadian food mainly to cereals and flour.
These statements seek to emphasize the fact that there is a dollar shortage in Britain. Efforts are being made to increase the number of dollars available to the British for the purchase of Canadian products. If we are to accept that proposition, then I think there is a gloomy prospect before us in the months and years ahead. Looking back over the records of the years before the last world war we see year after year much larger sales by Canada to the United Kingdom than purchases from them. The reason for that was that while they were buying from us we were buying from other people, and there was a rotation of credits which was a part of the normal financial business of the nations of the world at that time. At that time we had not thought that it was necessary to balance buying and selling exactly between nations. All nations sought to reach some ultimate balance of buying and selling as a total of all transactions. We do not think, however, that we should only be able to sell to any country just the exact amount that country buys from us. If we expect to produce all that we should produce then we should be able to sell to any country the amount that country can buy from us. Otherwise we will be getting very close to the kind of airtight financial compartments which caused so much trouble in the thirties and which, in the minds of some people, contributed greatly to the pressures which caused increasing tension in so many nations before the last world war.
If we can only expect to produce in that way and just sell the same amount as we buy, and this must be worked out in some way with other nations, it would seem that what we are going to do is to arrive at something like barter on the grand scale between nations. It may not be called barter. That barter would involve a great number of individual transactions, but if this is to be on a rigid basis of equal buying and selling then the individual trader, the keen businessman who built up international trade in the past, is going to find himself hamstrung in his efforts to build up trade for his own particular article.
The sooner we get back to the point when free men, trading as free men in the markets of the world-in agricultural products, in industrial products, in any other kind of products-can create their own markets by their own initiative and by their own skill,
2848	HOUSE OF
Suggested Commonwealth Conference the sooner we will get back to the time when free economy will be working in the way it should.
Let us not deceive ourselves. There is no source of wealth except production There is no source of taxation to pay the social services and all the othe~ things that we need in this country except the taxes that can be imposed upon income which depends upon production. That production in turn depends in this country at this time upon maintaining an export of at least one-third of all we produce. It would be well if we could increase that still more-in the highly developed products that we can process and manufacture-whether it be agricultural or industrial products.
We must maintain those exports to maintain our production. We must maintain those exports to maintain the flow of money from which taxes can be drawn to maintain our services in Canada. Therefore, the maintenance of those export markets is the very foundation of the level of the social and other services that we have undertaken to give our people.
There is no easy solution. I hope no one will suggest there can be any easy solution. There is a shortage of dollars in Britain and in the other nations of the commonwealth, but in the past we were able to trade in currencies of different types. We were able to buy our jute in India; we were able to buy cotton in Egypt; we were able to buy bauxite for our aluminum production in other countries using sterling as the basis of exchange. We have been able to buy many of the things not produced in the United States with the credits that we established by our surplus sales to the United Kingdom over our imports from them.
In the same way, by some device, if we are going to return to normal economic methods, we must find some way to establish convertibility of the dollar and pound. It will be said this is a very difficult problem. It will be said this is something the United States with its immense power and means still has not been able to solve. That is so.
The United States is not so dependent upon the solution of that problem as we are. The United States has not the same historic reasons for wanting and for needing the solution to that problem as we have. The United States has a very small export surplus as compared with ours, related to their total production. They want convertibility, I have no doubt of that; but the urgent necessity for convertibility has not impressed itself upon them to the same degree because, to a very large extent out of their immense wealth, they have been able to establish


dollar credits in other countries which are in some measure overcoming currency problems for the time being.
Artificial methods of that kind, however, will offer no satisfactory solution to this difficulty. I should think that every Canadian and every person in the whole free world who understands what has happened will always recognize a debt of gratitude to those in responsibility in the United States for the unparalleled acts of generosity since the close of the last world war which have had so much to do with saving great parts of the world from the threat of communism.
We, undoubtedly, will always be indebted to them for the vision and generosity which prompted them to advance enormous sums to rebuild the devastated areas in the free countries, and for restoring their productive capacity.
We are coming to a time now, however, when we must seek normal methods if we are going to win this economic struggle in which we are engaged. How often do we need to tell ourselves that this struggle in which we are engaged today is just as much an economic struggle as it is a military struggle. We must preserve our economic strength if we are going to be able to maintain the military strength to hold back the threat of communistic aggression and in that way to preserve peace. If we are going to win, by military power, a victory over the threat of communist aggression, then we must win the economic struggle in which we are engaged at the same time. The solution of this problem is one of the objectives that we must attain if we are to win this economic struggle. Unless convertibility of the dollar and the pound is to be restored in some way, it is going to be extremely difficult for us to build, through the whole free world, a strong, normal economic system which will be the lasting foundation of those other efforts which we trust will maintain peace in our time.
With the assurances that have been given by the governments of the western world I am not in any doubt that, if there were in western Europe or in other areas communist military aggression which affected our security, the free nations would find a way to bring their forces together under circumstances that would meet that military threat. Because of the difficulties of hurdling the dollar-pound problem we would not be prevented from putting forward our military effort. We would find some way of getting past dollar-pound convertibility so that our military strength could be brought together in a united effort to defend ourselves against communist military aggression.

If we have meant what we have said when we have stated over and over again that the economic struggle is part and parcel of the whole struggle, we should not know ourselves to be possessed of less vision, less initiative and less courage in tackling the financial problem than we know we would show in tackling the military problem. Certainly it will be difficult. There will be no easy victory in this great economic and military struggle. Whatever the methods are, we should be seeking some solution of this problem of dollar-pound convertibility.
When the suggestion has been made that a full-scale commonwealth conference on trade and on financial affairs be held for the purpose of seeking solutions which will maintain and expand our trade within the commonwealth, I know it is pointed out that there is to this problem no answer that is in our hands but that the answer lies in finding enough dollars in the United Kingdom and in the other nations of the commonwealth. Very often that statement is made as though this were a problem exclusively for attention on the part of the government of the United Kingdom and the governments of the other nations of the commonwealth. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that as we see what is happening to our own export markets in many vital lines of production, we must recognize that this is our problem just as much as it is a problem of the United Kingdom or of any other nation of the commonwealth.
Look at what has happened to cheese export, simply as an example of what is happening in this country today. No dollar figures will help to convince the cheese producer that everything is all right in the export markets at this time. Last year cheese was being sold at 36 cents a pound. Now we are told that it is to be sold at 27 cents a pound, with a 24-cent a pound advance on the price to be paid.
It is not the mere fixing of the price that matters. It is a question as to how much cheese we are going to be able to sell. For one hundred years and more the United Kingdom has been our great market for the sale of cheese. That is the market that has been establishing the basic value of our cheese. Now we find ourselves in the position where that market is not open to us. No floor price or no fixed price that may be established by the government is going to solve this problem.
The question in the mind of the cheese producer is not only "What is the price?" but "How much can I sell?". At the present time it is extremely uncertain how much can be sold. The cheese industry in this country is gravely threatened at this time. That
Suggested Commonwealth Conference industry largely affects the whole dairy industry in Canada because of its effect on other dairy values. Those who have been in the habit of producing large numbers of eggs for the export of egg products are not satisfied, by any statement of dollar totals, that all is well with the export business at this time. Those who have been selling hogs for the purpose of export are not convinced that all is well simply because dollar figures may suggest an extremely large total of exports. In the words of the food minister of Great Britain, at the present time they are forced to confine their purchases of Canadian food mainly to cereals and flour. That is a situation which we must tackle in some way unless the cheese industry and the whole dairy industry in this country are going to be seriously threatened. We all know what has been the impact of the foot-and-mouth disease and what results have followed it. They would not have been so serious had these other markets not been cut off. It is true that very recently the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) announced a quadrilateral deal under which we are to sell certain animal food to Great Britain in an arrangement which has been made between Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand and the United States. That very transaction indicated what can be done when people get together to tackle this problem.
When New Zealand, Canada, Britain and the United States are able to find a solution of this kind, it does suggest that there is some possibility of still wider arrangements, but it would be infinitely better if we could lay the foundation for arrangements that could be made by normal marketing methods, instead of getting into rigid intergovernmental transactions of that kind, which present collateral problems through the very fact that it has been necessary for governments to carry out those transactions.
If we believe in a free economy, if we believe in freedom of trade as free men and women, then surely it is the function of government to seek the methods and the procedure by which we can return to free methods of trading, to the seeking of markets, to the building up of markets by individual initiative, vigour and vision. That is what we should be seeking at this time when we now find ourselves confronted with the necessity of intergovernmental transactions of this nature.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, the very fact that it was possible to enter into a transaction of that kind does suggest the advisability of wider discussions which will seek some method by which we can open out these markets, by which governments can provide
2850	HOUSE OF
Suggested Commonwealth Conference the vehicle tor international trade, instead of becoming the vehicle themselves.
No one, surely, can be in any doubt that if something is not done soon to make it possible to reopen the markets for cheese, for egg products, for other food products, as well as for products of all kinds, the farmers of this country may find themselves in a very serious situation.
No matter what the attitude of the government may have been in the past, I do urge the reconsideration of this whole question in the light of events as they now are, not merely in relation to agricultural products, but in relation to products of all kinds. There are many things that could be done. I know that the Canadian government has made efforts to assist in expanding this trade.
I know that a government agency has done a great deal to increase trade between Canada and the United Kingdom. I know that the dollar-pound board has sought to encourage the movement of exports and imports between Canada and the United Kingdom. I know that there has been recognition of the need for education in regard to the possibility of increased business not only in Canada but in the United Kingdom. It is not only in Canada that efforts need to be made to create the wider understanding of the importance of this movement of production from one country to the other.
Our people undoubtedly need to be impressed with the fact that increased purchases by Canada from the United Kingdom will increase their opportunity to buy from us. Also in the United Kingdom there must be a greatly increased understanding of the importance of a number of factors if they are going to sell in our market. There are great opportunities for sales in Canada of heavy machinery of all kinds. With the tremendous expansion that there is going to be in hydroelectric development in Canada in the years ahead, they could be selling more generators and other electrical equipment here in Canada. They could be selling machine tools of many kinds.


Mr. Howe:: Why are they not?


George Alexander Drew: For one reason that the Minister of Trade and Commerce very correctly pointed out from time to time, namely, that the Canadian purchaser must be assured of delivery and of maintenance of supply. And that was exactly the point I was making, that education is greatly needed in the United Kingdom, and the industrial producers of the United Kingdom in every line of production must realize that if they are going to sell in this country, whether it be electrical equipment, whether it be automobiles or whether it be
[Mr. Drew.l

anything else of that kind, they must give competitive delivery and competitive maintenance.


Mr. Abbott:: And competitive prices, too.


George Alexander Drew: The prices have been competitive. The prices, as a matter of fact, have not been the barrier.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is true.


George Alexander Drew: I think in most cases they have been able to offer prices that would have encouraged our people to buy in very large quantities; but what has prevented a lot of purchases in this country has been the uncertainty as to the date of delivery, and even with a known date of delivery, or a promised date of delivery, the uncertainty as to the maintenance of the machinery when it came here. That was what I was referring to when I said there must be education on both sides.
I recognize these things, and I believe that as partners in this great policy we should not hesitate to say to our friends in the United Kingdom and to producers in other parts of the world that they must be able to lay down their products here on a fully competitive basis if they are going to maintain their markets.
However, Mr. Speaker, I think that these are all things that require attention not only on the basis of long-term education, but also on the basis of finding ways and means which will encourage the private individual to carry out that kind of sale and service. I think that one of the reasons the British producer has not been giving the kind of delivery and the kind of maintenance which made it possible for him to sell so successfully throughout the whole world in the years gone by is that he has found his sale was largely channelled through government agencies; that he has lost that ordinary competitive capacity which was so much a part of their selling methods, and in a substantial measure that is true of our own exporters. That is one reason, I suggest, why one of the major concerns of the Canadian government, of the government of the United Kingdom and of the other governments of the commonwealth is to get out of business of that kind as much as possible, and to get back to normal methods of trading, where the man who produces will be the man who goes out and sells, and where the man who produces goes right into the market and has to deal with the people to whom he is selling, and has to meet the demands of those sales in the way he did in years gone by.
The more the government stands between producer and purchaser, the more the selling initiative of our system is paralysed by the

actions of the government itself. It does not matter whether we call a government socialist or not, paralysis of that kind is the inevitable result of government intervention between the producer and the ultimate purchaser.
My own firm conviction is that it is the function of governments under our free system to make that system as free flowing as possible; and I say that every effort should be made by consultation and by conference to open up the channels of trade. There is no simple method. I remember when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) was explaining why it was not possible to free our dollar. But he freed it, and with very satisfactory results. I hope the Minister of Finance will be converted to other arguments which have been put forward, and-


An hon. Member:: He will.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, I think perhaps in time he will; but I hope it will be sooner than we have any immediate assurance of at the moment.
I believe the very fact that our dollar now is at a premium in relation to the United States dollars is one reason why we can attack this problem with a greater measure of confidence than before. True, we are a nation of only a little more than 14 million people as compared with the 160 million or more in the United States. True, our wealth is proportionately small, when compared with theirs. But our wealth and our place within the commonwealth is very important. Whether a conference between appropriate representatives of the governments of the nations of the commonwealth would reach a final stage of a solution of the problem out of their own discussions, at least I believe that they could find the pattern by which this hurdle could be overcome.
And if Canada, sitting down with the other nations of the commonwealth, can find a way to break this barrier, then as a group of nations we shall be in an excellent position to place our arguments before the United States as to the way in which we think this great problem can be solved.
I know there are a number of answers. One is that everything possible is being done by the dollar-sterling board. I believe they are doing an excellent job, so far as Great Britain and Canada are concerned. But their task deals with Great Britain and Canada, not with the commonwealth as a whole-except as their discussions would be incidental to that primary problem. Remember, there are other great areas in the commonwealth besides those which use
Suggested Commonwealth Conference sterling. I think what we need is to find a way whereby these credits can move freely between nations.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They all use sterling.


George Alexander Drew: They do not all use the pound.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


George Alexander Drew: No-not India or Pakistan.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They are all in the sterling area.


George Alexander Drew: They are in the sterling area; but there is a vast difference between the sterling area and the pound as a unit of currency.


Douglas Charles Abbott: But they keep all their reserves in London. They settle international balances in sterling.


George Alexander Drew: I am not questioning the fact that they are in the sterling area. I was speaking about currency.


Douglas Charles Abbott: But only for internal use.


George Alexander Drew: I am fully aware of that. And I am fully aware of this-and I emphasize it-that most of the nations outside this continent and outside the iron curtain are countries that are in the sterling area.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; only one or two outside the commonwealth.


George Alexander Drew: There are countries-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Iraq and Egypt.


George Alexander Drew: They are trading freely in the sterling area today and are using sterling credits freely today. Some of those are countries where there are very large credits owing to the United Kingdom at this time, which perhaps could be tapped by a wider employment of those credits.
Now, I do strongly urge that, no matter what argument could have been regarded as sound before, this matter should be reexamined and that the government ought not to resist this suggestion that there be a conference of appropriate representatives of the nations of the commonwealth to consider this vitally important problem.
After all, if it is so important for this government to attend conferences of the United Nations, wherever they may be held, and if it is so important for this government to be represented on every subcommittee conference in the United Nations, or on every conference and every committee in connection with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or on the many other conferences indicated in the estimates now before us for consideration, then I say there should not be continued resistance to the suggestion that a conference is a good way to discuss problems, and to try to find solutions.
2852	HOUSE OF
Suggested Commonwealth Conference I know it is said that if Canada, as the one dollar country in the commonwealth, is to attend such conferences, we will be asked to do things and to make concessions it would be very unwise for us to make. I know it is suggested that the solution lies in the finding of ways to increase dollar holdings of sterling countries in the commonwealth. Mr. Speaker, this government has never suggested it was not ready to state its own position at any time. This government has never suggested that it was not capable of taking care of its own meetings with nations, whether within the commonwealth or otherwise. No matter what argument is put forward, that argument can be met, if it is one that is not acceptable to the government of Canada acting in the interests of the Canadian people at this time.
If there are barriers which cannot be overcome, then the sooner we know it, the better. If there are unreasonable barriers to be faced in connection with our trade with the United Kingdom or with any other nation in the commonwealth, let us know about it. Let us have these things out in the open. If we are going to deal with nations of the commonwealth in the manner we have in the past, and as we believe we can in the future, then no matter what objections there may be I say it is just as well to bring those objections out into the open, and to dispose of them right now.
Difficulties there are-great difficulties. This problem is not going to be solved by sitting back and trying to deal with it piecemeal. At this very moment the prime minister of Australia is in London discussing some aspects of their trade problems. Not long ago the prime minister of New Zealand was in London; and doubtless the prime ministers of other commonwealth nations will be there. How much better and easier it would be if they all met in a conference; how much easier it would be to call that conference together if Canada, the one dollar nation in the commonwealth, were the nation to suggest it.
I simply repeat in closing that if we were confronted with a military threat we would find some way of overcoming any obstacle of this kind to bring together our military strength in a common effort in the defence of our freedom. If our economic strength is the vital part of this struggle that we have been told it is then we should be just as willing to show initiative, vision and courage in overcoming these difficulties in the economic field and finding some solution to this problem which will be so much to the advantage of every one of us. With that [Mr. Drew.l

in mind and with the hope that the government will recognize how greatly the situation has changed since this subject was first discussed, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green):
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"this house is of the opinion that the government should consider the advisability of taking steps to convene at the earliest possible date a conference of the nations of the British commonwealth to seek means by which there may be convertibility of commonwealth currencies, and to explore all the possibilities for restoring and enlarging those traditional markets upon which our prosperity so largely depends."


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) was able to attend the opening yesterday of the Canadian international trade fair. I sincerely hope that every member of this House of Commons will make it a point to attend the fair during the two weeks it is in progress. It is a splendid eye-opener as to Canada's trade associations and it indicates the class of goods that we are importing from various countries as well as of the goods we export.
I think in many ways the fair this year is the best of the five that make up its history. For one thing we have a greater representation of Canadian firms than ever before. Over 50 per cent of the floor space of the fair this year was taken up by Canadian firms and the amount of space so taken up was double that of last year. I was rather discouraged last year because it did not seem reasonable that Canada should conduct a trade fair where the great preponderance of representation was from other countries. That worry has been removed and I think today we have a well-balanced trade fair.
The leader of the opposition mentioned that in the machinery section, exhibits from Germany, Holland, France and Belgium seemed to have the dominating position. There is a reason for that. In the fairs of 1950 and 1951 the machinery section was dominated by exhibits from the United Kingdom. The British Association of Machine Tool Manufacturers brought out an exhibit as an association during those years. Every firm in the United Kingdom was invited to contribute to that exhibit and we had a magnificent display of British machinery.
At the trade fair last year we were told that the association would not be coming out this year because this is the year in which an industry-wide machine tool exhibition is to be held in the United Kingdom. It is the practice in the United Kingdom to have such a display of machine tools every four years and this happened to be the year. However,
I attended a dinner of British representatives

of the association last evening in Toronto and I was assured that the association would be back in Toronto next year as an exhibitor.
I was rather pleased to see the number of individual British manufacturers who are exhibiting at the fair. We have splendid exhibits of British packaging machinery, printing machinery, textile machinery and particularly road-building machinery. I was glad to see there my friend, a British manufacturer of road rollers, whom I like to hold up as a shining example of how British industry should tackle the Canadian market.
He came out here when we started the dollar drive and undertook to market a road roller. It looked quite different from any product in use in this country and we thought he would have a hard time. However, he has kept at it and at this fair he had road rollers with the name of about every prominent paving company in Canada on the sides. He assured me that he is doing all right.
That is the kind of spirit we would like to instil in British manufacturers of all types. Canada is the greatest market for British-made heavy equipment there is in the world today. We have not reached the position of the United States where practically everything in the heavy machinery line is manufactured. We import around $500 million worth of heavy equipment every year. That is business that could easily go to the United Kingdom. It is business that we urge them on every occasion to attempt to bring into their fold.
I think it was in 1949 I was invited to open the British industries fair. I spoke at the Mansion House before a largely-attended dinner of British industrialists and made somewhat the same speech that the leader of the opposition has made this afternoon. I pointed out the opportunities in Canada for British manufacturers and urged that we join in a combined assault on the interchangeability of currency. I advanced a good many arguments to show how trade between Canada and other countries of the British empire could be brought back to a healthy situation.
However, it is rather discouraging that there is not greater availability in the United Kingdom of goods for this market. As hon. members know, in connection with our preparedness efforts and our great capital investment program, we have been greatly in need of machine tools. I asked our machine tool controller to place a strong team in England in order to buy every machine tool that could be bought there. I wanted the United Kingdom to have first call on the Canadian market under existing conditions.
J, 1952	2853
Suggested Commonwealth Conference
This government has been acting as buyer or agent for a good many users of machine tools in this country. The results of the controller's efforts were most discouraging. Last year Canada bought about $80 million worth of machine tools. We purchased $8 million worth in Canada; we were able to obtain $6 million worth in the United Kingdom; we bought $2 million worth on the continent; and we wound up by buying $64 million worth in the United States. Surely Canada cannot be blamed for that situation.
People say, "Well, open your doors to British tools". That was all we were able to buy; that was the total availability to Canada. Britain serves many countries and the demand in Britain itself was at a high level.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Could the minister say whether they were manufacturing a lot in Great Britain and where they went to?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is a large domestic market and I suppose the other markets served were the traditional markets of the United Kingdom such as Australia, New Zealand and other countries which ordinarily purchase machine tools in the United Kingdom. But we find that on every side. We find a lack of availability, or if availability is there the delivery date is too far in advance to be practical. We also find that orders placed in the United Kingdom with a reasonable delivery date have to be cancelled because the delivery date is pushed back and it is necessary for us to replace the goods in other markets. We had an example a short time ago. The Aluminum company was buying some heavy generator equipment, I believe it was, in the United Kingdom. The originally promised delivery date was all right but unfortunately it was first pushed back a year and then even that revised date was undermined as uncertain so that to permit proper completion of the project a rush order had to be placed in the United States for alternate equipment and the British order had to be cancelled. I am not blaming the United Kingdom manufacturers. They have their problems just the same as manufacturers in other countries. I am merely explaining why the tremendous market which is available in Canada is not being filled in greater proportion by the United Kingdom.
I was somewhat at a loss as to the timing of the speech of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) on export trade. I thought at first it was prompted by his visit to the trade fair but the leader of the opposition rather got away from the ideas presented at the trade fair and covered the over-all trade situation.

Suggested Commonwealth Conference Perhaps I might read an excerpt from some remarks I made a short time ago about Canada's trade. I said:
... in spite of other people's tariffs, dollar shortages, import restrictions, exchange controls, customs formalities, bilateral trade agreements, export subsidies, cutthroat competition and our own domestic problems so familiar to all, our exports during the first four months of 1952 have nevertheless been up 20 per cent, our imports down 7 per cent and our balance of trade, changing from a minus to a plus, looks about $326 million better than it did in the banner year of 1951.


Mr. Green:: That would still mean a
deficit?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh no, a surplus. There is a surplus for the first four months but I have not the amount here.


Howard Charles Green: But for the year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is $326 million better than it was in the first four months of last year. I think the credit balance at the moment is something over $100 million for the first four months. I went on to say:
Last year, as you know, represented an all-time high for Canadian trade which then for the first time exceeded $8 billion. Our imports last year from all countries increased by $911 million largely on account of defence purchases, new capital investments in Canada and anticipatory buying arising out of hostilities in Korea, and removal of all Canadian import controls. Our exports also increased by $806 million very nearly keeping pace with the increase in imports.
Last month, in April, 1952, our exports to all countries climbed by $50 million to $350 million, up from $300 million a year ago. For the four months of January to April inclusive our exports to all countries were up by $231 million, an increase of some 20 per cent compared with last year. Every month this year has shown a similar expansion. There was a slight increase in the value of sales to the United States, an increase of more than 40 per cent in sales to the United Kingdom and to other sterling area countries, and an increase of more than 70 per cent in sales to other countries, mainly Europe and Latin America . . .
As a result of these increasing sales and diminishing purchases our exports during the past four months substantially exceeded our imports, creating a favourable balance of $109 million as compared with an unfavourable balance of $217 million during the corresponding months of last year. It would be a crude interpretation of statistics to judge of our commercial and economic welfare solely on the basis of figures such as these, but in so far as they have significance for these purposes, it is interesting to note that the total improvement in our balance of trade, comparing the first four months of this year with the first four months of last, was approximately $326 million.
Changing price levels have had something to do with the improvement in the look of our trade statistics but not very much. The price of things that we import are lower than they were last year while the prices of things that we export are higher. The March, 1952, index number of prices of import commodities, prepared in the bureau of statistics, stood about per cent lower than it did a year ago while the index number of prices of export commodities stood about 31 per cent higher. Thus a collection of Canadian export goods which in 1948 would have bought $100 worth of imports would have bought only $95.70 worth of

similiar imports in March, 1951, while in March, 1952, their purchasing power in terms of imports had risen to $107.20.
What are the things that we have been exporting in such increasing quantities? Primary products have done well and so have manufactured goods. On the first quarter's records wheat and coarse grains were up about $40 million. Cattle and meat of course were down. Pulpwood and newsprint were up another $40 million. Nickel, copper, lead and zinc were up about $30 million, and miscellaneous chemical products were up $6 million. It is remarkable that there was an increase of nearly $78 million in exports of other manufactured and miscellaneous goods. In particular exports of iron and its products more than doubled, ranging from ores, alloys and rolling mill products to manufactured items. There were spectacular increases in farm implements, automobiles and parts, engines and locomotives, machinery for mining, metal working, bookkeeping and other purposes. There were also notable increases in aircraft and rubber manufactures.
I have quoted from an earlier public address to bring the picture back into focus. Instead of our exports representing a situation that is becoming more alarming I suggest that the reverse is the case. Certainly the trend of exports this year is very much more reassuring than I expected at the beginning of the year. The leader of the opposition made a great point about the effect of the foot-and-mouth disease. That is a calamity, and calamities are always costly. It is true that countries that are free from foot-and-mouth disease have cut off imports of cattle, swine and poultry from Canada and our exports are feeling the result of that action. It has been suggested that the whole fault lies in our leaving the British market, that we should have stayed in the British market and this would not have happened to us. If we had staying in the British market it would not have happened to us because there is foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom and on the continent, and has been almost continuously for a great many years.
Why did we leave the British market? There were two reasons. One is that when the dollar shortage came the chancellor of the exchequer of that day told us that, much as they liked to deal with Canada and much as he appreciated our extraordinary efforts to keep Britain supplied with certain types of food during the war years, Britain could now obtain this food more cheaply elsewhere, and she therefore found it necessary to leave the Canadian market as a source of meat. Well, you might say, if our prices were too high, why not lower prices? Unfortunately, Canadians who produce our meat are not the kind to take any lower price than is available to them in the best market in the world.
The reason we left the British trade with our cattle, pork, poultry and certain other products, is that a very much better market

Suggested Commonwealth Conference
with higher prices was available across the mistake-that the material should be manu-boundary that separates our people from the factured here and the manufactured goods United States.	sold instead.
There are many advantages in supplying the market to the south. Meat can be shipped as live weight, or shipped as chilled meat. Shipment to the United Kingdom meant selling not chilled meat but frozen meat, and it meant shipping the product a very long distance in refrigerated boats. I mentioned the other night that it is interesting to contrast prices in the source of supply now used by Britain as against Canadian prices. We found New Zealand, and I believe Australia, under contract to the United Kingdom to deliver all export beef to the United Kingdom at a price of 14 cents per pound f.o.b. ship. We have found what it costs us to put frozen beef on ship to the United Kingdom-and that price is 48 cents per pound.
Well, I do not think one need say anything more about why we prefer the United States market for meat products and poultry products. We prefer it because it is a nearer market, a more available market, and a market with vastly higher prices for the producer.
It has been said these trade barriers can be worked out; that we did go to the United Kingdom and to New Zealand and worked out an arrangement by which New Zealand beef would be supplied through a Canadian intermediary to the United States market, with Canada taking New Zealand's place in part in the United Kingdom market. That may sound like a very attractive arrangement, but I can tell hon. members it is very, very expensive to the Canadian taxpayer. I do not know what the bill will be, but it will be less than if such an outlet had not been arranged, and better for our producers than asking them to bear the loss involved in selling Canadian beef to Britain at the New Zealand prices. The discrepancy is in considerable part paid for in this transaction by the Canadian taxpayer. This transaction is not a type of trading that I would want to encourage on anything like a permanent basis.
I do not intend to disparage the help we have had from New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, in working out a temporary makeshift solution to a very difficult problem. They have been most co-operative and we are grateful. I hope no one will confuse the emergency arrangement with the normal trade between the countries concerned.
Now, it has been said, and said frequently here, that we should not export raw material; that such form of export is all a
That theory is so completely unsound that I am surprised that it is repeated so often. Every "have" country, every country rich in raw materials is in duty bound to export raw materials so that the "have not" countries may be able to exist. Suppose we adopted the principle laid down by the leader of the opposition and stopped exporting iron ore, stopped exporting lead, zinc, copper, nickel, and aluminum? I do not know what we could manufacture those products into that would be saleable in any country of the world, and I do not know what the countries depending on Canada for those metals would do to support their peoples.
Canada is immensely fortunate in that it is rich in those commodities the world needs and which the world is able to pay for, no matter what market conditions prevail in the "have not" countries of the world. Our exports of raw materials always have been the hard core of our trade. Without that hard core of exports, our export trade would have been in a state I would hardly like to contemplate. If we were only making goods that countries might like when prosperous but able to do without when things were tough, we would have in this country just about the most unstable economy that could be contemplated.
Fortunately we have an abundance of raw materials. I do not know of any material produced in this country that is in poorer supply today than when we first began export of the commodity. We all know that instead of a lower production of metals we have a higher production of metals. We all know that we have been able, by exploring and prospecting this rich country of ours, to become a very large scale exporter of iron ore which we formerly imported in almost our total requirements. We know, as we export that iron ore, that we are not depleting this country for future generations, because we have the commodity in abundance.
I hope there will not be any more talk of stopping export of raw materials and concentrating on finished goods. The idea is fantastic. It is a ridiculous proposal-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker,-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not interrupt you.


George Alexander Drew: -on a question of privilege.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not refer to you.


George Alexander Drew: No, but I want to point out that I was very clear-
2856	HOUSE OF
Suggested Commonwealth Conference


Clarence Decatur Howe: Relate it to the point of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it a question of privilege?


George Alexander Drew: Yes. I point out that what I said and said very clearly, was that I was not suggesting we should deny the availability of supply but we should use our own resources-and that is exactly what the minister has now said.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But that was not the first thesis as I understood it. The leader of the opposition said we should stop exporting raw materials and concentrate on finished goods.
I cannot agree with that suggestion but I do agree that industry in Canada should have first access to Canadian raw materials. To the best of my knowledge and belief that access is theirs today and always has been- and I' think always will be.
I do not know that I need to rehearse the government's attitude toward multilateral trade. Our policy has been preached from every platform. As I say, I have spoken from the Mansion House in the United Kingdom, I have spoken at Geneva, and always in the interests of promoting international trade on a multilateral basis. Every action that has been taken by this government in the field of trade has been in the direction of promoting multilateral trade. We have refused to enter into bilateral trade agreements which would be the antithesis of multilateral trade. We have refused to be stampeded into quotas, also the antithesis of multilateral trade. We have pursued a course which we believe leads in the direction we all desire, and we have been consistent in that course. We have urged every other country with whom we have trade relations to follow the same course.
It has been suggested that someone knows how to work out the problem of convertibility of dollars and sterling. I hope my hon. friend has the solution of that problem. If he has, and if he has a method for making dollars and sterling freely convertible, he is much too modest. I am sure that if he could formulate such a solution Mr. Churchill would be very glad to step aside and let the leader of the opposition occupy his exalted position-and I am sure he would be entitled to that great honour, because he would have found the key to the great obstacle that is interfering with world progress today.


Mr. Rowe:: We might be able to use him over here.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, he has not yet produced the solution. We hope he will.


William Earl Rowe: We might use him in Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You will be holding him In reserve for quite a while.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister has not yet said anything against the resolution.


William Earl Rowe: He has not reached the resolution yet.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not think the resolution is important. I do not think I will deal with it. I will leave it to the individual consideration of each member of the house, and let each vote as he feels inclined. I try not to dwell too heavily on the obvious. If hon. members opposite, particularly the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), would adopt that principle, the session would be much shorter.
It has been suggested that we should have conferences. In the seventeen years that I have been a member of the government I do not know when Canada has ever refused to attend any conference to which she has been invited by any member of the commonwealth. Ordinarily we attend trade conferences two or three times a year, at least. I attended a conference of commonwealth ministers in September of last year. My colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) attended a conference of all commonwealth finance ministers in January of this year. I may tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that conference was not simply to discuss financial problems. The Minister of Finance had with him the top trade team of this country, representing trade experts from the departments of finance, external affairs and trade and commerce. The meeting of finance ministers was followed by a full-dress conference for the discussion of trade problems. Other conferences will be called and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that Canada will be in attendance and, as she always does in conferences of British nations, will be doing her utmost to free the barriers of trade within the commonwealth.
My suggestion, however, is that trade within the commonwealth, in times such as these, cannot be the complete answer to keeping Canada prosperous as far as international trade is concerned. Canada puts forth an effort to trade with every country in the world. We are represented in almost every country in the world. It is because we have that flexibility of outlook that we have been able to sell Canada's excess products, that we have been able to maintain an expanding level of trade and thus keep Canada prosperous.
I think it is worth noting that as we have lost, through quota systems and prohibitions, our markets for manufactured goods in the United Kingdom and in other commonwealth countries, we have been able in large part

to replace that lost market for manufactured goods with markets in South America and elsewhere. We are constantly on the alert to find new trade openings; and in that effort I believe we have been reasonably successful.
We are told by hon. members opposite that the United States market is a dangerous one; and we are told that the closing of the United States market in 1930 brought on the depression. I do not like to remind hon. members of the fact that it was not the closing of the United States market that brought on the depression; it was brought on because the United Kingdom stopped buying wheat in this country for the reason that they considered the prices at which wheat was held in this country too high. Huge surpluses of wheat and other cereals piled up, and that was the situation that brought the price of wheat down to some 30 cents a bushel at Fort William.
I do not think any country can afford to tie its trade too tightly to any other single country. The trading position of Canada must be kept flexible. We must know what is going on in every country in the world in order to be able to anticipate measures that will interfere with our trade with a particular country, and as necessary to be able to find an alternate market for the product, the marketing of which has been interfered with.
I think perhaps I have taken my fuff time, Mr. Speaker. I want to say that if I believed the amendment to this motion would bring about convertibility of currencies or would bring about a strengthening of our trade with the United Kingdom, I would be glad to vote for it. But as I believe that the amendment would bring about no worth-while result whatever, I cannot go quite that far. As usual, I will have to oppose the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew).


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the subject that has been opened up this afternoon is one of tremendous importance. In fact the whole question of trade, not only among the nations of the commonwealth but among the nations of the entire world, is extremely important to the prosperity, the well-being and, indeed, the survival of mankind. In fact we feel that the importance of the question before us transcends the limits of the amendment which has been moved by the leader of the opposition. I may say that many views with which we do not agree were expressed by the leader of the opposition this afternoon, but in so far as the amendment goes we feel that it should be supported.
I should like to point out that the wording of the amendment moved this afternoon by the leader of the opposition closely parallels the wording of an amendment moved by his colleague the hon. member for Lake Centre
55704-180i
Suggested Commonwealth Conference (Mr. Diefenbaker) on February 28, 1950. Perhaps I might be permitted to put the two amendments on the record at this point. The amendment moved this afternoon by the leader of the opposition asks that the usual words be deleted and that the following words be substituted:
this house is of the opinion that the government should consider the advisability of taking steps to convene at the earliest possible date a conference of the nations of the British commonwealth to seek means by which there may be convertibility of commonwealth currencies, and to explore all the possibilities for restoring and enlarging those traditional markets upon which our prosperity so largely depends.
The other amendment to a motion to go into supply to which I have already referred, which was made on February 28, 1950, by the hon. member for Lake Centre, is found at page 308 of Hansard for that year. After the usual introductory words it reads as follows:
this house is of the opinion that the government should take immediate steps to convene at the earliest possible date a conference of the nations of the British commonwealth and the countries of the empire to devise policies to restore our lost markets, and thereby to provide jobs for our Canadian people.
Hon. members will notice that the two amendments are much the same. The only difference of note is that in the amendment moved this afternoon the leader of the opposition has made reference to that difficult problem, the convertibility of commonwealth currencies. When the amendment was moved on February 28, 1950, some three members of this group-our leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy)-spoke on the amendment and indicated that we were prepared to support it. It was made clear on that occasion, however, that we were prepared to support the amendment on the understanding that it did not purport to establish a restrictive type of trade within the countries of the commonwealth alone. We felt that the proposal asked for every effort to be made to increase trade within the countries of the commonwealth, without detracting from trade between Canada and other nations of the world. Indeed it is our feeling that if we can increase trade among the commonwealth nations we will be doing a service not only to Canada and the other nations of the commonwealth; we will be doing a service to the entire world. We will help to stimulate world trade and to bring to all the nations of the world the advantages that flow from trade.

Suggested Commonwealth Conference
It is because the amendment that has been moved this afternoon, while it asks for a conference of commonwealth nations to discuss trade within the commonwealth, does not restrict trade to commonwealth nations, that we are prepared to support the amendment now before the house.
When we look at this whole question of trade it is desirable that we ask ourselves some simple and fundamental questions. Why is trade important? Why are we so anxious to increase the flow of trade throughout the world? The leader of the opposition (Mr. (Drew) emphasized its importance to the prosperity of our various nations. He also emphasized its relationship to our defence effort. We agree. But he also had a good deal to say about the desirability of freeing trade so that individual men and women might pursue their individual initiative and vigour in the custom and manner of days gone by. With that aim we disagree. We do not think of trade quite in those terms; we do not think of it as an activity to be left to the exploitation of individual traders. We believe that trade between nations, like the division of labour within a community, adds to the economic wealth of the nations that participate in that trade. Trade adds to the economic wealth of the world, and it is for that reason that we feel every possible step should be taken to increase our trade with the other nations of the commonwealth, and indeed with all the nations of the world. To do this means not less activity by governments, but an even greater effort on their part.
Let us not forget the simple rules about foreign trade that most of us probably learned when we studied the rudiments of economics. We know that even though we may be able to produce each of a number of products cheaper than some other country can produce those same products, nevertheless it is to our mutual advantage to produce for trading those products in connection with which we have the relatively greatest advantage. It is a proposition that can be demonstrated not only in theoretical terms; it has certainly been demonstrated in practice, and it does behoove us to pursue the policy of the widest possible trade.
I said a moment ago that we are concerned for expanded trade not to provide a field for exploitation by individuals. We are anxious to have the greatest possible flow of trade so that the people of our country, the people of other countries whose economies at the moment might be on a par with ours, and in due course the people of underdeveloped countries might enjoy the higher standard of living which is possible by applying labour power to the resources the world

possesses at the present time. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we feel that any move that can be taken to facilitate trade, even a conference to discuss ways and means of increasing it among a selected group of countries, is all to the good; and we do not like to see the government turn down a suggestion of that kind.
The last words of the former debate to which I have already referred, namely, the one which took place on February 28, 1950 on the same subject, were spoken by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), when he said, as recorded in Hansard of that year at page 337:
Whether or not a conference of this kind would accomplish anything, surely it would be an advance if we could bring the nations of the commonwealth close together-the commonwealth now is both east and west-and find out more definitely what each nation has to sell and what each is willing to buy. Surely if we did not do anything more than make an advance in that direction, the conference would be worth while. Unless those who are opposed to such a conference have some better solution for meeting our economic problems, they certainly should not turn this one down without giving a serious consideration indeed.
It is in those terms, Mr. Speaker, that we feel this motion should be considered. We recognize that it should go further. We recognize that our concern is for trade amongst all the nations of the world, not just some of them; but here is a step in the right direction. Here is a move, the aim of which is to increase the trading that takes place and thereby to help to raise living standards, and we feel that it should be supported.
We made it clear on the occasion of the previous debate that we did not agree with any of the restrictive measures that might seem to be implied in a conference of commonwealth nations only. If the leader of the opposition had indicated that this was a request for the calling of the kind of conference that met in this city in 1932, our attitude toward it would be different. But so long as the purpose of this conference is to expand trade, to take positive measures in that direction, as I have already indicated we are prepared to give it our support.
Now, Mr. Speaker, discussing this whole question of trade and its importance to the whole world, I feel that perhaps I can do no better at this point than quote part of what my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East had to say on this question when the subject was debated on the previous occasion to which I have already referred. At page 336 of Hansard for 1950 he said:
In my view this would not necessarily be a serious matter were it not for the fact that, as I see it, the present deterioration in trade and in world economic conditions follows a pattern we know so well. That was the pattern after the last war, when we had a few short years of economic activity when we were urged by businessmen to produce

more and consume less. But shortly came the debacle, when a great many people could not consume at all, not because the things were not there to consume but because something had gone wrong with the exchange of commodities both between nations and within the nation.
The hon. member for Vancouver East went on to say:
At the present time we see the very same pattern developing. When we finished the war we had a tremendous backlog of needs to be met, both in consumer and capital goods. This was more so with the countries of Europe than on this continent of North America, but in four or five short years we have overcome that backlog of consumer needs, we have added to our capital resources so that now we can supply a greater amount of goods and services than ever before. Now, the paradox of the situation is this: just when we are better equipped than ever before to supply the needs of our people and raise the standard of living, the standard of living is going down.
Hon. members are aware that this is true. Despite the larger number of dollars people may have in their pockets, and despite the greater volume of production of which Canada now boasts in terms of our gross national product, the fact of the matter is that the value of those dollars has so decreased that we are not maintaining the health and living standards of our people. I wish to quote a bit further from the observations of my colleague:
How far that deterioration may go on this particular lap I do not know; but if we do not find some way to distribute the wealth we can produce so abundantly, nothing can save us from falling into a depression such as we had from 1930 to 1939, from which we were rescued by the war.
That is the paradox of our time. We find ourselves confronted in the world of the fifties with capacity to produce simply undreamed of. Yet at this very time, when we have it within our power as a civilization to produce a standard of living that would be a blessing to mankind the world over, instead of moving toward that condition we find ourselves on the brink of disaster of one kind or another. The fear of war, or the fear of economic collapse, is with us daily.
Surely the direction that we should take in an effort to resolve that paradox is to aim at the greatest possible production of goods and services, and at the widest possible distribution of those goods and services, not only within a nation such as our own but among all peoples the world over. It has been put this afternoon in economic terms by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), that this whole question of trade is a two-way street. That is a truism often repeated; and how true it is, that we cannot expect people to buy the goods we produce unless we are prepared to buy goods from them.
3, 1952	2859
Suggested Commonwealth Conference
We of this group see it not only in its economic terms but in human terms, in terms of human progress, in terms of the survival of our civilization. We feel that unless we can find ways not only to produce an abundance of goods but also to distribute those goods where they are needed, our civilization stands in imminent danger. That effort to distribute, as I have already said, must be carried out on two fronts. It must be carried on among our own people and it must be carried on across the world. Indeed, it is our responsibility to make for the widest possible distribution of the surplus wealth we can produce on this North American continent, and to distribute it among the backward and undeveloped nations of the world.
The leader of the opposition this afternoon said, and rightly, that this whole question of trade among the nations of the commonwealth, and among western nations generally, is vital to our defence. We agree; but we would emphasize the fact that it is not only a matter of supplying each other mutually with the arms and weapons of defence in a military sense, but it is even more important to our defence that by production of an abundance of goods and services, by distribution and by trade we improve the prosperity and well-being of all our own peoples in the western nations, and that we do everything possible to improve the well-being and the standard of living of peoples in other parts of the world.
We are conscious of the fact that we are up against a stubborn enemy today. That enemy is using two weapons. He is using the weapons of war, and he is also using the weapon of an idea. That idea, to some of the people to whom it is being sold, may be an illusion. But the enemy is using the weapon of that idea, for he claims that he knows a way of enabling people who are now hungry to get food, and people who are now in poverty to enjoy a higher standard of living.
Even if the idea he is using as his chief weapon is an illusion, the fact remains that it is making headway; and one of the reasons it is making headway is that we are not using it sufficiently ourselves. I submit it is our task in the present world situation to make use of both weapons ourselves; and we are in a position to do so-and to do so to so much greater advantage.
I need not spend time on the fact that we are in a position to develop the military side of our defence program. We are doing that; indeed we may be overdoing it. But what about that other weapon, the weapon of the idea that people do not have to live in perpetual hunger, want and poverty, whether

Suggested Commonwealth Conference they are in the great industrial cities of North America or in the backward countries of south and southeast Asia. I submit it is our task to develop our ideas about trade, not only in terms of the prosperity that can come to us by freer trade but also in terms of what we can do to sell a better idea than the enemy is trying to sell to the backward, starving and impoverished peoples in large areas of the world.
It was this sort of idea I had in mind when in my opening remarks I indicated that in my view the subject that has been opened up this afternoon transcends in importance the precise terms of the amendment offered by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), and transcends the importance of doing what we can-desirable and important as that may be-to improve the prosperity and well-being of our own land and those other nations associated with us in the commonwealth.
I have already taken the liberty of quoting at some length from a speech by my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East, on February 28, 1950. I should like to quote further from what he said on that occasion, as it is reported at page 337 of Hansard for that year:
In my opinion, it is not just a question of improving Canada's trade position, it is a question of international prosperity-the prosperity of the countries of the western world. But it is more than that; it is as much a part of our defence against aggression as is our military preparedness. If we do not keep the western world prosperous, we will lose out in the struggle with the totalitarian world. Let us remember that to maintain the prosperity of the western world is part of our defence against aggression. It is for that reason this question is so important. That is why increasing unemployment and falling markets are so important to everyone who believes in co-operation and peace.
May I interject to suggest that it does not matter where people are feeling the pinch of falling markets, or where people are suffering from unemployment; whether it be in North America, Europe, Asia, or wherever it may be, it is a matter of importance not only to them, but likewise to those of us in Canada and to the peoples of the whole world. I quote further:
We also must not forget that we cannot have cooperation in military matters to defend ourselves against an enemy, and have trade wars between the co-operators. Surely the time has arrived when we should see that that sort of economics no longer fits the needs of the world of 1950.
What was said on that occasion as applying to the world of 1950 applies with equal strength to the world of 1952. And so, Mr. Speaker, in what I have said I have attempted to indicate that while we would like to see something broader than what has been proposed by the leader of the opposition, so far as it goes it is a contribution. Anything that will make it possible for a group of nations

such as the nations of the commonwealth to sit down and discuss ways and means of expanding trade and improving their prosperity and well-being is a contribution not only to the people of Canada and the other nations of the commonwealth but also a contribution toward the prosperity and well-being of the whole world. It is a step toward progress. It leads away from poverty, suffering and starvation of which there is far too much amongst the peoples of the world, and toward that better standard of living which today we have it within our power to provide. Any step in that direction should be supported.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words to add to what my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has said in connection with this amendment. I think every hon. member in the house would be in agreement with the purposes of the amendment. We are all anxious to see the currencies of the trading nations of the world made fully convertible. We are all anxious to explore-I am using the language of the amendment-all the possibilities for restoring and enlarging those traditional markets upon which our prosperity so largely depends. Like my colleague, if I thought that another conference would really advance either of those objectives I would heartily support the holding of such a conference.
As he pointed out, we are attending commonwealth conferences every year, sometimes several times a year, at which questions of trade and convertibility are discussed. The most recent one I attended was in London in January when a conference of finance ministers was held at which this and related questions were discussed at considerable length.
There are certain points we should bear in mind when we are discussing this question of the convertibility of currencies. I suppose I need not remind the house that the currency of one of the commonwealth countries, Canada, is and has been for over a year fully convertible. The currencies of all the other commonwealth countries, with the exception of South Africa, are based upon sterling; that is to say, the reserves of gold and foreign exchange are held by the Bank of England. When any of those countries earns dollars or other foreign currency as a result of its trading operations that currency is turned in to the Bank of England which gives it a sterling credit in exchange.
I think it is pretty well recognized that one of the requisites for the convertibility of any currency is that there should be adequate reserves of gold and convertible foreign exchange to back it up. I have not the

slightest doubt that the United Kingdom and the other commonwealth countries are just as anxious as anyone else to make sterling convertible. But they feel they cannot afford to take that risk until their reserve position is sufficiently strong to enable them to do so. When that can be done, of course, is a matter of judgment.
I have been going to commonwealth finance conferences for about six years, and have had the opportunity of discussing these matters with four chancellors of the exchequer. In every case I have pointed out that in Canada we did not believe that the continuation of discriminatory quantitative restrictions was the road to convertibility. I have pointed out that while we recognize that measures of this kind were no doubt necessary as a temporary expedient, they were no longer the appropriate cure in the long run and that the final solution for the convertibility of a country's currency lay in internal measures as well as external, and primarily in measures of internal policy.
That being the case, the time and the conditions under which the currencies of other commonwealth countries will become convertible will depend upoi} a decision to be taken primarily by the government of the United Kingdom which holds the reserves of gold and foreign exchange of those countries and which acts as banker for them. At the conference in January the question of convertibility was discussed, and it was laid down as a principle that the sterling area countries should work toward convertibility. Needless to say we most heartily endorsed that objective. We are only too ready to do what we can to facilitate it.
May I say in passing that for the past four or five years Canada has at least done her share toward achieving that end by making a contribution in the form of loans to countries in the sterling area of something in excess of a billion and a quarter dollars. Where the decision to be taken is essentially for the countries whose currencies are now unconvertible, under those circumstances it does seem to me that it would be quite inappropriate for Canada to initiate another conference following the series of conferences that have been held, at which we have been represented and at which we have endeavoured to make our views crystal clear. It would be quite inappropriate for Canada to suggest that a conference of commonwealth countries should be called to determine when and how the currencies of other members of the commonwealth should be made convertible.
3, 1952
Suggested Commonwealth Conference
It is for that reason and on that aspect of the amendment that I feel it would be quite improper for us to make such a suggestion.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a word on this amendment and I want to make it clear that the words I am going to say will apply only to the amendment. For that reason I want to put it on record. The amendment reads:
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"this house is of the opinion that the government should consider the advisability of taking steps to convene at the earliest possible date a conference of the nations of the British commonwealth to seek means by which there may be convertibility of commonwealth currencies, and to explore all the possibilities for restoring and enlarging those traditional markets upon which our prosperity so largely depends."
The reason I put that on the record is the fact that on other occasions this party has strongly stressed that some steps should be taken to make possible the convertibility of other currencies, particularly those of the sterling area, so our trade would not be hampered by the United Kingdom being short of United States or Canadian dollars. I well recall that not long ago when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was in England he made the statement-I speak only from memory but I think I am close to being correct-that dollars should not stand in the way of greater trade between Canada and the United Kingdom, particularly in view of the fact that Great Britain was so greatly in need of goods we can produce, when she desired them to the utmost and the only reason she could not get them was that she did not have the dollars.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) have pointed out that on many occasions they have attended conferences of one kind and another at which convertibility and trading matters were discussed, yet nothing material had developed. That indicates to me that it might be necessary to have a special conference called such as is indicated by the amendment to try to come to some conclusions whereby the convertibility of currencies might be achieved.
We are particularly in need of foreign markets for our agricultural products. It has been stressed on many occasions by members of this party and others that there is a great need for export markets for agricultural goods. Only a week or two ago Dr. E. C. Hope, one of the outstanding economists in this country, who is attached to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, made a statement that the net income of agriculture this year would be greatly reduced compared with
2862	HOUSE OF
Suggested Commonwealth Conference 1950 and 1951 because of the falling off of our trade. Certainly everyone acquainted with agriculture can see quite readily that agricultural production is dropping, and it is not because we have not the facilities to increase production or because there is a shortage of actual markets. The people of these different countries are greatly in need of our agricultural production, and the only thing that stands in the way is the difficulty of paying us in dollars. In the past we have achieved wonderful successes in other lines, and it seems to me it should not be impossible for all the commonwealth countries, and others as well, to get together for the express purpose of ironing out the difficulty of convertibility of currencies. It should be possible to find some method.
In fact I will go so far as to say that when the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) was speaking in the house not long ago on this very subject he gave the government some very good suggestions as to how they might go about it. Because the hon. member for Acadia has discussed this matter on many occasions, has advised the government on possible ways of doing it and has pointed out the necessity of having convertibility of currencies so those countries which are in need of our goods may obtain them, thus increasing Canadian production not only in agriculture but also in other lines, I think it is not necessary for me to go further into the matter at this time. I merely want to make it clear that in supporting this measure as we intend to do we are only supporting the amendment outlined by the leader of the opposition.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the amendment seeks to focus the attention of members of the house on a problem we believe is of great importance to Canada at the present time, namely the position of our trade with the other nations of the commonwealth. Your Honour will notice that it merely asks the government to consider the advisability of taking steps to convene at the earliest possible date a conference of the nations of the British commonwealth to seek means by which there may be convertibility of commonwealth currencies, and also to explore all the possibilities for restoring and enlarging those traditional markets upon which our prosperity so largely depends.
I believe it is fair comment that in this debate the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), one of the two ministers primarily concerned with this difficult problem, rose and spoke immediately after the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), before there had been any opportunity for representatives of the C.C.F. and Social Credit parties to make their


submissions with respect to the amendment, and then having made his speech got up and left the chamber.


Alphonse Fournier: You often leave the chamber yourself.


Howard Charles Green: So does the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier).


Alphonse Fournier: Certainly; and nobody blames you for it.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: When the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce were being considered and this matter was discussed, very few of your members were here.


Howard Charles Green: I believe that action shows very clearly how little the Minister of Trade and Commerce-


Alphonse Fournier: You are all wrong.


Howard Charles Green: -is concerned with suggestions-


Alphonse Fournier: Wait until he is here to speak to him.


Howard Charles Green: -for meeting this serious
situation.


George James McIlraith: There were not many of your members here for the estimates of the were before the house on the 15th of May, when this subject was being discussed.


Howard Charles Green: If the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) wants to ask a question, let him get up and do so.


George James McIlraith: I wonder if the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) can tell us bow many members of his party were present when the trade and commerce estimates were before the house on the 15th of May, when this subject was being discussed.


William Earl Rowe: Neither can you.


Mr. Hees:: How about the rump? There are only two there.


Howard Charles Green: I would hate to ask the parliamentary assistant to tell me how many members of any party were here on many occasions, because he is seldom here himself.


William Earl Rowe: You have no rump at all now.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Trade and Commerce having walked out on the debate after saying in effect that there was nothing to the amendment, that it could not possibly help the situation, and that he knew what was best for Canada so why should he bother with suggestions from anybody on the other side of the house, a representative of the C.C.F. party then spoke. As soon as he had taken his seat the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) rose and spoke instead of allowing

a representative of the Social Credit party to speak, which is the usual course in the house.


Alphonse Fournier: Did he go out, too?


Howard Charles Green: He said he was not interested in the amendment, that he did not think it amounted to anything, and having delivered a few wise words he walked out of the house.


Alphonse Fournier: That is what you are going to do when you are through. You will walk out.


William Earl Rowe: He is not going to do it until six o'clock.


Howard Charles Green: We are reduced to the position where we have to depend on the Minister of Public Works.


Alphonse Fournier: And he is quite dependable.


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid it is a great waste of time to try to teach him anything about trade.


Alphonse Fournier: You try hard.
Mr. Gre,en: However, I shall do my best to overcome that handicap.


William Earl Rowe: Keep quiet and listen and you will learn something.


Howard Charles Green: This question is particularly serious for the province of British Columbia. I propose to say a few words about the difficulties that people in certain occupations in that province are having by reason of the present situation in commonwealth trade. Before proceeding to point out those difficulties, I think it would be well for the members of the house to realize that there are certain basic facts in existence at the present time which cannot be talked away by either the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Finance. They are in existence and they must be faced. The first is that the proportion of Canada's trade which is with the British commonwealth has been steadily falling. In 1938 our exports to commonwealth countries amounted to approximately 48 per cent of our total exports. Imports from commonwealth countries amounted to about 30 per cent of total imports. Last year we find that this trade had fallen until it was down to 20 per cent. The very fact that there has been this great decrease in the proportion of our trade with the commonwealth is sufficient to justify the calling of a conference such as is suggested by the amendment.
Another fact which must be borne in mind is that Canada is steadily becoming more dependent on the United States for both her export and import trade. I have here the annual report of the Department of Trade 55704-181
Suggested Commonwealth Conference and Commerce for 1951. At page 12 of that report we find a heading "Outstanding changes in the distribution of the trade of Canada". Then a chart is given which shows that in 1950 Canada's imports from the United States amounted to $2,130 million; I am just using round figures. In 1951 that figure had gone up to $2,812 million, an increase of 32 per cent in our imports from the United States as between 1951 and 1950. Our exports to the United States for those two years went up from $2,021 million in 1950 to $2,297 million in 1951-an increase in exports of only 13-7 per cent as against the 32 per cent increase in imports.
The report sets that out:
Over the year as a whole, imports from the United States as the chief source of imported materials, components, capital equipment and consumer goods increased by no less than $682 million or 32 per cent, while exports to that country increased by $277 million or 13-7 per cent.
It goes on as follows:
While our debit balance resulting from merchandise trade with the United States thus increased by some $405 million, there was an increase of $291 million in the favourable balance resulting from trade with other countries. Exports to countries other than the United States increased by $519 million or 47 per cent, and reached a total of $1,617 million, while imports from such countries increased by $291 million or 22 per cent and reached a total of $1,272 million. In trade with the United States-
And these are the significant words:
In trade with the United States, we had a surplus of imports over exports of more than $515 million...
-in excess of what we sold. This same trend of increase in our dependence on the United States has continued in 1952. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) gave some figures this afternoon, but while he was speaking I received the Canadian Statistical Review for May of this year. We find on page 7 that during the first quarter of 1952-
The value of both exports to and imports from the United States showed a small gain of 2 per cent, but while in the case of exports this increase was due to the price factor alone, in imports there was some increase in volume. The share of the United States in Canada's imports increased to 76 per cent from 72 per cent in the first quarter of 1951 . . .
In other words, 76 per cent of our imports came from the United States in the first quarter of this year.
. . . while only 55 per cent of our exports went to that market-as opposed to 65 per cent in the first quarter last year.
In other words, while we had a larger and larger percentage of imports from the United States, we have exported during the first three months of 1952 somewhere-

Suggested Commonwealth Conference


George James McIlraith: That is not what that says.


Howard Charles Green: Pardon?


George James McIlraith: It is because exports to other countries were up in the first quarter.


William Earl Rowe: Because you lost the British market.


George James McIlraith: Exports to other countries were up, and I am just correcting the interpretation.


Howard Charles Green: 
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. Arthur Laing (for Mr. Sinclair) moved: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 239, respecting the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Directors.


The Chairman:: I should perhaps point out that this bill has been considered and reported, without amendment, by the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Mr. Chairman, I presume we may have from the sponsor a further explanation of this bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: In absentia?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Chairman; we should like to have a statement from the sponsor.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to have a further explanation from the sponsor.


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I point out that usually the explanation of the bill is given on first reading. When second reading takes place a further explanation is given if it is required. This bill has had second reading and has been considered and reported by the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. We may now have a discussion on clause 1 of the bill.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Chairman, with due deference to those who come from the province of British Columbia, who did not happen to be members of that committee and who are vitally interested in this bill, surely we are entitled to have from the sponsor some explanation of the bill. We did not have the privilege of sitting on that committee. Surely we are entitled to an explanation which I am sure the acting sponsor will be glad to give us.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I suggest to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing), who I understand is acting on behalf of the sponsor, that he meet the wishes of the hon. member for Fraser Valley and explain the bill.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, if I may meet the wishes of the hon. member for Fraser Valley and also the wishes of the chairman, I shall attempt to do so.

The amendments contained in this bill respecting the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company are slight. The history of this company was somewhat checkered in that they had a serious accident in connection with the bridge several years ago. The then Vancouver harbour commissioners, now the national harbours board, took over the responsibility of the bridge under an agreement with the company; and included in that agreement was provision for the payment of a sum of $35,000 and an undertaking to repair the damage to the bridge resulting from an accident in connection with a ship. This involved the removal of a bascule span and the installation of a straight lift span at a cost of $1 million. It was part of the agreement that the bridge would be returned to the company-which is a public company, the shares all being owned by four municipalities that are served in the area- as soon as the sum of approximately $1,035,000 was discharged. That debt is now discharged and the bridge has been returned to the company which, as I say, is the four municipalities which it serves.
The first amendment amends section 7 of the act of incorporation, which provides that the directors of the company shall be the mayors or reeves of the four cities or municipalities concerned. The councils of those cities and municipalities are desirous that any member of the council may be appointed as a director rather than a requirement that it be the mayor or the reeve of the municipality. It would not be compulsory for the mayor or the reeve to sit. Under this amendment the mayor or the reeve could be appointed, but any other member of the council likewise could be appointed. That explains section 7.
Section 8 is amended to provide for clarification of the word "tolls". This is a bridge which has railway tracks in the centre and a roadway on each side. The company is desirous of entering into a twenty-one year agreement with the Canadian National Railways with respect to the use of the rails. They want to make certain that their authority in respect of the tolls on the roadway is absolutely clear, and that they have the authority to charge tolls for motor vehicles and even for pedestrians. That is why this provision is put in. There is also a provision which indicates that they will have power, under regulation, to enforce speed limits and so on on the roadways on the bridge. I think we can assume that the regulations they make will be in accordance with the provincial law respecting speed limits and that they undoubtedly will coincide with the bylaws of the municipalities concerned. I think it is entirely reasonable to suppose that this 55704-181 i
Private Bills
authority is being asked because, in all likelihood, the speed limit they will require on that bridge will be somewhat less than the provincial minimum speed limit.
The last amendment amends section 14, which has to do only with the correction of names. Some of the railway companies with which agreements will be reached, and involving wheelage by the Canadian National Railways across that bridge, were incorrectly named. All this section does is give those railways their correct names.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Since it is unusual, may I say, to ask the sponsor for an explanation on the first clause of a bill in committee, perhaps I should point out that at page 2521 of Hansard of May 23, 1952, when this bill was given second reading, the sponsor gave an explanation. Therefore tonight we have had a repetition of the same explanation.


Mr. Mclvor:: I will be brief. One of the reasons a bill of this kind is sent to committee is to save the time of the house, and also to give anybody and everybody who are members of the committee an opportunity to ask questions. Second, we have the witnesses there in order to give all information. As chairman we had the hon. member for Pictou, who is conspicuous for his patience and his intelligence. I think it is a wise thing to send bills of this kind to a committee so we do not have to go over the whole thing again after we come back to the house.


Howard Charles Green: I am glad to support this bill because I think these four municipalities which own the company known as the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company deserve great credit for the enterprise they have shown in connection with the bridge.
The company was formed in 1910, and the bridge was built in the 1920's, I believe, at a time when there was no connecting bridge whatever across the harbour at Vancouver. The bridge at that time filled a great need. It has been of great importance in the development of what is known as the north shore, comprising the municipalities of the city of North Vancouver, the district of north Vancouver and the municipality of west Vancouver. In addition, it has helped greatly in the development of the city of Vancouver itself.
As the hon. member for Vancouver South has said, one of the spans of the bridge was knocked out some few years after the original erection. That resulted in a change in the type of bridge, and then the depression came along and eventually the government had to step in to help with the bridge. In recent years the indebtedness to the government has been paid off and the company, which

Private Bills
is owned by the municipalities, has taken the bridge back. They require the amendments contained in this bill in order to facilitate their business operations. Because of that fact I personally am very glad to support the measure.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to say just a word in connection with this bill. I have no desire to take up any unnecessary time, and I agree with what my hon. friend for Vancouver South has said. I almost agree with what my friend the hon. member for Fort William has said, except he forgot to mention the head of the great lakes.
I had the privilege of representing the people concerned in this bill for several years when the original sponsor was serving in Sicily and Italy. I represented his riding, then known as Vancouver North and now Coast-Capilano. He is to be congratulated, and I think the temporary sponsor, the hon. member for Vancouver South, is to be congratulated for giving such a clear-cut story of the bill, in spite of the fact that it does not please my friend the hon. member for Fort William. I admit that it is difficult to satisfy him.
Perhaps some of you do not know the exact position this bridge occupies between the third city of Canada and the fast-growing fourth city of Canada. We have in Vancouver, Mr. Chairman, not only the third industrial city in Canada but the third in population. And joined up by this and another bridge we have what I might describe as the most scenic cities in the Dominion of Canada, West Vancouver and North Vancouver. I heard interjections from behind me that they are now eighth and ninth. I believe the interjection came from Nova Scotia. Then to my left I heard interjections from Toronto, which is a very fine city, Mr. Chairman, and will be following Vancouver for many years to come. But this bridge is to connect these two great cities, the one the great industrial and port city of the Pacific ocean and the outlet for the Dominion of Canada to the whole Pacific ocean and the great Asiatic market we have before us, and the cities of West Vancouver and North Vancouver.
There is another thing in connection with it, because railroads are brought into the picture. I notice that the names of certain railroads are mentioned in one of the paragraphs here. Some day the Pacific Great Eastern, through the efforts of my good friend from Cariboo, will be brought down and will connect the great port of Vancouver and North Vancouver, bringing down all the produce of that great district, northern British Columbia
IMr. Green.]
and northern Alberta, and making it available to the great market we have for the future in Asia.
I am sure the hon. member for Cariboo will have a few words to say in this connection. If we do not have this bridge there is no possible way that we can have a connection between the great cities of West and North Vancouver and Vancouver, Mr. Chairman, the third largest city in Canada, which will be the largest city in Canada within ten years.
I do not want to delay this legislation, but I do hope that in the absence of the original sponsor of this bill, who is serving us all at the United Nations in New York, we shall all see fit to support it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the hon. member for Vancouver South a question? I note that this section refers, as do other sections of the bill, the title and preamble, to the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company. All of those who have spoken on the matter this far have referred to the bridge. What is the significance of the word "tunnel"?


Arthur Laing: This company was formed first in 1910, when in the city of Vancouver, as today, we had people with great ideas. One of the ideas they had was to build a tunnel under the port of the city of Vancouver. Instead of that it took from 1910 to 1923 before they acted, and they finally acted by building a bridge instead of a tunnel.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it, however, that the original act would still empower the company to build a tunnel if it wished to do so?


Arthur Laing: I believe that is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 215 (Letter L-7 of the Senate), intituled: "An Act for the relief of Irene Mary Johnson Muirhead"-Mr. Winkler.
Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: There are several divorce bills to come up for second reading.


Mr. Weir:: Stand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there are four bills on the order paper in connection with which the printed evidence has not been distributed. I should hope that at least those four will be permitted to stand.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: According to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the four bills about which printed evidence has not yet been distributed could stand. Shall we proceed with the second readings of the other bills?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Then perhaps the hon. member would indicate the numbers of those bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The four bills for which the printed evidence has not been distributed are Bill No. 215, order No. 22; Bill No. 220, order No. 23; Bill No. 300, order No. 48 and Bill No. 302, which is order No. 50.
Order stands.



SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS

Mr. David A. Croll (for Mr. Winkler) moved: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill No. 252, for the relief of Kathleen Hilda Turk Woodall-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 263, for the relief of Leo Kendall- Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 269, for the relief of Judith Sorel Riven Gainsbury-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 280, for the relief of John Harold Roger Wright-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 281, for the relief of Agathe Neu-bauer Landsberg-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 282, for the relief of Norma May Attridge Chilton-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 283, for the relief of Andrea Gen-dron Repper-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 284, for the relief of Edith Bessie Franks Parsons-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 285, for the relief of Annie Teresa Nash Pelltari-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 286, for the relief of Mary Clem-ence Morice Waldbauer-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 287, for the relief of John Gordon Smithers-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 290, for the relief of Libby Levine Bloom-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 291, for the relief of Shirley Israel Thau-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 292, for the relief of Ralph Patrick Barker-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 293, for the relief of Madeliene Kostick Glock-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 294, for the relief of Olive Myrtle Weston Rouet-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 295, for the relief of John William Day-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 296, for the relief of Marcelle Marchand Adams-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 297, for the relief of Marie Marguerite Germaine Aubert Forest-Mr. Winkler.
Private Bills
Bill No. 298, for the relief of Betty Lauraine Conner Norell-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 299, for the relief of Francoise Marguerite Beaudin Patrick-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 301, for the relief of Greta Mildred Duncan Croteau-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 303, for the relief of Leo Bercovitch -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 304, for the relief of Joseph Raymond Demers-Mr. Winkler.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before this motion is carried I should like once again to register my protest that we are doing this at all.


An hon. Member:: We have heard that before.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Someone says we have heard that before-and he will continue to hear it. There are a great many people in this country who hope the day is not far distant when we may get rid of this method of handling divorce, because they feel parliament is not the place to deal with individual divorce cases.
The remarks I made the other night, when we dealt with 60 of these cases-tonight we have only 24-would apply equally on this occasion. At that time I said that far too many of these cases are alike. They are cases where the evidence has been collected by professional detectives. In fact two of these detectives-and I do not propose to advertise them by giving their names- appear so often that it seems to me they might as well be appointed to the Senate. They are over there most of the time, anyway.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bills read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Mr. Charles Cannon (Iles-de-la-Madeleine) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 262, to incorporate Equitable Fire Insurance Company of Canada.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May we have an
explanation?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Yes. This is a bill to incorporate an insurance company. The purpose is to take over the assets and liabilities and assume the rights and obligations of a provincial insurance company which was incorporated in the province of Quebec. The provincial company was incorporated in 1901 and has been carrying on business ever since as a fire insurance company.
Most of the clauses of the bill are to permit the company to operate as a mutual

Private Bills
insurance company. It will sell insurance both on a cash premium basis and on the mutual basis. The board of directors will be elected, one third by the mutual policyholders; the capital will be half a million dollars, and the amount of capital that is to be subscribed before the company can begin business will be $100,000.
Section 6 of the bill enumerates 26 kinds of insurance the company wishes to be authorized to sell. It will be covered by the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, 1932. The main purpose of the company is the sale of fire insurance. At the meetings each shareholder will have one vote per share, and each policyholder will have one vote per $1,000 of insurance. This bill has passed the Senate and has been approved by the superintendent of insurance. I would ask that after second reading it be referred to the committee on banking and commerce.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question in connection with this bill; and I am not asking my friends to answer this question. This is an important bill concerning which I think the sponsor gave a very fair explanation. However, I am interested.
I see that it is going to cover different kinds of insurance, from A to Z. I may be wrong, but I understood the hon. member to say that the paid-up capital is to be $100,000. I understand the company has been operating under a provincial charter. I take from the hon. member's remarks that it is now to be brought under a dominion charter. It was only in yesterday's newspapers that I read about a trust company in one of the towns in the constituency of my good friend opposite. That company went haywire with a million dollars' worth of so-called assets. I believe it was a town called Perth, which is up around here somewhere.
I would like some further assurance that a company with paid-up capital of only $100,000 is in a position to handle all these different kinds of insurance. I see sprinkler leakage insurance is mentioned. I do not know what that means, but having listened to some of the speeches around here by hon. members sponsoring some of these bills, I could make a good guess. Am I correct that there is only $100,000 in paid-up capital?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the hon. member speaks he will close the debate.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I believe the question asked by the hon. member for Fraser Valley might better be asked when the bill is in the committee to which it will be referred. In any case I shall answer him by saying that this

is a successful insurance company that has been operating since 1901 and has more than a million dollars in assets. So the hon. member need not be afraid that it will not be able to meet its obligations.
In connection with a company of this kind there is always a pro forma declaration as to what the capital will be, and a statement as to the minimum amount of capital to be subscribed before it can begin business. The capital is $500,000, and the minimum amount to be subscribed is $100,000. I can assure the hon. member that much more than $100,000 will be at the disposal of the company when it starts to do business.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 278, to incorporate the national dental examining board of Canada.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, I feel greatly
honoured in being able to present this bill because the president and secretary of the Canadian dental association were both classmates of mine. It has taken them thirty years to finally evolve a program with respect to the standardization of certificates which is now universally accepted by every province in the Dominion of Canada. Before I pass on to a short explanation of the bill may I pay tribute to the hon. member for Queens-Shelburne (Mr. Smith) who had he been here in all probability would have presented this bill instead of myself. As we well know, misfortunes befall us all and I am sure I express the feeling of every hon. member in this house when I say how much we regret that the hon. member is not here to either present this bill or to assist in its presentation.
The object of the legislation is to make it possible for dental practitioners to establish by a single set of examinations that they possess the training and qualifications to meet the requirements of the dental licensing board of the province in which they desire to practise.
Provision is being made for the establishment of a national dental examining board which would establish standards, arrange for examination of candidates, issue certificates of qualification and maintain a register of qualified persons. Consideration has been given to the retention of the autonomy of the provincial licensing boards. Each province will have one member on the national board, the additional two members to make up a total membership of twelve being from the

Canadian dental association. Any province may withdraw from participation in the plan on twelve months' notice.
The board referred to In the bill will not issue licences; it will simply issue certificates of qualification which will be recognized by each participating province and the licensing board thereof. This plan is recommended by the Canadian dental association and has been evolved after consultation and negotiation with the licensing bodies of the provinces, which negotiations have extended over a period of years. The plan is analogous to that followed by the Canadian medical association with respect to medical practitioners. Chapter 129 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, sets up the medical council of Canada. The provisional members of the board are the president, the president-elect and the registrar-secretary of the Canadian dental association.
In conclusion I want to point out clearly and distinctly that the governing bodies in the different provinces have worked on this scheme for some thirty years and agreement has finally been reached with each province, including our newest province of Newfoundland. This legislation will not take away one iota of the authority of the provincial governing bodies or the Canadian dental association, but it does bring into being something that has been long desired by practising dental surgeons in this country. Having graduated they feel that they should be allowed, after having obtained a proper certificate of qualification, to practise in any province they may choose, which they cannot do at the present time. I would move that this bill be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the sponsor of this bill upon the excellent way he has presented it. I would naturally expect him to do that, coming as he does from the province of British Columbia. Perhaps hon. members do not realize that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall) has actual knowledge of what he is talking about in connection with dentistry. I also have some practical knowledge along that line which I can prove by producing the bills I paid last year.
I believe this is a step in the right direction, but I should like to know if members of this profession will be able to practise in each and every province provided they are able to pass the provincial examinations. There is another profession which is probably as well known as the dental profession and whioh is certainly as well represented in this House of Commons, perhaps too well
Private Bills
represented. I understand that in the province from which the sponsor of this bill comes, if I am not mistaken-


An hon. Member:: Probably you are.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I hear it said that probably I am mistaken, but as that comes from a member of the legal profession it is just what I would expect. As I understand it, they have a closed shop in British Columbia and it costs $1,200 for a lawyer of sufficient ability to move into the province to practise.


An hon. Member:: More than that.


An hon. Member:: 


George Alexander Cruickshank: I realize that means very little to a member of that great profession. He could probably get it from just one case. I should like to know whether a young dentist, say from Newfoundland, will have to pay $1,500 in order to come out to God's country in British Columbia to practise, just as a lawyer must? As I say, $1,500 probably means very little to a member of the legal profession, as he can probably get that from one case. Judging by what it cost me last year, it would probably take a dentist two patients to raise that much. I understand that the measure is dominion-wide in its application. In all seriousness I Should like to ask the sponsor of the bill whether there is any limitation as to the minimum or maximum that an applicant moving from one province to the other, provided he passes the examination, will have to pay.


John Lorne MacDougall: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member speaks now he will close the debate.


John Lorne MacDougall: The question the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) has raised is a very sane one. The situation is slightly different from the regulations governing the fees associated with the medical or legal professions. I ask the hon. member to recall that in presenting the bill and making a short explanation I pointed out that the provinces still have complete jurisdiction with respect to the fees they may charge for the admittance of a new practitioner into the profession within a particular province. That is not governed on a dominion-wide basis so far as the dentists are concerned. If there are various members of the profession in the province of Quebec who wish to practise in British Columbia, then as Canadians they are entitled to go from one part of Canada to another and practise their profession once they have secured the standardized certificate called for in the bill.

Boundary Pipeline Corporation
I cannot give my hon. friend the exact fees now charged. There is no mention of it in the bill. I know that when I graduated almost thirty years ago the whole question was in an uproar because one or two provinces would not agree to admit the holder of a dominion dental certificate. As I said before, it has taken thirty years to complete these final arrangements under which all provinces have agreed to the standardization of the certificate. So far as the question asked by the hon. member for Fraser Valley is concerned, I think he will find that the regulations in each province are different. Over the past thirty years British Columbia and Quebec were the two principal provinces that were invariably out of step with respect to the Canadian Dental Association Act, but now they are all unanimously agreed. I thank the hon. member for his question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, May 30, consideration in committee of Bill No. 62, to incorporate Boundary Pipeline Corporation- Mr. Larson-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Mr. Decore:: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the bill now before us is the granting of a charter to another pipe line company, and I intend to support it. Other companies have made similar applications to the house, have appeared before the standing committee and have been granted charters. The granting of a charter to this company will simply allow them to proceed to do business. Whether or not the pipe line will be built will depend on a lot of other factors. I should also like to point out that I am in favour of the export of natural gas from the province of Alberta, but when I say that I believe there are certain conditions and reservations with respect to such export. That is where probably some hon. members of the Social Credit party, and also the hon. member for Calgary West, will differ with me.
There are two schools of thought in Alberta with regard to the export of natural gas. One school urges the rapid exploitation of our natural gas reserves for the purpose of making speculative profits now regardless of whether or not future long-range industrial requirements can be met. The other school of thought believes there should be export of natural gas if and when Alberta's future industrial needs are adequately provided for. It is simply an orderly long-range policy for the purpose of making the maximum use of

Alberta's natural resources at home by the development of industry.
If Canada is going to become a strong nation I believe every province must prosper and develop. Alberta is simply one of the three prairie provinces. We in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have tremendous natural resources, but one of the greatest resources of any country or province is its population. One of the things we are lacking today in the prairie provinces is population. Some sixty years ago Edward Blake lamented "an empty west, empty still". If you compare the 1901 census with the 1951 census you will note that fifty years after the opening and growth of the west it still has nowhere near enough population to sustain it. In fact the 1951 census shows that after a scant fifty years of growth the west has entered a period of decline, and when I refer to the west I mean the three prairie provinces.
Let us take the province of Alberta. In my opinion the census figures for 1951 do not portray a true picture of what has happened there. You will see that there is an increase in population of some 140,000, but a very important factor is not taken into account, namely the natural increase. By "natural increase" I mean the number of births over and above the number of deaths. If you were to take the 1941 population and add to it the natural increase, and if you did not allow anything for people coming into the province from other provinces or other countries, you would find that in the province of Alberta there has been a net loss of population in the last ten years of 9,500 people. The results for Saskatchewan and Manitoba are much more disastrous. You will note that in the three prairie provinces the net loss in population amounts to a quarter of a million people. In other words we have not only failed to attract people to the three prairie provinces; we have failed to keep people who were already there. The prairie provinces are essentially agricultural in nature. As an Albertan I say that what we want in Alberta are industries, and the same is true of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Already industries are coming in as a result of our natural gas. We want more industries coming into Alberta so our young men and women can find not only jobs but better opportunities in that province; so they will not have to go to the end of the pipe line seeking better opportunities.
I understand that in the province of Quebec during the last forty years people have been allowed to cut timber as long as it could be processed into pulp. The result has not only benefited the province of Quebec but it has been of great benefit to the whole dominion of Canada-somebody may want to say, "to the realm of Canada".

Some people like to compare Alberta with Texas. When you consider Alberta, it is my submission that it is hardly a fair comparison because my information is that before Texas agreed to export natural gas from that state they were assured that they had some 90 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. In Alberta, according to the figures we have-and there are various figures-we have only somewhere around four trillion cubic feet of natural gas. In other words it is not fair to compare Texas with Alberta, although we would like to be in the position of Texas.
Alberta can be compared to the state of Montana immediately south of us. I understand that some years ago the state of Montana started to export their natural gas. What has happened today? In order to sustain one of their industries, the Anaconda copper industry, they have had to beg for natural gas from the province of Alberta. They ran out of natural gas.
We believe, lacking other proof, that the fields of Montana are just a continuation of those in Alberta. In other words we do not want to be placed in the same position as that state. That is why I would much prefer an orderly, long-range policy, making the maximum use of our natural resources to strengthen Alberta and Canada as a whole, rather than acting as a voice for the speculator.
Mr. Chairman, if you noticed, the hon. member for Peace River has seen fit to pour a certain amount of abuse upon some individuals, me in particular, by referring to me as an adolescent. He made the same reference to the leader of the Liberal party in Alberta, and he made the same reference to the hon. member for Charlotte. I do not know whether I want to answer or follow the same method of argument. I think I will just leave him entirely alone, but I would like to make some reference to what has been said, or to at least why in my opinion most of the members of the Social Credit group in this house oppose this particular bill.
In order to explain that, I would like to read a letter which appeared in the Calgary Albertan under date of March 28, 1952, directed to all associated with the oil industry. This letter, incidentally, was sent out by one R. C. Noble, secretary-treasurer of the Social Credit group in Calgary and J. Leslie Hill, president of the Social Credit group in Calgary and also, I understand, vice-president for Alberta. This is what the letter-


Mr. Wylie:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order this has nothing to do with the bill before the house.


Mr. Gibson:: Tell that to B.C.
Boundary Pipeline Corporation


William Duncan McKay Wylie: If letters are to be read, I have plenty of statements here I will read if I have the opportunity tonight, regarding what the Liberal leader in Alberta said. If the hon. member for Vegreville is going to be allowed to read his letter I think each one of us should have that opportunity. What the hon. member is going to read is something that has nothing to do with the bill before us. If you allow this to go on, this bill will never get through this session.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-René Beaudoin: With respect to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, it was unfortunate that he was not present in the house on every occasion-


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I was.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If the hon. member was present he must have listened to speeches which were just as much out of order or perhaps more out of order than this one has been. It is very difficult for the chairman to intervene in a discussion carried on in the manner in which discussion on this bill has been carried on. If I stop the hon. member now I am reminded that I should have stopped some other hon. members before, and that I will perhaps have to stop some hon. members after this speech. I am in the hands of the committee.


Mr. Gray  don:@: Careful you don't talk it out.


Louis-René Beaudoin: As the hon. member for Peel suggests, I should not be guilty of talking it out.


Charles Edward Johnston: I have no intention of doing that either, but I just want to get your ruling clear. The hon. member is going to read a letter which will imply that the sponsors of the letter were going to solicit campaign funds.


John Decore: I didn't say that yet.


Charles Edward Johnston: If you give me the same right, there is a series of letters indicating where the Liberals get their money.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for Lethbridge made a speech on the first clause of this bill, following which the hon. member for Vegreville made a speech. On the next occasion on which this bill was discussed, the hon. member for Peace River made a speech.


Charles Edward Johnston: We cannot hear a word.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If the hon. members in that corner would be kind enough to listen to what I am saying I think my voice would reach them much better.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: We have one of the Liberals here and he cannot hear you either.


Some hon. Members:: Nine o'clock.
Section stands.

Suggested Commonwealth Conference The Chairman: The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will resume consideration of the matter under discussion at six o'clock.

The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fournier (Hull) for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew.



SUGGESTED COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


Howard Charles Green: When the house rose at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was speaking in support of the amendment which was moved by the leader of the apposition and which urged that the government take steps to convene a conference of the nations of the commonwealth for the purpose of seeking means by which there might be convertibility of commonwealth currencies and exploring the possibility of restoring and enlarging the traditional markets within that commonwealth. I had pointed out that in connection with our trade there are certain basic factors which must be kept in mind in a discussion of this sort, particularly the fact that the proportion of Canada's trade with the commonwealth has been steadily falling in recent years until it is now only 20 per cent of our total export trade. I had also pointed out that we are becoming steadily more and more dependent on the United States for our export trade. In the third place I had pointed' out the unfortunate position in which the United Kingdom now finds herself, by reason of which that former great customer of ours has been compelled to cut down on her purchases of goods from Canada.
One other basic fact in connection with Canada's external trade which I wish to place before the house this evening is the similar situation which prevails with regard to our trade with Australia and New Zealand. In the years before the war those two sister dominions were among our best customers. At one time Australia was our third largest customer. We now find that she has slipped away down the list until she is seventh.
I have here the annual report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for 1951. On page 13 thereof we find a list of Canada's leading export customers during the calendar year 1951. In first place stood the United States with purchases of $2,298 million; in second place was the United Kingdom, very much below the United States but with purchases of $631 million. In the third place we find Belgium and Luxembourg with total purchases from Canada of $94 million. In the fourth place it is surprising to find Japan with purchases of $73 million. I am wondering 
how much of that amount is accounted for by iron ore from British Columbia which is being purchased by Japan and sold back to us at a greatly increased price in the form of steel. In fifth place was Brazil with $54 million; then the Union of South Africa with $53 million; and in seventh place was Australia with only $49 million worth of purchases during 1951. Then there follow eight other nations, namely Italy, France, Germany, India, Norway, Mexico, Venezuela and The Netherlands, making a total of fifteen named altogether. New Zealand is not even in the first fifteen whereas back before the war she was at one time, I think, our fifth best customer. The trade situation between Canada and Australia and New Zealand is therefore extremely bad. That matter is, of course, of great interest to us on the Pacific coast. The figures I have given are for exports only, and I presume the figures for imports which Canada has purchased from Australia and New Zealand would show an even worse picture.
To come down to the actual problems which are facing our people in British Columbia in connection with export trade, I would point out to the house that we are being badly hurt in that province because of the reduction in trade within the commonwealth. This afternoon the leader of the opposition explained the extremely difficult position of the cheese producers in Ontario and Quebec by reason of the loss of the British market. In my province we have lost entirely our market in the United Kingdom for canned salmon; we have largely lost our market for lumber and we have lost entirely our market for apples. These are some commodities which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) did not mention this afternoon. He spoke about materials in which trade has increased. I admit at once that in the strategic materials, such as metals, there has been an increase which has been brought about because those metals are required by the United Kingdom for defence preparations. But they do not give the whole picture. A conference is needed in order to meet this situation in such commodities as canned salmon, lumber and apples.
To deal first with the canned salmon, may I say that our salmon canning industry was greatly worried early this spring when it was announced in Great Britain that there would be a slash in the imports of certain commodities. Britain has been our best export market for canned salmon, and it was feared that we would lose it by reason of those cuts. In due course that was what happened. About the middle of April Britain announced that she would not buy any canned salmon from Canada during the present year. That meant the loss of a business

which ran to over $6 million per year. It was an extremely serious blow for our salmon packers and also for the men engaged in the fishing industry; in fact it was a serious blow for the whole province.
Last month the fisheries council of Canada held their annual meeting in Vancouver. They dealt with this question of the export market for canned salmon and passed a strong resolution which urged the government, just as we are urging today, that it should explore every avenue of action with a view to broadening the area of export markets available to Canadian fishery products. The resolution went on to point out that many countries still want our fish but cannot get it because of exchange obstacles. These men in the industry pointed out that the industry can try to make the price attractive, but only the government can lick the dollar-sterling problem. How true is that observation.
We find statements being made by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew), who is the only British Columbia representative in the cabinet. I have here a dispatch from a little publication put out by the province of British Columbia from their overseas office in London. It is dated June, this present month, and is headed "B.C. and the British Market". It refers to a statement made by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) at this meeting of the fisheries council, and quotes him as follows:
"We haven't lost the British market for B.C. salmon. It has been postponed. I don't like the idea to be held that it's gone permanently. It's only been delayed because the British had to delay it. Their people are still really hungry for Canadian canned salmon."
What we object to is the government sitting back and doing nothing to remedy this situation. It was not very many days after the meeting of the fisheries council until word was received that the United Kingdom had purchased a large quantity of Russian salmon. In that deal they bought about one-third of the total amount that previously had been purchased from British Columbia. This development may mean that our market for canned salmon will be lost to Russia, if you please.
I hold in my hand a press dispatch containing a statement made by Mr. S. M. Rosenberg, who is one of our leading fishing men on the west coast to the following effect:
"It's a real disappointment when your best customer turns to another source. But the industry has known for several months that the British were unlikely to buy any this year, for the first time in many years."
The article goes on:
Recently the head of the British purchasing mission in Canada, Sir Andrew Jones, told the
Suggested Commonwealth Conference canners that buying would be postponed until some means had been found to finance it, or until the exchange picture changed as regards the value of sterling in terms of Canadian dollars.
Mr. Rosenberg is quoted as not blaming the British. He said this:
"If the British had their choice they would buy in Canada rather than Russia," said Mr. Rosenberg. "It's the old story of the currency trouble. They can't buy from us if we don't buy enough from them."
That situation should not be allowed to continue. It was dealt with by the Vancouver Province in a leading editorial on May 21, entitled "A barter deal in salmon?", and reading in part as follows:
If Agriculture Minister Jimmy Gardiner can work out a three-way barter deal in meat between Canada, Great Britain and New Zealand, why can't Ottawa do something similar to recapture the British market for canned salmon?
News that British Columbia has lost about a third of its British market for canned salmon to the Soviet states is shocking news.
Nobody blames the British. They are being forced to deal with Russia by their lack of dollars.
Whatever kind of trouble it is, it is trouble that should be fixed before it gets any worse. We are losing a lot of canned salmon business. We may lose a lot of other business. Britain wants to buy our B.C. fish, fruit, lumber, minerals and other products but she can't do as she wishes because of her dollar shortage.
The editorial ends up with this paragraph, which I think is very appropriate at this time and in this debate:
If countries bound together in friendship and mutual interests can't trade freely together and are forced to do business with a country that is regarded as a common enemy, we are in a pretty fix.
Somewhat the same situation exists in lumber. I have here an editorial from Western Business, which is a very responsible business magazine published in Vancouver. I am reading from the issue of April, 1952, dealing with the position of our lumber industry:
British Columbia's lumber industry, mainstay of the province's buoyant economy in the past 15 years, is faced with a serious deterioration of its fundamental position, its overseas markets have suddenly closed with the renewed austerity programs of the U.K. and sterling areas so that only a trickle of business is coming from these markets which took nearly 43 per cent of B.C.'s lumber production last year. Bulk buying of the past 12 years by Britain, which gave Canada an assured forward position for as much as a year on an important part of the lumber cut, is now a thing of the past. Private U.K. buyers are underfinanced to meet Britain's needs and must obtain treasury permits to expend scarce dollars for lumber. Australia has cancelled import permits for lumber. Other markets are similarly controlled so that for the first time in the history of the B.C. lumber industry there is such an un-free overseas market as to make the selling of lumber at some negotiated price virtually impossible at present.
In the next month, May, we find the same story in the annual report of B.C. Forest Products Limited, one of our large lumber

Suggested Commonwealth Conference producers. The president of that company is E. P. Taylor of Toronto, and in his annual report he described the situation as follows:
Immediate prospects are poor for selling any large volume of our products at profitable prices to our overseas buyers. It appears that this industry will have to concentrate its sales in the North American market to a greater extent than ever before. It is unlikely that a market can be found which in price and volume will replace those overseas markets now denied this industry.
Mr. Taylor said the poor prospects were due to world-wide exchange difficulties. Last of the company's large British orders will be filled during the summer.
The same situation exists with apples. We produce the finest apples in the world in the interior of British Columbia.


Mr. Nowlan:: Do you say that with a smile?


John Lambert Gibson: Agreed.


Howard Charles Green: One of their best markets has been the United Kingdom. In addition, they have had markets in other portions of the commonwealth. That market is now gone, and unless some steps are taken to meet this exchange and trade situation Canadians will suffer. Let us leave out of the picture for the time being the consideration of the injury done to other parts of the commonwealth. Let us stress the fact that Canadians are going to suffer because of this situation; and in these three industries, salmon canning, lumber and production of apples in my province Canadians certainly are suffering.
Efforts have been made by the trade itself, both the Canadian trade and the British trade, to meet this situation. For example, less than a month ago a group of British manufacturers set up in Vancouver what is described as an import centre. They have done that in a move to promote trade between Great Britain and the west coast of Canada. One of the British spokesmen for that movement described what they were trying to do by this import centre when he spoke in Vancouver just a short time ago. I wish to quote a few paragraphs from the statement, because it sets out the situation very clearly. He said:
Our object is intensive exploitation of the Canadian market for British goods so that the natural trade between the two countries can be restored and expanded.
The article goes on:
He hopes the plan will mean many U.K.-bound ships out of B.C. ports with grain, lumber, canned salmon, mine concentrates, aluminum ingot, beef and bacon. On return trips, these ships would unload a greatly expanded volume of British engineering goods and consumer manufactures. British importers and agents would open many new offices here; they also would establish processing and finishing plants.
Mr. Forbes goes on to say:
There is a "pent-up demand" in the U.K. for B.C. lumber for houses, salmon for the table and the
tMr. Green.]

whole range of foods that Canada once supplied. The list includes beef, pork, cheese and fish. Canada continues a major supplier of wheat.
B.C. exporters of lumber and fish, who haven't a future order on file from Britain, traditionally the big customer for these products, have their representatives at the Vancouver meeting.
That is an excellent move, and I hope it will help to meet the situation. But surely the government can do something to help solve this problem. As a preliminary step we advocate the calling of this conference of the various nations of the commonwealth. I do not believe that either the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) this afternoon gave one valid reason for not calling that conference; in fact, the impression I gained was that they were not very much worried about the whole situation, and were inclined to laugh off the amendment offered by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew).
I suggest to them and to the house that such a conference could do no harm, and it might be a great help. Surely it is worth while to do something to meet this situation. The meat deal, the deal made for the disposal of our beef, shows at least one thing, and that is that when a situation is tough enough some kind of remedy can be found. I am not saying that this barter deal was wise or the best move that could have been made; but the government got into the position where something had to be done, and the deal resulted.
There is just as great need to take some steps about this convertibility question, and the question of our trade with the commonwealth. I can only regret that the ministers have taken the attitude that they will have nothing whatever to do with this proposal for a conference.
You know, sometimes we do not take advantage of our position in the commonwealth. We do not go after the benefits we could get if we were a little more aggressive. I should like to close my remarks by quoting a statement made by the president of the board of trade in the United Kingdom last month. Dealing with the possibilities for trade within the commonwealth, and speaking on the eve of the commonwealth trade day at the British industries fair, he said:
What is important for us is to share a common aim and that aim should be the development of our resources and the expansion of our trade. That is not a narrow selfish policy. I firmly believe that by developing the commonwealth we shall increase the trade we do with other nations, and thereby enrich the world.
All we are asking is that the government of Canada adopt a policy at the present time with that same objective in mind.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, Kipling has said that-
East is east, and west is west,
And never the twain shall meet.
That certainly is not true of this debate. We have just heard the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) speak in support of the amendment and point out the full importance of the matters envisaged in the amendment to his own province on the Pacific coast. I say, sir, that those matters are of equal importance to those of us in eastern Canada. In fact I believe I can say they are of even greater importance than on the Pacific coast, if that is possible.
In the first place the markets across the ocean, the markets in Great Britain, have been traditionally those of the maritime provinces and eastern Canada. We were servicing those markets in the days of wooden ships, when the flag of the province of Nova Scotia was seen on the seven seas, and when we had hundreds of ships under sail. Although those ships covered all the markets of the world, primarily they were engaged in an export trade to the markets of Great Britain; and that condition existed even before there was a central Canadian or western Canadian market.
Then, in addition to the tradition, there is the matter of our geographical position. The cost of transport by rail freight from eastern Canadian points to central Canada makes it more difficult for us to enjoy the Canadian market. And in the third place, of course our natural position, jutting out as we do like a wharf into the north Atlantic, and with relatively cheap water rates, has given an impetus to the establishment of markets in Great Britain and the rest of Europe, but principally in Great Britain.
We in the east today are facing a serious situation-as, of course, are all Canadians. But I suggest that we are suffering from an even more serious difficulty because of the threatened or actual loss of those markets brought about by a diminution or disappearance of sterling in sufficient quantities.
I have of course a particular interest in the way these problems affect my own constituency, because we are almost entirely dependent upon the export market of Great Britain for the support of our apple industry. Before the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra leaves the chamber I would point out that the apple industry in my part of the country is the oldest and, may I add, the best in Canada. It was developed and we were shipping apples to Britain more than half a century ago. That condition continued down through the years until recently, when it has been threatened.
Suggested Commonwealth Conference I can remember the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) when speaking in the house a year ago, shrugging off the problem of the British market by saying that Great Britain was no longer importing Canadian apples, and no longer offered a market for our apples-period. His bald statement was that Britain was producing sufficient apples of her own and did not wish to import any.
That was an utterly ridiculous statement and I feel sure the right hon. gentleman must have known it, because last year Great Britain imported over 4 million hundredweight of apples of which Canada supplied less than 13 per cent. Yet in 1946 we supplied 69 per cent of the entire British market; and in 1938, before the war, we were supplying virtually 50 per cent of the entire British market.
Last year, as I say, that was reduced to 13 per cent, and the intimation is that the British government has said that this year there will be no sterling available for the purchase of apples. This is of importance to us in the east, and as was pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra it is also important to the apple industry in his province. Let me add that it is also of tremendous importance to the apple industry of Ontario and Quebec; make no mistake about that. If the Canadian exporters in British Columbia and Nova Scotia are denied export markets because of a lack of sterling, then there will be a dislocation of the Canadian market which will be most serious indeed.
That was one reason-I think it was the primary reason-why during the war this government did assist the fruit growing industry of Nova Scotia, and to some extent of British Columbia, so as to preserve orderly marketing in central Canada. So this matter is of far more than provincial importance; it is a matter affecting all of Canada, and in so far as that particular industry is concerned, goes to the very root of it. If the apple industry of this dominion is to be preserved and is to continue, then you have to solve the sterling problem. If you do not solve it the apple industry will suffer a disaster from which it will take many years to recover.
It is not only the apple industry in the maritime provinces that is concerned. For many years we have exported lumber and pit props from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to Great Britain, but we are now threatened with a loss of that market. The lumber dealers in both provinces are worried about this matter. I think some of that worry was reflected in the events of last Monday in New Brunswick, because certainly it was in part the anxiety over these lost
2876	HOUSE OF
Suggested Commonwealth Conference markets and this problem of sterling which I found, and which I am sure others found, reflected in the minds of the people with whom I discussed matters prior to the byelections which took place a week ago yesterday.
In addition to markets for lumber, in Nova Scotia we also have our salt fish and cured fish industries which were dependent upon export markets, not so much in Great Britain but in the West Indies. Again because of this loss of sterling and because of the particular problems in those islands we are faced with the loss of further markets. We have had hopes of attracting to the maritime provinces, because of our geographical position, industries based upon export markets. We believe we have opportunities for that type of industry, but basic export trade is dependent upon the markets of Great Britain and the commonwealth. Until this sterling problem is solved we will have little hope of attracting such industries.
For these reasons and many others which could be enumerated I repeat that this problem of sterling is of tremendous importance to the east. Both ministers who spoke this afternoon suggested that there was nothing that could be done about it. One of them said we had not received an invitation to any conference to deal with this matter. Why wait for an invitation? This is the problem which goes to the very root of our economic existence in this country. I suggest that the government should be giving a lead in this matter rather than waiting for an invitation.
As the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) pointed out a few minutes ago,
I am quite sure if we on this side of the house had suggested six weeks ago that a barter deal might be arranged among the United States, Great Britain and Canada, we would have been laughed at by hon. gentlemen on the other side. They would have told us that it was impossible to conceive of such a thing. Yet when the necessity arose it did mot take long to work out such a deal. I remember reading not long ago- this is perhaps not apropos of this matter- where the Prime Minister of Great Britain, confronted with a problem, made a barter deal to use Malaya tin and aluminum which he had under contract from Canada to obtain steel from the United States. It seems that when there is a will there is a way in which these things can be accomplished. We can and should be able to find a way.
I might suggest one minor way. If we were selling products in Great Britain some of the sterling in payment thereof could be allocated for the purchase of products from


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry to have to take part in this debate, because I do not think it should be going on at all. I will reassure the minister that I am not going to be long. The reason I do not think it should be going on has already been stated. No reason has been given against the desirability of adopting this amendment except the reason which none of us is going to accept and which I am sure the minister did not really want the house to accept, that nothing can be done. The amendment reads:
This house is of the opinion that the government should consider the advisability of taking steps to convene at the earliest possible date a conference of the nations of the British commonwealth to seek means by which there may be convertibility of commonwealth currencies-
I do not imagine anyone is going to deny that that is a desirable thing. The amendment continues:
-and to explore all the possibilities for restoring and enlarging those traditional markets upon which our prosperity so largely depends.
I do not think anyone will deny that that is a good thing. After all, for generations trade across the north Atlantic has been our lifeblood.
One of the points I wish to make is that you cannot do anything until you believe it really needs to be done. One of the things that bothers me is that we are faced with an extraordinary degree of self-satisfaction on the part of the government. Why that should be so strong I do not know. When we asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) about trade with the United Kingdom he said, "Don't worry about it, I made a speech in the Guildhall." I have no doubt that it was an adequate speech, but that does not seem to me to be an adequate answer to the question. On May 15 the minister expressed his views about trade in rather glowing terms, and I quote from page 2240 of Hansard as follows:
Instead of losing markets we are shipping more to the markets we are supposed to be losing. As I say, we have markets for everything that Canada can produce. We have been able to find the very best markets in the world, and as a result the Canadian economy is at the highest point of prosperity it has ever reached in the history of the country.
That makes strange reading in the light of what we have listened to from the hon. mem-oer for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan). We have heard of lost markets for lumber, apples and salmon in the west and for apples, fish and other things in the east.
Suggested Commonwealth Conference For the minister to tell us that markets have been found for everything just does not make sense. The truth of the matter is that the minister has his mind-and I think he is constituted this way-concentrated, and very properly so, on the work he is doing, which I think is good. He has just one interest and will not admit that there is anything that is not good or anything with which he has not dealt.
Another thing that bothers me is that, for a man who is practical in so many ways, he will insist on this foolish habit of talking constantly about dollars and answering complaints that trade is being lost by saying that we are shipping far more than we were years ago and always giving the result in dollars. He ought to know better than anyone else how much dollars have been depreciated, in large measure by the policies of his own government, in the last few years; and he should not fob us off with that sort of thing again.
The other point I wish: to make is that we are of course in the midst of a boom. Booms are often mysterious things. They sometimes come without anyone being able to say how they came and they certainly go without anyone being quite sure how they have gone. But there need be no mystery about this boom. It was caused by defence preparation. We all understand how it came, and when the minister tells us about the fine state of our trade, as he did this afternoon, he entirely omits one very important thing. He should have been explaining to us that our exports to a very large extent-I shall not attempt to put it into figures-are due to the entirely accidental fact that we are preparing at the present time for war.
One of two things will happen. Either war will come, which we all pray will not happen, in which case all calculations will be thrown into the discard. If war does not come, then may I point out that the minister has been the first person to tell us that our defence preparations are bound to slow down because the pipe lines will be filled up. Therefore when we consider the situation at the moment we are just like men sleepwalking. We are just like men who will not look at the facts if we are not prepared to realize that a situation which we all hope is temporary and which we all hope is going to come to an end may do so, and that if it does come to an end or slackens in any way it will alter the whole situation.
Can any of us imagine what it would be like if by some magic which we cannot foresee the apprehension of war should pass away? Any number of the markets where
2878	HOUSE OF
Suggested Commonwealth Conference we are now selling would disappear. Therefore I say we should be taking these things into account. If that situation happened we would suddenly find that our markets for wheat, metals and lumber had been transformed beyond our worst dreams. The problem is whether it is worth while to make the effort. The ministers say we are making efforts and there is nothing more to be done. They say we have not been asked to a trade conference. I think that last reason is a trivial one. This government is not usually so modest when it has a view to express. Actually we have fallen into the habit, which I believe is a very bad one, of thinking that the currency problems of northern Europe and the sterling area is their problem and not ours. The truth of the matter is that it is just as much ours as theirs. We all remember the word used by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) some years ago after returning from- an imperial conference at Colombo. He came back and said that he had exercised the functions of a gadfly. I am not very familiar with gadflies but I understand their function is purely that of stinging. Apparently he conceived his function at that conference to be to stir up other people, presumably to be more active and alert in their own interests.
I think that is an entire misunderstanding. I noticed when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) attended such a conference last January his position was described as something in the nature of a benevolent observer. I am not sure of those two words but that was the general tenor. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is more realistic. He really thinks we need to sell the farm products we raise, and he is a little impatient with financial difficulties. The financial difficulties are real enough and they cannot be dispelled just by a wave of the hand. We all know that, and I think it would be well for us to remember it. I thought of it particularly this afternoon when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was giving us the extraordinary disparity in prices. I think we had better ask ourselves whether we are creating for ourselves in North America a position of isolation which, however splendid it may look now, may not always look so splendid if we get to the position where we have a scale of prices and of costs which cuts us off from other markets.
Therefore I say this is not a problem of somebody else. It is a problem we are terribly interested in ourselves. As I said a moment ago, when the smoke clears away and if, as we all hope, we reach the stage where feverish preparations for war come


to an end, then we will suddenly be faced with the question of markets. We will suddenly be faced with the realization that the sterling area, particularly northern Europe, has been our haven in years past. We may also be faced with the sudden realization of the fact that the United States is in very many ways a competitor rather than a market.
It seems to me the first thing for us to do is believe that this serious problem is our problem. It has already been stated that when you really want to do a thing there are ways to do it. I quoted a music hall catch in the house the other night to the effect that where there is a will there are three ways.
I should like to say a word about convertibility. As I said a moment ago, nobody has suggested that convertibility is easy. I have here The Economist of May 24 of this year, which contains a reference to a meeting of the International Chamber of Commerce at which the question of convertibility was discussed. I am not going to read from the article because the things they have to say are not new. They talk about the need to free exchanges and they suggest various things, the responsibility of the creditor countries, the responsibility of the international monetary fund and so on. I am not going to go into that. I am merely going to say that I cannot see why anyone should doubt that it is a good thing for us to meet together to discuss, again and again if you wish, this problem.
We ought to have something to contribute. We ought to know something about the value of free exchange. We certainly made enough mistakes ourselves. First of all we overvalued our dollar to the extent that in 1947 we lost about a billion dollars in United States funds. Then later we undervalued it. Therefore we ought to have experience to contribute. I do not think any evidence could be better than ours. I suggest the amendment is a sensible one, that it might very well be acted upon, and that not to do so is really just another instance of that unregenerate political pride of the government to which we are so accustomed.


Mr. W. G. Blair (Lanark):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the amendment because I think it will go a long way towards solving the problems of the dairy farmers in my constituency and elsewhere in the province of Ontario. At the time of the budget debate I covered fully the position of the cheese producers. The position they were in at that time was one of uncertainty. There were no apparent markets for the coming

season. The situation has not changed very much since that time. Even today the cheese producers are voting on a scheme of marketing the results of which are not yet known.
It is not my purpose, sir, to cover all the facts I brought out at the time of the budget debate concerning the dairy industry; but there are a few facts I would like to draw to the attention of the house as to the importance of this industry in Canada. Very shortly I will place those facts on record.
First, it is an industry which employs two million people; that is, two million people are dependent on this industry for a livelihood. One must remember that two million people represents a very large market for the products of industry in Canada. Even now, with the uncertainty in the dairy industry, it is becoming apparent that other manufacturing industries-those making implements for use on the farm-are feeling a form of recession, because there is some doubt as to the position in which they find themselves; and contracts for machinery are being cancelled at the present time.
This is a very important industry, and I -draw your attention to our production in the years 1939 to 1948. Of course those were war years, but at the same time it shows that the Canadian dairy industry is able to produce and has produced large amounts of dairy products. From 1939 to 1948 the industry produced one billion pounds of cheese, a half billion pounds of evaporated milk, six million pounds of milk powder, and in one year alone, 1942, we exported to Britain 150 million pounds of cheese. That, sir, has changed now because it is doubtful if we could export more than 20 million pounds of cheese at the present time.
At the time of the budget debate I called for a reappraisal of our relations with the United States. Under the Geneva pact the United States had agreed to take a certain amount of our products. At that time I called it a virtual embargo by the United States against our dairy production in respect of cheese. That situation has not changed since, because in the Ottawa Farm Journal in May, 1952, I find the headline: "United States cheese men don't want competition". The article states:
Washington, May 14.-The wisdom or folly of restricting imports of foreign cheese was debated today before the house of representatives banking committee.
Cheese importers demanded that congress decline to renew a provision of the defence production act which subjects cheese and other dairy products to import controls when the secretary of agriculture finds that the imports are disrupting domestic supplies and causing unnecessary spending under the price-support program.
3, 1952	2879
Suggested Commonwealth Conference
Under that section, the secretary has issued an order embargoing imports of butter and non-fat dry milk solids, and limiting imports of cheese to the 1948-50 average.
Domestic producers declared lifting the restriction would open the gate to competition with dairy products produced with cheap foreign labour.
(Canada has been pressing the U.S. to eliminate the curbs which have curtailed Canada's exports of cheese and other dairy products.)
Opposing viewpoints were presented by Martin R. Fromer, counsel of the Cheese Importers' Association of America, Inc., and George Paul, representing the national creameries association.
Fromer said the cheese-and-fats restriction has made the United States a target for international criticism, and that ten nations now are considering retaliatory action against this country.
The banking committee is considering extension of the defence production act-the basic economic control law-which is due to expire June 30.
A new plan has been produced for the marketing of cheese. This scheme is under the federal Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act of 1939. The cheese producers in Ontario are now voting on whether they will accept this plan for the disposal of their cheese. Under the cooperative marketing scheme the government may guarantee up to 80 per cent of the average price in the three preceding years, but a two-thirds vote of the cheese producers is necessary before the agreement can be made.
This has brought mention of a 24-cent price for cheese. Nothing was said about storage, handling, or selling charges, and some people believe this will account for another 2 cents per pound. Under this act the Department of Agriculture can guarantee certain charges and prices without actually taking delivery of the produce, as might be the case under a direct floor. The main difference between this plan and a floor price is that the marketing board continues to control cheese selling in the province, and there might not be the same chance of the floor price becoming the accepted minimum.
I remember, sir, when I spoke in the budget debate, making an appeal for the cheese producers and for the marketing board. One of the government members who followed me in the debate stated: "Oh, well, if the marketing board and the cheese producers of Ontario will come to the government with their hats in their hand, the Minister of Agriculture might look kindly on the application."
There is considerable criticism of this agreement. We must remember that the marketing board had its back to the wail. The large amount of April cheese on hand is going to present a problem in selling. In fact, so far as this agreement is concerned, I heard it described as a "shotgun marriage".
It is unfair to state that the Ontario cheese producers and their organization are to blame
2880	HOUSE OF
Suggested Commonwealth Conference for the situation in which the industry finds itself today. It has been implied that conditions would be better if cheese sales had been left to the government. There is the same suggestion that the 1951 price charged Britain was too high and that the British food ministry does not want to do business with Canadian cheese producers.
It would be well to examine the facts. In April, 1951, the dairy products board informed the British that they no longer wanted to handle cheese under direct contract and that the British food minister should deal directly with the producers for a contract. The British came to Canada and offered to buy all the cheese they could get. Finally, a contract was made for 18 million pounds of cheese at 30 cents, f.o.b. factory, plus a 2 cent charge. Under this contract Ontario marketed 40 per cent of its production, 25i million pounds. Quebec also sold some cheese under this deal. Apparently the British were quite content and satisfied with the bargain and did not consider the price too high, because it was the same price the government had charged them under the 1948-49 agreement. At the same time they must have been satisfied with the price for they paid up to 40 cents a pound to the United States for all the cheese they could get. The British have plainly stated it was not the price but the lack of dollars which prevented them from making a new agreement this year.
It is estimated there are about three million pounds of fodder cheese in the factories or warehouses. Now they are being further crowded with the April and May cheese which is coming in, because this is the season of high production. There is a big problem also in the fact that approximately 500 million pounds of additional milk is going to come on the market this year because of the embargo on milk cows which normally would have been sold to the United States. Even under the best of conditions those cows are not going to be sold during the heavy milk producing season, certainly not in June, July, or August at any rate.
On May 1 the trade had 27 million pounds of cheese on hand and another million pounds arrived from New Zealand. We are having difficulty in marketing our cheese in this country; but at the same time, up to now, New Zealand cheese has also been coming in. Because of the amount of cheese on hand, the trade and the processed cheese people were not interested and do not seem to be too much interested in fodder cheese.
Coming back to the resolution, Mr. Speaker, has the government given consideration to buying greater quantities of war material


from the United Kingdom? Through this medium, so long as the world is involved in a policy of semi-barter, this government can provide, to a material degree at least, the means whereby the United Kingdom again can purchase our cheese, apples, salmon and numerous other articles of primary production in this country. This is a very important matter. It involves not only purchases by Canada but involves as well the all-important factor of the position of Canada as a nation, as an essential and, in some cases, sole available source of strategic raw material at present in short supply. I feel that a commonwealth trade conference would not only serve this nation well in the. field of domestic trade but would as well materially add to Canada's contribution within the sphere of our commitments and obligations under the North Atlantic pact.
A year ago, Mr. Speaker, when I was discussing this same matter of dairy production in Canada-and at that time I covered other agricultural products-I drew the attention of this house to our position under the North Atlantic pact. At that time I pointed out that one of the greatest contributions we could make under that pact was the production of food.
There is one other point, and it is this. Without adequate markets and without a reasonable price for its products, the dairy industry will certainly deteriorate. Certainly no dairy farmer can afford to make cheese at the price suggested, namely 26 cents or 27 cents. It just cannot be done. The cost of labour is too high. The cost of production is too high. This suggested price is far from adequate. The chief producers are voting on this scheme at the present time. I am not sure what the result will be. One thing is certainly apparent. Without adequate markets and without a reasonable price for our dairy products there will certainly be marked deterioration of this industry. This is an industry which it is essential we should keep in existence. As important as are any wartime preparations that we can make, it is just as important that we should have a strong industry capable of producing the type of food which I mentioned at the beginning and which we exported to England between 1939 and 1945. This commonwealth trade relations scheme or the calling of a conference would certainly do something to arrange trade within the commonwealth so a condition would not exist under which, while without an adequate market for our dairy products, we are still importing New Zealand cheese.


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us calls for

a trade conference of the nations of the British commonwealth for two definite purposes; one, to seek means by which there may be convertibility of commonwealth currencies, and the other to explore all the possibilities for restoring and enlarging these traditional markets, particularly within the countries of the commonwealth.
This debate, Mr. Speaker, has followed very much the pattern of all such debates which have taken place here recently. A motion or resolution is moved by some member of one of the opposition groups. The mover of that motion is followed early in the debate by one or two cabinet ministers who give the cue to Liberal members as to what Liberal policy is with regard to this particular subject. Before the issue has been debated at any length Liberal members in the house are shown by a cabinet minister what the government's attitude is; and from then on in the debate every Liberal member in the house takes his cue from that cabinet minister's speech.
We had that procedure in this debate. We had a speech by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and then a speech by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). Neither the Minister of Trade and Commerce nor the Minister of Finance attempted to argue that there was not, at the present time, a need for achieving, if possible, the convertibility of the currencies of commonwealth countries and a need for restoring and enlarging our markets in those countries.
It is true that the Minister of Trade and Commerce took an extremely rosy view of our trade relations. I would simply say to the minister that the people of Canada no longer see life through the rose-coloured glasses of the Liberal cabinet. The members of the Liberal cabinet may look out upon life through those rose-coloured glasses; they may think everything is lovely and that we are living in the best and the most perfect of worlds. But recently we have had indications that the Canadian people are no longer thinking in those terms.
The producers of this country are eagerly looking for markets that will not fold up when the Minister of Trade and Commerce again submerges his defence production department into trade and commerce, within a year or two. The producers within the country today are clamouring for markets that are not available. They are asking what the government is doing to assist in providing those markets. As I have said, there has been on the part of the ministers no attempt either to show that it is not desirable to achieve convertibility of commonwealth currencies or to show
3, 1952	2881
Suggested Commonwealth Conference that there is no longer a need for recapturing and enlarging our markets in the commonwealth countries.
As a matter of fact both ministers agreed with the objectives of this resolution, and both ministers asserted that if they thought these objectives could be achieved by the calling of this conference, or if they thought such a conference would contribute anything toward the achievement of these objectives, they would support the resolution. To me that statement was really funny. Just imagine the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance in this house supporting any resolution that was proposed from this side of the house. That would be something to see in this parliament.
Neither the Minister of Trade and Commerce nor the Minister of Finance gave us any good, sound reasons for believing that such a conference would fail to assist in achieving the objectives set forth in the resolution. All they told us was that, in their opinion, this conference would not achieve anything. Before I vote against this resolution I shall want to hear from those ministers some other reason than the simple statement that they do not think this conference will achieve anything.
I think the Minister of Finance indicated that, for some reason which I did not quite understand, it would not be Canada's place to initiate such a conference. The minister made exactly the same argument nearly two years ago when a similar resolution was before us. Since then there have been conferences; and even though at those conferences we may not have achieved the objectives set forth here, that is still no reason why we should not try again, and it is no reason why Canada should not show some initiative and some readiness to achieve those objectives. Surely the difficulties which confront us, as set forth here, are not insoluble. They are difficulties that are brought about by the transactions of human beings and nations with one another. Surely they are of such a nature that they can be solved by a group of people who will set about trying to solve them.
I am not satisfied that if Canada took the initiative in calling together such a conference, and if Canada went into that conference ready to make compromises, ready t( make whatever sacrifices were fair, ready to co-operate with those countries in a give and take way, we could not achieve something. If we go into such a conference with our minds made up that we are going to be concerned only with our own selfish national interests; if we go into such a conference for the purpose of getting everything we can from the other
2882	HOUSE OF
Suggested Commonwealth Conference nations, we will not achieve success. But it seems to me it ought to be possible tor people of such a high degree of intelligence as the ministers of trade and commerce and finance, and experts of their departments, to meet with equally intelligent people from other parts of the empire, with the common purpose of solving these problems, to reach some solution.
I think what is true here is that the government just has no policy in this matter. I had occasion a few days ago to call attention to the fact that in my opinion the government had no policy on housing, which we were discussing at that time. I referred to the matter of government annuities which came before the house. We thought the government had a policy on that, but when certain pressures were brought to bear upon the government they changed their policy. Now they do not know where they are going so far as that policy is concerned, and the same thing applies to a great many spheres of action. The government is just standing by waiting for things to happen. If they wait long enough-they may not have to wait very long-something will happen that will probably awaken the government to a realization of the fact that the Canadian people today are demanding action. They want a positive policy.
We want the government to show initiative and leadership in the solution of these problems. Therefore, unless I can get from the minister some much more definite reason why such a conference must be destined to fail, I shall support the resolution.


George Harris Hees: Anyone who has studied our export trade since the end of the first great war knows that our national income varies directly with our export trade. If our exports are up in any one year, then our national income follows in almost exactly the same proportion in the following year. And if our exports are down in a year, then our national income can be counted on to follow suit in almost the same proportion in the following year. Therefore the phrase "export or die" applies particularly to our Canadian economy.
During the past few months most of the commonwealth countries have been forced to drastically curtail their imports in order to save dollars. If we are to continue to do business with these countries we must take their products in payment for our exports. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think that, as the only non-sterling country in the British commonwealth of nations, we should take the initiative in calling a commonwealth trade conference. Through this medium trade experts from Canada could sit down with experts from other commonwealth countries


and work out the means of expanding our trade, rather than simply taking the negative course of restricting imports in the hope that something will eventually fall into our laps.
I believe this government owes it to the primary and secondary producers of this country at least to make an attempt to retain our traditional markets until the convertibility of sterling again becomes a reality.
This government says the kind of conference I have mentioned is unnecessary, and they point to the favourable position of our gold and dollar reserves. Anybody will agree that this position is very good today. But it is not good because of a favourable balance of trade, but because of the very heavy inflow of capital into this country for development purposes. Much as this capital inflow is welcome to Canada, no reasonably minded person expects that it will continue indefinitely; and if we are to maintain our favourable position with regard to our international stability, then we must bend every effort to build up our export markets.
It is not enough for this government to say, "Oh, do not be concerned with the loss of the British market. Look at the number of outlets we have in the United States"; because the history of our trade with the United States has made us realize that this market is very uncertain, and it has in no way the stability of the markets we have enjoyed in the United Kingdom.
This of course is readily understandable because of the similarity of their production to ours. When we have a surplus of production of a certain type of commodity which we must dispose of because it is above what our domestic demand can absorb, we find that they, just to the south of us, have a similar surplus of production which they must dispose of, and they do not hesitate for one moment to protect their producers from outside competition.
I believe the only long-term solution to this problem is a greater willingness and ability to exchange products within the British commonwealth of nations. I believe the only way this can be worked out is by our sitting down with other members of the British commonwealth, talking the matter over and deciding what products of ours they can take in return for our being willing to take certain products of theirs. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I very sincerely urge this government to take the initiative in calling a British commonwealth trade conference at the very earliest opportunity.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to detain the house at great length at this time. For many years, however, I have felt strongly that in

times of normal trade too little regard has been given to strengthening trade relations within the British commonwealth.
We have heard a great deal from time to time about the importance of the United Nations in time of war, and how essential that organization is in time of peace for purposes of trade. There have been conferences, true; the Geneva conference, the imperial trade conferences of a quarter of a century ago, and there were others in 1931 that meant a great deal to our normal trade.
It seems to me that in times of inflationary prosperity insufficient consideration is given to the background of our normal trade, our traditional trade channels. It is true that we have had two great wars and are preparing for another, should it come, and that this has all taken place within half a century. But consistently during those years we in Canada have enjoyed a substantial favourable trade balance with the British commonwealth, running into billions of dollars, while on the other side of the ledger we see that, so far as the republic to the south of us is concerned, we have had an unfavourable trade balance amounting to almost $50 billion.
Sometimes I wonder if we overlook the fact that the very basis of our successful normal trade has been the British commonwealth. It has been the nucleus of sound business relations in times of peace, and in times of war it has been our greatest security. At such times it has helped to strengthen imperial and commonwealth relations.
For over a quarter of a century in the house I have heard hon. members parading the fact, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) did today, that we should look north and south. That is the only semblance of true, traditional Liberal policy now in evidence in Canada. Hon. members will recall the history of the commercial union proposed by the Liberal party away back in 1887. The only part left of the old, dusty doctrine of trading north and south is the inclination to trade more with the United States of America than with the United Kingdom.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce said we have had great prosperity in Canada because the outlook of this government has been for world trade, because we did not put all our eggs in one basket, because we did not tie ourselves to the British commonwealth, and because we looked abroad. He has said that that is the reason for our prosperity. Surely no one within sound of my voice is juvenile enough to believe that. There is no one in Canada who does not know that in these hectic days of fanatical inflationary wartime prosperity, we have been riding
3,	1952	2883
Suggested Commonwealth Conference the gravy train of that prosperity. What has the government done to bring it about? The prosperity has come, despite the government. It is the result of the war just closed and the process of preparing for another war. We have been exporting raw products in short supply, raw products required by the United States, raw products that could be sold anywhere in the world.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) says we have been attending conferences steadily, and that the conference proposed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) would not have any beneficial effect. Yes, he has been attending conferences-conferences of ministers of finance, but with not one single trade expert in attendance.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh yes, always; at every one of them. Our most competent trade people were there.


William Earl Rowe: As reported in the Toronto Star of February 1, the minister stated that Canada's foreign markets had now shrunk to such an extent that sales of our raw products such as were requested under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization committee set up prior to the Lisbon conference are vital dollar earners which help Canada to balance her trade with the United States, in view of these diminishing markets. The Minister of Finance knows these markets are disappearing. He has been selling war products. Surely a conference would do no harm, as someone has said.
It has been said that the convertibility of currency is a matter for those countries having sterling currency. The minister said it would be improper to suggest to them any plans with respect to convertibility. But surely it would not be improper to discuss the matter. Both ministers said they would gladly support the proposed British commonwealth trade conference if they thought it would help solve the problem that they admit exists. I am glad that at least they see the problem, even though they will not accept the remedy.
Canada is a member of the British commonwealth, just as much as Australia, New Zealand, South Africa or any other part of it. We know very well that in time of war there are those who need our products. The Minister of Trade and Commerce gave this afternoon the reason that he did not believe it wise to tie ourselves too tightly to any market or, in other words, to put all our eggs in one basket. However, he does not seem to mind putting all our eggs in a United States basket. We find now that about three-quarters of our export trade is with that country, while only about 15
2884	HOUSE OF
Suggested Commonwealth Conference per cent of it is with Great Britain, which formerly had about half.
It just depends upon which star you wish to hitch your wagon to. I am conscious of the fact that the great republic of the United States, with its enormous population, may provide a great demand for our products, whether they be raw products or in the form of foodstuffs. But hon. members will recall what happened in other days, and they must know what is happening today.
What happened to our dairy industry only a short time ago, when restrictions were placed against our dairy products? Read the Globe and Mail of this morning and you will see what happened, and what happens when congressmen grow nervous from time to time about their own market. Basically Canada produces the same goods as the United States. Generally when there is a surplus in that country there is a surplus of the same products in Canada. The reason the party to which I belong has, since the days of confederation, believed that we should never overlook the advantages of trade east and west, and the development of trade within the commonwealth, is that we are conscious of the fact that Great Britain, with her enormous population and small area, and with her diminishing supply of raw resources, depends upon Canada for those resources, principally foodstuffs and other raw materials. The United Kingdom has perhaps too many people for her resources, whereas Canada has not enough. The United Kingdom has not enough resources for her industrial requirements; Canada has resources to spare. That country has been a strong market for years for these products.
I am not going to enlarge at this hour on what might be accomplished, but surely these great conference attenders, these men who spend millions of dollars travelling all over the world-every time a conference is mentioned they go en masse with their experts, their wives, secretaries and wives of secretaries; whole battalions of people-will admit that one more conference would not be too much to ask in order to investigate why the greatest market this country has had since confederation is rapidly slipping away.
We had the same situation in this country a quarter of a century ago. I recall before the thirties when we were rapidly losing our markets' in the British commonwealth. It is fine to talk about how much we are selling in terms of dollars, what trade we have, how we are taxing people to the limit to buy destructive instruments and weapons of war and defence, but that is not normal trade. Surely it is time to stop, look and listen; to 

stop and plan for the days of peace. God forbid that we should have to have a war in order to have prosperity. We have a wartime prosperity now even though the war is past. We have a wartime prosperity because we are planning for another war and are spending money on products other than those of normal trade.
It is fine to stand up here in the house and say that in dollars we have a trade situation which is better than it was many years ago, but that does not satisfy many people in this country. We know very well that it does not please the fisherman of the maritime provinces or the British Columbia coast. It does not answer the problem faced by the apple growers of Ontario, eastern Canada and British Columbia. It does not satisfy the cheese producers of Ontario and Quebec who are wondering what to do with their cows which they cannot export to the United States. It does not satisfy the tobacco growers in Ontario who are having to ship only half as much as they did last year and a quarter as much as they did a few years ago. It does not satisfy the producers of pit props in the maritime provinces or the lumber industry in British Columbia and eastern Canada. It does not satisfy the poultry producers in Ontario and British Columbia and Quebec whose henhouses are falling down because they cannot sell their products. It does not satisfy the canning factories or those who work so hard at gardening and in the canning factories across this country. At one time tremendous quantities of canned tomatoes and vegetables were sold in that market but it has now disappeared. It does not satisfy the hog producers of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia who are now marketing their sows whether they are fat or thin because there is no profit in keeping them. It does not satisfy the fruit and vegetable industry. It does not satisfy the salmon canneries who have lost their overseas market.
These are facts. The minister at least admitted them last winter when he said these other products would make up for this. I am not merely mentioning that these markets have disappeared without producing some evidence. In 1938, before the war, we supplied about one-third of the barley imports of Great Britain; that market has now disappeared. Their total requirements are being purchased from Russia. In 1938 we supplied 90 per cent of the oats they needed; today that market is entirely lost. We used to supply 25 per cent of all importations of beans into Great Britain; that market has now disappeared. In 1945 we supplied 43 per cent of the United Kingdom bacon requirements, but that market is now lost except the portion

on which the minister told us they are paying 33 cents a pound in order to get it into Britain.
This is the recompense for the bulk trading which was to guarantee our markets for many years to come. In 1938 we supplied 42 per cent of the apple requirements of Great Britain, as was just mentioned by the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), but in 1951 we sold only 13 per cent. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) did not even admit the 13 per cent. He said the only reason we did not sell them was that they had so many apples of their own they did not need to import any. He said he had to eat applesauce morning, noon and night. In 1946 and 1947 we sold 47 per cent of the canned tomato requirements of Great Britain. That market is now lost entirely. The maritime provinces supplied 55 per cent of their pit props in 1945; today they supply only 13 per cent.
We are told about our markets in the United States. Talk about putting all our eggs in one basket. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said that we should not try to tie ourselves too much to one market, and he then proceeded to untie us from the British market because that market decreased from 26 per cent of their requirements to 15 per cent in less than five years, whereas the United States market has increased from 38 per cent to 65 per cent.
I do not want to labour the issue because it is like talking against a windstorm to talk to a government that seems to be so little interested in an issue of this sort. I know the Minister of Trade and Commerce passed it off as if it did not mean anything. I know the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) glibly referred to it as just another conference with very little hope of achievement. We have a government today great in numbers and heavy in-


An hon. Member:: Wisdom.


William Earl Rowe: No, heavy in votes, heavy in "yes, yes" men like yourself. We have a government which has probably more supporters in the house and fewer friends in the country than any government we have had for many years. Even after losing nine byelections out of eleven they cannot be shocked into a realization that the public do not think they are good fellows because there are so many of them.


An hon. Member:: We are not professionals.


William Earl Rowe: I notice you are not professional in anything. We have a government in this country that thinks everything is fine. They are prize optimists. They do not care what happens as long as it does not happen to
Suggested Commonwealth Conference them. They believe that everything is fine so long as prices are high, so long as taxes are high and so long as they can get the taxes in and have big budgets. As long as trade is big they believe everything is fine. We should consider why they adopt this attitude.
We should not let war hysteria creep into our normal economy. The most secure trade this country has had has been east and west. It is true that the United States market is enormous and it always will be. That great republic to the south has 160 million people with the population increasing annually. It has tremendous resources and produces and consumes the same type of goods that we produce and consume. They are similar in language and habits.
Do not let us forget that history has a habit of repeating itself. I remember many years ago when I saw the same smug complacency in this house that I see now. I remember before 1930; I remember before 1922.


An hon. Member:: Do you remember before 1935?


William Earl Rowe: Yes, before 1935, and before you were here. I remember before 1935, and he laughs best who laughs last. You will remember before 1955 too.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He laughs best who laughs last


William Earl Rowe: I hope we both live long enough You can tell by the sound of the noises in the country, and if you have not heard them ye1 you are more smugly complacent than ] thought you were. These rumours are goinj throughout the country. The public have been saying in the by-elections: What is the government doing other than either getting over a war or preparing for another? There is not one person within the sound of mj voice who is not prepared to spend ever;, dollar we can get from the people to ge ready for war. There is not one of us bu appreciates the fact that Britain, the Unitec States and the other nations in the Unitec Nations will buy our copper, our brass, ou: nickel, our lead and our zinc.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And newsprint.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, newsprint; and you prob ably could use a little more of it to gooc advantage. These are abnormal conditions


Mr. Cleaver:: We heard you the first time.


William Earl Rowe: It may have been the first timi you heard it. I am glad you listen to some thing. We may come back to normal times


An hon. Member:: 1930.


William Earl Rowe: Yes; and do you know who wa responsible? Your own party. In 1922 w had a tremendous market in Great Britair We had a better market in Britain for bacor
2886	HOUSE OF
Suggested Commonwealth Conference eggs, cheese and beef than you have today. You lost it between that time and 1930. An imperial conference was necessary to restore those markets. Every hon. member knows that.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: I thought you blasted your way in.


William Earl Rowe: I am not concerned' about these young fellows who blasted their way in. They will probably blast their way out if they keep on. It is not only a matter of record; the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) this afternoon said the reason for the depression in 1930 was that after his party went out of power we had a drop of 35 cents a bushel in wheat. Every elevator in the country was filled with unsold wheat. Every lumber yard was filled with unsold lumber or else it had been burned because there was no chance to sell it in this country. These tragic events occurred because that government rode on the crest of good times and made no plans for the future. Before 1930 we pleaded with the party to your right, Mr. Speaker, that they were losing the British market. I remember standing in my place in the house in 1928 and saying that we were losing the British market. I remember a Liberal from western Canada telling me that I did not know what I was talking about and that Canada would never take less than $1.50 a bushel for wheat. We took 40 cents a bushel.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) told us not long ago that if we sold wheat to Great Britain for $800 million less than the farmers could get for it some place else we would have a steady market in Britain not only for wheat but for poultry, eggs, butter and other products. What do we find today? The market for each one of these products has almost disappeared.


Mr. Hodgson:: It disappeared in 1929.


William Earl Rowe: AH we are saying to the government now is that when they are repeating the same episode again, when they are riding the gravy train of war prosperity, they should stop and take one look at the situation and call a trade conference, not a conference of finance ministers but a conference of trade departments where the experts would be in attendance. It is not good enough to have an exhibition in Toronto. It is not good enough to build big machines and look at them. You should have a British commonwealth trade conference as we had in 1932.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What you need is cash, Earl.


William Earl Rowe: Yes. I notice the Minister of Finance is very interested in cash. No one handles more of it more recklessly than he does, but that is not good enough. I know


you need cash, and evidently there is a lot of it in your department. You have taken more than 50 per cent of everybody's cash in this dominion, and you will take more. The only hope we have for tax relief is an election in 1953. When next year's budget is presented I think Canada will know almost when the election will take place.
The matter goes further. I say in all sincerity I do not believe there is an hon. member within the sound of my voice, no matter to what party he belongs and irrespective of race, class or creed, who does not believe in his heart of hearts that the very nucleus of the United Nations is the British commonwealth of nations. It is the heart, it is the soul of the United Nations in international affairs. It is the beacon light and the force that has given inspiration. My hon. friends may laugh but in their innermost private thinking I know they agree that it is the inspiring force that brought the United Nations together. Without a strong British commonwealth of nations there is very little hope for world affairs in the future, and the only way to strengthen it is by trade.
We are a member of the British commonwealth. We are the senior dominion. It is our duty not to attend a conference called by some minor or junior member of the commonwealth but as the senior dominion of the British commonwealth to propose a conference, sit down and see what can be done and report back. It may be that nothing can be done, but if that is the case we will accept that because you have attended scores of conferences in the past where you did nothing. There is as much hope for the success of the conference we suggest as there was for the success of many others.
You have spent millions of the people's money travelling all over the world to conferences. You are the greatest travellers this country has seen since confederation. I ask you to take one more trip. You are getting old and weary, and it will probably be your last. Take one more trip to look into the possibilities of a British trade conference and see if you cannot restore the trade that you have lost for the second time in a quarter of a century. I have mentioned only a few of the things lost, particularly those having to do with agriculture. I know the farmers of Canada realize quite well that we are better off to depend on a stable British market than on the market in the United States, even though in time of war they will pay us big prices. I can well recall that in 1922 we thought we had a market for beef cattle in the United States. When the slump came in that country that market was cut off overnight. First there was the Fordney-McCumber tariff. Then

there was the Hawley-Smoot tariff. Recently restrictions were imposed on our dairy products. We have lost the cheese market in Great Britain. We have lost the bacon and apple markets in Great Britain. He is an optimist who says that in normal times you can recover what has been lost by selling to the United States. I am not going to go further except to say that, independent of politics, I urge the government to reconsider the proposal to call a British commonwealth trade conference in order to find out if something cannot be done with respect to the convertibility of exchange and the recovery of markets that have been lost.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Will the hon. member permit a question?


William Earl Rowe: Surely.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I understand the hon. member, whom I greatly admire-


William Earl Rowe: Thank you.


George Alexander Cruickshank: -to suggest that he should have one more trip. Would he advocate that it be to the Hambletonian races at Goshen?


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I would not mind that, and I might get one for the hon. member if he wants to go. I think probably he is in better shape for it than I would be.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Question?


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, it is hardly worth while voting tonight.


An hon. Member:: It is hardly worth voting, period.


Clarence Gillis: Most of us have sat here all day and listened to some good speeches, and some that were not so good. The question is too serious, in my opinion, to just allow a certain number of members from a certain group to get up and make a lot of speeches without very much substance behind them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Clarence Gillis: We all know the international marketing question is a difficult one, and there is no tailor-made formula whereby you are going to work it out. I think it is sufficiently serious that if the Conservative party had a policy and a program they thought could iron out the international difficulties in marketing which are world-wide now, I would like to see that formula laid on the table.
It is quite all right to call a conference, and we are agreeable that a conference should be called. It might be helpful to get the sterling countries around a table with the dollar countries and see what might be done. But we have had a lot of conferences. We had the Bretton Woods conference, and we 55704-182
Suggested Commonwealth Conference sent the best financial brains this country had to it. Britain had her representatives there, as had all our allies. We had just finished a war, a war that was largely the result of the collapse of the economic system on a world scale. All these best brains went to the Bretton Woods conference and they decided that an international bank was necessary. That international bank had as one of its functions preventing the depreciation of currencies. A lot of mechanisms that were useful and perhaps would have been workable were suggested. A lot of people put a lot of monkey wrenches in that machinery, and Britain was practically driven away from it.
I had not intended to take time in this debate at all providing the opposition had been willing to take a vote around 10.30 p.m. but frankly, as far as I am concerned, the hon. gentleman has for today talked out his own motion. In all his discussions, the only solution he had was to give the Conservative party power. That swan song was sung by Mr. Churchill very recently. Another government was in power, a government that was bringing new mechanics to bear on the changing structure of society. Whether you like it or not it has changed. Mr. Churchill took power, and he was going to solve the problems of Britain overnight. He is not solving them; and mind you, I am not crabbing about that because I knew, as well as the hon. gentleman who just took his seat knows, that in the situation which faced Mr. Churchill when he formed a government he was not going to be able to solve those problems overnight. He is gradually whittling his way back to where he was in 1939.
Just giving the Conservative party power in the present circumstances is not going to solve the international marketing question. As the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) says, that might put us back to 1930. There is one thing of which I am convinced. As far as the old scheme of things is concerned, it went out when the shooting started in the last war. We are embarked in a world where there are not very many mileposts and the old methods of marketing as between country and country are gone.
The reason we are losing the British market is very obvious. Depreciation of her currency is in part responsible. Also the other countries of Europe, including Russia, are willing to do barter trade with Great Britain. This group has proposed on several occasions in this house-and we have moved amendments in connection with the matter of apples as pertaining to Nova Scotia, and the matter of salmon in western Canada-that for particular commodities we should arrange an exchange with Britain. My hon. friends at that time were very solidly opposed. As far
2888	HOUSE OF
Suggested Commonwealth Conference as we are concerned we believe, and have done so for a long time, that the only successful way of conducting international trade is by an exchange of goods. Otherwise you give away the real wealth of your country for paper.
Unless the government that is in power in this country decides on a change in the mechanism of international marketing within the next few years, and gets away from money as a medium of exchange, in my opinion you are going to have just what you have now. Mr. Churchill is finding out. I know that he does not like barter, but he is willing to barter machinery for wheat with soviet Russia.
Seventy-five per cent of all the old methods of international trade have gone out. A large percentage of the people of the world with whom we are going to try to trade are operating on socialist mechanisms in international trade. Whether you like that word is immaterial. What most people are afraid of is the interpretation that other people have built up.
The whole structure of society has changed. It is not going to be as simple as my hon. friend thinks; that all you have to do is get up and make a political speech saying that the government has done this or has not done that, when there are no facts behind that kind of speech.
In the matter of changing governments, if you are going to make any change, if your socks are dirty you generally put on a cleaner pair.


An hon. Member:: At least you wash
them.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, wash them or put on a cleaner pair. In this matter of free enterprise, whether it is in the domestic field or in the international field, the party that seeks to take power from the present government has exactly the same policy. They do not intend

to change anything, but to just go on and on and on. It is a matter of "we are in and you are out".


Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.


Clarence Gillis: I am not prepared to accept from anyone in this house the statement that we are going to solve the problem by the Conservative party taking power. We want to have better information than the people of Britain got from Mr. Churchill about what another government would do. The fact of the matter is that he is not doing so well, and that was pretty clearly indicated by the swing in the council elections in Britain. The trend is away.


Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Gillis the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will take up the following resolutions and bills: first, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) concerning the recapitalization of the Canadian National Railways; second, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) concerning an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Then we will take Bill No. 305, respecting immigration and Bill No. 279, to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act. Then we will revert to this debate that was adjourned just a moment ago.


Howard Charles Green: That immigration bill has not yet been distributed, according to my understanding.	.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member will have it in his box in plenty of time.


Mr. Fleming:: That is not good' enough.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 4, 1952