1952-05-15

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand; also a message from Her Majesty Elizabeth the Queen Mother, signed by her own hand,
Buckingham Palace
Members of the Senate and of the House of Commons of Canada:
I have received with deep appreciation the address which you have presented to me.
I am sincerely grateful for your kindly sympathy in the loss that I have sustained through the death of my dear father.
I greatly value the assurances of your loyalty and of your support which you have given me on my accession to the throne, and it will be my continual endeavour to be worthy of them.
Elizabeth R.
30th April, 1952.
Buckingham Palace, S.W.l. Members of the Senate and of the House of Commons of Canada:
I thank you warmly for your message of condolence.
Holding, as I do, the most vivid memories of our visit to Canada, the many expressions of sympathy which I have received from all parts of your great country have especially touched me, and I deeply appreciate this further sign of your thoughts and your affection.
Elizabeth R.
8th May, 1952.



RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. McCulloch.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, before motions are proceeded with I should like to complete the statement which I made last Friday with
regard to an agreement between the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada with respect to meat:
On Friday last, I announced to the house that an agreement had been reached between the governments of the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada whereby Canadian meat will be shipped to the United Kingdom in exchange for New Zealand beef and pork which will in turn be sold through normal commercial channels in the United States.
Further progress has now been made in these negotiations and it has been agreed among the three governments that the difference between the United Kingdom contract price for New Zealand meat and the price derived from selling New Zealand meat on the United States market shall be shared equally between New Zealand and Canada. The New Zealand share will be used for buying additional meat in Canada which will be shipped to the United Kingdom. The equivalent value in sterling of this additional meat will be paid to New Zealand by the United Kingdom. The Canadian share will be used to offset, to some extent, the loss to the Canadian government that will be incurred under the terms of the original agreement.
In this further step in the arrangements, all three governments will benefit. New Zealand will derive higher returns for her meat. The United Kingdom will obtain more meat, and Canada is getting an enlarged market for her surplus meat.
For the information of the house I may say that shipping space has been arranged for 600,000 pounds of meat to go forward at an early date and by the end of this week an additional 6,000,000 pounds will have been contracted for and arrangements are being made for regular shipments.



STRAIT OF CANSO CAUSEWAY


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have an announcement to make respecting the subject of the Canso project.
Preliminary work is proceeding rapidly for the construction of the causeway across the strait of Canso. This important engineering work is being undertaken by the federal government and the province of Nova Scotia and has reached the stage where tenders

Questions
have been called for the rock-fill. The magnitude of this undertaking is better appreciated when it is realized that something like five million cubic yards of rock will have to be quarried, transported and dumped in the building of this rock-fill.
On Tuesday the Department of Transport received nine tenders from various contracting firms, ranging from slightly under $6 million to almost $10 million. The tenders submitted have now been carefully examined with a view to prices, equipment to be supplied and quarry location.
The lowest bid submitted was that of Northern Construction and J. W. Stewart Company, Limited, of Vancouver, at the price $5,786,650. A submission to council authorizing the acceptance of this tender has been approved by the government and immediate steps will be taken to enter into a contract with the successful bidder.



PRIVATE BILL


Mr. G. T. Fulford (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Henderson):
That the petition for a private bill to incorporate the Ogdensburg bridge authority presented on May 14, 1952, together with the report made thereon by the clerk of petitions on May 15, 1952, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders for such recommendations as may be deemed advisable in relation to standing orders 92 and 93(3) (a) and (c).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 225, to incorporate the Hotel Mutual Insurance Company.-Mr. Welbourn.


Mr. Pouliot:: 1.	What was the.date of assumption of office of Viscount Alexander of Tunis as governor general of Canada?
2.	Was his term extended, and if so, what was the date of the first communique announcing the extension of his term of office?
3.	Did the Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire and Children of the Empire (junior branch) write to the government to suggest or recommend the extension of Viscount Alexander's term of office?
4.	If so, was it before or after the communique above referred to was issued by the government?


Mr. St. Laurent:: 1. Lord Alexander of Tunis was appointed governor general on March 21, 1946. He assumed office on April 12, 1946.

2. There is no statutory provision or regulation fixing the term of office of the governor general, but the duration of his appointment has usually been for approximately five years. Lord Alexander's term was extended, and the date of the first announcement concerning his extension was October 28, 1950. Lord Alexander's term was again extended in October 1951. The date of that announcement was October 26.
3 and 4. There is no record of the Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire and Children of the Empire (junior branch) suggesting or recommending the extension of Lord Alexander's term of office, but the national president of the order did, on both occasions on which His Excellency's term was extended, write to the prime minister commending the action of the government in recommending the extension.


NATURAL GAS-SURVEY OF RESOURCES
Mr. Nickle:: 1.	Have Dr. George S. Hume and Alexis Ignatieff of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys prepared any survey of western Canada's natural gas resources, since publication in July, 1950, by the geological survey of Canada, of their "Natural Gas Reserves of the Prairie Provinces?"
2.	Has the government considered the merits of having available a continuing, completely up-to-date detailed survey of natural gas resources of the prairie provinces, plus British Columbia, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories?
3.	If so, would the government instruct Dr. Hume and Mr. Ignatieff to make such a survey without delay, and to revise natural gas reserve estimates from time to time in line with new gas discoveries, andi further evaluation of presently known gas areas?


Mr. Prudham:: The answer to the first section of the question is no.
In regard to the second and third sections of the question the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys published a joint report by Dr. G. Hume and Mr. A. Ignatieff in July, 1950, on the natural gas reserves of the prairie provinces. This has generally been recognized as a valuable and authoritative report.
It is the intention of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys to issue further reports when possible. A report of this kind entails a great deal of careful research. Such work is complicated by rapid new development and changing conditions. Therefore, I am not able at this time to give a definite commitment as to when the next report will be issued.



UTILIZATION OF BITUMINOUS SANDS

Mr. Nickle:: What progress has been made over the past year by the national research council and by other1

scientists in the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys in matters related to the bituminous sands of northeastern Alberta, with particular reference to economic mining of the sands, separation of bitumen from the sand, and processing of bitumen into usable products, and any other progress towards utilization of the bituminous sands?
He said: I wish to withdraw this question, for purposes of re-wording.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Questions



ALBERTA POST OFFICES

Mr. Thomas:: 1.	Were there any post offices closed in Alberta, during the fiscal year 1951-52?
2.	If so, what were the names and locations of same?
3.	Why were these post offices closed?


Mr. Cole (St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: 1. Yes.
2 and 3. See statements below.



PERMANENT CLOSINGS

[Stage Direction]
Name of Office
Fitzsimmons	
Homeglen	
Norton	
Padstow	
Val Soucy	
Spring Park	
Analta	
Sylvester	
Snug Cove	
Makepeace	
Sylvan Glen	
Meadowbrook....
Green Glade	
Lac Magloire....
Date of Closing			Location				
April	21,	1951	SE.	1	Sec. 22, Tp. 73, R	3, W	6 MMay	22,	1951	SE.	1	Sec. 16, Tp. 44, R	1, W	5 MMay	25,	1951	NE.	Sec. 27, Tp. 10, R	4, W	4 MMay	7,	1951	SW.	1	Sec. 14, Tp. 56, R	8, W	5 MJune	15,	1951	NW.	1	Sec. 34, Tp. 57, R	21, W	4 M11,	1951	NE.	1	Sec. 23, Tp. 57, R	6, W	4 MSept.	28,	1951	SE.	*	Sec. 14, Tp. 62, R	25, W	4 MSept.	0,	1951	NW.	A	Sec. 19, Tp. 69, R	LI, W	6 MSept.	29,	1951	NW.	1	Sec. 20, Tp. 65, R	9, W	4MOct.	26,	1951	SE.	i	Sec. 8, Tp. 23, R	19, W	4 MSept.	27,	1951	SW.	1	Sec. 27, Tp. 64, R	26, W	4 MNov.	27,	1951	NW.	1	Sec. 36, Tp. 63, R	25, W	4 MOct.	2,	1951	SW.	1	Sec. 16, Tp. 41, R	1, W	4 MDec.	21,	1951	NE.	1 4	Sec. 9, Tp. 79, R	21, W	5 M
Reason for Closing
Limited usefulness
Establishment of Bluffton R.R. No. 2 Limited usefulness Limited usefulness Limited usefulness Limited usefulness Unable to secure postmaster Unable to secure postmaster Limited usefulness
Establishment of Cluny postal agency No. 1
Limited usefulness Limited usefulness Limited usefulness Unable to secure postmaster

[Stage Direction]
Name of Office	Date of Closing	Location	Reason for ClosingMuirhead	
Northern Valley..	Nov. 12, 1951 Jan. 15, 1952 Mar. 1, 1952 Mar. 14, 1952 Mar. 31, 1952	SE. 1 Sec. 22, Tp. 16, R 1.W5M SW. 1 Sec. 5, Tp. 56, R 6, W 4 M SW. i Sec. 30, Tp. 76, R 3, W 6 M SW. 1 Sec. 28, Tp. 39, R 10, W 4 M NE. i Sec. 23, Tp. 58, R 18, W 4 M	Unable to secure postmaster Unable to secure postmaster Unable to secure postmaster Unable to secure postmaster Unable to secure postmaster

[Stage Direction]
Name of Office	Date of Closing	Location	Reason for ClosingApril 18, 1951 (Re-opened Oct. 1, 1951) Sept. 26, 1951 (Re-opened Mar. 18, 1952)	NW. i Sec. 30, Tp. 49, R 16, W 4 M SE. 1 Sec. 9, Tp. 13, R 17, W 4 M	Unable to secure postmaster Unable to secure postmaster
2226
Questions

Mr. Pouliot:: What is the length of steam railway lines in each province (a) per 1,000 inhabitants; (b) per 1,000 square miles?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: (a) and (b).
Province	Ste Single Track Mileage (') Calendar Year 1950	am Railway L Mileage per 1,000 Inhabitants	nes Mileage per 1,000 Sq. Miles of Land AreaNewfoundland	705	2-0	4-9Prince Edward Island	286	2-9	1310Nova Scotia	1,397	2-2	67-3New Brunswick	1,835	3-6	66-84,795	1-2	9-210,458	2-3	28-84,834	6-2	22-0Saskatchewan	8,739	10-5	36-75,643	60	22-7British Columbia	3,890	3-3	10-8Canada (2)	42,582	30	19-8
C1) Statistics as to mileage are exclusive of second, industrial, yard, and siding trackage. (!) Exclusive of Yukon and the Northwest Territories.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


ARMED FORCES


Mr. Lennard:: 1.	How many contracts were let for neckties for the defence forces, during the period from January 1, 1951, to May 1, 1952?
2.	How many ties were contracted for, and at what price?




Mr. Lennard:: 1.	How many contracts were let for suitcases and trunks for the defence forces, during the period from January 1, 1951, to May 1, 1952?
2.	How many of each, and at what price?




Mr. Lennard:: 1.	How many contracts were let for berets, caps or other forms of head covering for the defence forces, during the period from January 1, 1951, to May 1, 1952?
2.	How many were contracted for, and at what price?




Mr. Lennard:: 1.	How many contracts were let for the defence forces between January 1, 1951, and May 1, 1952, for (a) raincoats; (b) waterproof coats; (c) greatcoats?
2.	How many of each were contracted for, and at what price?




Mr. Lennard:: 1.	How many contracts were let for rugs, carpets and other textile floor coverings for the defence forces, between January 1, 1951, and May 1, 1952?
2.	What were the amounts of the contracts?
3.	What were the quantities and the nature of these floor coverings in each contract?




Mr. Lennard:: 1.	How many contracts for defence leather footwear were let from January 1, 1950, to April 15. 1951?
2.	What were the amounts of these contracts?
3.	To whom were they let?
4.	How many pairs in each contract?



FEDERAL DISTRICT COMMISSION


Mr. Aylesworlh:: 1.	During the past two years, what lands or buildings have been acquired by the federal district commission in (a) city of Ottawa; (b) county of Carleton; (c) county of Russell; (d) city of Hull; (e) county of Hull; (f) county of Gatineau, giving legal description and total acreage of the property in each case?
2.	From whom was such property acquired?
3.	What was the total price paid to the vendor or any other persons in respect to the acquisition of each such property?
4.	For what purpose, either present or future, was each such property acquired, and to what use is each such property presently being put?
5.	At the present time, has the federal district commission any agreements of sale or options for the acquisition of other property or has it commenced expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of other property in any of the aforesaid cities or counties?
6.	If so, what is the legal description and total acreage of each such property?
7.	From whom is each such property to be acquired?
8.	What is the total price payable to the vendor or any other person under any such agreement of sale or option in respect of the acquisition of each such property?
9.	What is the total price which has been offered to the owner of any such property in respect of which expropriation proceedings may have been commenced?
10.	For what purpose, either present or future, is each such property to be acquired1, and to what use will each such property be put?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Is it a fact that Mr. George S. Currie, who was appointed to conduct an inquiry at Petawawa, is now in Europe? If so, is the inquiry proceeding, and when may a report be expected?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: The inquiry is proceeding now, and has been proceeding since the day after he was appointed. Members of the staff are at work in Ottawa and elsewhere. They are engaged in collecting information, making checks, and otherwise continuing their investigation. I asked a senior partner of the firm today when we could expect a report, and he said he was not in a position to say.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: May I
repeat that part of the question asked by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) which was not answered by the Minister of National Defence, and inquire where Mr. Currie is now. May I also ask what part Mr. Inquiries of the Ministry Currie has played up to date in the investigation and what part he will have personally in the report which it is expected will be made.


Brooke Claxton: I am sorry, I thought I had answered the first part of the question but now that the hon. member calls my attention to it I find that I did not. Mr. Currie is in England. He started the investigation by giving instructions to his partners on the way in which it should be carried on. They have since been carrying on with the investigation. Mr. Currie indicated to me that it will be some time before the information necessary for him to make his report will be collected by them. This is the way in which chartered accounting and legal firms frequently work on operations of this size. Mr. Currie will return in time to make full use of the information obtained so that he may complete his study and make a report. It will be his report on the basis of his own study of the information.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does the minister happen to know when Mr. Currie will return to Canada?


Brooke Claxton: No.



QUESTION AS TO INTERIM PAYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. H. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can he say whether an interim payment on oats will be made by the Canadian wheat board? If so, when can producers anticipate receiving the payment?.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: An interim payment on oats was not made at the time interim payments were made on wheat and barley, for the reason that a very small proportion of anticipated deliveries had been made at that time. The situation has not changed materially since. Deliveries are still a very small proportion of the expected. The summer market for oats is a dangerous market, as I said when discussing the subject in the house a few days ago. I doubt if an interim payment can be made until the end of the crop year. But an interim payment will be made as soon as the board can be reasonably assured that a payment can be made without danger to the solvency of the pool.



INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT-PROGRESS OF LONDON DISCUSSIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. Earl Cafherwood (Haldimand):: should like to ask a question of the Minister
2228	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry of Trade and Commerce. In view of the report a few days ago that negotiations were deadlocked or broken off between representatives of 46 nations attending a conference in London to discuss the renewal of the international wheat agreement, would the minister care to make a statement as to whether any progress has been made?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The meeting of the representatives of 46 countries was held in London to discuss the extension of the international wheat agreement. All matters affecting the agreement were explored, and it is felt that some of the ancillary problems should be settled before final discussion on the maximum and minimum prices would take place A continuing committee was appointed to deal with the ancillary problems and the meeting will be arranged later in this calendar year to discuss the most important problem which of course is to determine the maximum and minimum prices for the further period of the agreement.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What are the ancillary matters that are to be discussed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Delivery points, carrying
charges and a considerable number of other points.


Mr. Coldwell:: Will the expected meeting be held before the beginning of our crop year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. The present agreement extends until August, 1953, so there is no urgency.



LAKE ONTARIO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: I should like to direct to the Minister of Public Works a question which may concern also the Minister of Resources and Development. Have they anything to report to the house with respect to the investigation being conducted into shore erosion in lake Ontario?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: As Minister of Public Works I have no further report to make. Perhaps my colleague has something to say.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: Mr. Speaker, several days ago a delegation including members of the Ontario government discussed with me the high levels of water in the great lakes which have occurred this year as a result of unusual conditions. I told them that circumstances were such as to make it difficult
fMr. Catherwood.l

for either government to deal with the matter, that the high water levels were beyond our control. Since that time the Canadian government has agreed to participate in a reference to the international joint commission to enable that body to study the reasons for the high water levels. That information has been communicated to the government of Ontario.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence in connection with James Farthing referred to in a Canadian Press dispatch today which states that this man had to return from Vancouver to Trenton in order to get his papers. What is the rule of the R.C.A.F. which makes necessary that type of apparent bureaucratic bungling?


Brooke Claxton: I saw the press report and have asked for a report on it. Until it is received, I am not, nor is the hon. member, in a position to make any comment on the expression "bureaucratic bungling." I suggest that if he was returned to Toronto for treatment it was for some reason quite other than that suggested of putting him together with his papers.



INQUIRY AS TO ACCEPTANCE OF BEEF FROM MANITOBA FOR SHIPMENT UNDER AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture with respect to his announcement about the United Kingdom-New Zealand-Canada beef agreement. Is it a fact that under that agreement beef will not be accepted for shipment to Great Britain from Manitoba while the provincial embargo exists against the importation of beef into that province?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think any such decision has been reached by anyone, but the fact is that for the time being beef is being taken out of Alberta and Ontario. I understand that the present position is that Manitoba is killing its own beef and no beef from anywhere else. I would understand from that that they are able to consume their own beef within the province and supply a limited outside market. They are not killing any from outside Manitoba and most of what usually did pass from Winnipeg on to other parts of

Canada and outside resulted from the surplus cattle from outside Manitoba slaughtered in Winnipeg.



EXPORT AND IMPORT PERMITS ACT


Clarence Decatur Howe: the second reading of Bill No. 93, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, this is a rather simple bill. As the act now stands prosecution can be taken either by way of indictment or summary conviction in the case of alleged offences, with a different penalty in each case. If proceedings are taken by way of summary conviction the maximum penalty is $500; if the proceedings are taken by way of indictment the maximum penalty is $5,000.
Another consequence of that distinction is that if proceedings are taken by way of summary conviction under the Criminal Code the charge must be laid within six months of the commission of the offence. The purpose of the bill is to permit proceedings by way of summary conviction in all cases and to provide that in all cases the maximum penalty will be $5,000. It is being provided also that in case of proceedings by way of summary conviction the proceedings may be *commenced within twelve months of the commission of the offence.
In other words, the effect of the bill will be to lengthen the period within which proceedings by way of summary conviction may be commenced from six to twelve months and to increase the maximum penalty in those cases from $500 to $5,000. Offences under the act are likely to involve investigations in other countries and it has been found, that the six months' period is too short.
Export permits cover strategic materials and the amount of money involved in any transaction is likely to be quite substantial. A maximum fine of $500 might be quite small in relation to the amount of the transaction involved. I do not think that there is anything more I can usefully add in explaining the bill.


Mr. J. M. Macdonneil (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to make any general comments on the bill. As the parliamentary assistant has said, it is quite simple. I have some questions to ask with regard to the operation of the act but these can be asked more conveniently in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Export and Import Permits Act
On section 1-Time limit.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the
parliamentary assistant make a brief statement as to the operation of the act, and in particular will he indicate to what extent there has been some change due to the passing of the years in the chief purpose for which the act has continued to be used? When it was passed five years ago I think we hoped that by now we would have moved into a period when controls would not be needed so much. There have been frequent minor changes, as indicated by orders in council that have been passed, and I would be grateful if the parliamentary assistant would give us a short resume of the situation indicating the chief reasons which require the controls in operation at the present time. For example, as I read the reports of operations for 1950 and 1951 it would appear that there has been an easing up as between us and the United States. I give that as an illustration of one of the changes that have taken place. I should like to have a brief general statement.


George James McIlraith: Practically all the changes have been by way of removal of items from control so that we are now in a situation where export control is virtually limited to the control of strategic materials of one sort and another. Perhaps if I indicate the nature of the items under control it will be apparent what the trend is. The item? under import control now are iron and steel, untanned shearlings, sulphur, butter and recently livestock. Import control on meat was recently imposed. The hon. member will see that the list under import control is very small.
Export controls are applicable to a considerably larger number of items, something in the order of 270. Incidentally, the precise list is published in the regulations which are available to all members. When you look at these items it will be seen that they are mainly of a strategic nature. For instance, if you take the heading, "non-metallic minerals, chemicals and their products" you may find approximately 60 or 70 different items in that category. It is really only the subheadings that are important. They are all items having to do with defence pre-: paredness and involving short supply. Iii a few cases they have to do with preventing Canada being used as a back door for the export of goods from the United States^ There may be some items where the United States has export control but not * against Canada, and if we did not have export controls on those few items it can be seen that Canada could easily be used as a back door for the export of these United States items.

Export and Import Permits Act
There are a few of these, but the main significance of export controls now has to do with destination of area control. The list of areas to which export permits are required is also published. The purpose of area controls is self-evident and I do not need to deal with it. Certainly it is fair and proper comment to say that the items that were under control in the early years of this legislation have practically all disappeared from the list except those kept under control for the reasons I have mentioned. For instance, I can tell the hon. member that in 1944 and 1945 there were approximately 1,100 items under export control.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then it
would be correct to say, I take it, that the purpose of the act has changed somewhat radically and, instead of its being necessitated by reason of ordinary trade controls, which was the purpose of its passing, it is really the dealing with strategic materials that has now come to be its chief end.


George James McIlraith: That is a fair statement.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Could one go further and say that if we move into a situation where strategic materials cease to be scarce the act to that extent would be less needed, or would you say that even then you would have to make use of it in order to prevent materials from getting to certain countries? Would that be an element still?


George James McIlraith: Yes. The area factor is still very important even though the reason of scarcity of materials disappears.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Parliament authorized the naming of certain areas or countries. In other words, it authorized discrimination between one country and another. At the end of the 1951 report there is the following:
This general permit allows described non-essential items to move freely to all destinations with the exception of North Korea, Hong Kong, China, Macao, Manchuria, Mongolia, Sinkiang and Tibet . . .
I am surprised to see Hong Kong included there. This concerns non-essential items and I take it they are not strategic materials. I take it these are essentially what are stated to be non-essential items. I should like to ask two questions about Hong Kong. First of all, is it a country, which I think is the *word used in the act? Second, why is it treated in this manner?


George James McIlraith: I understand that Hong Kong is not treated in that manner now. It was included at the time because the United States had export controls there at that time. It is not treated as these other countries listed by the

hon. member, but permits although more freely issued are still required because of the danger of transshipment.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If it were not for the words "non-essential items" I could understand why these countries are included, but why do we need to restrict in the case of what are called non-essential items? It says that non-essential items move freely to all destinations with the exception of those I have read.


George James McIlraith: I think it should be obvious why these non-essential materials are not being sent to North Korea today.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes, I agree.


George James McIlraith: We have excepted Hong Kong. As for the other countries, we would have to discuss each one specifically. It is quite apparent that even non-essential materials should not be sent to North Korea today. You come to the point where you have to discuss each country or area specifically. I have said that Hong Kong is not included now in the list of areas to which this provision applies.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let me
change my question slightly. Does this mean we have no trade relations of any kind with these other countries by way of export or import?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I could say a word about this matter because I have been concerned with the program. We meet with the United States commercial authorities at least once every three months and discuss the strategic implications of the situation. We follow a joint policy with the United States for the reason that we are a North American country, and any regulations in Canada different from those in the United States could easily work to defeat the United States provisions. In other words, goods that could not be shipped from the United States might well be shipped to Canada and be re-exported from here. To stop that sort of thing we have parallel arrangements which change from time to time as the joint committee decides in the light of strategic considerations.
The report that my hon. friend has in his hand was a report prepared at the outbreak of the hostilities in Korea or shortly thereafter, when there was a great deal of transfer between areas. The object at that time was to keep available material from getting into the hands of the North Koreans. We do no business at all with red China. We do no business at all with Russia. We do business with Czechoslovakia in certain non-essentials, and with other satellite countries of Russia.



IS, 1952

[Stage Direction]
Russia and China are the principal areas now which are under tight area control.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would have understood fully what the minister said about strategic considerations and co-operation with the United States if it were not for use of the word "non-essential". Am I misunderstanding the word-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Non-essential to whom?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is what I am asking.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Non-essential to Canadians
perhaps, but they may be highly essential for a country to use for warlike purposes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I make the comment that it seems to me that this is not a very fortunate word. By the way, this is the report for 1951 to which I am referring. It presumably goes to the end of 1951; it is not, as the minister said, dated much earlier. However, I am not going to press the matter. I just make the point that it does not tell its own story. I think the minister has cleared the matter up, except that I think the word "non-essential" is just a bit misleading.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE General administration-
441. Departmental administration, $617,795.
Mr. Charlton:: Is the minister going to make a report to the committee on the trade position?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might make a few introductory remarks. The activities of the Department of Trade and Commerce during the last year were largely conditioned by the changes in the economic situation we have experienced. I reviewed economic developments in Canada when I participated in the debate on the speech from the throne on March 14, 1952. I said then:
The demand for Canadian output should, in general, be well sustained by the continuing high level of capital Investment, by export demand for most of our staple products and by defence preparations.
I observed that there was "no reason to anticipate either inflation or depression" in 1952.
Supply-Trade and Commerce
Events since then have brought further evidence supporting this view. The supply situation with respect to a number of strategic materials has improved. Inflationary pressures have subsided. The cost of living index turned down in February of this year, recording in the last three months a decline of about three points. The cost of living is now back to about where it was last August. In other words, during the last three months consumer prices have been declining at twice the rate they were rising in the preceding six months. A further substantial drop in the cost of living index is in sight for the month of May.
The latest data we have show that employment in industry is up 2 per cent.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: From when?


Clarence Decatur Howe: From a corresponding date last year.
Payrolls are running now about 15 per cent above last year. In spite of weaknesses in some sectors, retail sales have been higher by 3 per cent in the first quarter of this year as compared with the same period last year.
As to investment, we are continuing with our record program of some $5 billion, or almost 10 per cent higher in value terms than last year's capital expenditures. Construction activity is particularly strong in the defence, industrial, public utility, and resources development sectors. Even in such fields as housing where activity was notably lower towards the end of last year, some improvement is indicated. For example, starts in cities and towns with population of 5,000 and over in March and April, 1952, reached about the same level as in corresponding months a year earlier. The best information we can obtain on the housing program suggests that starts this year may be a little lower than in the year 1951 as a whole but higher than the low level experienced towards the end of last year and at the beginning of this year.
In the trade field, recent events have also borne out my earlier remarks made to this house. Hon. members will recall that I took issue with the view expressed by opposition members that Canada was losing the British market. Trade figures for the first quarter of this year show that exports to the United Kingdom were 37 per cent higher than in the corresponding period of 1951. Exports to other sterling area countries were up 54 per cent. Our exports to Europe and Latin America have climbed even more notably. Our sales to the United States are up slightly.
One other interesting aspect of our trade picture is that for the first quarter of this year Canada has had a favourable balance

Supply-Trade and Commerce of commodity trade while a year ago we were running a deficit. Altogether developments so far point to another record year for Canadian trade and one in which exports and imports may be in better over-all balance.
The trends which were evident in both our external trade and our domestic economy suggest that Canada is emerging from a period of initial adjustment to a defence program to one where supply and demand are in better balance, with a consequent easing of the pressure on prices. In the home market underlying demand remains strong, bolstered by a vigorous resources and industrial development program and a rising level of defence expenditures. As for our customers abroad, there are indications that even where currency difficulties exist, many of Canada's basic export commodities are too urgently needed to be dispensed with. The outlook therefore is for a further rise in the level of employment, income, and output.
In this period of adjustment the Department of Trade and Commerce has helped in three ways. In the first place, shortly after the war broke out in Korea we started building up in the Department of Trade and Commerce a number of units to look after some aspects of the defence production and material allocation program. With the formation of the Department of Defence Production on April 1, 1951, these units were transferred to the new department. This helped us materially to put the new organization together in a short space of time.
Secondly, the department has carried on with its effort to assist in the expansion of Canadian trade, both exports and imports. The great emphasis on this phase of the work by the department is in line with the government's view that, in spite of the importance of defence preparation, special attention must be given to our trade relations with other countries. A high and diversified level of exports and imports continues to be a vital prerequisite to the nation's well-being.
Departmental representatives participated in the trade conference at Torquay which began in September, 1950, and lasted until April, 1951, and took an active part in the sixth session of the contracting parties to the general agreement on tariffs and trade in Geneva during September and October, 1951. A considerable number of trade discussions were carried on with individual countries, the United Kingdom, other parts of the British commonwealth, the United States and a number of European, South American and Asiatic countries.
IMr. Howe.]
Thirdly, the Department of Trade and Commerce has continued to assist domestic industry. Activities cover a great variety of aspects, from assisting business firms facing supply and market problems to encouraging foreign manufacturers to establish plants in Canada, from negotiating with Canadian suppliers for products to be shipped to India and Pakistan under the Colombo plan to making arrangements for Canadian participation in industrial fairs abroad and particularly in organizing the Canadian international trade fair. The fair this year will be held in Toronto from June 2 to June 13. We have already had an indication that this year's fair will be bigger than any of our earlier fairs, and that Canadian industry will be participating to a greater extent than ever before.
As to details of the activities of each branch of the department, they may be found in the annual report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the calendar year 1951, tabled this day. Copies will be made available to hon. members as soon as they are received from the queen's printer, probably within the next few days.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Chairman, I am sure we were all very interested in the report the minister gave us on trade conditions in Canada today. It is most urgent and most important that we take a great deal of time and interest in studying this situation as it is. For years our most stable market for agricultural products has been the United Kingdom. I want to give a brief historical sketch of what has happened to those products we have sent to Great Britain, Mr. Chairman, and the position in which we are today with regard to those products.
In 1938 we supplied 27-5 per cent of the total British imports of barley. By 1951 we had lost this market to Russia, which is now the largest supplier. In so far as oats are concerned, in 1938 we supplied 93-9 per cent of the total British imports; in 1945, 96 per cent; in 1946, 72 per cent; in 1947, 92-9 per cent; and by 1948 we had lost this market to the iron curtain countries, chiefly Russia, and the sterling countries. In 1938 we supplied 254-5 thousand cwt. of beans which was 24-3 per cent of the total British imports. By 1951, we had lost this market. In 1945 we supplied 43 per cent of the total British imports of beef. We lost this market largely to the Argentine Republic and found an alternative market in the United States which has since been closed to us as a result of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Canada. This is the most recent example

of how our present pattern of export trade, important as it has been in the past, can be shut off overnight.
Ini 1938 we supplied 18-1 per cent of Britain's bacon imports. This market for Canadian bacon was built up tremendously during the forties, as is evidenced by the fact that in 1945 we supplied 83 per cent of the total British imports; in 1946, 73-5 per cent; in 1947, 74-4 per cent; in 1948, 70T per cent; and in 1949 we started to lose this market to Denmark, Poland, The Netherlands. By 1951 Canada supplied only 16,048 cwt., out of a total British import of 4,426,138 cwt., while Poland supplied 730,166 cwt., Netherlands 695,267 cwt. and Denmark 2,953,355 cwt. Our percentage of this market now is considerably below the pre-war level of 1938. In 1938 we supplied 34 per cent of the total British import of ham. This market was steadily built up until in 1947 we supplied 78 * 5 per cent.
In so far as cheese is concerned, Canada has long been the large supplier to the British market. In 1938 we supplied 23-2 per cent of the total British import. This market was built up until in 1945 we sold 1,004,945 cwt. or 31 per cent of the total British imports. There has been a steady decline in the sales of cheese on this market until today our reduced export of 234,568 cwt. out of a total importation of 3,884,865 cwt. is further threatened. During the forties Canada built up -quite an export market for poultry in the United Kingdom. In 1947 we supplied 107,479 cwt. or 18-2 per cent of the total British imports. We have now lost this market and iron curtain countries such as Poland and Hungary have become the substantial suppliers.
In 1945 Canada supplied 56 per cent of the British imports of shell eggs and 26 per cent of their dried eggs. In 1948, we supplied 79-8 per cent of their dried egg imports, 20-5 per cent of their imports of frozen eggs and in addition 29-1 per cent of their whole egg imports. This market has been lost to Poland, China and the sterling countries. In the case of condensed milk, in 1938 Canada supplied 56-6 per cent of Britain's total imports. This market has been lost to the sterling countries and The Netherlands, In 1938 Canada supplied 42-5 per cent of the total United Kingdom imports of fresh apples. This market was built up by Canadian producers to as high as 69-2 per cent of the total British imports in 1946. In 1948 we lost this market entirely, largely to sterling countries and to some European countries. In 1949 efforts were made to regain this market in view of the heavy surplus of apples in Canada, and our exports
Supply-Trade and Commerce to Britain amounted to 513,145 cwt. of their total imports of 1,763,757 cwt. or about 29 per cent. In 1950 our exports to this *market increased to 880,443 cwt. of their total imports of 2,349,081 cwt. or over 37 per cent. In 1951 the total British imports of apples increased to 3,885,093 cwt.; but imports from Canada dropped to 484,664 or about 13 per cent of their total imports. Today that market, or what is left of it, is again threatened.
In the case of canned tomatoes, prior to the war, Canada had developed a considerable market for canned tomatoes in the United Kingdom, and we supplied 176,034 cwt., or 19 per cent of their total imports. This market for canned tomatoes was gradually built up until 1946, when we supplied 515,931 cwt. or 47-3 per cent of their total imports. In 1947 we commenced to lose that market largely to Italy and other foreign countries in the sterling area. The market is now lost absolutely to Canadian producers.
In the case of canned salmon, in 1938 the Canadian fisheries industry enjoyed a considerable export outlet for canned salmon in the United Kingdom market, and we supplied 155,679 cwt., or about 14 per cent of their total imports. This outlet was developed considerably as an export outlet, when in 1949 Canada supplied 82 per cent of Britain's total imports. In 1948 British imports of canned salmon from Canada were reduced, while their imports from foreign countries were increased. In 1950 our total exports to the United Kingdom of canned fish of all classes totalled only 84,465 cwt. of a total British import of 603,528 cwt., or less than 14 per cent. In 1951 we were able to increase the total exports of all kinds of canned fish to the United Kingdom market to 143,666 cwt. of their total imports of 378,650 cwt. Today this outlet market is again threatened.
In the case of pit props, an export market for pit props in the United Kingdom is of particular importance to the maritime provinces. In 1945 we supplied 9,954 piled cubic fathoms of their total imports of 161,121, or over 55 per cent. By 1946 we had increased this to 217,474 of their total imports of 458,989. In 1947 we supplied 207,640. In 1949 we commenced to lose this market when our exports dropped to 165,393, although the total British imports had jumped to 558,433. In 1950 we practically lost this market, when our exports fell to 8,179, while the Scandinavian countries, Poland, Germany, Yugoslavia and Russia became the chief suppliers.
In 1951 we were able to increase our exports of pit props to the United Kingdom to 51,082,

Supply-Trade and Commerce Cuts in imports announced by Australia are expected to total between 400 and 500 million pounds sterling and will directly affect Canadian exports to that market which totalled $49-1 million in 1951.
New Zealand, to whom Canada exported goods to the value of $21-8 million last year, has announced the cancellation of all licences for dollar imports and that new applications will be carefully scrutinized.
South Africa-Canadian exports to South Africa in 1951 were valued at $52-7 million, showing an increase of $10 million over the previous year. The announcement recently that imports will be confined to one-third of the consumer goods imported last year will seriously affect this Canadian export trade outlet.
Our total exports to commonwealth countries-excluding	gold-which	last year
amounted to $872 million as against $655 [DOT] 1 million in 1950, are now seriously threatened.
Import cuts have been announced by all these 64 countries with the four exceptions mentioned above. This action is not specifically aimed at Canada, although as a dollar country our export markets will suffer materially in the year ahead. The action was taken as a first aid device by these countries as they tackle the money problems with which they are now confronted.
Canada by her contributions to post-war financing Britain gambled heavily on the future of sterling. We still need that sterling market which accounts for about 50 per cent of the world's trade. Rather than leave the Canadian economy vulnerable to economic fluctuations or political tariffs in the United States, or allow ourselves to drift into the position of having only the United States bidding for Canadian products, this country should initiate action now to set up the machinery for a complete study of commonwealth trade possibilities, within the confines of our international obligations under existing trade arrangements.
With regard to primary products, particularly agricultural products, export markets are essential as a means of disposing of surpluses, which, no matter how small they may be in relation to total production, allowed to remain unsold depress prices out of all reasonable proportions. As evidence of the recognized seriousness of undisposable surplus production we have by legislation provided for floor prices under agricultural products. Even this, however, is not a satisfactory substitute for export markets, for the floor price set is usually at a level where the government hopes it will have as little of the product as possible left on its hands.

Canada is a member of the commonwealth just the same as Britain, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, or any other country within that association of nations.
We have every right to sit down with these countries now in an effort to devise means whereby we can work out our mutual salvation in matters of trade.
The present policy Of drift now followed by the present government is wholly inadequate to meet present challenges. We have paid dearly for this policy in the past and action should be taken now before this whole trade situation explodes in our face.
The record of this government is strewn with incidents where action recognized as necessary was delayed until the situation became so bad that public reaction forced resolute action. This happened in the case of:
(1)	Outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in western Canada;
(2)	Sale of illegal passports by officials of the department of immigration. This was first mentioned publicly over a year ago when the minister promised to look into it. Action was not taken until a few months ago, and even yet the extent of this bribery has not been disclosed.
This pattern of drift is clearly evident in regard to trade. We are losing our export markets to such a degree that even the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) frankly admitted it when he said on February 1 last, as published in the Toronto Star of February 2, that Canada's foreign markets have now shrunk to such an extent that sales of raw materials, such as were requested from Canada by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization committee set up prior to the Lisbon conference, are vital dollar earners which help Canada toward balancing her trade with United States.
This policy of drift, until a situation becomes so serious it practically explodes in their face and public opinion forces the government to act, is true with regard to Canada's export trade today. We are losing our traditional markets and the tempo of these losses is accelerated as the months go by. This is not only reflecting in pockets of unemployment across this country, but many of our major industries are now threatened. Real concern is now felt by our primary producers as to where markets will be found for this year's crop. Other industries, such as lumbering, pit props and related products already see the distress signals flying although these apparently go unnoticed by the government most responsible.
The answer given by Mr. Howe in the House of Commons on March 12 last that a

commonwealth trade conference was unnecessary because there was a commonwealth finance ministers' conference in London in January is wholly unsatisfactory. In the first place, the Minister of Finance, who represented Canada at that conference, rightly or wrongly created the impression he was there largely as an observer, Canada being the only dollar member of the commonwealth at a meeting called to deal with a sterling crisis. Further, that was a finance ministers' conference held without the advice of trade experts available to the countries represented.
A commonwealth trade conference should be called for the purpose of dealing with matters of trade designed towards unblocking existent channels of trade and development of new ones geared to expansion now under way within the commonwealth, and not for any specific purpose a minister of finance would or could serve. If the commonwealth means anything it means we could sit down in conference and review the whole trade situation as it has developed since the war. Already too many valuable years have been wasted without the necessary action being taken while our traditional markets are being closed to us.
While the deal arranged between New Zealand, United States, Great Britain and Canada for beef is a step in the right direction, it will not take care of the surplus we will undoubtedly have this year. It is imperative therefore that the government do everything possible to try to regain our former position in the United Kingdom market. While it is not desirable that we should gain through the misfortune of one of our sister nations in the commonwealth, if reports are true of an unusual drought in Australia it might be to the mutual advantage of the United Kingdom and this country for Canada to make every effort possible now to supply the British market.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have just listened to a political speech so full of inaccuracies that it should be answered immediately. The hon. member says that we have lost our British markets. I stated that sales to Great Britain were up 37 per cent last year over the previous year.


John Alpheus Charlton: In dollars.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In volume as well as in dollars. The sales for the first three months of this year are up at least 25 per cent over the sales for last year. If my hon. friend would like to have figures, I have them here.


John Alpheus Charlton: I have them too.
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why not interpret them correctly?


John Alpheus Charlton: I made the statement that your figures were not based on volume; that makes a difference.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The total value was related to volume.


John Alpheus Charlton: If the minister would give the volume and not the price it would present a different picture.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will give the figures for the first three months of this year as compared with last year.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In volume?


Clarence Decatur Howe: How can my hon. friend expect volume in over-all trade. If my hon. friend will just consider the difference in price between last year and this year, which is just fractional, he will compare the results.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then do not pretend that the hon. member is inaccurate because he gives the volume, which is the most sensible way to give it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Here is the comparison between the first three months of this year and the first three months of last year, showing our sales to different countries:
First	First
three	three
months months 1951	1952
United Kingdom	
$113,000,000	$154,000,000South Africa	
8,900,000	15,380,000Australia	
8,448,000	15,286,000New Zealand	
2,300,000	6,178,000
So we have lost our British market. I never heard such nonsense.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You have not questioned a single figure the hon. member gave.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I never heard such a distortion of facts in my life.


John Alpheus Charlton: On a question of privilege, I should like to ask the minister how many pounds-


The Chairman:: That is not a question of privilege.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am getting to the information; I am taking every item in my hon. friend's speech and turning it inside out to show the ridiculous nature of the situation.


Hazen Robert Argue: How about farm products?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am coming to that. I have the information for every country in the world.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You said you were going to question the hon. member's figures.
2238	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Clarence Decatur Howe: What figures?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The figures he gave you. You have not questioned one yet.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He said we had lost the market for beef.


John Alpheus Charlton: We had lost it until this last deal.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why? We find that in New Zealand beef for Great Britain is put on board ship at fourteen cents per pound, whereas in Canada it is put on board ship under the present floor prices at forty-eight cents per pound. Why have we lost the British market for beef? It is because our farmers do not wish to raise beef for market at fourteen cents per pound delivered at seaboard. What about pork? Why have we lost the market for pork?


John Alpheus Charlton: We have lost it, have we?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not say that. Why are we not shipping? Because Great Britain can buy it in New Zealand at twenty cents; they can buy it on the continent at twenty cents, but our farmers think that they should get twenty-six cents a pound. Under the present floor prices our farmers have been getting at least that for some time. If my hon. friend wants to put the Canadian farmer, which I assume he does, in competition with farmers on the continent, in Australia and New Zealand for that market on a price basis-it must be on a price basis-then-


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Chairman-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not interrupt my hon. friend and I do not want him to interrupt me. My hon. friend speaks of the market for oats. Canada is not normally a large exporter of oats. Oats is a domestic crop. In a year of short crop it is all consumed in Canada. In a year of surplus crop we have the highest priced market in the world at our door. It has always been there, probably always will be there, and is a market that can take whatever surplus we have, be it large or small. The same is true of barley. We have a market at our door for barley. Sometimes we have a substantial quantity of barley for export and sometimes we have very little for export.
My hon. friend has spoken about the market for cheese. We had a very big market for cheese in Great Britain throughout the war. We practically supplied all the cheese that Great Britain used during the war. We had contracts up until last year for considerably more cheese than we could supply. Some years we did not supply 30 per cent of the cheese for which we had a contract
[Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood).I

with Great Britain. I do not know whether Great Britain considers Canada as a very reliable source of supply. We had been supplying it at a competitive price, but last year the Ontario producers went over to England and made a contract for a small quantity at a very high price, the highest price I think that Great Britain has ever paid for cheese. When this year came along the British said that they did not want any more cheese from North America. They had built up sources of supply elsewhere.
My hon. friend says that we have lost the British market for lumber. It is my impression that in the last year Great Britain has been buying all the lumber from Canada that Canada could supply. I know that a year ago they would have taken considerably more lumber than Canada then could offer.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You have come to something at last that we have not lost. That is good.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does my hon. friend think we have really lost the British market for anything? That is your story. You will stick to it and you will tell it on every platform, but it is totally untrue.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Oh, no. No
one said that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have sold more to Britain in the last twelve months than we have ever sold in the history of this country, war years or no war years.


John Alpheus Charlton: On dollar value?


Clarence Decatur Howe: On dollar value, tonnage or anything else.


John Alpheus Charlton: Not on volume.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On volume as well. Produce your figures on volume. You have not produced any so far. You have kept to a few fringe products that we sometimes sell to the United Kingdom, and always in small quantities except in the war years or immediate post-war years when markets were maladjusted. I could go over the list product by product. I would be glad to take any product that anyone would like to discuss, but the fact of the matter is that Canada has found markets somewhere for everything it could produce. We speak of canned tomatoes, and it seems we have lost the British market. We had a shortage of canned tomatoes no later than last autumn and throughout the past winter.
The hon. member says we have lost the British market for canned milk. I do not know where the market has come from but I know we have been able to sell every tin of canned or powdered milk this country has

been able to produce, and I have great confidence that we can do so in the future. I do not know just what the process would be if we were to tie ourselves to one market and take the price conditions of that market. Are we going to close out more profitable and more accessible markets? Is this country prepared as a matter of policy to say that we are going to supply England in any event and that any price that England is willing to pay will be the price for Canadian producers? Is that the policy my hon. friends are advocating?


John Alpheus Charlton: That is absolute nonsense.


Clarence Decatur Howe: How do we get beef into
England when they are buying it at 14 cents a pound on the boat?


John Alpheus Charlton: Would the minister permit one question?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


John Alpheus Charlton: What happened to the
promise made during the war years that if the farmers of Canada would sell at a lesser price than the world price the government would protect them with respect to future markets in Great Britain and make up the difference over and above the price the farmers had to take?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is that the policy for which my hon. friend is asking?


John Alpheus Charlton: That was the policy promised by this government in the war years.


Mr. Sinclair:: What page?


Clarence Decatur Howe: What page? My hon. friend has distorted the export picture so consistently that he has no idea of the policy of the government or the position of the farmers under the government policy.


James Sinclair: He just has no ideas.


An hon. Member:: Nothing up top.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I say, the situation is that our exports for this year will be a record for any year in peacetime history, and I am referring to our exports of everything that Canada exports. It is true we have lost a certain market for certain products because of the inability of that country to afford to buy our products. Great Britain would like very much to buy Canadian canned salmon. It is popular but it is a higher priced food than other foods they are buying. It is considerably higher in price than the meat they are buying from Australia. They have said to us that they are sorry that they cannot afford our salmon. They may change their minds. That door has not been closed. That
Supply-Trade and Commerce is the position today and it is purely on the basis of price. They just cannot afford that expensive food.


John Alpheus Charlton: We have still lost it though.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, lost-what does my hon. friend think we are going to do with the salmon, just leave it in the ocean or throw it away? We will sell it somewhere where they can afford to buy canned salmon.


John Alpheus Charlton: I said we had lost the market. You said we had not. Now you agree that we have.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not say we had lost the market. I said the situation in Britain was such that they could not afford to buy canned salmon this year. So far as cheese is concerned, they trifled with our small amount of Canadian cheese until the price has got too high for them. They do not want any more Canadian cheese at the moment.


Mr. Ferrie:: Tory policy.


John Alpheus Charlton: Yet we import cheese from New Zealand.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly we import. We are a trading nation. Will my hon. friend just subside? He must be sure he is wrong because he is so persistent in throwing my statement off balance. Let us not emphasize the effect of the foot-and-mouth disease, which it will take time to correct, but will my hon. friend admit that we have sold everything this country has produced surplus to domestic requirements over the past year, and at the best prices available in the world? Perhaps he will mention something we have not sold.


An hon. Member:: Apples.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We sold the apple crop last year and sold it at a good price.


John Alpheus Charlton: There was a surplus of cheese last year and the foot-and-mouth disease had nothing to do with that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That was all in the province of Ontario. The marketing of cheese was in the hands of the province of Ontario. A price of 36 cents a pound for cheese was set by the cheese co-operative and it was not possible to sell cheese at 36 cents a pound in any market in the world, and not even in Canada to the full quantity available. The production of cheese in Canada is just about equal to the consumption of cheese, and the best market for Canadian cheese is the market in Canada.


John Alpheus Charlton: Then why was there a surplus?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Because the price has been too high.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


An hon. Member:: Tory policy.


An hon. Member:: The worst thing that could happen to Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know that I need to say any more, but I must say that we are now enjoying the greatest market in England we have ever had. My hon. friend referred to tobacco. We exported about $11 million worth of tobacco to England last year. England decided it could not afford to buy as much tobacco from North America. The cut-back on Canada was not as severe in proportion as the cut-back on the United States. The British are buying from Canada a proportion of the tobacco they bought last year. In the meantime they are using up the stockpile they built up in the United Kingdom. When that stockpile is consumed they propose to come back to North America for the usual tobacco requirements of the United Kingdom. Let us put that bugaboo at rest. I had a lot more to say-


John Alpheus Charlton: You cannot think of anything else.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have listened to such a ridiculous statement by the hon. member. From end to end it is distorted. It is a political speech that is being recited on the platform. There is not an atom of truth in it.


John Alpheus Charlton: You have not disproved it yet.


Clarence Decatur Howe: 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.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, this is not quite the atmosphere in which one likes to rise for the purpose of discussing a problem of this description.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We will now have a little bit of sweet reason.


Major James William Coldwell: No; I do not know that you will. What I was going to say was this. The minister this afternoon has given us an optimistic forecast of the immediate future of trade and commerce in our country. I agree with him in this respect. Canada has been exceedingly fortunate in the post-war years. I think of the prognostications that were made by various officials of the Department of Labour, the Department of Trade and Commerce and by other departments of government, as well as economists in almost every country in the world, to the effect that

in the post-war period we should face a severe depression which would test the rather vulnerable economy of Canada.


Mr. Hetland:: What about the C.C.F.?


Major James William Coldwell: We simply repeated them.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: And believed them.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say that the prognostications that we gave were the prognostications that were given by the Department of Labour of this government, and by the outstanding economists all across the world.


James Sinclair: By the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


Major James William Coldwell: Let me say this. What was it that changed the picture?


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: 


James Sinclair: C. D. Howe.


Major James William Coldwell: Just let me say this. I am not going to take from the Minister of Trade and Commerce any credit which is his due. I have a high regard for what the Minister of Trade and Commerce didi during the war and for what he has done since the war. I am not going to say one word whatever to detract from that record. I am, however, going to say this. We were fortunate, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce was fortunate, because of what happened. We had UNRRA demanding goods and services that we could supply. We had the Marshall plan in which we were able to participate. Then, just as there was something in the nature of a slight recession falling upon the world, we had the regrettable outbreak of the Korean war and the demands of the new armament industries. Of course we now have had NATO and the demand for further raw material and so on.
All this has kept the economy of the North American countries at a high level of production. As long as this situation continues we are likely to see a high level of production. No one person can take credit for that situation. It was rather an unexpected windfall for the ministers of the governments that now enjoy the high level of prosperity in North America and elsewhere.
In his introductory remarks the minister referred to the decline in the cost of living. I think that a decline should be welcome; but let me point out again that the present decline in the cost of living is largely reflected in the loss of revenue in the agriculture industry. If we are going to have a fall in the cost of living, let it be a fall all the way round, so that its impact is not on one industry alone. Usually a decline in agriculture prices, thereby causing a fall in the cost of living, is a sign of some recession in the economy. I hope it is not so in the present instance. The minister

says employment is up and wages are up. The pockets of unemployment we had are fading out, it is true, and I hope that steps will be taken to see to it that, during the coming autumn and winter, pockets of unemployment are avoided everywhere in this country.
The minister says capital expenditure is up. Capital expenditure has increased tremendously in this country, in the United States and in other countries. I may say that I have seen writings in which there was expressed by economists who follow these matters closely-not only in the United States but in the United Kingdom and recently in the writing of a great French economist- some concern lest the world may be overcapitalizing and increasing capital equipment at too great a rate at the present time; and that with the entry into the productive field once again of Japan and Germany, unless these countries can find markets where they used to find them-Japan, for example in China, and Germany to the east as well as other parts of Europe where she finds it difficult to sell at the present time-we are going to find that there may be severe competition which may change the picture extensively.
When the Minister of Trade and Commerce was speaking the thought crossed my mind that it is easy to criticize opposition members from the ministerial benches because, after all, the ministers have research facilities which the rest of us lack. I only wish that we had at our disposal the research facilities for the obtaining of information that is available immediately to the ministers in discussions of this description.
I quite agree that trade is an all-important consideration in the Canadian economy. We as a country are a producer of goods in tremendous quantity. In our own country we could use more of some of these goods if our people could only get at them. But even if we were able to do that, the huge surpluses we can produce will have to be exported. I know the minister's department is an ably staffed one.
If I may digress for a moment, may I say that I was exceedingly sorry to note the other day the departure from that department of Mr. Max Mackenzie. I think he has been an outstanding public servant. I had the pleasure, as did the hon. member for Peel, of working closely with him at the San Francisco conference seven years ago and also in New York in 1946; and I came to have a high regard for his ability.
There is, however, this to be said; and in this matter I support the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth. A serious threat to our
Supply-Trade and Commerce economy has been developing in these postwar years. We have become more and more dependent on a single market for our trade; and that single market is the United States. The minister is perfectly right when he points out that that tendency has been largely due to the fact that other countries with whom we formerly traded in large quantities have found it difficult to obtain in our country the necessary purchasing power in order to get the goods they require. But that does not alter the fact-and I think we should face it-that we are running into grave danger of placing too many of our eggs in the one basket, instead of perhaps trying more than we have been, as far as I know- and as I say, I speak without access to the necessary research facilities-to find more varied outlets for our increasing production of grain, dairy products, raw materials and manufactured goods.
The United States has never been a stable market for Canadian goods, particularly for the kind of goods in which, on a long-term basis, Canada has excelled. We have had indications of this fact in recent times. It would seem that our alternative, wherever it is possible to do so, is to seek export markets overseas and to do everything we can to reach agreements so that we may reverse the trend that has made us so dependent on the unpredictable United States market.
This afternoon I was glad indeed to hear the further announcement made by the Minister of Agriculture.
The amount of meat involved is not very large in relation to the amount that we could produce and may have surplus for export. I believe we have every reason to be glad that New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada were able to reach such an agreement regarding the marketing of the surplus meat caused by the United States embargo against our Canadian supplies. May I say that this indicates very clearly indeed what can be done when friendly governments are prepared to co-operate with one another to meet a problem that one of them faces. Private trading, may I say, could not have reached this agreement. Only because of the fact that in the last number of years we have been trading on the basis of nations were we able to reach an agreement of this description. I have no doubt that that is the pattern, whether some like it or not, of future relationships among many of the great nations. In passing may I say that I hope that an international wheat agreement will be arrived at within the next year, and that the price will be satisfactory to the Canadian producer. I hope the price will be in line with the price that he should expect with
2242	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce the increased cost of production that has taken place over the last number of years. I believe that every effort should be made to reach an agreement satisfactory to all concerned. I know the difficulties because of the monetary situation across the world, and I recognize the difficulties that have arisen in that regard.
In the inter-war period, that is between 1920 and 1939, the United Kingdom closely rivalled the United States as the market for Canadian products, but in dollar exchange we sold as much as $2 worth of goods to Britain and bought from her as little as $1 worth of goods in return during a number of those years. In those days that was a condition that could be overcome because of the British investments overseas, and her ability to obtain the necessary dollar exchange. All that was changed by the war. With the loss of the investments, which she had to liquidate during the war in order to buy goods to meet her war effort abroad, she changed from the world's great creditor nation to one of the world's great debtor nations. This, of course, accounts largely for the changes that have occurred.
Between 1920 and 1939, we exported an average of 35-8 per cent of our total products to the United Kingdom and 38 per cent to the United States. Our exports to the two countries were, therefore, very similar. In the first half of 1951-I should like the minister to correct me if I am wrong-on the other hand, only 14-4 per cent of our total exports went to the United Kingdom and 63-3 per cent went to the United States. If those figures are correct, and I have no research organization to help me in arriving at such figures, they do indicate what I said and what the hon. member for Brant-Went-worth said, that we are putting most of our eggs in one basket and that is a very dangerous thing to do. In regard to our exports to the United States, we have to remember that most of those exports are raw materials for industrial purposes in that country. Last year, of course, there was a considerable quantity of meat as well, but most of the exports were raw materials for industrial purposes, whereas the exports that we have been making in the past to Great Britain consisted of some raw materials but largely of foodstuffs and products from our farms. I believe that is the point that we should be considering at this time, and realizing that there is developing a rather dangerous change both in the channels of trade and types of commodities as between these countries and Canada.
I might just add that it is interesting to note that only five countries, other than


Britain and the United States, took 1 per cent or more of our exports. This indicates again the restricted area in which we market our Canadian goods. This is not only true of exports, but it is equally true of imports.
In the period 1920 to 1939, imports from the United States were 64-7 per cent of our total imports, and imports from the United Kingdom were 17-5 per cent of our total imports. This emphasizes the statement I made a few minutes ago that we purchase much more from the United States than from the United Kingdom, and we sold relatively more to the United Kingdom than to the United States. In the first half of 1951, 70 per cent of our imports came from the United States, while, as I have it, only 10-7 per cent of our imports *came from Great Britain. We imported, as I have said, 1 per cent or more of our total imports from only five countries in addition to the United States and Britain. It is true, then, that our trade always has been highly concentrated in a few countries, indeed largely concentrated in two countries. The United Kingdom and the United States, between the two world wars, together accounted for an average of about 77 per cent of the total trade of Canada. In the post-war period, the United States and the United Kingdom have accounted roughly for the same percentage of our trade, varying from 72-6 per cent in 1946 to 79-6 per cent in the first half of 1951.	1 want to say to the minister that
there is something alarming in the change that has taken place in our trade and commodities as between these two countries, as the figures I cited a moment ago-if they are correct, as I believe they are-will bear out.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I call the hon. member's attention to one factor? He should keep in mind that Canadian production is vastly greater now than in the twenties. I doubt if the volume-


Major James William Coldwell: In the goods I have dealt with?


Clarence Decatur Howe: -perhaps not the goods, but the over-all volume of goods shipped to Britain-has dropped. The total volume of exports is very much greater, so the percentages are down. I think that is a factor he should look at. Of course, we have been forced to balance our exports and- imports with the United States, because we could not continue in any other way. A few years ago we had a drive to balance our imports and exports to the United States to keep the country from going bankrupt in United States dollars.


Major James William Coldwell: What the minister says, I know, is a valid criticism, but I believe you have to compare the two percentages, the percentage of trade with one country and the

percentage of trade with another country, because you are taking the percentages out of the same aggregate volume of the production of our country. A moment ago I said that the most obvious difficulty that faces us in connection with the problem is the international balance of payments with which Britain has been faced, as a result of the drastic change in her economic status to which I have already referred. Before the war she was rich enough to pay for almost half her imports from dividends earned from her overseas investments. Since she was compelled to sell them during world war II, as I have said, she no longer has those revenues, and those assets. I do not think it is out of place to say that very much of that expenditure was made, particularly in the first year or so of the war, in order to fight the war on behalf of those of us who had the good fortune to live in North America, the United States, as well as Canada, far away from the scene of conflict and threat that then hung over Britain and Europe.
Britain is handicapped by the lack of dollars, so that she is compelled against her will to reduce her imports from this country and to look elsewhere for some of the supplies that she needs. And may I say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that, as I believe, if we are going to correct this situation to any degree we have to help her to earn more dollars in North America; and that applies not only to Canada but perhaps more particularly to the United States, because we have not yet had a great urge in this country nor have we had public opinion demanding increases in tariffs against British goods coming into Canada, though there has been some suggestion of it. If we are to bring about a better trade condition across the world, somehow or other Britain has to be able-and that applies to other countries as well-to earn more dollars in order to buy goods from the dollar countries.
Last year we bought an average of $31-9 million a month from Great Britain. That in the aggregate may seem at first glance quite a large amount to purchase, but I was very glad to hear the minister state that the imports from Britain are running higher in the first months of this year, because the figures I had for the first two months of this year indicated that the imports were lower, at a lower rate per month. I am very glad to hear him say now the imports are running at a higher rate than they were earlier this year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would not like a wrong impression to be created. I did not say the imports were running higher. I said
Supply-Trade and Commerce our exports were running at a higher rate. I was not talking about imports. Unfortunately they are not running higher; they are running a bit lower.


Mr. Blackmore:: Imports into Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Imports into Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: This is what the Economic Record for April 1952 had to say. This is a publication of the United Kingdom information office, and in its April issue it commented on the trade with Canada as follows:
That is why British purchasing in Canada is having to be cut further despite the United Kingdom hunger for the things Canada produces.
They were referring to the announcement made that Britain would have to import fewer Canadian goods, and it goes on to point out that the food minister, Mr. Lloyd George, when asked recently in the British House of Commons what was being done about Canada's $300 million unsaleable surplus of beef, pork, milk products and food grain, had this to say:
For balance of payments reasons we are regretfully compelled at present to confine our purchases of Canadian food mainly to cereals and flour.
Well, of course, owing to the co-operation of New Zealand, that has been partially rectified as far as we are concerned. Then other commonwealth countries, with whom we should attempt to promote the best possible trade relations for political as well as economic reasons, are being compelled by the dollar gap to reconsider their all too low purchases from Canada. A great deal depends upon the ability to trade on a two-way basis.
I am not going to pursue this at very much greater length; but I do want to say that I believe that Canada, with our prosperity, with our favoured condition, should take a lead on every possible occasion not only to set an example ourselves but to urge other countries to do everything possible to remove their barriers from the trade channels. We should do everything we can to assist the nations that are our customers or our potential customers to earn dollars in our country. At the present time our own trade and the trade of the world are bewitched by uncertainty regarding what is going to happen in the United States, on the outcome of the election as well as the uncertainties of the American tariff, which has always been rather vacillating, and the possibility of a sudden shift in trade policies.
There is a good deal of concern felt everywhere, in our own country as well as in other countries, regarding that. We remember the general agreement on tariffs and trade,
2244	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce the Geneva agreement, to which* my hon. friend referred this afternoon, which was brought about in 1947. When that was brought before the House of Commons in December of that year many of us hoped that the promotion of trade between nations would cease to be the subject of discrimination such as hampered and prevented successful trade in the past. Unfortunately those expectations have not been realized, at least in full measure, because the United States, in direct contravention of the trade agreements, established an import quota on certain commodities, including cheese, simply as a result of domestic pressure upon the government of that country. They are always subject to that kind of pressure. Then the United States took action to restrict imports of fats and oils and dairy products from this country in contravention of the agreement, and I venture to say-and I think the minister would confirm this-that we have lived up to every obligation we assumed under the Geneva agreements. I do not know of any obligation that we assumed that we have not fulfilled. Indeed, we fulfilled the agreement a year earlier than was entirely necessary, and in the fulfilment of the agreement automatically, on January 1, 1948, we did reimpose or raise some tariffs against the United Kingdom and against some of her goods with the result that, though it did not mean a very great deal, it did in fact diminish her ability to earn dollars in Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But only at the request of the United Kingdom.


Major James William Coldwell: At the request of?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. It allowed them to-[DOT]


Major James William Coldwell: Only at the request of?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Of the United Kingdom.


Major James William Coldwell: I thought it was at the request of the United States. As I remember it, I thought the United States proposed that the United Kingdom-


Clarence Decatur Howe: It allowed the United; Kingdom to make the trade with the United States that they wished to make, and we did not raise any barrier against England except at the request of England.


Major James William Coldwell: All right. But it does not alter the fact that we did put that agreement into effect on January 1, 1948; we did increase some tariffs against certain British goods on July 1 of that year; we did thereby diminish her earning capacity for dollars in this country. We have fulfilled every obligation. Our great neighbour to the South, the United States, assuming similar obligations, has not fulfilled her obligations to the extent that


we in Canada have, and to some extent we have been the losers by the non-fulfilment of those obligations by the United States.
As I said, I am not going to pursue this further. There is another matter that I had intended to discuss this afternoon, but owing to the interruptions and so on it would take me a little longer than the time allotted to me permits.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Go ahead.


Major James William Coldwell: No; I never like to do that, Mr. Chairman, but I will deal with it on another occasion. However, I think that this parliament and the government must give every consideration possible to this vital problem of Canadian trade and commerce.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, I do not
propose to speak extensively on this occasion in connection with the matter of trade and commerce, although I think there is no more vital, interesting and important subject for the house to discuss in the greatest detail. Unfortunately the two speakers from the opposition who have preceded me have indicated the kind of thing that ought to be done, but have avoided carefully any suggestion as to how it ought to be done.
I think that for a member of parliament, in times so critical as this, to spend his time trying to tell the minister what ought to be done-which even every 14-year-old boy in the country knows-and yet to refrain from giving him any idea as to how it ought to be done-which apparently the minister himself does not even in the slightest degree know-is to waste our collective time and the time of the country.
If I were disposed to go into this matter in any considerable detail now I would devote my attention to the problem of how to enable Great Britain to get Canadian dollars.


Major James William Coldwell: Go ahead; we will listen.


John Horne Blackmore: I shall have considerably more to say on the subject before we have finished the discussion of this important matter of trade and commerce. However, I should like much better to hear what others have to say, whether any members in the house have any suggestion as to the way out of the difficulty. If any member has such a suggestion, I will listen with great humility and attentiveness. But it ought to be borne in mind and elaborated upon that what was said by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, just before he closed his remarks, is the all-important fact that confronts us in the world. It is the problem of what the United States is going to do.

I think that when we accepted-and I think recklessly-the idea that we could live in a world where there would be non-discrimination we did an injustice to ourselves intellectually. Anyone who would suppose that, after more than a century of admirable success in building up a powerful economy by means of discrimination, the United States would depart from that proven policy in order to give us a chance to sell goods in her market, must be either unrealistic, or perhaps just a little off colour. Unfortunately the government and the opposition, with the exception of the Social Credit party, were all off colour on that occasion; because they supposed that the United States would actually lower tariffs on commodities entering her country, and allow various goods to compete with her production. They supposed that.
Well, common sense, as well as all American history, would contradict any such possibility. There are those who seem to think the United States ought to let Canadian cheese come into that country to compete with United States cheese. Well, will someone who thinks he knows tell us how on earth it could benefit the United States to let Canadian cheese come in for her people to use, and allow her own cheese producers to be destroyed thereby? Can anyone see how that could possibly help the United States? The United States' chief concern is to look after the people of the United States, is it not? If the United States brought down her tariff on every kind of goods the nations producing those goods desired that she should, it would not be more than fifty years until the United States would be back in the position of a purely primary producing area, and would be one of the most hopeless and helpless nations on earth. Because there is hardly a commodity used in the United States that is not produced somewhere in the world far more cheaply than the United States can possibly produce it, bearing in mind the high wage standards and the high living standards which prevail in that country, and which undoubtedly the people of that country desire to have prevail.
Going right back to the beginning of United States history, what was it that made her great and strong? It was that high protective tariff wall. What was it that made Germany great and strong? It was her high protective tariff wall, which Bismarck, as a result of the wise counsel of List, insisted upon building up.
What was it that made Britain great? We hear a great deal about free trade, but it was not free trade that made Britain great and powerful. It was the fact that for centuries
Supply-Trade and Commerce wise monarchs and wise governments carefully protected the infant industries of Britain until they grew into giants. They became so strong that industries of a similar nature in other countries for the time being could not compete with them. But very shortly after Germany began to use the high protective tariff, her industries became powerful enough to compete successfully with those of Britain, and even to sell goods right in Britain in competition with British production.
What was it that built up Germany? It was the high protective tariff. What was it that built up Japan? It was the same sort of thing.


Mr. Stick:: And hard work.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, and hard work, we realize that; but just the same there was a protective tariff, if it was necessary. They kept their people on a low standard of living and operating at a high degree of efficiency.


Leonard T. Stick: And a low cost of production.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes.


Leonard T. Stick: Not a high tariff.


John Horne Blackmore: That was another way of going about it. They chose to keep their people on a low standard of living.


Leonard T. Stick: But not a high tariff.


John Horne Blackmore: Does anyone in this country want Canada to come down to a low standard of living in order to be able to compete in the world? Will anyone suggest for one moment that the United States should bring down the standard of living of her people to a level comparable with that which prevails in Japan, in order that she may be able successfully to keep Japanese goods out of the American market, without a tariff? Is there any member in the committee who would suggest that to anyone in the United States? Well, the ordinary United States citizen upon hearing a suggestion of that kind would brand as a lunatic the one who made the suggestion.
Undoubtedly the United States will keep a high protective tariff on every commodity of which she is able to produce what she needs. Very well; that is just common sense. That is the first fact we face. What is the next step the United States follows? Just as rapidly as she can do it she is introducing industries which will supply her with goods which formerly she imported from abroad. Anyone who wishes to investigate with some thoroughness the extent to which that process has gone on since the beginning of world war II will find some most instructive reading in the Reader's Digest of December, 1949, which carries an article setting out why American

Supply-Trade and Commerce dollars are scarce. I may give the contents of the article before the conclusion of this discussion.
The general message of the article, the general fact elaborated, is that the United States is increasing the variety of her industrial life.


Mr. Darroch:: So are we.


John Horne Blackmore: That is another important fact in the situation. It means that the needs of the American people for goods coming in from abroad are decreasing progressively, unless she can get raw materials to supplement those raw materials of her own the supply of which is largely exhausted -as, for example, iron. She will take plenty of iron, she will take plenty of wood, she will take plenty of oil, she will take plenty of those primary products of which we cannot afford to deprive our country if we are to avoid exhausting our supplies of these things within twenty-five or thirty years. She will take those things, but she will not take the products which can be processed from those things if she can possibly avoid it. That fact is as clear as it can be. It is a major factor in the trade situation of the world today.
Obviously United States tariff restrictions are going to become more effective as she approaches more nearly a condition of being completely self-sufficient. That is the ideal toward which I believe her leaders are working. In other words, the United States is rapidly developing into what might be called an economic nationalist state.
Canada is doing exactly the same sort of thing under the exceedingly wise guidance of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). He gave a speech not long ago in Montreal-he will correct me if I do not paraphrase him correctly-in which he said that Canada was endeavouring to decrease her vulnerability. Those were not his exact words, but the general thought he was conveying was that he and the government were striving to make the Canadian ecenomy less vulnerable. The minister will check me if I am wrong.
What does that mean? It means that Canada under the guidance of the minister and the government in power is seeking to reach the point where Canada will be self-sufficient in respect of all really vital commodities. She does not want to be in the position where she will be dependent on outside sources of supply during the exigencies which might result from war in any part of the world. We had a good example of that in connection with rubber. I believe it was the Minister of Trade and Commerce who

established the Polymer Corporation as a result of which we are now fairly secure in respect of rubber. If it had not been for institutions such as Polymer we should have been in a very bad way in world war II. The minister will correct me if I am wrong in that.
Will anyone in this house, will anyone in this country advocate for one split second that the Polymer Corporation should be disbanded and thus render us vulnerable in respect to rubber? He certainly will not. But what has this thing done? What has the establishment of Polymer done in the world? It has had the practical effect of depriving Malaya of its main source of revenue. The minister will check me if I am wrong on that. If you want to find the reason why communism prevails so dangerously in Malaya, why some 50,000 British troops have to be kept there to keep down communism, you will find it in such things as Polymer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend asked me to correct him. Is it not true that Malaya has received the highest price for rubber in the last two or three years ever received in its history? It is still receiving a very high price compared to any standard, despite what has been done. The Polymer Corporation and artificial rubber is merely keeping pace with the increase in consumption rather than cutting into the supply from Malaya.


John Horne Blackmore: I am glad to have the minister correct me. We are under the same difficulty as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) referred to. When a member of the opposition rises in this house he is facing an expert of the highest quality, with a large expert staff. If he was not that he simply would not be worthy of the position he occupies. If a minister in charge of a department of government with a staff of fifty, one hundred or probably more skilled experts cannot know more about the details of that department than all the rest of the house put together, then it is time that minister resigned.


An hon. Member:: He has to be good to be in the Liberal party.


John Horne Blackmore: I say he has to be superior to be in the government of Canada, no mat-* ter what party is in power. We lack the facilities to get this information and that is why I want the minister to check me if I am wrong. I gather from what he said that we have been buying from Malaya just as much rubber as we bought before the second world war; is that right?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should think that that is probably right.


John Horne Blackmore: I have apparently been misinformed in respect of that matter. This reference to Malaya may be digressing a little, but we want to have everything right. With these high prices are the Malayans able to produce as much as they produced before world war II, before the Japanese ran over their country? Probably the minister is not in position to answer. Whatever the answer to that may be, the simple fact is that if we set up institutions in Canada by which we can produce rubber which Malaya is depending upon in order to get the things she needs, then we shall be depriving the Malayans, unless some other factor enters into the matter, of the means of getting a living. At the same time we are increasing our invulnerability. The fact is that we are endeavouring to become more and more selfsufficient in respect of every vital commodity.
Here we have the two great American nations, Canada and the United States, situated side by side. These countries possess probably the greatest resources to be found in a similar area on the face of the earth; they possess probably the most intelligent and skilful people in the world; they possess great amounts of capital; they possess the best of industries; they have the greatest amount of know-how, as it is called today. They have a vast consuming public which enables the United States at least to mass produce, thereby cutting down costs. Why in the world should these two nations not be able to become self-sufficient?
When they do become self-sufficient how on earth is any nation outside of those two nations going to be able to get any of our dollars when we will not accept any of their goods? If you want the fundamental trouble in a nutshell, there it is.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


John Horne Blackmore: Let us face that fact just as it is and try to figure a way out. Let us not spend our time making insinuations or casting accusations against the United States because she will not let in our cheese or any other commodity. Let us try to find some way whereby the United States can let the nation which wants to send in cheese get United States dollars without sending cheese into the economy of the United States to compete. We will then be working on some realistic basis.
Up to the present time there has not been one word said in this house, except by Social Crediters, as to how Canada can provide Great Britain or any other nation with Canadian dollars except by letting in their goods, no matter how those goods may compete with our own industries and even destroy them.
Supply-Trade and Commerce


An hon. Member:: Tell us again.


John Horne Blackmore: In so far as I am informed there has not been a suggestion made in the United States, except by the U.S. counterparts of the Social Crediters, as to how they can provide dollars to other nations which need those dollars desperately to buy the goods which the United States needs desperately to sell, except by accepting goods from those nations to compete with the output of American industry.
It surely must be obvious to any ordinary man far less intelligent than the members of this house that there is an absolute paradox there. There is an inconsistency which simply must be dealt with. How to deal with it is the problem. What has the United States hitherto done? Let me recall to hon. members what she did. Right after the first world war the United States found it necessary to lend money abroad, to European countries and South American nations, with which to buy her goods, and she continued to do so until 1928. She kept herself out of a depression by that means during the several years before 1928. How did she provide dollars? She did it by lending dollars abroad. The result was she was able to sell her goods and keep her people employed.
One thing which to me is cause for amazement is that the United States has not put two and two together and figured out a way of providing dollars in a similar manner without lending them abroad. She lent billions and billions of dollars to European and other nations during the years between 1920 and 1928. Then she began to discover that she could not get her interest on these loans because she could not accept the goods of these other nations without destroying her own economy. She discovered further that she would never be able to get her money back unless she accepted such goods, and as she would not accept them she would never get her money back.
What happened then? When the United States ceased her foreign lending policy she went into a depression and dragged the rest of the world with her. Unless she finds some device whereby the difficulty can be overcome she will go into such a depression just as often as she ceases foreign lending. Since world war II what has she done? She evolved the Marshall plan. For what purpose? The purpose was to carry on foreign lending under a different name. We can say all we like about the generosity and magnanimity of the United States, and I honour her for as much of that as entered into the matter, but nevertheless the fundamental purpose under the United States Marshall plan was the urge to get United States dollars into the hands of
2248	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce prospective purchasers of United States goods in order to keep her out of a depression. No matter what the Marshall plan cost it would not cost as much as a depression.
Canada, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar pointed out, shared rather munificently in the Marshall aid advances of the United States. It was a generous gesture on the part of the United States to permit us to do it. We did so, and as a result the Marshall aid system helped to provide us with markets.
The Marshall aid plan has rather run out so now the United States has adopted some sort of security measure. I forget the name of it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The economic security administration. It takes the place of the Marshall plan.


John Horne Blackmore: I thank the minister. The name had slipped my mind. I did not expect to speak this afternoon and I am speaking extemporaneously. Now the United States has brought in the economic security administration with power to lend money indefinitely. For what purpose? Ostensibly the purpose is to help Europe but down at the bottom it is to help the United States to sell her goods. To show how intense is the United States' desire to sell her goods abroad, I call to witness her insistence that Great Britain shall buy shells, cartridges and all that sort of thing to equip her armies from the United States so as to give United States business firms a market, thus utterly disregarding the needs of Great Britain for similar markets. That is enough to show how the United States keeps her eye on the ball, and in her case the ball is getting markets abroad.


Mr. Hosking:: She has given the money to start with.


John Horne Blackmore: She has given the money. She has given United States dollars, and by that means she is providing herself with markets.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Then don't criticize her.


John Horne Blackmore: I am not criticizing. I am trying to get the Canadian parliament and everybody else to face the facts as they are and not try to build their theories on sand. Let us get down to bedrock and know what it is all about. For us to expect the United States to adopt a policy of strict non-discrimination in the light of the facts I am now giving is for us to be utterly unrealistic. The hon. member for Peace River has just referred me to an article on rubber. I have not had a chance to read it but he says that it supports the statement I was making concerning Malaya. What are we going to do if this new device the United States has adopted


whereby she provides prospective foreign customers with the money with which to purchase her goods ceases to function? What is she going to do and what is Canada going to do?
There is one more thing the United States has done. I am not finding fault but I am mentioning it because I have already spoken several times in the house on this very subject. I spoke on April 2, April 9 and May 5 and followed a general line of thought based upon the fact that since 1922 the United States has enforced in the world the unconditional most-favoured-nation clause. The unconditional most-favoured-nation clause has impeded nations in their trade arrangements beyond all power to estimate, and she is still following the same policy. Why is she doing that? It is purely to provide her own producers with markets. She wants to bring about a condition where if any little nation in the world gives another little nation a favour, as the result of which that other little nation can get a market, the first nation has got to give the big powerful United States the same favour so she, the U.S., can go in there and sell her goods thus displacing the goods of the little nation being favoured. That is the meaning of the unconditional mostfavoured-nation clause which prevails in the world, and in my opinion Canada fatuously committed herself to the unconditional mostfavoured-nation clause because it was said that we want an expansionist program. The Minister of Trade and Commerce issued a pamphlet in 1945 in which he said that we favour expansion.
I discussed that on May 5 to some extent. I do not propose to go into it today but what it actually means is that the United States is free to expand indefinitely. By using all sorts of means she gets markets for herself all over the world regardless of what happens to the rest of the world. Thereby she exports her unemployment and dumps it on the streets of the other nations of the world by simply exporting her goods in every direction under the protection of the unconditional mostfavoured-nation clause upon which she bases what her apologists are pleased to call "expansionist policy." Expansionist policy for the United States! And for the United States alone!
Another important factor is the Bretton Woods agreement which was designed to put every nation signing the agreement upon an unconditional gold standard. I discussed that matter in some detail on May 5.
What are we going to do about the whole situation? I say first of all let us get out of the Bretton Woods agreement just as fast as we possibly can, and get everybody else out of it. While I am on this point, may I

say that I read the other day that Germany was going to be given the opportunity to come into the Bretton Woods agreement. From the way that was so gracefully put, 1 gathered the impression that Germany was told she would have to accept the Bretton Woods agreement. If you want to know why the dangerous situation exists in Germany today -one which may wreck us in a short time- go look for it, I suggest, in the Bretton Woods agreement and in the unconditional mostfavoured-nation clause which Germany would presumably have to accept if she became a member of the comity of nations which we are pleased to call the "free" nations associated in the thing we call NATO. If what I am saying in this connection is not true, I invite anyone to put me right.
What is the situation when it comes to providing dollars to Great Britain to buy goods from America-Canada or the United States-or when it comes to providing France or any other country in the world with dollars with which to buy our goods? First of all, we are going to produce our own goods- which is a sound policy and one which I have commended the minister for-so we do not want their goods. They therefore cannot get our dollars, no matter how they try. Does that not sound hopeful to them? Does it not sound hopeful to us when we come to contemplate finding a market for our surplus agricultural products?
In addition to that, we are hedging ourselves about with an unconditional gold standard under Bretton Woods, binding in a strait-jacket every nation in the world which accepts it; and we are insisting on the unconditional most-favoured-nation clause doing all the damage the other measures did not do. One could almost repeat the old prayer that our fathers used to sing: "We have done those things which we ought not to have done and we have left undone those things which we ought to have done; verily there is no health in us."
We can recede from that position. We can denounce the Bretton Woods agreement and everything it stands for. Let us do that.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


John Horne Blackmore: Oh, yes; and I will defend that stand at the greatest possible necessary length. Those who do not see the soundness of my position do not realize what this Bretton Woods agreement means. I will suggest to the hon. member that he read my speech of May 5 in which I quote authorities that even he will not dare to question, no matter how bright, intelligent and well informed he is. Let us denounce the whole policy of the most-favoured-nation 55704-142
Supply-Trade and Commerce clause. It is pernicious. It is based on the principle of non-discrimination in a world where the greatest nation in it, or what has been the greatest nation, reached that position by persistent and incessant discrimination, a policy that she proposes to follow to the nth degree. She imposes it on everybody else but she will not impose it on herself.
What do we need to do? The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar kindly asks me to repeat once more. Last year, two or three times, I advocated that Canada advance a line of credit to Great Britain of $1 billion a year for five years. That would provide Britain with Canadian dollars. That would enable Britain to buy the goods we have to sell. That would enable us to sell everything we could produce in the way of goods Britain needs, including all kinds of agricultural products, all kinds of fishery products, all kinds of food, clothing, shelter that we produce. We could sell them to Britain as fast as we could produce them and in as great quantities as we could produce them. We could sell not only what we can now produce but what we could come to produce. It would also enable us to sell those goods at a price which we need to sell them at, having produced them in Canada which has a high standard of living.
The United States could have a similar arrangement. If they lent billions of dollars between 1920 and 1928, they can go on doing the same thing. The question then arises: where are you going to get the money? I am going to repeat one thing more which many hon. members in the committee will not accept, but I warn them that if they do not accept it, they take a fearful responsibility for the welfare of the people of the world. Yes, I know there are many people who laugh and who are not a bit concerned about the chaos we are going through. They do not laugh about a terrible war. The hon. member opposite waves his hands in a perfectly ridiculous way. He does not mind driving the country into a depression for five, six, seven or eight years. He does not mind going to war or subjecting the people to five or six years of war. But when it comes to adopting a new idea financially, he cannot do that.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Perhaps, I might suggest to the hon. member that this is not the time to discuss financial methods or schemes. I would therefore ask him to confine his remarks to trade and commerce.


John Horne Blackmore: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. But the question Your Honour needs to ponder between now and tomorrow, or the next time he comes in, is how we can carry
2250	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce on trade and commerce without finance. I think probably you will find that to be a rather difficult problem to answer. But in deference to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I will close by merely saying this. The constitution of the United States gives to the congress of the United States the power to create money debt-free and to determine the value thereof. If the United States lent money which she created debt-free under her constitution, as Lincoln created it, she could go on with that foreign lending policy indefinitely, at no cost to her people, providing people abroad with all the money they need to buy all the goods the United States wants to sell.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I think the hon. member will have to find another occasion on which to make these remarks as to methods of finding money or other financial matters.


John Horne Blackmore: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I will merely make this statement in closing. Under the British North America Act Canada can do exactly the same thing as regards creating debt-free money that the United States could do under the U.S. constitution. If she does that, she can lend money with which to buy all her surpluses in Britain or abroad. And that is the only way whereby Canada or the United States can enable the various nations to obtain United States and Canadian dollars without accepting into their economy goods which are bound to destroy the invulnerability of their economies.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Mr. Chairman, I wish to rise to take part in this debate for just a few minutes in order to make clear to some of the members of the committee a few of the facts, as I have observed them, since coming into the House of Commons in 1949, with regard to the prosperity of this country and how it has been achieved. From the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth we heard numerous criticisms, and from the Minister of Trade and Commerce we have heard of their inaccuracies. Then the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, in a complementary manner, told us that Canada had recently enjoyed several years of prosperity and that he did not think the ministers-particularly the Minister of Trade and Commerce-should accept the credit for these prosperous years.
I should like to recall that in 1949, during the debates at that time, the opposition members-both the Conservatives and the C.C.F.- suggested that we would have a ruinous economy unless we had controls and with them the necessary rationing. Our government, in its wisdom, saw fit not to adopt those measures. Possibly it is that feature of good,


sound, government policy which has helped more than the opposition will admit to give us the prosperity which we have enjoyed in this country.
When the estimates were under discussion in 1950, I can well recall both the Conservatives and the C.C.F. suggesting to us that unless we launched on a terrific program of public works, we would have tremendous unemployment. Our government-and particularly the Minister of Trade and Commerce-explained to them that this was not the time to go into a program of public works. He in his wisdom, along with the rest of his colleagues, did not listen to the suggestions that were put out, and the cost of living dropped a little because essential commodities were not used in huge works programs. I should like to point out to the member for Rosetown-Biggar that the federal government did deserve some of the credit for the good times that we have enjoyed as a result of not taking the advice of the opposition.
In 1951, of course, the Korean war was on, and I think this might be a good time to suggest to the member for Rosetown-Biggar that the Korean situation is not a blessing because we have had good times as a result of it. No war is a blessing at any time. Any man who has taken part in any of these wars resents any person suggesting that war is a good thing even if it creates good times.


Mr. Thatcher:: I am sure if the hon. member had heard the speech, he would know that was not the meaning at all.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Nevertheless, if you read Hansard you will see that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar implied that we have got good times as a result of the war and that it was a good thing.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: No, no, that it is not a good thing.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I should like to make it perfectly clear that is the interpretation-


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I think the member for Wellington South wishes to be fair, and I think he would agree that the leader of this party certainly did not mean we were glad because we had the Korean war.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I am just going by what he said. He suggested it was because of the war we had good times, and not as a result of the things the Minister of Trade and Commerce did.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: That is a different thing.


Henry Alfred Hosking: The inference is that war is a good thing because it brought good times.

Supply-Trade and Commerce Mr. Low: The inference is that the only highest prices that we have ever had. I way which the economy can work is through should like to pay him a tribute at this war.	time.


An hon. Member:: Are you making that statement?


Mr. Low:: I am making that statement right now that the only way the economy of this country, as managed by this government, can continue is through war, but that does not make war a good thing.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I certainly agree with you that no war is a good thing, and I do not like anyone to suggest it is creating good times.


Solon Earl Low: It does create good times, and that is the only way we have had good times.


Henry Alfred Hosking: That may be your opinion, but it certainly is not mine, and I am glad a Liberal government is governing the country instead of one with your opinions.


Solon Earl Low: Produce the evidence that it does not.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Let me suggest to you-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Will the hon. member address himself to the Chair.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Let me suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that in 1950 when this Korean war broke out, the opposition were suggesting that we should again put on price controls. The government, in its wisdom, decided that we would put on the credit restrictions and taxes which were of a beneficial nature to all the people of this country because they brought down the cost of living. I should like to suggest that now that we have successfully combated the inflation which was brought about by the Korean situation the government, in its last budget, has made a very substantial effort to create employment and good times by removing those controls which a year ago it was necessary to impose.
It is with these thoughts in mind that I would recall to hon. members of the house, through you Mr. Chairman, that this government, with its sound judgment; because it was not driven into huge public works expenditures at the wrong time; because it did not put on controls and rationing at the wrong time; and with its policy of pay-as-you-go, has created the good times that we have enjoyed in this country. I think, Mr. Chairman, I should make it clear to the house that we do appreciate what the Minister of Trade and Commerce has done when he tells us that under the Liberal government we have sold all the products we have produced in this country during the past year at the 55704-142J


Major James William Coldwell: On a matter of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I understand that while I was absent from the chamber the hon. member said I had made a statement that war was a good thing. I do not know how any such interpretation could be put on anything I have said or have ever said. I think it is a most abominable thing, and a great danger to the peaceful commerce of the world.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I said that you had said that war had created good times, and that the Minister of Trade and Commerce should not take credit for that.


Major James William Coldwell: That is a distortion of what I said.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon we heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce give us another of his typically optimistic trade speeches. As a matter of fact, I suppose most Canadians find it rather refreshing to hear the optimism of the minister, but I think this afternoon he perhaps went too far. He accused the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth of distorting the facts, when the hon. member suggested that our British markets are disappearing. Well, I shall not accuse the Minister of Trade and Commerce of distortion, but I certainly do accuse him of gross inaccuracies this afternoon, and of making misleading statements. I draw the attention of the committee to two or three of the statements which he made. He said that we have sold more to Britain in the last twelve months than we have ever sold in the history of this country, war years or no war years. I ask hon. members to look at that again. What are the facts? I have in my hand a publication which is put out by the dominion bureau of statistics, I believe a department under the minister. It is called "Canadian Balance of International Payments for 1951." I turn to page 13 and there I find a statement of the Canadian domestic exports to the United Kingdom from 1948 to 1951. In 1951, the year the minister is speaking about, Canada exported to Great Britain $631 million worth of goods. That is the figure that is supposed to be the all-time

Supply-Trade and Commerce peak. Yet in another column I find that in 1948 we exported goods valued at $686 million to Great Britain and in 1949 $705 million. So I say this afternoon, when the minister made such a statement, he was absolutely inaccurate. He went on further this afternoon: We have not lost our export market to Britain; we are up 37 per cent over the previous year. Well, technically the minister was correct; they were 37 per cent over 1950. But what the minister forgot to tell this committee was that exports were down very considerably as compared with 1948, and down even more substantially as compared with 1949. Therefore I do not think that this statement was technically accurate. The minister went on to say: Canada has found markets for everything it could produce. I wish that some of the apple growers of Nova Scotia had been here this afternoon and heard the minister make the statement. The hon. member for Cape Breton South told me that down in his part of the country they are paying apple growers $5 a tree to dig up their trees, because they cannot find any markets for their apples.
I hold in my hand the supplementary estimates passed by this House of Commons on March 31, and I find item 568, $1,200,000, *"to provide assistance to the apple growers in British Columbia"; item 569 is for $300,000, to provide assistance to the apple growers in Nova Scotia. If the minister could sell all the apples that he could find, why are the taxpayers paying those subsidies? I wish he would explain.
When the minister suggested that he has no marketing troubles today he was overlooking beef, despite what he said; because, while this new agreement which was announced several days ago is a very important factor in the marketing of beef, yet certainly it is not going to take more than 15 per cent or 20 per cent of the exports which we had last year to the United States. While the new agreement will help for two or three months, at the end of that time we are going to be back precisely where we were before. 1 think most hon. members do not honestly believe that the American embargo will be lifted for a year or two years at the earliest. If that is the case we are going to have very real difficulties in marketing beef before very long.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: What do you know about beef?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Supply-Trade and Commerce


James MacKerras Macdonnell: This afternoon we listened to a speech by the Minister of Trade and Commerce which I did not think was quite up to his usual level. I have no doubt that when the minister makes decisions, as he does from time to time-and we all know and respect his capacity-he exposes all sides of the problem. What disappointed me as I listened to him this afternoon was that we were really just hearing one of those rather tiresome bits of self-congratulation which, I suppose, please those who utter them, but which I do not think add greatly to the amount of human knowledge on the subject.
Apparently at the end of that speech we were supposed to sing the Te Deum and call it a day, because when the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth undertook to make some critical observations the minister seemed to be extremely nettled, and proceeded to embark upon a series of observations which surprised me and which, as I say, did not do him much credit.
He began by saying, "We have just listened to a political speech filled with inaccuracies [DOT] which should be answered immediately". And then the minister purported to answer the inaccuracies. But so far as I could discover, what he did was not to answer inaccuracies but rather to explain certain difficulties which are in the way of trade- and which of course we all recognize. He said, "I am taking every item of my hon. friend's speech and turning it inside out to show the ridiculous nature of the situation". That does not seem to me to be a very sensible way to begin a speech.
Having said that, the minister then went on, first of all, to the item of oats. He quarrelled, not with the facts which the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth stated; he undertook to say-this was a legitimate argument to make-that oats are usually consumed at home and therefore the figure which was given was misleading.
Then we got to cheese. The minister talked a lot about cheese, quite sensibly on the whole, but then he finally wound up by saying that this was entirely a matter where the Ontario government was to blame. It seemed to me that that was a very poor performance after what he had undertaken to do, which was to take every item in my hon. friend's speech and turn it inside out.
Then he shifted away entirely from the British market, which perhaps was wise because after all it is in the United States that our trade has chiefly grown. Then he talked about our export market as a whole and resumed his usual rather boastful line. We are all glad that our exports have increased


and all that we are asking is that the minister try to give us, as he would in any business discussion, a picture of our position. He should not just tell us the favourable things without indicating that there are some hazards to the position. He knows better than any of us that there are certain producers in the country having a bad time. He knows probably better than any of us the reason for that. All that we ask is that he does not shy away from these things and treat us like little children. All that we ask is that he treat this House of Commons as he would treat any serious group of men.
Then he made one statement which I did not quite understand, although this may have been due to his being in an impatient mood. He asked the hon. member to subside and then went on to make a rather curious statement. He said that the hon. member "must be sure he was wrong because he was so persistent in throwing my statement off balance." I am sure the minister will be glad to explain what that means. I do not know exactly what it means. At any rate it did not live up to what he had said at first, that he was going to turn the statements inside out. So much for that.
As I say, what I have to complain about in the minister's speech is that I think we are entitled to be treated as more or less mature people and be given a picture of the situation. As I have said, the minister knows that there are people in this country who are suffering from unemployment. He knows the situation in the textile industry. He knows the situation in the pulp business, no doubt better than any of us. Those are the things which are relevant and which should be brought to our attention when we are discussing these matters.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw raised some very relevant matters with regard to the United States. Anyone who has the slightest knowledge of economic history will appreciate what the hon. member for Moose Jaw, and I think also the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar pointed out, that it is a chancy business to deal with the United States. I remember a senior member of the Republican party, a gentleman who is still active in United States politics, who said something to me some years ago which registered deeply in my mind. He said, "Of course, you people in Canada must face the fact that if business should become not so good and we have surpluses here you will find that we will again become tariff minded." As a matter of fact there are indications of that right now.


Leonard T. Stick: Who said that?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not
going to mention the name, which is well known. My hon. friend will have to take my word for it that this gentleman is quite a well-known Republican. That is what he said and there are many indications to bear it out. As a matter of fact the minister has told us the difficulty they are having in getting the United States to carry out some of the undertakings made at Torquay and elsewhere. When we come to question time I hope we will be able to learn a good deal about the aftermath of Torquay, Annecy and Geneva because that is most important.
At the present time the signs are not all favourable. There is a considerable emergence of applications for tariff increases. I have a list here covering the applications pending right now, some of them not so important but others rather important. They cover chinaware, motorcycles, tobacco pipes and bowls, bicycle parts and so on. Those are not basic things, but nevertheless they indicate what is in the air. The minister is really like a bull on the stock market. He thinks everything is going to go on in the same pleasant way and we will not have to take into account the possibilities of changes.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: As long as he manages things, it will be all right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is all right. I suppose what hon. members here would like us to do is to take the advice given by one hon. member the other day, that we should get down on our knees and thank God for the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Say that again.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: So far as I
can see, every member on the government side applauded. That indicates that it is unanimous. I do not raise any question about that. I suppose we do not need to go down on our knees in thankfulness for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but we should offer some appropriate sign of obeisance.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: There is no better in the world.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: This hero worship is a grand thing, but it must become rather tiresome occasionally to the objects of it. On the whole, I think that is a competition we cannot very well enter into because hon. members opposite would leave us far behind.
I should like to refer to what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said this afternoon. It seemed to me that he talked in a most sensible way. I do not always agree with
Supply-Trade and Commerce him in connection with economic things, and I was not in favour of his bulk buying passages, but nevertheless when he spoke about eggs in one basket and trying to look at the question in the broad, I think he was very sensible indeed.
Of course it is true that our home market is much more important than it was years ago. To a certain extent that takes care of our home production to a greater degree than before. Nevertheless, as I said before, there are enough farmers in this house to know that when we are told that everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds they are not sure that that applies to them. It would be a very sorry substitute, it would be a bad exchange if we had to give up a lot of farmers living on the soil and able to sell their products profitably for the oil rigs that are coming in and spending United States money in Canada. Of course we are all in favour of that, but we are in danger of looking at these dazzling figures which are given us of the money we have, the gold we have and the United States exchange and all that kind of thing. That does not mean much to the man on the land who is not able to sell his goods.
Therefore, as I said at the beginning: I hope from now on the minister will perhaps realize that at any rate we are grown up and take us into his confidence.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
443.	Trade commissioner service, including payment of compensation to trade commissioners for damage to and loss of furniture and effects, under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council. $2,329,134.
John Alpheus Charlton: I notice in the particulars on page 487 the second highest payment is in connection with Caracas. Could the minister explain that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Caracas has the highest cost of living in the world and it is necessary to pay our trade commissioners substantial living allowances to bring them into the same posi-ti ,n they would be in if they lived in Canada. I might explain that the salaries of trade commissioners are based on living conditions in Canada, and if living conditions in any country are higher than in Canada compensation is paid accordingly.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does that mean it is entirely done through the medium of salary or that it is done through an adjusted expense allowance?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The salaries of the trade commissioners are the same no matter where the commissioner is located. If he is located in Canada or anywhere else in the world he gets the same salary, but over

Supply-Trade and Commerce and above that he gets a living allowance based on the cost of living in the country in which he is located compared with Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
444.	Information division, including publicity and advertising in Canada and abroad, $177,854.
Mr. Wright:: Are motion pictures used in your advertising campaign abroad?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. Moving pictures are used quite extensively. Most of them are obtained from the film board but in addition the department occasionally makes a film at its own expense for some particular purpose such as selling a particular product.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: To be perfectly candid, I am surprised at the smallness of this item. Is this the whole? Are there any other figures for information, publicity or advertising of any kind? Are there no salaries? Is this the whole story?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, except for the trade fair. We have an item later to cover the trade fair. As a matter of fact we use the trade fair advertising not only for the trade fair but for institutional advertising for Canadian products. The department does not advertise in Canada. All the advertising is in other countries, and this is the cost of it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
445.	Economics division, including conducting of investigations and reporting upon current economic conditions and outlook (formerly the economic research and forecasting divisions), $157,923.
John Horne Blackmore: Would it be in order to ask the minister on this or some other item to give the details of trade that he was anxious to give us this afternoon in reply to the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth. He was going to give us a breakdown of the exports to Great Britain and other British commonwealth countries. I would really like to have that on record in order to know what it is. Could that be given under this item, or some other item that the minister might name?	[DOT]


Clarence Decatur Howe: You would like to know what commodities we export to Britain?


John Horne Blackmore: I would really like to have the minister give a thorough reply to the speech of the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth, not that I want the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth to be answered but because I want the information. It seems to me that he made a very valuable contribution, and if the minister has anything that would relieve our minds on any of these matters we certainly want to hear him.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I gave the over-all figures. The hon. member for Brant-Wentworth made his case on the point that in 1938 we supplied 40 per cent of Great Britain's imports and in the year 1951 we supplied a smaller percentage. Of course that is quite misleading because Great Britain's imports were very much smaller both in volume and in value in 1938 than they were in 1951. Total imports of Great Britain from all sources were about $800 million in 1938. The total value of Canadian exports for the year 1952, if our forecast is correct, will not be far short of $800 million. You may say that there has been inflation to the extent of 100 per cent over 1938. As a matter of fact it is not that high, but in that case even in constant dollars our exports to Great Britain would be about 50 per cent of the imports they were making in 1938 compared with the 40 per cent we supplied in that year. The point I am making is that we are supplying more goods to Great Britain today in volume than we supplied in 1938.


Mr. Quelch:: I think the thing that concerns a good many of us is the fact that in recent months the government has actually advised farmers against expanding their production. The minister has pointed out that the government has been able to market their products up to date but in spite of that fact they have warned farmers that if they expand their production there may not be a market for it. Could the government not make some arrangement with the sterling area by which that increased production could be made available to them? I have in mind, for instance, what is happening between Canada and the United States today. We have a serious unbalance of trade with the United States, somewhere in the neighbourhood of $524 million, but on account of large-scale American investment in this country we have had the dollars with which to make up that deficit. If we were willing to accept sterling from Great Britain for our surplus production and then invest that sterling in Great Britain in the same way that the United States is investing in Canada we would in that way provide a market for any increase in production that the farmers are able to accomplish.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not aware that anyone has asked the farmers to curtail production. I certainly have not. There is nothing I should like better than to have more wheat, oats, barley and rye. I will not say more flax because flax is a domestic crop. I wish my hon. friend would tell me who suggested that quantities should be reduced.


Victor Quelch: I will give the minister my reasons. I have here a speech made by the

Minister of Agriculture before commission I of FAO on November 23, 1951. This is what he said:
Our barley supplies are better than ever before, and our oat supplies above the long-time average. These, together with our feed wheat position, make it possible to produce more meat and dairy products ... I am afraid this increased production of meat and dairy products will not materialize unless fears are removed from the minds of our farmers. The meat and dairy farmer has no assurance he could dispose of his surplus if it were produced. His experience suggests to him that there is no outlet.
That statement was broadcast across Canada by various farm organizations, and Mr. Hannam in commenting upon it stated that farmers would be crazy to expand their production with that situation. Then again, when the Minister of Agriculture spoke before the Canadian Federation of Agriculture convention a month ago, he had this to say, as found in the Western Producer of January 31, 1952:
Warning farmers against embarking on highly stepped-up production of food for the domestic market, Mr. Gardiner said earnestly that it was true the government did want to see production up. But as long as Britain lacked the dollars to buy Canadian cheese and bacon and eggs he was not going to tell any farmer to produce more hogs, more eggs or more cheese.
A statement of that kind is of course bound to discourage food production especially when it comes from the Minister of Agriculture. I do suggest that if we in Canada were prepared to adopt measures similar to those adopted by the United States with respect to Canada, the making of large-scale investments, if we were prepared to accept sterling for a certain amount of our meat shipped to England and then invest that sterling, thus increasing the productivity of Great Britain, there would be no trouble in disposing of our production. In that way we would increase the productivity of Britain so that they would have more exports with which to buy other imports. We would be doing exactly the same thing as the United States is doing with respect to Canada. I do not know whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce considers large-scale American investment in Canada a good thing for this country. I presume he does. The Minister of Finance said he did not think there was any harm in it. It is a good thing for the United States and Canada. I suggest we could reciprocate by doing the same thing with the sterling area, and in that way provide them with the dollars with which to buy our products and at the same time help to expand their productive capacity.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the farmer is in the same position as almost anyone else. He must consider the crop that will give him the
Supply-Trade and Commerce greatest return. For instance, now that the foot-and-mouth disease is shutting us out of a good many markets for beef, I would not think this would be a good time for the farmer to expand his beef production. Anyone who produces anything must gauge his market and shape his course accordingly. On the other hand, instead of feeding his coarse grains to livestock the farmer can find a ready market for those coarse grains, and as he tapers off one type of production he can build up another. Conditions change from year to year in any business. For instance, a manufacturer of stoves has to size up his market for the current year before he can plan his production. That applies to anyone who manufactures anything, and to some extent it applies also to the farmer. He must size up the future too. I spent a good part of my early years on the farm, and I know a great topic of conversation among my elders was what they should plant this year, what would seem to have the best prospect of success.
Nevertheless if my hon. friend will look at the gross farm income over the years I think he will find that farm production has not been going down. As a matter of fact it has been going up. I think 1950-51 showed the biggest over-all income for the farming community of any year in history. If we have good crops in the fall it is probable that 1952 will be a still bigger year as far as farm income is concerned.


Victor Quelch: I would agree that farm production has been high, and that until the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease prices were fairly satisfactory, generally speaking. But changing over from livestock to grain is not as simple as some of the other things the minister referred to. It is a simple matter to change over from wheat to oats or oats to barley, but the production of livestock is a long-term proposition. You cannot change pasture into cultivated land overnight. We hope that in the not far distant future the foot-and-mouth disease will be cleared up and then no doubt the United States market will be opened again and we will be able to ship our cattle there.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would like to correct my hon. friend. I did not suggest that people should cut back on livestock. I said it would not be a good year to expand livestock production.


Victor Quelch: But I think the government should give attention to this whole question of finding ways and means of getting rid of surplus production. If instead of statements such as the one I read by the Minister of

Supply-Trade and Commerce Agriculture the government would say to the farmers: there is a tremendous shortage of food in the world; there are many nations with millions of people on the verge of starvation; through the United Nations we have pledged to do everything in our power to maintain production at the highest possible levels and therefore we want you farmers to expand your production as much as possible, I am satisfied you could get a large increase in the production of livestock. But you cannot expect the farmer to do it without some assurance that when he does increase production it will not be used as an excuse to force prices down. So often we are told that we must be governed by the law of supply and demand, but if that argument is used we will not get a greater expansion of farm production than is taking place already. If on the other hand assurance could be given that the government would find a policy under which surplus production would reach the nations that need it, either in Europe or in Asia, I am satisfied there would be a large increase.
I do not intend any reflection upon the minister, for whom I have a high regard. I think he has done a remarkable job in moving wheat supplies in these difficult years.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend asked why we did not do as the United States is doing.
I would not like it to be suggested that we have done any less than the United States. We have given over $3 billion in outright gifts and in loans in the last seven or eight years to tide over our customers, and I would not say that door was 'dosed. But I did point out that we have been disposing of our surpluses.
My hon. friend says we might produce more livestock, but in that connection he must keep in mind that we live in a cold country. Generally speaking our cattle have to go under shelter in winter and be fed grain that has been put aside for that purpose. We are competing in the United Kingdom with Argentina, a country with a mild climate, where a steer never has a roof over its head until it walks into the abattoir on its final journey. The stocker cattle are raised in the south. Then they are moved up on foot to the lush country around the river Plate, where they feed on alfalfa. There they are fattened and driven down to the abattoir, from where the beef is shipped to England. The situation is very much the same in New Zealand, where the cattle never go under a roof. It is the same in Australia, though unfortunately drought affects a section of that country


and makes the raising of cattle more hazardous than in either Argentina or New Zealand.
However, the fact remains that in trying to raise cattle for Britain in Canada we are competing with countries that can raise cattle for much less, as witness the fact that in New Zealand today, as we find under this cattle transaction of ours, they are accustomed to put frozen beef on board a boat, and are doing it under contract with Great Britain, at 14 cents a pound. To put that same frozen beef on a boat from Canada to Great Britain costs 48 cents a pound.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Because we are guaranteeing the producer $26 on the hoof.


An hon. Member:: It is $25 at Toronto.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My memory is not too accurate, but I think it is $26 for choice and $25 for good steers.


Mr. Fair:: There is one point in connection with the 1951 farm income that should not be lost sight of; that is, that included in this amount is the balance of payments on wheat crops from 1945 to 1949, which amounted to many millions of dollars. That should be segregated from the other farm income.


Mr. Aylesworth:: From what the minister said a few moments ago I take it he would suggest that under our climatic conditions our farmers should produce only one commodity, perhaps wheat and coarse grains.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, no. I was talking to a westerner, but I did not say we should raise only one commodity. My hon. friend is attempting to put those words in my mouth. I was talking about beef as against wheat, oats and barley. My hon. friend can make his own speech.


Wilbert Ross Aylesworth: The minister distinctly suggested that this country was not suited to the raising of beef cattle.


Clarence Decatur Howe: For the British market.


An hon. Member:: In competition.


Wilbert Ross Aylesworth: What do you want to say? Say it now. I have never heard you make yourself clear on anything since I have been here, and I am sure you will not be clear on this. If the minister or the government have now reached the point, because of the position in which we find ourselves, that they feel this country is not suited to the raising of beef cattle, then I would say the same thing applies to hens. We have to house our hens for a great part of the year. We also have to house our hogs, so we are

not on an equal basis with Australia, New Zealand, and these other countries with warm climates where the stock can run out and graze on grass for twelve months of the year. That also applies to dairy cattle. From what the minister has just said, are we to take it that we should not be raising anything in this country except grain? I am sure he would not suggest that we produce more cheese under present conditions. Eggs, and in fact everything that the farmer grows today in eastern Canada, are under the same handicap when compared with the situation in that regard in other countries. In my opinion, in so far as the cheese situation is concerned, if the United Kingdom market cannot be regained for our surplus, I believe that the government should institute a program that would encourage the people of Canada to eat far more cheese than they are eating today. If we encouraged the people to eat an average of only one pound more of cheese, we would have taken care of approximately 14 million pounds. Another thing I believe the government should do is to discontinue the prohibition against the sale of cheese until it is at least three months old. Many people prefer cheese at a much earlier stage of its development. I feel that if we could conduct some kind of selling program of that nature, we could take care of a great deal of our surplus cheese.
I should like now to mention the position with regard to beef cattle. I hope I am not out of order in mentioning this now; but if I am, the chairman can draw it to my attention. Within the last few years, especially during the time when we had controls in this country, I believe much harm has been done. The government educated the trade of this country-I am now referring more particularly to the retail meat stores-into taking a larger spread. The trade was told during those years, as I am sure every hon. member here will recall, that they could take a certain spread. I know that in several places inspectors who were appointed by the government told storekeepers that they were not charging sufficient for a certain piece of meat. They were told that they were allowed to charge a certain price, and that is what they should charge. I can say this, that I think the government did a good job in educating the retail trade in that respect. I feel and have felt for some time that something should be done. I do not believe in dictatorship or anything of that sort, and I do not mean that, but I think that the government -could issue a warning to the retail trade of this country that they have not been fair to either the producers or the consumers of this country.
Supply-Trade and Commerce
Hon. members will recall that last January the price of beef dropped a few cents. The unfortunate outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease caused the market to drop a few cents more, and in round figures I think the total drop amounted to about 10 cents a pound live weight for beef cattle. This meant that the wholesale price of beef dropped about 20 cents a pound. I can assure you that you can go into many stores in this country today and find that the consumer is not getting the benefit of that 20-cent reduction. I am sure that if the retail price of beef had dropped as much as the wholesale price the consuming public would be buying beef today at more than 20 cents a pound less than they were paying for it at the beginning of the year. I do feel that the government should issue some statement that would show the trade that the wholesale price has dropped, and therefore there should be an equal drop in the retail price.
I have been speaking particularly about beef, Mr. Chairman, but the same thing applies to pork and everything else. I have been speaking about beef because I think that the price of pork has dropped more fairly. If the price of beef had dropped 22, 23 or 24 cents a pound, then the consumer could have bought much more than he did. The labouring man would have bought far more beef than he has up to the present time, and in that way I think we would have found a market for some of this surplus meat. I will agree that at the end of last year beef prices did reach a high level; in fact they reached a point which was not good for the trade. The price reached a level where the labouring man had to eat less meat, and so today we find ourselves with surplus beef. We find also that the consumer is still paying several cents a pound more for the meat that he is buying than he should be asked to pay. I am only drawing this to the attention of the ministry-I see the Minister of Agriculture smiling, and the problem is one which falls more within his department than that of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
As I say, I do feel that some statement should be issued by the government. As the Minister of Agriculture said the other night when he was speaking about eggs, if the trade charges too great a spread on eggs, then in October those merchants would find that the government would not take care of their surplus eggs. I believe that if a similar statement were issued concerning beef prices, it would be of some benefit to the consumer. In that way we would also find a greater market for our surplus beef.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I remind hon. members that we have had a general discussion on the first item, departmental administration. At that time the general economic conditions and outlook were discussed. I would not want to have another general discussion on this item merely because it calls for the payment of salaries to a director of a division, five or six economists, stenographers and typists. The hon. member for Lethbridge opened this discussion and said he had his doubts as to whether it was in order. He asked the minister for certain information which the minister gave. He also informed the committee that part of the information had been given during the afternoon. The member for Acadia and several other members took part in a discussion which has certainly gone much further afield.
I listened to the remarks made by the member for Frontenac-Addington, and I thank him for having said that if he was out of order he would accept the advice the chairman gave. Unfortunately he was not here this afternoon when the general discussion took place, and I thought that if no objections were taken to his remarks he should be allowed to carry on.
Hon. members of the committee should realize that if we are to make successful progress we should not initiate a general discussion on every item which seems to give some scope. This item has to do with payments of salaries to the director of economic research, economists and others. If hon. members Will look at it they will find it reads: Economics division, including conducting of investigations and reporting upon current economic conditions and outlook.
In his opening remarks the minister gave the current economic conditions and outlook. Someone observed that his remarks were optimistic in regard to the picture, and others said other things. Therefore this question was fully discussed. On an item dealing with salaries of those in the department, and of those making reports, are we going to open up the whole matter of trade and commerce throughout the world? I do not think so.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister a question. I see that most of the money spent in this economics division is for salaries, or the bulk of it. Looking over these salaries I find that for the type of work done and the qualifications that are usually demanded they are not high. I think that, like a good many salaries in the government service, they are much below the average paid by industry for the same type of service. Where are these economists located? Are all of them in Ottawa, or are some of them attached to various offices overseas? If IMr. Aylesworth.]
they are located in Ottawa, what type of work are they doing? Are they writing publications for the department, or making investigations into trends and so on? If they are overseas what are they doing?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I agree that the salaries are low for men of the training that these men have. As a matter of fact, we lose them to industry all too quickly. A unit survey has been made recently and salaries are being brought more into line with the laws of supply and demand in the field. The raises are not great. In senior positions the government cannot hope to pay the salaries that private industry will pay for the same service. These men are located in Ottawa. They are located in departmental buildings. Their main function is to obtain fundamental data from the bureau of statistics and interpret them into a form that is useful for government departments. It is a service branch for several government departments. It is used by finance and several other departments of government. I think they are extraordinarily good. I think the heads of the three branches are just about as good economists as you will find anywhere in Canada, or anywhere on the continent-at least their forecasting seems to me to be amazingly accurate, and I cannot speak highly enough of the service they give the government.


Major James William Coldwell: None of them is overseas?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; all in Ottawa.


John Alpheus Charlton: During the minister's answer to the hon. member for Lethbridge he again made the statement that we exported more goods in volume to Great Britain in 1951 than we had in any previous year. I would now ask the minister, in view of what he said about my statement this afternoon and about my figures, just what products he had in mind. Give us the name of the products that we exported more of to Great Britain last year than ever before. I mean more in volume.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is hard to draw those figures out of the hat. I need to get notice, but I will give the hon. member a few. One would be nickel, another would be copper, another would be zinc and another would be lead. These I am sure of. Another would be aluminum. I could perhaps give the hon. member some more by looking them up, but I will give these without any hesitation. Probably another would be lumber.


John Alpheus Charlton: I was referring particularly to agricultural products. This afternoon I said that, owing to war conditions and defence conditions in England, there were many goods that we had exported more of, but they were



[Stage Direction]
defence items, as the minister has now said. I was referring particularly to agricultural products.
Clarence Decatur Howe: I think we exported more wheat and more flour. If we did not last year, we will in the current year export more wheat and more flour to Britain than we have ever exported in history.


John Alpheus Charlton: I wonder whether we could have those figures?


Louis-René Beaudoin: During the general discussion it appeared clear that the minister did not agree with the statement made by the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth and the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth did not agree with the reply given by the minister. I do not think they will agree any more readily this evening.


Mr. Smith (Moose Mountain):: I think I will be in order on this. It was mentioned here this evening that inspectors-this might come under salaries; I understand that inspectors are given salaries if they work for the government-have gone around to retailers in this country and told them that they had to charge more for their products. Would that be a federal inspector? If so, can the minister tell us his salary?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They were not federal inspectors, of course. My hon. friend spoke about domestic affairs, and we are discussing export affairs. He would have to go back to the last war when we had price controls. Possibly the wartime prices and trade board have inspectors, but there are at present no federal inspectors, dealing with retail prices, and there have not been any for at least seven years.
I might point out that under the constitution of Canada prices are the responsibility of the provinces, except when certain emergency legislation is in force, which it is not at the present time. Property and civil rights are a function of the provinces. If anyone can control prices it is the provinces. There must be provincial legislation for that purpose. If the federal government attempted to do so, its legislation would be declared ultra vires.


John James Smith: I have a supplementary question. This is the point I want to get. Were there any government officials setting prices and telling the retailer that he should raise his price? I know there was a price set above which you could not go, but what I am getting at is this. Was there ever a time in the history of Canada, to the minister's knowledge, when a retailer was told he could not lower his price? ,


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. In order to keep this discussion conducted in an orderly manner I cannot permit questions to be asked on an item which has nothing to do with control prices.


Major James William Coldwell: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that since a number of hon. members-I was not one of them- were away this afternoon attending committee meetings, and I rather think some of them would have liked to speak on the general item in a more general way, as some of us did, a little latitude might be given.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I would say to the hon. member that I sympathize as much as I can with those who were not here during the general discussion. He will also agree with me that I cannot be governed by my sympathies in the performance of my duties. There-iore the discussion, according to the rules, has to be strictly relevant to the item under discussion. It is always unpleasant for the chairman to intervene and ask hon. members to confine their remarks to the item under discussion. I have always found it very difficult to have this particular rule observed, paragraph 2 of standing order 58. That standing order contains the word "strictly". It says that the remarks must be strictly relevant to the item under discussion. I am afraid that, at times, if some of my colleagues were not kindly disposed toward me they would feel that I am at fault in permitting so many hon. members to disregard the rules. The hon. member for Yale may proceed.


Mr. Jones:: I agree with your ruling, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, however, during that time in which you allowed a certain amount of latitude, statements were made which I do not think should remain unchallenged. One statement was made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with the varying of crops to avoid surpluses. In general what the minister said is true, but I must say that in my constituency we are tied to an apple, pear and small fruits crop in general, and that crop cannot be varied from year to year. We could not grow apples in one year and potatoes the next. We are tied to a crop that cannot vary. Therefore that principle does not apply.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The hon. member is quite right when he says that a certain amount of latitude has been allowed. As a result of that there are bound to be complaints from some hon. members.
However, once the Chair has listened to the initiation of the discussion, and has satisfied himself that it has reached a stage of duplication, such as has now taken place, he must

Supply-Trade and Commerce ask hon. members from that point on to confine their remarks to the item before the committee.
If I were to give latitude to the hon. member for Yale, what would the hon. member for Moose Mountain say about it? What would be said by the hon. member for Lethbridge, or the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington, or the hon. member for Greenwood, and so on? They would say, "Well, now that this opportunity has been given to the hon. member for Yale, we may all talk again." Where would we be then? Therefore I must ask hon. members to co-operate.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman-


Percy Ellis Wright: I should like to bring to the attention of the Chair a point of order-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Apparently two hon. members are rising to discuss a point of order.


Percy Ellis Wright: I would point out that the item now before us is the economics division, including the conducting of investigations and reporting upon current economic conditions and outlook. I suggest that is a fairly broad item. I do not think any hon. members who have spoken have been very far from the subject, namely, the economic outlook in Canada.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I venture a suggestion? As the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar pointed out, there are a good many members who deeply regret they were not here when item 441 was being discussed. Would it be possible for us to return to that item, with consent-


Some hon. Members:: No.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am asking the chairman.


Louis-René Beaudoin: In reply to the hon. member for Melfort I would say that a few moments ago I read the citation from the book. My contention is that this vote has to do with the payment of a director of that division who is conducting investigations and reporting upon current economic conditions. That does not mean that we must discuss over again current economic conditions, and the outlook, which was fully discussed under item 441.


Gordon Graydon: On a point of order; I fancy all hon. members have had experience of this kind at one time or another, that is with the discussion overflowing into another item. I agree that there must be some discipline in a discussion of this kind, but I fancy we would make more progress and you, Mr. Chairman, would be much happier, if we were to revert to item 441 for a few moments,
[The Chairman.]
complete that discussion, and then return to our program. I believe this would save time.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I appreciate what has been said by the hon. member for Peel. I am not displeased that the discussion has arisen at this time, because we are now embarking upon the discussion of the estimates, and this point may be raised later on. I know from experience that we are always confronted with the same problem; this is not the first time we have had it.
In committee of supply hon. members are under the impression that, when the first item is called, they are free to discuss matters in general affecting the department, and in that they are correct. But what happens is this: When we come to a subdivision or a subheading under the department, another general discussion ensues. For instance, I see here an item concerning the dominion bureau of statistics. I am reasonably sure that, no matter how much discussion we have had under the administration item with respect to the cost of living, there will be an attempt to discuss it again when we reach the item for the bureau of statistics. And, again, there are items here for the wheat and grain division, and I am sure the whole wheat problem, involving the marketing of wheat, which was discussed on the first item, will be discussed again. Further in the estimates we find that item 458 deals with the Canada Grain Act.
Perhaps hon. members would help me if they would ask themselves what they would do if they were chairman of the committee. How would they have the rules observed, and still be fair to all? At one point or another someone must make a decision, and it just so happens it is my luck to have to do it.
Unless there is unanimous consent we cannot revert to item 441. Is it the wish of the committee to follow the suggestion of the hon. member for Peel that we revert to item 441 and thus reopen the general discussion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Major James William Coldwell: I think it would save time to do that.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I hear some hon. members say no.


John Horne Blackmore: Is it necessary that the decision be unanimous?
Tlje, Chairman: Oh, yes. The vote has been called,jdiscussed and carried. If we revert to item ;441 at this time it must be by unanimous consent, because the item has been carried.
Perhaps hon. members will keep this in mind, that at a later time we are likely to

have supplementary estimates dealing with departmental administration. At that time they may have the opportunity to discuss matters in general in connection with the Department of Trade and Commerce.


John Horne Blackmore: I suggest that the subject to which the hon. member for Yale referred might properly be discussed under the next item which deals with international trade relations. What would be the reaction of the Chair to having the discussion at that time?


Louis-René Beaudoin: I decide questions of order only when they arise. We are now discussing item 445.


Owen Lewis Jones: I believe I could ask a question which would be relevant, under the heading of economic research. My understanding is that economic research has reference to the ability of other nations to purchase our surplus produce. That being so, what are present indications for the marketing of Okanagan and other Canadian apples in Great Britain this year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The outlook is not good, on account of the dollar shortage.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: I am not sure if I am in order in asking the question I have in mind. I would ask the minister however if he knows anything with respect to the sale of salt codfish in the European market which, up to this date, has been financed through sterling held by the Canadian government in London.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can report to my hon. friend that our expert on fish tells me that the prospects for the sale of codfish are good.


William Joseph Browne: In Europe?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In Europe and elsewhere.


William Joseph Browne: How is it
to be financed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, I think they pay cash for it.


John Horne Blackmore: That means dollars.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If it is still permissible to ask a question, I should like to ask one. The minister referred to economists, and his observation was that the forecasts they made were extremely good. I wish he would say a word further as to the nature of their work. Perhaps he could give us an illustration of the kind of questions put to them, and in particular whether there are any questions affecting the direct conduct of this or that business.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The economics division provides economic intelligence service for the department. It undertakes to keep in close touch
Supply-Trade and Commerce with economic conditions in Canada and make appraisals of prospective developments. The division replaces the former economics research division and economics forecasting division. In performing these functions the division maintains under review a number of aspects of the general economic situation including production, employment, trade, investment, income and prices as well as conditions in specific industries and areas. These studies are not made elsewhere in a comparable form and are consequently of assistance to associated departments of the government as a whole as well as to our own department.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does this division work entirely separately? There are a considerable number of economic sections throughout the government. I understood the minister to state a minute ago that one of the services this division performs is for his department. Is there a pooling of talent in the various economic divisions throughout the government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is a pooling of information. Other departments may have problems which are not within the scope of this particular division and for that purpose they may require economists to do work of a different nature than that performed by the economists in the Department of Trade and Commerce. I have given my hon. friend an outline of the work performed for the Department of Trade and Commerce.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister knows his own experts and no doubt thinks highly of them. He knows what their capacities are and what their work is. But who knows the experts in the various departments? Who can assure us that there is no duplication? Who takes an over-all view? It has to be a pretty expert man who is an expert on experts.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can speak only for myself. I assure my hon. friend that I do not do that task, as I am busy enough looking after my own department.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is a very definite but very unsatisfactory answer. If the minister cannot answer my question I think we ought to have some indication where we can get an answer. In view of what the minister has said I do not think there is much point in my pressing it now, but I would like to have an indication as to where it can be pressed because I do not think it should be left unanswered.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
446.	International trade relations division, including investigating and reporting on commercial relations and foreign tariffs and a contribution of $6,300 to the international customs tariffs bureau, $150,156.
2264	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce
John Alpheus Charlton: Would the minister explain this contribution of $6,300?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a payment for services. The office in Berne furnishes Canada with every change in tariff made by every country in the world, and we in turn provide that office with any change in our tariffs. The office in Berne pools information received from every country in the world and supplies consolidated information to every country which is a member of the organization.


A. Earl Catherwood: Could the minister comment on the businessmen's committee which was set up under the leadership of Mr. Duncan and which I believe worked independently of the Department of Trade and Commerce although it was working along identical lines. Could he indicate just what was accomplished by that committee?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In the United Kingdom a dollar export board was formed, the purpose of which was to promote exports to dollar countries. At the request of the dollar export board a dollar-sterling board was formed in Canada under the chairmanship of Mr. Duncan and with a membership of distinguished Canadians, for the most part men in business. The purpose of that board was to work with the dollar board in the same direction, that is to promote exports from the United Kingdom to Canada. I think the Canadian board did a first-rate job.
Any difficulties faced by a Canadian wishing to import equipment or any other commodities from the United Kingdom could be cleared through the board. Delivery problems were cleared, information was obtained as to quality, and other service was rendered by this board to Canadian importers. That board did much to promote the import of British goods into Canada. My hon. friend will recall that some two or three years ago imports from Great Britain exceeded exports to Great Britain in value. In other words, the trade was about in balance at that time. As a result the board in Canada was disbanded and an advisory committee set up in its place. I believe within the last two or three months proposals have been made to revive the dollar-sterling board. Of course the government would be glad to see any step taken that will improve the balance of payments between Canada and Britain. The government had no direct relationship with the dollar-sterling board other than to make a contribution toward the expenses of the board. Part of the money for the support of the board was raised privately and part was contributed by the Department of Trade and Commerce.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What relationship has this division to our own tariff board?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It has no relationship with the tariff board. This is the branch of the department concerned with external trade that negotiates trade agreements with other countries. It was the branch that looked after negotiations at Geneva, Annecy and Torquay. It furnished the experts on foreign trade for the Canadian government. These delegations are usually made up of representatives from external affairs and finance, and a man from the tariff board, and expert information on export trade is furnished by this group.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When you go to Torquay or Geneva you have the tariff board, plus the other departments, plus these representatives from the Department of Trade and Commerce. Is it clear that there is no duplication of tariff work? I can realize that when a trade agreement is being made you must know what the tariff situation is, but we have what is supposed to be an expert tariff board. I certainly believe that it is. I come back to what the minister said in answer to my last question, that he does not consider it any part of his duty to see that there is no duplication.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not say that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Are we sure that there is none here?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I wish my hon. friend would quote me accurately. I did not say that it was none of my business; I said that I did not know, which is quite different.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But you know everything that is your business.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would not go that far afield. The tariff board is concerned with domestic tariffs, tariffs of the Canadian government, and this division is concerned entirely with foreign tariffs. They are complementary to each other, but they do not overlap in any particular.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I thought of that one too, strangely enough. How can a tariff be domestic? Tariffs are two-sided things. We make tariffs here; other people make tariffs also, but surely we must study them both at the same time in order to get anywhere.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is why they send experts from the tariff board and from the Department of Trade and Commerce. The tariff board knows all about Canadian tariffs and these men are supposed to know all about the tariffs of other countries and their effect on Canadian trade.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister is not going to leave it at that and have us

believe that the Canadian tariff boards knows only about Canadian tariffs. That does not seem to make sense. I am still going to look for the man who can tell me that he is looking for needless duplication. However, the minister says it is not him, or perhaps he says "he".


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
447.	Exhibitions generally, $253,236.
Major James William Coldwell: This item is a large amount, and I notice there are what strike me as two relatively small amounts included in the breakdown for the kind of work one would expect to be done. In the details on page 492 we find an item of $5,000 for literature for distribution at exhibitions abroad and an item of $2,500 for displays for trade commissioners' offices. We have a number of trade commissioners abroad, and it struck me that department displays costing only $2,500 would not permit very much of a display even in one or two of the offices. As to literature for distribution at exhibitions abroad, a number of exhibitions are held in European countries and in the United Kingdom, and it seems to me that is a very small amount for literature for this purpose. Perhaps there are other places where money is provided for literature for distribution at exhibitions. Perhaps the minister might explain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are certain publications that come under the information vote such as the Canadian trade bulletin which is a weekly publication. This is a sum for taking part in exhibits. We build up exhibits over the years. For instance, we have exhibits in Europe that we show at Milan and the various trade fairs in Europe. We add to them each year, freshen them up and bring them up to date, but we try to keep the expense modest because it is questionable in times such as these how much return there is from an exhibit at a trade fair. However, we think a creditable but not lavish job is being done, one which allows us to exhibit at the principal trade fairs in Europe and South America.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In these exhibitions what aspects of Canadian life or Canadian production are featured?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is production that is likely to be sold in the area. In Milan I believe it would be furs. It depends on the nature of the fair. With respect to the British trade fair, at the present time we are concentrating on showing market opportunities for British goods in Canada. We do not put on an exhibit to sell Canadian goods in England because we know we have not much
Supply-Trade and Commerce opportunity anyway, and we think we will do the over-all situation more good by advertising opportunities for the sale of British goods in Canada. At the machinery exhibition held in the north of England there are certain Canadian manufacturers who exhibit goods such as heavy construction equipment, stoves and material of that kind that they believe they can sell in the area.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Would the minister tell us how many exhibitions of this nature were held in the past fiscal year and whether they were all held on foreign soil?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are all foreign. Our only domestic fair is the Canadian trade fair which is covered by a separate vote. We exhibited at the Milan international trade fair, the Brussels international trade fair, the British industries fair, London, the British industries fair, Birmingham, the industrial textile exhibition at Lisle, where we showed furs and textiles, the world tobacco conference at Amsterdam where we exhibited Canadian tobacco, the Colombo plan exhibition at Colombo, Ceylon, where we displayed Canadian technological achievements, and the Canadian permanent exhibit at Rockefeller centre, New York, where we exhibit a series of manufactured products which are changed from time to time.


Mr. McLure:: Is there any place where you show furs?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We show furs in most of these exhibits.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I take it from the minister's answer that there are nine fairs overseas in which we participate. Would he say whether they take actual orders for the merchandise exhibited or make any endeavour to sell it? I should also like him to tell me if any of these exhibitions are held in the wintertime.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Most of the fairs are held in the wintertime. We take a general exhibit and we encourage Canadian merchants to exhibit as well. The Canadian government does not take orders but the merchants who also exhibit are of course prepared to take orders. They go there for that purpose.


Mr.   Baler@: I notice that under the item for the Canadian international trade fair, 1951, there is an item under expenditure of $718,087, and an item of $415,043 under revenue. Is the revenue derived from admissions to the fairs and the renting of stalls?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. We have not come to that item yet. We are talking about fairs generally. We will come to it in a moment.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect to the details on page 492, there are two items here concerning which I should like to know why they are both charged in the present fiscal year. There is an item of $12,000 for participation in the British industries fair, 1952, and an item of $11,000 for participation in the British industries fair, 1953. How does it happen that these two items for two different years are charged in the present fiscal year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The difficulty is the expenses overlap the fiscal years. For example, with respect to the trade fair certain preparatory work has to be done in the preceding fiscal year, and there are certain other expenses that are incurred at the time the fair is actually in progress. The trade fair is typical, and the work of preparing for the 1952 trade fair started the week after the 1951 trade fair was finished. Considerable expenditure for advertising and various other purposes is incurred in the fiscal year previous to the actual date of the fair.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Looking at what happened last year, then, I presume we can expect a further item in next year's estimates covering the balance of expenditures for 1953?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Victor Quelch: Can the minister say how many nations had exhibits at the international trade fair last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have not reached that item yet.


Victor Quelch: I thought we were on it.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for Eglin-ton wanted to ask a question on item 447. After the question had been dealt with I called item 448, which has to do with the Canadian international trade fair.


John Alpheus Charlton: I have a question I would like to ask on item 447.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth still wants to address questions under item 447, he may do so.


John Alpheus Charlton: Did I understand the minister to say these "exhibitions generally" have nothing to do with exhibitions in Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


John Alpheus Charlton: Then do I understand this whole staff is kept in Canada in connection with exhibits in foreign countries?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are not all kept in Canada. Some work out of Canada.


John Alpheus Charlton: They are not in Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Sometimes some of them are and sometimes they are not.


John Alpheus Charlton: I see the amount allotted for travelling expenses is only $5,000. If their only work is looking after exhibits abroad I would expect the travelling expenses to be greater than that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We maintain an office in London and an office in Canada. All the exhibits are built here in Ottawa, where we have a workshop, and shipped to their destination. Then attendants go to the exhibitions. They may go from Canada or from the London office, and they hire local help.


John Alpheus Charlton: But that has nothing to do with the departmental exhibits at the local fall fairs in Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


John Alpheus Charlton: Nothing whatever.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, occasionally we have loaned the workshop to another department that wishes to build an exhibit, but that expense is charged to the department doing the exhibiting.


John Alpheus Charlton: But is not the director of exhibitions the director in charge of all these small exhibits in Canada too?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Mr. Bater:: That is under the Department of Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
448.	Canadian international trade fair, 1952, including authority to refund, from revenue, deposits received for contracts for space (revote $74,500), $538,380.
Arthur James Bater: I think my question is in order this time. I notice this is the only item to which any revenue is attached, and I wondered whence that revenue came.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It comes from the sale of floor space at the fair and from admissions paid by the general public. This is not operated as a fair for the purpose of earning money. It is operated in order that buyers and sellers may get together in a leisurely way and complete transactions. But two or three days a week we admit the general public at certain hours, and the admissions paid by the general public are a source of revenue. The total cost of the 1951 trade fair was $720,932 and the revenue was $415,043, leaving a net deficit of $305,889. I am happy to say the deficit is getting smaller each year, and when conditions get back to normal I hope we can operate the trade fair at no cost to the Canadian government.


Victor Quelch: Could we know the number of exhibitors last year, how many are exhibiting this year, and how the amount of space reserved this year compares with last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A year ago an announcement made it clear that the future of the fair beyond 1952 would depend on increased participation by Canadian exhibitors. In the 1951 fair, space sold to Canadian exhibitors amounted to less than 42,000 feet out of a total of 145,000 feet. The latest reports for this year indicate total space sales of 184,420 square feet, about 30 per cent higher than last year, of which 91,240 feet have been taken by Canadian firms. That is nearly two and a half times the space Canadian firms had last year.


Victor Quelch: Have you the names of the nations who are exhibiting?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. This is for the 1952 fair: Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, British Guiana, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, England, Finland, France, French Morocco, Germany, Iran, Italy, Lebanon, Netherlands, Pakistan, Portugal, Scotland, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, United States of America.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is Ireland not there?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not this year.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does the department have any means of assessing the success of the fair, other than by the space rented and the admission paid? Is there any other test in the way of business flowing from the fair?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is very difficult to get, because the transactions are private between exhibitors and customers. All I can say is that most of them come back year after year. The expense is considerable, and I assume they must be satisfied with the results or they would not come back.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When the minister says most of them come back, is he referring to individual firms or countries as a whole?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Individual firms. I have had some very surprising stories from Canadians. I remember that a man came to me and wondered if he could advertise Canadian caviar. I said I did not know there was such a thing, but he said he made it in a small way and wondered if it would pay to take a booth. I said it would not cost very much, that he might try it. He has had so much business since then that people have forgotten caviar ever came from Russia. Similarly, last year a man came to see me. He had a small furniture factory in the maritime provinces, and he put in an exhibit of school desks. During the later days of the fair he came to me and said he had taken so many orders he had to put an addition on his factory, and that it would be touch and
Supply-Trade and Commerce go whether he would be able to fill the orders he had taken while at the fair. A great deal of business is done there. Buyers have a chance to look over Canadian products and Canadians have a chance to look over the products of other countries. I believe buying is on a very satisfactory scale.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am glad to hear that statement by the minister, because, if I remember correctly, about a year ago he expressed some doubt as to the wisdom of continuing the fair.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That was because of the lack of interest shown by Canadian exhibitors. We had more Canadian exhibitors the first year than in succeeding years, and I felt we were not justified in running a fair at a deficit for the benefit of foreign exporters. I made the statement that we would try it one more year, and unless there was a great deal more interest on the part of Canadian exhibitors than had been displayed at the last one or two fairs I thought we would wind it up. In other words it must be a two-way show; the foreign buyers must have something to look at from Canada just as Canadian buyers want something to look at from abroad. Strangely enough, when it was suggested that it might be wound up every organization in Canada protested vigorously, including organizations which I thought were very lukewarm towards the fair. They became great advocates.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Did they take space?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Apparently they did.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Is the administrator of the Canadian international trade fair the same gentleman as the director of exhibitions?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Then the $2,000 he gets here is in addition to his other salary? The director gets $9,000, and if he is the same man as the administrator this is just $2,000 extra?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was mistaken in my answer. Mr. Bannerman is the director of the exhibition branch. He is in charge of all fairs, including the trade fair. Mr. Hoffman is the administrator of the Canadian international trade fair, and has no other duties except the Canadian trade fair.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Bannerman is a very capable official.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We think so.


A. Earl Catherwood: I should like to ask the minister if any action has been taken by the department to encourage Canadian exhibitors to show at this fair. I have attended this fair for the last two years, and I think it is

Supply-Trade and Commerce
a wonderful show place for the products of the Dominion of Canada. I do feel that when these foreign buyers are present at that fair every effort should be made to encourage our own exhibitors to show there. Has the department taken any steps to encourage them?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, we asked the international organizations to stimulate the idea of exhibiting at the fair. Then we did something we have never done before: we put on some salesmen. These were men such as retired bank managers, who could give some time to the matter and who were paid for their services. They knew something about business, and had the proper contact with Canadian firms to enable them to place the advantages of the fair before these firms. These salesmen did a very good job, and I think it was due to this special sales effort that this year the space taken by Canadian exhibitors has more than doubled.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Standards division-
449.	Administration, including administration of the Precious Metals Marking Act, $113,359.
Mr. Herridge:: On this item, I am not sure what particular heading it is under, but under the standards division there is provision for a number of inspectors of standards. Are those men doing work in connection with the act, that is enforcing the Canada Standards Act? Could the minister give us a description of what is being done in that connection?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, the work of establishing national standards is proceeding, but it must necessarily proceed slowly. We must be sure that the standard is a standard that the trade and the purchasers will accept. A number of standards have been set up, and of course we have the Precious Metals Marking Act which is also under this division. Progress is being made towards widening the number of articles that must be bought and sold under the trademark "Canadian standard".


Percy Ellis Wright: Can the minister give us an indication of the number of articles that are now standardized?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is hosiery, fur and fur-trimmed garments; Babcock test bottles; turpentine-I am afraid that I cannot give a full list, but those are typical items.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion bureau of statistics-
453. Administration, $167,714.
[Mr. Catherwood.I
Wilbert Ross Thatcher: So far as the Canadian bureau of statistics is concerned, on previous occasions I have said that I thought they did some very good work. In my experience as a retailer, however, I have found that they send out to various people a good deal of information which I do not think is of particular value. I have an idea, because the cost of this bureau of statistics to the taxpayer has increased from a million dollars in 1939 to $6 million today, that they might be compiling a good deal of information which may be useful perhaps but which Canadians might possibly get along without. This is one department in which the minister might be able to cut out some of these reports which are not particularly valuable, and thus save the taxpayer some money. I should like to have some comments on that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I came to the Department of Trade and Commerce with very much the same idea. A very strong committee was set up to pare down the number of publications. I had thought that they had been growing. Perhaps someone wanted a report on something, and it became an annual publication. As a result of those efforts the personnel of the bureau has been reduced. In 1948 the staff numbered 1,457; in 1949, 1,418; in 1950, 1,429; in 1951, 1,323. The number of publications has already been reduced as a result of this drive that was instituted two years age, and 56 reports have been entirely eliminated. More than 120 reports considered to be too specialized for general distribution have been transferred to the reference paper or memorandum class.
Previously, every report issued by the bureau was sent to the "all publications list", which contained between three hundred and four hundred names, the majority of whom were subscribers at $30 per annum. Undoubtedly, many on the list received reports which did not interest them, and this led to some criticism. Reports of a technical or very specialized character, now called reference papers or memoranda, are no longer sent to the "all publications list". Those who want to receive all of them pay a special subscription price of $15 for memoranda, and $5 for reference papers. These are mentioned in our daily bulletin and non-subscribers must write for copies. This means that 176-that is 56 plus 120-out of approximately 500 publications examined have been discontinued as regular bureau reports. Fifty-six have been eliminated entirely, and 120 have become memoranda or reference papers.
Most of those previously receiving copies of everything we published will receive 176 less bureau reports.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Mr. Chairman, I think that is a very encouraging feature. Will the minister state who decides what new statistics or what new publications will be put out? Does he decide that himself?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is an advisory publications board to the bureau and that board decides whether a request for information should be granted, and whether the subject matter should be reported each year or reported periodically.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I thank the minister, and I hope this year he will continue doing the same thing because I believe there are a few more that could be eliminated.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a comment under this item concerning the proposed new consumer price index. I believe that all members must be conscious of the shortcomings of the present cost-of-living index, the basis of which goes back a great many years. No one, I am sure, is going to argue that there is not some reason for revising the basis of the index. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, I submit that it is altogether desirable that while the new consumer price index is being introduced, the old index should be carried on for a considerable length of time. In a return tabled on May 8 by the parliamentary assistant, it was indicated that the new consumer price index would not commence before the summer of 1952. I am urging that the present index should be published for a considerable period of time after the new index comes into publication, and along with the new index.
I am basing that partly on the fact that a great many labour agreements have features which are tied to the present cost-of-living index. I am also proposing it upon the ground that the public is entitled to have a continuing basis of comparison with costs which it has been accustomed to over a period of years. That is not to detract from the idea of the new consumer price index, which I have no doubt will become a more accurate gauge of movements in general price levels so far as they affect the consumer than the old cost of living index. I think the public, for its information, is entitled to a continuance of the index to which it has been accustomed for a long time. It would be misleading simply to base our conceptions of living costs and the value of the Canadian dollar on the base period proposed by the new consumer price index, which is to be the year 1949. I hope that we are never going to become so adjusted, never going to come to the point where we are so ready to accept 1949 price levels as being a standard that we will simply
Supply-Trade and Commerce accept the new consumer price index as one that does not for its full understanding require to be referred back and related to an entirely different basis. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, so that the public may be able to have a reasonably accurate gauge by which to measure price trends so far as they affect the consumer, and to relate those to a period that we hope is more normal than the period in which we are living so far as consumer prices are concerned, I am urging that the present cost of living index should continue to be published for some time to come, even after the new consumer price index has come to be published.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the intention. The first index under the new list of commodities will be published for the month of July, and for a time both indexes will be published side by side. I may say that-I do not know why- my hon. friend seems to want to perpetuate the years 1935-39 as typical. I think perhaps he is deceiving himself; I do not think he is deceiving anybody else. I hope I do not live to see conditions go back to the 1935-39 level. But it has been the custom every ten years or so to change the index, and to take a new base. That has been happening probably ever since a cost of living index was published. It happens here; it happens in the United States as well. They have just shifted to a new base-I am not sure what their base is. We think the year 1949 is the last year for which we will have full statistics upon which to base an index, so that the index will start off not at 100 but probably at 120 or 125 or somewhere in that range. But as long as we have a base which is reasonably representative of the period under discussion I do not think the year is important. If my hon. friend can see something sacred in the years 1935-39 we might consider immortalizing them and keeping them forever, but I think he would have to explain it pretty carefully.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can assure the minister that I would not wish the years 1935-39 to be regarded permanently as typical, because these were years of Liberal administration. I would not want to think that that was typical.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You would like to go back to 1930-35.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You said 1935-39, and there is my answer on that.
The minister has indicated that the old index is going to be carried on for a period of time. It is a question of the length of it. I asked the minister a question on this subject in the house some weeks ago, when the
2270	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce new consumer price index was first announced. So that the people may have an opportunity of measuring the extent of the rise in the cost of living I asked the minister whether the government would be prepared to continue publication of the cost of living index until at least the next general election. The minister rejected that very firmly. I was not asking him when the general election was to be called. Far from my thoughts be any such question, Mr. Chairman; but I did think that it was only due to the people that they should have an opportunity of measuring the extent to which the prices have risen and the value of the Canadian dollar has fallen. I think there is very great danger that that may be lost from sight if we accept 1949 as the standard year and simply calculate trends from that year and in relation to that year.
The minister does not want to regard the years 1935-39 as standard or typical, but I would not want to see the high costs that we have been living under, and which were in effect in 1949, regarded as typical. If the minister has some better suggestion, well and good. But let us not regard these four years 1935 to 1939 as typical. In measuring what is a reasonable time I ask the minister to continue to publish the old index along with the new, and to continue it for at least a year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The bureau of statistics and my hon. friend were exactly opposite. The bureau of statistics pays no attention to elections, and my hon. friend thinks of nothing else.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Therefore I am afraid it will be difficult to reconcile the two points of view, but I will explain to the bureau my hon. friend's views, and they can take such note of them as they think warranted.


Major James William Coldwell: Can the minister tell me what has happened to that very useful and valuable publication the Canada Year Book? Has it been published this year, or what has happened to it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It will be published.


Major James William Coldwell: It will 'be published this year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, in January, 1953.


Robert Fair: As a farmer I do not like either the period 1930-35 or 1935-40. I never had as tough a time getting enough to eat, and paying my bills or of keeping the sheriff away as I did during that ten-year period from 1930 to 1939, which has been used for cost of living index purposes. I think of the


terrible damage that has been done to the farming industry, because while we were supposed to be getting into the period of Liberal prosperity during those years we were still down in the depths of a depression as far as farm prices were concerned. Prices that existed during those years have been used here on many occasions to show the prosperity of agriculture. They were entirely misleading figures, and as far as I am concerned, and agriculture as a whole, the sooner we get rid of the prices and the price structure of agriculture during the 1930 to 1940 period the better off we will all be.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to make reference for a moment or two to what the hon. member for Eglinton said. I certainly never felt that the period for 193539 had any magical significance. I also agree with the hon. member for Eglinton that this other period should not be fastened on us either as a kind of normal yardstick because, if it is, what it really means is that a lot of people who have never been able to readjust themselves economically to the tremendous rises in prices are going to have that period accepted as more or less normal, and to that extent psychologically there will be a great difficulty in the way of their ever getting a readjustment.
What I want to speak about is the size of this item. Here we have an item of more than $4 million. At a time when we are seeking economies we have an increase of $259,000. No one has more cause to speak well of the dominion bureau of statistics than I have, because I have had a great deal of help and a great deal of courtesy from them. I do feel it is one of the places where it is extremely difficult to prevent expenditures from pyramiding; and unless there is a definite system effectively carried out it seems to me it is bound to go on. Because, after all, the people who are running this are enthusiasts- if they were not they would not be good at their job-and consequently there will constantly be those who will suggest this or that pet project-"pet", that is, to the suggester- and they will go on and do that work.
I wish to assert, first of all that, obviously, the minister, with all the things he has to do, cannot be reviewing these many hundreds of employees, and trying to analyse what is going on. Who does it? The minister says there is a committee. I would like to know who compose the committee.
While I am on my feet I would ask the minister whether he has thought of the possibility of having the fresh views of some outside agency which would come in, investigate what has happened, and ask the very useful question: Why? I understand when Winston

Churchill was made originally First Lord of the Admiralty, as quite a young man, his first act was to call in all the senior officials and ask them what they were doing. They all told him, very readily and glibly. Then he asked them a question they had never been asked before: Why? That was something, apparently, a great many of them found difficulty in answering.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The efficiency of the bureau is the responsibility of the director and his deputy. They operate under the supervision of the deputy minister and1 the associate deputy minister of the department, who gives the bureau his attention. Other officers of the department are detailed to consider special aspects. For instance the committee on publications includes the assistant director of the bureau, but the rest of the committee were people inside the bureau, but outside the division under review.
It would be dangerous to bring in an outside firm. The cost depends entirely on the kind of information required. That is built up over the experience of the years. If we suspend a publication there are always complaints from some sources that valuable information is being cut off. We have that experience whenever we drop a publication. It takes experience to evaluate the seriousness of a complaint. I doubt if it is a job that anyone without experience in the work of statistics could perform. Our bureau is considered one of the best in the world, and we try to make sure that the work it undertakes does not go too far afield.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have no reason to regard it as anything but a very good bureau. Whether it is one of the best in the world I cannot say. I am afraid that when I hear that kind of opinion expressed it only indicates to me that there is a great deal of self-satisfaction and not enough of the altitude of criticism aroused. However, I appreciate what the minister says, that it might be difficult for an outsider to come in and to assess what is going on. Yet it seems to me that nothing suggested thus far indicates that there is any acid test here.
For instance, what is the test of need? A publication is sent out. Very few people ever consider writing in to say that it was not a good one. Indeed, it may have been a good one. But what is the test to determine whether X hundreds or X thousands of dollars will be spent? To what extent are people charged for what they get? To what extent is distribution free? Four million dollars is a lot of money; and I suppose, as things stand, it is going to go up and up. It has gone up $260,000 this year.
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Clarence Decatur Howe: Publications are free only to those on the official list. If my hon. friend would like to have them it will cost him $30 a year. They are sent free to trade commissioner offices, to trade offices of foreign countries located in Ottawa, and to a list of people who, for official reasons, are entitled to them. Aside from that a charge is made for each copy of a publication.
Reference has been made to the increase this year. I would point out that we had to consider the problem of old age pensions. The bureau did some work in forecasting amounts required and in setting up a check for old age pensions payments. It has done a great deal of work in connection with family allowances. Proof of age in connection with old age pensions required a great amount of work by the bureau of statistics. Usually it is work of that kind that expands the activities of the bureau. It is much easier to put new publications on than it is to take them off. However, a careful watch is kept to see that no new publication is brought out that is not required by the need of the day.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let me refer to something which I believe is under consideration-and it is a very interesting thing, too. I understand the bureau is grappling with the task of producing quarterly returns of corporations, such as they have in the United States, and which I believe we have not had. There, it seems to me, is an interesting point. It would be nice to give this information-indeed I would like to have it myself. But how will it be tested? I suppose it would cost a lot of money to have it. It would not be easy to determine whether that is worthwhile or not. What is the system? Is there any test that can be applied, or do we just go on getting this, that, and the other thing which may be interesting?-because it seems to me there is no end to it, ever.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am told the Department of Finance and the Bank of Canada desire the publications so that they may estimate probable revenues.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Do they pay for it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The same person who supplies their money will pay for this.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to refer back to a matter mentioned earlier, the new consumer price index put out by the bureau of statistics. The hon. member for Battle River pointed out that agriculture does not wish to go back to the conditions of 1935-39. I am wondering if there is going to be a change in the base of agricultural statistics to a new 1949 base. I do not know whether that would
2272	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce be preferable or not. It seems to me however that if the consumer price index is going to be changed to 1949, the indexes of agricultural prices-and I am referring to the 11-factor cost index, the 8-factor index, and other indexes-might also be changed to the 1949 base. I wonder if that is being done.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can assure the hon. member that every factor in the cost of living index will be on the 1949 base, including the agricultural index.


Hazen Robert Argue: Does the minister mean that the farmers' cost of production index which, so far as I know, is not included in the consumer index, will be changed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; all other indexes, as well as the cost of living index, will be published with the 1949 base.


Hazen Robert Argue: Will it also be the practice to continue for a period of time the other indexes?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: Regarding agricultural prices?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; they will both be published for a time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I found some difficulty in following one answer given by the minister to the hon. member for Greenwood, when he offered as a reason for the increase this year in item 454 over last year's appropriation the fact that the bureau has been called upon to do a good deal of work in connection with old age pensions, and proof of age. I would remind the committee that we are now dealing with an item covering the fiscal year which commenced on April 1 while the bulk of the work referred to by the minister was done in the previous fiscal year. I should have thought that the bulk of that work having been done, for the very reason the minister has indicated we would be entitled to expect a reduction in the item this year as compared with last year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The work on old age pensions is a continuing job. Much was done last year, some more will be done this year and more will be done next year. I have here an essay on new work undertaken without additions to staff.
Agriculture statistics division: New work undertaken in this division in recent years includes the following:	Construction and
publication of a monthly farm price index and an annual physical volume of production index; extension of the cash and net income series back to 1926; a new weekly series of butter stocks for 9 cities; a new series of monthly estimates of egg production and of monthly oilseed crushings; annual estimates


of vegetable acreages and production; preparation of per capita food consumption statistics and publication of two reports per year; preparation of special forecasts of farm production and income for the Department of Trade and Commerce.
Most of this work has been undertaken with no increase in staff. This was made possible by improvements in procedures including a greater application of the sampling principle, simplification of questionnaires, adoption of the peg-board system, improved methods of estimation, et cetera. In the large semi-annual surveys almost double the number of returns are now being processed with no increase in staff. Larger samples in other surveys are also being handled with the same staff.
This division has had the preparation of a handbook of agricultural statistics under way for some time. Part I dealing with the historical statistics of field crops has been published and other parts are in preparation. This work has been accomplished with no increase in staff.
What I have stated refers only to agricultural statistics, but I could give details about industry and merchandising and general assignments, including the one I have just mentioned. I would not think my hon. friend would want to hear that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does the list of work just read by the minister cover new work undertaken this fiscal year, work that was not done in the fiscal year 1951-52?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was talking about work done during the year 1951-52.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My question was directed rather toward the matter raised by the hon. member for Greenwood as to why there should be an increase this year when the bureau had discharged the considerable amount of work the minister has referred to in connection with the inauguration of the new universal old age pension plan. The volume of work which the bureau will be called upon to do this year would be reduced as compared with that done in the previous fiscal year. Is there some new work being undertaken this year as compared with the last fiscal year and which accounts for the increase in the item? This, of course, is quite apart from the census.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The increase is only 5 per cent, which is practically all covered by increased salaries and increased operating expenses. The work of the bureau is always increasing. Our population is increasing, the gross national product is increasing, the activities

of business are increasing, and the work of the bureau of statistics is increasing. In the last several years they have been making valiant efforts to handle these increases without additional staff, simply by improving the efficiency of the bureau. I think they have made a reasonable success. I could read the complete list if required.
The new cost of living index has been under study during the past year and has taken an enormous amount of time. Meetings have been held with almost every organization in Canada interested in the subject. There is always something new to be done. As I say, efforts are being made to keep the staff constant and to handle the work without any increase.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Could the minister or his colleague, the Minister of Public Works, tell us what the new bureau of statistics building is going to cost?


Alphonse Fournier: When my estimates are before the committee I shall have all the details as to that building.


John Horne Blackmore: Is the statistical summary issued by the Bank of Canada based upon data provided by the dominion bureau of statistics?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. The basic data for all statistical reports issued in Ottawa are supplied by the bureau of statistics. The actual interpretation is made by economists outside the bureau whose duty it is to interpret information supplied by the bureau.


John Horne Blackmore: Regardless of the department concerned?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: If it had not meant delaying the committee I would have liked to hear the complete list of the various activities carried on by the bureau. I should like to know to what extent the dominion bureau of statistics is regularly compiling data in order to show the total productive capacity of Canada in connection with almost every commodity.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be delighted to send across the text of what I was reading from as the hon. member may be the only one interested in the detail.


John Horne Blackmore: Perhaps I might tell the minister what might be new to the house and the country. One reason why I am particularly interested in the bureau of statistics is that if it is ever decided to set up a Social Credit state-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Supply-Trade and Commerce


John Horne Blackmore: -the first thing we shall want to have is what is called a national account book indicating the actual productive capacity of each industry in the nation.


An hon. Member:: What will it cost?


John Horne Blackmore: That is a sort of question we might expect from anyone so simple as to ask a question like that before he knows just what we are talking about.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I must ask the hon. member to address himself to the Chair and not conduct a conversation with hon. members across the floor. I might also ask him to confine his remarks to the dominion bureau of statistics. I do not think we ought to go into the future and consider the setting up of a state which might perhaps be different from the one we have now.


John Horne Blackmore: I am just wondering to what extent the bureau of statistics is ready to be utilized for compiling the national account book. The first important thing needed would be complete details of every branch and aspect of the productive capacity of the nation and I am just wondering if the bureau of statistics is in a position to assemble and supply that information.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The national product indicates the total production of the country. The capacity to produce may be larger but what is actually produced is the gross national product. That is prepared by our department based in part upon information supplied by the dominion bureau of statistics.


John Horne Blackmore: There is a rather thorough breakdown of the gross national product with respect to what is actually possible now and what will be possible with certain developments and so forth.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
454.	Statistics, including contribution of $3,100 to the Inter-American Statistical Institute, $4,088,614.
John Alpheus Charlton: In the details on page 500 there is an item of $142,473 for rental of office equipment. Would the minister explain that item?


Clarence Decatur Howe: These are special business
machines. My hon. friend knows that certain business machines are not bought. They are rented and that is the rental of certain equipment that was installed particularly for handling the last census. I may say that much more work was done on special machines in the last census than ever before.


John Alpheus Charlton: If that be the case, would not the item of $137,176 for 1951-52 have taken care of the last census?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not understand the question.


John Alpheus Charlton: The amount for last year of $137,176 would have taken care of the 1951 census.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, the work is not completed. It takes a year or two after the census is taken before all the publications are completed and all tabulations made.


John Alpheus Charlton: Then we can expect that figure will probably go down in 1953.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Very likely.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
455.	Census of population and agriculture and the 1951 census of distribution, $1,731,366.
A. Earl Catherwood: What was the total cost of the taking of the census in 1951?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The total cost is $8,874,503.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: At this point I should like to suggest another saving which seems feasible to me, and I think this is the only place that I can bring it up. An extra census is taken on the prairies halfway between the ten year censuses. I think it was originated in 1905 when Saskatchewan entered confederation. The reason it was taken then was that the population was increasing fairly rapidly and the people wanted additional representation. I suggest the time has come when that census could be eliminated. I think the last time it was taken was in 1946, and it cost about $600,000 of the taxpayers' money. With a population that is relatively stable now, I respectfully suggest that is an economy which could very well be made.	>[DOT]


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am told it is required by statute and that certain grants are based on the five-year census. We could not just wipe it out but we could explore the possibilities.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Perhaps the minister can tell me if there is any reason for retaining it. The population is now fairly stable. Is there any reason for that extra census in the three prairie provinces and not in the other seven provinces? It does not make sense to me, and I do not know anyone on the prairies who wants it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the provincial treasurers probably want the statutory grants which are based on the five-year census.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: How do the other seven provinces get along without it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not familiar with the statute and should not be discussing the matter. I am told it is a statutory requirement. I will be glad to look into the

matter and if there is any good reason why it should be abolished I will see what can be done to that end.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Wheat and grain division-
456.	Salaries and other expenses, $28,918.
Percy Ellis Wright: In 1950 the minister introduced an amendment to the wheat board act providing for the appointment of two additional members to that board. I assume the minister thought that was necessary at that time or he would not have had the act amended. Two years have now passed and no appointments have been made. In my opinion the wheat board is doing a very good job but I think its members are overworked. One member of the board has to spend a great deal of his time attending international conferences and selling our wheat abroad. Incidentally, I think the board has been doing a good job in finding markets for our wheat, but I suggest to the minister that he might give serious consideration to seeing that these appointments are made because I feel that now that the wheat board is handling coarse grains, contacting our customers abroad and making sales, the time has come when the membership of the board should be increased. It would not cost the government anything. The salaries of the members of the wheat board are paid out of wheat board funds. I am sure the farmers of western Canada would be prepared to see the number of members increased so they could do their job even better than they are able to at the present time, particularly with respect to securing new outlets for our grain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The only reason we have not appointed additional members of the board is that we have not been able to find men who have the experience and the background of the three men we have on the wheat board.


Percy Ellis Wright: Then you will never find them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend knows if you deteriorate the average you bring down the value of the team. There are men who have had the experience necessary but unfortunately they are not available for service on the board. However, I am still looking, and if I can find a man who I believe will improve the work of the board I will be very pleased to appoint him. If I cannot find a man who will improve the work of the board or who the board think will improve their work he will never be appointed as long as I sit in this chair.


Percy Ellis Wright: Why did the minister introduce the amendment to the act unless he had somebody in view or some plan in view to actually implement the amendment? It seems to me

that the minister must have had something in view. As to finding somebody with the experience of the men who are on the board at the present time, that is practically impossible. You must train younger men. These men are getting older and unless there are younger men in training on the board to fill these positions the time will come when some of the present members will die or retire and you will then be in the position where you will have to make appointments. I think the time to make appointments is now so that there will be somebody in training.


Clarence Decatur Howe: When the wheat board act was amended on the last occasion my hon. friend will remember that we added coarse grains to the work of the board, and it was felt that might require additional personnel. I dare say the board would get on better if it had four members instead of three, but as I say I have not found a man so far whom I wanted to appoint to the board, and the board has not recommended any appointment to me. One day we will probably need a fourth commissioner. Then we will have to find him and we will find the best man we can. I am very happy about the work of the board at the moment, and when I have a good thing I like to leave it alone.


Robert Fair: Earlier we had some discussion about the international wheat agreement. We got some information but I should like to have a few more details.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not possible to get it from me. The meetings of the conference were supposed to be in camera. I have given all the facts I know, and I hope no one else is prepared to give any more information than I have. The meeting is only adjourned. Mr. Phelps gave some information in Regina and I believe he has been cracked over the knuckles for it. I do not want to be cracked over the knuckles so I am not going to give any information.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister said that negotiations would be resumed later this year. Has he any information as to the probable date of resuming negotiations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have none.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: If the minister appointed two more commissioners as requested who would pay their salaries and expenses?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The producers of wheat.


Hazen Robert Argue: We in this group have always supported the wheat board as the agency to handle grain produced in western Canada. As the board is now operated it handles wheat, oats and barley. We have continuously asked that its operations be extended to
Supply-Trade and Commerce include flax and rye. I believe if the operations of the board were so extended it would get the overwhelming support of western producers, just as the producers of Manitoba gave overwhelming support to the board marketing oats and barley.
When it is sold on the open market the production of flax is a real gamble. Trying to produce flax at any time is a gamble, but if in addition to the hazards of production you have a widely fluctuating market it makes the production very risky. Last fall I believe the price of flax went up to over $5 a bushel. A few weeks ago it was down to $3.50, and I believe it is now about $3.80. I think it would be much more satisfactory if a reasonably safe initial payment on flax were made by the board, with interim and final payments later as is now the practice in regard to wheat, oats and barley. I am wondering if there is any possibility of such action being taken. Then there is one other point I wish to raise.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That question has to do with the wheat board act; it cannot be considered under these estimates. The wheat board act comes up for revision next year, and nothing can be done until then. When we are discussing the wheat board act we shall be glad to discuss this subject, but it should not be dealt with on these estimates.


Hazen Robert Argue: With great deference to the minister, it becomes very difficult for members to discuss the estimates if they are not allowed to suggest any additions or expansions in the item under consideration. I think it has always been in order to suggest the extension of any item.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If any such suggestions are to be made that can be done quite properly on the first item. That is why we have a general discussion dealing with the administration of the department and any measures under the control of the department or the minister. If we were voting the salaries of the justices of the supreme court, for instance, does my hon. friend think he would be entitled to discuss all the judgments those learned gentlemen have rendered?


Hazen Robert Argue: I would not say that.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Well, here we are dealing with a board and the salaries of that board. The hon. member wants to go into the various decisions they should render, or the service they should perform. I think he should offer those suggestions on the first item, which has to do with the whole department, rather than on this item which has to do with salaries.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Might I point out that not even the salaries of the board are included in this
2276	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce item. The salaries are not paid by the federal government. This vote has nothing to do with the operation of the wheat board.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada Grain Act-
458.	Administration, $137,981.
Mr.   Baler@: Perhaps I am out of order again, Mr. Chairman; perhaps I should bring up what I want to discuss when the standing committee on agriculture and colonization meets to discuss the annual report of the Canadian wheat board and the board of grain commissioners. I intended to say something in connection with additional grain drying and storage facilities in northwestern Saskatchewan. I was also going to make some suggestions for changes in the initial quotas on grain at the elevators. I will ask the minister if I would be more in order to bring up these matters later, when the standing committee on agriculture and colonization meets.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think there would be a better discussion then. However, we can discuss the board of grain commissioners, who are paid by the federal government, if my hon. friend wishes. Technically I think he can do that, but it might be better if he would defer that discussion until the committee meets, though he should do as he wishes. My thought is that it is a quarter to eleven and I would like to get the estimates passed.


Percy Ellis Wright: Have the government given consideration to an overhaul of the Canada Grain Act? It is a number of years since we have had a major revision of that act, and I believe representations have been made to the minister or to the government in that regard. Perhaps they prefer to leave the decision until after we have discussed this matter in the committee on agriculture.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend will find in Votes and Proceedings of today a resolution preceding a bill to amend the Canada Grain Act. In other words it is the intention to revise the act at this session.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Board of grain commissioners-
459.	Operation and maintenance expenses, including inspection, weighing registration, etc., $2,868,720.
John Alpheus Charlton: I wonder if the minister could give us some idea of the amount of grain that has been handled this year through each of the government owned elevators.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Perhaps the hon. member has not noticed that government grain elevators are not under this item but are under item 460.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I think there are some 1,200 employees of this board and I would like to know how many are civil servants and how many are permanent. When I asked the minister a question on another item I understood him to say that none of the employees were civil servants.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend was asking about the Canada wheat board. The costs of that board, including the staff, are paid by the producers of grain. The government exercises general supervision over the work of the board but does not pay any of the expenses. The board of grain commissioners is quite different. Its costs are paid by the government and all its officers are paid by the government. Practically all the officers of the board of grain commissioners are permanent civil servants, even the elevator operators.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian government elevators-
460.	Operation and maintenance expenses, $877,777.
John Alpheus Charlton: Could the minister tell us what amount of grain was handled through the government elevators last year, giving each elevator separately?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Some days ago I brought down the annual report of the board. That gives the information. I am sorry I have not a copy here. The reason my hon. friend does not have a copy is that we have not been able to get the report from the printers, but I am told it will be available for distribution next week, well before the meeting of the agriculture committee, and it contains all that information. The only information I have here is that the earned revenue from government elevators was $1,101,914 and the expenditures were $911,745, so there was a profit of about $200,000 in the operation of the elevators. That covers the elevators at Prince Rupert, Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton and Lethbridge, and the Port Arthur elevator which is leased to a private operator.


John Alpheus Charlton: And Churchill?


Clarence Decatur Howe: And the one at Churchill.


John Alpheus Charlton: Am I to understand there is an operating profit of around $200,000 on the government elevators?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There was last year.


John Alpheus Charlton: An over-all profit?



IS. 1952

Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
462. International economic and technical cooperation division, including the administration of the Colombo plan and of certain United Nations co-operation plans, $88,192.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Under item 462 we have apparently a new division within this department, the international economic and technical co-operation division, with a director at a salary of $12,000, four administrative officers, a librarian, control process officers, three stenographers and a clerk. I wonder if we could have from the minister a statement as to the reason for establishing this new division? I hope we do not need to assure the minister or the house that there has been unanimous support for the provisions made by the Colombo plan, but does it inevitably follow that because Canada is providing needed technical assistance to the commonwealth countries in southeast Asia that there must be this new division set up within the department?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, the amounts are quite substantial. We have made two grants of $25 million each, and that money must be spent to the satisfaction of the taxpayers of Canada as well as the recipient countries. The personnel of the division are mostly concerned with that plan. Nik Cavell is a man with a great deal of experience in work in the area in which the Colombo plan is being executed. I would be glad to read the extract from the annual report of the department bearing on this branch, if the hon. member so desires.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is it very lengthy?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a full page, yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: None of us has a copy of the report which was just tabled this afternoon.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I understand that, and I am sorry, but there again it has been delayed in the printing office. It will be available within a day or two. I do not know that I can read a short extract that would be particularly illuminating. It is necessary, however, to examine with the countries concerned the type of assistance that will be satisfactory to them. We believe that is something that will appeal to the Canadian people. For example, in Pakistan I believe we are building a cement plant, and that is something Canada can do very well. In India there are hydroelectric projects, certain irrigation projects, and over all there is the technical assistance program which calls for administration. We send administrators from Canada out to the field to do work in the field, and
Supply-Trade and Commerce we also take people from the area to Canada to give them instructions in Canadian methods. I think that Canada could hardly hope to do a job under the Colombo plan without considerable experienced staff who could handle the problems that are encountered.


A. Earl Catherwood: Should not this item actually come under the Department of External Affairs?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I agree with the hon. member, but unfortunately the Department of External Affairs has insisted that it should come under the Department of Trade and Commerce, on the theory that we had the personnel who were more familiar with the problems.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National research council and atomic energy
control board-
295. Salaries and other expenses, $12,198,684.
Mr. Green:: This item opens up a new branch, and I would suggest that it be adjourned.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall I report progress and ask leave to sit again?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall take up Bill No. 193, an act respecting the New Westminster harbour commissioners; Bill No. 192, an act respecting a line of railway from Terrace to Kitimat, B.C. Then, we shall go into supply to consider the estimates of transport.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply!:
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE General administration-
441.	Departmental administration, $617,795.
442.	Commodities services, including assistance in the develpment of markets and new industry, the procurement of supplies, and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $620,352.
443.	Trade commissioner service, including payment of compensation to trade commissioners for damage to and loss of furniture and effects, under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $2,329,134.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
444.	Information division, including publicity and advertising in Canada and abroad. $177,854.
445.	Economics division, including conducting of investigations and reporting upon current economic conditions and outlook (formerly the economic research and forecasting divisions). $157,923.
446.	International trade relations division, including investigating and reporting on commercial relations and foreign tariffs and a contribution of $6,300 to the international customs tariffs bureau, $150,156.
Exhibitions-
447.	Exhibitions generally, $253,236.
448.	Canadian international trade fair, 1952, including authority to refund from revenue, deposits received for contracts for space (revote $74,500), $538,380.
Standards division-
449.	Administration, including administration of the Precious Metals Marking Act, $113,359.
450.	Electricity and gas inspection services, including administration of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act-operation and maintenance, $599,176.
451. Laboratory-operation	and maintenance. $67,814.
452.	Weights and measures inspection services- operation and maintenance, $743,803.
Dominion bureau of statistics^
453.	Administration, $167,714.
454.	Statistics, including contribution of $3,100 to the Inter-American Statistical Institute, $4,088,614.
455.	Census of population and agriculture and the 1951 census of distribution, $1,731,366.
Wheat and grain division-
456.	Salaries and other expenses, $28,918.
457.	To provide for the Canadian government's annual assessment for membership in the international wheat council, $18,500.
Canada Grain Act-
458.	Administration, $137,981.
Board of grain commissioners-
459.	Operation and maintenance expenses, including inspection, weighing, registration, etc., $2,868,720.
Canadian government elevators-
460.	Operation and maintenance expenses, $877,777.
461.	Construction of safety devices, and acquisition of new equipment, $11,368.
Special-
462.	International economic and technical cooperation division, including the administration of the Colombo plan and of certain United Nations co-operation plans, $88,192.



END OF VOLUME II