1953-04-23

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon, L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):	Mr. Speaker, as leader of the
house I should like to make a very short statement concerning a sensational story about a member of parliament published in the Telegram under date of yesterday, Wednesday, April 22, 1953. The story is headed "Government Contractor paid $71,800 to Liberal M.P."
I am sorry this story has come out at a time when the member concerned has had to return to Saskatchewan to the sickbed of his aged mother.
If he were here, I am sure he would be most anxious to deal with it at once as a matter of personal privilege and I hope he would be able to do so in a manner that would satisfy everybody as to the propriety of whatever he may have done. I am also confident that, if there remained anything which might be a cause of embarrassment, he would wish to take the steps required to prevent that embarrassment from being shared by anybody else. Until the hon. member has had an opportunity of dealing with this story, I think his fellow members and the public generally should keep an open mind about it.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 342, for the relief of Hanus Braun, otherwise known as John Browne.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 343, for the relief of Hazel Loisette Robinson Darby.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	344,	for	the	relief	of	Pearle
Elizabeth McLeod Martin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	345,	for	the	relief	of	Susan
Klamka Migicovsky.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	346,	for	the	relief	of	Olive
Margaret Searle Pfeffer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 347, for the relief of Alfred Roger Holder.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 348, for the relief of Joseph Willie Brais.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 349, for the relief of Gladys Ola Taylor McLellan.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 350, for the relief of Freda Smolar Brown.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 351, for the relief of Marguerita Downie Couture.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 352, for the relief of Howard Douglas Wardle.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	353,	for	the relief of	Rose
Brownstien Lazarus.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 354, for the relief of Rebecca Bowman LeFloch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 355, for the relief of John Stewart Hannah.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	356,	for	the	relief	of	Harold
Speevak.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	357,	for	the relief of	Rita
Rabinovitch Abrams.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	358,	for	the	relief	of	Marcel
Roland Veilleux.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 359, for the relief of Mary Gordon Wilson LaForest.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	360,	for	the	relief	of	Lionel
Jobin.-Mr. Winkler.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. Anderson (Norfolk):: I should like to address	a question to	the Minister of
Agriculture. Could the minister tell me how much has been purchased and how much has been offered under the government's undertaking to purchase ten million pounds of skim milk powder?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has given me a copy of his question and I have this prepared answer. We have purchased 863,200 pounds of roller process at eight cents per pound f.a.s. Montreal and 3,214,800 pounds spray process at eleven and a half cents per pound f.a.s. Montreal. We have purchased all the skim milk powder that has been offered.


Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: Has
the government considered allowing the skim milk powder people to ship to a point in Ontario in order to save the freight charges to Montreal?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have considered it but we have not changed the present provision which is f.a.s. Montreal.
4266	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



PARTICIPATION OF CANADA IN ANZUS PACT- STATEMENT IN NEW ZEALAND PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: I should like to direct a question, to the Prime Minister. A press dispatch from New Zealand a day or two ago indicated that during a discussion in the New Zealand parliament one of the members had raised the question of Canada wanting to become a member of the ANZUS pact and being refused admission.
The minister of external affairs for New Zealand notified the house that that was not correct and is quoted as having said "Canada didn't want to be in." I should like to ask whether or not that explanation by the minister of external affairs for New Zealand is accurate.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I saw the Canadian Press dispatch in the Citizen of April 21. It was followed by a comment by the newspaper itself which I think states accurately the position. The comment was as follows:
Canada has always expressed "interest" in the ANZUS pact of Pacific powers but the Canadian government has never taken the view that this country should be a member although this has been urged in parliament here on several occasions by members of the official opposition.
External Affairs Minister Pearson has stated that if an invitation is forthcoming to join, it would then be considered. None has been forthcoming so far, and none is being sought.
That is exactly the situation.


Howard Charles Green: In fact the statement by the minister of external affairs for New Zealand is correct.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: My hon. friend can put any construction he likes upon the statement of the minister of external affairs for New Zealand. The fact is that no invitation has been forthcoming and none is being sought.


Howard Charles Green: Would it be accepted if it were forthcoming?


Mr.   Si. Laurer.i@: The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) stated, and I think wisely, that that would be considered if and when it happened.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Can the Prime Minister say
whether the government plans to introduce at this session any further legislation that is
[Mr. Gardiner.!

not on the order paper and, if so, will such further legislation include amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The matter of the Unemployment Insurance Act is still under very active consideration. As to whether or not there will be other legislation, I have not looked at Votes and Proceedings, but I believe there was a notice yesterday of a resolution and the usual bill for the capital financing of Canadian National Railways. With the exception of the Unemployment Insurance Act, which is still under active consideration which is apt to be finished today, I do not know at this time of anything additional that would require to be introduced.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
426. Departmental administration, $588,333.
Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Chairman, last evening I was quoting a number of small passages from the excellent speech made by the minister on April 17 and I was referring to expressions used which I thought it would be in the interests of the committee and the country to have the minister elaborate upon or explain. In order to give continuity to my remarks, this morning I shall quote again the last passage which I quoted last night, which was from page 4067 of Hansard of April 17. I quote:
Canada and the United States have helped themselves and the world as a whole through the negotiation of extensive trade agreements, before the war in 1935 and 1938, and since the war under GATT at Geneva in 1947 and at Torquay in 1951. The unprecedented flow of trade between Canada and the United States today is conducted in accordance with the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
I asked the minister several questions, the first of which I shall repeat. I asked: Just how has Canada helped herself through GATT? At whose expense has Canada helped herself, if at anybody's? Just how has the United States helped herself through GATT and at whose expense, if anyone's? For instance, has this help in the case of one of these nations or the other been at the expense of Great Britain or some member of the British commonwealth? It would comfort us to be assured, and with proof, that such had not been the case.
Does the minister know who originated the idea that led to the instrument called GATT? Does he know what were the immediate objectives of the first movers in this con-

nection? For example, were the men who began this movement aiming directly at the destruction of imperial preferences and the pound sterling in the British commonwealth; in other words, not aiming at the welfare of the world at all but merely aiming at the opening of the markets of the British commonwealth to the United States? If that were found to be the case I think it would detract in some measure from the sanctity which is endeavoured to be cast about this whole GATT mechanism.
What were the ultimate objectives of this movement? For example, was it just to give the American people markets and to destroy the British commonwealth? I know it sounds harsh to suggest that a nation like the United States, that ought to be by far the most tenderly friendly nation towards Great Britain on the face of the earth, might be aiming directly at the utter destruction of the British commonwealth. I am afraid that some of the evidence available indicates that we had better not be quite too sure that she has not been seeking the dismemberment of the commonwealth, and is not now. By "she" I mean those who are deep in the American administration and are determining ultimate policy.
Does he know that the basic principle upon which GATT is founded is a fallacy, and that Samuel Crowther, in his excellent book called "America Self-Contained", makes remarks which indicate quite unanswerably that the belief in free trade is a myth, that there never has been free trade, there is not now free trade, and that with the world consisting of nations of such a wide variety of economies and economic strength it never can exist?
If this whole GATT idea is based on the ultimate validity of free trade, then this document is foredoomed to failure. Will the minister tell us what he knows about all this?
The next quotation from the minister's speech which I wish to read is to be found at page 4067 of Hansard of April 17, and is as follows:
Since the tariff undertakings of the general agreement on tariffs and trade are firmly bound only until the end of 1953, decisions will have to he made amongst the countries concerned as to what further steps to take to safeguard the future of international trade. There may be a further opportunity to take steps forward in the reduction of tariffs and the elimination of trade restrictions, as an alternative to moving in the other direction. The interest of Canada in this matter is perfectly clear, because we require other markets to be open to our goods on an expanding scale.
Before asking questions, I draw attention to the fact that the statement which I have
Supply-Trade and Commerce just quoted seems to be designed to give the idea that it would be impossible for Canada to get other markets and have an expanding scale of trade unless we have the mechanism called GATT. I might ask in a general way, how on earth did trade expand before men created GATT? I should like to requote the last sentence:
The interest of Canada in this matter is perfectly clear, because we require other markets to be open to our goods on an expanding scale.
What has caused our expanding trade up to the present time? It seems to me, as I will develop later, that in this part of the passage I have just read there is an attempt to arrogate, shall I say, to the mechanism called GATT credit for all expansion of trade and the development of resources and production which has taken place during recent years.
There are however several statements in the minister's speech to which in fairness I must refer, which indicate that the objective which I have suggested was not predominant in these two passages, but nevertheless I think what I have said has some justification. As examples of passages which show that the minister is aware that other factors have entered into the situation, we find the following quotation on page 4067:
That this is so is due primarily to the capacity and enterprise of the Canadian people and to the extent and variety of the resources which they have at their command.
That is quite correct. Again:
Government policies, too, have played an important role, and I wish to refer briefly to some of the trade promotional activities of the Department of Trade and Commerce, particularly to the work of the trade commissioner service which is well known to many of you in a general way.
Again:
-it was built up and organized on such a scale as to give Canada a really competent trade service in most of the world's principal commercial centres.
Again, in the next column:
It was Canada's rapid commercial growth that accounted for this marked departure from the ordinary sequence of events.
If the minister desired to emphasize those considerations which I have indicated in these later quotations, then he pretty nearly hewed out from under GATT all the credit which it would appear he attempted to give in the two major quotations which I gave at the beginning of these remarks.
I would say that the whole of the minister's April 17 speech, as recorded on pages 4063 to 4068 of Hansard, appears to have been designed to convey to the house and the country that the highly gratifying growth of Canadian trade and production is largely, if not mainly, a result of the general
4268	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce agreement on tariffs and trade, commonly called GATT, signed at Geneva in 1947, again at Torquay in 1951, firmly bound only until the end of 1953, and presumably desired by the present Canadian government to be signed again for another term of years.
Far too much credit appears to be sought to be given to the general agreement on tariffs and trade, far too much credit for the growth of our production and our trade. While other factors are by no means disregarded, there appears to be too little weight given to, first, the fact that we are at war or are in a war economy, a state of preparation for war, and the consequent physical and financial demands which naturally result from war. To give GATT credit for what is accomplished by being in a state of war preparation would certainly be obviously unrealistic. That is one of the kinds of thing to which I object. There appears to be too little weight given to, second, the richness and variety of our resources, which the minister mentioned in the passages I have quoted; third, the energy, resourcefulness and skill of our people, which the minister also indicated in the passages I have quoted; and, fourth, the growing industrialization of Canada.
Appropriate stress was laid by the minister upon what he calls "a really competent trade service in most of the world's principal commercial centres."
Nevertheless, all things being considered, his speech, whether intentionally or unintentionally, appeared to be, in effect, a propaganda speech, the over-all effect of which was to mislead the people in Canada and elsewhere, tending to encourage people to attach too much importance to, and place too much reliance in, GATT.
I should like to read a passage from the April 19, 1953, monthly bulletin of the Empire Industries Association and British Empire League. The passage, which I think has a message at this stage, reads:
A gradual reduction in American exports on an agreed plan plus a commercial agreement which would permit a reasonable use of both tariffs and preferences would do more towards closing the dollar gap and making convertibility possible than has been done by GATT in the past, or could be done by its continuation.
There is one element in that passage which I think ought to be modified to some extent and that is the statement that there should be a gradual reduction in American exports.
I do not agree with that particular part. I do not believe that there should be any gradual reduction in American exports but I do believe that American exports should not go into the economies of nations of the
[Mr. Blackmore.l

world, competing with the industries which those nations are endeavouring to establish. This latter kind of export of United States goods, which other nations of the world do not wish, would be forced into the economies of those nations to their detriment, whereas by rights those surplus American goods should be made available to the needy peoples of the world.
Once more may I say, Mr. Chairman, in all earnestness to the minister, that we in our generation simply must discover the means whereby we can take surpluses from our splendidly blessed countries and get them into the hands of the 1,400 million people who go to bed hungry every night. If we do not do that we will betray our trust in these generations in which we live.
One of the serious difficulties in respect of all proposals which emanate from the United States and Great Britain is that we find no indication whatever of their awareness of the urgent responsibility to get our surplus goods into the hands of needy people. I shall probably have more to say about that at a later time. As I see it, there is no escape from this responsibility, and so I would say that the surplus goods of the United States call for a means to be adopted whereby those goods can be put into the hands of needy people and not be thrust into the economies of other nations to the injury of the economies of those nations.
With these reservations I would say that the quotation which I read from the periodical issued by people who are realistic in all matters pertaining to trade is highly commendable, and I would suggest it as a sort of ideal to aim at as an alternative to GATT.


Mr. Sinnotl:: Mr. Chairman, during the debate yesterday the hon. member for Eglinton made quite a thorough and comprehensive speech on trade, along with various other matters. He referred to the fact that Canada as a whole had been doing a fair job of selling surplus products with the exception of certain farm products which were not now going to Britain, such as bacon, cheese, et cetera. Mr. Chairman, I think it can be said without contradiction that at the present time the only surplus products we have in Canada are a little canned pork and possibly a few dairy products.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: What?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: The reason for those surpluses is mainly the embargo which was placed on certain products because of the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak last year.
What the hon. member for Eglinton forgot to say was that Britain is able now to

purchase many of those products at a figure much lower than that at which our products are selling at the present time in Canada and in the United States. Take for instance beef which would cost Britain 35 cents per pound today if she were to buy from Canada. She is able to get Argentine beef laid down in Britain at the present time for 17 cents a pound. Suppose the wife of the hon. member for Eglinton were to ask him to bring home some meat for the daily meals. If there were three stores such as Loblaw's, A. & P., and Dominion Stores, and if two stores were selling meat at 40 cents a pound and the other selling it at 17 cents a pound, there is no doubt that even the member for Eglinton would stretch his dollar by purchasing in the cheaper market. I believe that the reason for Britain's hard dickering today is the dollar shortage. Despite the dollar shortage in Britain our government has done very well up to the present time in disposing of surpluses to other markets and, owing to the trade minister's mission to South America, we have found outlets for much more of our production.
Mr. Chairman, in listening to the somewhat lengthy statement of the leader of the C.C.F. party, and I see he is in his seat now, I was shocked to learn that he did not know why Canada's dollar was at such a premium today.


Mr. Coldwell:: You tell us.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I am sure that it was a
terrible blow to members of that party to find that their leader did not know the answer to that question.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, you tell us.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I am sure that it will be a
severe blow to those who support the C.C.F. in Canada to discover that a man aspiring to the leadership of the C.C.F. in Canada does not know why Canada's dollar is at such a high level. Most assuredly such a man cannot be considered too seriously by the people of Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: You tell us.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I will give you my own
opinion when we get into finance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I did not interrupt the hon. member yesterday and I hope that he will be gentleman enough not to interrupt me today.
I rise to speak today because of the failure of Britain up to now to sign the international wheat agreement. I think that it would be
Supply-Trade and Commerce a tragic mistake if we did not give Britain some inducement to enter into this agreement. During the war we lent Britain $1,250 million and then made a straight gift of $1 billion. Those were steps in the right direction in order to enable Britain at that time to buy much of the produce produced in Canada. Owing to her hard-pressed economy and preparation for this cold war Britain has rationed her people more severely than she did at any time during the last war. Owing to the very severe dollar shortage there is no question but what at the present time she is fighting for her very life and attempting to obtain cheaper food for her people.


An hon. Member:: And shorter hours.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Mr. Chairman, it would be a calamity for the British empire if Britain were not to join this wheat agreement. It would also be a severe blow to Canada. If I am not correct in making this statement possibly the minister can answer later, but I think I am right in saying that Britain would sign at a figure of $2 a bushel.


Mr. Howe:: Mr. Chairman, there is a resolution on the order paper having to do with the wheat agreement which I hope will be debated next week, perhaps early in the week. I think it would be much wiser not to discuss the wheat agreement at this time.


The Chairman:: The point of order raised by the minister is well taken because, as the hon. member knows, we cannot anticipate discussion on a matter which is already on the order paper and which will come up later. Therefore, I will ask the hon. member to reserve his remarks on the wheat agreement until later.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I believe that the minister has good reason for saying what he has said, and I believe there may be good reason for some further negotiations before the deadline. In view of what the minister has said, I shall withhold my remarks until some future time.


James Arthur Ross: I followed with considerable interest the over-optimistic remarks of my good friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce in introducing his estimates. I agree that Canada does enjoy an enviable position as a trading nation today. I think that Canada, with her undeveloped natural resources, should enjoy great prosperity in the future. We have huge resources of oil, iron ore, nickel, uranium, copper, pulpwood, lumber and many other very useful materials. We should be very proud to possess these resources. We have also a very industrious people in this nation, and that is all to the

Supply-Trade and Commerce good. Coupled with all this, we have had a great period of inflation. I believe it is acknowledged by our financial experts that the Canadian dollar now has a value of about 49 cents, and that should be taken into consideration in assessing these various matters. It does make a great difference to many people in this country of ours today.
While this country as a whole has enjoyed great export trade and prosperity, I am sorry to say that the same cannot be said of the farming population in this nation. They are in a very different situation. I feel in the past a greater effort should have been made, realizing that trade is a two-way street, to purchase from Great Britain more items needed for our defence program, such as tanks, airplanes and things that are in short supply for our armed services. Since the same minister is responsible for making these great expenditures, he should have exerted a greater effort to buy from Great Britain, thus making it possible for Great Britain to purchase more of our agricultural production. It goes without saying that we have lost a great deal of these overseas markets for products which have been mentioned such as apples, vegetables, meat and many other items. We did enjoy a good market for a number of those items, and those markets have been lost. I feel that the government has not put forth the effort that might have made it easier for Britain to purchase these things by supplying the equipment we need so greatly for our armed services at this time.
I think we have missed the boat in that respect. I do not think our farm population has ever been taken care of too well. According to the 1951 census there is 20 per cent and a fraction of the population located on farms in this country, and they only received 12 per cent and a fraction of the national income. In 1952, the agricultural statistics show that that income was reduced by 12 per cent, while the cost of farm production had increased by 5 per cent. This disparity is increasing day by day. Inflation is also increasing in this country, despite the fact that ministers say it has been checked. During the last month an item which certainly enters into western farm production costs, that is freight rates, was increased. The Minister of Transport admitted that this would have an inflationary tendency at this time. This is one item which enters particularly into western farm cost accounting. I say, therefore, that the farm population does not appear in this rosy picture painted by the minister.

It has been pointed out by the Minister of Agriculture and others-in fact by the hon. member for Springfield, who just resumed his seat-that the only surpluses about which we have to worry are canned pork and frozen beef. Last evening the member for Eglinton put on the record the amount of wheat now held by the principal exporting nations of the world. I have in my hand a bulletin on grain stocks held in Canada as of March 31, 1953. The dominion bureau of statistics, in co-operation with the statistics branch of the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada, has compiled this data. The total holdings in Canada as of March 31, 1953, are as follows: Wheat, 604 million bushels; oats, 309 million bushels; barley, 217 million bushels; rye, 22 million bushels; flaxseed, 7 million bushels. Those are the round figures, and there are some odd thousands to add. This statement shows that the average for 1943-52 is as follows: Wheat, 380 million bushels; oats, 223 million bushels; barley, 104 million bushels; rye, 9 million bushels; flaxseed, 7 million bushels. I would think that, apart from flaxseed, there is a great surplus shown by those figures. I believe that this is a cause for considerable concern amongst the grain producers of this country at this time.
I agree also that it is quite difficult for the minister to announce the initial payment that will be paid for grain produced for the crop year 1953. Such an announcement was made last year before seeding operations commenced, and we had hoped that in each year these initial payments might be announced as a guide to those who are planning their seeding operations. I hope the minister can announce those payments as soon as possible, because some farmers might want to make some shifts, although I agree that it is difficult under the prevailing conditions at this particular time.
With respect to the international wheat agreement, the minister has stated that we will be asked to discuss and ratify it at a later date, so I shall not go into any details on that. Much of the publicity concerning the agreement has been painting a very rosy picture, but I am afraid the results will be disappointing to the wheat producers of this country. It is understood that we shall have to ratify the agreement and there will be a debate then, but I should like to point out to this house and to the country that, in view of the stand taken by Britain, I do not believe we will definitely know what the position will be until after July 15. In answer to a question about the stand of the United States, the minister has pointed out that in all likelihood we shall have to take

a second look at this agreement following July 15 to see what can be done about quotas. The final position may be quite disappointing because, although all we read about in the newspapers has to do with the maximum price of $2.05, people are greatly concerned about the minimum price of $1.55.
I do not wish to deal in detail with the agreement at all, but I did want to point out that situation. I think we should be giving it serious thought before we are called upon to ratify the agreement.
According to the report of the Canadian wheat board for 1951-52, which is the last official record we have, as a result of the operations of the international wheat agreement there was a difference between the average prevailing price for class II wheat and what the farmer actually received of 48 and a fraction cents a bushel, which amounted to $140 million on all the wheat included in that agreement. There was a considerable loss on that basis in every year of the agreement. Of course it is all water under the bridge as to the many hundreds of millions of dollars that the producers had to forgo in order to carry out the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement. They have had to make a great contribution. With respect to the price of domestic wheat in this country, may I say that I think it is unfair that the minister and his department, through the Canadian wheat board, should insist that the wheat producers of the prairies should continue to subsidize all the consumers of this nation to the extent that they do, because they purchase all their wheat on the basis of the international wheat agreement. I wish again to raise objection to that procedure and I hope that that will not be the case in the handling of wheat in the next crop year after August 1. I hope that discrepancy will be done away with.
I also want to repeat that on March 17 I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he would refer this report of the Canadian wheat board to the standing committee on agriculture, and he said he had no objection at that time if they wished to consider it. Mr. Chairman, you know how all the committees of the House of Commons are organized. The majorities in these committees are members of the government. It is true enough that you are perhaps supposed to persuade the chairman to call a committee, but there were many matters of concern which we could have discussed had the minister referred this report to the committee and had they sat. There were many matters that could have been discussed, including not only the handling of our grain but other
Supply-Trade and Commerce problems dealing with the Department of Agriculture as well. I am greatly disappointed that the committee has not been called. I noticed a press account one month later-I think it was last Friday or Saturday-to the effect that the chairman was going to poll the members of the committee and find out whether they wished to sit now and consider the report. I have pointed to the composition of these committees, Mr. Chairman; and I do not presume that, in this rush to finish up the business of this session, they will now sit. Certainly if they were going to do so, they should have met long before this, in view of the fact that this session of parliament opened last November.
I hope to have a great deal to say with respect to this international wheat agreement. I just wanted to register my disapproval of the fact that a greater effort had not been made to regain these markets for the agriculturists throughout this nation and also to point out the great disparity that exists between the position of these people and others of this nation at this particular time.


Mr. Thatcher:: Mr. Chairman, I shall detain the committee for only a moment or two, but there are a few remarks I should like to make to the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he wants to listen to them particularly or not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I must.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Despite the statement which he made last Friday night-which was an optimistic one-I think there are some obvious weaknesses in his trade policies. I think probably the foremost one is the fact that he, in conjunction with the United States, has done little in an economic way to strengthen the NATO treaty alliance. As I understand it, our foreign policy is based largely on NATO. The objective of that organization is the building of a strong defensive alliance against communism. We have gone a long distance, in a political and military way, to strengthen NATO, but I think we have fallen down badly in an economic way; and I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce must accept ia good deal of responsibility for that fact.
Article 2 of the NATO agreement calls for economic co-operation. Yet both Canada and the United States have refused to make it easy for our European allies to sell their products and merchandise on the North American continent. I cannot see how the NATO alliance can be a really integrated community unless there are greater economic

Supply-Trade and Commerce ties. I think the absence of those ties can undermine the military aspect of the alliance.
What exactly is this country doing today? On the one hand, it is sending military forces overseas, and giving huge financial assistance to defend western Europe against communist aggression. Then on the other hand it is following shortsighted fiscal, economic and tariff policies which are tending to prevent our allies from working out their own economic salvation. I suggest that the time has surely come when Canada should make it easier for our NATO partners to send their merchandise within our borders.
I want to agree with many of the members who have already spoken about the British-Canadian trade impasse. We have reached the point where our farm products are simply not being sold in Britain, with the possible exception of wheat; even that market we may ultimately lose. Harsh economic realities are forcing the British to buy farm products from those countries that are buying from her. It is quite true-as the minister has pointed out-that we have found an alternative market in the United States; and I think most farmers and Canadians are grateful for that fact. But we know that in the past the American market has not been a stable one. We know that it has been subject to recessions, and particularly to changes in tariff policy. Even at this moment the farm bloc in the United States is agitating for higher tariffs against our meat and our coarse grain.
I think we must face the fact that if there are surpluses in the United States, Canadian farm products in the near future may face exclusion from that market. Under these circumstances Canadians must realize that it is not only vital but a matter of absolute self-preservation for us to regain our British markets for farm products. I think failure to do so may mean that, in the next decade, a great many farmers may face financial ruin. I say that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, knowingly or otherwise, has led Canadian agriculture, within the last few years, down a kind of blind alley. We had better get out of that blind alley before it is too late.
What can be done to improve British-Canadian trade relations? I believe there is a great deal that could be done on both sides of the ocean. I think the first step must be taken by the British themselves. British manufacturers simply must become more aggressive in the Canadian market. Certainly any business experience I have had with the British leads me to believe that 

they today are not doing all they could to get into our market here in Canada. Many Canadian would-be buyers of British goods have recently been bewildered by the offhand manner of British manufacturers. The British tell us, "If you do not buy from us, we cannot buy from you." Yet when Canadian buyers-and I include myself- genuinely try to buy British goods, they are finding it virtually impossible in many lines. Among British suppliers one often finds interest that is lukewarm or condescending, prices that are vague, delivery dates that are uncertain, and styles and models that are not suitable for the Canadian market.
Several months ago dealers from all over Canada met in the city of Toronto at the annual Canadian hardware show. In that automotive building were display booths for goods from many parts of the world including Britain, Germany and many other countries. Many hardware dealers went down there with a specific desire to buy British goods. I know that my own company had two buyers who wanted to buy British cutlery, British tools, British shelf hardware and the like. However they obtained little satisfaction from the British suppliers on that occasion and ended up by buying German goods. It may be that our company is too small for these suppliers to bother with it; but I would point out that there were hundreds of other small dealers in a similar position who were leaning over backward trying to buy British goods at that fair. Yet in many cases they found it impossible to do so.
Speaking of the hardware business, may I say that before the war we handled little else but British cutlery. We handled a great many British tools, British toys and a great deal of British chinaware. We should like to get such merchandise again; but no matter how hard we try, we are finding it extremely difficult to do so. I would tell my British friends that today there is a crying demand among hardware dealers, from one end of this country to the other, for British cutlery, British scissors and British iron and steel goods. Where can we get such merchandise?
I ask British manufacturers what exactly is; wrong. Sometimes I wonder if they really want to get into this Canadian market. Those of us who live on the prairies want to sell our farm produce to Great Britain. We know that it is common sense and good business for us to buy British goods in return, so that they can earn Canadian exchange.
The Saskatchewan government not long ago set up a special committee whose duty

it was to encourage a "Buy British" campaign. The Hudson Bay association, the Coops and other groups, have also sponsored "Buy British" campaign. Thus it seems unfortunate that today, for one reason or another, many lines of British goods are not yet available. I do not make these comments in a critical sense at all, but only in the hope that our British friends will realize that there is much they themselves can do to improve British-Canadian trade relations.
I think the British should realize that since 1945 they have failed to take advantage of the tariff concessions which we have given them. Time and again British products have enjoyed tariff advantages over products from the United States. Yet, invariably the British products have been swamped by American competition.
Today where tariffs apply, the British rate is usually about 10 per cent lower than the American. For example, let us consider the drug and chemical industry. The tariff on those products, for British goods, is about 15 per cent less than the tariff on similar American goods. Yet of the $200 million worth of those goods which Canada imported last year, Great Britain got $20 million and the United States $175 million. Then, Canada imports more than $20 million worth of coloured cotton fabrics each year. The duty on the British fabrics is 3 cents a pound less than that on the American. Yet the United States factories got nine-tenths of the business last year.
In the field of iron and steel products the picture is much the same. The British enjoy a tariff protection or advantage of about 10 per cent. Yet last year imports from the United States were valued at $1-2 billion while the imports from Great Britain were valued at only $130 million. I have spoken to many buyers who have gone to Great Britain in an endeavour to buy British goods. Sometimes they were successful; but many times they found it virtually impossible to obtain the supplies they wanted.
I repeat that I am not saying this to belittle British efforts in any way; I am saying it because I realize how vital it is for my province and, I suggest, for the whole country, to increase British imports. But it has got to work both ways. The British, as well as ourselves, have to co-operate. It seems to me there are a number of steps the British could take if they really desire to sell more goods in Canada.
First of all, I think they should send out a far greater number of salesmen to this country to directly contact Canadian importers and businessmen. Secondly, I think they should
Supply-Trade and Commerce increase their advertising of British goods in this country. Thirdly, I suggest they should speed up delivery dates, and make those delivery dates specific, so that one could count on them. Fourth, I think they should give a greater degree of priority to the Canadian market. Fifth, I believe they should set up a more efficient system of spare parts and supplies in Canada. A great deal could be done by the British themselves to increase and improve British-Canadian trading relations.
Then, I believe a great deal more could be done by this government, if it were so inclined. For instance, I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce should set up an import committee, or a special branch within his department to encourage imports, particularly from the sterling area.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have had that special branch for years.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Well, it must be very inactive.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is very active.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I doubt it. Perhaps the
minister should have that branch of his department get in touch with importers, and tell them how essential it is for this country to buy British goods.
It is essential for the government to do a public relations job in this connection. And secondly, as other hon. members have suggested, we should increase our defence purchase orders in Great Britain, assuming always that prices are competitive.
In the third place, I believe our crown corporations, such as the Canadian National Railways, the post office, Trans-Canada Air Lines, Polymer and others should be requested wherever possible to give a preference to British goods.
In the fourth place we should consider at this time the feasibility of making further tariff concessions to the British.
In the fifth place I believe members of the House of Commons, and particularly ministers of the crown, should travel from one end of the country to the other making speeches, pointing out to our people why it is desirable and necessary for us to trade with Great Britain-not primarily for any reasons of sentiment, but solely for reasons of our own economic self-preservation. The time is past when the government, and particularly the Minister of Trade and Commerce, can maintain an attitude of aloof detachment from the gravity of this trade problem.
The Canadian primary producers are calling upon the government for action. We think the only answer to the British-Canadian trade impasse is a "Buy British" campaign.
4274	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Mr. Brown (Essex West):: Mr. Chairman, may I first of all express to the hon. member for Peace River my appreciation of his relinquishing his time so that I might proceed. Duties which I have undertaken in connection with the work of the House of Commons have made it impossible for me to be present on most occasions when the house is sitting. It will be impossible for me to be here either this afternoon or this evening because of those duties. Therefore I appreciate the courtesy that has been extended to me.
Recently, and for a period of time, remarks have been made both in and out of the house which have been derogatory, to a large extent, of an industry in my constituency. Therefore I should like to say a word or two concerning the automobile industry in Canada, and particularly deal with the manner in which it affects the people of Canada, and our economy. I shall refer to its effects on the farmer on the prairies, the logger in British Columbia, the fisherman in the maritimes, as well as the workman in the factories of Ontario and Quebec.
I am, Mr. Chairman, not unconscious of the fact that I am speaking for the rank and file of the little people of my own constituency, four-fifths of whom are engaged directly or indirectly in the manufacture and assembly of automobiles, or the parts and accessories that go into the production of the automobiles. Of that four-fifths, three-fifths of my people are engaged in the direct manufacture and assembly of automobiles with the Chrysler, Ford and General Motors corporations, in chief, and the other one-fifth of the four-fifths are working for the some fifty odd feeder plants in my city.
The other main centres for the production of motorcars are presently at Oshawa, Ontario, where two-thirds of the population work for General Motors, and the feeder plants situated there, and at Hamilton, Ontario, where the Studebaker Corporation now produce motorcars.
In Canada there are now four companies which produce passenger cars and trucks. Then, of the aforementioned, there are two companies which produce passenger cars only. There are also four companies which produce trucks and buses exclusively. This is apart from the companies which import complete vehicles from the United States and the United Kingdom. These latter maintain some type of distribution facilities but are not regarded as a part of the automotive industry in Canada.
The first automobile produced in Canada was manufactured in Windsor, Ontario, in the year 1904, almost fifty years ago. There


were imported models, or horseless carriages, introduced to our country before that date, but the more advanced motorcar came to Canada from the United States through Windsor in the year aforementioned.
The 1904 model was a crude creation in comparison with the sleek, comfortable and speedy models of 1953. When one looks back at the improvements that have been made in the last 50 years one cannot help but think of what the next 50 years will bring in the way of jet propulsion or atomic energy as applied to the automotive industry. We in Canada can be sure that when these means have been developed to the proper stage the ingenuity and progressiveness of the automobile industry in Canada will adopt such advancements as may be applied for the full benefit of Canada and Canadians.
I am sure that in 1904 that small carriage company at Windsor, the manufacturer of the original motorcar, little realized that in 50 years the industry which they were getting under way would grow to be the second largest in Canada, second only to the pulp and paper industry as an employer of people and in the total wages and salaries paid. In 1952 the total value of the products of the automotive industry, including vehicles and parts, was estimated at $717 million. Little did those pioneers realize in 1904 that within 50 years there would be at a given time over three million motor vehicles on the roads of Canada and that those vehicles would represent an investment by their owners of more than $4-5 billion. That investment is greater than the total value of all lands, buildings, implements and livestock in the agricultural industry in Canada.
In 1952 automobile firms directly employed over 35,000 men and women with wages amounting to $132 million. Indirectly employment was given through 350 feeder plants to
148,000	persons who were paid $112 million. Those people were employed on automotive contracts during the period 1951-52. With the phenomenal growth of industry in Canada it is reasonable to expect that this industry will increase correspondingly in the years to come.
I have said that the industry was concentrated in Windsor, Oshawa and Hamilton, Ontario, but those are only the places where motorcars are manufactured. Oakville, Ontario, will soon become one of the leading centres in Canada for the assembly of motorcars. The whole economy of the country is supported by this industry. We must realize that it provides a market for the products of mine, forest and farm throughout the whole country. I regret that I have not available the amounts spent directly by the automotive

industry on subsidiary industries and feeder plants, but I do have the information given by the president of one company to a group of members of this house in this building early this year. He indicated the amount which his company had spent in the various industrial centres in 1952. It must be remembered that there are four companies manufacturing motorcars, as well as other companies producing trucks and buses, so it will be seen what this means to the industrial life of our country and to the many industrial centres represented by members of this house.
This one company in 1952 made the following expenditures in the following centres:
Chatham, Ont	$ 820,000
Montreal, Que	 4,082,000
London, Ont	 2,184,000
Stratford, Ont	 346,000
Kingston and Gananoque, Ont		536,000
Hamilton, Ont	 7,450,000
These are only a few of the leading towns in Ontario and Quebec which have benefited directly from this industry. Altogether there are between 350 and 400 communities in Canada which share in the business created by this industry.
Apart from the independent garage men and dealers in imported cars there are 5,200 automobile dealers in Canada selling cars and trucks under licences from the manufacturers. These dealers employ about 55,000 persons who are paid over $132 million a year in wages and salaries. If we were to group all the automotive industry together, that is the manufacturers and the people who work in the factories, the feeder plants with all their employees and workmen, and the dealers with all their salesmen and mechanics, we have an industry employing
238,000	men and women with a combined payroll of over $376 million. That is over $1 million per day which goes into the pockets of Canadian labourers, clerks and technicians.
This is not the only contribution made by this industry to the economic welfare of Canada. The demand for certain types of steel has led to the establishment of facilities for the production and processing of such steel in Canada. This steel need not be imported by other users as it is made available to the manufacturers of other commodities. With the development of Canada's vast iron ore resources, the establishment of these and other steel processing plants and the knowledge derived therefrom will be of immeasurable benefit in the future industrial growth of our country.
This industry is highly competitive and as such engages the most highly trained personnel, engineers, draftsmen, tool makers, accountants and highly-qualified office
Supply-Trade and Commerce workers. It is a magnificent industrial training ground and a leader in developing and adopting new methods and techniques which will facilitate higher and higher production with lower and lower costs.
This know-how and technique is available for the defence of Canada in time of war. This was proved during world war II. The knowledge of means and methods of mass production enabled the industry to turn out hundreds of thousands of motorized units for our armed forces. It also produced parts for tanks, gun mountings, aircraft components, parts for ships and complex secret devices which the technicians of the automobile industry were well trained to execute and bring into being.
Objections have been taken in this house relevant to the differential in automobile prices in the United States and Canada. I agree that at the present time there is a variance of about $450 in the price of the popular four-door model of the three most popular lower-priced cars. This does not take into consideration a slight reduction in price made recently by one of the manufacturers.
Let us see how this is made up, and I take my information from a publication of the Canadian automotive chamber of commerce. The factory list price in Canada of this model is $1,836; the factory list price in the United States is $1,609, which gives a differential of $227. There is a sales tax in Canada of $145 and as there is no sales tax in the United States that gives a further differential of $145. The excise tax in Canada is $217 as compared with $134 in the United States, which gives a differential of $83. The total sales and excise taxes are $228 greater in Canada than in the United States. Therefore the price to the Canadian consumer is $2,198, and to the United States consumer $1,743, or a differential of $455. With the permission of the committee, Mr. Chairman, I should like to place on Hansard a table giving the figures I have just quoted.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Ferguson Brown: The	table is as
follows:			
Canada	United States	DifferentialFactory list	. .$1,836	$1,609	$277Sales tax 	145	nil	145\$228Excise tax 	.... 217	134	83 J$2,198	$1,743	$455
The basic difference in price therefore is $227 per car. The balance of the $455 I have mentioned is in our hidden taxes. We in
4276	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce Canada have made tremendous strides in our industrial growth, especially in the last four years. We as Canadians take great pride in our country. We have no desire of being merely the woodshed of the United States. Neither are we content to remain an agricultural community without a market for our farm products. It is essential that we have a well balanced economy in which the workman in the factory supplies the tools and equipment and the farmer on the land provides the food and raw products, but one in which both obtain a fair share of the profit.
Before there was any motorcar industry in Canada there was a customs duty of 35 per cent on automobiles. But there was no automobile industry to protect. The customs duty was and has been a source of revenue in Canada. Since United States manufacturers have seen fit to establish the industry in Canada, the customs duty has been reduced at various stages until it is now 17 J per cent on motor vehicles imported from the United States. The United States manufacturer is well able to supply the needs of the Canadian market at any or all times, but because of the tariff protection he finds that the motor vehicle can be manufactured in Canada using Canadian labour and a large percentage of Canadian material for less than what the motor vehicle would cost in the United States plus the duty to import it into Canada.
At the present time Canadian manufacturers import the frames for motor vehicles as well as the metal bodies. A few other minor parts are manufactured in the United States. On the other hand, there are many feeder plants in the Windsor area in particular which are manufacturing parts for American automobile manufacturers in job lots. Just a few days ago I had the pleasure of visiting one of these plants and there found that a great deal of their work comprised jobs for United States manufacturers which were rush orders.
The reason for importation of frames and metal bodies is that the equipment necessary for these parts is terrifically expensive and it is found that the parts can be imported and duty paid for an amount less than it would cost to build a piece of equipment to perform the operation. If a huge stamping machine or press is constructed to stamp out the metal body for a car at a cost of $200,000 -and I have no idea whether or not that is anywhere near correct as I have no connection with the automobile companies themselves-the cost of that press must be added to the price of the particular model sold. If
100,000	units are sold, $2 per unit of the sale price must be applied to the cost of the press.
iMr. Brown (Essex West).]

If 1,000 units are sold, for the purpose of my argument, then $200 of the sale price must be applied to the cost of the press or machine. This means that the selling price to the consumer of the individual unit must be considerably higher when there is smaller production.
Human nature being what it is, human tastes being fickle, and the needs of the purchasers being varied, there is not just one body model stamped out of the sheet metal. Each year the public and the public alone demands new and improved models which mean new dies and presses and increased expenditures resulting in higher prices to the consumer. This applies not only to metal bodies but to all parts of motor vehicles. The dies used in a punch press or stamping machine will make a thousand units or a million. If a million are made the cost of the die can be spread over the larger production. The same applies to component parts of a motor vehicle. An order far a million units will enable the feeder plant to cut its costs so that the unit can be supplied for less than the per unit cost of a small order.
The population of the United States is about 150 million people. In Canada we have only approximately 14 million. Production in the United States in 1952 was about thirteen times that of Canada. Therefore we can see that by reason of the greater population and higher demand orders will be much larger and costs will be correspondingly reduced. We are therefore paying an additional $227 per car for the privilege of buying a Canadian product, using Canadian labour and materials, and building up a balanced economy in the country.
In addition to the $227 for the privilege of buying Canadian, the consumer is paying an additional $228 approximately in hidden taxes which goes to pay for our national defence, family allowances, old age pensions, unemployment insurance, etc., for the benefit of all Canadians.
Remarks have been made at times that the automobile companies are making huge profits. Personally I do not represent any automobile company and have no stock in automobile companies, but I am vitally interested in the automobile industry because they are employers of labour in my community. I am sure that so long as there is a Liberal government they will be making money, and I like to see them make money because when they are making money the rest of the country is prosperous.
However, a few days ago I saw the annual statement of one of the larger companies

which showed that there had been a considerable profit; but when you stop to consider the amount of sales the profit amounted to something like 6 per cent of the sales made by the company last year. I do not think 6 per cent is considered to be an excess profit. I think you will find that the grocer considers that he has to make more than 6 per cent on his sales unless of course it is a huge supermarket. I think that the farmer considers he has to make more than 6 per cent, and I do not think anyone in this house or out of it will consider that a profit of 6 per cent on gross sales of any company or individual is excessive. That is what the profit was in this company. That does not take into consideration at all the amount invested as capital investment in the company but is merely the profit on sales.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it is my view that the automobile industry is a vital part of the economy of the country, and as long as we provide a healthy atmosphere for business and commerce I am sure that the automobile industry will succeed and prosper and will give employment to individuals and small corporations throughout the whole country to the benefit of all.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Peace River has always been noted for his courtesy and co-operation and he deserves, I think, a special credit this morning as does the hon. member who has preceded me. I want to express my appreciation to them for having made way for me. Actually, the hon. member for Peace River should have spoken, but owing to an appointment which I have after lunch he agreed to let me speak now.
I do not wish to speak at any length in this debate but there are one or two matters which I wish to bring before the committee at this time. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has given us a very glowing picture of the trade of this nation and I do not think anyone can quarrel with the figures which he has presented. I would, however, like to direct to his attention one matter which is of particular importance. When the minister returned from his trip to South America some time ago he gave us a very glowing picture of the trip and of the possibilities which might flow from it. The minister can paint a glowing picture and gild the clouds, as we know, and he can also be most forthright and most direct-as he usually is. Some months have elapsed since he made that trip to South America and I would like the minister to deal specifically with it and to tell the committee this afternoon when he speaks just what concrete results he expects to flow from the trip. It is a matter of interest of course to all of Canada but particularly so to those of us in the east who are using maritime ports.
23, 1953
Supply-Trade and Commerce
There was a time when we had extensive trade with Cuba and with the West Indies but our trade with South America has never been as satisfactory as we would like. There are undoubtedly possibilities for development there that the minister, with the research that he has done upon this, with the personal contacts he has established there, and with the emphasis which has been laid upon the possibility of the development of that market, should be in a position to speak upon concretely and directly to us. He might tell us what trade will flow or develop from his trip and from the publicity work which has gone into the development of that market.
The second matter I would like to draw to the minister's attention is one that I am sure he appreciates already. It concerns the proportion, the increasing proportion, of Canadian goods which are being directed for export through American ports. We have just listened to a graphic picture of the development of the automobile industry in this nation and of the importance that industry plays in our economic life. We all recognize that and appreciate it, and I think that Canadians generally are proud of the industry and are prepared to support it in any way possible as part of our integrated economic activity.
However, when one looks at the export figures one cannot help being alarmed at the increasing number of automobiles which are being produced in Canada for export and which are being exported through American ports rather than Canadian ports. I know that the minister can say that it is a matter for private enterprise and what can you do about it. It is true that it is a matter of private enterprise but private enterprise is very often influenced, and assisted, by national policy. The automobile industry is one of many private industries which have undoubtedly benefited by national policies inaugurated by this and preceding governments. I think that a government through its national policies can influence the development of private industry in more than one field and certainly this is one which is of tremendous importance to those of us in the east because although our exports are increasing and developing rapidly, the proportion of those exports going through American ports is increasing rather than decreasing. In the automobile industry it is particularly marked. When the minister speaks this afternoon I would like him to refer to that situation and tell us what if anything can be done to further the development of trade through Canadian ports. When I say "Canadian ports" I include all of them although the figures I refer to have application to the eastern American ports where trade has been diverted through government railways and other means to American ports.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
Mr. Chairman, there is only one other matter to which I wish to refer and it is one that is of special importance to my own constituency. It has, of course, been mentioned before. It was mentioned last night by the hon. member for Eglinton, and other speakers have talked about it. Nevertheless it is a point which I want to stress formally, and that is the supreme importance of again getting access to the sterling markets and the markets of Great Britain. As all hon. member have said, it is a matter which is of importance to all of Canada: but there is no constituency in Canada, no area in Canada, which is more greatly affected than that which I have the honour to represent-the Annapolis valley with its fruit-producing industry. Not so many years ago the Annapolis valley produced and exported more apples to Great Britain than all of the rest of the empire and commonwealth together. As a matter of fact Great Britain imported more apples from the Annapolis valley than she did from all of the rest of the world- and that was just prior to the last war. Since then our exports have continued to go out the window for various reasons until last year we did not ship one single barrel or box of apples from Nova Scotia.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But a good many apples were shipped.


George Clyde Nowlan: As the minister says, a good many apples were shipped; but, fortunately, the American crop was light and the Americans were in the market for our apples. Because of that fact we were able to send substantial quantities of apples to the American market.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend does not mind my interrupting him, since he is not going to be here this afternoon-


George Clyde Nowlan: Quite all right.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Last year we sold to Britain
706,000	bushels of apples valued at $1,581,000.
I suppose that if none were sold there from the Annapolis valley there was a better price in the United States-and that must be the answer.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not familiar with the figures and all I know is that last year no apples went to Britain. Whether there was a carryover from the preceding year I do not know, but it is true that last year in the valley, as was generally the case, the crop was small. I think it was small all over the continent and certainly it was fortunate that was true in the United States. Because of the drastic shortage of apples in New York and Virginia, American buyers were in the valley almost clamouring for apples. Of


course, there are economic developments in the industry. For instance, baby food-and to use a popular phrase, because I do not know the technical term-I suspect that manufacturers of Pablum and other baby foods are today in the market for thousands and tens of thousands of bushels of apples. A few years ago that market was not open to us. From time to time there will be crop failures in the United States and we will be able to ship apples there on those occasions- and we will be very thankful when those opportunities present themselves.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Everyone wants B.C. apples.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not going to enter into a discussion with you on that; but I am sure that if there were enough Nova Scotia apples for general consumption then those who were able to get them would not want British Columbia apples and they would hardly recognize them as such.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We ship them to Halifax.


Howard Charles Green: Be careful.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not going to indulge in that discussion but I am more alarmed at the remark of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra than that of the hon. member for Fraser Valley.
What I am saying is that the American market, though in some ways it may be a substitute from time to time, is not a solution to our problem. That is obvious for two reasons. In the first place, as the minister knows better than anyone else, our trade balance with the United States today is such that we are in a most vulnerable position. Figures have been put on the record before and I am not going to deal with them now, but our imbalance of imports over exports is such that we are not in a satisfactory position. More than that, the Americans produce large quantities of good quality apples and when the crop years are right they themselves have a surplus. As the minister knows, they not only supply the local market but unfortunately they export and they receive a bonus for offshore trading which-even if we did get access to the export market-puts us in a difficult position.
The last time we sold apples in any quantity to Great Britain, the United States producers were getting a bonus of $1.25 per box on the export market, and we had to meet that in order to get into the market. We are prepared to do that. The industry in the valley has been revolutionized, owing in part to help from this government and in part to the energy which has been shown by the growers themselves. The industry has

been put in a position where, from a production standpoint, it will compete favourably with any apple industry in North America. But it does need the export market. Situated in Nova Scotia, on the periphery of this continent, the industry is to a large extent precluded from taking advantage of our own market. But by that very geographical position, jutting out as a sort of wharf into the Atlantic, we are enabled to take advantage of the British market. We can truck the apples to Halifax, put them on a boat and land them in the British market within a few days.
But something more must be done than has been done in that connection. I am not going to review what has been said before. We know the record of our demands that greater emphasis should be placed on the development of the British market. We have had resolution after resolution moved to that effect defeated by the government majority here because they have suggested that there was nothing that could be done. Now, we read in the United States papers, and I noticed in the New York Times the other day, that responsible writers are prognosticating movements which are taking place behind the scenes. It is alleged that there are discussions between the Canadian, United States and British governments, as well as the international settlement bank, as a result of which something is going to be done to bring about convertibility of currencies. I think that is possible, Mr. Chairman.
If such developments are taking place, then we should know about them now. The fruit industry is not one in which you can operate on short-term planning. The growers should know now what the possibilities are so that they can decide whether or not they can afford to spray, and whether or not they can afford to look after their crop. They could decide whether or not there is any possibility of a market for the crop. There is nothing which is more important to the people generally across Canada, and particularly in my own constituency, than the necessity of once more getting access to the British market. I hope when the minister speaks again this afternoon he will, if he can, deal frankly with this matter just as he usually deals frankly with these matters. If he can make any statement with respect to developments, I feel he should do so and give us the information now to enable the growers to make proper plans for this year's production.


Mr. Low:: I have been keenly interested in this whole matter of trade for quite a number of years, and although I have not spoken too often about it in the house yet
Supply-Trade and Commerce I have listened with great respect and interest to those things that have been said and the various policies and proposals put forward by means of which it was hoped to assist the world to get back into some sort of balanced economy. I feel that I should speak at this time to put forward once more the views which I have held for a good number of years, and also put before the minister a matter of great interest and concern to my own constituency.
First I should like, Mr. Chairman, to deal with trade generally and to trace, for just a moment or two, some of the facts about world trade which have contributed to the present impasse. For a number of years now, I shall not attempt to say the exact number, there has been what may be called a maladjustment in the world economy. This maladjustment has been of tremendous concern to most thinking people, and I imagine it has to the government. What I have observed thus far as a consequence of their concern has not impressed me as being action that would in any way tend to alleviate the serious condition. I think that if we had followed different policies from those which we have followed, particularly since the end of the war, or if one were to name a specific date, 1949, we could have prevented some very serious dislocations that have occurred in our own Canadian economy. I might refer, as one specific example, to this whole matter of the fruit marketing which the hon. member who has just finished speaking mentioned.
This maladjustment of the whole world trade and economy I think has shown itself more particularly in the relationship between the dollar and sterling areas. Since 1949 a number of discussions have been held amongst the various nations concerned, and attempts made to find some sort of makeshift, I shall call it, because that is all they seem to have been trying to do. They have been finding some sort of makeshift to enable the sterling area to carry on just a little bit longer without collapse. It seemed to me that there was nothing fundamental in their search or in their thinking; it has been somewhat superficial. Let us put crutches under the old thing they say, to hold it up a little longer so it will not completely fall on us.
So far as I am aware, no real effort has been made to get down to the real root of things with a view to finding a permanent solution to this very serious maladjustment. What happened, for example, at the recent Washington conference has been kept strictly secret. We do not know, therefore, what proposals were put forward. Certain things leaked out, I suppose, and became confused. The suggestion is that, out of the Washington
4280	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce conference, there is going to come some successful solution to the inconvertibility of currencies. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that we should have been given a whole lot more information than we have been given about the results of the Washington conference. We are in the dark, and as a consequence it is very difficult to discuss in an intelligent manner the problem that we now face with respect to world trade. Until we do get that information, I suppose we shall just have to go on putting forward the ideas that we feel are sound, and I hope that some time the government will make it possible for us to know a little more. I am convinced that nothing short of a fundamental change in outlook on the part of the nations concerned can produce a permanent remedy to the trade sickness which has so long afflicted the world.
_ Now, getting right down to basic considerations, I think it can be demonstrated that the United States has had a wrong outlook for quite a number of years towards this whole matter of trading. I am not attacking the United States at all when I say that. But when any nation with the industrial might of our good neighbour to the south has a wrong attitude toward this world economy, unbalance is bound to result. Then, when other nations like Canada voluntarily follow the United States in their wrong outlook, the unbalance of course is seriously aggravated; that has been the case in the past few years. Finally, when under political pressure the rest of the world is whipped into line by the United States, then it becomes next to impossible to restore the equilibrium in trade matters until that outlook is changed.
Now there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the source of the world trade slump is the economic unbalance that has been brought about by such a policy on the part of the policy makers in the United States and Canada, and their inability to face the realities or to base their policies upon realistic thinking as to what would balance the economy from a world point of view. Now, what is a balanced economy? I say it would be one in which the production and exchange of different kinds of commodities and services corresponds very closely to human needs. Nothing less than that could possibly be called a balanced world economy. That is the only kind of world economy, in my judgment, that could flourish and expand steadily in the years ahead. Right now, this world does not have such a balance. I would say it is far from it, largely as a consequence of selfish shortsighted policies laid down and slavishly followed by, I will go so far as to say, adolescent human beings or, in the alternative, forced upon nations by powerful


financial and economic combinations of men. It should be perfectly obvious, I would think, to any grown-up, mature person that the only way to correct-in a permanent way, let us say-the present economic unbalance in the world is to restore the balance as quickly as possible. That is just ordinary, common horse sense. I realize that what I suggest is a big order, of course-how to correct the unbalance as quickly as possible-and I admit at once that it is much easier said than done. But it must be clear to anyone in this committee that it will not ever be done unless we deliberately and with determination set out to do it, and not just attempt to put crutches under an old arrangement which just cannot possibly stand by itself.
Over the years the United States has built up an ever-expanding balanced economy, balanced internally as well as externally, except when she refuses to recognize that the rest of the world cannot buy from her unless she is prepared to buy from them. She did so by protecting her own industry from external competition that might have been a destructive type of competition without that protection. She also built it up by attracting both skilled manpower and capital from Britain and other parts of the world in the early stages of her development. By the time world war I ended the United States had built up a tremendous surplus productive capacity and, as a consequence, the United States forced huge quantities of surplus goods into the channels of world trade without any effort to create an external balance either by increasing her imports or by consistent investment in other countries. Consequently by 1931 the unbalance had become so terrible that it erupted into the great depression that became world wide.
Faced with the necessity of trying to do something about it, as you will recall, the countries forming the British commonwealth of nations organized amongst themselves a preference system in order to present some sort of balancing factor in the world so as to offset the unbalance that was created by this huge United States industrial upsurge and the lack of world responsibility that was so evident within that country. This organization of a preference system amongst themselves helped the commonwealth nations tremendously and as a consequence they enjoyed a measure of balanced expansion for some years. But the nations of Europe which were prevented from helping each other to form an expanding, growing economy by the most-favoured-nation clause that was inserted in trade treaties were obliged to resort to every kind of restrictive device in order to save themselves. I speak there, of

course, of the unconditional most-favourednation clause in trade treaties.
World war II, I think, served only to aggravate the serious unbalance of the period between 1918 and 1939.	Then to make
matters worse, the United States threw all of its immense political and economic weight into what amounted to enforcement over the whole trade world of the very obstacles to recovery which had earlier been placed there; and she has been determined to prevent the building up of nation groups, with combined resources comparable to those of the United States, which would be capable, of course, of holding their own through a balanced, mutually expanding production and exchange among themselves, if necessary. The terms of the Washington loan, the Bretton Woods agreement, the Geneva agreement and the Havana charter have all been witnesses to the truth of that determination that I have spoken of on the part of the United States.
I am convinced that the only remedy for the present trade stalemate is the restoration of world balance by co-operation between relatively weak and unbalanced countries. They should be allowed to do that without any interference or restriction. As to whatever pledges the countries made under Bretton Woods, Geneva and GATT, anybody knows that they will inevitably and eventually be forced to evade them. The United States is evading them now. Other countries are forced to evade them. They cannot keep those terms and live up to their agreement, so they are being evaded wholesale today. The nations that are precluded from the free and flexible methods of co-operation by such things as mutual tariff preferences are having to resort to something else.
I am becoming much more impressed, Mr. Chairman, by the necessity for having the nations completely free to take whatever action they feel, in their own wisdom, they ought to take on the highest moral plane to bring balance and decency into this whole system of world trade. If they were allowed to build up mutual tariff preferences wherever it was found necessary, and freely adjusted currencies, I am sure they would not be driven by necessity to try to achieve something by such things as fixed import quotas, exchange controls and bilateral bargains that try to get in under the wire. Some of these things I have mentioned are damaging to their own enterprise and initiative as well as to world trade as well. I think the history of the nations in the last ten years would indicate that that statement is perfectly true. As I said, I am becoming a - great deal more impressed every day by the necessity for leaving the nations completely free to take whatever action they feel, in
Supply-Trade and Commerce their wisdom, they ought to take so that they can bring some sort of balance, decency and fairness into world trade.
At one o'clock the committee -took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, to continue what I had begun to say before lunch, in recent years Canada has drifted into the habit of buying from the United States, and at the same time trying to sell to Great Britain and to Europe, and then leaving it to others to complete the triangle of trade. This, of course, is exactly what the others cannot do under the present unbalance of trade.
Since 1949 Canada has found herself in the position that her natural and her best markets are increasingly restricting their purchases from Canada, except where they are paid for by the aid which these countries receive from the United States. Canada was the only commonwealth nation which, at Geneva, did seriously reduce her preferences on British imports.
I have often been led to ask our policy makers if they did not realize that by taking that action Canada was only adding to the difficulties that were faced by Great Britain in buying from Canada. We in Canada have drifted into a state of thinking that we are actually in the dollar area, although in our interests and our sympathies, as well as economically, we are linked a whole lot more closely with the British commonwealth and with Europe.
I wonder what would be the real difficulty in Canada's acknowledging that fact in the currency arrangements that she makes. Some time ago, when the Minister of Agriculture was in England he gave a speech in London in which he stated that some arrangements would have to be made by which Great Britain could buy her foodstuffs and other supplies in Canada, and that no currency restrictions ought to stand in the way of the successful achievement of that objective, and the achievement also of a balance in world trade. There is sense to what he said.
Undoubtedly the Minister of Agriculture realized that what I am saying now is true, that economically and in many other ways we are linked to Great Britain, the commonwealth and Europe more closely than with the United States, although in recent years we have got into the habit of thinking that we can tie ourselves to the United States and be safe. That is not true. I think we are finding it more so every month.
4282	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce
I believe Canada should have started as far back as 1949 to accept payment in sterling for any balances owing us by Great Britain and by other parts of the sterling area. I realize all too well that it would probably have been necessary for us to accept sterling at a rate which we ourselves would find most convenient. I do not think there would have been any difficulty in arranging that, either.
I should point out, too, at this stage that the sterling area is a free association whose members can at any time change their rates to meet their requirements. If we had agreed to accept sterling, as I have suggested, and set a rate to suit our convenience, we could have shared with Great Britain a certain amount of protection against American competition, and at the same time we could have ensured that our people could enjoy satisfactory prices on the imports we bring into this country.
The only difficulty I can see about accepting sterling would have been this, that for the time being at least Canada would have found herself accumulating a surplus of sterling above our current requirements. These surpluses would, I suppose, have to be invested temporarily in the country owing the balance. But to offset that, there is every evidence that Canada has reached a stage of development where we could do that sort of thing safely, especially if we limited our commitments to a certain maximum figure until such time as the trade volume with the sterling area has come more nearly into balance.
Under such an arrangement, of course every sterling country, instead of restricting its purchases of Canadian goods, as those countries have been doing for the last few years, I think would go all-out to buy every pound of foodstuffs and other materials Canada could produce. I am satisfied European countries would have followed suit as far as they would find sterling an easier currency to meet than the American dollar. Instead of thinking about restricting the production of Canadian foodstuffs, as we have been thinking about it-and some of the farmers have been told they ought to do it- we could open up the valve and go all-out in production. There is a wider and perhaps much more important result than this that would have accrued from our willingness to accept sterling in payment for balances with Great Britain and the sterling area.
I think that such action would have gone far to strengthen the sterling area, and by now we probably would have begun to see some hope of achieving a balance in world trade.

I am convinced it would have been greatly to Canada's advantage if we had adopted the policy I have suggested as early as 1948, or certainly by 1949. I am also convinced that world balance in economy and trade can never be achieved under rigid agreements like Bretton Woods, Geneva or GATT. It can be achieved only if all the nations find themselves free to take whatever action they feel it is desirable to take, particularly along the lines of setting up and arranging mutually satisfactory co-operative associations, wherein they could present a united and comparable productive front to the great world industrial giant, the United States.
I should like to conclude this part of what I have to say about trade by pointing out the problem faced by the people in the United States today. To do this I should like to read briefly from the Alberta Wheat Pool Budget of April 17, 1953, where, under the heading "U.S. Farm Problem", it says:
The United States government has $2,900,000,000 tied up in its farm price support program. As parity prices are guaranteed on principal farm products to the end of 1954, the government of that nation is somewhat in a quandary. The chief products involved are wheat, corn, tobacco and cotton.
Overseas markets for U.S. farm products are drying up. That is the main cause of the domestic problem. Farm exports in January were 29 per cent below a year ago. Cotton exports were down 63 per cent. Broader export markets are urgently needed, mainly by wheat and cotton growers. Higher import tariffs on the other hand are wanted by the dairy industry. This conflict puts the government under pressure. The administration would like an extension of the present trade agreement program allowing more time for study.
When you contemplate that situation, and also the situation that exists here in Canada, perhaps to a lesser degree at the moment but certainly growing, it becomes abundantly clear that we simply must find some means of distributing these surpluses. The suggestion that has been made of setting up a world pool or an international commodity clearing house organization for the distribution of surpluses seems to me the best that has been made thus far. We must find a way of distributing to the people who need them the surpluses that are bound to occur as we open the valves of our productive capacity and go all-out in peacetime production.
We are told that we had in Canada last fall something in the neighbourhood of 700,000 cases of salmon many of which are unsaleable at the moment. I am only quoting what a correspondent from British Columbia wrote recently to the Christian Science Monitor, as follows:
While the smaller salmon pack was not a matter of serious concern to packers who were faced with a carry-over of 700,000 unsold cases from 1951, fishermen have been hard hit. The market for

canned salmon has been restricted because of Britain's continued dollar shortage: Britain and the commonwealth countries having long been Canada's best customers for these exports.
The most recent figures indicate a present surplus stock of no less than 350,000 cases.
That seems to indicate a serious situation with respect to our ability to dispose of the salmon that we can gather in and put into cans. It just proves the seriousness of what I have mentioned. We must find means of distributing these surpluses to the countries that need them. It seems to me that that is the only guarantee for anything like a hope for world peace.
I should like to take a minute or two to make an appeal to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with a situation in my own constituency. The Peace river country is a fast-growing empire, as I think the minister knows. Its population is expanding rapidly and today there are something like
65,000	people in the area:	New communities
are springing up fast and older ones are growing and expanding. The production of all the things that these people can produce is increasing.
I should like at this moment to remind the Minister of Trade and Commerce of the productive capacity of that country as shown by figures representing the 1951 and 1952 production for crop districts 15 and 16 which are included in the Peace river. These are as follows:
1951	1952
bushels	bushels
Wheat	
9,552,000	7,586,000Oats	
19,076,000	17,079,000Barley	
5,004,000	7,306,000
The marketing figures are even more significant. The figures for the crop year 195152, the last year for which figures are available, for crop districts 15 and 16 in the Peace river district show the following marketings:
Cars of 2,000 bushels	bushels
Wheat	
8,989,000	4,495Oats	
9,714,000	4,857Barley	
2,838,000	1,415Rye	
439,000	219Flax	
188,000	94
22,160,000 11,080
I am taking the railway cars as averaging
2,000	bushels apiece which I think is fairly accurate. I should like to point out at this time that we in the Peace river country have been suffering under a number of disabilities. The first is that we are isolated because of the failure on the part of those who could have done the job in the past to extend the Northern Alberta Railways to the
Supply-Trade and Commerce Pacific coast in order to provide a western outlet. At present there is a backhaul of up to 425 miles just to get into Edmonton. It might be interesting to note the distances of some of these communities from Edmonton, and I give a few examples as follows:
miles
McLennan	 267
Spirit River	 326
Grande Prairie	 407
Beaverlodge	 435
Dawson Creek	 495
Those are on the south side of the river. Then on the north side we have:
miles
Peace River	 317
Fairview	 365
Hines Creek	 382
The latter point is at the end of the line on the north side of the river. The nearest inland storage elevator at present is situated in Edmonton and I understand that this has a capacity of somewhere around 2,350,00C bushels.
In addition to that isolation, we suffer the added disability of transportation isolation. We are often left until the very last of the crop year before millable or marketable grain is moved from the area. If there happens to be a car shortage, as there has been over the years, the people in the Peace river country are just about the last to receive service. The areas nearer to the market are the ones which seem to be given the first service, and I can understand that that is necessary under the circumstances when we have to fill foreign commitments.
In 1951-52, which was the last year in which we had a car shortage, as late as March, 1952, there were ten million bushels of the crop still left on the farms. As a consequence farmers were penalized although their grain was of millable quality and greatly in demand to fill Canada's commitments abroad.
One solution to this whole problem would be the building of a railroad outlet to the west coast. I appreciate the problems involved at the present time but that will have to be done if this country is to realize its full potential in contributing to Canada's strength and security. Certainly the building of this railroad is long overdue. I shall not labour the point now because this is not a matter for the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
However, I would like to point out another alternative, the building of an inland storage elevator of perhaps two million bushels capacity to be located at some point in the Peace river district where the necessity for a back haul would be kept at a minimum. There are two or three places where this
4284	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce could be located to advantage, such as at McLennan and High Prairie where the facilities are available for putting up such an elevator.
I understand from the minister's own lips that it would cost in the neighbourhood of $5 million, but I think even that large cost could be justified particularly when one realizes that this country just cannot go ahead until the transportation and storage situations are corrected. There are a number of tremendous advantages that would accrue both to the Peace river area and to Canada as a whole, and I shall mention them only briefly. The first would be that by establishing a two million bushel storage elevator in the Peace river district it would increase storage space available by 20 to 25 per cent.
I am told by authorities that today there is only something in the neighbourhood of nine million bushels storage capacity, at elevators and annexes, in the whole area. That is too small a storage space to take care of the needs of the area and its productive capacity. The second advantage would be that a smaller number of box cars could handle the crop in any year on a shuttle service basis in just a few hours because it would only take a matter of six or seven hours to get to the terminal from any part of the huge area. That would be particularly advantageous during a period of shortage of box cars.
Another advantage would be that it would supply cleaning facilities in the area making it possible to take out dockage which I think runs normally around 3 per cent or a little better in the Peace river country. The screenings from the processing could be left in the area to stimulate a livestock feeding industry which, by the way, is greatly needed in that country to help to balance their agriculture. Another advantage of a storage elevator of that kind would be that it would provide drying and conditioning facilities which are badly needed. Often in that country we find ourselves with much tough and damp grain that should be dried and processed quickly in order to save it. I am satisfied that over a period of years an investment of even $5 million in an elevator there "would pay in added production and the saving of production that would normally spoil if it were not processed quickly.
Therefore I appeal to the minister again to give this matter his earnest and sympathetic consideration. I have spoken to him about it before. I know he said at the time that was not the solution to our problem but he did not give me reasons. If it is impossible to grant this request, I hope that
IMr. Low.]

he will at least be able to give us reasons why it would not be a solution or a partial solution to our problem at any rate. We think that the struggling people of the Peace river are certainly entitled to that much consideration. When one remembers the efforts which they have made in the past to add to Canada's prosperity, and particularly during the war when they went all-out in their productive efforts and did what I think was a magnificent job, it seems to me it is only right that we should now provide them with a railway outlet to the west coast or in the alternative with an inland storage elevator of the type which I have suggested. I know I have exceeded my time and I appreciate your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. 1 do ask the minister to give this proposition his most earnest and thorough consideration.


Mr. Hetland:: I should like to ask the hon. member a question. In trading with England is price not a big factor, and would the hon. member suggest that England should pay for meat and such products as little as she pays other countries such as Australia and New Zealand?


Solon Earl Low: Yes, of course, Mr. Chairman, price is a big factor. There is no question about that.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: How would you overcome it?


Solon Earl Low: I feel perfectly satisfied that any disability of price could be overcome if we worked on a two-price system such as my colleague, the hon. member for Acadia, suggested in the house not very long ago when he was dealing with a similar subject.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to say a brief word because we at the lakehead are interested in trade but are even more interested in the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He is the one who to a great extent has to deliver the goods and I am convinced that he has been delivering the goods because there is very little in Canada today that is not being delivered. Wheat, for example, is being sold as fast as it can be carried. We have some salmon in British Columbia but I understand that the Minister of Fisheries is taking care of that. I am almost a free trader.
I believe in trading with the empire, and having been born in the old country I have a soft spot in my heart for trade with that country.
As a matter of fact I am using a car that was made in England. The reason I like that car is because it has no American frills on it, and I can skid a corner with it as fast as anybody in the house. Listening to some hon. members, one would feel that the country was going to the bow-wows and that the Minister of Trade and Commerce had not

been doing a good job. They may have convinced somebody else of that fact but to me it is not a true fact. They cannot convince me because my correspondence tells me that today Canada is on the top. My correspondence tells me, and I see it in certain publications, that more people want to come to Canada than want to go to any other country in the world. Why? Because they know they can earn their bread and butter freely and be protected thereby.
I know that not all people come from the British empire. When the embargo on cattle was lifted, the farmers in the west were willing to sell their cattle to United States buyers if they would pay a little more than anybody else because they had found that the United States dollar would buy just as much as a dollar from any other country. The reason why I got up to speak is that I want to state that since I have been in the house I have never heard a finer tribute paid to anybody than that paid to the Minister of Trade and Commerce by an opposition member. I think it was the bright young member for Kamloops who did so on the occasion when he was discussing the wheat agreement that had been formulated by forty-six nations. He rose and spoke to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and said, "You go to England." Just think of that tribute. It beats an LL.D., a D.D. or any other kind of degree because it is telling the Minister of Trade and Commerce to go and do what forty-five other nations could not do. To me that is one of the finest tributes I have ever heard paid to anybody in the house. I say to the opposition: Just keep on, because it will not make a bit difference to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and when he puts on his new hat on the Sabbath day it will not be a bit tighter.


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Chairman-


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Now we are really going to get it.


George Harris Hees: I hope the hon. member will understand it.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I am trying very hard.


George Harris Hees: On Friday last we heard a very glowing account of Canada's trade position and of our prospects for the future given to us by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. One thing for which we cannot criticize the minister is his optimism, but I think we owe it to ourselves to examine the foundation of that optimism to find out if it is sound.
If we look at a government publication entitled "Trade of Canada, Exports", we see that our exports of all products to all countries in January, 1953, were 2 per cent
23, 1953
Supply-Trade and Commerce less than our similar exports during the same month of last year. In February, however, this falling off had mounted to 11 per cent below our exports of similar products during the same month of last year. If we leave out exports of non-ferrous metals and their products, a great part of which are made up by shipments of strategic war materials to our NATO allies, and which may be very greatly affected by the present Russian peace offensive, we find that during January our exports of all other products were 13 per cent lower than our exports of the same products during January, 1952. Our exports of those same products during February of this year were 15 per cent below what they were during February of 1952. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that shows us what is happening to our normal export trade, upon which we rely for our prosperity year in and year out-whether the cold war blows hot or cold.
One of our chief exports has always been the wheat which we have shipped to Great Britain. Very recently that country signified its intention to stay outside of the international wheat agreement. If Britain follows the same course of action which she followed in regard to oats and barley, and switches all or a large part of her buying of wheat from Canada to Russia, then our export trade is going to suffer a very severe blow.
I think we all realize that our prosperity depends to a very large extent on our export trade. Anyone who has studied the figures from year to year will have noted that a variation up or down in our export trade in any one year has always been followed by an almost identical variation in our national income in the following year. For that reason I think it is obvious that we must maintain a high volume of export trade.
I believe one important step that we should take to achieve this end is to suggest to our fellow members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that they set up a special subcommittee to study the possibilities of unclogging channels of normal trade between NATO countries. That could be done under article 2 of the charter, and I think that it is altogether fitting that it should be done.
None of the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization-and especially Canada -can continue to finance the high expenditures on defence which they are at present putting forward unless they maintain a high volume of trade. I believe that the greatest possibilities for maintaining a high volume of trade and increasing that volume of trade lie in increasing the trade between the nations that have proved that they can
4286	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce co-operate so effectively in matters of defence -and have done so during the past two years.
Today, three senior members of this government are arriving in Paris to take part, with other members of the North Atlantic council, in very important deliberations. I earnestly urge the Prime Minister that he dispatch a cable to them right away suggesting that they put this suggestion forward to the other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and see what they can do to persuade those members to set up such a committee as I have described, designed to do everything possible to increase trade between the NATO nations-and to have that committee set up just as soon as possible.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Are you going to pay for the cable?


George Harris Hees: Now, I would like very briefly to deal with what I believe we can do in this country to make it easier for other people to buy our products. Two of the important factors in any cost of production are taxes and freight rates, over which this government has a very great influence and control. I believe that if this government could follow the suggestions of the opposition, namely to eliminate waste and extravagance and thereby reduce taxation, that would go a long way towards helping exporters reduce their prices. Also, if we could keep freight rates down, that would help materially in this regard.
A little earlier today the member for Moose Jaw brought up the question of our trade with Great Britain, and I would like to speak very briefly about that matter. The firm with which I am associated deals in textiles, and for the past thirty-five years, we have maintained a buying office in Manchester for the sole purpose of buying British textiles.
Since the war, we have not been able to buy a dollar's worth of textiles in the United Kingdom, and that has been due to three things. First of all, their patterns, which before the war were always attractive and very comparable with American and Canadian patterns, are now of an inferior nature, and, I am afraid, cannot compare with the textile patterns produced in this country and in the United States. Secondly, their prices are higher than the prices on this side of the water. Thirdly, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to get British manufacturers of textiles to promise or keep a delivery date. As anybody in business knows, it is vitally important to know when your goods are going to be shipped, and equally important to have them shipped at that time so that they may arrive in the country where they


are required for sale in time to be sampled for the trade before the selling season starts. If the goods do not arrive in time, they miss that year's market, and they are virtually worthless.
Our buyers have several times gone to Britain to try to revive the trade we did with Britain in those materials, but they have found the British very lackadaisical and in no way anxious to make promises of delivery; and we have found that a very discouraging factor when trying to do business with them.
I believe that every Canadian realizes the importance of buying all the goods we can possibly buy from Great Britain. I think, however, that the British people could do a great deal to help Canadians "buy British", and they could do it by bringing their designs to a level comparable with those available in the United States and Canada; by bringing their prices to a comparable level; and by realizing that it is vitally important, to those who sell their goods for them on this side of the water, to know when the goods will be shipped-and to have those shipment promises kept.
I think the British manufacturers could also do a great deal by improving their packaging methods, which I think are out of date as compared to those of Canada and the United States. I think they could also sell a great many more capital goods in this country by ensuring that those capital goods would be serviced once they were in use on this side of the water.
I know that for a few years after the war, British businessmen were hindered by a great many government restrictions, but to a large extent those restrictions have been removed in the last year or so, and I believe they can find no excuse on that score at the present time.
I believe that they should send out, as the member for Moose Jaw suggested, a great many more salesmen and representatives to sell their goods-and I mean really sell them in Canada-and also to find out from Canadian buyers what it is that they want so that those wants can be catered to in Britain in the production of goods for sale over here. I think also that they must realize that the United States merchandisers are very aggressive indeed. If British manufacturers are going to successfully compete against the goods we are buying from the United States at the present time, they must sell far more aggressively than they have done in the past. In short, and in conclusion, I would simply say to our friends in Great Britain that we in this country desperately want to buy far

more British goods than we buy at the present time, and I earnestly urge them to do a great deal more than they are doing now to help Canadians buy British.


Mr. Herridge:: The trade policy of this group, Mr. Chairman, was ably presented to the house by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. I am not going to take the time of the house to deal further with it. I do want to bring a certain matter to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce at the request of the fruit growers in my constituency, as well as others who are interested in this question.
Last year the soft-fruit growers in the interior of British Columbia were very hard hit by a number of circumstances: the particularly large crop in the United States, the heavy crop in Canada, and then the change in the existing value of the dollar. They were able to sell only a percentage of their pack to the canners because the canners were well stocked and the demand for these products had lessened. I am speaking of canned peaches, canned apricots and soft fruits of that sort. The domestic market had already been considerably flooded by fresh soft fruit from the United States which matures somewhat earlier than ours.
This matter is one of increasing concern to the soft-fruit growers in the interior of British Columbia, to such an extent that it was the basis of a lengthy discussion at the annual convention of the British Columbia Fruit Growers Association held in January this year. I am going to read briefly two resolutions adopted by the convention and then bring this situation directly to the attention of the minister. In dealing with this question, the convention passed the following resolution:
Canned Fruit Import Controls
Whereas the orderly marketing of soft fruits is much dependent on cannery sales, and
Whereas the volume of imported canned peaches, pears and apricots in 1951 has reached four times the level of imports of these commodities for 1948, and
Whereas the volume of mixed fruit in can in 1951 has increased to 12 times the volume of 1948, and
Whereas there is no control of imports to Canada on these commodities;
Resolved that the council impress upon the proper government officials the seriousness of the tariff reductions accorded canned and processed imports in the current trade agreements, and press for every possible protection to the Canadian producer.
In addition I have received correspondence from various people. I will read briefly from one letter. I have in my hand a can of Australian peaches which are a sample of the peaches that are being sold in communities in my constituency, where the peach growers had to dump peaches last year, and where the 68108-2714
Supply-Trade and Commerce peach growers did not receive a sufficient return on their fruit to get back the cost of production. This is what my correspondent has to say:
These peaches are processed and exported by the Shepparton Fruit Preserving Company Limited of Shepparton, Victoria, Australia. They are imported by O. B. & Company of Vancouver, B.C. They come in heavy wooden cases. A case of 24 wholesale here at $9 and retail at 45 cents per tin. They do not compare in quality with our Okanagan peaches, being small and hard.
At Christmas time Australian Christmas cakes were also being sold throughout British Columbia that could just as well have been baked here.
If it were canned orange juice, oranges, or any of the many things that Australia produces that we do not, things that we need and can use and not interfere with our own home production, I think it would be a good move. But canned peaches and fruit cakes and such do not fall in this category.
Trusting you will bring this matter before the house and to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
I do not know what the department can do in this connection. I am sure there are many products that we could import from Australia that do not compete with production in the district where the peaches are grown.
There is another aspect of this question, and that is that we are distinctly under the impression that these peaches are not nearly as high in quality as the peaches canned in British Columbia. They are canned under lower standards than ours and when I am finished speaking I shall send this tin over to the minister so that his officials can open it and compare the quality of the contents with the British Columbia canned fruit. The question of quality has also been given consideration by the British Columbia Fruit Growers Association. The convention passed another resolution which reads as follows: Peaches-Minimum Size
Resolved that this council recommend that the minimum size which peaches may be packed in Canada shall be two inches.
Marketing Survey
Whereas the distribution of fruits and vegetables is anything but satisfactory;
Resolved that this council request the division of economics, dominion Department of Agriculture, to make a survey of the entire marketing situation covering fruits and vegetables.
I bring this matter to the attention of the minister, because I am quite sure his officials are interested in the growers problems. I should like them to consider the survey by the economics division of the Department of Agriculture, which has been suggested by the British Columbia Fruit Growers Association, and do all they can to see that we only get the things from Australia which we require and do not produce. It seems an absurdity- there are many absurdities under capitalism

Supply-Trade and Commerce -for peaches to come all the way from Australia and be sold in communities where the growers of peaches did not receive the cost of production last year. With those few words, I send the tin to the minister, for his inspection.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I rise primarily for the purpose of bringing to the attention of the members of the committee some words I wish to quote from the last issue of the London Economist commenting on Mr. Butler's budget of last week. The words I think are interesting, and if the minister -has not seen them I think he will be interested in them.
Sometimes the minister worries us a little by seeming almost too happy with the situation as it stands. Of course, after the moving tribute we have just heard from the member for Fort William, it is not perhaps surprising, but the rest of us will perhaps have to try and look at things in a somewhat more realistic fashion. We sometimes get worried because the minister so often is content, as he said the other day, to describe the present economic situation in Canada by saying that at no time in the past have Canadians been more prosperous. I am not going to dwell on tha-t except to reiterate what the member for Eglinton said, that if you tell that to the farmers who have lost their traditional markets in Britain for many of their products, they will not be very happy about it.
It is for that reason I want to say a word about the British market. I was troubled by what my colleague the member for Broadview said this afternoon, although I do realize that -those difficulties exist and that the British, perhaps in times -past, have been wanting in progressiveness. I am -hoping, partly because of what I -find in these pages of the Economist, that they may be pulling up their socks in that as in other ways. This year, of course, so far as trade is concerned, is a crucial year because of the fact that GATT is to be renewed-at least, we hope it is to be renewed, and the importance of our trade with Britain is of course accentuated greatly. The people in British Columbia can tell us a great deal about that.
-That leads me to the -point I wish to make. There has been a disposition over the decades, I suppose you might say over the generations, to write the old country off. I remember in the early years -of this century we were told that she was decadent economically, and the Germans were going to sweep everything before them; she really was a washout. Then, of course, we came to the first war when many people were ready to write -her off. The same thing occurred in the second war, and perhaps most of all in the years
[Mr. Herrldge.l

since -this last war, when we have been greatly troubled by the situation. It seemed perhaps that the traditional virtues of energy and initiative were being swallowed up or perhaps I should say tied -down by the mass of red tape and restrictions of all kinds. It is heartening to find that, as judged by the latest budget, they are emerging from that situation and that they are stepping out and are ready to take chances in the hope of returning to a world in which there will be freer and more profitable trade. With that comment, I wish to read a couple of extracts from the Economist of April 18, 1953-the one of a week ago-as follows, and I may say that this is to be found at page 130. Speaking of the budget it says- and these are Mr. Butler's words:
-"the reliefs which I shall propose are designed to improve our competitive efficiency, to provide incentives for greater effort, and to encourage private saving" or again "all reliefs are carefully designed for the prime purpose of giving the incentive for greater production."
Commenting on that the Economist says:
For the budget's greatest merit is one that cannot be put into figures. It marks a change of direction, a turning of the fiscal tide.
And again it says:
Whatever criticisms may be made of their details, they have the great recommendation that they mark a determination to "step out from the confines of restriction to the almost forgotten but beckoning prospects of freer endeavour and greater reward for effort."
I think that will warm the hearts of many of us and that we will wish them well in their effort which means so much to us as well as to them. I hope it will also stimulate us to make sure that we on this side of the water are doing every mortal thing we can. That leads me to mention one thing that has been mentioned before by others-and only yesterday by the hon. member for Eglinton-and that is whether in fact we are trying in every possible way to make as many of our defence expenditures as possible across the water. The difficulties are great and the minister will no doubt do justice to that aspect of the matter. But on the other hand, as the old music hall catch said-and I have quoted it perhaps too often in this chamber before- where there is a will, there are three ways. I hope that much more can be done than has been done up to the present.


Mr. Argue:: Mr. Chairman, as others have emphasized in this debate, I too want to say that the direction of our trade policies at the present time is such as to provide a real danger, particularly to the agricultural industry of this country. I believe that the United States market for agricultural products is in the main not a complementary one but a competitive one. The United States market is no

doubt the best market for Canadian pulp and minerals, but I believe that the loss we have sustained in the British market for many farm products has dealt and is dealing agriculture a serious blow. Unless steps are taken to recover the British market for many of these products, our agricultural industry is going to suffer. I say the United States market is not a reliable one for farm products. I think the Americans themselves have demonstrated that fact to us clearly in the restrictions they have placed on the importation of Canadian cheese, on Canadian dairy products and the suggested ban that might be placed on the importation of Canadian oats and feeds. Even as a market for Canadian cattle-and X see no alternative to that market-we can see the effects of competition from United States-produced cattle on the price of cattle in our own country.
Farmers were told last year by the Minister of Agriculture: "Keep your cattle home on the farm; you have nothing to worry about. Add another 300 or 400 pounds of weight to each head you have, and as soon as the United States embargo comes off you can ship your cattle into the United States and take advantage of the higher price." The minister had a floor price on cattle of $25 a hundredweight last year, and some of us thought that price was scarcely adequate. But when the floor went off and we were to get back into the United States market at the higher price, as the Minister of Agriculture had said, we find instead that cattle are selling much below the floor price that prevailed last fall. The United States cattle population is high and the Canadian cattle population is high. Economists tell us that for the next three or four years cattle producers can expect a further drop in the prices of cattle.
I think the British market is the only market in the world that can provide any hope for agricultural producers. Ever since I became a member of this house I have pointed out to the government the danger of losing the British market for Canadian products. Time and time again we in the C.C.F. have made the statement that we were losing the British market; and every time we said that, the government pooh-poohed the statement and said there was no foundation for it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Certainly.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is he aware of the fact that last year we shipped more food products,
Supply-Trade and Commerce both in volume and in value, than ever before in the peacetime history of this country?


Hazen Robert Argue: As far as value goes, yes; but as far as volume goes, no. If I understand the way you arrive at your volume, you add it all up in pounds, in hundredweight; and of course the quantity of wheat adds up to a tremendous volume. But when compared to such products as cheese and bacon, the figure is of course not comparable at all.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does the dollar value not matter?


Hazen Robert Argue: I said as to dollars, yes, but as to volume, no; because I do not think you can compare 1,000 pounds of wheat to 1,000 pounds of cheese when you are adding up the quantities that we have shipped.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why ship so much?


Mr. Charlton:: Why not let the hon. member make his speech?


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister can make that point, but I say that the British balance of payments with Canada now is bad and the British are not likely to continue to buy that same high value of Canadian products.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, well-


Hazen Robert Argue: I think that is the very reason Britain has not entered the international wheat agreement. I do not think it is a matter of another five cents a bushel one way or the other. Britain knows that her balance of payments position with Canada and with the United States is extremely adverse. I think that Britain is preparing to take drastic measures and that she has in mind a great deal more than just a nickel on a bushel of wheat. Let me tell the Minister of Trade and Commerce what his colleague the Minister of Agriculture has said in the past about Canada's trade position and the British market for agricultural products. The Minister of Agriculture is reported in the Regina Leader-Post to have said this at Qu'Appelle during the last general election. I quote from that article:
There is no evidence to support the contention of M. J. Coldwell, C.C.F. leader, that Canada is losing the British market for food-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Hear, hear.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is true that the C.C.F. contended that Canada was losing the British market for food. I repeat that statement and I shall be able to prove it. Let us look at Canada's bacon shipments to Great Britain in 1946, after the war. They were 272-9 million pounds, valued at $61,400,000. Last year, shipments of Canadian bacon to Britain were zero. So there is no argument about
4290	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce whether the British market for Canadian bacon is going down or whether we are losing it. We have lost it; it is gone. Farmers of Canada believe that the British market for bacon we have had in the past was an important market.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why do they not sell it at the British price, then?


Hazen Robert Argue: And the government should take every possible step to see that that British market is opened.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is wide open in price.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Minister of Trade and Commerce interrupts by asking what about price. Of course all that a government of the political complexion of the government in which the minister serves can think about is the matter of price. We in this group believe that if Canada can produce, and if our farmers do produce bacon that the people in Great Britain need, those people should have that bacon, and we should adopt whatever financial and trade measures are necessary to see that that bacon is moved to Great Britain, and to other European countries.
That is the trouble with the trade policy of this government: it is all price. And so by sending into the United States market our pulp and mineral products, Canada is prosperous. But when the government is going to supply any agricultural products to Great Britain it raises the old bogey of price.
Great Britain is short of Canadian dollars. We have lost the British market for farm products and agriculture does not face a recession-agriculture is in a recession right now, in commodities other than grain.
We have not done so well in the British market with our cheese. In 1946-and the figure I shall give is much less than the amount we shipped during the war-Canada shipped to Great Britain 92 million pounds of cheese valued at $18,420,000. Last year we shipped just 150,000 pounds of cheese valued at not eighteen and a half millions of dollars, not even one million dollars, but of a value of only $47,641. No wonder the cheese producers are not happy when their British market for cheese has now disappeared.
In 1946 we shipped 68 million dozen eggs to Great Britain valued at $25,500,000. Last year we shipped 2,374 pounds of dried eggs. Were they valued at $25,500,000?-not quite. Were they valued at $1 million?-not quite. They were valued at $2,700. And so, the British market for eggs is not being lost; it has disappeared.
We in the C.C.F. contend that unless Canada, in co-operation with other nations of the world, can reorganize international trade, in order to maintain and to increase our markets

in Great Britain for agricultural products, then the agricultural producers in this country face dire days ahead. This government has no vision when it comes to new and daring international trade policies. A few years ago the food and agriculture organization made great plans for an international commodity clearing house, a method by which countries producing exportable surpluses might get those surpluses to the nations in need of them. Under the plan the wealthier nations of the world would make financial arrangements to supply necessary currency to the commodity clearing house, and the countries that were to import agricultural products would obtain the currency from that organization in order to buy agricultural products throughout the world.
Well, our Minister of Agriculture went to that conference. He was against it. He was against the international commodity clearing house.


James Garfield Gardiner: I never was against it.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, yes, you were. The minister said, "We do not see any surplus of food in Canada. Even if there was, we feel we can deal with this through national policy." Well, we have had the minister and his national policy for some years, and we have seen the prices of agricultural commodities, one after another, go down, down, down.


James Garfield Gardiner: Get my speech and read it.


Hazen Robert Argue: The people of Great Britain, the people of Europe, the people of Asia-all those people need our food; and we have so much food in Canada that prices to agricultural producers are falling.


James Garfield Gardiner: What I said in Rome was exactly the opposite of what you are saying.


Hazen Robert Argue: Probably it is exactly the opposite, but-


James Garfield Gardiner: Better read it.


Hazen Robert Argue: -the Minister of Agriculture has always got an answer. And he always has an answer because every speech he makes is different from every other speech he has made; and he makes sure that he makes speeches on both sides of the question. Then if you try to nail him down he will say, "Look at the speech I made the month before"-or the month later, as the case may be.
Well, just a few days before the election in 1949 he said, "This C.C.F. contention that we are losing the British market for Canadian food is all wrong." I ask him today-


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that, either.


Hazen Robert Argue: for cheese? Where is the British market for eggs?
Well, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce have a right to their own opinions. If they do not think that market is important, all right. But the agricultural producers and those who represent the people engaged in agriculture know that the British market is important to the welfare of the Canadian economy and of Canadian agriculture.
The government says: "Well, it is a matter of price." Oh, certainly, it is always a matter of price-always a matter of dollars, with this government. The Minister of Agriculture, as I said, makes speeches of all kinds; and there was a famous quotation in a speech he made in the house not many weeks ago, when he was telling us about the big barns in Alberta.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will make another next week.


Hazen Robert Argue: Very likely, and you had better change that one, too. He told us about the big barns in Alberta and the big houses the farmers had out there. He said he talked to farmers who had told him that they had built those barns and houses on 5-cent pork. Well, there is about as much sense in that statement as in many other statements the Minister of Agriculture has made.


James Garfield Gardiner: Ask your friends in the front seats about what they built those barns on.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, they did not build them on 5-cent pork.


James Garfield Gardiner: They built them on less than that.


Hazen Robert Argue: No; they were probably attempting to pay off the mortgage with 5-cent pork, and never managed to do it. But they certainly never built barns on 5-cent pork.
The British balance of payments position with Canada, in my opinion, is cause for concern. I do not say that Canada alone can deal with this problem; it is one that has to be dealt with by both Canada and Great Britain, and is something that requires a good deal of thought by international organizations such as the food and agriculture organization.
The government says it is a matter of price in everything-a matter of price in everything but defence; and then it is a matter of what the government says Canada needs. In connection with our desire for markets for agricultural products, I say the thinking of the government should be based upon our needs and world needs and not on price alone. And if the government brought that kind of thinking to bear on this problem we, as a
23, 1953
Supply-Trade and Commerce nation, would be spending more than one dollar on economic and technical assistance for every hundred dollars we now spend on armaments. I can think of nothing that would help Canada more or help the world more than for us to spend $200 or $300 million to help move our surplus of food to those people in the world who need it. If we did that, I think we would get a greater return for the money we spend by way of obtaining peace, than we shall get for the $2 billion we are now spending on national defence.
In 1950 Great Britain purchased from Canada $68 million more than we purchased from her; in 1951 Great Britain purchased $214 million more from us than we purchased from her; in 1952 Great Britain purchased from Canada $386 million more than we purchased from her. I think it is that $386 million adverse position in Britain's balance of payments with Canada that is now determining British policy toward buying our wheat.
Some steps have to be taken by Canada and some steps have to be taken by Great Britain to see that this large gap is narrowed. I hope that we will not leave it only to Great Britain, because if we do she will cut her purchases of wheat. She will do so until her payments position is balanced. I am fearful that she will be able to do so only by a further curtailment of purchases of Canadian commodities, particularly agricultural products, including wheat.
I have advocated the commodity clearing house which was proposed by the food and agriculture organization. I have pressed the need of moving our food to those countries of the world where people are hungry. I think the measures I have suggested and those suggested by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) are sound, and that the government should follow our suggestions. In the meantime we are losing the British market. Instead of running the risk of further restrictions in British purchases of agricultural commodities and a further loss of that market, this government should adopt the policies I have suggested in order to regain the essential British market.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Chairman, I shall take but little time to say the few things I want to say in connection with the discussion that has gone on today and previously. I have listened to members of the opposition since last November complaining of the fact that we are doing such an enormous business with the United States of America. Why any sane-thinking person would criticize this government for seeking

Supply-Trade and Commerce all the markets that are possible in the Mr. Hees: Let us hear the Minister of United States I fail to understand.	Trade and Commerce say that.


An hon. Member:: Whoever did that?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Some hon. member says, "Whoever did that?" I have heard this remark made around this house one hundred times in this year: You should not put all your eggs in one basket.


George Harris Hees: Indicate the "some hon. member" who said that.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: It was only five minutes ago that the hon. member sat down. He was suggesting more trade within NATO countries. Would he suggest free trade within NATO nations?


George Harris Hees: I am suggesting that we increase our trade with NATO nations.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Answer my question. If the hon. member is going to make a speech, let him sit down. I asked a question.


George Harris Hees: You asked me a question. I said we should increase our trade with all NATO nations.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: The hon. member has not answered my question and I will ask him again: Do you support free trade within NATO nations?


George Harris Hees: I did not say that I supported free trade; I support increased trade.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: The last time I spoke on this subject I suggested that there should be free trade within the NATO nations. If hon. members are honest and sincere in their desire to help the NATO nations they would be willing to adopt my suggestion and do away with tariff walls. I have never heard anyone in this group to my left suggest free trade among NATO nations.


Mr. Graydon:: Have you heard the cabinet suggest it?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I certainly have. If you will follow the procedure adopted by the Minister of Trade and Commerce during the four years since the last election you will find that he has used every method to try to bring about more liberal, and freer, trade with all countries.


George Harris Hees: Is this government a free trade government?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Absolutely.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: Is it? Is it?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I tell you what I base that on.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I would like to ask the hon. member if he is prepared to go half-way in meeting any country. You cannot give it all away. I have just listened to the hon. member for Assiniboia talking about the markets that we have lost in Great Britain for Canadian products. Would the hon. member be willing to accept the prices that are being offered today by the British for the very things he mentioned? Is he prepared to accept those prices?


Hazen Robert Argue: No.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: That brings us back to the same old story. Only a month ago they were saying that taxation in this country was too high, that it was unbearable, but yet they are prepared to subsidize the producers of this country so that they may sell something that others do not want to buy. If that makes sense, I must be going the other way.


George Harris Hees: I think you are.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: At least the hon. member knows where I stand; when I get up and speak on trade I mean what I say. Some of those I have listened to, I am sure in my opinion, do not mean just exactly what they say. I believe that everything we can sell in the United States today should be sold there.


Mr. Fleming:: On a point of order, no hon. member of the house should be allowed to say that another member did not mean what he said.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I said that that was my opinion.


George Harris Hees: You cannot express your opinion that way.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for
Charlotte did not identify any hon. member. He said that he did not think some hon. members meant exactly what they said. I do not think he meant the hon. member for Eglinton.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order, I am sure that he did not mean me, because I have not been participating in this debate. The statement was directed at hon. members of this house and it was not a proper statement, being in breach of the rules of the house.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If the hon. member will look at citation 299 of Beauchesne's second edition he will see that it is not in order for

an hon. member to say of another that he does not say what he means or does not mean what he says, but if the hon. member says that he does not think some hon. members say what they mean or mean what they say, that is a general statement without reference to anyone in particular.
I would like to remind hon. members, who perhaps on this occasion are particularly ticklish about expressions used by the hon. member for Charlotte, that I have heard expressions used which were much more offensive than this one and no one stood up and said that they should be withdrawn. I think the hon. member should be given some latitude and it should not be insisted that certain words be withdrawn on one occasion when on another occasion words which were perhaps much more offensive were not asked to be withdrawn. I do not think it is imperative that I ask the hon. member to withdraw the expression he has used as it was not made in reference to any hon. member in particular. At page 99 of Beauchesne's second edition we find this, for instance: That a member has taken a course unworthy of a minister.
And other expressions like that. I have heard such expressions in this house, and not very long ago either. Yesterday it was said that hon. members were taking directions from the minister the minute he stood up as to how they were to vote. Perhaps that was in contradiction of the ruling that was given not long ago having to do with accusing hon. members of not being independent. I think we ought to be reasonable about these expressions. The hon. member will remember that one time an hon. member asked that the word "irresponsible" be withdrawn. The hon. member himself claimed that the Speaker should not go that far, that after all some of these expressions had to be used sometimes. Let us not exaggerate.


Gordon Graydon: I guess you had better be careful.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I will be careful. As I have said, there has been a great deal said here about our trading eggs, as you might call them, being all in one basket. There is another thing that makes me wonder in connection with that statement and that is whether it is better to sell to that market for cash or to give our commodities to somebody else. We all know that the British are keen traders. I admire them for that, but I believe that the prices they are quoting today would not be of a great deal of interest to the farmers of Canada. Surely it would not be right and proper to subsidize food and sell it in Britain when it can be sold for cash at a better price somewhere else. I do not believe 68108-272
Supply-Trade and Commerce that the people of Canada can be convinced that that is the right procedure to follow.
My friends to the left who seem to be disturbed can all remember that a few years ago the leader of their party was going to blast his way into the markets of the world. I watched that situation pretty carefully because at that time I found it pretty difficult to make a living myself. Many who sit here today may have found conditions during that particular period such that they could make a living without too much effort, but I worked longer hours than I ever worked before, harder than I ever worked before and made less than I have ever made in my lifetime.


An hon. Member:: See what a man it made of you, though.


George Harris Hees: So did everybody else.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I could not see that the explosives that had been suggested to get into these markets had been very helpful.


George Harris Hees: Everybody else in the world was doing the same thing.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: No, they were not.


George Harris Hees: Sure they were.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I can tell the hon. member that I have heard members of his group stand up and speak in glowing terms about the great R. B. Bennett regime. They certainly do not remember what I remember.


George Harris Hees: You are talking about the great world-wide depression.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I remember it well. I remember conditions during the particular period when, as I have mentioned, they were going to blast their way into the markets of the world.


Mr. Martin:: They blasted themselves out of office.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I heard the hon. member for Queens, Prince Edward Island, say some time afterwards that all the trade that was carried between Prince Edward Island and the mainland at that time could have been carried in a canoe. I agree with him there.


John Alpheus Charlton: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Yes.


John Alpheus Charlton: If the hon. member will refer to page 3566 of Hansard of April 7 he will see how much more was shipped to Great Britain from 1930 to 1935 under the Conservative government than was shipped between 1936 and 1939.
4294	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am glad the hon. member has brought up that question because if those goods -were shipped over there they must have all come from Ontario. None of them came from the maritimes. I lived down there and there was no great amount of goods going to Britain at that time. Therefore the central provinces must have taken full advantage of that.


George Harris Hees: We are talking about Canada. Get a broad view.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I suggest to the hon. member who interfered a few minutes ago that if he wants to take a broad view then we shall throw this thing wide open.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He was talking about shipping percentages.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I will tell you exactly why they are not doing it. There are people here on my left who could never accomplish it themselves, but they expect people from this country to go over to Britain and say: This is it, take it, no questions asked and no contradictions. That is what these people to my left are doing in the house. I do not believe they are sincere, but that is the kind of unreasonable statement they make with respect to trade. I believe the minister who conducts the affairs of this department has done everything that is humanly possible. We all realize the value of the British markets to this country. There is not a member in the house who does not realize that, but if we can sell to a market for cash then I do not want to see our products given away, and I do not believe the people of Canada want us to do that. I do not believe the people of Canada want us to subsidize if we can sell for cash. Am I right? You can go on and on saying that it should be done and that we should be helping these people. There are different plans today under which we are contributing enormous sums of money to countries which are not as well off as we are. There is the Colombo plan and there are other plans under which we are helping these countries. I support them in every way, but there is a limit to how much we can give away.
I am one who believes that as long as a cash market can be found we should not give away for nothing what has been produced by the sweat and toil of the people of Canada.


George Harris Hees: Who suggested giving it away?


An hon. Member:: The socialists.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: The hon. member for Assiniboia who just spoke said that it should be done regardless of price. He said that he knew the Minister of Agriculture would ask whether he wanted to sell at the prices Britain was quoting, and he said that did not make a
LMr. Charlton.]

bit of difference. He said that price was no object, that it was just a matter of getting rid of it.
I believe that the way the trade of this country has been carried on since the war is a credit to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the officials of his department. I believe they are doing a swell job. I believe they are doing everything that it is humanly possible to do, and I do not believe that they have any right to tell Britain or any other country what it should do. I for one do not want to see that procedure followed. I believe that the British are in a position to run and control their own affairs in the way they want to deal with them.
I remember being over there in 1948 and being disturbed and worried because I found that Russian salmon was coming into Britain. There was not a single pound or dollar involved in the deal. The salmon was being bartered for tinplate. At that particular time we had plenty of salmon on the Pacific coast which could have been bartered for tinplate without any trouble at all, but Britain decided that it would take an inferior grade of salmon from Russia in exchange for tinplate in preference to the salmon in the warehouses in British Columbia. I do not say this in a critical sense, but may I add that during the war I could not buy a pound of salmon in this country. It was all given to Britain. I am not criticizing that because they needed it and I am glad they got it. We gave them all the salmon that we could produce, but when it came to paying for some on the line they bartered tinplate for Russian salmon of an inferior grade. I have one more word to say with respect to the criticism about trade with the United States.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about cigarettes.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I can tell you about cigarettes. We have a Minister of Finance who has been responsible this year for a reduction in the price of cigarettes to the extent of about six cents which I think was helpful to those who smoke cigarettes. But there is one thing that means a lot to the maritime provinces so far as the United States market is concerned. I refer to our pulp and paper business. Some people may say that there is nowhere else for them to get what they require, but let me suggest that if the United States market for pulp and paper was taken away from this country there would be a lot of unemployment in our pulp mills, logging camps and woodworking camps.
These markets mean so much to the maritime provinces and to every other province in the country that I cannot understand why anyone would suggest or think that we should

not take advantage of every market that we can get in the United States. It is our natural market.


George Harris Hees: Nobody is suggesting that we do not take advantage of every market in the United States.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: If you are not, then a lot of idle talk has taken place here.


George Harris Hees: By whom?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: A lot of idle talk has taken place since last November.


George Harris Hees: Quote names.


Mr. Poulioi:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: What you are saying now is as idle as anything can be.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman-


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise on a point of order. I am addressing the Chair on a point of order. I have been trying to listen to the hon. member for Charlotte and have not had the opportunity to do so because of the heckling coming from the opposition. If the Conservative member for Broadview continues to heckle Liberal members like that he may expect the same thing in return when he speaks. It will be the golden rule. I have never seen anything like that. The hon. member who has the floor has been very patient, and I wonder that no member has risen before to protest against the continuous heckling of the hon. member for Broadview.


George Harris Hees: On a question of privilege, I get heckled just as much as the hon. member for Charlotte.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Did I heckle you?


George Harris Hees: I should like the hon. member to tell me where in my speech I intimated in any way that we should cut down trade with the United States. My remarks were quite to the contrary. I have suggested that we should do everything possible to increase our trade with the United States and all other countries.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am pleased that I got up to make these few remarks because now there have been so many differences of opinion and contradictions that I will have to read Hansard to find out just where the hon. member stands. Before I resume my seat I want to emphasize the fact that I believe every effort has been made to increase trade with all countries. I believe that the trade mission from which the Minister of Trade and Commerce returned only a few weeks ago-


An hon. Member:: Liberal policy.
68108-272i
23, 1953
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Yes, I believe it was Liberal policy-was one of the greatest ideas ever developed in any mind. I think the results which we may expect from that mission will be very helpful to the producers of this country. I want to support the action the minister has taken in every way in gaining every bit of the United States market that he can get. The more we trade with the United States the better I like it. I for one would like to say that we should trade for cash rather than trade for credit or give our produce away. The maritime provinces have depended on that market since 1867 and I do not want anything done to disturb it in any way. I would like to see it increased.
I know the people whom I represent do not want to produce unless there is a market for their produce and, in addition, they do not want the people of this country to subsidize produce or give it away to someone else. Let us take advantage of the markets open to us, and at the same time endeavour to increase markets in every other part of the world. To be sure, with these eggs that are all in one basket, let us protect the markets that we have. Let us not take chances on losing them, because when the time comes again to use a little dynamite or some other explosive to get them back we might meet the same result that we met between 1930 and 1935.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take two or three minutes of the time of the house on a matter which affects so many counties of western and southwestern Ontario; I refer to the growing of tobacco. Heretofore when I have spoken on tobacco in the house it was with the idea of having the duty or excise tax on cigarettes reduced in order to encourage increased production of tobacco, for the stabilization of the tobacco market generally, and to decrease smuggling. The hon. member who has just taken his seat in his speech a moment ago referred to the Minister of Finance as having only recently reduced the price of cigarettes by some 7 or 8 cents. That statement is probably as accurate as what he said about this government being a free trade government.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, what I said was that the Minister of Finance had been responsible for a reduction of 6 or 7 cents-a 5-cent reduction of his own and 2 cents which the manufacturers gave as a consequence of the minister's reduction. I did not say that he reduced them 7 per cent. Read Hansard tomorrow.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I do not have to read it; I have ears and I listen. The member said

Supply-Trade and Commerce just now that the minister was responsible for a decrease of 7 or 8 cents and that the minister's reduction was some 5 cents a package, but that was not the reduction at all. I wish he would look up the records and make himself a little more aware of the facts before he makes statements in the house which are wrong.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Warner Murphy: The same thing goes with respect to the tariffs applied by this government on goods leaving or entering the country.
For some fifty odd years we have been developing an industry in southwestern Ontario which has meant a great deal to our economy, although it has had its setbacks because of high taxes and high duties placed on certain of its products. It has been my privilege since I came to the house to advocate a different argument to that which I make today, because on previous occasions I suggested that the government consider reduction of the excise taxes and duties on cigarettes in order to encourage and support the industry. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that I have never heard any Liberal member representing a riding that grows tobacco advocate in this house a reduction of duties or excise taxes on any tobacco product


Raymond Elmer Anderson: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman. As I understood the hon. member he said that he had never heard a member on this side of the house rise in his place to protest against excise taxes on cigarettes. If he will refer to Hansard he may see what other Liberal members and I had to say last year; and credit for the decreases in excise taxes on tobacco is due as much or more to the Liberal party than to any other party in this house.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Well, Mr. Chairman, I must apologize to the hon. member if I am wrong, and I accept his statement because I cannot do otherwise and be fair to him. However, I wish to remind him that since 1945, when I came into the house, it has been a lonesome road over here in the matter of endeavouring to impress upon the government that it was its duty or responsibility to reduce the excise taxes and duties on tobacco products. If there was one lone voice from the government benches it was very faint. In all probability that voice was simply asking for a reduction in the taxes which have been put on by this government since it came into power. Never in the history of the country have taxes on tobacco products been as high as they have been under the Liberal government, and let there be no mistake about that.

My purpose in rising now is to express the hope that this industry can be encouraged. 1 think, with the number of trade commissioners we have in various leading trading nations in the world today, an opportunity is now presented to those representatives in those countries to develop markets for our various products, and I refer particularly to our tobacco. I am very happy to tell this house that we take second place to no one in the world in the types of tobacco we produce. In western Ontario and in the regions which go still farther north we grow the flue tobacco which goes into cigarettes. I am very glad to say that in that part of Ontario we also grow what is known as dark tobacco and burley tobacco. In the province of Quebec they continue to extend the growing of tobacco that is used in the fillers and the binders when making cigars.
I think the house will agree with me that the reduction of the duties on cigarettes is going to give an impetus to the tobacco industry generally. That will apply not only to growers but to manufacturers and, I hope, to wholesalers and retailers. I think the acreage which can be used for growing these different types of tobacco can be greatly increased, but what concerns most of the tobacco growers in Canada today is the price which they get for their product and the markets which they have.
Markets seem to be none too certain in any given year. Owing to exchange difficulties we find that our market for tobacco in Britain has been seriously curtailed, and in all probability that will reflect itself in the price which growers will receive for their product.
I mention this, Mr. Chairman, because the other day one of the members of my party was kind enough to draw to my attention an article in the publication Foreign Trade, dated April 18. On page 191 there is a reference to Portugal's imports of tobacco leaf for 1952 in the amount of $3,816,000, as compared with a slightly smaller amount for 1951. I think we are all seriously concerned with promoting the sales of the various commodities which we in this country can produce in abundance. What interested me, Mr. Chairman, was the fact that Portugal's imports came from the United States, Greece and the Portuguese overseas possessions. According to this report the United States shipped about three-quarters of the amount imported by Portugal.
I mention these tobacco imports because we in this country can produce very much the same type of tobacco that the United States produces. There is only one type of tobacco that the United States produces which we do not produce, and that is what is called a

tobacco binder. We do not grow that in this country. When it comes to cigarette or pipe tobacco we do not take second place to the United States as far as quality is concerned. I am very happy to be able to say that to the hon. members of this house. I hope that the minister and his officials will take cognizance of this situation and will endeavour, through the trade commissioners in these very important trading nations, to see that some effort is made to market quantities of our Canadian-grown tobacco. I do know there are certain countries which require different types of tobacco, but I feel satisfied that in this country we can grow tobacco that can be imported and used by all these trading nations for either cigarette or pipe tobacco.
I noticed with a good deal of pleasure, and I am sure this applies to other members of the house, a statement recently made by the minister in which he said that the number of countries in which trade commissioners were located had increased over a year ago. He stated that the younger people on the staff are being encouraged to take training to become more proficient for that purpose. I hope these trade commissioners will endeavour to get a toehold, so to speak, in these various countries. Even small exports would be appreciated, because I know if they do import some of our good tobacco it will mean increased sales as the years go by. Such sales would help to stabilize the market for the grower, because there would be so many more outlets for what he is able to produce.
The other important matter with which I shall deal very briefly is the sugar situation as we find it today in Canada. I have dealt with this subject at some length on two occasions, and upon the minister's return from South America he gave a review of what had taken place during his visit to Cuba. I appreciate that. Just recently an agreement has been reached between the processors in western Ontario and the sugar beet growers. The price no doubt will be determined to a great extent by the price of raw sugar which is, of course, set in New York, that being the world price. I believe the minister indicated that the representatives of the refining industry would go to Cuba and report to him on their return. Through a question placed on the order paper I have asked if any such report was made, and have been advised that a verbal report was expected within a short time. Thus far no report has been given to the house. In view of the fact that this situation is so critical, and the fact that so many people in western Ontario-in fact all the growers in Canada-are dependent upon this
23, 1953	4297
Supply-Trade and Commerce price, I think we are entitled to some statement from the minister as to what the prospects are for the marketing of sugar beets this year.
Have steps been taken to curb the importation of Cuban sugar into Canada? When the minister spoke in the house after his trip he said there would be no refined sugar coming into the three western provinces or into the sugar beet area of western Ontario. I am not going to repeat what I have said before, nor do I apologize to anybody for what I did say. I was speaking on behalf of the sugar beet growers of this country, who today face peril and calamity with respect to the marketing of their products. There has been no assurance given by the minister or by anybody on behalf of the government as to what the prospects are for these growers. I am going to be brief in my remarks. I think people are entitled to a statement, because I am quite sure a report has been made to the department by these refinery representatives who were asked to go to Cuba.
If this were a matter involving only a few dollars it would not be so important. It is, however, a matter involving millions of dollars and thousands and thousands of growers. As I said before, if we crucify one segment of our primary producers today and another segment tomorrow, we will not have any left and we shall be dependent upon foreign sources for those requirements. I am going to say, too, that the minister was speaking in a little town in Perth county not long ago. I am sure he was aware that refined sugar had been coming into Canada, and certainly it was coming directly from Cuba. It was easy enough to find out how it was coming here. It was being shipped through New York in bond direct from Cuba.
In his speech in Mitchell-I have here only a monitored statement from CKNX, Wingham -the minister is reported as having said:
The sugar institute undertook to see that the members of the institute would not ship here, and so far as I can find out they have been successful so far.
This speech was made on March 29 of this year. I want to say to this house not a pound of sugar is shipped out of Cuba except under a certificate issued by the sugar institute. No independent processor can ship one pound of sugar out of Cuba without getting such a certificate. The co-operation we are getting from Cuba seems to me to be very doubtful, from the attitude I have seen expressed in the Cuban press as well as from the statement made by the minister upon his return from South America.
4298	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce
The people of Cuba are going to ship refined sugar into this country until this country takes the necessary steps to stop it. Thus far they have not taken those steps, that I can see. At the time the minister spoke in the town of Mitchell he was asked by the largest sugar beet grower in Canada, a young man by the name of Wilfred Brockman, who was very much interested in what the minister had to say, on this question -I am quoting now from a newspaper report, and it reads as follows:
Mr. Brockman asked him if he was aware that at least 25 carloads of Cuban refined sugar had entered this area since he had made his statement in the house that no more Cuban refined sugar would enter beet-growing areas. Mr. Howe replied that he had said there would be no "direct" shipments and that these carloads had not come directly.
Mr. Brockman asked Mr. Howe: "Then the statement you made in the house was of no value: it was only a shield?" Mr. Howe said: "That's right".


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, that is a complete misquotation of what happened. My hon. friend was not there. It is hearsay. If he continues to stooge for Mr. McGregor, he might at least be decent about it.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The minister cannot get to his feet and make an assertion like that, namely that any hon. member is acting as a stooge for somebody else; and I would ask him to withdraw that assertion at once.


William Alfred Robinson: I think possibly the word "stooge" is unparliamentary.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman, and I will say "emissary".


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, that word is just as objectionable. The minister has no right to come in here and charge that another hon. member is speaking for somebody else and is not giving his own honest opinion. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to instruct the minister to withdraw this other statement.


William Alfred Robinson: As I said when I rose before, I do not consider the word "stooge" to be parliamentary, but I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that the word "emissary" is unparliamentary, nor do I think it implies that the hon. member for Lambton West who has the floor is not expressing his own opinion.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the minister said in effect that the hon. member was acting as an emissary for Mr. McGregor. A charge of that kind is not right, and I am sure the minister will withdraw it. We could not carry on a debate here in an orderly manner if members could get to their feet and charge


that other members are acting here as emissaries or agents for someone outside of the House of Commons.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not think the hon. member for Lambton West would question it. He made a personally conducted tour of the sugar beet area arranged by Mr. McGregor; he attended meetings arranged by Mr. McGregor and he spoke throughout the area. I do not think he would object to the words I use. I do not know why the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra objects if the hon. member for Lambton West does' not.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Mr. Chairman, I think I can take care of myself. What I have already said indicates plainly that anything the minister said in the house, and which was repeated here, is much more important than what he had to sayi about my connection with the sugar beet growers' association or with anybody connected with the sugar beet industry. I want to tell the minister flatly right now in this chamber that I am no emissary of Mr. McGregor or of anybody else in the processing industry. I want him to know that I was born in the sugar beet area and that my people grow sugar beets, always have and I hope always will if they get decent legislation which will assure a market for their products. I want him to know that I have been interested in the sugar beet growers just the same as I have been interested in the tobacco growers in this country, because both those groups have surrounded me ever since I was born. I do not mind telling him that I was born on a farm, that I spent a great many years on the farm, and that I am still farming.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is nothing to apologize for.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I take an interest, of course, in the sugar beet growers of this country and the tobacco growers; and for that interest I make no apology to the minister, to this government or to anybody else in Canada. I have taken that interest during the time that I have been a member of this house; and as long as I am-and I expect to be here after the next election-I shall continue to do what I have been doing in the past. I think the minister may as well know that, as far as the sugar beet growers are concerned, a statement like that which he made in Mitchell does not reflect what I would call or what they would assume to be a fair practice, when he said in the House of Commons that there would be no refined sugar from Cuba going into the sugar beet growing areas of western Ontario and the three western provinces, and then qualifies it by saying that it will not come

direct from Cuba. As he said at Mitchell when he was asked:
"Then the statement you made in the house was of no value, it was only a shield?" Mr. Howe said "That's right."
For once he was honest when he said it was right that the statement he made in the house was of no value-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend did not hear that statement. The conversation was conducted in the corner of a church where I was assaulted by this young man. The hon. member is repeating hearsay. I tell him today that I was there and he was not. I have said he is not telling the truth about that conversation. Perhaps he will go on from there.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Yes. It is a strange thing to me, Mr. Chairman, that until now the minister has not denied the statement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may say that I have had apologies about the incident from my hosts at that gathering; and I was speaking to a branch of the federation of agriculture. I should be pleased to present my hon. friend with a letter of apology from the federation.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I have no doubt that the minister had apologies from those at the meeting, because it was a Liberal meeting. He would no doubt have apologies because he was placed in an extremely embarrassing position. It is embarrassing not only for him but for the government to have a senior member of this government get up and say that what he said in the house was only a shield; and today, because I raise the matter in the House of Commons, he says he did not say it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What the hon. gentleman is saying is untrue. That is not a slander of him because he does not know what was said; but I know what was said. If he continues to repeat that untruth, I shall continue to set the matter right. Suppose he stops presenting slanderous hearsay in the House of Commons.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Order.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I hope this discussion has concluded. I think the hon. member for Lambton West must accept the assurance of the minister as to what he said on any particular occasion.


Joseph Warner Murphy: All I can say about the matter in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, is that it is an extremely strange thing that this statement was not contradicted before today.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was not made before today.


Joseph Warner Murphy: It was made in the press.
23, 1953
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is the only person low enough to make that kind of statement, not knowing anything about it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I am going to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to withdraw the remark which he has just made.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will not.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I refer to the statement in which he said I was the only person low enough to make such a statement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Who was the lower man?


Joseph Warner Murphy: I am asking that that statement be withdrawn.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will not withdraw.


William Alfred Robinson: I am sure the Minister of Trade and Commerce would not wish to offend the hon. member for Lambton West.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would be delighted to.


William Alfred Robinson: At the same time, I am not sure that I can rule that the word "low" is unparliamentary. However, I am sure the minister would not wish to offend the hon. member. And I hope that this particular phase of the discussion has been completed. As I said, I feel that the hon. member for Lambton West must accept the assurance of the minister as to what he said outside of the house on the occasion in question.


Joseph Warner Murphy: If the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not man enough to withdraw that remark, I can only say that we are both in the same pit.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a slander on me. I hope I never find myself in the same pit with my hon. friend.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I do not know how I can present the matter more effectively than by using the minister's own words. It so happens, Mr. Chairman, that the minister-who, through not having foreseen the results of some of these trade agreements which he makes, now finds himself in a jam, and all the sugar beet growers in a jam-is greatly disturbed when he is being criticized for having a wrong policy, or for the lack of any policy. I think it is high time that this industry, which has meant so much to the economy of this country, had some clear-cut statement from the minister as to what the future has in store for it. I know there were a few people here the other day from the various provinces of Canada-Manitoba, Alberta, Quebec and Ontario, I think- representing the sugar beet growers, who had a consultation with the minister. I want him to

Supply-Trade and Commerce tell the committee if any assurance was given them as to what they could expect, and if he by any chance indicated that there was some embargo on Cuban refined sugar. I was given to understand that statement was made.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, if the sugar beet growers had wanted my hon. friend's presence at that time I am sure they would have invited him. It happened to be a private conference, and I do not know that he is entitled to know what happened.


Joseph Warner Murphy: The sugar beet growers who came down here were certainly given some information that Would be of value to the sugar beet growers of this country, which the minister would have been able to give them. It may have been private so far as the minister and those representatives were concerned. But I think it is of vital public interest that matters of such concern should be made available to the public generally. Those people were after information they wanted to take back to the growers of their respective provinces. If some embargo is to be placed upon Cuban refined sugar for 30 days, then let the minister tell the house if that is so, and how it is being done. Let him also tell the house how he is going to stop the importation of refined sugar into any part of Canada, as he said when he spoke after his return from Cuba.
The sugar beet growers of these four provinces in Canada are entitled to a statement from the minister as to the government's intentions with respect to the preservation of their industry, which has meant so much to the economy of this country.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the remarks already made by the hon. member for Kootenay West regarding the apple and soft fruit growers of Canada, and particularly those in British Columbia. I am not going to deal with all soft fruits although I could, because I have received numerous letters setting out the personal loss and inconvenience caused these growers by lack of markets and unfair competition. I have letters showing where the finest prunes that can be grown in Canada, or anywhere else on the North American continent, were sold for as low as 9 cents a crate. I have other letters showing where half a crop had to be dumped in the ravine to get it out of the way.
However, I should like to take this opportunity to deal particularly with the plight of the peach growers. A few days ago I received a letter from a man who has been growing peaches in the Okanagan valley for the last twelve years. In 1949 he picked 40 tons of peaches from his then young and promising


orchard. The severe frost of a few years ago killed a third of his trees and damaged almost all the balance of them, with the result that in 1950 he had no crop.
Incidentally those growers received compensation, but his total compensation for the loss of all those trees was only $38, to help him in replanting. This year his orchard recovered to the point where he had 20 tons of first-class peaches. The bulk were sold to the cannery. Some of them netted him $63 a ton and some $40 a ton, or an average of somewhere around $50 a ton. The choicest peaches of all were sold for an average of less than 50 cents a large crate. These were sold as fresh peaches on the domestic market.
The sad part of his story is that while the cost of production was almost $70 a ton, he sold them at an average price of $50. The growers of British Columbia I must say have not been idle in trying to remedy their marketing conditions. They have organized into one of the finest growers' organizations on the whole of the North American continent. But even so they can only see to it that they have a first-class product ready for market. The growers, naturally, look to the government for assistance in protecting the domestic market which, at the present time, could absorb all the peaches grown in Ontario and British Columbia combined, if it were not for what I consider unfair American competition, which last year amounted to approximately 12 million pounds of canned peaches alone. This dealt a severe blow to the Canadian canners, who now have a combined carryover of more than 25 million pounds of canned peaches.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the time has arrived when the government should take an interest in this problem. They have taken some responsibility for butter, eggs, pork products and wheat. I do not think that the fruit growers are asking, nor would they accept, charity; but they are asking the government to investigate the situation in connection with the importation of soft fruits from the United States.
I realize that much could be done on a provincial level. We in British Columbia have a soft fruits and vegetables market consuming roughly $5 million worth of those commodities annually. Yet $3 million worth of the products going to that market was supplied by the importation of fruits and vegetable from the United States. As I have pointed out before, this condition is general in every province; it is not confined to British Columbia.
I notice in The Grower, a publication issued by the Ontario fruit and vegetable association, some very pertinent facts in

respect of the marketing of peaches. They set out on an approximate basis the value of the total quantity of peaches sold. I shall not quote the figures, because I would not be in order if I were to do so, but I can say that the processors of peaches paid $2,125,000 in 1951 for 22,627 tons. The domestic fresh fruit market was probably greater than that. They estimate that for 1952 there would be a drop of 9,453 tons in the quantity to be processed. This was caused by the heavy carryover. On June 30, 1951, there was a carryover of 13,670,000 pounds of canned peaches. On June 30, 1952, a year later, there was a carryover of 25,355,000 pounds. Naturally this forced a reduction in the pack for 1952-53.
It is pointed out in The Grower that during 1951 Canadians imported 11,805,000 pounds of canned peaches from other countries, chiefly the United States, and exported only 57,000 pounds of our own canned product. The publication also points out the fact that from 1948 to 1951 inclusive the sale of imported fruit cocktails jumped from 2,079,971 pounds to 25,397,276 pounds. Estimating a third of the contents of fruit cocktails to consist of peaches, this would indicate another 10 million pounds of peaches imported in that form, or from 5,000 to 6,000 tons.
Without this tremendous and unbalanced importation, Canadian peach growers grew enough to supply the whole market. The Grower goes on to blame partly the antiquated processing methods used in Ontario. However, that does not apply to British Columbia, where we have a similar marketing problem. Our methods are quite up to date in our canneries.
The answer to this complaint could well be for the government to advance loans on a long-term basis at a low interest rate to cooperative processing plants, thus enabling them to bring down processing costs by the use of more modern machinery. I presume that price is a major factor in the sale of canned peaches. Through modern methods of production, methods which we should have with government help, the United States has been able to quote prices that have captured the Canadian market to the extent of 12,000,000 pounds after paying heavy transport costs and a duty of approximately $50 per ton on peaches. I hate to use the term "dumping", but I feel we have a serious situation there which to my mind amounts to dumping, and that is why I think it should be investigated. I realize also that high freight rates, along with the recent increases, will further handicap our growers.
As The Grower points out, surely there is something wrong when a nation of 15
Supply-Trade and Commerce million people are importing 12 million pounds of peaches, whereas a nation of 150 million will take in return only 57,000 pounds of our canned peaches. This problem involves government policy. We ask that a fair break be given the soft fruit growers, both in British Columbia and Ontario, by setting up an investigating body to see if something cannot be done to protect our own domestic markets for our own goods.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few questions I should like to ask the minister. I have in my hand the Canada Year Book for 1951, and on page 890 I see that in 1948, the year the present minister became head of the Department of Trade and Commerce, our total imports amounted to $2,636,945,000. In the same year our total exports amounted to $3,075,438,000. I would appreciate very much if I could have the total of Canadian exports and imports for 1935, when there was a change of government in Ottawa.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In 1935 the exports to all countries were $756,600,000 and imports from all countries were $522,400,000.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister for that information. Could the minister tell us the total amount of Canadian imports and exports last year?


Mr. Fair:: There were two wars in between.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In 1952 the total exports of Canada to all countries were $4,400,000,000 and the total imports were $4,050,000,000.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister for the information. There has been a tremendous increase in imports from 1948, when they totalled $2,636,945,000 and when the minister took charge, to the total of $4,050,000,000 last year. In the case of exports the increase was from $3,075,438,000 to $4,400,000,000. These figures show that today our trade is much greater than it was in 1935 when the Liberal administration took office, and they indicate also the progress that has been made by the Department of Trade and Commerce under the present minister.
I am always satisfied with good results. I cannot argue with those who put the needs of their constituencies on the record, as that is their right; but as far as my electors are concerned I am perfectly satisfied with the good results that have been achieved by the Department of Trade and Commerce under the present minister.
The minister carries on many occupations with equal success, something which I cannot understand his being able to do. I think the success of the Department of Trade and

Supply-Trade and Commerce Commerce is due to his initiative and the constant assistance that is given to Canadian businessmen by the officials. I have had occasion to get in touch with the export and import branches of the department, and I was surprised to learn the amount of information that was at the disposal of Canadians who intended to trade with other countries.
I believe I have said this already in the house, but I want to take this opportunity to state again, that the international trade fair held at Toronto has put Canada on the map. It brings businessmen from many countries to Canada where they have an opportunity to meet Canadian businessmen. This fair, which was brought about through the initiative of the minister, has done a lot to promote Canadian trade.
Another action by the minister that has brought good results is the trip he made to South America. Some years ago a similar trip was made by his predecessor, and the results were quite good. But the last trip of the present minister to the various countries of Central and South America was the thing Canada needed to increase our trade with these friendly countries. I have some friends there who tell me that the minister was received not only as an ambassador of good will but as a prince by the chiefs of state of those countries.
What the Department of Trade and Commerce has done under the present minister is to make all facts accessible to all. There is a weekly periodical published by the Department of Trade and Commerce which is very useful. It has a fine appearance and it is the best kind of publicity for promoting our trade.
I know the minister is modest, and I find him very patient with some speeches that are made. I could say much more to praise the department which he leads, but for me it is not speeches that count. It is, as I said in the first place, results; and the results under the splendid leadership of the Minister of Trade and Commerce have been so good that everybody should be satisfied with the progress that Canada has made in trade.


Mr. Higgins:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Temiscouata is indeed a very special pleader in this matter, but it is rather unusual to me at least to feel that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has to retain counsel to reply on his behalf. I believe he is quite capable of doing that himself, and why the hon. member felt that an explanation was in order, and why he had to put all the questions he did to the Minister of Trade and Commerce is a little hard for me to understand. But he does it in a very admirable way. I 

should think the information he gave was very useful, but he did not go quite far enough.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am more interested in facts that in theories.


Gordon Francis Higgins: So am I, but I suggest to the hon. member that inasmuch as he was getting this information he might well have asked the minister the value of war production during the years from 1935 to 1952. That is very material.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is on top of that. Everything has been good.


Gordon Francis Higgins: This is separate.


Jean-François Pouliot: Although my hon. friend pictures it in black, it is pink.


Gordon Francis Higgins: No; a little grey, I would say. After all in the nighttime all cats are grey. But even after hearing these glowing figures I still have a little doubt in my mind when I hear hon. members from all parts of the country get up and talk about the market for peaches being bad, the market for apples being bad, the bacon situation being tough-I do not mean the bacon itself-tobacco sort of in trouble, cheese not very easy to sell, wheat also in a little difficult situation, lumber bad, base metals going down and mines closing. One begins to wonder what is going on. Of course we have to admit, even as the hon. member for Temiscouata will admit, that money is definitely going up in amount, but it is certainly very much less in value.
While there is no question that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is doing a good job, I wonder just how good that job really is, because we have several hon. members complaining about these markets and the difficulties of selling products. What is the answer? Is the answer that the Department of Trade and Commerce is not doing its job properly, or is it that the markets are not able to absorb the products? I am not competent to talk about the items I have enumerated, and possibly it may be considered that I am not even fully competent to discuss the question that I propose to discuss now. However, I notice that no members from the maritime provinces or from Newfoundland have mentioned the question of fish. The markets of those provinces at the present time, both for salt fish and fresh fish, are very definitely in the doldrums. The minister is fully aware of that.
With respect to the salt fish market, part of the minister's recent hegira to the West Indies and South America was the special visit he made to Brazil. I am told, although I may be wrong, that the special visit to Brazil was for one purpose only, to inquire

as to the market for salt fish. I understand that no good whatsoever came out of that visit in so far as opening the market is concerned. That is an extremely serious matter because in the old days, and not so old at that, Brazil was one of the greatest markets Newfoundland had, at one time buying something like 400,000 quintals of fish. That market is now closed, and of course with any market closed to Newfoundland salt codfish it puts an added burden on the markets to which the maritime provinces sell.
I am sure the minister will tell us that he has done everything possible with respect to the Brazilian market, but it is a very serious matter. If it were possible for that market to absorb 100,000 quintals of salt codfish, then the salt codfish situation would be eased as far as Newfoundland is concerned, and consequently that would ease other maritime markets. I presume the minister has tried every possible means to make that market available. I do not know whether it is a question of the Brazilian people not having the money or what the situation is, but even if it is necessary to lend them money that is so much better than to try to put a floor price under fish.
At the present time the fresh fish business is in a very bad condition indeed. There is a tremendous glut on the market, and Canada has not been getting her share of the increased purchases in the United States in the past few years. United States consumption has gone up but Canada, while still the largest supplier of fresh frozen fish to the United States, has practically remained in a stable position while the sales of the competitors of Canadian fish have gone up amazingly. I should like to give certain figures so that hon. members may understand the situation clearly. They appear in an editorial in the Daily News of Newfoundland of April 15. I am not going to read the editorial, but will merely quote the figures.
In the period from 1950 to 1952, while Canada's shipments of frozen cod fillets to the United States remained practically stable, Iceland's rose by 300 per cent and Norway's shipments by 500 per cent. That is an extraordinary situation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What was the size of the shipments in 1950? Percentages are sometimes misleading.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I shall give the sizes, and they are by no means small. Canadian sales in 1950 amounted to 51,067,000 pounds and in 1952 they amounted to 54,807,000 pounds. In 1950 Iceland shipped only 12,529,000 pounds to the United States, but in 1952 its sales
Supply-Trade and Commerce rose to 35,487,000 pounds. That is not peanuts; that is fresh frozen fish. In 1950 Norway shipped 2,080,000 pounds and in 1952
10,540,000	pounds. In other words they had increases while Canada's market in the United States was stable. We did not sell any more, but those two countries increased their sales of fresh frozen fish by 31 million pounds over what they had been selling before. I do not blame the minister for it, but certainly somebody has very definitely missed out in this market.
It is easy to say that Iceland has been forced to sell more to the United States because of the loss of the British market. As the minister knows, the reason for that loss of the British market was the embargo placed on Icelandic fish by Britain as the result of Iceland extending her territorial water against Britain's wishes. I think that is the reason, though whatever the reason is it has set up this reaction now and we- and I mean the maritimes as well as Newfoundland-are finding the market for fresh frozen fish terribly sticky indeed. It may be a temporary matter and the minister may be able to evaluate these things much better than we can, but it is serious indeed.
When the hon. member for Lambton West was talking about his sugar beets and Cuba, I was thinking that it is not altogether an easy situation to handle. I hope he will not disagree with me too much, but while it is very nice to say that we will not buy any sugar from Cuba and that we will use our own, I am sure that the minister will agree with me-and I do not like to agree with him too much-that if we do not purchase sugar from Cuba they will not be able to purchase fish from us. Therefore I think there must be some kind of a happy medium in the matter. We have to approach the problem of trade carefully, and not completely shut off a market which we are dealing with. We have to approach it in the light of what they buy from us and what they want to sell to us.


An hon. Member:: We have sugar beets too.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I know you have, but this has to be worked out. We cannot suddenly put up the barriers and say that we are not going to do any business at all.
I have before me a clipping from the Daily News of April 15, 1953. It contains an Associated Press dispatch from Washington dated April 14 referring to a meeting to be called by North Atlantic fisheries interests and the United States. They proposed to put up tariffs on fresh frozen fillets; and I read:
Under present tariff schedules imports of frozen fish fillets are taxed 13 cents a pound on the first 15

Supply-Trade and Commerce per cent of domestic consumption or 15 million pounds, whichever is larger. Thereafter the duty is 24 cents a pound.
The new plan calls for a flat duty on all imports of 2J cents a pound.
That is only a report of the meeting so far and the matter has not gone to the United States congress. However, if the plan is presented and if the United States government adopts the recommendation, it is going to be practically ruinous for the frozen fish industry of Canada. I am sure the minister has had that in his mind when dealing with the question of fish, but if he has not had it there before I trust that he will remember it in future.
We also have the rather extraordinary spectacle that when our own frozen fish and salt fish trade is, as I said, in the doldrums Canada is importing a very large variety of fish, fish which we produce in Canada ourselves. According to an order of the house which was tabled on March 30, Canada bought $6,265,094 worth of fish in 1952. More than half, $3,280,000 worth of fish, was purchased from the United States. As an amateur in this trade and commerce business it does seem to me that it is a rather extraordinary situation that at a time when we cannot sell our own fish to the country we need to sell it to, we should be buying fish from that country. It may be that it is the sugar beet and Cuba question all over again; but it is something that I just do not undersand and cannot explain in any way. I trust that the minister will be able to give me a little light on it later.
The last matter I wish to refer to is the question of new industries in Newfoundland today. We have the unusual spectacle of Newfoundland being changed to a more or less machine age, and that is being done in a tremendous hurry. I am sure the minister must have full knowledge of what is being attempted by the provincial government of Newfoundland, and that he is in a position to assure us that all is well in those new industries. He is doubtless very close to one of them indeed, as he himself opened the machine plant last August. I was not present at that opening because we do not receive invitations to be present on such occasions, but I believe he promised that there would be extensive orders-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, are we going to continue these secondhand rumours which my hon. friend peddles in the house? To whom did I promise orders? I did not promise anything in the hearing of my hon. friend, I am sure.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I said I was not present at the opening of the plant.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let us not discuss the promises I made.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The promises did appear in the newspapers. I do not have the references with me, but I recall them at the time and they have been constantly repeated since by columnists writing in Newfoundland papers.
I have been attempting to get an answer to a question which I put on the order paper on March 6, but I have received only a very equivocal reply. The minister could say "yes" or "no" or "go to heaven" about that industry, and then there would be no question about the position. There would be no question about secondhand evidence or misquotations, merely a straightforward answer about what is going to be done about that machine plant.
This is a time when Newfoundland has not too much money to invest, and a great deal of money has been invested in that industry by the Newfoundland government. I believe that in all the industries that are now in operation or attempting to be put in operation there is some $25 million on loan. Where the industries are being entirely operated by the government, some $10 million has been given not as a gift but as an advance. The minister must know what is going on. A lot of us are very doubtful of the very rosy promises made by the premier of Newfoundland as to the future, but the minister does know what is going on and I think it is time he made a statement on this matter to Canada as a whole.
This is not too much to ask in connection with a new province. The minister has been very gracious in his approach to the problems we have, and I may say that he has given us material assistance through his department in a great number of ways. He very clearly keeps his finger on the problems, and I think it is time that he should tell us whether all is well in the industrial program of that new province.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has listened to quite a bit of advice in speeches today and I was proposing to ask him four or five questions, but perhaps he wishes to make his statement first.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can make my statement first if you wish. There have been a good many questions asked and I can answer you now or later, just as you like.
The first question was raised by the hon. [DOT] member for Eglinton about the loss of our markets in the United Kingdom, with particular reference to markets for products such as salmon, cheese, apples, bacon, etc. Our exports to the United Kingdom in 1952 showed a substantial increase in

both value and volume over the previous year, and at $745 million they reached the highest figure in the past five years. The United Kingdom is making steady improvement financially, and will continue to provide a major market for Canadian exports.
The hon. member asked about the loss of markets for food products, and the future for the export of Canadian wheat in view of the failure of the United Kingdom to accede to the international wheat agreement. First of all with reference to food products, I might say that the value of the food products shipped to England in 1952 was an all-time high for any peacetime year. He said that we had lost the market for canned salmon. Britain recently announced the purchase of $4,250,000 worth of canned salmon from the country. This purchase goes a long way toward reducing our carryover of canned salmon as a result of the unusually large catch last year. In so far as cheese is concerned, the British purchased about 5-5 million pounds of cheese this year from us. This purchase cleaned up all the surplus available at the time.


An hon. Member:: Now, now.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We had difficulty buying it for delivery. We could have sold more.


John Alpheus Charlton: What are the holdings of
cheese today?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know.


John Alpheus Charlton: If you do not know what the holdings are today, how can you say there is no surplus?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Do you know what the holdings are?


John Alpheus Charlton: I certainly do.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What are they, then?


John Alpheus Charlton: It is not up to me to
answer the question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If you knew, why did you
ask me?


John Alpheus Charlton: I just wondered if you
knew.


Clarence Decatur Howe: However, these fictitious surpluses of my hon. friends are not so apparent when you come to buy them.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Chairman, they are not fictitious.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I might say that we were
charged with the obligation of buying the surplus of dried milk. Hon. members heard the Minister of Agriculture say that we made provision for buying 10 million pounds, and
23, 1953
Supply-Trade and Commerce we have been able to buy less than 5 million pounds to date.


John Alpheus Charlton: You expect it to be given
to you.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are buying it.


John Alpheus Charlton: But at pretty low prices.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the surplus position were
as bad as my hon. friend represents in this house, I think a little more would have been delivered. In 1952 the British purchased
706,000	bushels of apples out of the 1951 crop valued at $1,581,000. We were told today that there was no surplus from the 1952 crop. I think anyone who comes from the apple country will confirm that statement. Apples sold, and sold at a good price.
I turn now to bacon. Canadian prices of bacon have ruled above the support price of 23 cents to January 1 of this year, and at the moment are about $3.50 above the support price. In order to sell bacon or other meat products in the United Kingdom market, Canadian farmers would have to meet the prices charged by suppliers in Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Denmark and Holland. In the case of bacon this would be $30.32 per 100 pounds f.o.b. Denmark or Holland against the present Canadian price of $36 f.o.b. the Canadian seaboard.
In so far as beef is concerned, the spread would be even wider. Top quality New Zealand beef is costing the United Kingdom an average of 14-5 cents per pound f.o.b. New Zealand, and Argentine top quality beef is about 19 cents per pound against the present Canadian price of approximately 37 cents per pound for good quality at the seaboard. In 1952 we exported 238 million pounds of animals and animal products, in spite of the fact that we had foot-and-mouth disease plaguing us throughout most of that year.
Now, what is the future for the export of Canadian wheat? A good deal has been said about our great surplus of wheat. We have had three extraordinarily large crops of wheat, one on top of the other. Last year we had the largest crop in the history of Canada, and the equivalent of two average crops before that. Selling has not been the problem; it has been transportation. Transportation is still the problem. If we had more wheat available at seaboard, we would be able to sell more wheat. One of the most crippling things that has happened to the marketing of wheat has been the elevator strike at the west coast.
Hon. members gloat over the trade figures for February and March, which show a drop in exports. That drop in exports is exactly equivalent to the amount of money we
4306	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce would have received for the wheat we could not ship from Vancouver because of the elevator strike. I am sure we will be hearing about the decline in exports during the campaign throughout the country, but that is the explanation. We cannot ship the lost quantity of wheat through the eastern ports because the capacity to handle it is not there. We hope to catch up by the end of the year, because we hope the strike is not going to last much longer.
I do not think hon. members wish me to discuss the wheat agreement situation, because a debate on that subject will occur some time next week when we discuss the resolution now on the order paper. I might say that whether or not the United Kingdom accedes to the agreement, she will still be buying wheat in Canada, as she has in the past.
I do not know whether the hon. member for Lethbridge really wants me to discuss GATT, or whether we can sit down quietly and discuss it between ourselves. He asked who started this idea. I think it was a spontaneous demand from all countries emerging from the war to lower the trade barriers. Canada was active in it. Mr. Wilgress was the first chairman at Geneva, and also chairman at Torquay. Every country took an interest in it. As a result of the general agreement on tariffs, we allowed in a great number of items duty free or at a reduced rate and we were protected against discriminatory tariffs on the part of other countries. I am sure the splendid increase in Canadian exports is due in no small measure to negotiations carried out under the aegis of GATT.
What are the prospects for convertibility of the pound? All I can say is that, as a result of a series of conferences in which Canada has taken part, all the countries who are interested in convertibility of the pound are working towards convertibility. The strengthening of the financial position of Britain is a step in the right direction. Conversations have been had by that country with Canada and with the United States concerning the measures that would be needed to place convertibility of the pound on a sound basis. Conversations are now taking place between the United Kingdom and the countries of Europe who would also require to work along the same lines, and all I can say is that steady progress is being made toward convertibility. I can say that anything Canada needs to do as her share towards bringing that about will be done.
Someone said that Canadian imports from the United Kingdom were being hampered by duties. I should like to point out that


of the total imports from the United Kingdom in 1951 worth $421 million, 59 per cent came in free of duty. Of the 41 per cent remaining, a good deal was represented by Scotch whisky, which carries a high rate of duty. Excluding the Scotch whisky, the average duty on the balance of the imports was charged at 5 per cent ad valorem. Therefore I think we can discard the theory that Canadian tariffs against United Kingdom goods are a factor in preventing the balance of trade.
The difficulty is that Canada has had a very rapidly expanding economy since the war. The requirements for imported goods have gone up faster than has the productivity of the United Kingdom. We do all we can to favour United Kingdom goods in this market. I think the United Kingdom is making progress in opening up markets here, particularly for manufactured goods which Britain is best able to sell and for which we provide one of the largest import markets in the world. I could give a number of examples of extremely successful efforts by British firms to export to this market in increasing quantities and to establish a market here for their goods, but I do not know that I need to take the time to do so at the moment.
It has been suggested that we are not doing all we can-


Howard Charles Green: Their delivery rates are
better?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are getting a bit better, yes. The situation has been difficult. It has been a matter of lack of availability in the first place and a lack of reliable delivery dates. That situation is being corrected. British prices are in line, and I think the market in Canada for manufactured goods from Britain will grow as Britain becomes more firmly established with a representation in this country. This country imports currently about $600 million worth of equipment alone which Britain might well manufacture. Of that market Britain should take an increasing share.
The suggestion has been made that we should purchase war materials in Britain. The Department of Defence Production must purchase the type of equipment that the army orders, but we have placed substantial orders in the United Kingdom. I think to date the orders placed there amount to something in the order of $100 million. All of our heavy tanks are being purchased there, a certain amount of ammunition, the aircraft carrier, quite a number of airplanes including 15 for Trans-Canada Air Lines and two Comets for the R.C.A.F. It is the policy of

the Department of Defence Production to examine all requisitions from the army in order to determine whether they could be filled in England. If the material must be imported, the preference is given to the British market in filling the order.
We were asked what was going to happen with regard to Japan. The question was as to how we propose to meet Japanese competition in the Canadian market. In 1952 our sales to Japan were valued at $102 million and the imports from Japan at $13 million. Negotiations are proceeding for a trade agreement between Japan and Canada in an amicable and friendly manner, and we have good reason to believe that an agreement will be arrived at which will safeguard the interests of Canadian manufacturers and at the same time be mutually beneficial to both countries.
The leader of the C.C.F. party pointed out that participation of the United Kingdom in this market has gone down. During the depression the United Kingdom supplied us with up to 24 per cent of Canadian requirements; that is, exports from the United Kingdom to Canada were 24 per cent of Canadian requirements. But since 1945 the United Kingdom share has steadily decreased. The reason for that is, of course, that our requirements have grown much more rapidly than has the ability of the United Kingdom to produce for this market. There are many easier markets in the world for the United Kingdom to sell in. They can sell in India, Australia, and Egypt, which are traditional United Kingdom markets and which are also expanding rapidly and making a heavy demand on United Kingdom products. However, our exports to the United Kingdom have been growing from year to year; and while our imports have been holding about steady, we expect that situation will improve in their favour.
Then the leader of the C.C.F. party sug-j gested that we sell apples, salmon, cheese,\ bacon and other surplus products to the United Kingdom for sterling. We do sell for sterling, but we sell for convertible sterling,^ What I presume he means is that we sell * for inconvertible sterling. Inconvertible sterling is merely an agreement to pay dollars at some indefinite date in the future; it is a loan without interest and without a due date. Britain has never asked us to make that kind of loan. I suppose if Britain asked us to make almost any kind of loan we would consider it carefully; but I cannot for the life of me see why members of the House of Commons would urge that we make a
23, 1953
Supply-Trade and Commerce loan to Britain in the form of an interest-free advance with no due date, rather than an ordinary loan normally made between two countries. Inconvertible sterling is simply a promise to pay-in small denominations, probably-that we take and put in a safe; but that sort of transaction is not one that either the government of the United Kingdom or the government of Canada would favour. It is wholly impracticable. I do not see why that suggestion has persisted so long.
I think I have fairly well covered the points I wish to make. The hon. member for Annapolis-Kings asked for specific results from our Latin American trip. It is very difficult to give a list of direct sales made, except for the sale of 115,000 tons of wheat to Brazil, which sale was arranged at the time we were in Brazil. Every member of the mission did business, and has had further inquiries since his return to Canada. The Canadian exporters' association reports that more of its members have visited Latin America since our mission than at any other time. One of our leading paper mills reports the best business they have ever had in areas visited by their salesmen, and attributes this fact to the visit of our good will mission. Our farm implement manufacturers have had inquiries, and old customers have again asked for newsprint from Canada.
I think any other information required can be brought out on the various estimates.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Is there any possibility of giving me an answer?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend worries about the exports of fish. So far as I know, since Newfoundland joined the confederation her fish have been sold every year. I do not know of any fish that have remained unsold over the years. There is a surplus there now, but nothing that either Newfoundland or ourselves consider to be burdensome. We will continue to sell Newfoundland fish just as we have sold it ever since Newfoundland became part of Canada.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Does the minister consider the fish market is just about normal at the present time? Do you think the fish situation is about normal there?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, I am not expressing any opinion. I cannot speak about every commodity in every part of Canada and say whether the market is normal or abnormal. But I say that since it has been our responsibility to sell Newfoundland fish, we have sold it all. We have found markets for it, and I express confidence that we will continue to do so.
4308	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Gordon Francis Higgins: I am not talking about Newfoundland only; I am talking about maritime fish as well.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, let us talk about the area you know, and not extend the discussion to areas you do not know much about.


Gordon Francis Higgins: What about the Brazilian market?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend has not had the Brazilian market since he can remember. There was a little fish put into Brazil on a barter deal a few years ago, fish for paper. Aside from that Newfoundland has been excluded from the Brazilian market for many years.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Is there any market in Brazil now?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Gordon Francis Higgins: When?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As soon as the currency opens up more.


Howard Charles Green: The minister dealt with several matters about which I proposed to ask questions. However, there are two or three more I would bring to his attention. Would he tell the committee what results have followed by way of increased trade between Canada and the commonwealth countries as a result of the commonwealth economic conference which took place last November? I ask about that because it appears to me that the conference merely worked out a broad approach to the question of how trade generally could be increased. However, it may be that additional steps have been taken which have increased trade. Is that so?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The economic conference in London was not a trade conference. No ministers of trade were there. It was a financial conference, attended by prime ministers and their ministers of finance. We sold more to the commonwealth countries last year than ever before in our history. It was the first time in history that our sales to the commonwealth exceeded a billion dollars. But I would not say that the economic conference was the particular cause of that situation.


Howard Charles Green: Will there be any sort of trade conference at the gathering to take place after the coronation? I understand the senior ministers of the different commonwealth nations are to confer at that time. Will their discussions include commonwealth trade?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have not seen the agenda. Trade, of course, is always a subject matter for discussion; but it would not be what I would call a conference on trade.


Howard Charles Green: Then will the minister give consideration to taking some definite steps to promote trade between Canada, and Australia and New Zealand? These countries would benefit from any commonwealth arrangement. However, as I understand the figures, our trade with those two nations is very low at this time, a matter that is of great concern to those of us on the west coast. I have here a copy of Foreign Trade for February 21, 1953 in which are listed the eleven leading countries in Canada's trade, for the years 1951 and 1952. In both those years Australia was ninth. As a matter of fact in 1952 the exports from Australia were $1 million more than in 1951, or a total of $50 million as against $49 million in the preceding year.
At one time Australia was our third best customer. Now she has dropped to the ninth position in exports, and she is eleventh in respect of imports to Canada. The trade figures show that in 1951 goods to a value of $45 million were imported by Canada from Australia, and that in 1952 goods to a value of only $20 million, or less than half, were imported.
Then at one time New Zealand was our eighth best customer. Now she is not even on the list. I do not know how far the figures for New Zealand are below those for Australia. However, Australia is ninth in her purchases from us and eleventh in our purchases from her. At one time Australia was our third best customer for lumber, following the United Kingdom and the United States in that respect. At times I believe South Africa bought more than was bought by Australia. Also, we formerly sold a great deal of canned salmon to both Australia and New Zealand. We now have
350,000	cases left in our warehouses, even after allowing for recent sales to the United Kingdom, and it is my understanding that no canned salmon is being sold either to Australia or New Zealand at the present time.
It seems to me that if the Department of Trade and Commerce put on a drive of the kind made to develop trade with South America, and if that were put on by the minister himself, there might be great benefit for Canada, Australia and New Zealand. This may not be the best way to approach the matter, but in my opinion there is a very serious problem involved. Something should be done to increase that trade.

We have on the west coast a new shipping line planning a service to Australia and New Zealand, but doing so I believe on a tentative basis. If trade cannot be increased I am afraid there is not much prospect of retaining a proper shipping service to Australia and New Zealand. Of course we can get there by plane within a few hours; they are no longer weeks away from the west coast of Canada.
We do feel greatly concerned however about the fact that trade between Canada and those two nations of the commonwealth has decreased so materially. Would the minister tell us whether anything can be done about it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Trade with Australia and New Zealand is still a sterling area problem, just the same as our trade with the West Indies or with other sterling countries. At the conference held in January, 1952 all the dominions and colonies were asked to tighten up on their expenditures of American and Canadian dollars. They did so. They all imposed drastic prohibitions. Australia and New Zealand stopped importations of automobiles from Canada. That is only one item. I could add that they cut down on their importations of lumber and newsprint. Quotas were put on a large number of products. That accounts for the failure to sell canned salmon. All I can say is that the only hope of restoring the trade is to restore the financial position of the sterling countries to a point where they can afford to spend more dollars in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Were there not somewhat
similar obstacles in connection with promoting trade in South America?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, no.


Howard Charles Green: Were there not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Nothing to do with the sterling problem.


Howard Charles Green: But there were exchange
problems and restrictions?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In certain countries, the Argentine and Brazil, there are restrictions. You mentioned Newfoundland codfish. The currency situation in Brazil has closed off that market for the time being. Argentina has prohibitions on many articles. As we come northward countries like Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, have practically no currency regulations. Their markets are just as free as the Canadian market.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister give some consideration to sending a mission to Australia and New Zealand. I believe that if
Supply-Trade and Commerce we sent representatives on a high level there might be a possibility of doing something about this trade situation. Another result would be to promote understanding among these three countries of the commonwealth.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would be delighted to head a mission to Australia and New Zealand. I would like to go there.


Howard Charles Green: It would be a good idea.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Anything that can be done in Australia and New Zealand can better be done through negotiation with their representatives in London. London is the banker of those countries. I am quite sure that no radical change in money quotas or money restrictions could be arranged anywhere except in London.


Howard Charles Green: In his speech on April 17 the minister said that the general agreement on tariffs and trade would run out at the end of the present year. Presumably it is to be renegotiated. I took it from his remarks that Canada is in favour of the renegotiation of the agreement. Could the minister give us further details of government policy with regard to GATT and also with regard to the British preference?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Canada has no intention of changing its policy on either. We will certainly use our best efforts to see that GATT is extended for another three years. We have always maintained the British preference and always will, at least in the foreseeable future.


Howard Charles Green: The Canadian government then has no intention of asking for a change in the British preference?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Howard Charles Green: That is correct?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We never have asked for it.


Howard Charles Green: I am not so sure. My interpretation of what has happened in the past is not the same as the minister's. However I am talking about the policy at the present time with regard to the British preference and I understand from the minister that Canada is not going to ask for any change.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to have the minister's views with regard to the exportation of iron ore from the west coast to Japan. This has been discussed on previous occasions and, as he knows, I have suggested that the government should take some action to stop or at least reduce this export for fear that if it is continued it will delay or make impossible the establishment of a steel industry on the west coast.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
One answer the minister gave last year was that the exports of iron ore to Japan were made in small quantities and would not affect the situation. Our trouble is that our iron ore deposits are comparatively small; we have nothing like the huge deposits in Quebec and Labrador. I got figures today from the bureau of statistics which show that in the last calendar year 802,311 tons were exported to Japan from the west coast. The exports during the last half of the calendar year were far heavier than during the first half, being at a rate which would mean total exports for a full year of 1,103,232 tons.
This iron ore is dug from crown-granted claims, so the provincial government cannot impose restrictions on its export. It is dug out by a company owned in the United States, and shipped in Japanese bottoms. Canada gets about $7 per ton for this ore, yet we buy back from Japan steel which has a value of $150 and $200 per ton.
The great worry is that if this operation is carried on indefinitely there will not be enough iron ore on the coast to justify the establishment of a steel mill, or that the establishment of such a steel mill will be delayed. I would be grateful if the minister would give his views on this question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, the iron ore situation in British Columbia is purely a matter for the provincial government. The government of British Columbia owns its natural resources; it owns this iron ore. If it has given mining rights to anyone the permit must have been given with the expectation that the ore would be exported because there is no present demand for it locally. I am certain that the province has the power to stop the mining of this ore any time it pleases.
I cannot think what the federal government could do about it. The federal government must make laws that apply all across Canada. The federal government would be most reluctant to stop the export of iron ore, because this phase of the industry is just beginning. We have been net importers of iron ore for a great many years, and we hope in a year or two to be net exporters. I would hate to do anything that would prevent the export of iron ore. If we did, Newfoundland would be affected because they have been supplying Britain with iron ore for many years and no doubt would like to continue to do so.


Howard Charles Green: 
Clarence Decatur Howe: The provisions of that act
require that certain conditions must obtain as a reason for interfering with exports. I am afraid the only way we could do it would be to use the Emergency Powers Act, and after the lashing we took on that for the past two days I would think-


Howard Charles Green: I am not suggesting that for
one moment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the only power on the statute books that would permit us to interfere with the situation.


Howard Charles Green: I do not agree with that. I
submit that it could be done under the Export and Import Permits Act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, before proceeding to ask the minister certain questions I should like to comment upon the report of the department. I think it is most regrettable that when we are studying the estimates of this department the report of the department is not available. I am indebted to the deputy minister of trade and commerce for sending me galley proofs of the report this morning. The minister tabled galley proofs in the house this morning, but of course they have not been made available to hon. members. This department is unlike some others in that its year is the calendar year and not the government fiscal year. That explains to some extent the delay in the tabling of the report for the year 1952, but I should like to say that I think it is highly important that in future the report of the department for the previous calendar year should be presented to the house in ample time before the estimates of the department are brought on for consideration in committee of supply, so that all members will have an opportunity of familiarizing

themselves with the contents of the report. It is an important report of an important department. I think a knowledge of the contents will not only help to expedite the work of the committee of supply, but it will also mean that members will be informed as they ought to be.
The first matter I should like to take up relates to the prime ministers' conference held in London last December. The minister has emphasized the fact that the conference was concerned with financial questions and not with trade. I think we are all aware of that fact. The report of the prime ministers' conference was, it seems to me, unfortunately vague and general in its terms. It may be that the deliberations of the conference were of such a nature as not to admit of a report being written in more specific terms. Nevertheless it is exceedingly vague and general.
I should like to take up a point with respect to the report of the prime ministers' conference in relation to the subject of convertibility, on which the minister made some comnjents. He indicated the importance which the government attaches, and I think rightly so, to convertibility as related to the trading outlook of the country. He did say that the government are prepared to take whatever measures they are asked to take to assist in bringing about convertibility.
I should like to ask the minister to develop that theme further and indicate what measures, if any, the Canadian government has been asked to take in that direction; what other measures, if any, are under consideration, and what answer has been given in relation to any particular request for measures that the Canadian government has been asked to take in that direction.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As my hon. friend knows, I was not present at the conference. I have only read such report as was issued, and so far as I know no request has come up to this time for the Canadian government to take action. Convertibility is some distance away. I could not say whether it is a matter of months or years, but progress is being made in that direction. It is the intention to work toward convertibility at the earliest practical time, and I am certain that before final steps are taken requests will be made of Canada. All I can say is that Canada is very much interested in bringing about convertibility and will endeavour to do what is necessary at the time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On the subject of our trade with the United Kingdom, the minister used the expression this afternoon that "we do all we can to favour United Kingdom goods in
Supply-Trade and Commerce our import markets." What did he refer to specifically there?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Our trade commissioner service is at the service of anyone attempting to sell British goods here. If we are buying for the government abroad, we try to buy in the British market in preference to any other, in our own self-interest. I made the remark this afternoon, I think, that we bought from the United Kingdom something over $100 million worth of goods in the last year in munitions or in aircraft for T.C.A. and things of that kind. In other words, our desire is to buy in the United Kingdom in preference to any other market. It is not always possible; in fact it is only occasionally possible, but when it is possible that is our policy.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That was the point, Mr. Chairman. The minister made a statement with respect to government policy in relation to trade generally. It was at a later stage in his remarks that he took up the point of placing defence orders in the United Kingdom. But are we to understand that it is a definite policy and a matter of instruction on the part of the department to its officers who are placing orders, whether defence orders or otherwise, that where the goods cannot be furnished in the home market they should give a definite preference to the United Kingdom?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would say so, price and quality being equal.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh yes, quite.


Clarence Decatur Howe: And availability reasonably good. Sometimes we do not have the time to get the goods from the United Kingdom. Delivery is important, but if delivery, price and quality are equal we will favour the United Kingdom.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think this is an appropriate point to ask the minister for clarification of an incident that created some degree of mystification at the time. About August 15 last the minister made a statement as reported in the press to the effect that Britain might receive $150 million worth of free armament from Canada this year. The press dispatch that came from London, following the appearance of a report to that effect in the Canadian press, indicated that at least some of the treasury spokesmen at London found it hard to understand the statement. They pointed out that if it was something new they did not understand it, and if it was a reference to something that had been undertaken before then it had been announced under circumstances that made it difficult to understand.
4312	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce
Would the minister make a full statement so we may have ample clarification of this matter? The dispatch I have before me is a Canadian Press dispatch from London dated August 15 which refers to another dispatch and reads in part as follows:
The dispatch said the program announced by Howe had been drawn up "at least six months ago. Canada herself is making no direct arms gift to the United Kingdom", the correspondent wrote. He added, that Canada's attitude has been described in Ottawa as "willingness to give Britain all help short of aid.'' Meantime in the British press there has been little other interpretative comment on the arms-gift arrangement.
Will the minister make a full clarifying statement now with regard to this matter?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think that would be more appropriate when we are discussing the estimates of defence production. It had to do with Sabre planes, which have been delivered steadily, and certain other goods. I do not remember the particulars at the moment. I was not prepared to discuss the matter on these estimates.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the minister would prefer that I bring it up on the estimates of the other department I would be quite agreeable.
I thought it followed along naturally after our discussion on policy with reference to purchases from the United Kingdom, but I shall be glad to bring it up on the estimates of the other department.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the last subject relating to our trade with the United Kingdom on which I should like to ask the minister for some further statement relates to the token import scheme that has been in effect and applied by the government of the United Kingdom since 1946. That you will recall, Mr. Chairman, is designed on the one hand to limit importations into the United Kingdom and at the same time permit certain commodities from abroad to be kept before the consuming public there. I mentioned last night that while the original quota set was 40 per cent of pre-war sales in the basic period 1936 to 1939, nevertheless effective January, 1952 that 40 per cent quota was cut to 30 per cent.
Imports into the United Kingdom under the terms of this scheme may not bulk large in total. The total in 1952 was $5,600,000 as compared with $7,500,000 in 1951. We are told in publications of the department in the last two years that the British purchase tax and competition from other countries have


made sales under the scheme more difficult. In the past year about 266 firms participated as against only 118 in 1946 when the scheme was first introduced.
I should ask the minister for some comment on the scheme and particularly whether the Canadian government has made any representations to the government of the United Kingdom with a view to liberalizing-if I may use that word with a small "1"

the provisions of the token import scheme, increasing the percentage or enlarging the scope within which Canadian exporters may operate under the scheme.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, the token import scheme is still in effect applying to 30 per cent of pre-war exports, as my hon. friend has outlined. The quotas have not all been taken up, but I think about $5 million of them have. been. The scheme has been broadened and, of course, we are always bringing pressure on the British government to relax import controls to the greatest extent possible.
A few days ago I had a personal letter from the chancellor of the exchequer which outlined the present position. It is that there are world open licences which allow anyone to import certain commodities from any country in the world without any restriction as to quantity. They cover: nickel ores and concentrates, residues and matte; asbestos, raw and fibre; platinum ores and concentrates; cobalt metal (unwrought) and cobalt oxide; pig iron, iron ore; steel scrap.
Then there are open individual licences. These are in general issued to individual importers who apply for them. The holders may import unlimited quantities of the commodities covered so long as the open individual licence remains unrevoked. They normally involve an obligation to make regular returns of actual imports and future commitments, and they can be revoked if imports prove to be excessive. In the case of the commodities listed, the open individual licences apply to imports from any country in the world. The commodities are: wheat and flour on reversion to private trade; coarse grains on reversion to the private trade; softwood; lead; zinc.
Then there are specific licences. These are issued on application to individual importers, and allow the holder to import up to a value stated on the licence. Licences are normally issued on proof of essentiality, but in some cases they are issued by reference to a predetermined ceiling of total imports. In the case of some commodities, licences are issued on a non-discriminatory basis-that is the licence enables the holder to import from any non-sterling source. In the case of the other commodities the licence will generally

apply only to imports from the dollar area. In most cases non-dollar imports are licensed on a more liberal basis, generally under open general licences or individual licences which do not cover imports from dollar sources. The specific licences cover: bladders and casings; animal fats; linseed and linseed oil; beans for canning; tobacco; veneers; plywood; hardwood; pulp; newsprint; fertilizers; chemicals; kraft paper; abrasives; ferro alloys; steel; synthetic rubber; seeds and pitwood.
The government also makes direct purchases of:	cheese, rationed types; meat;
canned salmon; aluminum; oils and fats; copper, tungsten ores and concentrates.
That is the position today. The token import market scheme has been broadened to the extent I have indicated.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Do I understand that the commodities listed by the minister have been lifted entirely out of the scope of the token import restrictions?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. The licences are broader than those in the token import scheme. Generally speaking, the limitation is much less than in the token import scheme.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not too easy to follow. Are we to understand that the commodities which the minister has read in all cases lie outside the token import scheme and, as to such restrictions as do apply, those restrictions have been now lifted?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, to the extent I have indicated.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is there any indication that the percentage for the past 15 months, the 30 per cent applicable under the token import scheme, is going to be raised in the near future?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, there is no indication of that. The import licence scheme is a holding operation to allow exporters of pre-war days to hold their brand name on the market. As financial conditions permit, the government of the United Kingdom is gradually moving out of that plan into a much broader plan to the extent that I have indicated, that is on the commodities I have named. There is no import licence required for a number of items; that is, they can be imported from anywhere in the world regardless of currency. Then there are other items that are subject to fixed quantities with no discrimination as to country. All this list is on a much broader basis than you are claiming.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have a number of other matters to raise. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that it will be the wish of the house that the government should do all in its power
Supply-Trade and Commerce to encourage the removal of these restrictions by the British government. It is evident in the world today that quota restrictions and exchange restrictions, of this and other kinds, are more restrictive of trade than conventional tariffs. To the extent that the government will do all in its power to encourage the removal of these restrictions which have hampered the export of Canadian goods to the United Kingdom market, I am sure its efforts will be supported.
I should like to turn to several inquiries with relation to the United States. The minister made a brief reference this afternoon to GATT, and expressed the hope that it would be possible before the end of this year to carry forward an extension of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. I believe that view is shared by most of the members of this house. Will the minister tell the house what, if anything, the government has done in the way of feeling out the opinion of the United States government in this matter by opening negotiations. It is quite evident that the success of GATT in relation to its extension will depend very largely upon the attitude of the United States government.
President Eisenhower, in his inaugural speech, declared himself in favour of the extension of GATT, but he did not specify whether he meant simply an extension in point of time or an extension with respect to the commodities and rates covered by the present agreement. There have been various opinions expressed by members of the United States congress on their attitude towards GATT and that type of trade agreement. Will the minister tell us what, if anything, the Canadian government has done by way of opening negotiations with the United States administration on this subject?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The negotiations to which the hon. member refers will take place this autumn. Our officials are in close touch with the officials of the United States. Depending upon whether or not the powers of the reciprocal trade agreements act extend the president's power to make further concessions, we would look for an extension of time. If the reciprocal trade agreements act is extended, there may also be a widening of scope. After three rounds of tariff negotiations, the scope of GATT is about as wide as it can go at the present time. We would be glad to see it wider, but we are not too unhappy about it now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I take it, then, from the minister's statement that the government really has not much hope that the extension

Supply-Trade and Commerce will apply to more commodities or carry the present agreements to a higher degree.


Clarence Decatur Howe: 1 did not say that at all. I hope the hon. member is not going to suggest that I expressed an opinion on what the United States will do, because I cannot do that. I have not the faintest idea.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I asked the minister how we were to interpret his remark about the extension. We were talking about two kinds of extension, one an extension in point of time and the other an extension of the application of the general scheme of GATT.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, if the president's powers are allowed to expire we can then look for an extension of time. If his powers are renewed, then we can look for an extension in both time and scope; that is all I can say.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I wonder if the minister would say what the present position of Japan is in so far as GATT is concerned. Have they asked to come in? If they have, who is holding them out? Perhaps the minister would say what the attitude of the Canadian government is toward that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Japan has applied for admission to GATT. The application is under consideration. I do not know who is causing the delay; I suppose a number of people. As to what Canada's position is, I am not sure at the moment. In any case, it would not be important. The position of Japan will be considered, I am sure, at the next meeting of GATT, when a further decision will be made.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I should like to point out to the minister what I know he already knows. Japan is a country of over 85 million people. It has been stripped of the possessions it had before the war. It seems to me that if the Japanese are to live, they must export. I think it would be desirable, therefore, if they were brought into GATT. If they cannot trade with us I think they will have to turn to the communist countries. Therefore I hope the Canadian government will support their entrance to GATT when the time comes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister tell us what efforts the Canadian government is making in the direction of customs simplification on the part of the United States?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There again, customs simplification on the part of the United States is a matter for the United States government. We are pressing for the United States to ratify that measure. The joint chamber of commerce of the United States and Canada has considered that particular problem, and have


been advocating it for some time. What is required now is congressional action.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We have been talking about the difficulties of this matter for many years. Has there been a real liberalization, say in the last four or five years, in the administrative policy of the United States?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There has been no change in the act in the last three or four years. There has been a more favourable approach to customs simplification. A bill has been drawn, and it is before the United States congress. I resent very much being asked any opinion of what the United States congress will do or what United States officials will do.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I was not asking the minister for any opinion on what the United States will do. I was asking about a matter of fact, and he has partially told me.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: This afternoon the minister told me his department had a special import branch. I wonder if he would mind clarifying that statement a little. Will he say who is the head of the branch, what exactly are its duties, and what results it has had in encouraging imports in recent years?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The branch has been in existence for six or seven years. It is headed by a man named Charles McGinnis. The duties of the branch are to assist foreign exporters to find markets in this country for their goods. It has been very effective. The branch is the particular guardian of the trade commissioners from other countries, and it helps them carry out their duties in finding markets for the products of their countries in Canada. Similarly we have an export division which performs the same function for our exporters.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Would the minister care to say whether this particular branch has done any work in trying to encourage imports from Britain in the last year or two?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I wish my hon. friend would not ask silly questions.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: As long as the minister will answer them, it is all right.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will the hon. member admit that Britain is a country desiring to export to Canada?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I would think so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Then this branch is functioning.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: It may be a silly question, but I have never heard of this import branch which the minister says is active.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member has not been in Ottawa very long.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Has the branch just died a natural death or is it doing something to try to get our import figures up?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not a committee. It never was a committee. I hate to teach my hon. friend the A, B, C's of government organization, but I may tell him that this is division A of the Department of Trade and Commerce. If he will look in the Department of Trade and Commerce annual report he will get the complete personnel, their salaries and their pedigrees. It has been in existence for a long time. If he will just read the departmental report he will not have to ask that question.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I am not particularly
interested in the pedigrees. All I should like to know-and I do not think the minister needs to get in a dither about it-is what they are doing to increase our British imports, if anything. If they are not doing anything, all he has to do is to say so. If they are doing anything, then let him tell us what it is.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are just doing that. They are working to try to increase British imports and to find a larger market for British goods, just as they are working for French goods, Italian goods, Australian goods and New Zealand goods; I could go through the whole list of 48 countries. They are working for all of them, trying to find markets for their products in Canada, and doing what they can to help to balance trade between Canada and all the countries with which she trades.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to ask a silly question.


Mr. Riley:: That is not surprising.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to know a little bit about the relationship between the export branch and our trade commissioners. For instance, if a Canadian manufacturer wants assistance, does he move through officials there and then does he go on to the trade commissioner, or does he establish direct contact with our trade commissioner?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is optional. He usually establishes direct contact. But if he wishes to go to our export division to find out what commodities a certain country can absorb, he will get advice there and then he will be directed to the trade commissioner service and be in touch with the trade commissioner directly.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This country and city were favoured a fortnight ago with a visit by the premier of France and several of the leading ministers of the French cabinet. Are negotiations being carried on between the Canadian and French governments with a view to a
Supply-Trade and Commerce new trade agreement within the scheme or the framework of GATT or otherwise?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are no trade agreements with countries that are members of GATT. GATT is a multilateral trade agreement in which all countries are placed on the same basis. There are no trade agreements with any country in the world that is a member of GATT.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let us not quibble about terms. We know what the scheme of GATT is. All I asked was whether any negotiations are being carried on between Canada and France with reference to trade, or looking toward closer trade relations, or agreements of any kind with respect to trade.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; nothing of that kind. There could be no agreement. Trade arrangements are fixed for all countries that are members of GATT. They are all the same. We have a committee on trade with France-a committee of civil servants-which meets from time to time to study trade problems, to advise France of any trade opportunities here and to obtain their advice as to any opportunities for Canadian goods in France; but it is not a committee that makes trade agreements.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are two other matters about which I should like to question the minister. The first is one I mentioned in my remarks last night. It concerns a press report which appeared on November 18, from which I read just the opening paragraphs. It is a Canadian Press dispatch and reads in part as follows:
The Canadian government has adopted a get-tough policy against alleged dumping of manufactured goods in Canada by two communist-dominated countries-Czechoslovakia and Poland.
Customs officials have been empowered to increase the value for duty on an imported item by as much as 50 per cent before applying the regular tariff charge. Thus the government will collect the duty plus the difference between the quoted and increased price.
Can the minister make a statement on the subject of the trading operations of those communist-dominated countries in this respect?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The article is correct. It is impossible to get fair market values in either Czechoslovakia or Poland. We have asked for the information and we have not been able to get it. Therefore we apply fixed values for duty purposes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Have those values been the 50 per cent that is mentioned in the article?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Fifty per cent is the limit fixed in the act.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Donald Methuen Fleming: Have you applied the maximum in all cases, or just in some?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know that. It has nothing to do with me. The Minister of National Revenue operates that machinery.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Can the Minister of National Revenue say?


Mr. McCann:: Mr. Chairman, in trade relations it is customary for foreign countries to allow officials of the government, particularly of the Department of National Revenue which has to do with the handling of customs and excise, in their countries where they may obtain values with reference to goods that are exported to Canada. I am sure hon. members are acquainted with the general principle, namely that the goods are invoiced into this country at a fair market value; that is at the prices at which they sell in the country of origin.
With reference to Czechoslovakia, the government carried on negotiations with its representatives in this country at that time, and asked for the privilege of having our representatives go into Czechoslovakia to obtain those values; and that privilege was denied. When it was denied, in order to give a fair share of protection to our own manufacturers with whom these exporters would be in competition, it was decided to apply the dumping duty. That dumping duty is a maximum of 50 per cent in advance of the prices at which those goods are invoiced into this country. That was applied on this occasion, and it was applied because of the fact that manufacturers in our own country, principally of textiles, complained to the government that textiles were being put on the Canadian market at prices less than the equivalent prices at which they were sold in the country of origin.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the policy of the government with respect to the export of scrap iron to Japan?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Export of scrap iron outside of this continent is not allowed, except for an occasional shipment to the United Kingdom under special permit.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Have no exports of scrap iron to Japan been permitted from Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not at all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: None whatever?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the minister quite certain that no export was permitted within the past few months from Vancouver-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Quite sure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -of scrap iron to Japan?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Quite sure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: None whatever?


Clarence Decatur Howe: None whatever.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the item carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask the minister whether the export situation with regard to Venezuela has been improved.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Since when?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Since the minister told us it was in a poor way last February. The minister said that members of our trade mission obtained important on-the-spot orders and all expressed the opinion that Canada is doing a very poor selling job in that country; that is Venezuela.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Unfortunately the trade statistics are not up month to month, but I shall be glad to watch that situation carefully and to give my hon. friend a report during the next session. I am sure the situation will improve.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General administration-
427.	Commodities services (including the former wheat and grain division) including contributions as detailed in the estimates, $617,872.
Mr. Wright:: I note that this particular item now includes the former wheat and grain division. I believe that in the estimates last year this division was under a separate item. Is there any particular significance in the fact that it is now placed under the commodities services branch? Is it just a matter of administration or is there any particular change in policy?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is purely a matter of administration. Dr. Wilson, the former head of the department, is now stationed in Rome; and instead of maintaining it as a separate division -as my hon. friend knows, it is only a small division-it is put under the commodities division for administration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
428.	Trade commissioner service, $2,522,696.
Mr. McLure:: What is the difference between ambassadors, consuls, trade commissioners, honorary commercial agents and foreign service officers? We find all these under the Department of Trade and Commerce, and apparently all are doing the same work. That is, as I understand it, they are endeavouring to sell our goods in foreign countries. However, they all seem to be designated by different titles. For instance, in Buenos Aires

we have an ambassador, a consul and all the other officers. If a man wishes to make a deal with that country, should he go to a foreign service officer or to an honorary commercial agent, or to whom should he go? Perhaps he should go directly to the ambassador, if we have one there.


Clarence Decatur Howe: An ambassador is the representative of the government in a country. He reports to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He is the diplomatic head of the Canadian mission in the country to which he is accredited. The consul is also an officer of the Department of External Affairs, and deals with various commercial documents on behalf of that department. A trade commissioner is a representative of the Department of Trade and Commerce, accredited to a country that does not have a diplomatic mission. He may be the senior representative of Canada in that country. For instance, in Haiti and the Dominican Republic we have trade commissioners as senior officers.
Then a commercial counsellor is a representative of the Department of Trade and Commerce who is attached to an embassy. That is, where an- ambassador is the representative of Canada in a country, he will have on his staff a commercial counsellor who is the equivalent of a trade commissioner in countries where there are no ambassadors.
Then in countries where we have no other representation, as in Bermuda, we have a local man who is known as an honorary commercial agent. In Bermuda he happens to be the head of Butterfields bank and, without cost to Canada, he is good enough to reply to our correspondence. If we have problems there we write to him, and he will straighten out the matters for us.


Mr. Calherwood:: When the minister spoke on Friday evening he very properly informed us about the activities of this part of our service, which I feel is a very important one. Perhaps we have underestimated the value of the service this branch has given to our country. A trade commissioner in my opinion is really an ambassador of good will to another country. I feel that in selecting these men great care should be taken, because the position calls for special gifts and special qualifications. I do not think an ordinary college education alone qualifies a person to fill these positions properly. They require men of experience, men who are enthusiastic in the interests of Canada and who are willing if necessary to spend 24 hours a day to promote good will between Canada and the countries in which they are 68108-273
23, 1953	4317
Supply-Trade and Commerce located. I hope careful consideration is being given to the selection of the people who will represent us.
Were any new trade offices opened in other countries during the last year, and is there any possibility of opening more in the near future?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am glad the hon. member has mentioned favourably the trade commissioner service, because I believe it is a service that returns its cost to Canada many times over. I am really amazed by the accomplishments of some of our trade commissioners, in fact by nearly all of them. Every few days something turns up that shows extraordinary activity on the part of our trade commissioners, business coming to Canada that we would have lost had it not been for their activities.
Speaking on Friday night I said there were 48 offices with a staff of 379 including local staff. Within the last year we have opened three new offices, at Beirut, the Dominican Republic and New Orleans.


Percy Ellis Wright: To what extent do these trade commissioners use films and radio in their work in these various countries, to advertise Canadian goods?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Each trade office has a projector, and they are supplied with a library of films. If there is any particular commercial film required by the office, they will write to the department in Ottawa. We try to rotate commercial film, and sometimes cultural film, so that eventually they travel to all the offices.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: Is it the government's policy to encourage young Canadians to serve as typists, filing clerks and the like in these various offices in foreign countries? In my view that should be encouraged so these young people may be trained to take part in our extraterritorial service.


Clarence Decatur Howe: When the factor of security is important we send people from Canada to fill the positions of stenographers and clerks. Where that is not necessary we try to employ Canadians who are resident in the area or, if that is not possible, we employ local residents who are not Canadians. However, I have visited most of the offices in Europe and Latin America, and I have found a good representation of people direct from Canada in those offices.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I notice there are only two trade commissioner offices in all of Canada, one of which is at St. John's, Newfoundland, and the other at Vancouver. I notice that the amount for the Vancouver office is being increased this year by a little over $1,000, while the amount for the St. John's office is being reduced by about $6,200. I presume

Supply-Trade and Commerce the difference is in connection with the director. Is it the intention to replace him? I understand he died.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend will appreciate that we used to refer to Newfoundland as a foreign country, or rather as a sister member of the commonwealth. Now it is part of Canada. We are bringing the office down to the point where it is merely a representation of the service in Newfoundland. Vancouver is in a somewhat different position, although I think the duties are about the same. Vancouver is the gateway for everything that comes across the Pacific.


Gordon Francis Higgins: St. John's is in the same position for everything coming across the Atlantic.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But they do not all stop there; many ships pass by.


Gordon Francis Higgins: It is not intended to replace the director?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In recent years I have noticed that when a trade commissioner is on leave he visits various centres and addresses local organizations. I think this is an excellent thing. I have heard very favourable comment on this practice by people who are interested in the trade commissioner service. What is the policy of the department in that respect?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Trade commissioners are
brought back to Canada every three or four years and are required to make a tour of the country to get in touch with industry, public bodies and so on. This serves a double purpose. First, it makes sure that the trade commissioner is in close touch with Canada and, second, it makes sure that Canadians have an opportunity to meet our representatives and gain from them any information that they may require about the different foreign markets.


Donald Methuen Fleming: One is glad to have an opportunity to pay a tribute, not only to the importance of the trade commissioner service but to the high quality of men who are serving Canada in that very important capacity. It has been my good fortune to meet a number of these men and it is my opinion that they are eminently worthy representatives of Canada in the important posts which they hold.
There is an item in the details on page 487, acquisition of building for residence abroad, $40,000, which is a new item. Could the minister explain that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have just sent a man to Djakarta in Indonesia and the report is that there is absolutely no available accommoda-


tion. We regard it as an important key point in the east and this appropriation is to enable the trade commissioner to build or buy a suitable building.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the building be used as an office or residence or both? Will it provide living accommodation for anyone but the trade commissioner?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It will be a residence and office for the trade commissioner, and if he has an assistant I assume that he will also find room in the building.


Donald Methuen Fleming: How many people are there on the staff?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just the one.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Just the commissioner?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will it be a case of sending materials there or will materials be acquired in Indonesia for the purpose of constructing this building?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We will not send materials there; the building will be of the type that is built in that city. He will attempt to buy, but if he cannot buy at a favourable price he will arrange to build. If he builds, it will be done with local materials and labour.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the policy of the department with reference to the provision of buildings to house the trade commissioner service abroad? Is it the policy to obtain office accommodation in an office building and then leave the commissioner to find his own housing accommodation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the procedure. We rent suitable office space and the staff look after their own housing. Of course where we have an ambassador the trade commissioner is able to obtain office space in the chancellery. Where the trade commissioner is working by himself, he rents an office and finds himself a house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I take it that this item represents a quite unusual situation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. The situation was carefully explored and we were told that there is no possibility of renting accommodation there, either for use as an office or a home.


Mrs. Fairclough:: In what respect is the service at Detroit being augmented? I notice that both the staff and the appropriation are much larger than last year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Formerly this was an external affairs office, with a consular officer. We have taken over the staff as a combined trade and consular office.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

429.	Information branch, $177,218.
Mr. Bryce:: I think this is the item which deals with advertising. Anything I shall say is not intended to be criticism of the trade commissioners, because I have as high regard for them as any hon. member in the house. I have had the opportunity of meeting Canadian trade commissioners in different countries, and I know they are doing a wonderful job.
However, I do not think we advertise our goods enough. I do not want to take up time because I realize it is getting late in the session. Take the item of hogs alone. I was in Great Britain not long ago, and I have been there many times before. When they sell you a breakfast there they tell you that you are getting a piece of American bacon. That just sticks in my throat when they tell me that it is American bacon, because I know perfectly well it is Canadian bacon.
I have made a study of our bacon in Britain. We have the finest bacon going to Britain, but we do not advertise it. When it is sent away from here it is stamped "product of Canada", but with the fine slicing they did in the United Kingdom during the war that bacon lost its identity completely. I suggest that we follow the pattern set by New Zealand. Right up to the time a man gets New Zealand butter on his table there is a wrapper around it which states that it is a product of New Zealand. Why do we not do that with our bacon? We could supply them with the paper wrapping, telling them that it was the best bacon they could buy, that it was from Canada.
I have seen Canadian eggs in London marked as new-laid eggs when it took ten days to send them there. Stamped on the end of each egg was "product of Canada". It was identified. We send apples there and they are identified as being the product of British Columbia, of the maritimes or of Ontario.
One of the finest products we have ever exported from this country is Canadian bacon. Let us identify our Canadian bacon and not take the dirt that we are eating American bacon when we are served bacon in Great Britain. I made a study of this during the war, and I know we have the finest bacon going to the United Kingdom. Even Danish bacon could not compare with it. I hope the minister will take that into consideration and do something about advertising our products. If you do not toot your own horn nobody will do it for you.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In the case of the United Kingdom we advertised our products there up 68108-273i
Supply-Trade and Commerce to the time bulk buying became the pattern in the early days of the war. All products were then bought by the United Kingdom and distributed by means of a rationing system, and advertising and labels were discouraged. We were not allowed to put the name "Canada" on our bags of flour. We were not even allowed to put the word "Canada" on a tin of salmon. That situation is changing, and as the market becomes more freely available for our products I am sure we will start other advertising campaigns in the United Kingdom.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
430.	Economics branch, $156,884.
Percy Ellis Wright: Looking at the details of this item on page 489, I notice that we have a large group of economists who are graded all the way from grade 1 to grade 10. I am rather surprised at that. I do not know just how the grading is done. We have two grade 1 economists, two grade 2 economists, five grade 3 economists, one grade 4, five grade 5, one grade 6, one grade 7, three grade 8, no grade 9 and one grade 10. Will the minister give us an explanation as to the grading of the economists? I should think we would have senior economists, junior economists and perhaps intermediate economists, but ten grades seem too many.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The grading system is set up by the civil service commission. It is based upon the qualifications of the man. There is no grade 9. I suppose that man died. I agree it is a good many grades for not too many economists, but this is the system that runs throughout the civil service. Wherever an economist is found, he is in one of these grades. People of the same grade would have the same educational qualifications and the same length of service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Exhibitions-
433. Canadian international trade fair, including authority to refund, from revenue, deposits received for contracts for space, $830,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: From this item it would appear that we were spending $830,000, but quite a large revenue is derived from this fair and the actual expenditure of the government would not be $830,000 unless they are using their revenue for rebates on space that is not occupied. I should like an explanation. I have attended some of these fairs and I think they are one of the greatest advertising mediums that it is possible for Canada to have. People come here not only to advertise their own goods but, in the case of the bulk of them, they come to Canada to buy
4320	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce Canadian goods. I was wondering what would be the net cost to the Dominion of Canada of this exhibition which is held annually.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The net costs have been coming down. In 1952 total expenditure was $709,000, total revenue was $498,000, and the net out of pocket cost was $211,000. For the 1953 fair we expect to bring the net cost down under $200,000.


George Matheson Murray: I should like to ask the minister if it would not be wise to invite Canadian bankers to attend the fair in order to offer some system of assistance to new industries, especially from Great Britain, to come to Canada and particularly to British Columbia, and establish plants there. These are very valuable exhibitions, but I think there is a missing link. There is need for Canadian financiers to attend these exhibitions and show these people where great advantage can be obtained from establishing their industries right in Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am happy to say that the banks thought of that before my hon. friend. The bankers are very regular attendants at the fair. If my hon. friend will attend the opening luncheon he will find a row of bankers as imposing as any that can be gathered together in the country. I am sure the bankers appreciate fully the value of what my hon. friend has just pointed out.


Mr. Dinsdale:: With respect to items 432 and 433, in the details on page 492 I see something that interests me. There is an amount of $67,000 for participation in other exhibitions in Canada, the United States and abroad. I think the minister will be aware that we had a Manitoba trade fair in Manitoba last year; and this year, in conjunction with our provincial exhibition in the city of Brandon, we are holding a western Canada trade fair in the first week 'of July. It includes all four western provinces. Is any assistance given to that fair under the item I have just indicated?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I understand that the Department of Agriculture makes a grant for the Brandon fair, but the Department of Trade and Commerce does not. We hardly think it is designed to promote international trade.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to say a word about the Canadian international trade fair. I think it is only a matter of about three or four years ago that the minister was expressing some doubt as to the future of the fair and whether it should be carried on. I take it that all doubts and fears in that connection have been completely removed by the experience of the intervening years, because unquestionably this has been a highly successful fair and has been well operated. Some
[Mr. McLure.l

able officials from the department have been in charge of it, and I trust that it is now fully established as an annual fair.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The first fair was very successful. In fact I think we can say they have all been successful, but after the first fair there was a dropping off of Canadian exhibitors to an extent that in the third year we were in the position of running the fair almost exclusively for foreign exhibitors, which I did not like. A drive was put on last year for more Canadian exhibits, with the result that the exhibits were about 50 per cent foreign and 50 per cent domestic. The 1953 fair will be by far the largest we have ever held, much larger than the first fair, and again the proportion will be about fifty-fifty between foreign exhibitors and domestic exhibitors. This year our effort has been to attract foreign buyers. We have advertised extensively in the United States and abroad inviting buyers to attend. We have more exhibits this year than we can comfortably handle in the space available to us.


A. Earl Catherwood: Is any record kept as to the actual dollar value of sales negotiated at the trade fair?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. Businessmen will not give that information. We get a report compiled by our commodity officers who travel from booth to booth and make their own estimate, but generally speaking the businessman does not like his competitors to know just how much business he has on his books as a result of the fair.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Is there not an estimated return in proportion to the outlay? Is there any kind of estimate at all?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is wholly intangible.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Standards branch-
436. Weights and measures inspection services, $726,231.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I understand that there is a fee charged for testing scales and things of that sort. Can the minister tell the committee what revenue is received from such charges?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I might say that all these branches are money makers. Against an estimated expenditure in 1952-53 of $16,843,298 voted to the Department of Trade and Commerce in the estimates we had a revenue of $7,882,590, so the net cost of the department to the country was $8,960,708.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is most interesting.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are careful people.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Board of grain commissioners-
440.	Administration, $208,577.
Percy Ellis Wright: With regard to item 440, board of grain commissioners, it is customary for the board each year to issue an annual report in the month of January and for it to be tabled in the house here by the minister. This year they have not issued that report or, if they have given it to the minister, it has not been printed and distributed. I would like to get some information from the minister with regard to it.
While I am speaking on this matter I would like to point out to the minister that the present board of grain commissioners is short one member. Mr. Milner, who was the third member on the board, has been acting as transport controller for almost two years. This is an important body as far as western producers of grain are concerned and I know they are anxious for the board to have its full membership. I do not know whether it is because the board is short a member that its annual report has not been issued, or whether there are some other reasons.
There is another matter which I should like to raise and the minister can deal with it when he is speaking. I refer to a finding of the board of grain commissioners which was made this year with regard to what is known as the Kreutzweiser case. Under the Canada Grain Act, in the province of Saskatchewan it was always understood by the producers that when grain was offered for sale at an elevator, if the grain was in good condition and the elevator had room for that grain, it was compulsory for the elevator company to purchase the grain. If there was disagreement between the seller and the buyer with regard to the grain, an interim cash ticket would be issued to the seller of the grain and a sample would be taken and sent to the inspection department at Winnipeg. When a final grade was established by the grading department there, an adjustment would be made to the grower on the basis of the interim cash ticket which had been issued to him.
The finding of the board of grain commissioners with regard to this case was that it was not compulsory on the part of the elevator company to issue the interim cash ticket and, unless there is an agreement between the seller and the buyer, it is not compulsory for the elevator company to purchase the grain. That is something which has alarmed a fairly large number of farmers in western Canada. They feel that the interpretation of the Canada Grain Act by the board of grain commissioners in this case takes away certain rights which they as growers in western Canada thought they had under the act. I
23, 1953
Supply-Trade and Commerce would like the minister to say something with regard to this matter.
At a meeting of the agriculture committee last year the minister said that if the growers in western Canada believed there were certain changes which should be made in the act, an opportunity would be given at this session of parliament for them to present their case before the agriculture committee. The committee has not been called and it looks now, at this stage of the session, as though it would be pretty well impossible to call the committee to deal with those matters. I think some explanation is due the producers as to just why these matters have not been referred to the agriculture committee and as to what the government's intention is with regard to the board of grain commissioners and the appointment of another commissioner to bring the board to full strength.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I should say at once that the fact that copies of the report of the board of grain commissioners are not available to the house is no fault of that board. That report was forwarded to Ottawa and delivered to the queen's printer prior to March 1. We have been pressing for it ever since, and we are now told that we may get it next Monday. It is only one of several reports that have been held up; one which has been before the queen's printer for a long time was tabled here today in manuscript form. As my hon. friend knows, we are building a new print shop which we hope will be more adequate; but there is nothing a department can do about a report that is delayed by the queen's printer. Apparently the queen's printer is an independent soul.
As far as the board of grain commissioners is concerned, we have three able grain commissioners who comprise the full quota of the board. One of them has been doing extra duty as transport controller, but we hope he can be relieved of these duties this autumn if the pressure which requires a transport controller is relieved. The work of the board is not suffering because that member spends part of his time with the board and part as transport controller.
In connection with the Kreutzweiser case, that is a judicial ruling of the board and I do not know that I want to open it up. I think my hon. friend can see the practical difficulties for an elevator operating close to capacity, with every bin in use, taking in a car of wheat which the elevator operator says is No. 3 northern but which the owner claims is No. 2 northern. The operator must put it in a bin with either one grade or the other. Which bin is he going to choose? He cannot take it in unless he has a special bin to hold
4322	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce it until the grade is officially determined and he can put it in the proper bin.
I do not know what my hon. Mend wants to gain by calling the agriculture committee and discussing that particular case. If the man is not satisfied let him go to the courts. The ruling has been given by the proper authority, but there is always an appeal to the courts.


Percy Ellis Wright: The ruling at least changes the interpretation which the producers had of certain sections of the Canada Grain Act. If the interpretation of the section is to be that which the board of grain commissioners has given in this case I for one feel that the Canada Grain Act should be amended to give the producers the protection which until this ruling was made they believed they had under the act.


Hazen Robert Argue: On that point, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister or any officials in the department or the law officers of the crown have given any study to the board's ruling in regard to that section of the Canada Grain Act, section 112. I think the ruling in effect removes the section from the act. I do not know how this man would refer it to the courts, and he might have to go to a lot of expense.
If the minister will think of the experience farmers have had in the past under this section of the Canada Grain Act I believe he will agree that it has been a valuable section. In the past if a farmer went into an elevator with a load of grain and there was a dispute over the grade, the elevator man said he could take it only subject to grade in dock as provided by the Canada Grain Act. A special receptacle was provided, a sample of the grain was placed in it and sent to the chief inspector. When the grade came back the elevator man issued a cash ticket and the grain was sold.
It is certainly not going to help the marketing of grain if an elevator agent can turn away a farmer because there is a dispute over the grade. Most farmers dispute over the grade with the elevator agent every fall. Every farmer wants one grade over that which is offered, and the act has been a protection not only to the growers but to the elevator companies. They really get a referee to decide the grade through provisions in the act for sending it to the chief inspector; but if I read the ruling correctly it removes all the protection which the producers had in that regard.
I think the minister should give some consideration to the ruling, and to the way the act has operated in thie past. Let us not decide whether Mr. Kreutzweiser was right or the


board of grain commissioners' ruling was right. Let us try to decide in what position the producer is placed right now. Let us try to decide whether it is the same position that prevailed in the past, and whether he can sell his grain subject to provisions of grade and dockage.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am told that the particular elevator to which he took his grain did not have an empty bin. There were other elevators in the area that did have empty bins, and he was told to take his grain where he could get a specific bin until the grade and dockage were taken. You can pass any law, but if an elevator is completely full of grain and a bin cannot be allotted then the elevator company cannot comply with the law. This is a case where they could not take any of this grain without knowing which particular bin it should go into, because all they had was partially filled bins.


Hazen Robert Argue: In a case like that I do not think the elevator agent, if I read the act correctly, is required to take the grain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The courts decided against you, so let us let it go.


Hazen Robert Argue: Who decided?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The court of jurisdiction, which is the board of grain commissioners.


Hazen Robert Argue: Two of them were the court. At any rate, here is one line of the ruling:
The provisions of section 112 requiring a sample to be taken and placed in the receptacle only apply, in the opinion of this board, if an agreement had been arrived at between the operator or manager and the person offering the grain for sale that the grain be purchased.
If in every case you have first of all to get the elevator agent to agree to buy your grain before he will use that receptacle, then there is no protection for the farmer because it takes two parties to make any agreement. From reading the act I would say that it should be sufficient the way it stands now; but in view of this ruling I think the department should give some further study to the situation to see if the act itself cannot be clarified in the light of the ruling that has been made by the board of grain commissioners.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
441.	Operation and maintenance expenses, $3,292,600.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I wonder if the minister would throw some light on several items appearing in the details at page 503. This item, Mr. Chairman, concerns operation and maintenance expenses of the board of grain commissioners which this year have increased from $2,868,720 to $3,292,000, an increase of about $424,000, which is practically the entire increase in the estimates of this department

this year. By reference to page 503 one sees that practically all the increase is in salaries and wages.
Half-way down that page one sees a reference to casuals and others, an increase from $95,000 to $336,000. Two items further down there is an item for overtime which has increased from $96,000 to $355,000. Then three items farther down, in travelling and removal expenses, there is an increase from $67,000 to $110,000. I wonder if the minister would give an explanation as to how these casuals are taken into the employ of the department, and why so much of this money is going for overtime rather than in the usual way.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is for the weighing and inspection service which has charge of the grain from the time it is delivered to the country elevator until it is delivered to the ship. The increased cost is due entirely to the tremendously increased volume. The elevators have been working night and day. The revenue goes up correspondingly. This is an item where we make a lot of money.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I quite understand the reason for the increase in the total, but I was wondering why so much of it goes to casuals and others and for overtime, rather than to staff in the ordinary way.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We try to maintain a normal staff for normal conditions. It is when you get conditions of great congestion that this comes about. For instance, a year ago we had a tremendous amount of off-grade grain which required extra work and extra supervision. The permanent staff is under the civil service, as my hon. friend will appreciate, and instead, of inflating the numbers under the civil service, where it is easy to build up but not so easy to tear down, we try to keep a basic staff of permanents and hire casual labour to meet abnormal situations.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister did not mention the third item, the substantial increase in travelling and removal expenses.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We opened an elevator at Prince Rupert which had been closed for some years. This meant travelling and living away from home. There were several other situations of that kind which called for extra travelling. It was just because of the unusual and tremendous volume of work piled on a staff that had not been built up for that kind of effort.


Robert Fair: I wonder if the minister has any further word on the strike at Vancouver?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have been in touch with it almost every hour or so. It seems to me to be
Supply-Trade and Commerce ripe for settlement, but we are having a little difficulty at both ends of the settlement. However, I am very hopeful that reason will prevail on both sides. I may say that we owe a great deal to the transport controller, who is the man who really got to grips with the thing and was able to get in touch with the men as well as the employers. I think he has made quite an effort in getting concessions from both sides, and I hope he will be able to finish the job.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister if this might not be the appropriate time to bring the representatives to Ottawa and close it out?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, that would be the worst thing to do. They are all in Vancouver.


Howard Charles Green: It worked in the other case.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian government elevators-
442.	Operation and maintenance expenses, $1,345,467.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to ask a question on one item in the details on page 505, about the tenth line, repairs and upkeep of buildings and works. There is a substantial increase there from $257,950 to $335,000, which I take to be abnormal. What accounts for that this year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is the tremendous extra load on the elevators. It is the wear and tear on buckets and belts. The wear and tear on an elevator is just about in proportion to the amount of grain that is put through. If you. put through twice the amount of grain, there is twice the wear and tear on the equipment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
443.	International economic and technical co-operation branch, including the administration of the Colombo plan and of certain United Nations co-operation plans, $97,758.
Howard Charles Green: Could the minister explain this item?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that is for the Colombo plan. The money is voted by external affairs, but the administration is in the Department of Trade and Commerce. We arrange all the contracts and take care of the expenses.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he is not taking the research council and atomic energy items tonight?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, not tonight. We thought we would wait until the report is finished.
4324	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
57. Departmental administration, $280,729.


Mr. Fulton:: Item 57 is the departmental administration item, Mr. Chairman, and there are quite a number of things which I think one should say, particularly about immigration. I know that the other day in connection with the citizenship act, there were one or two things which the minister suggested we might leave for his estimates.
I think it should be pointed out that, in connection with immigration itself, there has not really been a full-scale discussion of the subject for a number of years. Last year, when we had the revised Immigration Act before the house, the minister took the position that it was merely a revision and consolidation and that it introduced no new policy. Therefore when we got into the details of the act, while I will not say that we were not allowed to discuss policy, I will say that certainly we were discouraged from doing so since, as the minister himself pointed out, the act merely lays down the broad limits within which the government determines policy largely by way of regulation. Then again, the minister's estimates last year were not introduced into the house until even closer to the end of the session than they are on this occasion. Hence there was only a limited discussion of the subject of immigration.
There are, I think, a number of things in connection with immigration which are causing some concern at the present time. This concern is felt in two directions. There are those who are concerned lest there should be an over-generous policy with respect to the admission of immigrants, and there are others who feel that the country is not meeting its full responsibility in the admission of persons from countries which are less fortunate than we are. Then I think there is some considerable concern over the apparently limited usefulness of the assisted passage scheme, particularly with respect to its application to immigrants from the United Kingdom.
There are also certain questions with regard to the position of those who have been admitted to Canada from India, who have been for some time Canadian citizens and who wish to bring their relatives into this country in order to help them on their farms or in their lumber mills which they own in considerable numbers on the Pacific coast. These people want to get their relatives in to help them in those enterprises; yet they find that, although Canadian citizens, they are subject to a quota which prevents them from getting their relatives in. They feel that they are subjected to a great degree of discrimination.

As they pointed out to the minister last year and as, of course, they point out to those of us who come from that province when we are back home, they came here in some cases up to 30 or 40 years ago. Many of them were born here, have been Canadian citizens for all that length of time, yet they cannot bring in their brothers, cousins, or nephews except in extremely limited circumstances and within the over-all limitation of a quota; whereas others who have come to Canada in the last five years, just long enough to acquire Canadian citizenship, have acquired citizenship and are allowed to bring in their relatives as of right.
Those citizens out there feel that prohibition to be a harsh degree of discrimination. I think they have a good case. I must confess that I am unable to find any flaw in it. It seems to me to be a matter where the restrictions should be relaxed on the admission of relatives of those who are Canadian citizens of substance.
These and a number of other problems on which I have not yet touched seem to me to call for a statement by the minister on the policy of this government with respect to immigration. Particularly in the light of the fact, as I said at the beginning, that we have not had a full-scale discussion on immigration for at least two years, I hope the minister will take this occasion this evening to take the committee and the country into his confidence and say what is the policy of the government with respect to immigration and what are their views as to what should be done about immigration in the future.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Chairman, I think I should follow the policy that I have followed ever since I became minister, namely that of making a general statement at the outset on my estimates. I followed that practice last year so that, in so far as I was concerned, there was a general discussion on immigration; but I agree that we reached the estimates of this department in, I think, the closing six or eight hours of the session. I therefore appreciated at that time the consideration that other members had for the time limit and the fact that they did not go into the matter as fully as they hoped they could on another occasion. At the end of my statement I shall deal with the points raised by my hon. friend, if he would remind me of them at that time.
I should like to discuss first some of the highlights of the immigration program over the past twelve months and to outline also the program which, as far as we are able to foresee, would appear to be in our best interests for this calendar year. May I have

the permission of the committee, which has always been granted on previous occasions, to place on Hansard a full statement on immigration for 1952?
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration The Deputy Chairman: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Edward Harris: The statement is as follows:



IMMIGRATION TO CANADA, BY RACIAL ORIGIN FROM OVERSEAS AND TOTALS FROM THE UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
-	Calendar Year 1951	Calendar Year 1952	Percentages of Increase and DecreaseEnglish	19,109	26,448	2,506 9,201	4,696	Scottish	10,697	Welsh	554	834	Totals	31,370	42,675	+36United States	7,732	9,306	+20North European-	Belgian	2,638	1,349	Danish	4,613	2,056	Dutch	19,130	21,213	Finnish	4,130	2,293	French	6,193	4,212	*German	32,395	28,257	Icelandic	18	35	Norwegian	896	1,209	Swedish	798	503	Swiss	1,061	1,274	Totals	71,872	62,401	-13Others-	Albanian	54	16	Arabian	52	69	Armenian	80	71	Bulgarian	360	109	Chinese	2,697	2,313	Czechoslovakian	3,142	949	East Indian	97	168	Estonian	4,573	934	Greek	2,885	1,691	Hebrew	6,599	5,177	Iranian	7	10	Italian	24,351	21,383	Japanese	3	6	Jugo-Slavian	4,144	2,176	Lettish	2,789	1,437	Lithuanian	1,330	762	Magyar	4,376	1,435	Maltese	1,600	692	Mexican	12	6	Negro	91	105	Polish	12,938	5,485	Portuguese	157	256	Roumanian	995	388	Russian	2,273	1,072	Spanish	671	312	Syrian	208	209	Turkish	19	18	Ukrainian	6,894	2,821	Others	20	46	Totals	83,417	50,116	-40Grand Totals	194,391	164,498	-15
* Includes an estimated 2,589 Austrians during 1952.

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration

[Stage Direction]
Calendar Year 1952
-	From Overseas	From U.S.A.	TotalsSex-	62,707 49,916 42,569	3,376 3,527 2,403	66,083 53,443 44,972
155,192	9,306	164,498
Occupation- Gainfully Occupied-			
	16,734 19,144 21,372 6,491 5,673 2,896 7,494 1,385	237 442 662 409 1,381 506 62 141	16,971 19,586 22,034 6,900 7,054 3,402 7,556 1,526
			
Skilled				
			
			
			
			
			
			
	81,189	3,840	85,029
Not Gainfully Occupied-			
	28,637 40,635 4,731	2,374 2,364 728	31,011 42,999 5,459
			
			
			
	74,003	5,466	79,469
Destination-			
	430 2,460 790 255 33,810 82,612 6,417 3,575 11,238 13,560 45	73 242 230 51 1,508 3,447 218 300 1,812 1,407 18	503 2,702 1,020 306 35,318 86,059 6,635 3,875 13,050 14,967 63
Nova Scotia				
Prince Edward Island	#...			
Ontario	 Manitoba	 Saskatchewan	 Alberta	 British Columbia	 Yukon and Northwest Territories				
The figures for immigration into Canada in 1952 showed several very definite trends and of particular interest, perhaps, will be the substantial increase in the numbers coming here from the United Kingdom. Out of a total of 164,498 new arrivals, 42,675 were British. This represents an increase of 36 per cent in the proportion of British immigrants over the previous year, and in actual numbers an increase of more than 11,000 over 1951.
This increase reflects primarily, perhaps, the increasing interest in Canada overseas but it also reflects the work of our officers in the United Kingdom; and in this connection I must pay tribute to the conscientious way in which they are carrying out their duties. There is scarcely a night during the year that Canadian immigration officials are not holding meetings in the smaller towns and cities of Great Britain, outlining the developments that have taken place in this country and showing

films and film strips on life and work in Canada.
I should, however, make reference here to the situation which may face us this year. Transportation of immigrants from the United Kingdom has almost constantly presented a problem. This year, because of the coronation, that problem will be intensified. Hon. members may have noticed an item in the press recently which indicated that, up until the present time, approximately 8,000 Canadians have booked passage to Britain; and that total, of course, is expected to grow. A very considerable number of United States citizens are planning holidays to coincide with the coronation as well.
All these travellers to the United Kingdom have, of course, booked their return passage, which means that westward transportation following the coronation will be very difficult to secure. We are seeking ways in which this
[Stage Direction]
problem may be lessened, but I am not hopeful that any substantial increase in accommodation will be available although we shall continue to seek ways and means to provide for those people who wish to migrate here.
Hon. members, of course, will have noted that the 1952 figures show a decrease from the 194,000 who came to Canada in 1951. I should explain in this connection that there were some unusual circumstances in 1951. It was, first of all, a year in which Canada's absorptive capacity was extremely high. The second factor was that a great deal of shipping became available in the final months of the year, partly due to the fact that the international refugee organization was winding up its activities and still had ships under charter. These things helped to bring us a very heavy intake in the final months. As a matter of fact in October, November and December of 1951 new arrivals came to Canada at an average rate of approximately 21,500 each month. That did not occur in 1952.
Another trend to which I would like to call the attention of hon. members is the way in which the flow of immigrants came to Canada during 1952. And in referring to this I would like to draw attention to two things that are elementary in carrying out an immigration program for a country such as Canada. The first of these is that the best time for workers to arrive is in the spring, summer and early fall. The second is that the integration of any immigrant is speeded if he has his family around him.
It was apparent that 1952 would not offer as many opportunities for immigrants all through the year as did 1951. For instance, the demand for additional workers in heavy construction, in the mines and in the forests was not expected to be as great as in 1951. Our program, therefore, envisaged the movement of as high a proportion of workers as possible during the early months of the year, with priority given to dependents in the final months.
As a result, in the first six months of last year the new arrivals were almost 20,000 in excess of the same six months in the big year of 1951. In the final months of the year, while the number of arrivals was substantial, we find the objective of reunion of families being achieved, with the number of dependents in each of the final three months of the year exceeding the number of those coming here as workers. The figures were 15,616 dependents and 11,944 workers.
We find, too, that the workers were going into immediate employment. For instance, on January 3 of this year we had only a negligible number, all single men, awaiting placement in our reception centres across Canada.
&8108-274J
23, 1953	4327
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration The actual figure was 5 in immigration centres and 48 in labour hostels. My recollection is that the corresponding figure for the year before would be something of the order of 3,000. I am quite sure hon. members will agree that this is a desirable situation and will make for speedier integration and more satisfactory settlement.
I have mentioned the substantial increase in the intake of British immigrants. It is a matter of regret that I am unable to report to hon. members the same increase in immigrants from France. As the house will appreciate, France itself is a country of immigration and is not anxious to encourage emigration. However, that proportion of our population representing the Latin races was well represented among our immigrants during 1952 and people of French, Italian and Belgian background totalled almost 27,000 for the year.
Those people from France who are coming here are making a splendid contribution and integrating well into the communities where they settle. For instance, during the past few weeks our officers in the province of Quebec have been holding short courses in Canadian agricultural methods for newcomers. Approximately 50 French-speaking new Canadians have been attending this course at St. Johns, Quebec, and I am happy to state that every one of these 50 is on a farm of his own, that he is making progress, finding Canadian farming a good way of life and seeing here an opportunity for his children to maintain the Canadian tradition of the family farm.
All in all we have been getting an exceedingly fine type of immigrant, with the vast majority coming from those countries whose people have demonstrated in the past that they integrate well into Canadian communities and fit themselves quickly to accept the full responsibility of citizenship.
When we consider immigration I believe most of us think primarily in terms of workers. It is true that workers make up something more than 50 per cent of the intake, but we should not lose sight of the fact that dependents are also represented in substantial numbers. Of last year's arrivals approximately 85,000 were workers; the remainder, more than 79,000 dependent wives, children and parents. As a matter of record, almost one out of every four who came to Canada in 1952 was a child 14 years of age or younger. Again I suggest that this is a healthy characteristic of the Canadian immigration program.
We had in 1952 a 20 per cent increase in the number coming here from the United States. And along with the increased flow of United States citizens coming to Canada
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration we have had an increase of about 30 per cent in the number of Canadians returning to their homeland. Part of this is undoubtedly due to the flattering publicity Canada is receiving south of the border, publicity of the great development in this country, and of a healthy climate for investment and enterprise.
And now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take just a very brief look at the future. The government is fully aware that Canada needs more people, that we cannot fulfil our destiny and develop our resources with a population of only a little more than fourteen and a half million. The government is fully aware that natural increase will not alone provide the population we must have. The government is aware also of the fact that the difficult times we had in the 1930's had an effect on the natural increase and the number of Canadians reaching working age is lower than normal at the present time. Accordingly the government will continue its program of immigration to stimulate Canadian growth and Canadian development.
To give effect to this, we are now selecting immigrants on a very wide basis. First priority, of course, is being given in all countries to the movement of close relatives of people already established in Canada. I believe hon. members will agree with this. However, the close relatives are only a percentage of those we are selecting now. For instance, in all countries where we have immigration offices, outside of Asia, we are selecting, in addition to the close relatives, anyone who meets our qualifications and for whom there are opportunities in Canada. There is one exception to the above; that is in the Netherlands, with which country we have an agreement for the selection of immigrants. In those countries where we have no immigration offices we are able to deal only with cases of close relatives and cases of exceptional merit.
The approach will continue to be a realistic one, with the development of our economy the guiding factor. We shall anticipate future developments as closely as we can and gear our immigration program to them, realizing as we do that the next few years will present greater opportunities for the growth of the Canadian nation than ever before, and that under these circumstances there is an obligation on the government to seize the opportunity and make the maximum use of it, not only in the interests of our people but in the interests of peace.
Canada has much to contribute to the peace of the world; and that contribution will be the greater as we grow in numbers, not only by natural increase but by the addition TMr. Harris.]
[Stage Direction]
to our population of others who will acquire Canadian ways and add something to our national life, and who are quite prepared to play their part in building and defending their country of the future.
Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, we have listened with interest to the minister's brief report, and I am very sorry we cannot let him go on with the estimates and finish the discussion this evening. However, I am reasonably sure he did not expect that, and we do not want to disappoint him.
This is a subject about which I do not think we have had sufficient discussion. In my opinion the whole future of Canada depends to a great extent upon what our immigration policy may be, and how well we plan it. In my view immigration cannot be discussed intelligently unless other related factors are considered. Immigration, employment and housing are in my 'opinion interrelated; and a considerable amount of study and planning must take place if our immigration policy is to be realistic and successful.
The Canadian Congress of Labour and the Trades and Labour Congress made representations to the government within the last few months. They had a section in their brief dealing with this particular matter. They are not opposed to immigration, but they believe in planning it and considering all the factors related to it.
One of the fields that must be carefully surveyed by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Department of Labour is the field of employment. Mr. Mosher, president of the C.C.L., speaking only last week in Saint John, New Brunswick, suggested that unemployment could be looked for from some of the signs they are seeing today, such as a growing resistance of employers* to increased wages, the general unrest that is beginning to creep in which indicates a levelling off, and so on. With the curtailment of defence spending in the foreseeable future, pockets of unemployment might develop across the country. These are all things which the Department of Immigration should check closely with the Department of Labour.
I know that if you go across the country from the maritimes to British Columbia you will find that in large industrial centres like Montreal, Toronto, Windsor and Vancouver there is growing uneasiness on the part of the industrial worker because of the influx of people from other parts of the world into those particular centres. I think that adds up to a lack of planning. If you have a recession in those areas you will have a

bad unemployment problem. I think the whole matter of immigration should be predicated on developing the country, not just bringing them in and laying them down in the centres where there is employment. If we are going to develop Canada it must be opened up. You cannot continue to concentrate in the centres as we are doing at the present time.
There are many angles to this question of immigration, and I do not intend to tell the minister that I know them all. However, I have done some thinking about these matters because I am interested in the future of Canada and in Canada doing the best possible job in all fields. It is just not possible to discuss the whole question of immigration in fifteen or twenty minutes, or even in a 40-minute speech. I have condensed some of the thoughts I have had on the subject, and I am going to leave them with the minister.
In order to have a reasonable discussion of immigration it is necessary at the outset to clear our minds of two widely held false notions. One is the lump of work theory, that there is only a fixed amount of work to go around. You find the opinion widely held that if we bring in more people there will be just that much less work for everybody.
The other is that population in itself means prosperity, that the more people we bring in the richer everybody will be. Extra people are not just extra stomachs. They can mean extra production, but that does not necessarily mean extra production. An empty stomach is not a customer unless its owner can pay for what he needs to fill it. During the depression years we had hundreds of thousands of people who were just extra stomachs that could produce nothing. We should guard carefully against a repetition of that kind of situation.
We must not forget that from 1940 up to and including the present year we have been living in a false prosperity, in a war economy. If we are successful in arriving at a peace that is sure and certain, if fear of war is removed, we will have to do some serious thinking in the matter of keeping our equilibrium on this continent in an economic peace. By and large the working population of this country and many of the heads of industry who are managing our economy on the outside have grown up in that false economy. If they have to reverse their gears and get back into a peace economy they will require a lot of training, and there may be a lot of dislocation before that is brought about.
These are things that should be kept in mind by the department of immigration. They should see that immigrants coming into this country are not brought into areas where
23, 1953	4329
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration housing is poor or where there is no housing, or into the big industrial sections where employment is fairly tight. These immigrants should have a fairly good idea of what they are coming into when they come to Canada. I think in many cases a rosy picture is painted and when the immigrant is here a short time he becomes rather disappointed that this is not the utopia he thought he was going to.
In my judgment the physical size of this country has almost nothing to do with its capacity to absorb immigrants. Much of our territory is economically worthless or hard to do anything with. Peopling a country is not like packing sardines into a tin; it is a matter of economic, not physical capacity. It is not simply what we can produce but how much it costs us, whether we can sell it, and for how much. It is also a matter of the standard of living. If we are willing to drop our standard of living we can support an enormous population; if we are not, we cannot. I think that was clearly indicated this afternoon and evening in the discussion on the trade and commerce estimates. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is a good salesman who has been all over the globe finding markets. We export a large percentage of what we produce, and I do not think we are prepared to drop our sights or our standards.
The government's immigration policy is based officially on our absorptive capacity. I think in the short statement he made the minister indicated that the thinking of the government is: How many people can we absorb? What we can absorb is anybody's guess. No one can answer that precisely. If he could answer, his answer might be out of date within minutes after it was uttered. It depends on the whole economic situation. A new scientific discovery, a higher or lower United States tariff, fresh import cuts by the sterling areas, and easing of the European dollar shortage; these and a thousand other factors may change our absorptive capacity from day to day.
What the government professes to do is bring in only the kind of labour we are short of, when we are short and where we are short. But that is not always as easy as it looks. The national employment service may report a shortage of such and such a kind of labour today and may even predict that the shortage is likely to last for some time. But by the time the immigrants have been found, selected and shipped in, the shortage may have vanished or may even have turned into a surplus. Sometimes at the right time shipping is short, and at the wrong time it is long. To cap it all, immigration really comes under two government departments-that is what I was pointing out a few minutes ago-labour and citizen-
4330	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration ship and immigration; and to the extent that there is consultation, co-operation and understanding between the two departments with respect to employment, number of immigrants, class of immigrants and where they should be placed, to the extent that these two departments are working together and co-operating, then to that extent will the government's policy be in line with what the requirements of the country are and in the right spots.
Has post-war immigration caused unemployment? From 1946 to 1951 inclusive we brought in about 625,000 immigrants. Total emigration in the same years was about
207.000.	That many left the country. But many of these people entering the country do not come into the labour force at all. Total adult immigrants, less married women, numbered about 331,000, and total adult emigrants, less married women, about 112,000. Therefore net immigration into the labour forces in the whole six years was only about
219.000,	and many of these people do not come into the labour market.
In the five years from 1946 to 1950 about 46 per cent of the male immigrants were classified as agricultural or trading. Most of these were probably farmers or small merchants. In 1951, the peak year for post-war immigration, net adult immigrants, less married women, came to about 85,700, and about 28 per cent of the immigrant workers were farming class, trading or professional. In the first six months of 1952 almost 31 per cent were so classified. As our total civilian labour force now runs to about 5,200,000, and our total of wage and salary earners plus unemployed to about 3,900,000, it is evident that immigrant workers form only a very small proportion of the labour supply.
This of course does not dispose of the question. If the cup is already full, a few drops will make it overflow. But until last fall, when unemployment started rising markedly over the year before, there was seldom any suggestion that immigration was responsible for unemployment. In Ontario, which got about half the immigrants for the years 1946 to 1950, unemployment was usually low enough that nobody bothered. Quebec had much heavier unemployment, but got only about 17 per cent of the immigrants. The Atlantic provinces, which had the heaviest unemployment of all, got only 5 per cent of the immigrants. In the fall of 1951 unemployment in Ontario, though still probably much lighter in proportion to total number of workers than in any other region, began to show spectacular increases over the year before. By April, 1952, it was running close to double. In Quebec the increases were less spectacular and came later, but they


started from a much higher level. Both provinces also showed big increases in a short time.
All you can deal with are the 1951 and 1952 figures because the figures are not available up to date. I think the figures that I am using show pretty well the trend in employment, and I think they dispose of the arguments that immigration from 1946 to 1951 was responsible for great unemployment. It certainly was not. The figures do not show that, although there is a marked trend in the road to unemployment at the present time.
In the nine months from October, 1951 to June, 1952 the number of immigrants to Ontario was more than 50 per cent higher than in 1950-1951. Immigration to Quebec more than doubled. Immigration to British Columbia rose nearly 80 per cent. At the beginning of July, 1952, unemployment was higher than in July, 1951 in every single region, almost 58 per cent higher in Quebec, almost 43 per cent in British Columbia, almost 38 per cent in Ontario, 21 per cent in the Atlantic region and 15 per cent on the prairies. It does not follow that this was the result of immigration. Only a detailed study of where the immigrants went and into what industries and what job would tell us that.
But it certainly looks on the face of it as if the last quarter of 1951 and the first half of 1952 would have been a good time to ease up on immigration. Instead, the government seems to have done just the opposite. The government might reply that unemployment will soon give way to shortages and then we will need the extra workers in a hurry. But even the Financial Post of July 5 said there would probably be more unemployment next winter than in the winter before. It had this to say:
Demand is not nearly as buoyant as had been expected ... It seems evident now that the defence program is getting to the point of levelling off, so far as labour demand is concerned. There may be an increasing demand for skilled workers but the over-all picture will remain about the same.
Yet in the first six months of 1952 immigration of unskilled and semi-skilled workers was about 35 per cent higher than in the first six months of the year before, a slightly higher percentage increase than for skilled workers. This needs explaining, to say the least. In a discussion last evening on the matter of education I pointed out that you can go to the employment offices across the country and find large queues of unskilled workers, and at the same time the bulletin boards in the employment offices will show that there is quite a demand for skilled workers, mechanics, toolmakers and so forth.

We have not been placing enough emphasis on the matter of vocational training in this country, and we have been importing unskilled labour when there is an oversupply in the country at the present time.
The immigration figures for skilled and unskilled workers that I have just quoted show very clearly that we are aggravating a situation that is already bad. Our selection of immigrants should be along the lines of the requirements of the country, but in the last year we have imported unskilled labour when we should have been bringing in skilled people to fill vacancies that already exist at the employment offices. We have been carrying on practically no vocational training in the country to train our own people who are in the queues of the unemployed at the present time.
That is why I said it was so important that the Department of Labour and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration should work closely together. I know that the Department of Labour has the information and the trained personnel who can put their fingers on any given situation across the country in the field of employment, with respect to where immigration is needed, what kind of immigrants, etc. I know the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration understands this just as well as I do, but he is a busy man with a big department to handle. He is pestered a lot by members of parliament and others, and it does no harm to check his memory on these things.
The Minister of Labour is here at the present time. I do not want him or the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to think I am lecturing them, but it does not do any harm once in a while for someone in the house to urge greater co-operation between the departments on matters that are so closely related as employment and immigration.
I am reminded by the hon. member for Eglinton that it is ten o'clock.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Two minutes to ten.


Clarence Gillis: I have a few more things I should like to say. If the committee wants to sit for another ten minutes I can finish.


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Clarence Gillis: The will of the majority is that I sit down.


William Alfred Robinson: Has the hon. member leave to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
Supply



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Tomorrow we shall go into supply and continue consideration of the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the Prime Minister's office, health and welfare, and mines and technical surveys.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
The following items were passed in committee of supply:

[Stage Direction]
General administration-
426.	Departmental administration, $588,333.
427.	Commodities services (including the former wheat and grain division) including contributions as detailed in the estimates, $617,872.
428.	Trade commissioner service, $2,522,696.
429.	Information branch, $177,218.
430.	Economics branch, $156,884.
431.	International trade relations branch, including contribution of $6,300 to the international customs tariffs bureau, $140,370.
Exhibitions-
432.	Exhibitions generally, $286,503.
433.	Canadian international trade fair, including authority to refund, from revenue, deposits received for contracts for space, $830,000.
Standards branch-
434.	Administration, including the standards laboratory and administration of the Precious Metals Marking Act, $180,910.
435.	Electricity and gas inspection services, $598,391.
436.	Weights and measures inspection services, $726,231.
Dominion bureau of statistics-
437.	Administration, $180,974.
438.	Statistics, including a contribution of $3,000 to the inter-American statistical institute, $4,473,525.
439.	Census, including 1951 decennial census, $879,414.
Canada Grain Act-
Board of grain commissioners-
440.	Administration, $208,577.
441.	Operation and maintenance expenses. $3,292,600.
Canadian government elevators-
442.	Operation and maintenance expenses, $1,345,467.
Special-
443.	International economic and technical cooperation branch, including the administration of the Colombo plan and of certain United Nations co-operation plans, $97,758.

					
					
					
					
[Stage Direction]


Friday, April 24, 1953