1954-06-10

Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I think this may be the appropriate time to mention the matter because, in the ordinary course of events if Your Honour were giving a ruling, it would be at this time that you would give it. I want to point out that with regard to the question that was raised just before the house rose last night as to the possibility of the motion being in order, if that motion stands-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I inform the Leader of the Opposition that that matter cannot be taken up at this time. The order of the house to go into committee of supply and the debate on the amendment and the amendment to the amendment will be resumed when it is necessary for the Speaker again to put the motion to go into supply. That will be perhaps on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday. Today, however, that debate will not be resumed. In any event, this would not be the time to discuss the observations I made last night in connection with the amendment. That discussion will have to take place when the order is read for resuming the adjourned debate on the motion to go into supply and on the amendment and the amendment to the amendment.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I was about to point out that under rulings that have been made the fact that this matter remains in a state of suspense conceivably could have some effect on the scope of the debate under the Department of Trade and Commerce which, we have been informed, is to be the first department called today. I was merely suggesting the possibility that if Your Honour had reached a decision, that decision conceivably could have some bearing on the breadth of the remarks that could be made on the first item of the Department of Trade and Commerce. If Your Honour feels that that matter should stand, then it would be necessary for those who speak to guide themselves accordingly.


Mr. Speaker:: As I said a moment ago, it is not a matter of the Speaker feeling that it should stand; it is because I cannot deal
with the matter otherwise. I cannot deal with observations made upon an amendment until the order for resuming the debate on that particular subject is called by the clerk assistant. As to the fears expressed by the Leader of the Opposition that perhaps discussion might be curtailed on the first item of the Department of Trade and Commerce in the committee to supply, may I say that I do not think he should entertain those fears. As I recall it, on the first item of a department in supply the discussion is always allowed to cover all the administration of that department.


George Alexander Drew: Under those terms, Mr. Speaker, the situation is entirely satisfactory in any event.


Mr. Speaker:: There is another point that I should like to take care of and that has to do with the remarks that were made at the beginning of our sittings today with respect to the amendment to the motion to go into supply which is on the order paper for Monday next. Upon reflection, I see now why the matter was brought up by the Leader of the Opposition. We are to go into committee of supply without question put, and the first department to be called is trade and commerce, the first item being administration. Under that first item of course comes perhaps the matter of wheat. Yesterday we had a debate initiated with respect to wheat on the motion to go into supply, which was adjourned last night, and which appears on the order paper for Monday next, item No. 3.
I do not want the house to be misled by what I said earlier. It is true that on the first item of any department in supply a general discussion of the department's activities is allowed. However, it would seem to me that the amendment moved to the motion to go into supply yesterday is blocking a discussion with respect to wheat today in the committee of supply on the first item of trade and commerce. Citation 246 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms says:
Besides the prohibitions contained in standing order 41, it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking, must not:
(d) anticipate discussion on a motion set down for future consideration.

Business of the House
Anyone dealing with wheat would certainly be anticipating discussion of the motion which is set down on the order paper for Monday next.
Furthermore, hon. members are limited by the terms of standing order 40(2), which is to the effect that one must not repeat arguments of his own or arguments used by others. I just want to point out that there is this difficulty at this stage of the proceedings in connection with the subject of wheat.


George Alexander Drew: Before we pass from that, may I say that Your Honour has apprehended the very difficulty that I anticipated. I would point out that it is not the choice of the opposition that we broke from the motion that was before the house to discuss trade and commerce.
I would point out that by the device of halting a debate before it is concluded and then calling a department which embraces the subject matter of a motion of that kind we could find ourselves denied the opportunity to discuss it at all, that is further than the discussion which has already taken place, because, as I pointed out earlier, Your Honour did indicate some uncertainty as to what was in your mind. I am prepared to argue that point because I submit the point is in order. Nevertheless, Your Honour indicated quite clearly last night that you thought the motion might be out of order. In that event we might find ourselves foreclosed from the possibility of discussing an extremely important aspect of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and then find when we returned on Monday that Your Honour had come to the conclusion that he thought it was not in order and that the very motion which is now being discussed on this subject is in fact not a valid barrier at all.
I would repeat that the choice by which that debate was suspended and we now come into trade and commerce was not our choice. I am not suggesting for one moment that the course which has been followed is one that was designed for that purpose. I would point out, however, that the government, which has nothing to do with that, could by that very method interfere with the ordinary discussion of a subject before the house and I submit that while hon. members might well refrain from the detailed discussion of this subject which has already come forward, that if we talk on trade and commerce we can hardly take the time to deal with it in its all-embracing aspects without considering the impact of the present wheat situation upon trade and commerce in Canada.
I do submit, Mr. Speaker, that if your ruling were to be that the mere introduction

of the subject of the wheat surplus were to be suspended or could not be proceeded with because of the adjournment of that motion, then some course should be followed which would open the door to discussion because we would be having a discussion on the first item on the Department of Trade and Commerce under very unsatisfactory conditions. It must of necessity be with the consent of the house, but because of the importance of this matter I would be prepared to withdraw the motion we were debating yesterday for the purpose of overcoming any difficulties of this kind.


Mr. Coldwell:: Mr. Speaker, may I say just a word or two on this? On Tuesday on the opposition side of the house there was a general feeling that this was a matter of urgency and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and my colleague the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) both attempted to introduce a motion to that effect. We urged the government to vary the business but the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) could not see his way clear to do so. He said then, with respect to the urgency of discussing this matter, as reported at page 5624 of Hansard for that day:
The most I would be prepared to suggest is that either when we move to go into supply at a time when that motion is to be debated or when we get into supply, the first department called be the Department of Trade and Commerce.


An hon. Member:: Either.


Major James William Coldwell: Quite so. But he indicated that the matter of urgency was to be met when the first department was the Department of Trade and Commerce. We are in a bit of a muddle this morning regarding procedure, Mr. Speaker, but under the first item as a rule the discussion is very wide and I myself can see no objection to the house debating the wheat problem under the Department of Trade and Commerce and even concluding that debate, so that when we get back to a supply motion all that would have to be done would be to receive Your Honour's ruling on the amendment and the subamendment and if you so allow a vote can be taken at that time.
It seems to me, in the situation in which we are, that that would be the sensible thing for the house to do, but it is a matter for the house and yourself, Mr. Speaker, rather than for any individual in this house to decide as regards what is to be done. But I am making that suggestion to the house and to you, Mr. Speaker, because I believe that is a way out of the difficulty.


Mr. Harris:: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the C.C.F. party has explained the situation, as I understand it, quite clearly. In response to the desire of hon. members opposite that this matter might be debated at an early time the government did say it was going to call the Department of Trade and Commerce first on, I think, two successive days, giving them the opportunity when we got into supply. I presume hon. members are aware of the rule which provides that on Thursdays and Fridays we can discuss these matters without question put, and the opposition members have an option of taking whatever action they desire with that in mind. However, since all the hon. members who have spoken so far seem to be desirous of disposing of the matter the alternative presented by that hon. member would be acceptable to the government, that is if it is the desire of the house the amendment be now dropped so that it would not be called on Monday and we would agree to debate wheat or any other subject on this item. On the other hand, if the suggestion made by the leader of the C.C.F. party is adopted, that is that we debate the subject now by consent, and that there is to be no further debate on the amendments on Monday, then we are content.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the acting leader of the government that although we can go into supply on Thursdays and Fridays without question put, what he could do is to suspend the standing order so that we can then go into supply with question put today and move that item 3 be taken and then I will by my ruling dispose of the two amendments, the main motion will carry, and we will go into supply.
I do not know if my point is well taken. We go into supply Thursdays and Fridays without question put although, if it was the wish of hon. members to have a debate on the motion to go into supply by suspending the provisions of the standing order, a motion could be made and we could have a debate on the motion to go into supply. If it is unanimously agreed that this be done then immediately I make my ruling and the two amendments are disposed of-and I take it that is the wish of hon. members-the motion could then be carried and I would leave the chair and the house could go into committee of supply on the Department of Trade and Commerce.


George Alexander Drew: But Mr. Speaker, might I point out that if Your Honour put the question and the consent of the house were obtained then the difficulty we are discussing would be disposed of if my motion were withdrawn, though, of course, that would also require the
Business of the House
consent of the mover of the subamendment. In that case there would be no problem before us.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I have no way of judging what is in your mind but may I point out that if perchance your ruling was that the amendment and the subamendment were out of order then a further debate could continue on the motion to go into supply. I take it we do not wish that to occur. I think, as I have said before, that the other suggestions are agreeable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the Leader of the Opposition, by leave, withdraw his amendment? Does the hon. member for Assiniboia also wish to ask leave to withdraw his amendment to the amendment?


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word on this? I understand the proposal is that the amendment and subamendment be withdrawn. But the purpose of moving the subamendment was to divide the house on that subamendment, though if there was an opportunity to move the amendment and subamendment again there would not be the same objective. However, if the withdrawal means that there is to be no vote regardless of what Your Honour's ruling may be, then I could not consent to the withdrawal of the amendment because our subamendment was moved deliberately so that we might divide the house on a question which we believe is both important and urgent.


Walter Edward Harris: Then on that point, Mr. Speaker, I hope and believe that on Monday we may have only four or five items of legislation at the most, and if these items are passed before Wednesday night it will, of necessity, be necessary to bring in another motion to go into supply and another opportunity will then occur.


Mr. Speaker:: I suppose we shall leave the matter at that for the time being and I will leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply on the departments that were announced.


Walter Edward Harris: I think the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has had his point met. I took it that if that statement was made, he would then consent to the withdrawal by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) of his amendment and the withdrawal of the subamendment.


Major James William Coldwell: But, Mr. Speaker, even if we went into supply on two days next week there is no assurance that on the second day we would get precedence to move the amendment relating to wheat, particularly if already an amendment had been moved on the

Business of the House
same topic by, we will say, the official opposition. I do not think that I could agree with that procedure, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It is very simple, as long as hon. members are agreeable to having only one debate on the question ot wheat.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: You have it either in the committee of supply on the first item or you have it on the motion on which debate is announced to be resumed on Monday. Why not refrain from discussing wheat in the committee today and wait to continue the debate on Monday, a procedure which is the normal practice and which is fully in accordance with the rules?


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the easy way out of it is to have the debate now and to have some understanding among us that on Monday the vote will be taken and the debate will be continued on the minister's first item. That seems to me to be the sensible thing to do.


Mr. Speaker:: For the sake of order and good business I believe that what must be done now is that the discussion on wheat or on whatever is covered by the amendment which is on the order paper, should not be anticipated at this time and that when we resume the discussion on Monday we carry on with the business as we should.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: In view of the fact that we are approaching the end of the session, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he can now inform the house if the bill to repeal the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act, standing as No. 6 on the order paper, is to be proceeded with; also whether the Municipal Grants Act amendments are to be proceeded with. I should also like to know when we may anticipate knowing the nature of the proposed amendment to the Judges Act.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I understand that the first item mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition is not to be proceeded with at this session. Perhaps the Minister of Finance might answer the second question. What was the third question?


George Alexander Drew: I would recall that the Prime Minister, in announcing legislation still to come forward about four or five weeks ago,

mentioned an amendment to the Judges Act. I would simply point out that in the very nature of things amendments to that act call for certain inquiries from bar associations and other organizations interested in matters of that kind, and that if members are to give careful consideration to an amendment of that nature we should have the opportunity to see the bill between the time it comes into the house and is considered by the house on second reading.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that we will have that in mind in connection with this measure. [Later:]


George Alexander Drew: I would point out that the Minister of Finance has not yet given the answer indicated by the Prime Minister in connection with the Municipal Grants Act.


Mr. Abbott:: I would hope that the measure will be proceeded with. I know that the leader of the house is doing his best to facilitate completion of the matters which are on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, June 10, 1954
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Thibaudeau Rinfret, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, Thursday, the 10th June, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Secretary to the Governor General. (Administrative)


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister o£ Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to
make an important announcement to the house. Wednesday evening a joint statement was issued in Rome by the Hon. Mario Mar-tinelli, minister of foreign trade of Italy, and the Hon. Robert Winters, Minister of Public Works of Canada. This statement announced an arrangement between Canada and Italy whereby Italy has agreed to make dollars available for the importation of codfish, canned salmon and synthetic rubber. This arrangement was negotiated by Hon. Robert

Winters, following preliminary discussions carried on in Rome with Italian officials by Shirley G. MacDonald, commercial counsellor of the Department of Trade and Commerce.
Under this arrangement the government of Italy has agreed to make dollars available for the purchase during the period July 1, 1954, to June 30, 1955, of Newfoundland and Labrador type codfish valued at $2,500,000, Gaspe type codfish valued at $600,000 and canned salmon valued at $2,000,000. Provision for the sale of canned salmon was made possible by the lower prices for this product now being quoted in markets abroad. In addition, an initial quota for the importation of $500,000 worth of synthetic rubber has been established. This quota is over and above the considerable quantity of synthetic rubber for which quotas have already been established.
Codfish, canned salmon and synthetic rubber are among the most important Canadian exports to Italy. This new arrangement will place sales of these products on a firm and stable basis in the Italian market.



PORTUGAL


Mr. Roch Pinard (Parliamentary Assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) I wish to table three copies in French and three copies in English of a trade agreement between Canada and Portugal, signed at Lisbon on May 28, 1954.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, before you proceed with questions may I suggest that the trade treaty with Portugal, which was just tabled by the parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, might be printed as an appendix to our proceedings today so that it will be available to members.


Mr. Speaker:: If it is the wish of hon. members it could be done. I am informed that the trade treaty with Spain was tabled yesterday and it was not printed in Votes and Proceedings. Is it the wish of hon. members that this one be printed in Votes and Proceedings? Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I point out to the house that this was the course followed with the Japanese trade treaty a month ago. It was printed as an appendix to our proceedings. I suggest, if it meets with the approval of the house, that the same course might be followed with respect to the trade treaty that was tabled in the house yesterday.
Trade Agreements


Mr. Speaker:: It is a rather long document. It seems to me that if it is the wish of hon. members to have these treaties printed in Votes and Proceedings we might as well print them all instead of only printing one every now and then. There was one with Spain and one with Japan. The one with Japan was printed in Votes and Proceedings and with respect to the one with Spain tabled yesterday no request was made then that it be printed in Votes and Proceedings. Now we have this one today, and according to the announcement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce there may be another one in the offing. I wonder whether it is the wish of hon. members to initiate the practice of having these trade treaties printed in Votes and Proceedings. If we do not want to do that, then why should we print one every now and then? That is my point. Why print one and not print them all? If there is no good reason to print them all, then what is the good reason to print one?


Mr. Thatcher:: I do not think we should print any of them in the future. I think it is a waste of time and effort.


Mr. Speaker:: It is to be further pointed out that at the present time the queen's printer, in order to provide the house with Hansard and Votes and Proceedings containing what must be included in Votes and Proceedings, has almost more work than he can take care of, and he performs almost a miracle by delivering Votes and Proceedings and Hansard every morning. I take it that there is not unanimous consent to have this document printed in Votes and Proceedings.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Goode:: 1.	Has any planning been done to prepare hospitals in Canada to operate under disaster conditions?
2.	If so, what form has this planning taken?


Mr. Speaker:: I understand this question was allowed to stand yesterday and that later in the day the reply reached Hansard and now appears there. Therefore question 6 should be declared today as having been answered.


Mr. Martin:: I think there was a misunderstanding. I did say "answered" yesterday but my voice obviously did not touch the chair.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He has a clear voice and I should have heard him.

Inquiries of the Ministry


IMMIGRATION BOARDS OF INQUIRY
Mr. Gagnon:: 1.	How many cases have been considered by boards of inquiry of the immigration branch, since January 1, 1952?
2.	How many were appealed?
3.	How many persons were allowed to remain in Canada?
4.	What are the usual reasons for deportation?


Mr. Harris:: 1.	3,805.
2.	2,345.
3.	1,154.
4.	The most common reasons for deportation are:
([DOT]a) criminal convictions;
(b) having become an inmate of an asylum or hospital for mental diseases, or having become a public charge in Canada;
Cc) illegal entry;
(d) failure to comply with medical or other regulations governing admission to Canada.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Could he give the house a report on the investigations that have been made into the alleged shortages at Camp Ipperwash? Have any arrests been made? If he cannot give a full report, can he tell us the amount of the shortages in dollars and cents?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I am not in a position to make an extended statement at the moment. The investigations are just being completed. I can only say that the reports in the press with respect to the losses involved are extremely exaggerated and even fantastic in the light of the facts so far ascertained.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Have any arrests been made in connection with the investigation at Camp Ipperwash?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am not aware of any having been made.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would he give a report to the house as to the present


progress in the Geneva conference? Would he also say whether the events of the last two or three days have given a rather optimistic outline to what is taking place there?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: I have no reason to believe that the events of the last few days at the Geneva conference warrant any excessive optimism. There has been, as a matter of fact, very little progress made toward a settlement since I reported to the house. As to the reasons for that lack of progress, I should like to be very careful about what I say on a matter of this kind. Therefore, with the hon. gentleman's permission, I might make a very short statement on the question on the orders of the day tomorrow.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: In view of the fact that during the election campaign it was said, "Elect the Liberals and keep your shipyards busy in Canada", I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister and ask him if now is not the opportune time for him to produce that miracle and keep the shipyards of the great lakes busy because most of them are idle?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should attempt to renew the election campaign in the house at this time.



NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (for the Minister of Transport) moved: the third reading of Bill No. 471, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: I should like to take advantage of the opportunity to make a slight correction in yesterday's discussion when section 2 of this bill was being considered in committee of the whole. The Minister of Justice and I made the statement that when parliament approved the bill it was the intention of the government to re-enact the former great lakes seamen's security regulations, P.C. 2306 of May 2, 1952, in the same form as they existed up to May 31 of this year. As we stated yesterday it is the intention to do this.
I have since been informed by our legal advisers that it is necessary to provide a

minor additional section in the new regulations providing for the continuation of the seamen's cards and of the forms prescribed by the Minister of Labour issued and used under the old regulations. Provision also is to be made for the revocation of the old regulations. It is proposed that this additional section shall read as follows:
24 (1) A provisional or regular seaman's card issued under the great lakes seamen's security regulations, established by order in council P.C. 2306 of May 2, 1952 (hereinafter called the old regulations) shall be deemed to have been issued under these regulations, and a form prescribed by the minister under the old regulations shall be deemed to have been prescribed by the minister under these regulations.
(2) The old regulations shall be deemed to have been revoked and these regulations shall be deemed to have been substituted therefor, and the Interpretation Act applies accordingly.
The house will note that this does not in any way change the substance of the old i egulations in any detail. My only reason for rising is that we made a firm declaration yesterday that there would be no immediate change in the old regulations.


George Alexander Drew: It is not my intention on third reading to extend the debate which has fully placed on record the opinions of hon. members concerning the effect of clause 2. 1 can only reiterate what was said yesterday, that clause 2 does not properly deal with the question of communism, disloyalty, sabotage or anything of that kind. It introduces a loose, improper, and in our opinon, a method of control inconsistent with our traditions. The fact that there was an order in council to this effect under the Emergency Powers Act, which came into being during the war emergency, does not in our opinion support the suggestion that the house should now give to the government in statutory form the power to make regulations, to decide what the penalty will be and to decide how the freedom of the individual will be dealt with.
We have made it clear that we are strongly of the opinion that proper laws, clearly defined, should be available to deal with this situation where people are seeking to undermine our free system in Canada. We believe, however, the freedom of any individual should at no time be threatened by star chamber proceedings or by proceedings which are of an undefined and undisclosed nature. We have placed that on the record. We believe the principle inherent in this piece of legislation is vicious. What justification there may have been for the order in council under the Emergency Powers Act, and which was apparent during the war emergency, I submit that there can be no support for the 83276-365i
Navigable Waters Protection Act enactment in clear statutory form of these loose powers so long described as the King Henry VIII clause. This is a reversion to a practice that disappeared 400 years ago. We should not revive it today in specific form.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker):
That the bill be not now read a third time, but that the same be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions that they delete clause 2 thereof.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Before the question is put, I just want to say that I shall have to support the amendment. I support the amendment for the reasons given by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and the reasons that I mentioned yesterday. Neither the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) nor the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) explained clause 2 of this bill. All the explanations they made in the house yesterday were in connection with screening and there is nothing about screening in this clause. What this clause provides for is penalties for the violation of any regulation made under this provision in the regulations that were in the order in council, a copy of which the Minister of Justice was good enough to pass over to me yesterday, P.C. 2306 of May 2, 1952.
The penalties are imposed for a breach of any regulations the governor in council may see fit to pass by order in council. I do not believe this house should accept a bill of that kind.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: Before the next order of business is called may I say the Clerk informs me that there were three standing committee meetings which were to be called at 11.30 and could not meet because of the vote that was just taken. The committee chairmen have informed me that the meetings of the banking and commerce committee, the external affairs committee and the veterans affairs committee will resume their business immediately.


Mr. Bennett:: The veterans affairs committee is not meeting until three o'clock this afternoon.


Mr. Croll:: The banking and commerce committee concluded their work this morning.


Mr. Speaker:: Then I suppose it must be restricted to the external affairs committee. I presume the chairman of that committee is satisfied that that is the position.


Mr. Picard:: Yes.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
General administration-
424. Departmental administration, $625,101.
The Chairman:: Hon. members will find the vote on page 57 and the details commencing on page 486. Shall the resolution carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the minister going to make
a statement?
Righl Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce): Mr. Chairman, as in past years, I shall introduce the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce with a short review of recent trade developments as they affect Canada.
Last year I said that 1953 might well bring forth a number of far-reaching decisions and
[Mr. Maclnnls.l

important developments in the field of international trade relations. I think that I can now safely say that this has indeed been the case. Because of the decisions taken and the policies adopted in a number of important trading countries we have good reason to believe that we are, in many instances, rapidly moving towards the kind of trading relations we have been striving for since the end of the war. There are still many substantial obstacles to be overcome. However, the unprecedented progress of the past year has brought the ultimate objective of relatively unhampered multilateral trade much closer.
For the first time in many years we have concrete evidence that many of the world's trading nations are increasingly prepared to remove their restrictions against imports from the dollar area. The countries of the commonwealth, which account for a substantial proportion of world trade, reaffirmed at the Sydney finance ministers conference their support for the objectives of a freer system of multilateral trade. Closely following this conference a number of significant relaxations were made in the import controls of important sterling countries. In addition, the signatories to the general agreement on tariffs and trade decided in October, 1953, to maintain intact the tariff concessions bound under the general agreement.
In the United States the Randall commission submitted its report to the President on United States foreign economic and trade policy. The commission's recommendations, while perhaps not going as far as we would wish, nevertheless are largely constructive and progressive. Although it now appears that congress may not take immediate action to implement these recommendations, no doubt responsible leaders in congress and elsewhere in the United States will wish to see the commission's findings brought into force as quickly as possible.
There is, of course, a great deal of interest in and concern about the increasing protectionist pressures in the United States. There is no need to dramatize these developments by assuming that a trade war is about to break out between Canada and the United States. We are the largest customer of the United States as they are ours. I do not expect a trade war, either cold or hot, as long as we continue on both sides of the border to remember the strong interest of both countries in trading on a neighbourly basis. Our trade agreements with the United States have been negotiated as business deals. Concessions have been received and concessions have been granted and the resulting balance has been of mutual benefit to both countries.
Supply-Trade and Commerce
It would, of course, be a matter of regret if the United States government were to take the initiative in adopting measures which would have the result of impairing U.S. trade with Canada and other friendly countries. But I give the overwhelming majority of the people of the United States credit for not wanting this to happen any more than we do. It should therefore be our policy to conduct ourselves in such a way as to give help to those who share our views and to show those who would withdraw concessions negotiated in good faith that such action is not in the interests of the United States.
It is noteworthy that progress in trade matters in the non-dollar world coincided with a decline in business activity in the United States. Despite this fact, sales to the United States from soft currency countries have not shown any appreciable decline. In fact, the sterling area has not only maintained its level of business with the United States but the pound is now stronger than it has been for many years and dollar and gold reserves held in London have reached record post-war levels. This development is in sharp contrast to the past unfavourable influences of United States business fluctuations on trade. It reflects, I believe, the underlying strength of the movement towards the recovery of world trade on a multilateral basis.
As the committee is well aware, Canada has consistently expressed its view that the creation of exclusive regional arrangements, trading behind protective barriers, distorts the economies of the countries following such practices and leads to inefficiency and high costs. The economic security which seems to result from such arrangements is of short duration and illusory in a competitive world. These facts have brought an increasing number of non-dollar countries to recognize that these arrangements and restrictive trade policies create more problems than they solve. In their own interest many non-dollar countries are increasingly prepared to relax their trade and exchange restrictions, and to move forward with plans for the eventual convertibility of their currency.
The United Kingdom, Canada's second best customer, has made extensive progress in removing import restrictions from agricultural, mineral and wood products. As a result of these important steps, about 70 per cent of Canada's exports to the United Kingdom, based on 1953 trade statistics, enter that country freely and are not subject to governmental restriction. Although most of the products thus freed from control are of a primary nature, we hope that the United Kingdom will soon relax its restrictions on goods in semi-processed and other categories.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
Other countries of the sterling area have also taken significant steps to remove import controls which have discriminated against dollar goods. At Geneva last fall South Africa announced the removal of all discriminatory import restrictions. Since January 1 of this year Canadians have therefore had an opportunity to sell in the South African market on an equal footing with exporters of other countries.
New Zealand, Australia and the British West Indies have also recently announced important measures relaxing their restrictions against dollar goods. In the case of New Zealand in particular, these relaxations have affected an extensive variety of Canadian products.
The trend to freer trade has not been limited to commonwealth countries. In Europe, The Netherlands and Germany have freed many dollar imports from restrictions. Other European countries are actively studying the possibility of reducing their discriminatory controls on trade. In Latin America a number of Canada's important customers have also relaxed their trade restrictions against dollar imports. Among these countries are Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Colombia.
These developments are indeed encouraging, particularly when it is considered that they have been accompanied by a striking improvement in the internal and external financial position of these countries. In their external relations, most countries enjoyed increased exports and a more favourable balance of payments with the dollar area. The sterling area alone has increased its reserves by $672 million during 1953.
I believe that there is a close relationship between these remarkable results and the adoption of sound trading and internal policies. The gradual reduction of import controls, imposed for protective reasons, and the widespread trend to eliminate restrictions which have discriminated against dollar goods has undoubtedly improved the competitive position of the countries which have adopted such policies. It is significant to note that in 1953 the United Kingdom was able to increase its sales to Canada by $94 million over the previous year. This is an increase of 21 per cent; it also increased the United Kingdom's share of Canada's purchases from external sources from 9 per cent in 1952 to 10 per cent in 1953.
The remarkable strengthening of the United Kingdom's trading and financial position during the past year has undoubtedly placed that country in a much better position to place its currency on a convertible basis. It is, of course, impossible to say when this may happen since this decision can be made only
[Mr. Howe (Port Arthur).!
by the government of the United Kingdom when it feels that its position is sufficiently strong to take this major step.
The recently concluded agreement on commerce with Japan represents a further advance in our efforts to create abroad better conditions for our exporters. We have established a mutually satisfactory basis for our trade with that country on terms which will ensure favourable treatment for Canadian exporters while safeguarding the interests of our manufacturers. In 1953 Japan was our third largest customer, buying nearly $119 million of Canadian products. This agreement will no doubt provide a permanent basis for the maintenance of high levels of Canadian trade with Japan.
As I mentioned a few moments ago, Canada has been a consistent advocate of multilateral trade. One of the major means by which we have actively implemented this policy has been through our participation in the general agreement on tariffs and trade. Last fall I had the pleasure of leading the Canadian delegation to the eighth session of the contracting parties to GATT. I welcomed the decisions reached there to maintain intact the whole structure of tariff concessions that had been negotiated by more than thirty countries over the last several years.
At the eighth session tentative arrangements were made for a review of the provisions of GATT at some appropriate time in the future. The general provisions of the agreement were originally intended to be of a temporary nature. Many countries, including Canada, now feel that they should be reconsidered and revised in a manner more consistent and more appropriate to present-day circumstances.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Would the minister permit a question?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister referred to a future discussion with regard to the provisions of GATT. He did so in general terms. Was there no time limit indicated?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. The concessions were extended for eighteen months from the date of expiry, which was the end of the year, but the plan is to start a review of GATT in the autumn of this year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: October 15.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Mr. Rowe:: Eighteen months from when?


Clarence Decatur Howe: From the end of
1953. The agreements are bound for that length of time.
The review of GATT, whenever it takes place, will be greatly influenced not only

by the experience gained in recent years but also by the policy matters now being formulated by the major trading countries. In this regard the role of the United States is of primary importance. The success or failure of any new steps is almost certain to depend on whether that country is in a position to give constructive leadership. If a review session is successfully held it may be found possible and desirable to subsequently conduct further tariff negotiations on a mutually beneficial basis.
During the forthcoming year major decisions hang in the balance. To a large extent these will decide whether or not the gains of the past year will be maintained and expanded still further. One of the most important factors in this balance is the future of United States commercial policy. If the United States is in a position to actively sponsor the expansion of trade and to implement this policy with appropriate legislation, there can be little doubt that the way will be open to the further expansion of trade. On the other hand, if the measures currently before congress are not implemented, and if steps to restrict imports are adopted, it will be indeed difficult to look to the future with optimism.
Let me turn now to the facts of our trading position. First, however, let me say a word about the general business situation. It has been evident for some time that the Canadian economy has been affected by the downturn in the United States which has been under way since mid-1953. Production and employment in Canada have declined moderately from the peak levels reached last year, although the reduction has been less pronounced than in the United States. In Canada, as in the United States, the slowdown in business purchasing, resulting in inventory liquidation in some lines, has been an important factor. This type of adjustment is usually self-correcting in character unless it is accompanied by a more general weakening in consumer demand or in investment or export demand. Fortunately consumer spending and private capital outlays in Canada have remained reasonably firm. In fact, of the major demands on the Canadian economy only exports have shown signs of falling off. Accordingly, I intend to limit my remarks at this time to a brief review of matters affecting our foreign trade.
For more than a year Canada's exports have shown a slight downward trend. In 1953 the value of Canadian exports amounted to $4,117 million compared with $4,301 million in 1952, a decline of 4 per cent. In the first quarter of the present year exports
Supply-Trade and Commerce have undergone a further moderate reduction of about 5 per cent. Since prices are a little lower, the decline in terms of physical volume is somewhat smaller.
Any decline is of course unwelcome, but it should be borne in mind that this slight falling off in exports followed several years of substantial increases. Total sales abroad in the past year are still 15 per cent above the 1949 level in volume terms. This is about the same as the percentage rise in the national output during the same period. It considerably exceeds the increase in the volume of world trade. In other words, since 1949 Canada has continued to increase her share of sales in the international markets.
The fact that other nations are relying to an increasing extent upon Canada as a source of supply, especially for basic materials, is an important factor in our present expansion. But there are other reasons for Canada's growth. While much of the new burst of expansion, which occurred after Korea, was for the production of goods to be sold abroad, a major portion of the new capacity created in recent years has had the effect of replacing imports. The spectacular expansion in oil, natural gas and steel will, in the course of a few years, involve hundreds of millions of dollars less expenditures for imported materials. This type of development could, over the course of time, permit a relative shift of resources toward production for the domestic market.
This development does not, of course significantly lessen the importance of foreign trade to Canada. The nature of our resources is such that we shall always find it profitable to specialize heavily in the production of certain products and sell abroad the excess over and above our own needs.
Nevertheless as the size and industrial structure of the economy changes, the role of foreign trade will also change to some extent. In some periods a stable or even slightly declining level of exports is not necessarily indicative of a basic weakening in the economy. The tendency to gauge our economic strength solely on the basis of the movement of exports is, I think, a dangerous oversimplification of the forces which shape our development. 1 cannot see that our basic economic strength is substantially different now from what it was two or three years ago when export levels were rising at a rapid rate. There are of course other more temporary influences which have had an important bearing on current trends in our export trade.
One such influence has been the extraordinary conditions which have affected wheat

Supply-Trade and Commerce sales in recent years. In the two crop year periods ending July 31, 1953, the unusual combination of record crops in Canada and a strong world market boosted Canadian sales of wheat and flour to an annual average of 371 million bushels. This was 142 million bushels above average exports for the precedi g 20-year period. The wheat situation was reviewed in detail by the agricultural committee, but I state these figures here simply to indicate the extent to which higher sales of wheat contributed to the sharp rise in exports during this period.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I understand, of course, that the minister is reading from a prepared statement, but it is going to be difficult, I believe, for the chairman of the day during this discussion to hold the line. I do not believe we want to be in a position of trying to make hard and fast rulings and dictate too much to the members of the committee what they are to discuss. I understand that it is the sense of this committee that the more or less tacit agreement arranged when Mr. Speaker was in the chair will be held. I am going to ask the minister if it would be possible for him to omit from his general statement as much as possible of the material dealing with the sale of wheat, because, in fairness to the committee as a whole, should he make a statement on that subject it is going to be difficult to rule members on the other side of the house out of order on the anticipation rule if they should wish to meet his statement.
I realize we find ourselves in a rather difficult position because of the rather technical nature of the anticipation rule and the fact there is an amendment on the order paper. I am, therefore, taking this, my first opportunity, to draw the situation in which we find ourselves to the attention of the committee. I would ask the minister, as he would expect other members, to endeavour to omit as much as possible of the references to the sale of wheat specifically. I understand, of course, that in dealing with the over-all picture one cannot omit the figures that wheat contribute to that picture. Rather than have at this or a later stage to make a ruling which will be unpopular on both sides, I am going to ask all members of the committee to do the best they can to keep within what I feel was the spirit of the more or less tacit arrangement made just before this committee sat.


William Earl Rowe: Pardon me for interrupting,
but I do submit everyone will try to follow what you have suggested. I feel, however, it would be difficult to deal intelligently with


the Department of Trade and Commerce without having some reference to wheat such as the minister has indicated. It is not for the purpose of a specific debate on wheat, but the subject is so interwoven with all the other avenues of trade and commerce it seems to me we have to touch upon it.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I agree entirely
with the hon. member who has just spoken. Perhaps I can be frank enough to say that I thought it was not undesirable to bring up the point when the minister was speaking, and not wait until some other member was speaking to raise the matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In view of your remarks, Mr. Chairman, I would ask your permission to have my references to wheat expunged from the record.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I do not believe that is the general desire of the committee. As I tried to make clear when I rose, I do not wish to undertake to dictate the course that this discussion shall take. I did wish to point out at the first opportunity that we expect the unofficial understanding to be followed as closely as possible by both sides. It is my feeling, and hon. members will correct me if I am wrong, that these remarks of the minister's are not of a provocative nature but merely help to complete the general picture of trade and commerce. I believe hon. members are agreeable that they should remain on the record.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps I could offer a suggestion, because this matter could raise difficulties from time to time during the debate. I am quite sure that the wish of all members of the committee is that they should hear what the minister has to say on the sales of wheat because that question is so inextricably woven into our whole trade pattern that I am sure this committee would be glad to extend their consent to the minister to mention this question. It is so closely related to all our other trade problems that it will only stultify the discussion if we remove all discussion about wheat. I think if we confine the discussion of wheat to the effect it has on the general economy, rather than internal problems which could be really deferred until next week, we could proceed in that way.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is all I was
doing. I am omitting any further reference to wheat.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: It would be in order when we are discussing the over-all trade

policy of Canada to include wheat, but I do not think we should go into exports because they were very thoroughly discussed earlier.


Mr. Nicholson:: If the minister has anything further to say about wheat from an international point of view, it would be quite in order to proceed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think I can leave it at what has been said. Another factor which has had a depressing effect on exports during the last six to nine months has been the declining level of activity in the United States economy. The importance of this influence will be apparent when we realize that in 1953 sales to the United States accounted for 59 per cent of our total exports. Nevertheless, the prevalent view among those who follow the United States economic situation is that the current recession has about run its course after a decline of 10 per cent in industrial output and 3 per cent in gross national product from the peak levels reached in 1953. If this is to be the full extent of the present decline, the recession has, by historic standards, been a relatively mild one.
Moreover, the effect on Canadian exports has been less by reason of the fact that the pulp and paper market and activity in the United States construction industry have remained comparatively firm throughout the adjustment. Wood products as a group account for 45 per cent of total Canadian sales in the United States market. Some other export items have not fared so well. Durable goods industries in the United States have been hardest hit by the downturn and this tended to accentuate the softening already under way in the international base metal market. Consequently, exports of copper, lead and zinc have shown an appreciable decline. More recently, however, some firming in demand for these items has occurred.
Business conditions have, in general, remained prosperous in most of the overseas areas which provide markets for Canadian goods. In the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan, which outside the United States are Canada's most important customers, industrial activity has been increasing and this, in turn, has helped to support purchasing of raw materials and foodstuffs from Canada. While exports to the United Kingdom declined last year the latest trade figures available show a major improvement in sales to this market compared with a year ago.
Conditions have not been universally favourable in all non-dollar markets. Exchange difficulties have been acute in seme Latin American countries. In addition, increasingly competitive conditions have been encountered in this market, especially
Supply-Trade and Commerce in the manufactured goods field. As a result Canadian exports to Latin America have declined considerably from the peak level reached in 1952 but are still running above sales of any previous year.
Looking at exports by commodity groups, markets for the principal forest products are generally firm. Consumption of newsprint in the United States has continued to increase slightly, inventories are not excessive and it is expected that this market will absorb at least the same amount of Canadian newsprint this year as last. The United States market for wood pulp has strengthened appreciably and sales are now running well ahead of a year ago. In overseas countries purchases from Canada are increasing. Canadian lumber is meeting sharp competition in the United States and so far this year sales to that country have been down moderately. Nevertheless, building activity in the United States has continued to increase, and this will be an important influence supporting the demand for Canadian lumber. In addition, there are firm prospects for substantially increased sales of lumber this year to the United Kingdom and other overseas countries. While certain other wood products, particularly plywood, are in easy supply position, it seems likely that exports of forest products as a whole will show a moderate increase in 1954. Since sales have held about even in the first quarter this would involve some improvement during the remainder of the year.
In the metals field, firm markets exist for Canada's output of nickel and aluminum. World supplies of other base metals have for some time been more than adequate to meet current needs and production cutbacks have occurred in several major producing areas. It is possible that in the months ahead sales will show some improvement. Before the end of the year it is expected that iron ore from Quebec-Labrador will be moving into the great lakes market adding to the already increasing volume of shipments from Steep Rock and Algoma ore properties. With the construction of new pipe line outlets the volume of Canadian crude oil moving into the United States will be considerably increased by the end of the year.
There has been some broadening out of our foreign markets for fish products during the past year. For the first time in several years Brazil now permits imports of salt cod from Canada. We have negotiated new trade agreements with Spain and Portugal which enlarge our opportunities to sell salt cod in those markets. The United Kingdom again

Supply-Trade and Commerce this year is making a large purchase of B.C. salmon while both Australia and New Zealand have made a dollar allocation for the purchase of this product from Canada.
The one commodity group, apart from grains, likely to encounter a significant decline in export values this year is highly manufactured commodities such as automobiles, farm machinery, textile and leather goods and industrial, commercial and electrical equipment. As for farm machinery, demand in the United States market, which accounts for most of Canada's exports, has declined in line with the downward trend of farm income and also as a result of the unusually large purchases in recent years which have left farmers well stocked with equipment. The decline in exports of highly manufactured products taken as a group should, I think, be considered in the light of certain changes in the pattern of world trade generally. For one thing, in commonwealth countries and in other such traditional markets for Canadian manufactured goods, further industrialization has meant that these products are now in many cases produced domestically. Another important point is that in the years since world war II and even during the Korean episode the shortage of manufactured goods available from traditional sources such as the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan meant that Canada was able temporarily to participate in markets in which we would not have been able to compete in more normal circumstances.
It is, I think, important to remember that countries which are highly industrialized but scarce in natural resources depend largely on foreign sales of manufactured products to enable them to buy the large quantities of raw materials and food which they must obtain from outside their borders. We must remember also that their costs are geared to this necessity. With more capacity becoming available in these highly industrialized countries, and with demand for manufactured products tending to level off, Canadian manufacturers have found it increasingly difficult to compete in world markets. Such a situation should provide no particular cause for alarm. Canada does not lack for export opportunities and it is not necessary or even desirable for Canadian producers to be able to compete in world markets in all lines of merchandise. In our principal staple export items, Canadian producers are highly competitive the world over. So long as this is the case there is little basically wrong with our foreign trade position.
Increasing world supplies of manufactured goods have brought more competitive conditions in the domestic market as well as

abroad. While imports increased substantially last year, especially in the early months, so far this year purchases from abroad have declined more than exports. The 7 per cent drop in imports in the first quarter considerably exceeds the reduction in total production and employment for the same period. This means that, for the time being at least, there has been an increase of the share of the home market going to the domestic producer, which is in sharp contrast to the trend one year ago. However, even with this smaller volume of imports, there is little evidence of any significant easing in the pressure of competition from foreign producers.
Mr. Chairman, I have attempted to explain some of the principal influences underlying recent trade trends. In spite of some adverse influences I think one can conclude that Canada's present export position is, on the whole, firmly based. I continue to be optimistic about the future of the Canadian economy.
Mr. Rowes I did not want to interrupt the minister when he was speaking. When he mentioned the exports to the United States he said that 59 per cent of our total exports went to the United States and 45 per cent of that was wood products. Was that 45 per cent of our total exports or was it 45 per cent of the 59 per cent?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Fifty-nine per cent of our exports went to the United States the year before last and of that quantity 45 per cent was wood products.
Mr. Rowes Forty-five per cent of the 59 per cent, not of the total?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that is right, of the 59 per cent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In approaching this present debate it is not perhaps amiss to remind ourselves that we are dealing with the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and that those estimates propose the expenditure on account of this department, along with the supplementary estimates, of the sum of $18,789,654 for the year 1953-54 as compared with a total of $17,316,971 last year. In other words, the estimates of this year on behalf of this department call for an increase in expenditure of approximately $1,470,000.
This department, from the point of view of expenditure, is a relatively stable one. Its expenditures do not vary greatly from year to year. While its expenditures are substantial, this department is not one of the big spending departments of government.

The stability o f which I have made mention is also reflected in the size of the staff of the department. The report of the department for the calendar year 1953 indicates that the staff within the department, excluding the board of grain commissioners, the Canadian government elevators and the dominion bureau of statistics, is 1,197, which is one more that in the year 1952, and precisely the same figure as in the year 1951. The figures also on staff of the three organizations to which I have referred, the board of grain commissioners, the Canadian government elevators and the dominion bureau of statistics, are also relatively stable, bringing the total to 3,669 for the year 1953.
This present debate on trade will, I take it, not range over the entire field of our trading relations with the world. In the first place, we had an extensive debate on trade with Japan when the house debated the motion for ratification of the trade treaty with Japan on May 12, and there has been some discussion already in the house yesterday on the matter of wheat, which of course occupies a position of leading importance in all of Canada's export trade plans.
The subject of Canada's trade and commerce is one of first importance to every Canadian. Twenty-five per cent of Canada's national production goes to the export market. Our per capita share of the trade of the world is exceeded by only two countries, namely, New Zealand and Hong Kong. Last year Canada's total trade, both export and import, at $8,500 million means that with a population of 15 million, each Canadian had a share of approximately $560 in the total Canadian external trade. While I have not seen the final world trade figures for 1953 in relation to the position occupied by the various countries, I believe it is a fact that Canada did continue to occupy third place among the trading nations of the world, as she did in 1952, exceeded only by the United States and the United Kingdom.
Now, sir, we have had the minister's statement on this subject. The minister's statements are always interesting, but they do follow a very pronounced and typical pattern. Without being unfairly critical one might say that the minister's statement this morning was typical. It was a selective statement. No room was found in it for reference to the extensive unemployment that exists in Canada today. No mention was made in it, for instance, of the fact that last week several of the auto manufactories of this country
Supply-Trade and Commerce were obliged to suspend their present operations. Indeed, the minister did succeed in glossing over, without spending too much time on them, those factors in the external trade situation that do give every thoughtful Canadian very serious concern at the present time. To the extent to which the minister permitted himself even to concede the existence of such factors, his remarks were intended to discount the extent and importance of them. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think it is not unfair to say that the minister's statement, as on so many occasions, finishing as it did, with the note of optimism, was characterized by the Nelson touch. The minister did succeed in putting his glass to the blind eye that the minister has been found to possess in matters relating to Canada's external trade that ought to be giving us concern. The minister simply does not see those.
Canada's external trade has not changed in relation to the problems it presents, has not changed since we debated the subject on the first item of the minister's estimates in this house a little over a year ago. Certainly, as I see the problem, rightly or wrongly, the problem is essentially the same as I attempted to describe it in speaking in that debate on April 22, 1953. The problem, however, has developed in the intervening 14 months, and the developments have followed lines that were visible at that time. It has followed the course of which I think those of us in this part of the house sought to warn the house and the government at that time.
I know that figures are not the most interesting subject to follow; nevertheless we cannot validly estimate the trends or the problems that face Canada in relation to her external trade without due reflection upon the figures of exports and imports. I have here a table which I prepared from government sources concerning Canada's exports and imports for the years 1952 and 1953, arranged in terms of the total figures and also in terms of percentage. I am not asking any consideration of the committee in this regard. If it would be more convenient to have this table on the records of the house instead of my reading it I would be quite pleased to deal with it on that basis. Perhaps it might save a little time.
The Depuiy Chairman: Has the hon. member consent to have this table printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Supply-Trade and Commerce Mr. Fleming: The table follows:
CANADA'S TRADE WITH THE WORLD (In Millions of Dollars)



IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
-	1952	% of total	1953	% of totalFrom U K	360	9	453	10-3From Commonwealth	184	4-5	171	4Total U.K. and	Commonwealth	544	13-5	624	14-3From U.S.A	2,977	74	3,221	74Elsewhere	509	12	538	12Total outside	Commonwealth	3,486	86	3,759	86Grand Total	4,030	-	4,383	-

[Stage Direction]
-	1952	% of total	1953	% of totalTo U.K	746	17-3	665	16-1To Commonwealth	262	6	233	6Total U.K. and	Commonwealth	1,008	23-5	898	22To U.S.A	2,307	53-5	2,419	59Elsewhere	987	23	801	19Total outside	Commonwealth	3,294	76-5	3,220	78Grand Total	4,301	-	4,117	-1952	- Export Surplus: 2711953	- Import Surplus: 266Total Trade Percentage:	1952	1953With U.S	63-4	67With U.K	13-3	13-1
What is evident from these figures as to Canada's export and import trade in 1952 and in 1953 can be summed up in the terms of these important trends. The minister referred to one or two in his remarks on the import side. I think we are principally concerned with our trade with the United Kingdom and with the United States, and the position they hold as a percentage of world trade. In 1952, Canada imported from the United Kingdom [The Deputy Chairman.]
$360 million worth of goods, and that represented 9 per cent of our total imports. In 1953, as the minister mentioned, the figure increased to $453 million and the percentage to 10-3. That was an increase which I think we all welcomed. I go further, Mr. Chairman, and say that I think we would all welcome a much greater increase. From the commonwealth there was no very material change in either value or percentage of our imports as between 1952 and 1953.
However, from the United States in 1952 we imported goods to the value of $2,977 million, and in 1953 $3,221 million, and our percentage in the two cases remained uniform at 74 per cent of the total. In the grand total our imports for 1952 were $4,030 million and they increased to $4,383 million in 1953.
On the export side, we see that our exports to the United Kingdom showed a drop in 1953 as compared with 1952, from $746 million in 1952 to $665 million in 1953, and they also show that the percentage dropped from 17-3 per cent to 16-1 per cent. Our exports to the commonwealth remained stable in the two years both as to amount and percentage.
But to the United States our exports in 1952 were $2,307 million and in 1953 rose to $2,419 million. Similarly, because the total of Canadian exports last year was reduced from $4,301 million in 1952 to $4,117 million in 1953 the percentage of exports to the United States showed a substantial increase, rising from 53 [DOT] 5 per cent in 1952 to 59 per cent in 1953.
Before I leave this comparison in trade figures for these two years, Mr. Chairman, I think it is interesting to look at them in relation to two other subjects. The first is where we stand in regard to the over-all surplus. In 1952 Canada had an export surplus, or what used to be called a favourable balance of trade, of $271 million, but in 1953 that had changed and we no longer had an export surplus. We had what is now called an import surplus, or what we used to call an unfavourable balance of trade, of $266 million.
I leave this subject with this one further observation, Mr. Chairman, that in looking at the percentage of our total trade, whether export or import, occupied by the United Kingdom on the one hand, and the United States on the other, it will be seen that in 1952 we did 63-4 per cent of our total external trade with the United States. In 1953 that percentage had risen to 67 per cent. In other words, in 1953 we were doing slightly

more than two-thirds of our total external trade with one country, namely, the United States.
The figures for the United Kingdom on the other hand show that the percentage of our total trade that we did with the United Kingdom in 1952 was 13-3 per cent, and that that has fallen slightly in 1953 to 13-1 per cent of the total.
As to the first four months of 1954, for which the figures are available, our export trade has undergone a further decrease, and our import trade has likewise shown a decrease. The export figures for the first four months of the year have dropped from $1,219 million in 1953 to $1,164 million in 1954. Our imports are down from $1,390 million in 1953 to $1,282 million in the first four months of 1954. Our exports to the United States in this four-month period show a slight decrease of $48 million. Our exports to the United Kingdom show a slight increase of $5 million. Our imports from the United Kingdom show a decrease of $9 million, and our imports from the United States show a decrease of $104 million.
Now I hope I have not wearied the house with that review of what seem to me to be very important figures. They show unmistakably the existence of certain trends.
First, there is a continuing drop in Canada's over-all external trade. That drop has now been continuing for some 16 months up to the end of the period to which I referred, namely, April 30, 1954.
Second, the drop in exports began sooner and is still continuing, and in that over-all period of some 16 months the drop in exports has considerably exceeded the proportionate drop in imports.
Third, Canada has incurred in the period in question an adverse balance of trade, in other words, what is now called an import balance. That import balance continued throughout the whole period of 1953 and has continued in the first four months of 1954, because in this first four months of 1954 our imports exceeded our exports by $118 million.
Fourth, our trade with the United States simply dwarfs our trade with all other countries, whether taken individually or combined, to an extent which is daily becoming more serious and more perilous for Canada. Our trade eggs are being placed in one basket and that basket is by no means the most certain or satisfactory trade basket in the light of history.
Fifth, with that one country, namely the United States, we have today an adverse
Supply-Trade and Commerce balance of trade which, in the period I have been discussing, has almost set records. An adverse balance of commodity trade on the part of Canada in relation to the United States is not new. It is an historic fact. But now the extent of it is so great as to call for the most serious examination on the part of all Canadians.
Sixth, on an examination of the nature of our trade, it will be seen, I think, that it is in relation to our agricultural products, that so vulnerable feature of Canada's economy, that the problems to which I have referred appear for Canada in their most serious aspect.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, following my review of the figures of external trade of the past two years and four months, I should like to turn now to examine more closely our trading relationships with certain countries. I pass over our trading relationships with Japan because of the extensive discussion we had on that subject on May 12.
Lately there have been tabled in the house copies of new trade agreements with Portugal and with Spain; and the minister this morning announced the signing yesterday in Rome of a trade agreement with Italy. May I say at once that so far as these trade treaties offer hope of increasing the shipments principally of Canadian dried salt codfish to these countries, these agreements will, of course, be welcomed. We shall be glad indeed to see any opportunities provided for extending Canadian exports, particularly in the commodities principally affected by these treaties.
I now turn to our trade with the United Kingdom. In the last year before the war we sent to the United Kingdom 35-5 per cent of our total exports. In 1953 we sent to the United Kingdom just 16-1 per cent of our total exports. I am aware of the fact that percentages do not always tell the whole story but nevertheless it seems to me that there is here reason for concern. Great Britain has been our best market; it has been our traditional market, particularly for our agricultural surplus. It is because of that fact that it is so important that we retain the British market. The fact of the matter is, however, that over a period of years we have been losing the British market for many of our principal food products. That market is virtually closed to our shipments of bacon,
5772	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce pork, beef and apples. Our shipments of fish to that market are much smaller than they used to be. Our shipments of cheese are only a fraction of what they used to be. Our shipments of wheat to that country are down substantially in volume and value.
But, Mr. Chairman, this loss of the British market does not seem yet to give the government any worry. In the face of this alarming loss of the British market for our agricultural surplus, if one could see on the part of the government some evidence of concern, some evidence that the situation worries them, and that they might for that reason want to exert heroic efforts to recover that market, then one would not be disposed to view the situation with the same alarm as one must when one sees on the part of the government, in the face of this loss of our best traditional market, what appears to be complete indifference and resignation. We in this part of the chamber do not view the loss of the British market, particularly for our agricultural surplus, with any degree of resignation. We conceive it to be the duty of the government to exert every effort within its power to seek to recover that lost market.
There are various ways in which that desirable end can be furthered. Mr. James S. Duncan, the chairman of the dollar-sterling trade council, in a statement which he issued on April 14, drew attention to the desirability of increasing our purchases from the United Kingdom. In that statement he said:
"Based on last year's trade pattern, if we could transfer only 7 per cent of our imports from the United States to the United Kingdom, it would eliminate Britain's trade deficit with us and put her in a much better position to buy our products," said Mr. Duncan. The council's purpose is to assist in this 7 per cent transfer of imports.
Mr. Chairman, 7 per cent does not look like a large percentage; yet the striking fact is that if we brought about a transfer of 7 per cent of our purchases from the United States to the United Kingdom we would in that way close up Britain's trade deficit with us and put her in possession of dollars with which to buy here goods that she needs.
In his recent visit to this country Mr. Peter Thorneycroft, president of the British board of trade, drew attention to the fact that Britain desires to increase her purchases from Canada and also to increase her investments in Canada. But, as he strikingly put it, you cannot invest a deficit; you cannot invest a deficit either in terms of capital investment or in terms of consumer or capital goods. We should therefore like to see some evidence on the part of the government of a realistic appreciation of this fact and a realistic approach to it. We do not, however, find either.


Mention was made this morning by the Minister of Trade and Commerce of the fact that the internal position of Britain within the sterling bloc has strengthened greatly, particularly during the past year. Britain's trading and financial position within the sterling area has certainly strengthened materially. In the face of that fact, we may hope that the day of the restoration of the convertibility of currency may be eventually coming within sight. Indeed, the recent agreement entered into by Mr. Butler with the government of the West German republic seems to indicate that Britain is now moving by steady stages in the direction of the removal of trade restrictions and also of some of the currency restrictions which hitherto have been applied. Be that as it may, Mr. Chairman, the fact is that unless we become more seriously alive to the dangers to our economy resulting from the loss of the British market we are courting a danger particularly for the basic industry of agriculture in this country.
Other nations are not standing idly by and ignoring the importance of the British market. In recent months we have seen evidence of the desire of Russia to expand her trade with Great Britain. Indeed some rather striking statements have been emanating from Russia about the desire to extend trade with Great Britain, and there have been placed in Britain by the Russian government important orders for machinery and other British industrial products. But, Mr. Chairman, what of the other side of this possible trade between Britain and Russia? This is something which is of direct concern to Canada. I call the attention of hon. members to a statement made on March 23 of this year in the House of Commons at Westminster by Mr. Derick Heathcoat-Amory, the British minister of overseas trade, when he said this:
The British market is "wide open to Russian grain, timber, metals and manganese ore".
Speaking in debate on east-west trade, he said it would be "very helpful if larger quantities of grain could be made available".
Canada has almost unlimited quantities of grain that she would very much like to sell. Why is the government not making spirited efforts to see to it that it is to Canadian grain that the British purchaser turns rather than to Russian grain? There are, of course, questions of policy involved on the part of Britain in extending trade with Russia. It is thought that it may help to contribute toward peace if east-west trade is restored somewhat. But, Mr. Chairman, knowing that the Russians are prepared to sell Britain grain, and particularly wheat, what is Canada doing with this huge accumulation of wheat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are selling grain to Russia.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, jolly little Canadian grain is going to Russia! You could almost put it in a hat.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, no. Two or
three ships are required.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Our trade with Russia has never been a serious factor in our external trade, but our trade with Great Britain has been a vital factor in our external trade. What we would like to see on the part of the government is a realistic appreciation of the necessity of claiming that British market, particularly for our grain products.
Now, sir, I turn to the subject of our trading relations with the United States. I drew attention this morning to the alarming extent to which our trading eggs have been placed in the American basket, to the fact that in 1953 a trifle over two-thirds of Canada's total external trade, both export and import, was done with this one country. We have some very serious problems facing us in reference to our trade with the United States. The mere size of that trade, the extent to which we seem to be putting our eggs in that one basket, is of itself cause for alarm, particularly when we have regard for the history of American trade in the past.
Last year we had an adverse balance of trade with the United States of around $800 million. That of itself, it seems to me, is also an alarming factor.
The next factor that should give us cause for deep concern is the fact that the United States, through government policies, has accumulated vast stores of agricultural products which are directly competitive with those of Canada. On March 17 of this year a statement emanated from Washington to the effect that before the United States embarked upon any policy of disposing of these surpluses in the external markets of the world there would be consultation with Canada. Well, sir, the fruits of the consultation are not very impressive indeed.
When we see what has happened within the past four or five days to the price of wheat 1 do not think anyone in the house can be impressed with the benefits of consultation. Consultation has not done very much in arriving at any policies that will be of benefit to the agricultural producers of Canada. The minister this morning in his review made reference to the Randall report. That report, which was submitted to the President of the United States on January 22 of this year, is a document which, so far as the majority on that commission was concerned, contained two principal recommendations to the president. The first was that there should be a
Supply-Trade and Commerce cut in American tariff rates of 5 per cent per annum for the next three years and, second, that there should be a three-year extension of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. That was the majority report.
The reaction within congress to that report so far has not been very encouraging. Indeed the problems faced by the president in relation to that report and in the way of implementation of its recommendations seem to be best demonstrated by the fact that there is no indication whatever at Washington that there is going to be any measure to cut tariff rates in the manner indicated, and also by the president's compromise with regard to the extension of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. The president has indicated to congress that he is prepared to accept a one-year extension of this act. Some papers have referred to this as a surrender on the part of the president. I do not know that that is an altogether fair judgment to pass, but in any event it is a compromise on the part of the president and it does serve to indicate the strength of the forces within the American congress who are going to seek to pursue policies that will create difficulties for the Canadian producer, particularly the producer of raw materials.
The next factor of serious concern for us in our trade relationship with the United States relates to the American attitude respecting the general agreement on tariffs and trade. Our experience in the past two and a half years as a signatory nation to GATT has been, so far as the United States is concerned, disquieting. We all regard the United States as a good neighbour, a sincere ally. We think that the cause to which the United States, Canada and the other nations of the free world are dedicating their efforts is a cause of good faith, good faith in dealings between men and good faith in dealings between nations. When the President of the United States, in pursuance of authority conferred upon him by the congress of the United States, enters into engagements with Canada and other nations signatories to GATT on behalf of the United States, it seems to Canadians that congress should be prepared to keep faith.
But, Mr. Chairman, the fact is that there have been on the part of the United States congress not one but several breaches of the provisions of GATT, breaches not simply of the spirit of GATT but breaches of the letter of GATT. We recall that in 1952, in breach of the provisions of GATT, the United States congress, through what is called the Andre-sen amendment, applied certain restrictions against the importation of Canadian dairy products. In 1953 those restrictions were

Supply-Trade and Commerce extended. Not long ago the Canadian government, at the request of the United States government, applied restrictions upon exports of Canadian oats to the United States.
I am not going to repeat what I have said on previous occasions with regard to this step taken by the Canadian government. I think it will suffice to say that in my view the Canadian government had no business, not only to acquiesce in the breach of GATT but to make itself a willing accomplice. The minister may say we might have had a difficult situation to face with the United States in view of the pressure that was being exerted upon the executive government down there to apply some form of tariff restriction on the importation of Canadian oats, but, Mr. Chairman, I affirm that it was no part of the duty of the Canadian government to come to the rescue of the American government under those conditions and itself apply restrictions upon the export of Canadian oats to the United States.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I wonder whether my hon. friend will let me clear up a misconception in his mind. It is perfectly legitimate, under the provisions of GATT, to restrict the import of any commodity where the price is under price support, and oats are under price support. I agree that dairy products are not under price support and that was a violation of GATT, but when my hon. friend takes it into the field of oats, wheat, barley, flax and rye he is getting into a field where action taken by the United States is not a violation of GATT. I might say that we support the price of butter and we prohibit the importation of butter from the United States, which is legitimate under GATT, just as it is legitimate for the United States to take any action it likes in connection with oats.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The manner in which the Minister of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Chairman, has commented on this matter I think is indicative of an attitude which should be condemned in this house. The fact is that the Canadian government has been anxious apparently to be the apologist for the actions of the United States in seeking restrictions on the export of Canadian oats to the United States. There is not one thing that the minister has said that justifies the imposition by the Canadian government upon Canadian producers of oats of a restriction on the export of their oats to the United States.
The fact remains that the Canadian government came to the rescue of the United States government in what would have been an embarrassing situation in relation to our trading relations with the United States, and

relieved the United States government of that particular embarrassment by itself manacling the Canadian producers and exporters of oats.
The story does not end there, unhappily. We see in Washington today that the same kind of pressure is being exercised now in search of restrictions upon the export of Canadian lead and zinc to the United States. I have asked the minister in the house on several different occasions about this matter, and the minister has indicated there have been no communications passing on this subject between the two governments.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Surely, Mr. Chairman, I did not so indicate. If I did, it is entirely erroneous. Of course, we have made representations.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have not looked at the particular statement the minister made but the inference I drew from the statement he made with respect to the question was that there had been no formal communications on this subject in regard to the request that has been mentioned in the press statement from Washington, seeking on the part of the Canadian government some restrictions upon the export of Canadian lead and zinc to the United States.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I assure the hon. member that, in the first place, no such request has been received from the United States asking that we restrict exports of lead and zinc. The report of the tariff commission is before the president, and its contents are unknown. Certainly Canada has filed a formal protest against any action that will restrict shipments of Canadian lead and zinc into that market.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sure we are glad to hear that because this matter is of very serious concern to the Canadian metal producers. I may say that the press has carried some disturbing reports in this field. For instance, on April 19 a Canadian Press report from Washington read as follows:
The United States likely will ask Canada shortly to curb shipments of lead and zinc into the American market. The request may take the form of a suggestion that Canada volunteer to reduce exports, just as it agreed earlier this year to reduce shipments of oats, United States informants said yesterday.
Canadian exports of lead and zinc to the United States totalled almost $100 million in 1952. The United States domestic industry, faced with declining market, has appealed for some form of tariff protection.
There is another form of restriction that seems to be proposed by Washington at the expense of Canadian producers, which I believe should give us concern. We have seen following these bumper crops of wheat

in this country a vast accumulation of wheat in Canada. I have mentioned already the fact that the efforts on the part of the Canadian government to dispose of that huge surplus in the United Kingdom have not been adequate. Whatever may be said about the proportion or percentage of Canadian wheat out of the total that has been going into the United Kingdom market, the fact of the matter is that for the first 9J months of the present crop year just 196 million bushels of Canadian wheat went into the United Kingdom market, whereas in the full crop year 1952-53 our exports to the United Kingdom amounted to 378 million bushels. It is evident, therefore, there is a drastic reduction in the volume of Canadian wheat exports to the United Kingdom. In the face of that, Mr. Chairman, listen to this. This is a report from Washington dated April 23, and reads:
Ezra Taft Benson says, In friendly spirit, that he would like to see Canada impose controls on her grain, production.
It will be recognized that the gentleman in question is the United States secretary of agriculture, and in making the statement he did he is no doubt reflecting the policy of the United States administration. He added, and we are told he added with a smile:
It would please us if Canada imposed controls on her acreage.
I think this house would like to know whether the Canadian government is going to entertain proposals of that kind from the United States or whether the Canadian government is determined to follow policies that will assure for the Canadian producer markets for his production. What is the Canadian government doing about these matters? Have there been any protests against comments of this kind as to United States' governmental policy?
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have time for only one brief comment on GATT as such. I have made my comments on what I think are disturbing aspects of the attitude of the United States congress towards its responsibilities under the general agreement on tariffs and trade. But what of GATT in the wider context? On October 15 next the nations who are signatories to GATT will be convening for the purpose of planning for the extension of GATT. Since the general agreement was extended at the last meeting, there have been certain developments that have not been commented upon by the minister.
In the first place, there were some changes made at that time in regard to the provisions of GATT. Recognition was given to the fact that the government of The Netherlands was quite justified in applying certain restrictions
Supply-Trade and Commerce upon the importation of certain materials from the United States in retaliation for the imposition of restrictions upon the importation of Netherlands dairy products into that country. Since this matter became a lively subject of concern to us no one in this house so far as I am aware proposed that retaliatory measures be applied against the United States. But I believe we want to know, and we have not been told, whether the Canadian government has now acquiesced in and accepted the breaches of GATT on the part of the United States congress. It was just over a year ago that this house unanimously passed my motion calling upon the Prime Minister who was then about to leave for a conference in Washington to register with the United States government the strong protest of this house against the breaches by the American congress of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, which affected The Netherlands, which affected us and which affected other nations that export dairy products.
We have not heard anything from the government now for over a year as to any protest or any efforts that they are making to seek a removal of those measures taken by the United States congress which are directed against Canadian dairy products, and which are a direct violation of the provisions of GATT. What is the government's policy on this matter? What is the government's aim, and above all what are the government's efforts in this direction, if any?
I close with this question: What do we consider to be the function of government in this country in relation to trade? We are thinking, of course, particularly about external trade, having regard to the jurisdiction of parliament in relation to trade and commerce under the British North America Act.
So far as the Canadian government is directly involved in the sale of any particular commodity, as in the case of wheat, we of course expect of the government that it shall be an energetic and resourceful salesman, having due regard to the fact that the interests of the western wheat farmer particularly are at stake, and that those interests are basic to the health of the whole economy of Canada. But in those cases where the government is not directly involved in the bulk trade of commodities, what is the function of government? As I understand it, the function of government, that which has been assigned to the government by statements which have come from the Prime Minister and others in relation to the whole field of economic activity within the country, is to create a healthy climate within which free enterprise, the enterprise of individuals, may flourish.
5776	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce
What is the government doing in relation to its duty to create as healthy a climate as may be possible within which individual enterprise and individual salesmanship may flourish? I have drawn attention to certain matters to which the government it seems to me is simply directing a blind eye, and is not even admitting the existence of the problem. And when the government does not even admit the existence of the problem, there is small hope for its addressing its most resolute efforts to the solution of that problem. That is the first point.
Then, in the second place there is this question of Canada's competitive position in the markets of the world. Surely it disturbed, even if it did not surprise, hon. members when they heard the minister say today in his closing remarks-if I heard him correctly-that there was no cause for alarm because Canadian producers at the present time may not be able to compete in certain world markets. Mr. Chairman, surely it must be a matter of concern to each one of us here when the Canadian producer is not in a position to compete with the producers of other countries in the markets of the world. Is this a matter of no concern? Is this a matter of such indifference to us that the Minister of Trade and Commerce can say, "Oh, there is no cause for alarm here", and then sit down and feel perfectly satisfied?
Mr. Chairman, surely that is a poor substitute for facing problems, and facing them squarely. The fact of the matter is-and leading economists in this country have drawn attention to it-that Canada's position in the competitive markets of the world has been placed in jeopardy by a high-cost economy. What is one of the leading ingredients in that high-cost economy? I tell you, sir, it is high government costs and high taxation. It will be remembered-


Mr. Byrne:: Time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, nobody pays much attention to what the hon. member for Kootenay East says, with his silly interruptions; and I shall pay no attention to him.
Speaking for the government the Minister of Trade and Commerce said on February 15 that the government had decided that this year would be a year of loosening the purse strings on government spending. Is it any wonder, then, that there is a high-cost economy here, and that that is hamstringing the efforts of Canadian producers to find markets abroad for their produce? It was


in that connection that the Ottawa Citizen, a paper friendly to the government, said this: Bather than respond by giving Canadian manufacturers additional tariff protection, the Canadian government might well consider revising downward its own sales taxes. This would put Canadian business in a better position to compete with American goods, and incidentally with those from Japan and other outside sources. It is true that the lost revenues must be made up. Apart from resort to higher taxes in other fields, the government might find itself taking in more money from taxes at the reduced level, because of the stimulating effect on domestic business.
This government could make a substantial contribution to the improvement of the competitive position of the Canadian producer in the export markets of the world by reducing these impositions that it places upon the cost of Canadian production.
The one thing that would be unforgivable in this situation would be inaction on the part of the government. Inaction results from smug complacency, from satisfaction with the situation as it is, from closing one's eyes to the dangers of the situation, particularly the dangers confronting the Canadian agricultural producer. What we demand is recognition of these difficulties; no Pollyanna attitude, but rather a frank and realistic appreciation of the difficulties and then a determination to grapple with them and, as it is within the government's power, to clean house and in its own way contribute to improving the competitive position of the Canadian producer in the markets of the world.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Mr. Chairman, I shall not speak at great length. I have been particularly interested in the debate which has taken place thus far. While in the restaurant at the noon recess I noted that General Gruenther, commander of the NATO forces, is in Ottawa. I hope he will have a pleasant visit. I think, too, that he might find a concrete method of strengthening his NATO forces if he would listen to some of the debates taking place in the House of Commons today; I am convinced that the most obvious way to strengthen NATO is for the United States to enlarge the economic as well as the military foundations under the alliance.
Recently there has been a good deal of economic friction between the United States and Canada. I believe people on both sides of the border hope that friction will not continue. There are few Canadians who do not realize how dependent we are upon the United States market. The minister told us this morning that 59 per cent of all our exports go there. But that trade certainly is not one-sided. Last year, we bought $757 million more from the Americans than we

sold to them. And so I suggest the Americans, too, should be interested in the maintenance of cordial trade relations between our two countries.
Many Canadians-and I am one of them- feel that recently in trade matters the Americans have not been treating us exactly as we think they should treat a friendly country. Washington originally inspired the Geneva agreement. I remember well that, quite willingly, this parliament turned its back a few years ago on imperial preferences and entered the Geneva agreement. We did so because we believed that it would lead to freer trade, and, to a certain extent, it has.
Yet while we have made major tariff concessions under the agreement, in the ensuing years the Americans have been most reluctant to proceed with a progressive lowering of tariffs. So far as Canada is concerned, most of the concessions the Americans have made thus far have been on raw materials and semi-processed goods. So far as manufactured goods are concerned, the tariff rates are still practically prohibitive. That fact has put most of our manufacturers in this country in a very difficult position.
Today the United States manufacturer has a home market of roughly 155 million people, and he is protected from outside competition by a very high tariff barrier. Our manufacturers in Canada have a potential market of only about 15 million people and because of the low tariff barriers they have to share that market with the American manufacturers.
I find it very difficult to understand the attitude of American businessmen. On the one hand, in a very generous way, they give away billions of dollars in military and foreign aid. Yet, on the other hand, they refuse to lower their tariff barriers to let the other NATO countries strengthen themselves. The paradox does not seem to make sense. I say that the United States trade policy is threatening the very foundations of the NATO agreement today. If the United States congress does not wake up to the fact soon they may find the alliance crumbling. I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce will give General Gruenther such a message while he is in Ottawa today. If he really wants to strengthen the alliance, let his country take economic measures, as well as military ones.
I should like to know what United States' businessmen fear. These businessmen always preach the virtues of competition. They are always chiding their neighbours that they lack the great competitive spirit which has made the United States great. Yet, as I see
Supply-Trade and Commerce it, these American businessmen are not practising what they preach. They maintain a very high tariff wall to protect themselves from outside competition. The minute the president or anyone else suggests that the tariff walls should be lowered a little, they scream in agony.
The Geneva agreement originally promised a progressive lowering of tariff barriers. I say that our American friends have not lived up to the spirit of that agreement. For more than six years it has been pretty obvious that the United States has failed to reciprocate to an appreciable extent the concessions which Canada has made under the treaty. What is even more serious, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Eglinton, on numerous occasions the United States have actually violated the agreement. The case of dairy products was mentioned. The trade minister says that as far as oats and rye are concerned they did not violate the agreement. Well, as I understand it, they certainly violated the spirit of the agreement. I feel the United States government literally blackmailed the Canadian government into accepting those quota restrictions, and they did so at a time when western Canada was bulging with full granaries of oats and rye. I do not think we should have been forced into such a position.
Obviously there are some congressmen and some senators in the United States who think that the Geneva agreement is just a scrap of paper which they can violate at any time for political reasons. According to newspaper reports, the United States is considering embargo restrictions on lead, zinc and fish products. I must say that I am not entirely satisfied with the assurances the minister gave us this afternoon that these restrictions likely will not take place. If the United States does proceed, once again it will be a violation of the Geneva agreement. Once again large segments of our economy are going to be seriously hurt. Once again the United States is going to use Canadians just as marginal suppliers- taking our materials when there is a scarcity, refusing to take them when they are plentiful. The time has come, Mr. Chairman, when this government must make its position clear as to exactly what it will do, if the United States does proceed with the restrictions that are being mentioned.
If the United States is going to continue to violate GATT Canada should re-examine her whole position under the Geneva agreement. Certainly a treaty is of little use to Canada when the main signatory ignores the major provisions. Therefore, I urge this government to make its position crystal clear in

Supply-Trade and Commerce this debate, as to what it will do if the United States does proceed with an embargo on lead, zinc and fish products. As I see it, the Americans should be told that Canada would be forced to retaliate. Canada would have to take counter-measures. Perhaps those counter-measures should include embargoes or restrictions; perhaps they should include some counterbalancing tariff; perhaps they should even include an export tax on asbestos, nickel, or some other product which the United States must buy from us.
I suggested such a policy last December before the embargo was put on oats. It is not going to help either country to get into a price war. If we get into a price war with the United States I do not suppose there is any way in which we can be the winner. Yet sooner or later Canada is going to have to stop turning the other cheek. This government should point out to the United States, as I see it, that there is frustration in this country, disappointment and even bitterness, because of the United States trade policy. Canada wants to be a friend of the Americans; we have always been one in the past, and we want to be in the future. The United States is not helping that process when they indulge in economic nationalism, as they have done in the past few years.
I should also like to say a few words about trade with iron curtain countries. Personally I feel that the Department of Trade and Commerce has been lax in developing trade with such nations as Russia, China and others. Our trade with those countries is almost negligible. I have a Canadian Press report here of last April which says that exports to Russia in the month of March were $25 as compared with $57 a year ago. Britain, Germany, France and Japan are getting into those world markets, and I am afraid -maybe the minister can show that I am wrong-that Canada is missing the trade boat by not following suit.
Earlier this year the Russian ambassador announced that his country was anxious to buy certain Canadian products. Yet so far Canadian authorities have treated the efforts which the Russian ambassador made with apathy, with indifference, and even ridicule. Only a few weeks ago the Russian embassy gave Canadian exporters a long list of products which they would like to buy from Canada. That list included a number of manufactured products. It included foodstuffs, and particularly, as far as western Canada is concerned, it included wheat. I put a question on the order paper which was answered yesterday. The effect of the question was: What has the Department of Trade and Commerce or the government done to try to

sell grain to Russia since the first of the year? In a nutshell the answer was that two representatives from the Russian embassy had called on the department and obtained price lists, delivery dates and so on. To date, it said, there have been no further developments.
Well, Mr. Chairman, what kind of salesmanship is that? Here we have some officials sitting in an office waiting for orders to come. There is no aggressiveness, no imagination, no particular desire to sell, and no follow-up. If I had salesmen like that in my business at home I would be bankrupt very quickly. Out in the west we have 700 million bushels of wheat sitting in granaries, in elevators, in fields and everywhere else. We have a country which says it is willing to buy some of that wheat, and yet our officials in the department do not even bother to get out of their chairs and go over to the embassy to see why no purchase has been made.
Why have the Russians not bought that wheat? Have our credit terms not been good enough? Is the price too high? Do they lack exchange? Do they want some kind of barter agreement? At least let us find out. 1 do not know what the answer is. Maybe their offer was a phony one. If it was, let the minister tell us why it was phony. But with the vast surplus of grain which we have in western Canada any suggestion of an offer to buy should be thoroughly examined. Trade with the eastern world would be good business. I also believe it would help to promote better relations between the power groups in the eastern world and the western world. I ask this government to leave no stone unturned in trying to develop trade with the east in the same manner as Great Britain is doing. Before this item passes I hope the minister will make some comment on those offers to purchase which have been made to Canada by eastern countries.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take up the time of the committee at any great length, but I do feel the Department of Trade and Commerce is a very important one and that upon that department rests probably a greater responsibility than on any other government department. Perhaps that is the reason why the most optimistic member of the cabinet is the head of that department.
I listened with keen interest and not without some concern to the minister's summary of conditions as he saw them and the rather delightful optimism he expressed in regard to the future, despite the fact that we have

had certain signs that our economy is not too healthy, and despite the fact that there has been some decline in the export of our lumber, lead, zinc, copper, iron and other products into our greatest market.
He expressed the view that the future was not as dark as some might think. I hope his optimism will be fully justified as time goes on. No one who has any appreciation of the greatness of this country can be other than a long-term optimist and, in fact, I am always more optimistic when I hear a rather fresh change of viewpoint from western Canada, particularly when I hear the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, who has just concluded, give some indication that he believes certain changes should be made. The changes the hon. member has advocated are not those which his party has advocated in the past, and they were to the effect that we should take more cognizance of the dangerous situation facing our industrial enterprises at the present time.
The Department of Trade and Commerce handles responsibilities which are vital to our normal prosperity, and indeed vital to our security, because only by sound economic development can we become as strong as we require to be in this ever-changing and troubled world in which we live at this particular time. Whether it is in peace or war our industrial development, as the minister has so ably pointed out today, and the changing economic situation through which we are passing demand that the government adopt certain changes in policy.
I am glad the minister has indicated some change in attitude on the part of the government with regard to policy. I do not intend to make a specific issue of the wheat situation as Mr. Speaker has asked us not to do so, but, as has already been pointed out today, we have a tremendous wheat surplus in Canada and no farmer or businessman in Canada is unaware that we have more unsold wheat today and less likelihood of selling it than at any time since confederation.
There is no farmer in this country who is not aware that we are selling pork to other countries for less than we are selling it to our own consumers in order to get rid of it, and that we have a tremendous surplus of butter. Dairymen are being encouraged to milk more cows, but under the present system the more cows they milk the more they will have to milk the treasury, because the butter is being sold at less than cost and the taxpayer is having to pay both the high price for butter and the subsidy in addition to that.
Supply-Trade and Commerce
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, there are a great variety of problems facing us in this changing economic situation which demand of us a change in approach. This country has swiftly changed from an agricultural to an industrial country, and to the degree that we developed our industrial independence we strengthened our position during the recent terrible crisis of the second world war. No one knows that better than the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who played a very important role in the development of the industries of this country, and no one knows better than he the importance of maintaining what might be termed the industrial independence of this country.
Since that time we have watched the expansion of what might be termed a new industrialization such as has not been known before. It has often been said, Mr. Chairman, that we should buy if we want to sell, and how often have I heard that during the last quarter of a century in this house, especially from some of my friends to the left, and from the few free traders remaining on my right. They too have indicated that if you want to sell wheat you had better buy from the country to which you hope to sell.
In Canada that sounds plausible; it sounds popular to the voters; and it sounds pleasant to the ears of people overseas. But that is not always the rule. It is more popular and plausible than it is factual. The Minister of National Revenue appears to be somewhat in doubt. But he knows very well that even though this country bought $700 million worth more from the United States than we sold to her during last year, there is very little hope of the Minister of Trade and Commerce being able to sell much of the 700 million bushels of wheat to that country.
The fact that we have sold the United States many billions of dollars of goods since the latter part of the late century and over the present half of this century does not mean that now, when we are making a fire sale of pork and selling butter at less than cost, we will be able to sell wheat to the United States, or that the United States will take any of these products. You can buy billions of dollars worth more goods from the United States in future but that will not change the present situation.
On the other hand, the United Kingdom over this same period from the latter half of the past century to this half of the present century has given Canada a favourable trade balance every year, and the fact that we fell down in buying goods from Britain in

Supply

Trade and Commerce any one year did not make any very great difference in the amount of wheat, bacon, pork, or other agricultural products she bought from us. We have bought consistently in the old land down through the years and I will even venture to say, Mr. Chairman, that for nearly 70 years we have sold Britain more goods than we have purchased from her, and if the amount were added up I think it would be found that the United Kingdom has poured between $4 and $5 billion more into the trade channels of this country than we have poured into the United Kingdom.
Yet, as the hon. member for Eglinton pointed out this afternoon, we consistently put our trade eggs in one basket, and God help Canada if the handle of that basket breaks while someone else is carrying it. We have never at any time in our history been more dependent upon the United States economy than we are at the present time.
Our industrial independence should increase with our national growth, if we are as great as we believe we are. We boast about our great resources and our technical ability in manufacturing and industrial production. We should therefore not allow ourselves to be at the commercial beck and call of the United States. We should not be fixing our rates in Washington; we should not be fixing our tariffs according to the views of the United States; and we should not be on bended knee.
A few moments ago the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre was somewhat critical of the United States. I do not think we need necessarily be critical. I think we should allow the United States to handle their own affairs and we should mind our own business. It is our business to look after Canada's trade, and it is the business of the Department of Trade and Commerce to look after that trade.
But, Mr. Chairman, when it was mentioned a few years ago by the leader of this party, and when it was proposed on different occasions that we should have a British commonwealth conference, that suggestion was scoffed at and cast aside. Despite the fact that others who sat here right at that time more or less scoffed at and ridiculed that suggestion when the leader of this party suggested that we should have convertibility of currency and should encourage it, today the Minister of Trade and Commerce told us that we are coming closer to convertibility. Today it was mentioned that the commonwealth offers the best chance for trade. Today it was mentioned by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the United Kingdom has


lowered tariffs more than has any other country and that next were the other British commonwealth countries.
The country that we have been growing more dependent upon throughout the years, the country from which we have been taking more goods-by $700 million last year, as was said by the hon. member for Eglinton this afternoon-than they purchased from us, was the first more or less to break the GATT agreement. As the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre has just said, the GATT agreement more or less replaced, or was more or less taken as the alternative to the British commonwealth agreements. For that reason I know that document was looked upon with a certain amount of doubt by many, but everybody was almost afraid to mention it. It was looked upon and handled almost as carefully as if it had been some sacred document that nobody could even look into too far. It is bound to be good for somebody. It was a kind of gunshot prescription for world trade that nobody in the Department of Trade and Commerce ever could fully explain to us. Evidently nobody in the United States understood it at first; and when they did come to understand it, as soon as they understood it they partially repudiated it. It has done no good for Canada.
Yet hidden behind it some place there may be some good will, something that may do some good. It may have helped to sell a little bit of salmon to Spain. It may have helped to sell a few sardines some place else. But by and large it has been of very little use to us here. It seems to me that if we are going to develop as we should develop, more thought must be given to other lines of trade. In Canada there are many more things to sell than wheat, despite the fact that we have a tremendous surplus of wheat.
When the minister today mentioned the Randall report I could not help thinking of our historic dependence upon the United States of America. There are those who deliberately say there is no difference in party policy. Down through the years there has been a difference in party policy. Those who sat to your right, Mr. Chairman, have long since felt that because we live beside this great republic, this great and wealthy nation to the south of us, this most powerful industrial machine in the world, we must dance to their tune, rise with their prosperity and fall with their depression. That policy has been followed by my more or less senior colleagues across the floor who have been sitting here for many years. I know they say little except to themselves, but I know these gentlemen realize very well-or if they do not, their fathers do-what happened when their

party proposed commercial union with the United States of America back in 1887. They have not changed a great deal since then because the year before last we were doing almost two-thirds of our total trade with the United States of America.
We are not following the example of that country which is coming back faster than is any other country in the world. I speak subject to correction with regard to the figure, but I think it is either 27 per cent or 31 per cent of their trade that is with any one country. They have spread their trade all over the world. They were too smart to put all their eggs in one basket.
Again I say this as to countries that buy our resources. They buy them because they need them. They buy our iron ore because their iron ore deposits are failing. They buy our pulp and paper products because their forests have been depleted to a great extent. They do not buy our pork, even when we have to have a fire sale of it. They do not buy our butter when we are up to our ears in butter. They do not buy our grain when we have more grain than we have ever had before in our lives. They produce products of the same type as those that are produced in Canada. Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that the hour is rapidly approaching when we shall be in difficulty if we are going to follow that old popular appeal that has been hurled at us so often, namely, that in order to sell you must buy. This has not been proven to be the case down through the years because from the country to which we have sold the most, we have bought the least; and with the country from which we have bought the most we have had the most unfavourable trade balances.
Today the Minister of Trade and Commerce told us that we have had a tremendous expansion. We all agree. He stated that the United Kingdom removed more tariff restrictions against us than did any other country. Yet we had a favourable trade balance with her. New Zealand and Australia were more or less next. Mr. Chairman, their relationship is another indication that the commonwealth was never more vital than it is today. As convertibility is now coming on the horizon, as the minister has said, I suggest that a British commonwealth conference would probably be more acceptable now when this government needs to do something. I suggest that it is perhaps not too late to try to restore our position in the British market. The strengthening of United Kingdom and the British commonwealth relationships with Canada is of most vital importance and it promises the greatest outlet for our future.
The minister described how he has turned toward multilateral trade and mentioned that
Supply-Trade and Commerce the GATT agreement expires in 1955. I am not going to go into that matter to any extent except to say that if Canada is going to have a place for all her vast industrial expansion, in order to assist the minister and the Department of Trade and Commerce, the one thing this country needs more than another is a general overhauling, a general research campaign, a general remodelling, revamping and readjustment of our whole tariff structure and our taxation structure in this country.
When you look at the taxation that is raising the costs of our production, you can then see the reason why the textile industries are going out of business in this country. You can see why heavy machinery is coming in here from Japan, West Germany and other places. Mr. Chairman, if you are going to maintain the high standard of living we have in Canada and pay our men for their toil three times as much money as is paid to others, then you cannot buy the things of those who are producing at that much less cost.
I can at least personally be somewhat in agreement with what has been mentioned by some of the Liberal members who ran their election campaign as free traders but who now scream for some change in fiscal policy in order to keep their industries from closing up in North and South Waterloo and in other places throughout this country. Mr. Chairman, there is no chance of our building up our hopes on an economy that is so false as to do nothing but expand the plants themselves and then, when we open the doors for the production of those plants, to say "We will buy the goods where we can buy them most cheaply", because we are following a free trade policy that is afraid to move until the harm is done.
I do not claim that any form of high protection alone is the answer any more than the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre did this afternoon when he hinted that there is a change of heart in his group. I am not sure whether it is a change of heart or a change of hearts, but in any event it is a change of public thinking. It does seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that with all our great resources we will have a sale for iron ore to those who need ore, we will have a sale for Canada's No. 1 hard wheat to those who cannot buy that type and quality of wheat at any lower price. What the minister said yesterday-and some may be critical of him in this regard-is not what he said some time ago. I am glad he is a smart enough businessman to change because it is not long ago that he and his colleagues said they would not take less than $2.50 a bushel. Now he says we will sell at whatever price we have to take.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
Those who sit to your right, Mr. Chairman, would never doubt the Toronto Star, and I read in it this morning that the United States of America may establish a price of $1.55 because they want to test the international wheat agreement. If they drop to $1.55 and the signatories to the agreement refuse to take wheat at that price the agreement will collapse. Then what? Then it will take some smart businessman like the Minister of Trade and Commerce to catch up to the parade and sell, as he said the other day, where people will buy. He will sell at similar prices for similar grades. The old law of supply and demand has been cruel and hard down through the years.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I think perhaps the hon. member will not object if I interrupt to say that I think he and others have adhered very well during today's debate to our tacit agreement to which it has been rather difficult to adhere, but I do not think he will mind me saying at this time that if on this item he should make critical remarks with respect to the sale of wheat others will perhaps feel that they should follow suit and others will feel that they should reply. I am sure the hon. member was merely using wheat as one example in his criticism of the Department of Trade and Commerce, but may I suggest that it would assist all of us in this rather difficult position if he would choose another example. I may tell the committee frankly that I have no desire, if I can help it, to be forced into making a ruling today because if I have to then of course we will have to enforce it, and I think we can get along better by consent than by a ruling.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, I certainly bow to your ruling. I would not want to set any bad examples or dangerous precedents in the house, which follows the rules so diligently and strangely at times. But I do feel that in this ever-changing pattern, to which the Minister of Trade and Commerce referred this morning, there is one other item we should not forget. We should not forget the greatest market of all, one that is not very often mentioned in the house, the one that is the most stable, the one that is the soundest, the one that we can depend on most and the only one we control, the home market. If you can keep men employed so that they are able to buy the products of the soil and are able to live well and happily in their homes you will keep the home market going.
The minister has told us today that the outlook for the export of industrial products is not too bright. Our imports are not quite as large as they were last year but they


were very heavy last year. Therefore while the outlook for the export of our manufactured products is not too bright, competition for imports is ever keener and stronger. Oh, how the government lectures industry on cutting costs and improving efficiency. They certainly should be good advisers because there is no institution in all of Canada that knows more about high costs than the government does.
We have spent money faster than at any other time on civilian affairs and, indeed, by all the signs we seem to have got less for what we have spent on military affairs than at any other time. We have spent more for military purposes in the last three years than we spent even during the war. But, Mr. Chairman, it has often been a pastime for those who think it is popular to tell industry how it should operate. I represent a riding that has very little industry. It is mostly agricultural. The industrial people of this country, the manufacturers, have been more or less whipping boys for the politicians since confederation.
I sometimes wonder if we ever pause to realize that today the industrial enterprises of this country are only handling half of their proceeds because with the very high rate of income tax today the government is a powerful silent partner that has taken more than 50 per cent of their total net proceeds every year until lately and is still taking about 50 per cent. Therefore it is not possible to pad any books as some suspicious politicians may have thought was done in years past. The income tax branch is on the watch. They watch the money coming in to a far greater extent than they watch the money going out. They have watched it very carefully. There is no camouflage in that regard whatsoever.
Yet at the same time the industrial companies of Canada are only making an average of 4 to ii per cent. I certainly do not want to be a pessimist. I am not preaching blue ruin. I am not trying to contrast what I think are the economic realities with the delightful optimism of the minister. But I do suggest that there are many signs to indicate that the government should revamp its whole tax structure and reorganize and readjust our tariff structure as well if we are going to make the vast industries that have been built in the last two or three years, and about which we have been bragging, sound operating plants that will give employment to the thousands and thousands of people who are today unemployed and the

thousands more we should have in this country through immigration. If we had sound fiscal policies we could develop that greatest of all markets, the home market.
I do not mean for a moment that the home market will consume all of that product you will not let me talk about, Mr. Chairman, but it will consume a great deal. It will consume a great deal of the butter that the government does not know what to do with. It will consume a lot of the pork that we are selling at fire-sale prices and it will give employment to many more people than are employed at the present time. We have a great industrial structure built up and yet at the same time the products that it is intended to produce are entering this country at a greater rate than they have for many years.
I am not going to delay the item any further except to say once again that I believe it is unfortunate that this young *country, at a time when we are boasting about our greatest growth and prosperity, is increasing its dependence on the United States of America instead of decreasing it. Again I want to emphasize that our objective should be as great a degree of industrial independence as any country of our population can have, for no similar number of *>eople in the world enjoy such resources as ive have. As the minister has so well said, ;ve have iron ore, minerals of all kinds, oil in western Canada in an almost immeasurable amount. The richness of this country is a heritage of which every citizen is proud. Despite GATT, despite our international relationships, I believe it was never more important, in view of the dangerous signs we see on the horizon, for us to have that degree of industrial independence which will create economic safety and, indeed, eventually military safety. I believe that Canada must look after her own business. I know there are many things we can buy from these other countries and there are many of our products they must always buy from us, but I do believe-and it is not an old-fashioned idea but the most progressive and advanced idea that Canada has ever had- that our own resources must be developed by our own people.


Mr. Caslleden:: I do not know whether or not the minister is enjoying this little session this afternoon. Perhaps if he has his staff there he might answer one question I should like to ask concerning the department. It has to do with the reported sale of some nine million pounds of canned pork to Russia recently. So far as we can get the story from 83276-366
Supply-Trade and Commerce the answers of the department, this pork was purchased at the time the foot-and-mouth disease embargo was imposed. Some of this pork was stored for a while, and then later canned under orders of the government and paid for by the government at a cost of between 50 cents and 60 cents per pound. Later on the government called for tenders on this pork and it was sold at something less than 17 cents per pound. Almost immediately a market was found in Russia by the private enterprise firm, I believe in this case it was Canada Packers. What price they received is not known, and I do not suppose the departmental records would indicate that. I should like to know, and I believe the people of Canada would like to know, why it was that the agents of the department were unable to find that market for Canadian canned pork.
While the minister's staff is looking up the answer to that question perhaps I might make a few general remarks concerning the administration of the department. The people of Canada recognize that in peacetime the Department of Trade and Commerce is the most important department so far as their welfare and prosperity are concerned. We cannot hope to so live within our own borders that we are going to become prosperous by taking in our own washing. The extent to which Canada is able to exchange her surplus goods with other countries, and the extent to which we can economically use our goods within our own borders, will determine the extent to which we are able to keep our factories busy, keep the men employed in the mines, the forests and in agriculture. The policies of the Department of Trade and Commerce decide the prosperity of Canada.
The minister's report today was not one to give the Canadian people a great deal of hope that the prosperity of which we heard so much twelve months ago is going to be maintained. Our record with regard to the fishermen on both coasts, the coal workers in the maritimes, the textile workers, the farm machinery workers, the automobile workers and now the agriculturists on the prairies makes the outlook rather grim. The figures for unemployment are rising in an alarming manner. What is the hope for the people of Canada in this situation? What can we give to these people in the way of hope? They are looking to this superman from the Department of Trade and Commerce, a man whose ability is recognized all across Canada as well as in other countries, to solve their difficult problems.
Yesterday he told us that we must remember we are living in a competitive world. We

Supply-Trade and Commerce must face the facts of life. When he gave us the figures upon which we are to base our hope for prosperity, our hope for trade, really the foundation was revealed to be rather flimsy. Why is it that we always get into this trouble in this competitive world in times of peace? Is it because there is no competition in time of war? Is it because in wartime we can let cost-plus contracts to those who can get them? There is no competition at all in cost-plus contracts. You can employ labour at whatever price you wish because it is paid for under the contract. As soon as we get out of a war episode, a period of war, we have Canada drifting back along with other countries into a period of recession, depression, unemployment, with factories closing and lower prices.
The agricultural workers in the United States have got their government to give them some form of protection against the trouble which may occur when they try to sell their surplus products. In so far as Canada is concerned the agricultural producers must bear the strain of whatever price the government is going to get for their commodities. If there is a price war, then down goes the price, and where it goes to is apparently no concern of the government. They have already stated their policy on more than one occasion in this house, and very emphatically, that they intend to do nothing about giving agricultural producers advances on their production.
The job of the farmer is to produce, and he is doing that job. With the help of nature, with good times and with some return for his work, he is able to solve the problem of production. But you cannot expect him to solve the problem of selling that commodity. He is entirely dependent upon the policies of the cabinet and the administration of this department. When world trade and when Canada's trade in the world is maintained at a high level, we can find markets for our products by sending our people out into the world. If we do that well, then the agriculturists will prosper. If we do not, then he is at the mercy of a price war or any other economic circumstance which may occur.
In the competitive world of today Canada finds herself in a rather difficult position. Our high-priced economy, brought about by high prices during the war and the prosperity we enjoyed during the war, has left us in a difficult position when we have to place our goods alongside the goods of other countries. If we cannot place our goods alongside the other goods at similar prices, then we have to accept lower prices or the goods will not be sold.
The minister's statement today was a surprising statement, and one which I believe
[Mr. Castleden.1

marks a change in his attitude. No longer is there the optimism that everything is all right; we are just as well off as we were last year and we are up over the ten-year average. We did not hear the old statement that when the ice goes out of the lake everything will be all right. Now he says it is not the Department of Trade and Commerce or this parliament that will decide. We must depend on the constructive leadership in the United States. If the commercial policy is favourable, we can go forward with hope. If it is not, it will be difficult to look forward with any degree of optimism.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I point out, Mr. Chairman, that I was talking about GATT when I said that. The lack of optimism was about the future of GATT, it was not about the future of Canada. I hope my hon. friend is not trying to distort my words.


George Hugh Castleden: No, I am glad to have that from the minister. It is our relationship to GATT upon which, to a large extent, depends Canada's ability to establish any degree of prosperity. The minister admits our economy is slowing down. He maintains that our slowing down is much less than the slowing down in the United States. I am not going to argue the matter with him, but I believe the figures of unemployment in Canada show that we have a greater degree of unemployment, relative to our population, than they have in the United States. Since when have we become so dependent upon the United States, that big giant neighbour which serves this continent with us? Is that the only constructive hope we have? Are the markets of the world to be closed to us; are those markets closed because of our high-priced economy, and because the goods Canada offers are priced pretty much along the same line and at about the same level as those of the United States?
If we are going to depend upon United States prices, then I say the future of the Canadian agricultural producer is very dim, indeed. I say that because we have exactly the same kind of agricultural surpluses they have. Even with GATT they are not looking out for the Canadian producer; they are looking out for themselves. And thus far, at home, they have looked after themselves very well.
If we are going to have to depend upon the consideration our neighbour to the south will give to our producers, then I say things look very dark indeed. The minister says Canada must recognize that she lives in a competitive world. In this competitive world we find ourselves caught; we are left out in the cold because of a price structure and a cost of living that has priced us completely

outside the world's competitive markets. How are we going to get back into those markets? That is the problem facing the minister, and it is a difficult one.
The problem confronting the Canadian government at this time is that of proving that in a competitive world Canada can hold her place, that in a competitive world Canada can provide prosperity for her people in times of peace. And that is the only time we have competition. This objective has not yet been achieved, to any appreciable extent. We knew prosperity shortly after the first war, after 1918. We knew the depths of depression and unemployment prior to 1940. We knew prosperity throughout the second world war and during the episode in Korea. But just as soon as we got out of that we found ourselves faced with an economic crisis.
How long are the people of Canada going to look at the economic problems facing this country and say that we must continue to live in a world which will condemn us in times of peace to a state of depression and want? Surely the choice of the Canadian people must not be between that of having war and prosperity on the one hand or, on the other, peace with unemployment and depression.
The challenge which faces the government, and particularly the Minister of Trade and Commerce, is to prove that the economy under which we live is one which can provide the Canadian people with prosperity in time of peace, so that they may have proper returns for their labour, as well as the right to work and the right to build their homes under natural conditions such as prevail in a competitive economy of this kind.
If this challenge is met, Canada will be pleased, and the members of this group will be pleased. I am sure that in this group there are very few who think the minister can do it. If he can, then we will welcome it as a sign of great achievement. If he cannot, and if conditions continue on the downgrade in the next few years as they have in the last twelve months, those people who have been forced to swallow the medicine of this competitive world will be rising in their places throughout the country and demanding something better.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman,
I have been asked a question which might better have been asked of my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, because the actual plan for the disposal and handling of the pork throughout the period in question was carried out by the agricultural prices support board, which reports to the Minister of Agriculture. However, the facts of the pork 83276-366J
Supply-Trade and Commerce situation are well known. We had in western Canada an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, and because of the foot-and-mouth disease there was an automatic embargo on the part of the United States, on the part of several South American countries who normally offer a market for our canned meats, and on the part of certain European markets.
We were surplus producers of pork, and the government believed that the producers of pork should not be called upon to bear the brunt of the damage resulting from the outbreak of that disease. Therefore it undertook to buy the surplus pork at a floor price which, in my opinion, was very generous indeed. It was the full equivalent of the price at which pork was selling at the time of the outbreak of the disease. That pork was bought. Of course, it took only a short time to fill all the storage space we had; and then it became a question of what to do with the pork.
I am sure my hon. friend would not suggest that we bury it; he would not suggest that we build new cold storage plants in which to store it. We took what we thought to be the only practical way of preserving the food value of the pork, and that was by putting it in cans. I may say that no one was under any illusions that we were going to recover the full cost of that pork after it had been canned. Pork that is canned is not the choice cuts. They are the parts of the animal that are not readily saleable as fresh cuts. Therefore they bring a lower price than could be had when the entire animal was being put in cans.
We canned that pork, and I think my hon. friend was perfectly correct when he said that it cost about 65 cents a pound when canned. Then we had the problem of getting rid of it. We put it on the Canadian market- I believe it was put on at about 35 cents a pound, which seemed to be the price which would be attractive to the Canadian buyer. We sold all we could in that market over a period of about two years. We offered it in other countries at a price no lower than the price at which it was selling in Canada, and we were able to move the bulk of it.
But expert opinion was that it was not safe against spoilage for a period longer than two years. As a matter of fact on inspection it was found that the odd can was beginning to turn colour. At that stage it became a disposal problem, not a marketing problem. Tenders were called for the pork, and bids were received from a number of firms in Canada and outside Canada. The remaining pork was sold to the highest bidder, which happened to be Canada Packers. The sale
5786	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce was outright, with only one provision, that the pork should be sold off the North American continent, because we did not wish to become involved in any dumping problem with the United States, which has very strict laws against the dumping of agriculture products.
After a considerable interval Canada Packers were able to find a market for the pork in Russia. I think they had bids from other European countries, but the bid from Russia was the highest they received. They sold their pork to the Russians. Of course, the government had no interest in the latter phase of the transaction. It had disposed of its ownership of the pork by public auction to Canada Packers.


George Hugh Castleden: Were the minister's agents asked to sell this pork, or was it done through the Department of Agriculture?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We were looking for markets abroad throughout the period and we did arrange sales of pork outside Canada from time to time. But when the disposal problem became immediate, all the pork remaining was put up at auction with the concurrence of my officers. We believed that the possibilities of marketing as an edible product in small lots had come to an end, and therefore it was a disposal problem when the remaining pork was put up at auction.


George Hugh Castleden: Has the minister the figures for the total amount that was canned?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, I do not know.


Mr. Bell:: I am a little hesitant about getting into this discussion on the United Kingdom markets after the very fine speeches by the hon. members for Eglinton and Dufferin-Simcoe, but I feel I must say a few words and try to relate this loss to the maritime economy. Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, you can sit back and relax because there is very little danger of my mentioning the word "wheat" in my remarks. Somebody has said that 1953 and 1954 will be the most critical years in our foreign trade since the days of confederation. With that I agree entirely. As we move into our position as the third greatest trading nation in the world we are developing closer ties with the United States and looser ties with the United Kingdom. I do not know where the expression "to put all your eggs in one basket" came from. I imagine it has a Canadian origin; it goes back to at least last year when the minister mentioned it in the estimates. We have never caught on to that expression down in the maritimes. We simply refer to this change


that has come into our trading world as the loss of our traditional United Kingdom markets.
I do not want this to be considered as a plea, Mr. Chairman, or even an attack on the department. I simply wish to point out that our position and our economy today in the maritimes are in very serious trouble because of the loss of the United Kingdom traditional markets. It has been very well dealt with by the hon. member for Eglinton. I would just give one quotation to cover the picture.
I am quoting from the U.S. News and World Report of December 11, 1953. This is a special article on the trade of our nation with the United States and the United Kingdom. They point out that Canada's trade is shifting, and they say:
Back in 1935-39, the U.S. and Britain used to buy about the same amount of goods from Canada. Today, the U.S. outbuys Britain nearly 4 to 1. As a result, Canada now looks to the U.S. for about 60 per cent of its export market and about three-fourths of its foreign supplies.
It goes on to say:
So, on trade, Canada is running a deficit of about a billion a year in its dealings with its big southern neighbour. Close ties with the U.S. can be a problem, as well as a benefit.
There is no doubt that today in Canada we have an unfavourable balance of trade. While there are some serious worries over this condition in the future, I think that at the present time things are not too bad. Certainly central Canada is benefiting to a great degree from traffic across the border, from this north-south condition, but we in the maritimes do feel this loss that I have referred to. It is not a case of the sentiment that we might have for the traditional markets; it is simply that our economy has been completely distorted and wrecked owing to the fact that we have no outlet for our primary produce, and also to the fact that our ports of Saint John-and I think I can speak for Halifax -really miss this United Kingdom and to some extent European trade.
The national harbours board figures which were released a short time ago showed that in 1953 the ports of Halifax and Saint John were the only ports in Canada which showed decreases in tonnage figures. It is not difficult to follow along from there and show that most of the tonnage to go through our ports is traffic and trade with the United Kingdom and to a small degree with Europe. That is the situation, Mr. Chairman, and I am calling it to the attention of the minister to show him that our problems are very serious down east in that respect.
Various changes could be referred to in our relations with the United States. I will not

spend too much time on them, but the United States has already flouted or perhaps misused or taken advantage of the escape clauses in the GATT agreement. Import restrictions have been placed on various commodities by the United States, and we shall probably hear of more in the future. There is the worry that a trade recession will hit the United States to a much greater degree than other countries, and of course we shall feel the loss first in that respect. We also have the problem of dumping here which of course is tied in with our trade with the United States.
I could refer generally to a recession that might affect the economy of the United States. Recently they have felt perhaps a slight recession, more so than we have. Unemployment was every bit as bad over there, if not worse, than in Canada this past year. Their textile industry is in the same dire straits as ours is, and generally speaking there has been a recession in the United States that is much more noticeable than here. We are tying ourselves to their economy in a very dangerous fashion when we count on them for so much of our export and import trade.
There is no reason why we should be tied to the United States. We can go back in history to 1911 and previous times and we shall find that it has been quite a political issue. I refer to this tie and relationship that we have with our friends across the border. Very few valid reasons could be given for being tied up in this way.
I simply suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we have our difficulties in the maritimes over the loss of our markets. It is really serious. I could not help thinking the other night when the minister referred to an Ontario member. He referred to him as my hon. friend down east. I do not think that is in keeping with our traditions, to refer to anybody in central Canada as an easterner. The minister has certain interests in the maritimes and always has had. When he is down on his well-deserved holiday at St. Andrews this summer he might take a day off and come up around Saint John and I am sure that inquiries will convince him that we are really feeling the pinch in our economy over the loss of our traditional United Kingdom markets.
I should like to close with this quotation from the Canadian Chartered Accountant of March, 1954, at page 146:
Canada today is facing some crucial decisions with regard to her foreign trade pattern. Based on our recent experiences, it is apparent that new fundamental policies are in order. Our present
Supply-Trade and Commerce pattern is one in which two-thirds of our foreign trade is transacted with one country whose reliability as a stable market is far from assured. The year 1954 promises to be a year for bold decision, requiring all of us to reorientate our thinking in accordance with the economic realities of the age.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Ever since I came to parliament in 1940 the minister has been doing a great job. During the war years he earned the title of the czar of his country. I just made a note of some of the responsibilities he had during the war: aircraft production, synthetic rubber, shipbuilding, steel, lumber, cement, T.C.A., radio, and housing. He had the good fortune to have a blank cheque and members in all sections of the country are agreed that the money was not squandered, and the department of munitions and supply played a very important role in the winning of the war. However, I have a feeling that the minister's role for the next few years is not going to be so easy. Just as his was the responsible portfolio during the war, the Minister of Trade and Commerce will have to take the major responsibility for the government in seeing that a high level of employment is maintained in Canada, and a maximum volume of trade and commerce.
I will mention merely a few of the industries which are now causing concern. We have had delegations in Ottawa during the life of the present session, from the textile industry, the farm machinery industry, the automobile industry, and from agriculture. These represent important sectors of our Canadian economy. The illness of one not only affects the health of the others, but that illness affects every Canadian, and the representations made by the spokesmen for these four groups I have mentioned would indicate that their problems require immediate attention.
I am more particularly concerned naturally with the problem of agriculture and I am afraid I cannot go along with the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe who suggested we had good times when his party was in office. The minister gave us some figures last night which went back for a number of years. But from his department this morning I also received some figures which indicate the amount of the national income which has gone to agriculture over a period of years.
I will go back to 1926 which is the best year the farmers ever had, when 14-8 per cent of the national income went to agriculture. Just under 20 per cent of the Canadian people come within the category of farmers so in the good old twenties 20 per cent of the people had 14-8 per cent of the national

Supply-Trade and Commerce income. The farmers took their worst beating during the depression and in 1931 then-share of the national income went down to 2-9 per cent. In 1932 it was a little better when they received 4-1 per cent, and in 1933 they received 3 per cent. During the war years the farmers got up to 12 per cent and it was 12-1 in 1944. It dropped after that but in 1948 it again went up to 12-1 per cent. In 1951 it rose to 12-3 per cent, and last year, 1953 it went down to 8 [DOT] 8 per cent.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that when just under 20 per cent of the people are getting about 8 per cent of the national income it is the responsibility of their friend and advocate, the minister who is in charge of trade and commerce, to do something to see about getting a better market for their products, or by some means see to it that those who have been regarded as the salt of the earth should have a fair share of our national income.
During the war the minister and the cabinet demonstrated that it was possible to plan our production and consumption with a high level of employment. During the depression years we balanced our production and consumption with a low level of production and lower standards of living every year. During the war the minister was in charge, as I said, of shipbuilding. As I recall it, there was one year when every week a ship was launched and loaded with Canadian goods and was sent to the bottom of the ocean before it reached the other side. In other words, we were just holding our own-the submarines were sinking our shipping at the same rate as we were building and loading our ships.
Yet it seems strange that during that period Canadians were able to use Canadian materials and workmen to build ships, fill them with lumber, wheat and metals and send them out on their way to join in the battle for freedom. Before these ships reached their destination they went to the bottom of the ocean, but in the process we were able to create prosperity for those in the shipbuilding industry and those engaged in the manufacture of the products that went into the ships.
Having been able to do that with a million of our youngest and strongest people in the services it would not seem unreasonable to expect the minister now and somehow to find a formula to solve our difficulties. It would seem that the same people who worked in the shipyards and in the forests should be able to find some constructive work.
Those of us who sit in this part of the house have some theories we think sound. The minister has never advocated these prin-


ciples and has never been elected on a mandate to carry out the policies we would advocate. But he was elected to carry out a mandate to provide full employment and a high standard of living for the Canadian people.
The right hon. gentleman is one of those who demonstrated during the war years that what were hitherto considered to be impossible tasks were very easy tasks to perform, and now that we are facing a crisis, which is in many respects very serious, he has another opportunity to demonstrate his ability. The minister has not publicly admitted that the situation is serious, but it is not going to be very long before we have an increasing number of industries, besides those which I have mentioned, which will be coming to the cabinet to place their case before it.
I have letters here from a number of municipal secretaries in my constituency regarding the position of tax arrears at the end of 1953. I think it is very clear that everyone wishes to pay his taxes as soon as he can and if he can and that is true of every country. Taxes and death are certain in every country. In the Hazel Dell municipality arrears in December were $80,000 compared with $68,000 in 1952; in the Buchanan municipality the arrears were $44,000 in 1953 compared with $32,000 in 1952; in Livingston the arrears were $31,000 compared with $24,000; in Keys the arrears were $47,000 compared with $38,000; in Invermay they were $26,000 compared with $21,000; in Porcupine they were $80,000 compared with $78,000; in Kelvington they were $45,000 compared with $39,000; and in Moose Range they were $97,000 compared with $89,000. These municipalities are located in a part of Saskatchewan where we have never really had a crop failure or poor crops. It is a choice part of the country-


Mr. Gour (Russell):: They have good crops and good prices but they do not pay their taxes.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It is not as my hon. friend suggests. The western farmers are not rolling in the lap of luxury. It is true a great many farmers have cars and their position is much better than it was at any time during the thirties; it is no use denying that and I would be the first to admit it. When farmers get 8 per cent of the national income they are in a much better position than when they get 3 per cent, but it is as plain as A B C that when 20 per cent of the people only get 8 per cent of the national income they are not getting as high a standard of living as they should have. That is one of the reasons why you have arrears in taxes.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think the problems of the farmers, the textile workers, the farm machinery workers, and the automobile workers-other hon. members can speak for the fishermen, lumbermen, and coal miners who have problems in a great many parts of Canada-should be dealt with now, and I would suggest that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is going to have to give some leadership in the cabinet which, apparently, is not facing up to these problems.
May I say just a word about trade with the United Kingdom. As I said previously, I had a short visit in the United Kingdom last fall. I had not previously been aware that the bomb damage done there by the war was as extensive as it was. I feel that we have made a mistake during the years in not accepting a fairer share of the total cost of the war. I think we asked the British, who were exposed to bomb damage and enemy action every night, to carry a share that was greater than their fair share.
I think we must realize that we are living in a very small world. If the British now find it necessary to go into other parts of the world to buy their wheat at a price lower than that which is being offered in Canada, the fact that during the war we sold wheat to Great Britain at a price that appeared to be lower than the world price does not mean that we can now ask that the British standard of living should be driven lower and lower when we are unwilling to accept from the British a larger volume of their goods.
I think the Canadian people must realize that unless we are going to make it possible for more British goods to come into our country, and unless we are going to accept the fact that part of the cost of repairing the war damage in Great Britain is a legitimate cost for the Canadian people to bear, we cannot expect to have as large a volume of Canadian goods going into the British market as we have had going there during past years.
What I have said of Canada is, of course, more applicable to the United States. During two wars our rich and powerful neighbours to the south sat on the sidelines for too long a time. Of course, when they finally came in, their help was an extremely important factor in turning the tide. Nevertheless, there is no doubt about it that at the end of both wars the United States found itself in a much stronger position than it was in at the beginning. For the sake of the free world, I think the United States should be carrying a larger share of the cost of repairing the war damage in Europe and of helping
Supply-Trade and Commerce the people in the underprivileged countries of the world to get a standard of living that is more comparable with that in the United States.
I therefore suggest that the minister act on the proposal made by the hon. member for Assiniboia with respect to trying to negotiate with the United Kingdom with a view to having a larger volume of British goods come into Canada on a basis similar to that on which we bought our rubber or our silk during the war. The Minister of Trade and Commerce bought up large supplies of silk and rubber. Had it not been for his foresight and that of his department, the outcome might have been different. I think it would be quite legitimate now for the minister to set up a board, similar to the one he had then for the purchase of silk or rubber, to purchase these commodities in Great Britain and to supply them through the regular channels in Canada, so that more British goods could be consumed in this country and so that the best customer we have had for so many years should be able to continue to purchase and to use Canadian goods.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I just want to make one observation, Mr. Chairman, with regard to pork. The minister has more or less given the assurance that, under the tender, it was stipulated that the pork would be shipped outside of the North American continent. In the minds of some people there seems to be some doubt whether that stipulation was carried out. I have no very good reason for saying that, except more or less rumours. I wonder whether inquiries could be made in order to satisfy the committee that that agreement was carried out.
On March 30 the Secretary of State for External Affairs tabled a copy of the international sugar agreement for the regulation of the production and marketing of sugar. At that time he indicated that this matter could be discussed when the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce were being dealt with. I intend to be brief and I intend to deal only with the agreement as it affects Canada. This agreement apparently came into force on January 1 of this year. When he spoke on March 30 the minister said that his purpose in rising was merely to inform the house of the intention of the government to participate in the international sugar agreement.
There are only one or two aspects in connection with that agreement that concern me at the moment. I have here a copy of the international sugar agreement that is set out in the International Sugar Journal dated

Supply-Trade and Commerce November, 1953. I am first going to quote article 14, paragraph 1, which reads as follows:
For each of the quota years during which this agreement is in force the exporting countries or areas named below shall have the following basic export tonnages for the free market:
Thousands
of
Tons
Belgium (inc. Belgian Congo)	 50
Brazil	 175
China (Taiwan)	   600
Colombia	 5
Cuba	 2,250
Czechoslovakia	 275
Denmark	 70
Dominican Republic	 600
France (and the countries France
represents internationally)	 20
Germany (Eastern)	 150
Haiti	     45
Hungary	 40
Indonesia	 250
Mexico	 75
Netherlands (inc. Surinam)	 40
Peru	 280
Philippines	 25
Poland	 220
U.S.S.R	 200
Yugoslavia	 20
My information is that as of May of this year Colombia, Denmark, Germany, Indonesia, Peru and Yugoslavia have not ratified the agreement. The next portion I should like to read is to be found in paragraph 1 of article 16 which reads in part as follows:
The government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (on behalf of the British West Indies and British Guiana, Mauritius and Fiji), the government of the commonwealth of Australia, and the government of the Union of South Africa, undertake that net exports of sugar by the exporting countries covered by the commonwealth sugar agreement of 1951 (excluding local movements of sugar between adjoining commonwealth territories, or islands, in such quantities as can be authenticated by custom) shall not together exceed the following total quantities:-
I am not going to include the various quantities, but I am going to read the next part of the paragraph which is as follows:
Subject to contractual obligations assumed by the governments concerned under the commonwealth sugar agreement of 1951, the quantitative limits for the calendar years 1954, 1955 and 1956 specified above shall not be varied and the provisions of all other articles of this agreement shall be construed accordingly.
Then the next paragraph is the one which
1	think contains the essence of what I want to convey to the committee. It is paragraph
2	of article 16:
These limitations have the effect of leaving available to the free market a share in the sugar markets of commonwealth countries. The governments aforementioned would, however, regard themselves as released from their obligation thus to limit exports of commonwealth sugar if a government or governments of a participating exporting country or of participating countries having a

basic export tonnage or tonnages under article 14(1) should enter into a special trading arrangement with an importing country of the commonwealth which would guarantee the exporting country a specified portion of the market of that commonwealth country.
No doubt Canada was represented at that conference by an official of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and I am wondering how this particular paragraph was made part and parcel of the sugar agreement. To put it in other words, Canada, a member of the British commonwealth of nations, did enter into an agreement with an exporting country, Cuba, for the purpose of increasing trade between the two countries and took a certain amount of sugar from that country. This particular paragraph of the [DOT]agreement refers to only one country in the British commonwealth, and that country is Canada. It is true, as I understand the situation today, that the sugar refiners of this country are accepting raw sugar from Cuba and refining it here as required. However, to me the situation is a bit delicate so far as Canada is concerned. I have some questions I should like to ask on this matter and when the minister is replying to them I would ask him to refer to the representations made on behalf of Canada by our representative at the time this agreement was tentatively signed. My questions are:
1.	Has our government already indicated it intends to ratify the international sugar agreement?
2.	Canada is the only commonwealth importer of sugar of any consequence outside the United Kingdom. Since article 16 (2) in effect singles out Canada as a commonwealth importer of sugar, and makes it impossible for Canada to freely enter sugar trading arrangements with any non-empire exporter of sugar, does the minister recommend that the international sugar agreement be accepted in the form tabled in this house on March 30?
3.	Has the government registered objection to article 16 (2)?
4.	Is it the government's intention to officially object to this clause?
5.	The United States has ratified the international sugar agreement with the condition that any change in the treaty terms must be approved by a two-thirds vote. Has the Canadian government considered provisionally approving the international sugar agreement with the exception of article 16 (2)?
6.	Would the minister outline what benefits will accrue to Canada if we become active participants in this international sugar agreement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I could answer the questions about the sugar agreement. The sugar agreement really produces a cartel, if you like. The principal producing countries in the world have formed themselves into a group and signed an agreement. The agreement provides principally that sugar will not be sold below a minimum price of $3.25 per hundred pounds and that it will not be sold at a price above $4.35 per hundred pounds. Sugar is to be sold within that price range, and the agreement provides that acreage shall be reduced in case of surplus or increased in case of shortage.
You ask why Canada signed. I do not quite know why we signed except that our principal trading countries were very anxious that we should. The United Kingdom asked us to support the agreement. Cuba, with whom we had developed a good trade, made a similar request. Before we did so we got an agreement from Cuba in the most explicit terms that the favourable trading conditions that we enjoyed in Cuba as the result of our purchase of Cuban sugar for a three-year period would carry on without that purchase, provided Canada would sign the sugar agreement.
We do not like cartels. We do not like to be members of them. However, there seemed to be no penalty in it and therefore we decided to sign the sugar agreement. Canada is free to buy its sugar from any member of the agreement, which includes practically every sugar producing country that Canada has ever patronized. We can see some advantage in a stable price. The difficulty that our beet sugar producers had in the past resulted from an abnormally low price in the cane producing areas. The fact that there is a cartel among the producers is a protection to our sugar beet growers and the fact that there is a maximum price, which is quite reasonable, is a protection to the consumers of Canada.
Perhaps the effect of the agreement as far as Canada is concerned will be beneficial. There is a penalty with respect to special exclusive agreements being made between a member of the sugar cartel and an outside purchaser. Canada cannot be penalized because there is no way of penalizing Canada under the agreement; but if we made an exclusive arrangement with Cuba, as we did in the three years previous to the agreement, Cuba could be penalized under the terms of the agreement. However, no such agreement has been made.
Our three-year agreement terminated at the first of January of this year and the sugar agreement was signed subsequent to that date. We are a member of the agreement
Supply-Trade and Commerce but we have no special arrangements with anyone. Our refiners buy their raw sugar where they please and make their own arrangements as to price. The government is out of the sugar business, I am happy to say, and I have heard no repercussions from any source on that account. I hope that answers the questions. If there is another question perhaps the hon. member will ask it again.


Mr. Siuarl (Charlotte):: I should like to ask the minister if in his opinion coffee, as well as sugar, is perhaps handled today by a cartel.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sure the price would not be any higher than it is. If you could stabilize the price of coffee within a reasonable range that might be helpful, but coffee is a more restricted crop. Sugar is grown in a good many countries and is susceptible to sharp increases in acreage and sharp decreases when the plants in an area are diseased. No one has ever suggested a coffee cartel that I know of, and I hope no one ever will, because I do not like cartels and I do not think the people of Canada like cartels or anything about them.


Mr. Blackmore:: Can the minister tell us what these prices were based on? Were they based on raw sugar?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The prices are for raw sugar f.o.b. Cuba.


Mr. Mang:: I should like to say a few words at this time and in doing so it is not because I feel myself competent or qualified to advise the Minister of Trade and Commerce or anyone else in the house. There are a few matters with which I wish to deal, but I can tell hon. members that I will not make a speech on wheat. Since those in this corner have started to call me Mr. Wheat I thought I would set hon. members' minds at rest at the outset by saying that I am not going to deal with that unmentionable subject at the moment. I just rise to try to keep the record straight on a few things that have been brought up during this discussion. We have listened to some of our friends from Saskatchewan who are not as timid as I am vocally, and yet I feel that in justice to Saskatchewan and a large number of people who live there engaged in this business of providing such a large proportion of our export market with this cereal, which is our only visible means of support, I should like to keep the record straight.
Before doing that, I want to register this comment. At the moment in trade and commerce we are in a period of readjustment throughout the whole world. For a number of

Supply-Trade and Commerce years since the war there has been a great disparity between ourselves and those upon whose areas the battles were fought and a great deal of destruction took place. The standards of living of these people, who suffered most during the war, were brought to a very low level. Naturally, when the people of London and Berlin, as well as other areas, lived in rubble, with no visible means of support, the standard of living was very low. We on this continent, the great industrial machine of the world, were relatively untouched. Immediately after the war there was a period in which we began to supply the wants of those people in order to try to rehabilitate them. The United States gave grants to the work, and so did we.
As soon as the people in those areas began to find their feet, as it were, naturally they went into the business of production. They could produce at a lower figure per hour than we could because their standard of living was low. Even 25 cents or 50 cents an hour looked big to them, and Britain and the rest of these countries that suffered so much are coming back. In this process, we on the North American continent built up for ourselves a very high standard of living. The people engaged in the British electrical industry will work for 53 cents an hour, whereas our people ask $1.53 an hour. Sometimes we wonder why the Britisher gets the contract.
I am not saying anything against a high standard of living; goodness knows, I am one of those who like a high standard. These are the simple facts of the modern world in which we live.
A few moments ago I mentioned that we were in a period of readjustment. I feel that an adjustment will have to be made in one form or another, no matter what we say or do. It is a natural process that is taking place. Those who would place all the responsibility upon this parliament are a little bit "off the beam." We in western Canada should remember that there are farmers in other parts of this country besides Saskatchewan. I sit here amid some who live among farmers. I hear them discuss the fact that they have four thousand barrels of potatoes, and one man says the price of potatoes is really low. When I hear that, I begin to think of the bushels in our granaries out west, 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000 bushels. Before I came down here I had no idea that there were commodities piled up in such quantities as 3,000 or 4,000 bushels of potatoes. The potato growers have their problems, just as we have ours. I am not attempting to speak for them; that is up to them. I may say that all down the line the same thing holds true.


We say that we produce too much of this product that I must not mention this afternoon. However, we produce more textiles than we need; we produce more potatoes than we need; and we produce a lot more of a good many things than we need. As I mentioned in a radio broadcast the last time I was in Saskatchewan, we people in Saskatchewan seem to think that this product I must not mention this afternoon is the largest factor in our trade. If you look at the figures for pulpwood, for example, you will find that there is as much pulpwood that goes into internatonal trade as there is of this particular cereal.
Just to keep the record straight, and because we have had such adjectives as catastrophic used in connection with drawing a picture to illustrate that we, in the province where I was born and raised, are facing economic collapse, I should like to say a few things. In fairness to the other members of parliament here who will be asked from time to time to consider where we in the west fit into the Canadian economic picture, perhaps it would be well to keep the record straight. As you know, there is an international trade fair taking place in Toronto now. At this particular fair Saskatchewan, along with the other provinces, has a booth. In this booth, from which we are trying to establish relationships as a province with the businessmen in other parts of the world, we have a publication entitled "Saskatchewan Invites You". There is a picture on it of a very handsome gentleman whose voice was heard in this house years ago, Mr. T. C. Douglas, the premier of Saskatchewan. I am going to quote from this publication "Saskatchewan Invites You", with the picture of Mr. Douglas on it. The heading is, "Up-to-date Information about Saskatchewan". I am going to read this, but before doing so I may say that I have been digging up some figures just to satisfy myself that things are not perhaps quite as bad as I am being told they are at the moment. However, we are not just as flush as we might be. We have a little dollar shortage-perhaps it is a big one-that arises because we have not sold these two billion bushels we have grown in the last three years. But we are selling some.
Now this is information about Saskatchewan, and it reads as follows:
The average per capita income in Saskatchewan in the past year has been estimated at $1,360 which is again about 12 per cent above the national average.
For the third successive year, Saskatchewan led all provinces in the annual percentage gain of retail sales, increasing 7-2 per cent to an estimated $817 million.
A 15 per cent increase in life insurance sales during the year indicates a parallel advance in personal

savings in Saskatchewan. The value of work performed by the construction industry jumped from $181 million in 1952 to $217 million in 1953. The industry employed 24,000 persons.
Capital investment in plant and machinery advanced from $15-9 million in 1952 to $21 million in 1953.
Investment in exploration and development of oil and natural gas last year reached well over $50 million and this year will approach $70 million. In addition, refinery capacity in the province has more than doubled in recent years. Production of 2-8 million barrels of oil and 1-5 billion cubic feet of natural gas in 1953 may well be doubled in 1954.
Mineral output in the past year was valued at $48 million without including the value of extensive uranium production.
Employment in Saskatchewan has increased about 4 per cent since 1949, compared to a national increase of less than 2 per cent.
That is, for the rest of Canada.
The Saskatchewan wheat crop in 1953 totalled 375 million bushels. This is 13 per cent lower than the record production of 1952, but is 61 per cent higher than the average of the preceding ten years.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Good government out there.


Henry Philip Mang: Supply-Trade and Commerce our sectional differences and work in the interests of Canada we will come to a realization of that vision of fifty years ago.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak, and I shall speak only briefly. In order to keep the record straight, as we have been told, there are one or two remarks I should like to make.
First of all, I have not heard any member from Saskatchewan, either in this party or elsewhere, plead poverty on behalf of the farmers of that province. It is true that for the last ten years Saskatchewan has developed tremendously under the leadership of the gentleman who was mentioned by my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle, the Hon. T. C. Douglas. There is no question whatsoever about it, that the figures placed on record this afternoon are an eloquent tribute to what has been done in that province.
Again, I am not taking anything away from the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is in his seat this afternoon. I have very high respect for him, and I know he has done much to further the interests of this country. He has done much in an effort to further some of our trade policies. But I do wish to say this to my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle, that in the past we have had periods of prosperous years, and in the past those prosperous years have been followed by depressions. When we see farm prices falling, whether they are the prices of wheat, of oats, of milk or of potatoes, they are ominous signs for the economy of this country. We find usually that the first drop indicating anything in the nature of a recession is a drop in farm prices. Other prices then also come down gradually. What we are anxious to do is to see that under those farm commodities there is something of a floor, so that the people in the rural areas may continue to buy the products of the industrial areas. I believe that ultimately we are not going to put the kind of floors under those products that we have been putting under them in past years for a year or so. I believe that sooner or later in large part the policies that have been adopted in a number of other countries in the world, where there are forward prices, where a farmer knows before he puts the grain in the ground what he is really going to get this year and in a couple of years, will be adopted here. When a calf is born on his farm the farmer will know what he is going to get for the finished steer at a minimum price four years from now or three years from now, if it is a three-year-old steer. He will know what he is going to get for eggs and butter over a period of time. That is the policy worked out in a good many countries. That is the policy that
[Mr. Mang.l
has kept production high in agriculture, for example, in the United Kingdom, and that is all we have in mind. We are not denying that the policies of the federal and of the provincial governments have enabled our people in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba producing farm commodities, and in other provinces too, to enjoy a better standard of living than they had in the old cutthroat competition days, when there were no floors and everything went in the direction in which it cared to go.
Under this item we are discussing the policies of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and these things have to be taken into consideration. I merely rose to tell my hon. friend that at the moment there are ominous signs in our economy. It is well that hon. members from various farm constituencies in all parts of Canada should draw the attention of the government to those ominous signs and ask for some protection against them. Let us bear in mind that in the depression years some great corporations and companies in this country did not feel the depression a bit. They were protected. They are in a protected market. The farmers are in an unprotected market, or were before the war. What we want to see is equality. If there is to be a readjustment, as my hon. friend says, then it has to be a readjustment all round. If we have great industries that are enjoying protection and are able to keep up prices by turning labour out into the street in order that they may reduce production and keep prices up, then it is the duty of the government to exercise its power and interfere, and exercise some control.
I am saying to my hon. friend that we are not complaining that our farmers are poverty-stricken. It would not be true if we did. But what we are pointing out is that in the past we have seen periods of prosperity followed by periods of acute recession and depression when the bottom dropped right out of the market-and when the bottom drops out of the agricultural market it drops out of the industrial market.
If there is one lesson we learned during the war it was that in this respect the interests of the workingman in the city and the worker on the farm are identical. In my province, when eggs were selling at 3 cents a dozen a million people were on relief in this country. When wheat was 21 cents a bushel a million people were on relief in this country. In the industrial areas there was no work and no prices for farm products. What we are anxious to see is that steps are taken by the government and by this department to see to it that that kind of thing does not recur in the future. That is all we have in mind.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am sure we are all gratefully moved by the speech of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. I am sure the minister in particular must have been delighted to know that he is a legendary figure not only when the price is going up but when it is coming down. We do not grow very much wheat in Greenwood, and that is all I am going to say about wheat, Mr. Chairman.
I want to make a few remarks, perhaps more in the nature of questions which the minister can answer later. But there was one point of interest that I wanted to put on the record. We all seem to agree that the minister is an optimist. I think he calls himself that, and we often call him that. I thought I would find out what an optimist is and so I looked in the dictionary. A little to my surprise I found-perhaps the minister will be surprised, too, to find what he really is when he describes himself as an optimist- that in the world of business he is associating himself with the philosophers, because I found that the definition of an optimist is a doctrine, a philosophic doctrine, that the actual world is the best of all possible worlds, or the view that good must ultimately prevail over evil in the universe. I am sure it is a great comfort to us all to know that that is the background of the minister's attitude in the things which he does and leaves undone. I bring that forward just as a key perhaps to the explanation of some of the things which we may not fully understand at the moment. We will try to believe that the explanation will come and that when it comes it will have this characterization of great wisdom.
There is of course a danger in optimism, as the hon. member for Eglinton pointed out. He referred to Nelson's telescope and one might refer also to rose-coloured glasses. As I listened to the minister this morning I had the feeling that some of the favourable features he talked about, however pleasant in themselves, would be more significant at the moment if they seemed to be producing better results.
The minister spoke about the improvement in Europe, and the United Kingdom freeing of trade channels; but actually when we look at what we exported to the United Kingdom last year we find that it is $80 million less, and therefore I feel that, however pleasant it is to know that in certain directions the British are freeing their channels of trade, it is mainly in the sterling area and in the non-sterling countries outside North America, and that at the moment the attitude toward us is not nearly so co-operative.
The minister also referred to South American countries such as Brazil. I made some inquiries about Brazilian exchange but did
Supply-Trade and Commerce not go into it because it is a puzzle that is beyond me. It does seem a fantastic situation that they have there. So far as I can see, it is not going to facilitate us very much in carrying on trade there.
The minister also spoke about convertibility, and here I want to say one word. The Minister of Finance has spoken with optimism about it. When I asked him a question the other day he gave me a not very informative answer. The effect of it was to assure me that he was still regarding it in an optimistic frame of mind. However pleasant it may be for the minister, and the rest of us, it does not take us very far. My own feeling is that convertibility, true convertibility, is much more in the hands of the United States than it is in the hands of the United Kingdom. Actually, my understanding is that at the moment we have in a narrow sense convertibility with the United Kingdom in the sense that whatever they buy they can pay for in dollars; but the answer is that they restrict what they can buy by quotas and embargoes of various sorts, so that their purchases match their available dollars. In that sense you have convertibility of money, but you have a great restriction of trade, as shown by those figures I have just quoted. Therefore, when the minister speaks in rather optimistic terms about convertibility of sterling, I feel just a little uneasy for fear he is not being fully realistic.
The best information I can get from people who I think are well-informed in London is that they do not think the British people are putting convertibility as their top priority. They are able to deal pretty well in a good many other countries of the world, and convertibility of sterling with the dollar involves certain tightening of the belt; it involves certain stringent measures against any kind of inflation. And as I say, the best information I can get leads me to believe that they have not put it as a top priority. I come back again, therefore, to it and say it depends far more on the United States and on the attitude which they are going to take towards trade. Now, the minister was quite realistic about that this morning. I do not think he spoke too optimistically about the immediate situation in the United States. But actually when we turn back to the meeting in March last we find the account of that meeting not very reassuring, and what has happened since is even less reassuring. I have here the Montreal Star for March 17, and the article reads as follows:
Canada and the United States, in a top level inter-cabinet conference ending here today, agreed to consult together on steps to be taken in handling the most pressing issue between the two countries, disposal of excessive stocks of farm products.
5796	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce
Wheat was the principal commodity used as an example in discussing effect of the agreement.
One way to express the results from the Canadian viewpoint, it was suggested, would be to say that, while the United States may tread on our toes, she will give us warning first.
It is not a comforting statement. We have had a good deal of treading on toes, though I am not quite sure how much warning was first given. At any rate, coming back to what the hon. member for Eglinton said this morning, and what he said seemed to me sounded the bell, although the United States is actually very much bigger than we are we do not have to truckle to them, and we can talk to them as man to man, though one just wonders whether we perhaps have been a bit too complacent.
Now I come back to the Montreal Star, with regard to the meeting of March last:
While it provided ground for claiming a victory for Canada, a communique marking the end of the sessions was expected to emphasize that the greatest achievement lay in the fact that the four ranking cabinet members of each of the two countries could sit down together, define their common interests, and find that both countries want to help each other.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I have heard it is very pleasant for them to sit down together.
I hope they did it in appropriate circumstances of comfort and refreshment. But it leaves one rather cold when we find out that the practical results are that they found out that both countries wanted to help each other. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is the evidence of that that we want. It is the result which flows from that that we want, and the hon. member for Eglinton this morning had a good deal to say to indicate that the results so far have not been what we would like.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman,
I want to thank the hon. member for looking up the meaning of the word "optimistic". It is a purely altruistic act, because my friend has not an ounce of it in his system, and it is very helpful to know just what it means. I looked up the word "pessimism" which is of particular concern to my hon. friend. The definition is:
Tendency to look at the worst aspect of things; doctrine that this world is the worst possible, or that all things tend to evil.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I deny that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: However, I will take off my rose-coloured glasses. I have this satisfaction, namely that I have gone against public opinion pretty consistently since 1944 and I have never had any tendency to take back any prediction I made during that period. I have heard my hon. friend discuss various subjects and I have never


known him to be right during that entire period, so perhaps we can both be reasonably happy.
My hon. friend is pessimistic about convertibility. Well, I am not. I believe there are tendencies which indicate that it is not far away. It is a complicated subject and no one country can practise it successfully in the European scene without being joined by other countries. That preliminary work is going ahead. The monetary agreement with Germany is a step in that direction, and I think England is better satisfied than previously that their well-being is not so dependent on the prosperity of the United States as they had at first supposed.
I pointed out in the remarks I made that even though there has been some economic setback in the United States in the past few months, Britain's trade position with the United States has continued to improve during that period. However, that is by the way.
My hon. friend belongs to his school of thought and I belong to mine, and I wish I could win him over because his life would be very much happier. But there is no point in undertaking a hopeless task.
However, I would like to say a few words in reply to a number of hon. members who have pointed out that a great deal of our trade is directed toward the United States. I might point out that Canada is a free economy, perhaps the freest economy in the world. Any Canadian citizen is free to buy anywhere he likes in the world, and Canadian currency is convertible to any currency in the world.
In addition, any Canadian citizen is free to sell his goods in any market in the world and the Department of Trade and Commerce is equipped to help him to do so because we are organized in every market in the world.
We make a determined effort to help our people sell their goods in the United States, and we have a strong service there for that purpose. We have an equally strong service in the United Kingdom and anyone with a desire to sell his products in the United Kingdom receives all the assistance the department can give. The same is true of any country you care to name in Europe. We are represented in 50 countries throughout the world by trade commissioners who are capable, well trained, and thoroughly familiar with their market.
That is the function of the Department of Trade and Commerce. It is said: "Why not stop selling so much in the United States?" But it is not our job to stop selling so much in the United States. It may be asked: "Why

do we sell in the United States?" It is the handiest market; goods can be delivered at the lowest freight rate compared with any other market in the world; there is no trouble about currency; and theirs is a free economy just as ours is a free economy. It is the most natural thing in the world for anyone who desires to export goods from Canada to examine the possibility of sale in the United States market.
It is because of these facts that a very considerable proportion of our exports are sold in the United States. We know that certain things will not sell in the United States. We cannot sell wheat. Why? Because the United States grows all the wheat that that country needs and has a surplus to export just as we have. There are certain other products we cannot sell in the United States, but we find markets for these products elsewhere.
It is a natural market place, but there should be no reason why things which cannot be sold in the United States should not be sold elsewhere.
It may be asked: "Why do people buy so much from the United States?" It is a voluntary act on their part and I presume the reason why they buy from the United States is that they find they can be better suited by the products sold in that country. Certainly I know of no other reason. There is no inducement put out by the government of Canada to people to buy goods in the United States other than in their own interests.
In the matter of tariffs, the tariffs against United States goods are the tariffs charged against goods from every favoured-nation country. As far as the United Kingdom and the commonwealth are concerned we have preferential tariffs. I have forgotten the proportion of goods which come in from the United Kingdom free of duty-but perhaps I have it here. The goods which came in in 1952 amounted to a total of $359,757,000, and of that amount $202,938,000 entered duty free. That was 56-4 per cent of our total imports from the United Kingdom.
We offer tariff preferences for those who wish to buy their goods in the United Kingdom, as an inducement for them to do so. I do not know how the government could go further, except by erecting prohibitions against purchases in the United States. Assuming for the moment that we agreed with the opposition -and I may say that I do not at all agree with them-that we have too much trade with the United States, the only way in which we can stop it is to put up artificial barriers in the way of prohibitions or to put on excessive duties against the United States, a procedure which is, of course, unthinkable.
Supply-Trade and Commerce
I hope that those who weep and complain about the size of our trade with the United States perhaps will, before this debate finishes, tell us just what we should do to re-orient our trade. It is the feeling of the Department of Trade and Commerce that we need every market in the world and that we need to use that market in the best interests of Canada, Canadian business and the Canadian consumer. That is the natural direction of Canada's trade. In a free economy people buy where they like. There is only one way that I know of in which to increase imports from the United Kingdom and that is to have more Canadian citizens take an interest in buying in the United Kingdom, search out things that can be bought there to their better advantage than elsewhere, and direct their purchasing towards the United Kingdom. That is the only answer I can give. I am exceedingly tired of having opposition members, who have no responsibility in the matter, stand up, denounce the United States as an octopus and say that we should not have so much trade with the United States.


Mr. Stick:: Mr. Chairman, I shall take only a few moments, but I do not think these opportunities should pass without someone from my province making some comment upon the trade treaties which have just been signed between Canada and Portugal, Spain and now Italy. For many years in Newfoundland our salt codfish industry was a continual worry to us. This market we were losing year by year. So much was that the case that many people felt that it was a hopeless position we were being placed in and that we could never get it back so that it would be nearly comparable in size with what it was many years ago.
It was a matter of grave concern to us because the codfish industry is our national industry. Some of us had been working and had felt that the marketing of our salt codfish had to be taken out of the organization which had been handling it, and that the marketing should be done through the Department of Trade and Commerce and through the highest levels of government. That step was taken a few months ago when, by agreement with our provincial government, authority was passed over to the Department of Trade and Commerce here to look into the marketing conditions of our salt codfish industry and to see what could be done. The measure of the stature of the Minister of Trade and Commerce is this. Within a week he set the wheels of his department in motion. Within three months we have already had three profitable trade agreements and possibly we may soon have a

Supply-Trade and Commerce fourth. Those are facts, Mr. Chairman, that I do not think should go unnoticed in the House of Commons.
We now feel far better about our salt codfish market than we have felt for many years. We now feel that we have begun to market our salt codfish in the right manner. We feel that we are now getting this national industry of ours back on a sound footing. I do not think the opportunity should pass without someone from my province saying a word about what has happened. When I go back home-and I hope to very shortly-I believe a different feeling will exist amongst our fishermen. I believe they will now have a confidence that they have not had for many years that our marketing problems are in the way of being solved. I believe they will feel free to go fishing again. It is my opinion that when they finish up the fishing season this year, they will feel far happier than they have felt for many years. I throw no bouquets in this chamber but I merely say this. .It was the energy, foresight and business experience of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that brought this situation about, and I think the committee should be told that fact.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the item carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, at this stage I will confine myself to clearing up several points that have arisen. In his remarks of a moment ago, the Minister of Trade and Commerce seemed to be extremely touchy on this subject of the extent to which Canada's trading eggs were being placed in the American basket and about the concern expressed by some of us on this side of the house over that fact and over the fact that the American market, surveyed over the long years, has not been too satisfactory. Conditions have arisen there when the Canadian producer received scant consideration. We have seen that situation in the past two years, when it suited the convenience of the American congress to enact legislation even in breach of the provisions of the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
Let me say to the minister that the concern which we have expressed as to the dangers resulting from Canada's placing all her trading eggs in one basket is not shared alone by those on this side of the house. We hold the view that the minister expressed when he said that we wish to extend our trade in all parts of the world. Of course we wish to do that. But we in this part of the chamber are concerned-and rightly so-that the minister takes such an easy-going, nonchalant attitude about the way in which our export trade to our traditional market in Great Britain drops and the way in which we lose that market, as long as he has in the United States a place

from which to buy or, to a lesser extent, a place to which to sell. When we have an unfavourable balance of trade with the United States of some $800 million, as we had last year, that fact apparently does not give the minister any cause for concern.
Mr. Chairman, I have said that we on this side of the chamber are not the only ones concerned about this matter of the eggs being put in one basket. Will you listen to this, sir? This is a statement reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail of September 12, 1952. I will read the statement and then I will give you the author of it. The statement reads as follows:
Canada's economic position, at present strong, also has a weakness, . . .
"That weakness is that Canada depends so much upon the United States . . . Canadians can never be freed from the fear of a slump in the U.S., for which we would not in any way be responsible and which we could do little to control."
Those are the words of the Minister of National Revenue.


Clarence Decatur Howe: So what?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce could profit by the comments of his colleague and take a word of warning instead of preserving this easy-going, nonchalant attitude that everything is rosy.
The next thing upon which I should like to comment is the interjection that came from the minister and from his parliamentary assistant during my remarks earlier today concerning what they said was the sale of Canadian wheat to Russia. Mr. Chairman, I could not believe my ears, and I suggested that Canadian sales of wheat to Russia would not amount to anything of any substance. On consulting the official records of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the year 1953 I find that our exports to Russia for the year 1953 amounted to $478. If you look up the details, you will find that the record does not show any sales of wheat to Russia.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What about the year 1954?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If there are available some figures for the year 1954, it would be interesting indeed to see them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You read the evening paper to keep up to date.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I read the statistics of the minister's department. To the extent that they are not up to date I suppose we shall have to lack figures. But I tell the minister that it would be interesting to know how much wheat, if any, Canada sold to Russia in the first four months of this year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I can answer that question. I did not say "wheat"; I said "grain". The amount is about two or three cargoes; I am not just sure how much.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Now it is "grain". This morning the discussion was on the subject of wheat.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I mentioned grain. I said we are selling grain to Russia. If you do not believe it, look at the green sheet.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You will find that at the time I was discussing wheat, and we will weigh the minister's statement on that basis.
The other matter upon which I wish to make comment is this. I made reference to the question I had asked the minister in the house about communications passing between the government of Canada and the government of the United States concerning a possible attempt to limit the export of Canadian base metals to the United States. At page 4106 of Hansard of April 26, appears the question that I asked on the orders of the day. It reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if negotiations are proceeding in any form between the government of Canada and the United States with respect to the possible limitation of export by Canada of base metals to the United States; if so, what stage these negotiations have reached and what position the Canadian government is taking.
The answer of the Minister of Trade and Commerce was:
Mr. Speaker, there are no such negotiations current at the present time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, but I might point out that the hon. member was then talking in April and now he is talking in June, and much has happened since.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is interesting because what I was referring to this morning was the question I had asked the minister and he got up and made the pointblank assertion-the record will show it-that he had not made any such answer as I had referred to. My statement as to the effect of the minister's answer is entirely in keeping with his actual answer as I read it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My answer was correct at that time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The statement the minister now makes about something that has happened since was not the explanation the minister made when this matter came up earlier in the day. If the minister wished to say that although he had given this answer on an earlier occasion nevertheless subsequently there had been communications on
Supply-Trade and Commerce the subject it might have been an accurate answer, but it seems to me for the minister simply to deny boldly the statement I attributed to him this morning is quite at variance with the record of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
426. Trade commissioner service, $2,720,244.
Mr. Michener:: This item involves the
expenditure of $2,720,244 for our trade commissioner service. I want to say a word about it and pose one or two general questions. I find in the report of the department for the year 1953 that we have 100 foreign service commissioners in fifty-one posts in most of the countries of the world. A rough break-down appears to show that twelve of these posts are in commonwealth countries and seven in the United States. I notice that one post in the United States at Los Angeles is being discontinued, which will leave six. The others are in various countries of the world except of course those behind the iron curtain.
The vote of course includes head office administration expenses, but if one takes the entire vote and distributes it among the posts one gets a cost of about $54,000 for the maintenance of each of the trade commissioner posts. It is a very important service. It can be and I am sure is of great assistance to Canadian business. Its functions are to assist in selling Canadian goods and to find markets, as well as to assist Canadians in their purchases abroad. In making these few comments I simply wish to raise two general questions. I should like to know first of all whether all means are taken to acquaint Canadian businessmen with the valuable services which are available to them so that we can get the best value for these special agents of the country whose duty it is to assist Canadian business. Obviously we are maintaining this service at considerable expense and it is important to derive the greatest benefit from it.
I know there are means by which these services are made available, and I am familiar with some of the publications of the department. I simply raise the point that it is important to make sure that we do get the best value from these special salesmen and purchasing assistants. The other point has to do with the fifty-one continuing offices. As the minister says, we are now entering a more competitive market, particularly for manufactured goods, and perhaps he would say something about the decision to continue with the same number of posts.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Clarence Decatur Howe: I appreciate the interest of my hon. friend in the trade commissioner service, and I am glad that he has had an opportunity to visit some of the offices of the service. The more people do that, the more they will appreciate the calibre of the men we have in the service. We do make every effort to bring home to Canadian businessmen the fact that this service is available to them. The department publishes a magazine called Foreign Trade which comes out every two weeks and has a very wide circulation. It contains up to the minute news from our trade commissioners abroad and often articles about special conditions in one of the countries where the service is represented.
We also bring the trade commissioners home to Canada every three years and send them on a tour across the country. That tour of duty lasts about six months, and they are supposed to contact every businessman who has any interest in their particular area, explain the conditions to him, find out the problems in which the Canadian businessman is interested and work out a plan for closer co-operation in the future. That tour is taken before the man gets his holiday leave. After a year in Canada he goes back to his post with fresh business contacts in this country.
As my hon. friend said, I believe we have fifty-one offices at the moment. New offices under consideration are at Hamburg in Germany, Salisbury in Rhodesia, Accra on the Gold Coast, and Istanbul in Turkey, and we are again considering reopening the office in Los Angeles. We try to keep the service up to the requirements of Canadian businessmen. As soon as we find a particular interest in an area that is not well served we correct that by either transferring an office from a less important position or opening a new office in the area with which we are concerned.
Examinations for the candidates for the service are held annually. We take university men and give them special training before sending them into the field. They have a year's training in Canada in a special course arranged by the department and are then sent out in junior positions in the field and are given the opportunity to become fully experienced under an experienced trade commissioner. After we are satisfied with their ability they are promoted to independent posts. I may say that I have been tremendously impressed with this service. I have been impressed with the way our officers work at a problem. After all, there are

no rewards for them. The reward for the businessman is that he will probably make a substantial profit if the transaction is carried out. The only reward for a trade commissioner is the satisfaction of having helped the businessman carry out the transaction.
I have seen these men working days on end on one particular transaction, perhaps a transaction involving a few million dollars. They have had the satisfaction of seeing the transaction completed; they have put in their report, and that is that. They turn to the next transaction. I must say that I think it is a great credit to the service that that kind of enthusiasm can be maintained. I am glad indeed that my hon. friend had the opportunity of meeting commissioners in the field.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
427. Information branch, $169,323.
Mr. Pallet!: I would point out to the minister under this item that there is substantiation for the remarks of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, where he said that it was unnecessary to purchase large amounts from a country in order to sell to it. In the issue of Foreign Trade for May 29, there was great substantiation for what the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe said, the suggestion that we do not have to buy from a country in order to sell to it. In that publication the figures are given in connection with Italy's trade with Canada and it shows that Italy imported from Canada 30-4 billion lire whereas she sold to Canada only $5-8 billion.
With regard to the publication, I would draw the minister's attention to the fact that the department is certainly to be commended for it. I feel that it is doing a very valuable service to this country. There is one question I should like to direct to the minister. I noticed that it costs $40,000 a year to publish this magazine, and I would ask the minister if he would indicate to the house who does the printing, and if salaries are paid other than the departmental salaries?
Clarence Decatur Howe: The printing is done by the queen's printer at the expense of the department. Of course, we have officers concerned with compiling the magazine. My hon. friend will realize that it takes editing and special writing to bring out a magazine of this kind, even though we do get contributions from our trade commissioners in the field. I would think that for a magazine of that kind, profusely illustrated, $40,000 a year is not excessive.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Exhibitions-
430. Exhibitions generally. $325,962.
Mr. Nowlan:: Would the minister give us an approximate break-down of this item of exhibitions generally? Just what is included in that phrase?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. We are participating in the fairs in Berlin, Hanover, the French trade fair, a fur exhibit, in Kansas City, an agricultural products show in the United Kingdom, the Japanese trade fair in Osaka and there is an amount for unforeseen exhibits. This year the amount is $78,000 as against $67,000 last year. The increase is due to the Osaka fair, an increase in the Berlin fair of $2,500, the Hanover fair of $3,000 and unforeseen, $500.


Walter Edward Harris: Just before you leave the chair, Mr. Chairman, may I advise the committee that at eight o'clock, because the Minister of Trade and Commerce is required elsewhere on public business, we shall proceed with national revenue and then fisheries.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, I take it, is first.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty' name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act for the relief of Rita Boucher Dufort.
An act for the relief of Lucy Halga Saunders Gibson.
An act for the relief of Antonie Lutz Jedrze-jewski.
An act for the relief of Jessie Clarke Thompson.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Coughtry Paquette.
An act for the relief of Isabel Ruth Smith Newey.
An act for the relief of Eugene Clifford Carbonneau.
An act for the relief of Jean Antoine Francois Armand.
An act for the relief of Maria Clara Anita Cauchon Quirion.
An act for the relief of Elsie Elizabeth Belford Grant.
An act for the relief of Jean Monette.
An act for the relief of Pearl Mary Brown Pratt.
An act for the relief of Annie Holman James.
An act for the relief of Marie Paule Lemay Mondello.
The Royal Assent
An act for the relief of Marilyn Lesley Simpson Lavallee.
An act for the relief of Edith Lorraine McBurney Robinson.
An	act for the relief of Aline Gosselin du Berger.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Eileen Lucy Tollett
Power-Williams.
An act for the relief of William Pappas.
An act for the relief of Claire Labelle Cousineau.
An act for the relief of Denise Marie Helene Laporte Woodhouse.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Lois Helena Kearns
Higham.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Dorothy Rita Wade
Moulden.
An act for the relief of Albert Thornton.
An act for the relief of Koidula Laigma Hagel.
An act for the relief of Yvette Lafontaine Tatos.
An act for the relief of Freda Becker Blumenthal.
An act for the relief of Monica Elizabeth Benoit Mullin.
An act for the relief of Felix Andre Landry.
An act for the relief of Marie-Claire Parisien Barbeau.
An act for the relief of Marie Muriel Gladys Lena Soubre Dubour.
An act for the relief of Joan Millicent Kemp Tessier.
An act for the relief of Mary Joy Thomson Asselm.
An act for the relief of Ronald Arthur Leslie.
An act for the relief of Lucienne Saint-Laurent Calve.
An act for the relief of Roberta Barbara Shvemar Feigelman.
An act for the relief of Pearl Marie Neil Lane.
An act for the relief of Marjorie May Price Amory.
An act for the relief of Marie Jeannette Laure Lafreniere Lucas.
An act for the relief of Frances Goldberg Glegg.
An act for the relief of Thelma Nellie McKeage Patrick.
An act for the relief of Madeleine Roy Julien.
An act for the relief of Louis Tothe.
An act for the relief of Nicolas Joseph Ladislas Barath.
An act for the relief of Ferencz Gyula Babinszki.
An act for the relief of Beatrice Alexandra Duff Sheppard.
An act for the relief of Remi Charbonneau.
An act for the relief of Kathleen Florence Pippy Hayward.
An act for the relief of Fred Skiffington.
An act to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act.
An act to amend the International Rapids Power Development Act.
An act to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act.
An act to amend the Research Council Act.
An act to amend the Vocational Training Coordination Act.
An act respecting inventions by public servants.
An act to amend certain acts respectihg the superannuation of government employees transferred to arown corporations.
An act to amend the Post Office Act.
An act to amend the Excise Act.
An act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
An act to amend the War Service Grants Act.
An act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
An act to amend the Bank of Canada Act.
An act respecting savings banks in the province of Quebec.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-National Revenue SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.

William Alfred Robinson: Order. I understand when the committee rose previously we were discussing item 534.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-
534. Loans to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation repayable with interest at a rate to be fixed by the governor in council on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine and to be applied in payment of expenditures to cover capital costs of television installations and to support the development of the service. Such loans, with interest, shall be a charge on the revenues of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation next after the charge imposed under the provisions of section 17 of the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936, $3,000,000.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the item carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: A number of questions were asked of the minister on the last occasion. Perhaps he would prefer to make his statement in reply to them now.


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: In the discussion of the estimates of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on Friday last, the first item we were dealing with was the matter of a loan of $3 million to the corporation for television purposes. Under that item we had a general discussion with reference to matters relating to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. At that time a number of questions were asked and perhaps it would be better for the record if I undertook to answer some of them now.
A question was asked on June 3 with reference to C.B.C. commentators for the D-day anniversary. The hon. member for Three Rivers asked:
How many C.B.C. commentators are being sent to Europe to cover the tenth anniversary of D-day?
I am informed by the C.B.C. that it is sending one commentator to Europe to cover the D-day anniversary, Mr. Marcel Ouimet. Mr. Matthew Halton, who is regularly stationed in London, will also cover the event, assisted by Mr. Douglas Lachance, regularly stationed in Paris. Both Mr. Ouimet and Mr. Halton covered the D-day invasion ten years ago.


There was another question that had to do with the broadcasting of the play "The Investigator" on Sunday, May 30. The C.B.C. reports that a play entitled "The Investigator" was broadcast last Sunday evening. The script was submitted by an outside writer and was accepted on the basis of its interest and dramatic entertainment value.
The C.B.C. does not hold itself responsible regarding the personal or political connections of outside writers who might submit scripts. The corporation does of course take the responsibility for accepting and broadcasting any given script.


Mr. Lennard:: Why repeat it? The minister gave that the other day.


James Joseph McCann: To put it on the record all at once. I am sure the hon. member will not have any objections to reading it twice.


Frank Exton Lennard: No, but I just wondered. We want to get out of here, you know.


James Joseph McCann: I am going to take the hon. gentleman at his word, and if he will assist me we shall get out of here on all these estimates between now and ten o'clock.


Frank Exton Lennard: You cannot accuse me of prolonging the discussion.


James Joseph McCann: Not at all.
Another question was asked by the hon. member for Kamloops with reference to the particular area in which he lives. Service in the mountain area of course is very hard to give. However, we have instituted what are called boosters in the towns of Castlegar and Kaslo.


Mr. Fulton:: If the minister would permit me, may I say this? I am interested in this subject and appreciate the tribute he is paying to me, but I did not ask the question. I was not here. I think he must mean the hon. member for Kootenay West. We have a booster station at the place about which I had been speaking previously.


James Joseph McCann: I have no doubt you need it. With respect to the other two stations, there are going to be boosters placed there and they will give a service to the particular locality that was complained about by the hon. member for Kootenay West.
During the course of the discussion the hon. member for the city of Hull, the hon. member for Ottawa East and the hon. member for Russell brought up a very important matter with reference to bilingual service in television for the city of Ottawa and this vicinity. Last year when we were preparing the estimates for the C.B.C., the C.B.C.

recommended to the government that we have a second transmitter in Ottawa that would service this particular part of the country, similar to that which we give in Montreal. At that time the matter was delayed because of the fact that we thought it would require an additional appropriation of money in order to build a transmitter. A transmitter, along with the things that go with it, would cost in the neighbourhood of $500,000. The situation is that at the present time we have plans and have awarded a contract for the C.B.C. station in Ottawa that is linked by microwave with Buffalo, Montreal and Toronto.
Although the policy has been to allocate one C.B.C. station to a particular area, and not to give a licence for another station until the C.B.C. has accomplished its objective in that regard, we did make an exception in the city of Montreal, where we have both an English and a French transmitter. In the building in which we propose to house these transmitters and to have studios and in which the programs will originate, we feel that we can very easily have another extra transmitter for Ottawa, Hull and district.
The representations that were made by the hon. member for Hull, the hon. member for Ottawa East and the hon. member for Russell were in accordance with what was the policy of the corporation, although up to this time it had not been announced. I am very happy to announce now that the government is prepared to authorize the C.B.C. to put in a second transmitter and to allocate another channel to Ottawa, so that as soon as the building and the order for the transmitter can be fulfilled we will proceed with the institution of a second transmitter under the control of the C.B.C., which will serve Ottawa, Hull and district, and thus give bilingual television to this area.
I do not know that I can say anything more at this time. As I said on Friday night when we were discussing the matter-and I had only two or three minutes in which to reply to the discussion that had been going on most of the afternoon and evening-the C.B.C. and the government welcome the free discussion that we have had on radio and television policy. I might announce that, according to the suggestion several hon. members made in that debate, we are prepared to have a committee on radio broadcasting early in the next session. I am now of the opinion that, although these meetings have been held usually every two years, the importance of this corporation and of the work it is doing justifies the setting up of
Supply-National Revenue a radio committee every year. It has now become a big organization and hon. members will recall that when this policy was announced a few years ago I predicted at that time that it was a very expensive development. It now runs into a great deal of money.
Although we have been criticized by the opposition with reference to our method of financing, I cannot think of any other method that would be better than by appropriations for a number of years to the C.B.C. and by the allocation to the C.B.C. finances of the excise taxes which are collected on television receiving sets and television tubes. We have a sufficient amount of money coming into the treasury to enable the corporation to plan far ahead, and that would not be as easily accomplished if we were dependent upon an appropriation from year to year.
We hope that in a short time, with the completion of our stations in Halifax and Winnipeg, we will have a chain of stations covering Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and Halifax. If we are able to do that by means of microwave, which might be a few years off, we will be able to connect up these stations for a trans-Canada television network, and that would be in line with the policy we have attempted to put into effect with reference to sound radio.
Let me give hon. members an example with reference to microwave connections. We can only connect these stations in two ways, either by coaxial cable or by microwave. The microwave in this district was built by the Bell Telephone Company for the purposes of carrying out their policy of having a better method of intercommunication between places for their long distance telephone service. This system has worked out to be very useful for intercommunication between these cities for television purposes, and we pay them a rental for this daily communication system between Buffalo, Montreal, Ottawa, and Toronto of something in the neighbourhood of $250,000 a year.
It is our policy to extend that microwave system from Toronto to Hamilton, Kitchener, London, and Windsor, and in the east from Montreal to Quebec city. We will have to undertake at some time or other an extension of the service east and west from Winnipeg and finally from Vancouver east, and the ultimate objective which we aim to accomplish is that all of our C.B.C. stations from the east coast to the west will be connected up by microwave, and having done that we can then establish a trans-Canada television system.
5804	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Revenue
Now, there are just two or three other matters on which I might add a word, and that is with reference to the criticism we have had of the C.B.C., not only in controlling the C.B.C., if you wish to call it that, but the commercial situation and the alternative proposition submitted as to a separate commission. The question has been raised of the establishment of a separate commission to take over the regulatory powers of the C.B.C., and I wish to point out once again that at the request of the government this question was very carefully and exhaustively studied by the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences. The commission recommended strongly against any such proposal and came out in favour of the continuance of the present system.
The government accepted and still accepts the views of the commission which made such a thorough study of all the factors involved. The idea of a separate commission probably seems attractive to a number of people who have not looked carefully into the subject, and it seems to me that this point of view, often accepted without careful consideration, is in many cases helped along by interested propaganda.
I have noted, for instance, that very often statements in favour of a separate commission come from areas where all the newspapers also have private radio interests. I think it is apparent that, at the time, many of those who advocated a separate commission had not thought a great deal about the matter since the statements and arguments which are made are often conflicting. From what I have seen, the recent demands of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters were to set up a commission which would have none of the powers at present held by the C.B.C. Under their proposals these powers would simply vanish. In other words, there would be no one at all in a position to make regulations to limit abuses in the use of the public air channels, or of licences to carry on stations in the country in the interests of maintaining a national system. I think anyone supporting the idea of a separate commission should carefully consider what is involved.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that that pretty well covers the matters which required answers, and I will leave these matters there and deal with any further questions as they are raised. On the next item I have a statement to make with reference to international shortwave, its operation, and policy.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, there are many questions which have yet to be put to the minister. I thought perhaps he was going


to review the finances of the corporation in view of the fact that we have no operating statement for the corporation for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1954. However, I can ask detailed questions on that to bring out the information that is required.


James Joseph McCann: Did the hon. gentleman see what I put on the record on Friday?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, and I will come back to that later.
I wish to make a comment on the point last dealt with by the minister, namely, the matter of the separate regulatory commission. I shall deal with two aspects of that matter. The minister laid great emphasis upon the report of the royal commission on the arts, letters and sciences, commonly known as the Massey report. But I would like to point out to the house that in that respect there was a majority report and a minority report.
It is quite true that the majority report recommended that there be no change in the dual function now exercised by the C.B.C., that is to say. the function of carrying on a nation-wide broadcasting system, and at the same time carrying out a regulatory function over all forms of broadcasting in Canada. But there was a minority report by a very eminent member of that royal commission, Dr. Arthur Surveyer, and I am prepared to say that if hon. members will address themselves with an open mind to the majority report and the minority report I think they will find the recommendations in the minority report overwhelmingly sound and convincing in their logic.
Now, sir, the minister has chosen to introduce another subject in this latter regard which cannot, if it is taken seriously, have any other effect than to confuse the issue. He has brought in the matter of a proposal which he ascribes to the Canadian Association of Broadcasters to the effect that the regulatory functions be dispensed with. That is not the recommendation I put forward when this matter was debated on June 4.
Whatever regulatory functions are required can be confided to the commission. That, in my submission, is the sound way to proceed. It is no part of the proposal for a separate regulatory commission that the commission be denuded of all regulatory power. Surely that would be a contradiction in terms. Let us therefore, Mr. Chairman, approach this question, when there is opportunity, on its merits without its being confused by the kind of issue that the minister has seen fit to introduce.
What is proposed is that there be a separation of these two functions that are now

discharged by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. There would be no interference with its operation. It would carry on as an operating body, operating a nation-wide system of broadcasting; but those regulatory functions that it now exercises over the private stations that are, in many respects, its rivals and competitors, would be carried out by a separate regulatory body. The public interest would not be compromised in any way at all. There would be a separate regulatory commission of a public nature appointed by and responsible to public authority. Let us therefore have that question decided on its merits, Mr. Chairman, and not have it confused by insinuations that inherent in that proposal is any suggestion whatever of abandoning the regulatory functions that are now exercised in general.
I make this further comment and this one only. We have a direct parallel in the way in which regulation is exercised in this country over the railways. It is a regulation that applies equally to the publicly-owned Canadian National Railways and the privately-owned Canadian Pacific Railway as well as other privately-owned railways in Canada. We would not think of confiding to the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways the regulatory powers over its private competitors that are now exercised by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada. What we are recommending in this important field of communication is that there be in that field a separate regulatory board clothed with functions similar to those now exercised in the field of transport by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada. The C.B.C. would carry on its operating functions in the same way as the Canadian National Railway Company carries on its operating functions but under the general regulatory powers of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada.


Mr. Hansell:: I should like to ask one or
two questions here, if I may. Before asking them, may I say that I think we are pleased with the minister's announcement tonight that a second television station is to be erected and operated within the Ottawa-Hull area. Am I to understand that one of these stations will be entirely a French-language station and the other entirely an English-language station?


James Joseph McCann: That is right.


Ernest George Hansell: If that is right, perhaps my second question is not particularly significant. I was going to ask whether this is not a reversal of the government's television policy when they announced some time ago that
Supply-National Revenue the C.B.C. would occupy one channel in a given area and then other channels would be open for independent television stations. However, if one station is to be a French-language station and the other an English-language station, I can understand that perhaps the action is quite justified. However, may I ask this one question just the same. Have any applications for television stations been received from independent sources either in Ottawa or in Hull? Since the minister has announced that there will be two stations operated by the C.B.C., one a French-language station and one an English-language station, are we to understand that that decision "washes up" all other independent applications?
While I am on my feet-the minister can keep these questions in mind perhaps so that I shall not have to keep jumping up and down-I should like to ask another question. We know, of course-and we appreciate the minister's jogging our memories, if that can be said to be the situation-that eventually it is expected there will be a national network of television stations from coast to coast. I do not know that I want to hurry the matter along. From the physical angle, difficulties arise when we want to hurry things too fast. Then again, a good deal of money must be spent on this project if the ultimate objective is to be realized. Nevertheless, I should like to ask the minister if he would care to state how long he expects it will be before that objective is accomplished.
While the minister is musing a little bit over those answers-although he may have them on the tip of his tongue-I want to make one comment on his further announcement of government policy concerning the independent regulatory body. The minister put great emphasis upon the fact that the royal commission on the arts and sciences had recommended that the policy being pursued should be continued. He went on to put forward the negative angle, namely that they recommended that no other body be set up as a regulatory body. That is all right. We know what the royal commission recommended. But I do not believe that any royal commission is infallible. Even though they may have gone into the study very carefully and have arrived at a conclusion which they themselves, of course, think is a conscientious and proper conclusion, nevertheless royal commissions are not infallible. They may be wrong.
There is another point I wish to make here. The minister said at the same time-and he used the phrase no less than three times- that those who were recommending a separate regulatory body had not looked carefully enough into the subject. He mentioned

Supply-National Revenue that point twice and he concluded by saying that he hoped those who recommended such a regulatory body would consider carefully what is involved. Mention was made of that point three times. I am afraid the minister overemphasized it, at least. He is not fooling anyone here. The people who have recommended the separate regulatory body cannot be said to be men who do not go carefully into a study of the thing they are going to propose. He may be able to say that concerning us who sit here and who are interested in, but not vitally connected with, radio interests. However, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters have men who know their business. They are on a par with-I will not say they are above-any radio officials, radio engineers or men who think in terms of radio policy who sit on the government side of the house or who are connected with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. They are men who are just as capable in the radio field as anyone else. You cannot find better anywhere. They have gone into the matter carefully. They know all the angles with respect to a separate regulatory body.
I still hope the time will come when we will see that. I think it will be better. I am not going to say that radio policy will be administered any better but certainly in a free country where we believe in freedom of competition such a thing is desirable. I have a few other questions along an entirely different line, but first I would ask the minister if he would care to answer these questions now.


James Joseph McCann: The answer to the question of the hon. member for Macleod with reference to the situation in Ottawa is that there will be two channels. There will be one station, one building and one of the channels, which will involve the purchase and installation of a new transmitter, will give entirely French programs and the other channel will give entirely English programs. We have a precedent for that in what we did in the city of Montreal. His other question, as I remember it, was with reference to the linking up of the system. That will probably take two or three years.


Ernest George Hansell: I think we will be doing very well if we get it in two or three years. The minister is very encouraging in that respect. My other questions are of a little different nature. I want to be fair, and if these matters do not come under the minister's department but rather under the Department of Transport I will be happy if he will inform me and I will leave them until the transport estimates are before us. I understand that government radio policy does not permit the building of transmitters with what is known 

as composite equipment. In other words, government radio policy today is that if a station wants to build a transmitter a licence will not be granted unless the equipment is manufactured by one of the standard equipment companies. If that is so, I should like to know why, because according to my information I understand that certain stations in the United States have been able to cut their costs almost in half by reason of their engineers being able to assemble parts from here and there, sometimes manufacture them themselves, and build a transmitter for around $80,000 instead of approximately $150,000 which it would have otherwise cost.
I wonder whether the minister would care to answer that question for me, and a similar question along almost the same line of thought. I also understand that radio policy does not permit radio stations to transmit by what is known as a sort of pick-up antenna but that they must of necessity have lines for which of course a very expensive fee is charged. I understand this is permitted in the United States, which cuts the cost considerably. I am told that an ordinary station can save in the neighbourhood of $40,000 a year. That figure may not apply in Canada, but in the United States about $40,000 can be saved by being able to broadcast by means of a pick-up system rather than by using lines.
Evidently these matters come within the minister's department, and I have a third question which I am sure does. It has to do with the customs duty charged on motion picture films for television. I understand the same customs duty charges are imposed on the importation of films for use on television as are imposed on films that are used in motion picture theatres. The reason I ask this question is that there is quite a difference between the two. In other words, a theatrical distributing agency imports films, pays the duty on them, and then they can be used in several hundred theatres throughout Canada. I understand that the duty on an ordinary moving picture film amounts to about $60.
If such films are to be shown on television and an independent station has to pay a duty of that amount to import a film that is to be used just once, and if they have to have different films for many different programs, then the charge becomes rather terrific. Of course it has to be carried into the cost of operating the station. The sponsors would have to pay, which would mean that the cost to the sponsor would be tremendously high. I wonder whether the minister would care to answer these three questions for me.


James Joseph McCann: The answer to the first two questions is that they are matters involving technical requirements, and that of course is decided by the Department of Transport. With reference to the matter of the customs duty on films for television and films for the motion picture industry, I do not know that consideration has been given to the question of use. They are both films. They are classified under the customs tariff as films and the duty is the same in both cases as far as I know. The matter of the usage has not been given any consideration to date under the customs tariff.


Ernest George Hansell: That is my point. Because there is no difference the television station has to pay a duty of approximately $60 for one film while the theatre interests can get the same films for $60 and use it thousands of times if they want to. There is one motion picture film in Ottawa today that is entering its third month of showing. If $60 had to be paid every time the film was shown, the cost would be terrific. Since that is so, would the minister not give some consideration to a reduction of duty on films for television purposes?


James Joseph McCann: I will bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of Finance, who usually has to do with customs tariff rates.


Frank Exton Lennard: When a film is returned to the country of origin is the duty not refunded?


James Joseph McCann: Part of it. There is a partial refund depending on the length of time that it has been in this country.


Mr. Philpott:: I should like to ask the minister a very short question. Last Friday night he said that there must be sufficient national coverage before there could be more than two stations in certain areas. With reference to his statement tonight about the microwave system, does the minister's statement mean that the microwave system will have to be complete before there is alternate service?


James Joseph McCann: The answer is, not necessarily.


Mr. Decore:: I should like to ask a question with regard to television in Edmonton. I understand that a licence has been granted to some private enterprise there for the construction of transmitters to transmit television programs. My first question is, does the minister know when we may expect to get television programs in Edmonton? My second question is, within what radius from the transmitters will people in an area be expected to obtain these programs?
Supply-National Revenue


James Joseph McCann: The matter is entirely up to the people who have the licence for the private station. They have to order the transmitter, and it depends entirely upon when the transmitter is delivered to them, and when they construct their building, as to when they can commence operations. This is a matter with which the C.B.C. has nothing to do. In the ordinary course of events it takes anywhere from six months to a year; some stations have come along quicker.
The area of transmission of television equipment is usually a radius of about sixty miles from the centre, and that again depends a good deal on the terrain. I might point this out for the benefit of hon. members, that when you broadcast radio waves they will jump an obstruction, for instance, a mountain that is not too high, and that wave is still continued to the point of reception. It is entirely different with television. You must have a direct line from the point of transmission to the point of reception in order to get good reception. It is for that reason that television waves are received much better over water than in hilly terrain. We believe that the technological development in the science of television transmission may overcome some of those difficulties in the years ahead.


John Decore: May I ask a supplementary question? When this licence was granted to this private enterprise, was it not conditional that the transmitters would be completed within a certain period of time? In other words, could they carry on with this construction for the next five years?


James Joseph McCann: No, that is a matter between the company that obtains a licence and the Department of Transport. In this particular case, or any other case, I do not know whether or not the Department of Transport has stipulated a time within which that television station shall be in operation.


Mr. Hcsking:: I should like to speak for just a moment or two about the C.B.C. and the television stations that we are building across the country. I should like to commend the minister upon the splendid programs we have received over the radio from the C.B.C. The majority of them are of first-class quality.
Just so that we would not ever have a repetition of a program that was broadcast on March 10 in the form of an appreciation of Eugene O'Neill, I should like to tell the house some of the things that were broadcast on that program. This was the filthiest program I have ever heard over any radio. The cursing that went on in it was absolutely disgusting. There were some 125 pages of script, and I believe in 22 places they took

Supply-National Revenue the Lord's name in vain. It was a very low type of program. Eugene O'Neill may have been a very great writer, but I do not believe it was fitting or becoming for our radio broadcasting system to pay tribute to the man in a manner that would be disgusting to most Christian homes in the dominion.
If the chairman will allow me, I should like to quote one of the phrases that came over the radio in the course of that program. A Mr. Burke, one of the characters in the play, was speaking to a girl by the name of Anna, and he said something like this:
God's curse on you, you slut; you would be sleeping with any man for a dollar or two.
I do not think that is the proper type of program to be broadcast on a system that gives the high-class service to radio that the C.B.C. programs do generally. Certainly the minister should call the attention of the censors to the fact they let that type of program get through.
I hesitate, because of one program that was absolutely vile, to castigate the service as a whole; it has been excellent. If I want to turn on my radio, hunting a good program at random I try a program from the C.B.C. because the likelihood of my finding an intelligent and interesting program is greater there than anywhere else, except for our local station which is exceptional. I do ask the minister if he would call to the attention of the officials that there are people in the dominion who object to that type of program. I feel that if a little common sense were used the man who would pick that type of program would not be allowed to pick many more programs for the C.B.C.
Having said that, I wish to say this is my only criticism of the C.B.C. I commend the minister most highly for his determination and courage, at this difficult time when expenditures are high, in achieving a series of broadcasting television stations in this dominion from east to west. It would have been very easy at this time for a man with less determination to have allowed our country to have television broadcasts from north to south. In other words, we would be flooded with programs brought in from the United States. The western states would influence our stations in western Canada, and the eastern provinces would be influenced by programs from the eastern states. That would have been a simple thing to do. It would have been a sort of natural evolution to allow that to happen.
He did not do that. He insisted that we have a trans-Canada system. If there was ever a time when we needed to keep our dominion united, it is now. This is one of


the things that will do that very well. I commend him for the resistance he has put up to anyone and everyone-it comes not only from the official opposition but from members of his own party as well-to allowing our stations to be broken up so that we would have a north-south television system on the continent rather than an east-west television system for Canada.
If I were picking any particular program on which the minister should be commended, I would say to him that the broadcast of the Grey cup would likely be followed by more people across Canada than any other program. It was certainly very well done. I was not fortunate enough to be present at the game this year, but I honestly believe I saw it better over television than I would have if I had been sitting in a seat in the stands. It was certainly well done.


Joseph-Omer Gour: On behalf of the electors of my constituency, both English-speaking and French-speaking, it is a great pleasure for me to thank the Minister of National Revenue for his quick and gentlemanly decision to allow a French station in this area. As I said in my last speech on this subject, this is an illustration of the ability of this government to give good administration from one corner of the country to the other. I thank the minister again, and I wish that my electors would write and thank him and the cabinet for doing so splendidly.


Mr. Caron:: May I be permitted, Mr. Chairman, in the name of my electors to thank the minister for the good news we have received this evening. I was not in the house, but was told by somebody else that our request for a second station has been granted. When I started to speak the other day, I said that I knew the minister and the government were sympathetic and would listen to my request. So, in the name of my electors, both French and English, I thank you, from the bottom of my heart.


James Joseph McCann: May I answer the hon. member for Wellington South with respect to the Eugene O'Neill broadcast, if we may call it that. I am sorry if it hurt the sensibilities of some of his electors, in the constituency in which he lives. But there is always another side to it. We received many more letters of commendation for that broadcast than we received protests against it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I wish to revert to a question which has been discussed many times in the house, and which will continue to be discussed as long as the situation is not remedied. I go back to the question

of the dual capacity of the C.B.C.-the triple capacity, I might say-as judge, litigant and policeman.
I have never been able to understand how anyone can argue seriously that this situation is substantially different from that in the railways, where no one would even dream of suggesting that the Canadian National Railways should perform a dual or triple function.
Tonight I notice that the minister, trying to justify a distinction which I never heard anyone successfully justify, referred to the Massey report. Well, I said to myself, per

iaps the answer is in this report. Perhaps I have been wrong all along. Perhaps we will find the answer.
I have read what the Massey report says, and I do not find that it contains anything that even approaches a reason for continuing the situation. The majority report says this, at page 288, under the heading "Procedure of the Board of Governors and a Right of Appeal":
In the interests of the national system and of the country as a whole, we recommend rejection of the demands by private broadcasters for a separate regulatory body and for the privilege of forming private networks.
I propose to read further; but I think I am correct in saying that that is the only sentence approaching an argument. I shall read more from this paragraph, and if anyone can discern an argument from what I shall read later, then let him do so. I shall repeat the first sentence-
In the interests of the national system and of the country as a whole, we recommend-
I do not know whether the minister regards that as an argument. To my mind there is not even a featherweight of an argument in it. It is only expressing the view that they have. There is no attempt made to make a distinction from the railway situation, which I suggest it resembles in the closest manner.


James Joseph McCann: But that is the recommendation after all these representations have been made.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I accept the minister's suggestion, if he can find in this book any reasons-


James Joseph McCann: The argument is not given there-only the conclusions.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Has the hon. member read the broadcasting act?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does the Secretary of State wish to make a speech?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was asking a question.
Supply-National Revenue


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to continue by reading further from this section. The Massey commission does recommend some alleviation of the position of private broadcasters, because it recommends that they should have the right to be heard, instead of its being purely a matter of privilege. I shall read what they say:
At present, when the board of governors contemplates the recommendation of the suspension of a licence or a change in the regulations, the private stations receive notice of the matter and are given the opportunity to be heard in person or by counsel, and at a public session if they so desire. These concessions are granted as privileges. Considerations of justice suggest that they be recognized fully as rights.
Then they continue to discuss the question of the right of appeal. I need not read that part.
What I am still waiting for is someone to give a reason why it would be unfair to do what I submit would be the natural instinct of any reasonable man if a situation of this kind were presented to him. What has been done in connection with the railways would be regarded as the obviously right thing to do. I am still waiting for anyone to give a substantial reason differentiating the two cases.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two things to say. I do not propose to repeat the arguments advanced last Friday by the hon. member for Eglinton in connection with the monopoly enjoyed by the C.B.C., but I do propose asking the minister one or two questions with regard to the situation out west.
I appreciate the difficulty there is in conducting discussion of the estimates in this fashion, when we dealt with them in a limited degree last Friday and then they are suddenly placed before us this evening after the dinner recess. I noticed however in the minister's remarks on June 4-and I was here and heard them-that he dealt with the policy of the C.B.C. in connection with tele vision, and said, in effect, that in certain areas television stations would be set up under the C.B.C., and that in other areas where the population was in excess of 25,000 private stations might be able to enter the field: Perhaps I should quote what the minister said, so as to avoid any misunderstanding. These are his words as reported at page 5557 of Hansard:
It may not be long before there is a sufficient degree of national coverage to justify the government and the C.B.C. giving consideration to permitting two and perhaps in some cases more than two stations in certain areas. It is anticipated that, in due course, private stations will be permitted in

Supply-National Revenue areas covered by C.B.C. stations, and the C.B.C. may establish stations in some areas originally covered by private stations.
The point I wish to make is this, that in Winnipeg the C.B.C. television station has just recently opened. I believe the opening date was May 31. I read in the press that it has survived the violent storm which shattered different parts of that city. It must not be overlooked however that the provision of television in Winnipeg has been delayed for a long time. It has been available to the people in the central provinces for two or three years, but only now has it become available in Winnipeg and Manitoba.
Now that we have an announcement from the minister to the effect that his program is being modified to a certain degree, and that a second outlet is to be provided in Ottawa, for good and sufficient reasons-to which I have no objection-I suggest to him that he might go further and modify the policy he has laid down. Certainly it should be clarified before the end of this evening. I will suggest one modification. He has said that in due course private stations will be permitted in some areas, and that in due course the C.B.C. may invade areas occupied by private stations.
Surely the policy-making of the department has gone far enough to determine whether it would be a year, two years or three years. Some announcement should be made as to when additional stations may be allowed in certain areas, so that those who propose entering the television field may make proper plans. I ask the minister this question. At what stage will a decision be reached to permit private stations to enter a field that at the moment is pre-empted by a government station? My suggestion is that the policy as announced by the minister last week and the policy that he pronounced a year ago be modified to this extent, that in those areas of Canada where there has been so much delay in providing television under government auspices there should not be the same delay in permitting private stations to enter the field now being served by the government television station.
What is going to happen is this. In the course of time, how many years I do not know, the minister will determine that, in the areas in the central provinces now served by government-owned television stations, private stations may enter the field, and then with a delay of two or three years, out in Winnipeg and elsewhere in other parts of Canada similar action may be taken. I suggest to him that he reverse this trend of events, and that, in view of the delay which

has already been caused in giving government television sponsored programs out west, at an earlier stage he permit private stations to enter that particular field if they so desire. I for one cannot see why it might not be done almost immediately.
What is going to happen to determine that at some particular point, one year from now, six months from now, or five years from now, the government will decide that it is time for private television stations to enter the field already pre-empted by a government television station? Can the minister not modify this policy at this point, and in view of this delay that I have mentioned permit a private station, if it so desires, to set up operation, say in the city of Winnipeg? Let the minister bear this in mind as well. In the central provinces that lie so close to the United States border and to the large population areas of that country, there are ever so many more TV outlets available for those who have TV sets on this side of the line, which can tune in to ever so many stations. In the city of Winnipeg and elsewhere in other parts of Canada those extra TV sources will not be available, and consequently I would think that would be a consideration to permit private stations to operate in areas of that nature, so that the people of those areas would have more than one television station to which they might direct their aerial.
Naturally, in certain areas of Canada we will always face this problem. No longer in radio is it a problem, and it should not for any great length of time be a problem in television, but at the moment it is, and in certain areas of Canada for a number of years there will be certain restrictions on the number of programs that can be received. I suggest this is a method by which those areas may be more adequately served and may be brought into a comparable position with the more fortunate people located in the central provinces closer to the United States television stations.
I put these matters before the minister for his consideration and suggest that, in view of his policy announced tonight, he may now consider a further modification in favour of those areas which are less likely to be served adequately with television at the present time.


George Clyde Nowlan: Before the minister replies to the various questions that were put to him with respect to television, I wish to raise one point in connection with our local area. When he replies to the numerous questions and complaints about the fact that they have not two television stations, I wish he would

tell me what is the situation with respect to Halifax. We have had various statements in the press from time to time with respect to the station there to the effect that they are going to buy the land, they have bought the land, and that they are about to erect these stations. Quite recently I saw that one of the engineers made a statement that sometime in December the television station would be in operation. That is very encouraging, but when the minister replies tonight to the various questions that have been asked that are of interest to other parts of Canada, I wish he would reply to us. Our complaint is not that we have not a dual outlet at the moment. We have not any in the maritimes. The position is such that at least in the eastern part of our country we cannot get television from the United States stations and we are dependent upon the C.B.C. to inaugurate their service. When the minister replies I hope that he will be able to confirm the newspaper story which appeared the other day and which, as I said, was made by one of his responsible officials, and which has not been confirmed by him, that we could expect the station to be in operation in December. If the minister considers that the change in policy in other places applies to Halifax, perhaps we shall have competition at least so that we can have two stations there.


Mr. Ellis:: Before the minister replies there are one or two comments that I should like to make at this time with respect to the C.B.C. I want to commend the C.B.C. and a great many of those programs which I as a teacher have been particularly interested in. As a teacher of literature I find that such programs as the productions of "Julius Caesar", "Macbeth" and "Hamlet" have been of great benefit to all teachers throughout Canada who have had the opportunity of listening to those broadcasts and having their students listen to them. The C.B.C. should be commended on the excellence of those productions.
We have had some criticism of the work of the C.B.C. Some of that criticism I find it very difficult to understand. When we were discussing the estimates the last day the C.B.C. was under discussion we had some criticism of the fact that the C.B.C. was trying to impose culture on the people of Canada. On the other hand, we had people criticizing the C.B.C. for producing programs that were not cultural. We had the Leader of the Opposition, I believe, referring to some of the wrestling programs broadcast on Saturday evenings from Chicago. Well, I suggest you cannot have it both ways. You
Supply-National Revenue cannot criticize the C.B.C. in one breath because it is trying to impose culture on the people of Canada, and then in the next breath criticize their broadcasting of wrestling matches on television on Saturday nights. I expect the reasons the C.B.C. carries the wrestling matches on Saturday night is that a great many Canadians enjoy watching wrestling matches over television. We should be fair in our estimate of the C.B.C. If we are going to listen to criticism of that organization on the score that it is trying to impose culture, and then at the next moment criticize it because it yields to public demand, I think great inconsistency is revealed there.
There is one matter that should be noted. I recall reading in the press a number of days ago an address given before the United Church conference meeting in Ontario in which one of the speakers pointed out that in the United States-and I am speaking from memory now-eleven corporations in that country controlled 80 per cent of the television broadcast programs. That fact in itself brings home to the people of Canada the necessity of providing television programs that will meet the needs of the Canadian people.
I realize that if we are going to leave radio and television to those who look upon that particular field as a means of commercial exploitation, of presenting programs, together with the advertising commercials that will yield revenue to those companies, we are taking a very shortsighted view of radio and television.
There is one particular aspect of this problem I would like to draw to the attention of the minister and that is, if my understanding is correct, that in my own province television licences have been granted. I believe there have been two applicants, one in my own constituency of Regina City and another one in the city of Saskatoon. I have received some correspondence from constituents who have expressed some alarm over the fact that the C.B.C. is ignoring the province of Saskatchewan, and that they are leaving television broadcasts entirely to private outlets.
I am not for one moment complaining of the granting of licences to private television stations in Regina or in the city of Saskatoon, but I am suggesting that, in keeping with the policy which now prevails in so far as C.B.C. radio broadcasting is concerned, the C.B.C. ought to revise its plans and see whether or not my province can be included in the television plans of the C.B.C. I think some arrangement could be reached whereby, for example, the cities of Regina and Moose Jaw

Supply*-National Revenue could be reached or whereby the three major cities of Saskatchewan could be served by television under the auspices of the C.B.C.
At the present time we have the C.B.C. transmitter CBK at Watrous which serves a great need in the province of Saskatchewan, but there are a number of people in Saskatchewan who are concerned over the fact that the C.B.C. at the present time is apparently prepared to leave television broadcasting to private outlets in that province.
I should therefore like to ask the minister at this time to seriously consider the provision of television broadcasting by the C.B.C. in the province of Saskatchewan. I am not pretending to be an authority on television broadcasting, and I am not suggesting that some scheme might be worked out at the present time. But I am suggesting that the television authorities in the C.B.C. might find it possible to establish a C.B.C. station in the province of Saskatchewan at some central point which will serve the main population areas of that province in order that we might obtain in the field of TV the excellent service which I feel the people of the province have obtained in the field of radio from our prairie transmitter CBK.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, I want to answer briefly some of the questions which have been asked. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings raised the question of the development of the television station at Halifax. Let me say to him that the property has been acquired, the equipment has all been ordered, and it now depends very much upon the delivery of that equipment as to when we will complete the station in Halifax. We expect that if we get the delivery of the equipment we will be in operation in Halifax before the end of the year.
With reference to the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre,
I am not going to go into detail with reference to the answering of his question on policy because I feel I am being baited and tantalized in an effort to have me announce something new with reference to the policy of the C.B.C. There is nothing new to announce. We shall continue to carry out the policy which was laid down a year or so ago. When that policy is changed, and it becomes government and C.B.C. policy, announcements will be made to the house if it is in session, or to the public.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman-


James Joseph McCann: Pardon me. May I answer the question asked by the hon. member for Regina City? We appear to have a rather anomalous situation here. This vote covers a loan of $3 million and what we are asking


for is money to complete the program which was announced a year ago and which we told the house then would cost a certain amount of money. The hon. member for Regina City now comes along and wants more money for expenditure in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan has one of the best sound radio systems in the world with a high powered station at Watrous.


Alfred Claude Ellis: But how about TV?


James Joseph McCann: We will come to that. On my own observation I would say they have better radio reception in Saskatchewan than in almost any other part of Canada. In Regina and Saskatoon licences have been granted for two private television stations which will pick up the service of the C.B.C. and obtain sustaining programs from them either by films or by kinescopic transmission. If the time comes when the C.B.C. fails in any respect to complete its link or give a better service to the people of Saskatchewan the matter will then be given further consideration.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, the minister has suggested that he was being baited and tantalized with reference to C.B.C. policy, but there was no such intention on my part. Indeed, the minister is being tantalizing in declining to answer the question I asked with regard to a clarification of the policy which was expressed in very general terms, and I do not see why he could not elucidate without doing harm to anyone. He has already declared this policy in the past and I quoted his words. I quote them again:
-it may not be long before there is a sufficient degree of national coverage to justify the government and the C.B.C. giving consideration to permitting two and perhaps in some cases more than two stations in certain areas.
Well, at this stage, two years after the minister has declared his policy, could he not tell us what is meant by "a sufficient degree of national coverage"? That is what I was after, so that those people who want to enter the private television field may be able to make some plans.
Does "a sufficient degree of national coverage" mean the setting up of a government television station in each province? I think that is what the minister said somewhat later on. And in addition, how long does it have to be in operation before coverage is considered complete? The minister, having to his satisfaction dealt with part of my statement, did not make any comment with regard to my suggestion that he permit at an early date the establishment of a private TV station in the city of Winnipeg, and elsewhere in those parts of Canada

where there are limited facilities at the moment because other TV stations are not in close proximity to these cities and areas in Canada, urely there is nothing wrong in making a suggestion of that nature, and I think the minister might have dealt with it.


Mr. Zapliiny:: While the minister is considering that point I would like to ask a question which follows in part what the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre had to say. The city of Winnipeg will have a TV station which I understand will have an effective radius of about 80 miles. That, of course, leaves out a very important sector of Manitoba, and perhaps I might even say the most important sector.
I wonder if the C.B.C. has any plans for the balance of the province of Manitoba. For example, the cities of Brandon, Portage la Prairie, Neepawa, Dauphin, and others who are vitally interested in this, would like to know if any plans are now being made in that regard. I believe the minister will agree that that will have a very direct bearing on the volume of, shall we say, agitation for private licences. If the people in the rest of the province of Manitoba feel that there is a C.B.C. service coming in, they are not so likely to join in the hue and cry for smaller television stations under private licence. It is not that we have any objection to private television stations but we believe that it would be better to have a network which would serve at least the greater proportion of the province of Manitoba. I hope the minister will have something to say about the rest of the province outside of the greater Winnipeg area.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I come from a town or
constituency that is just on the frontier. The people up around my part of the country are quite used to snow. But any day in the summer when the two television sets are turned on, we are reminded of the country and the abundance of snow we have. That is all we can see on those two television sets. I think this would be an opportune time for the minister to state now whether the government is working on a plan to extend the scope and the distance-*


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is that the snow belt?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: That is just about the sort of remark one would expect from the hon. member. Let him either get in or get out. I have the floor. Let the hon. member behave himself. He could not convince my people of anything.
Supply-National Revenue
I should like to know what the situation is because private corporations are, as I understand it, at the present time endeavouring to obtain permits to establish television stations in that district. However, it might not be an advisable thing to establish those local television distributing stations if the government were extending the distance they had to cover in a short period of time. That is a matter that right now is of vital interest to the people where I reside. Can the minister give us some information with regard to the matter?


James Joseph McCann: I think the information the hon. gentleman wants is that any of those communities or localities are quite free to make application to establish a private television station and that there is not in the near or foreseeable future the likelihood of these outer communities, as we might call them, having C.B.C. service unless technological improvements in the broadcasting of television are of such an extent that the area which we now have is extended, or the radius which will be covered by a high-powered station.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Then what that means is this, Mr. Chairman. We taxpayers are paying for the over-all government provision of television and we are now being called upon to get something local; they will probably not be nearly as fine broadcasts as the bigger centres are getting. Apparently, from what the minister has said, there does not seem to be any hope of the taxpayers who are on the outer fringe receiving any benefits for the taxes they are contributing towards the C.B.C. for its television. Is that right? We receive no benefits. We must establish our own local, small, inexpensive facilities in keeping with our pocketbooks and the results will be according to the expenditure made. That would mean that as far as television broadcasts are concerned, the service enjoyed by the larger centres would be far superior to that enjoyed by the communities on the outer fringe. Is that right?


James Joseph McCann: The hon. gentleman has a misconception as to who pays for television. It is the recipient of television programs who has bought a receiving set and has paid the excise and sales tax on it. Those funds are earmarked. They go to the C.B.C. The individual who lives in a community like that of my hon. friend and who has not a television set and has not purchased one, does not pay anything towards the upkeep of the C.B.C. at all. Our finances are entirely obtained by the matter of allocating to the C.B.C. the excise tax and the sales tax on

Supply-National Revenue radio receiving sets and television sets and tubes; and loans in addition. I may say that they are loans which we expect some day to repay. That is what this one is. Let me say to my hon. friend that if private stations are established by private interests in the communities to which he refers they get, the same as any other station, a service free of charge from the C.B.C.


Mr. Richard (Oiiawa East):: I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister on his announcement this evening that Ottawa is to have another C.B.C. station in French. I think I speak on behalf of all the population of this area, English-speaking as well as French-speaking. As I said the other evening, this action will do much to convince the people of the good intentions of the C.B.C. and of the fact that the principles by which it is governed are truly to serve all the population, wherever they may be. We in this area also are satisfied that in due time there will be some private stations which I think would serve us well. We hope that the new French programs will be received by our population in the near future.


James Joseph McCann: I thank the hon. member for Ottawa East for what he has said. I just want to correct what appears to be a misconception in the statement. This is not a second station. Ottawa will have one station with two transmitters and two channels. If it goes out throughout the country that we are building another big building here, it will give a wrong impression. That is not so. Arrangements will be made that two transmitters will be within one building and another channel will be allocated to Ottawa so that you will get French programs over one channel and English programs over the other one. The position will be exactly the same as that which obtains in Montreal.


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: I thank the minister for raising this matter. That is exactly what I pleaded for the other evening. On those grounds I thought it was possible to have another outlet in Ottawa, because, as the minister has so well said, it would not involve the construction of a station but merely the use of another channel on a new transmitter.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like to make a few comments following the suggestions made by the hon. member for Regina City. Those of us who live in Saskatchewan appreciate the splendid service we receive from C.B.C. Watrous. The other day I said that we have not any radio stations in the constituency in which I live. Prior to the establishment of the Watrous station we were at the

mercy of some of the powerful American stations and occasionally we were able to get some of the local stations. Having had the good fortune to have the service over the C.B.C. from Watrous for so many years, we should like the C.B.C. to come into the television field in Saskatchewan instead of turning the field over to private television stations. On Friday I referred to those wise words uttered by the late Lord Bennett when the first radio bill was before parliament; at that time he suggested that this was too valuable a resource for the people to give away for a song. I think that advice given in 1932 is good in 1954. I have always been happy that I have lived in Canada, but never happier than when I visit the United States and have to compare their radio with Canadian radio and their television with Canadian television, where you have to take so much obnoxious advertising with their musical or other programs. I hope the minister will, as soon as possible, come into Saskatchewan in the television field and see to it that the people on the frontiers have the advantages that are now taken for granted in the cities. While it is true that a new station is not being built in Ottawa, the minister has announced that an expenditure of $500,000 is going to be made to bring in the two languages. I am not complaining about that expenditure. But if the people in this area can have the choice of either French or English programs, I think the people on the frontiers should have the privilege of having the much improved television service that the C.B.C. will give.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: What progress has been made by the C.B.C. in developing colour television? It is a well known fact that the people of this country who have bought television sets have paid extremely high prices for them. I think it is fair to say that we in Canada have paid almost twice as much for television sets as the same machines would cost in the United States. The television industry in Canada has pretty well saturated the market with black and white television. What is going to be the position of the Canadian people when colour television arrives? I understand it is just about due to be introduced in the United States now. What is going to be the situation in Canada in the case of people who have already purchased television sets? The market has been saturated with black and white television sets, and if colour is to be introduced and people are going to be required to buy new sets, that is coming pretty close to the point of exploitation.
I think some consideration should be given to having sets that will be convertible from

black and white to colour so that if it is desired to change a black and white machine to colour it can be done for a nominal fee instead of having to buy a completely new set. Has the minister given any consideration to that?


James Joseph McCann: I have followed closely the development of colour television, and I may say to the hon. member that we have not spent any money on behalf of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with respect to the development of colour television in Canada. The large companies in the United States have invited us to follow the progress that is being made there. At the present time colour television sets cost from $1,200 to $2,000. I would suggest to the hon. member that if he has in mind some sort of gadget that will change black and white into colour he has got a fortune right before him. They have been working on that for years and have spent millions of dollars but it has not been developed. We in Canada will continue to follow closely the developments with respect to colour television and when it becomes practical we will attempt to introduce it in Canada.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Would the minister make a statement with respect to the question I asked having to do with C.B.C. television plans for the rest of Manitoba outside of the Winnipeg area?


James Joseph McCann: Outside of the city of Winnipeg any individual or company is free to make an application for the establishment of a private television station. Once it is established we will provide it with programs as we do other stations. As I said before, the development of the microwave may bring about sooner than we anticipated the linking up of the main station with private stations in other parts of the province.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: What I had in mind was whether the C.B.C. had any intention of installing relay or booster stations at other points in the province in order to provide its own service to a wider area. Is that contemplated?


James Joseph McCann: There is no such thing as a booster station in television.


Mr. MacLean:: There are a couple of questions I should like to ask the minister but before doing so I should like to revert for a moment to his remarks regarding the control of broadcasting in the country by a separate regulatory body. I know the minister wants to be fair, but if I understood him aright I must say that either he was not understood as he intended to be or else he was something less than objective as far as the question is 83276-368
Supply-National Revenue concerned. He left the impression with me that the idea of having our publicly owned broadcasting system and our privately owned broadcasting stations both controlled by a separate controlling body was an ill-considered theory advanced by persons who were not very well versed in the field. He left the impression with me that it was considered that it was something approaching a harebrained idea.
I should like to point out that Australia, which has a federal system of government very similar to ours, had a system of radio broadcasting very similar to ours for a number of years, a privately owned system of stations operating opposite a publicly owned system with the publicly owned system controlling broadcasting exactly as in Canada. A few years ago, as the result of a very detailed investigation of the situation, the government of Australia decided to divorce control from operation so far as the publicly owned system was concerned and set up what is known as the Australian broadcasting control board. That was brought into being by the Australian broadcasting control board act which was passed by the previous government to the one now in power in Australia. When that government was defeated at the polls and the opposition came into power they retained the system. I think it must be admitted that there is a very large segment of public opinion in some parts of the world at least which considers that the idea of controlling publicly owned and privately owned broadcasting by a separate board has considerable merit.
I do not want to labour that point, and I pass on to the three small items I want to bring to the minister's attention. The first one has to do with television. I think it can be taken for granted-at least, I hope it can -that if at some future date the C.B.C. decides to broadcast television in colour it will use a system which is compatible with receivers now in use, thus permitting the reception of colour programs in black and white. I have a couple of other points which I suppose are related to the question of control of broadcasting. One has to do with the advertising which is broadcast on both publicly and privately owned stations. It is quite obvious that in the case of other types of publishing, newspapers and so on, people are not forced to pay any attention to the advertising. If we do not like the advertising in the newspaper we skip it, but in the case of broadcasting the thing is in sequence so we have no choice but to listen to or watch the advertising that is thrown at us.
5816	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Revenue
I should like to suggest that it might be advantageous to control the type of advertising more closely. I do not object to advertising as such or the time devoted to it. I think that is a necessary thing in a country such as ours in order to finance our broadcasting at all, but it is the content to which I object. I object to broadcasting advertising which is dramatized and which includes the squalling of sick babies and the moaning of otherwise healthy people who are suddenly stricken ill by lumbago or something of that sort. I think that considerable of that type of advertising is perhaps unnecessary.
I was pleased to hear the minister say again that private television stations that are set up will have sustaining program service supplied to them by the C.B.C. I think that is an excellent thing, and I think it is only fair because the people who watch these network broadcasts pay the excise tax on their receivers the same as the people who have the privilege of watching C.B.C. broadcasts. The raising of funds by way of excise tax is a different system. I feel that the same principle should be applied to sound broadcasting, to some extent at least.
I say that for this reason. Private stations are not permitted to have networks: It is, therefore, in very rare instances that it is economically feasible to put on live programs. These stations have to resort to canned music or canned programs of some sort, and most of those canned programs come from the United States. I should like to see the C.B.C. engaged in the recording of programs for sound transmission in Canada to be used by private stations as much as possible.


Alfred Claude Ellis: May I ask the minister a question based on an earlier statement he made that private television stations would be supplied with certain material from the C.B.C. Can the minister tell me what arrangement is being made between the C.B.C. and private television broadcasting stations with respect to this material? In other words, is there a definite percentage of the broadcasting time which private stations must make available for network programs, or what guarantee have we that the more important C.B.C. network programs will be carried by private stations?


James Joseph McCann: May I answer the last question first, Mr. Chairman? Private stations are obliged to take a minimum amount of material, and presently we are offering more than they can take.
The hon. member for Queens, and other members, have raised again the question of a regulatory body. I am not going to go into
[Mr. MacLean.l

a detailed explanation or reiteration of that argument. This matter has been brought up at successive meetings of the radio committee for a number of years. Detailed arguments were presented to the Massey commission on the subject, and what I am going by, as well as the C.B.C., is the majority report of the commission with reference to the regulatory body, which is the C.B.C. and which has been found to be satisfactory.


Mr. Leboe:: From listening to the debate tonight, there is one thing that seems obvious and that is that members are seeking for an alternative to the C.B.C. or vice versa in the television field. Some of the members who have spoken here tonight want the C.B.C. to move in where private television stations are coming into being. On the other hand, we have people who want private television stations to be established where we have C.B.C. service. It would seem to me, therefore, that we, as a people, are looking for an alternative so that we are not confirmed to either one or the other. I think, essentially and basically, that is freedom. I think it is the seeking of freedom that causes the people across the land to want this alternative.
I was interested in what one hon. member had to say about the tax. I think it is interesting to know that the tax on television sets will provide the C.B.C. with funds, although the purchaser may be a viewer of a private station. I feel that is a factor which will benefit the programs the C.B.C. may supply to the private station in carrying out their service. I was interested, also, in what the hon. member for Wellington South had to say about a certain program. I am wondering whether the minister can provide the house with any figures in connection with that program, in view of the answer he gave. I should like also to know if there has been any poll taken of listeners who are able to receive both the C.B.C. and private stations in the same area, to determine the listening audience of the C.B.C. as compared with the private stations. I think that would be very interesting, if the minister has those figures, and I should be glad to hear from him.


James Joseph McCann: Those figures are not available, but we can get answers to those questions and put them on Hansard or give them to the hon. member privately.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have several questions for the minister. In his statement to the house on June 4, he referred to the four private stations that are now in operation and the sixteen more that have been authorized. May I ask him if he would put on the record tonight the call letters and locations of each

of those stations? I do not suggest he take the time to read that in full now, but he could put it on the record tonight.
The next question I have is as to the budget of the C.B.C. for this forthcoming year. At page 5556 of Hansard of June 4, the minister put on the record the essential items in the operating statement of C.B.C. for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1954. Can he give us the figures in the budget for the fiscal year which commenced April 1, 1954, the contemplated revenue and expenditures?


James Joseph McCann: To what did the hon. member refer that was not given on June 4?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The figures given by the minister on the page to which I have referred are the figures for the operations for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1954. What I am asking is, what are the figures for the budget for the new fiscal year which commenced April 1,	1954, the contemplated
revenue and contemplated expenditures?


James Joseph McCann: I am informed, Mr. Chairman, we have not the detailed figures on that. The revenue is pretty much as estimated in the estimates. For instance, the vote will be $6,250,000 to provide the requirements of sound broadcasting, and the other for the amount equal to taxes is $15 million. Our expenditures we contemplate, without giving details, will be about equal to the amount of money that is given here by statute.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not a very satisfactory explanation. We are asked to provide a loan of $3 million in addition to the other revenue that has been made available to the C.B.C. There is $6,250,000 under the five-year system of handling grants, and then there is the revenue from excise taxes, which last year yielded considerably more than $15 million. Actually last year it yielded about $17 million from both TV and sound sets. The revenue this year has been calculated on the careful side at $15 million. But, Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that we are dealing with a very substantial amount of money. Last year the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation did not need all the money it received by way of revenue. On the sound operations it finished up with a surplus of $1,091,000, after writing off $515,000 on account of depreciation and obsolescence. On the television side of its operations it finished up with a surplus of $5,331,000 after writing off $425,000 on account of depreciation and obsolescence.
This means that last year, in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1954, after writing off almost $1 million on account of depreciation and 83276-368J
Supply-National Revenue obsolescence the C.B.C. had a surplus of $6,500,000 for that year. That sum, we are told, is available now to be used in this program of capital expansion.
I am wondering what case is to be made out to support the necessity for a loan of $3 million in addition to the $6,250,000 from the grant and $15 million at the very least from the excise tax on receiving sets. Available in addition to those sums, let me remind you, are $6,500,000 of surplus from revenues in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1954. What is the case the government proposes to make out for asking for a loan of $3 million in addition to these sums?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, we announced last year that the program would be for stations at Halifax, Vancouver, and Winnipeg, and a second station at Montreal, and one in Ottawa. We got funds then to the extent of $4,700,000, and this $3 million is to complete the program which was announced a year ago. The other money will be for programming and operations.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Are we to understand that this will complete the program? As I recall the figures, the program was going to involve an expenditure on capital account of $15 million to set up the system. It was approximately $15 million. The minister has referred to the figure of $4,700,000 laid out thus far, and $3 million by way of this loan. Are we to understand that with the assistance of this money, and $6,500,000 left over last year as surplus, that the $3 million will now secure the completion of that $15 million program of capital expansion to set up the television system across Canada?


James Joseph McCann: What we contemplated two or three years ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This will complete it?


James Joseph McCann: I think so, yes. iL'	'


Donald Methuen Fleming: My final question is this: How much time was allotted fo the communists. known as the Labouir-Progressive party, during the course of the last general election, as a share allotted to it of. the, time, made available to political parties during the campaign?


James Joseph McCann: I am informed the answer to that was that it was two periods, and that was done by full agreement of the other political parties in the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the minister talks about an agreement. I think he had better put his answer on the basis of a regulation. I wish to raise the question of the C.B.C. regulation which exists by reason of the fact that it has the sanction of the

Supply-National Revenue government, and permits communists in this country, calling themselves the Labour-Progressive party, to obtain free time on the air, simply because they nominate a designated number of candidates.
We know that the nomination of candidates is simply a fiction. It is only a fiction designed to enable them to bring about technical compliance with this regulation of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I ask the minister if he does not think it is about time that that regulation was revised. We know perfectly well in this country that communists will just put up enough candidates to comply with the number prescribed.
I think it shocks a lot of people in this country to think that free time is being made available to communists, whose loyalty is not to this country, and who are able to obtain that time under a regulation that exists, and in my opinion has existed far too long. It is only a technical compliance, a fictional compliance with the intent of the regulation and it should be changed.


James Joseph McCann: It was not done by regulation. It was done by agreement of the political parties. And if you want to know who the representatives of your party were, they were Mr. Grattan O'Leary and Mr. "Dick" Bell.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let me tell the minister-and let there be no misunderstanding about it- that we are dealing with a regulation. And we are dealing with a regulation that has existed for some considerable time. And those to whom the minister has made reference I have no doubt had no alternative but to accept this situation, in view of the existence of the regulation. To say that they accepted the principle of giving communists free time on the air is just to talk nonsense.
I tell the minister that what was done was done by reason of the existence of a regulation. It is not a new regulation; it has been there for some time and I submit it is high time some thought was given to it-a regulation that permits communists to have free time on the air at public expense.


Mr. Habel:: Mr. Chairman, I must say I am most surprised to see the hon. member for Eglinton taking exception to the understanding about radio time. Having been in the Ontario house for many years, I would say that it ill becomes the opposition to blame


the C.B.C. for the time they have given the Labour-Progressive party. For I sat in the house in Ontario while the Leader of the Opposition in this house was the premier of Ontario. And he could have, in his own province, outlawed the communists and prevented them from sitting in the Ontario house, just as the premier of Quebec did, if he was sincere in his talking.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a question of privilege; the hon. member has cast doubt, as he has plainly said, upon the sincerity of an hon. member in this house, namely the Leader of the Opposition. That is in my opinion against the rules of the house, and I hope he will be made to withdraw.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He was talking about the premier of Ontario.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He was talking about an hon. member in this house, and he questioned the sincerity of that hon. member. I suggest that language like that cannot be used in this house.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Chairman-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I will hear the hon. member for Cochrane.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I withdraw this remark; but the hon. member will not prevent me from thinking that I am right.


Angus MacInnis: Just a word before we close this part of the discussion. I think we should be more clear on one point. My understanding is that, provided they can meet certain requirements, the recognized political parties in this country are entitled to free time on the air, from the broadcasting corporation. And that applies not only in national radio but, in my province at least, to the private stations. Because they give a certain amount of free time, too.
The Labour-Progressive party, or the communist party, if you wish to call it that-and I quite agree that it is the proper term-get their share of the free time as well. It is not necessary for me to come to the defence of the government in this matter; but the circumstances are there. And unless and until that party is declared an illegal political party in Canada it is entitled to the same rights and privileges as every other party.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Small:: I have a question to ask in regard to the question asked by the hon. member for Bow River about colour television. I am not quite satisfied with the explanation that was given. About three or four years ago an invention on colour television was announced. It was taken up by two different companies. One had to do with a scanning plate and the other a cylinder. It was said at that time that the cost of purchasing this gadget for making colour television was so small that anyone could procure it and it could be attached to any television set as you would an adapter. Immediately after that it was announced that the invention had been purchased by the television industry and that they were developing it. For two or three years nothing more was heard about it until a question came up in the United States senate or congress asking what had become of the invention and they set up a committee to see what was the delay in placing it on the market. The idea they advanced was that the public would be exploited in regard to the cost of the invention. I do not think the explanation given to the committee by the minister sufficiently covered the question raised by the hon. member for Bow River, that the public of Canada were not going to be exploited when colour television was perfected. Our own technical men, or a committee, should be set up to investigate and see that exploitation does not take place. Colour television sets are going to be in demand and the suggested cost is away out of line. Therefore this is an important matter. We should see that no exploitation of the Canadian public will take place.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the resolution carry?


John Horne Blackmore: I have a question to ask.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is the hon. member rising on resolution 534? Shall I report progress.


Walter Edward Harris: Before you do that, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I am sure hon. members will agree we have had quite a considerable debate on C.B.C. I have made clear to hon. members opposite some reasons why it would be desirable to complete at least this item of the minister's estimates. I wonder whether it would be possible to go on, since I gather that the hon. member for Lethbridge wishes to say something. I also gathered that no other hon. member rose. If it would be possible to sit beyond the regular closing
Supply-National Revenue hour it would be a convenience particularly to the C.B.C. to have its estimates disposed of at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Horne Blackmore: I am not quite sure how long it will take to deal with what I wish to ask about, because I asked the minister a series of questions the other night, and also asked him to have the answers when he came before the committee next. He apparently did not notice that I asked those questions.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, may I, with your permission, interrupt the hon. member? The questions that the hon. member asked had to do mostly with the C.B.C. international service, rather than with the loan for television. I have the reply, which I think will satisfy him, answering all those questions, and I shall give it when we get to that item. We are getting it all mixed up here. The items are 53 and 54. If we want to go ahead with them tonight, I shall attempt to give him the answer.
In addition to what the leader of the house has said, I just want to state that the next meeting of the C.B.C. is to be held in Newfoundland next week. My officials, who are officials of the corporation and who are here, will not be available, and if we want to run this into the hot weather in July to get the answers, that suits me.


John Horne Blackmore: I desire to be completely co-operative. If the minister will give us a commitment that when this item he refers to comes before the committee he will give me the same privilege of asking questions which I would enjoy at the present time on this item, I will gladly allow the item to pass.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The questions to which the hon. member refers will be answered immediately the next item is called. Shall item 534 carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is understood that the minister will put on the record the information I asked for with regard to private stations. That will go on the record tonight.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Has the minister unanimous consent to place on the record a list of the stations, call letters and location of the stations?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Joseph McCann: The list follows:

LIST OF TELEVISION STATIONS IN, CANADA April-1954
Call letters	Location	Address	Channel	Power	Commenced operating	Expected commencementCJCB-TV	Sydney	... J. M. Nathanson, Esq., Manager, Station CJCB-TV, Radio Building, 318 Charlotte Street, Sydney, Nova Scotia.	4	99-5 59-7	Kw V Kw A	August-September, 1954CHSJ-TV	Saint John	... George Cromwell, Esq., General Manager, Station CHSJ-TV, 14 Church Street, Saint John, New Brunswick.	4	27-8 13-9	Kw V Kw A	March 23, 1954	CFCM-TV	Quebec	... Claude Garneau, Esq., Manager, Station CFCM-TV 145 Rue St. Jean Bosco, Ste. Foy, Quebec, P.Q.	4	1-27 *635	Kw V Kw A	July, 1954CJBR-TV	Rimouski	... Jacques Brillant, Esq., President, Station CJBR-TV, 6 St. Jean Street, Rimouski, P.Q.	3	34 19-4	Kw V Kw A	Summer, 1954CHLT-TV	Sherbrooke	... Alphe Gauthier, Esq., Manager, Station CHLT-TV 3 Marquette Street, Sherbrooke, P.Q.	7	17-3 8-8	Kw V Kw A	CKWS-TV	Kingston	... Roy Hofstetter, Esq., Manager, Station CKWS-TV, Whig-Standard Building, Kingston, Ontario	11	99 54	Kw V Kw A	October, 1954CHCH-TV	Hamilton	... Ken Soble, Esq., General Manager, Station CHCH-TV, 163 Jackson Street, W., Hamilton, Ontario.	11	16-9 10 05	Kw V Kw A	June 7,1954	CKCO-TV	Kitchener	... E. E. Fitzgibbons, Esq., General Manager, Station CKCO-TV, 864 King Street W, Kitchener, Ontario.	13	16 8-5	Kw V Kw A	March 1, 1954	CFPL-TV	London	... Murray Brown, Esq., Manager, Station CFPL-TV, P O. Box 488, London, Ontario.	10	117 59-6	Kw V Kw A	November 28, 1953	
w

Supply-National Revenue



CKLW-TV CKSO-TV CFPA-TV CFQC-TV CKCK-TV CHCT-TV CFRN-TV

[Stage Direction]
Windsor	 J. E Campeau, Esq.,
Manager, Station CKLW-TV,
Canada Trust Building,
Windsor, Ontario.
Sudbury	 W. J. Woodill, Esq.,
General Manager, Station CKSO-TV, Regent & Ash Streets,
Sudbury, Ontario.
Port Arthur	 Ralph Parker, Esq.,
Manager, Station CFPA-TV,
Public Utilities Building,
Port Arthur, Ontario
Saskatoon	 A. A. Murphy, Esq ,
Station CFQC-TV,
216 First Avenue N.,
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
Regina	 H. A. Crittenden, Esq.,
Manager, Station CKCK-TV,
Leader Post Building,
Regina, Saskatchewan.
Calgary	 H. G. Love, Esq.,
President, Station CHCT-TV, c/o Radio Station CFCN,
12th Ave. & Gth St. E.,
Calgary, Alberta.
Edmonton	 G. R. A. Rice, Esq.,
Station CFRN-TV 109 C.P.R. Building,
Jasper Avenue,
Edmonton Alberta.
9	18-7	Kw V	August; 1954
	11-2	Kw A	
5	1-74	Kw V October 17, 1953	
	[DOT]87	Kw A	
2	5-10	Kw V	September, 1954
	2-55	Kw A	
8	35-8	Kw V	Early Fall-1954
	17-9	Kw A	
2	18-9	Kw V	July, 1954
	10-8	Kw A	
2	10-9	Kw V	Early Fall-1954
	5-45	Kw A	
3	23-9	Kw V	October, 1954
	14-3	Kw A	
cn
oo
to
Supply-National Revenue
[Stage Direction]
Supply-National Revenue
Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I do not quite know what you mean by item 534. My book is open at page 8, "Canadian Broadcasting Corporation".


Edward Turney Applewhaite: For the information of the hon. member, resolution 534 was called first because it is the only item in the estimates which refers to the domestic service, including television, of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. All the other items deal with the overseas international service.


Ernest George Hansell: I am quite agreeable for this item to pass but I do not think that at this late hour we can go into the international service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
John Horne Blackmore: I am seeking clarification. Just exactly what item will I have the opportunity of asking these questions on?


James Joseph McCann: Item 53.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Item 534 is agreed to. We shall now call item 53.
International shortwave broadcasting service-*
53. Maintenance and operation including authority to credit to the appropriation revenue from the rental of facilities in Radio-Canada building to an amount of $160,000 and to re-expend it for the purposes of the international service, $2,199,150.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, on resolutions 53 and 54, having to do with the international shortwave broadcasting service, I wish to make a short statement in which I think will be incorporated the answers to the questions put by the hon. member for Lethbridge. I understand that the matter of the C.B.C. international service was discussed within the last day or two by the committee on external affairs, so that I assume that a great many of the points which might be brought out at this time have already been dealt with. However, may I say that the shortwave broadcasting service broadcasts regularly to Europe, Latin America and Australasia, as well as providing Canadian news and radio entertainment for the Canadian armed forces establishments in northern Canada and overseas in Korea and Europe. It is currently transmitting in 16 languages, for a total of some 115 hours a week, as well as having a regular relay service in Austria and Greece.
During July of 1953 a new service was inaugurated to eastern Europe, with the establishment of daily broadcasts in Polish. The international service is now therefore broadcasting regularly to three areas of eastern Europe in Czech and Slovak to Czechoslovakia, in Russian and Ukrainian to the U.S.S.R., and in Polish to Poland. In this way Canada is playing its part in the common western cause of seeking to bring the

truth to the peoples behind the iron curtain. In this area, the shortwave service works quite closely with the B.B.C. and the "Voice of America" in arranging its program schedules and facilities for the maximum effectiveness in combating jamming, and reaching the audience.
Languages of transmissions are English, French, Dutch, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, Finnish, Italian, German, Czech, Slovak, Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Spanish, Portuguese.
The service broadcasts about seven hours a week to each of the countries behind the iron curtain. The general purposes of shortwave broadcasting from Canada are: 1. To secure general political and social good will and understanding for Canada in European, Latin American and commonwealth countries. 2. To project abroad Canada's aims and policies and the life and culture of our people. 3. To provide a reliable source of international and Canadian news for the peoples of eastern Europe; to counteract communist propaganda about the western world; through news, factual information and vigorous statement of our views on current topics to encourage the Soviet people to question their governmental policies and to oppose its aggressive tactics, and in the satellite countries to keep alive their contact with western democratic life and seek to frustrate the efforts of Soviet domination. 4. To provide an appropriate climate for diplomatic and trade relations with other countries and to promote the general activities of government departments in their work abroad.
As all members are aware, the implementation of these policies is carried on in close collaboration with the Department of External Affairs. That department has a special section whose function it is to provide political guidance on international issues and check on such scripts as are broadcast. This section has been in existence now for over a year and has proved its value as a day to day continuing link. Careful supervision is also exercised over all material before broadcast through a central policy control unit in the shortwave service. This unit checks on all news bulletins and political material and also prepares basic scripts for the use of various language services.
Regarding the audience behind the iron curtain, it is of course most difficult to assess how large a percentage of people are actually listening. We know that in Czechoslovakia until the time of the communist coup in February 1948 we had a large and steadily increasing audience. Reports from refugees and other sources would confirm us in believing that this large audience has continued to increase rather than decline. Similar sources

confirm that western broadcasts to the Soviet union are heard, particularly outside the Moscow area where such broadcasts are heavily jammed. In broadcasts to this area, Canada of course works closely with the major broadcasting organizations, the B.B.C. and the "Voice of America", to make jamming of western transmissions as difficult as possible and to ensure that as much of western broadcasts as possible reaches the audience.
The Department of External Affairs is also responsible for advising the international service on the initiation and development of program service to individual countries.
In the estimates for the year 1954-55 the increase of some 8 per cent is almost entirely due to higher operating costs resulting from union agreements negotiated or in process of negotiation with the corporation. With the addition of the Polish service in July 1953, no expansion of service has been made or is contemplated.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, the minister gave an answer to three of my questions but he seems to have missed the point completely in my whole set of questions. The purposes which he has outlined are exactly adorable. What we are concerned about is to what extent the individual broadcasts actually implement what the words about these purposes would lead us to suppose. That was the main purpose of my question. My first question was: Who has the power to determine policy? Who decides policy in the C.B.C.? The next question was: What means of screening has the minister to make sure that C.B.C. personnel are all pro-Canadian? Now, I thought I made it quite clear the other night that I personally-


James Joseph McCann: Both these questions were answered in that statement and if the hon. member reads it over he will get the answer.


John Horne Blackmore: There was nothing about screening.


James Joseph McCann: Yes there was.


John Horne Blackmore: There was nothing to tell who decides policy.


James Joseph McCann: Not the names of individuals.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, surely that is what we want to know. We want to know who determines policy with respect to the C.B.C. For example, I have a question-


James Joseph McCann: Excuse me, but I will read this again:
Careful supervision is . . . exercised over all material before broadcasting through a central policy control unit in the shortwave service.


John Horne Blackmore: But we want to know the names of the people who constitute that committee, what kind of people they are, what
Supply-National Revenue their background is, and who is in a position to exercise control over them. Tonight I wish to ask some other questions. Do I understand it is the intention to complete the discussion on the C.B.C. tonight?


James Joseph McCann: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not think we have sufficient time to go into the things I wish to go into. I want to know, for example, who decides whether or not Charles Woods-worth is to be on the speaking team of the C.B.C. I want to know why that man was selected and put on the list. I want to know whether he is told what kind of broadcast to deliver. I want to know whether someone tells him the kind of message he is supposed to convey to the people every time he speaks.
These are vital matters. I want to know who decided that J. B. McGeachy was to be on the speaking team of the C.B.C. I have not listened to many of these broadcasts myself, but I have had people listen to them for a good long time and I must say that the broadcasts on which I have received a report do, to a surprising degree, convey the communist line. As I said the other night, they are indoctrinating the people of Canada with the communist view in speech after speech and I have mentioned only two of the gentlemen concerned.


An hon. Member:: Not McGeachy.


John Horne Blackmore: Oh, yes, McGeachy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is this some more thought control?


John Horne Blackmore: The member of parliament for Lethbridge is not supposed to exercise any power over thought control, but McGeachy and Woodsworth are. That is a most astonishing state of affairs. From the general statement which the minister has made tonight there is not an hon. member in this house who is in a position to know who is determining the kind of men who are going to speak and what message they are going to deliver, and why they are going to deliver it.
I am going to refer to just one question. I have several questions which I wish to ask and I think it is very important that we probe into these matters. Now, with respect to this man Woodsworth I am going to refer to a specific broadcast this man delivered on January 17, 1954. Now, I am told the general nature of his speech was to tell the Canadian people the possibilities of trading with the communist countries. The question that people in Canada wish to have answered is why Mr. Woodsworth dealt with that subject.

Supply-National Revenue What business in the world was it of his to be telling the Canadian people the importance of trade with the communists?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. This discussion taking place now is on the domestic services and has nothing to do with the international shortwave services at all.


John Horne Blackmore: But the position now, Mr. Chairman, is this. The questions I asked the other night are all on Hansard and anyone who cares to read these questions will bear me out in my statement that the main body of my questions deal with the national broadcasts, and only about one-third of the questions refer to foreign broadcasts. I personally feel that the 60,000 people in the Lethbridge area have the right to have answers to these questions. If they would not even allow a communist to run in the election and if they would not even vote for a communist-and probably there are not more than 300 who would-I think they would certainly want to know why their children have got to listen to communism put over the air through their publicly owned broadcasting service. I think I have a right to find that out and no one tonight has given us any idea concerning that matter.
I now come back to Mr. Woods worth. One can understand why the Minister of Trade and Commerce would give a talk to the people of Canada telling them why he thought it would be advisable to increase trade with communist countries. Why in the world should Charles Woodsworth be doing that? Was he attempting to influence the people of Canada against the policy of the government in power or had someone told him to talk about this subject in order to prepare for some future government policy?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Exactly what did he say in the broadcast?


John Horne Blackmore: I could give that information; I have a fairly careful record.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. gentleman himself not talking against the government in power? If not, why is he in the opposition?


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. gentleman is just endeavouring to discover the facts in a time when the gravest threat that ever has threatened the Anglo-Saxon people in all their history is right at their doors in the form of communism. There is not a heart in this chamber that is not sorely troubled as to what is going to happen in the next 15 years. In these circumstances, to have Canadians being softened up in respect of communism is just about as fantastic a thing as you could conceive of. All the hon. member is


endeavouring to do is to find out why all this is taking place. I feel that I have a right to know who it was that chose Charles Woodsworth to be on the speaking team. At whose instance did he do that?


Alfred Claude Ellis: Does the hon. member believe in free speech?


John Horne Blackmore: Surely I believe in free speech. But as I said the other night we do not get free speech. We do not get the other side at all. People listen time and again to the C.B.C. and they do not get the other side. Just as an example, all of the monitoring I have heard or the listening I have done or what I have had reported to me has not revealed one single speech in favour of the British commonwealth setting forth the wonders that we could achieve as an integral, active, co-operating unit in the great commonwealth which is the organization that built this nation and the organization that made this people great. It is true that we have broadcasts telling about the coronation of the Queen and other matters of that sort; but that is merely the reporting of news.
This other matter is a very serious one. I am sure that hon. members have given considerable thought to the origin of communism. I imagine practically everyone has read the works of Karl Marx. I imagine that practically everyone will remember that Karl Marx declared that before he could establish communism he would have to destroy the British empire and the Christian church. Consequently, to neglect to show the greatness of the possibilities of the British empire is to follow indirectly the communist line. The other night I raised the question of putting over the air the broadcasts that would tend to destroy people's faith. That is certainly working right in the direction of Karl Marx. How long does this thing have to go forward? That is the thing I want to find out from the minister. I wonder whether the minister had anything to do with the appointment of Charles Woodsworth or J. B. McGeachy? I do not believe he did. I wonder whether the chairman of the C.B.C. had anything to do with it? I wonder which one of all the people who are in his department had something to do with it?
I have a great deal more information on this matter than I deem it advisable to give publicly at the present time. This information is deeply troubling to me.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry the hon. gentleman is so deeply troubled. Tonight he just reiterates a speech he made on June 4. He has put forth a number of questions, every one of which can be answered

or are answered in the statement I made at page 5544 of Hansard. Such questions as these nobody can answer:
Seventh, during the year 1953 how many Canadian broadcasts were directed to Czechoslovakia, for example?
Eighth, how many of these could be classified as having political significance?
Ninth, how many have had pro-communist leanings?
Tenth, how many have had anti-communist leanings?
Eleventh, on what grounds would the minister justify the expenditure of Canadian taxpayers' money upon broadcasts into Europe that are neither pro-communist nor anti-communist?
With reference to the panel of speakers over the radio, the C.B.C. takes full responsibility. Any other questions which the hon. gentleman has asked tonight or a week ago can well be answered by the Department of External Affairs when their estimates are before the house.


John Horne Blackmore: Unfortunately the estimates of the Department of External Affairs are now all passed, so that we cannot get the information from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In response to the minister's remarks I will say this, and I say it with all kindness but with absolute firmness. The information he has given tonight does not begin to answer any one of those questions. He has not told us how many broadcasts went into Czechoslovakia. Surely that fact is known. He has not told us how many of those broadcasts were pro-communist. Surely he must know something about what pro-communist is.


James Joseph McCann: The answer to the question is about 7 hours a week. There are 52 weeks in the year. The hon. member can figure out the answer for himself.


John Horne Blackmore: Seven hours a week can do enormous harm.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I wonder whether my hon. friend would allow me just a minute at this point and would himself take a little rest? The name of Charles Woodsworth has been mentioned quite frequently. His father was the founder of this party. In fairness to Mr. Charles Woodsworth, I do not think he should be branded as a communist. The Southam press would not place him as the editor of the Ottawa Citizen if there was any question about his loyalty. In my opinion his broadcasts could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as pro-communist. Mr. J. B. McGeachy is a distinguished graduate of my university. He did an outstanding job in Great Britain during the war. I cannot think of anyone who did a finer job in building up the cause of Britain and of the allies than did J. B. McGeachy in his broadcasts from London. I am sure that the owners of 83276-3691
Supply-National Revenue the Globe and Mail would not give him the responsible position that he has enjoyed for many years if there was any question whatever about his loyalty.
I know that my hon. friend is greatly concerned about the influence of communism. However, I think both he and I know that we have a way of life that stands on its own merits and that we need not worry about our way of life being attacked by the people who are speaking on the C.B.C. I think the job those two particular men are doing on the C.B.C. is one that has given people greater confidence in our democratic and free way of life.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, I have all respect for the hon. member's little speech. I did not call in question the loyalty of those men. I did not call in question whether or not they were communists.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The usual McCarthy technique.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes; I am trying to find out the facts. Anything at all is disgusting that opposes communism, in the minds of some hon. members.


Alfred Claude Ellis: That helps communism.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes; anything is disgusting that opposes communism, in their minds. That is the whole story.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask a question?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I heard him aright, he said that he had never heard the British empire mentioned on the C.B.C. His own party gave many free broadcasts on the C.B.C.-


John Horne Blackmore: I did not say that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I finish my question?


John Horne Blackmore: I didn't say "mentioned".


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I finish my question?


John Horne Blackmore: I never said "mentioned". I said a speech that would build up the British commonwealth. Let the hon. member get that straight.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I finish my question? If I understood the hon. gentleman right, he said that he had not heard the British empire mentioned on the C.B.C.


John Horne Blackmore: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: His party has had a lot of free broadcast time on the C.B.C. Would he tell the committee how many times in those broadcasts they mentioned the British empire?


John Horne Blackmore: You see-

Supply-National Revenue


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the kind of statistics he is asking the minister to give.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member thinks he is so smart that he can fool me. He just cannot do it. That is all. I did not say "mention the British empire". I said "give a speech that built up the British empire."


An hon. Member:: They do not need the radio to do that.


John Horne Blackmore: Give a speech that will build up the British empire the way Bill Boss' articles build up the Russian empire. That is all I am asking. I have not heard one like that. The Secretary of State will realize now that he probably unintentionally did not quite get the idea of what I said. That is the sort of thing into which I want to probe. Bear in mind what I said in my speech on the 4th of June. Near the end of my statement I said that the communists have planned to have the world completely under their control in twenty years, and at the rate they are going today they certainly will achieve that objective. When you reflect that there are only four or five parliaments left-


An hon. Member:: Who is building them up now?


Alfred Claude Ellis: You are the best friend the communists have.


John Horne Blackmore: That is just the kind of thing that communists do. That is exactly the way they talk. If my hon. friend says a few things more like that there will be reason to pause and think about him. Only four or five more parliaments can sit in that period of time. One year has passed in the present parliament. If we do not do something to change the course of events and do it soon there will be a number of us who will be turned out and a whole lot of new *people will take our places who will not know anything about the things we have learned. That is the way democracy works. Then they will have to learn it all over again. That is just how serious it is, Mr. Chairman.
I certainly do not desire to hold up the passing of the estimates, but I should like to tell the minister and the C.B.C. that within the next year, I will expect a very definite reform in respect of these matters, a very definite reform-


An hon. Member:: Carried.


John Horne Blackmore: -and no nonsense about it-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


John Horne Blackmore: -no pretty talk. We want results. We want Canadianism taught in the


Dominion of Canada. We want the British commonwealth and the Anglo-Saxon race built up. We want democracy built up. Under the circumstances I will defer my activities in respect of the C.B.C. and leave unasked some of the questions I have. But I promise that next year, if all goes well, I will be right here.


Ernest George Hansell: I was the one who suggested that this item be left over, but since it has not been I am not going to take a great deal of time. I had a little speech I was going to make but I will not make it. However, I will make a suggestion to the minister in all seriousness. I know that when the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or the international service of the corporation or the external affairs department express a policy they mean what they say. I am taking it for granted that they do. What I want is to make certain in my own mind that what they say in respect of policy is translated into action. I have no particular criticism of the wording of their policies. I have a report here of the Department of External Affairs for 1953 with a foreword dated February 1, 1954, signed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in which he says, "In a period of cold war such as this", etc. I will not take the time to read it, but the fact is that he recognizes we are living in a period of cold war.
A cold war is nothing more or less than a war of ideas expressed in words. Is the policy of the international service one of communist containment or is it a policy of doing all we can through a cold war, the expression of ideas of our way of life, to aid those in the dictatorship countries to become free? If this is our policy and it is translated into action I will be satisfied because, believe me, the communists in this country in their infiltration are not satisfied with the containment of what they call the capitalist world. They are out to conquer.
I am making this suggestion to the minister and I should like to ask if it is acceptable to him. I am asking that the international service make available in the library of parliament every manuscript in English and French of broadcasts that go forth throughout the world through the international service so that we can go to the library at any time, thumb the pages and look up any broadcast we want. I would ask the minister if such a suggestion would not be acceptable to him. It might cost a little money and it might take a little more time. They are at least typed in some form or other to start with. I am not asking for hundreds or thousands of copies to be made but they should be available to us. After all, we have assumed a national

responsibility respecting the destiny of this nation in a world that is split in two, and I think that is not beyond reason to expect.


James Joseph McCann: The brief answer to that is that it is a matter which might well be considered by the committe on radio broadcasting next year. We will probably abide by the majority decision of the committee.


Ernest George Hansell: That is a nice way of putting it off. You do not have to have a radio committee to make a decision of that kind. Here are the officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Here is the responsible minister of the crown. Surely they can say yes or no to that request. Surely the radio committee has bigger business to do than to decide something like that. This is only a reasonable thing.


John Horne Blackmore: While we are on this matter, may I also ask that copies of every speech delivered in Canada be made available in the same way with information as to who delivered them, and when. That will give us a chance to see exactly what is happening. I will grant it is going to cost money, but how much is it going to cost if we have this country go communist? How many members of the house want to see their children under a communist-dominated state? You would gladly pay a few millions to prevent that.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the resolution carry?


Ernest George Hansell: The minister is not going to commit himself on what I have asked?


James Joseph McCann: I might add that I will commit myself to the extent that the matter brought up by the hon. member and the hon. member for Lethbridge will be brought to the attention of the governors of the C.B.C. and of the government.


John Horne Blackmore: That simply is not enough.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Do not take yourself so seriously.


John Horne Blackmore: It is time someone took himself seriously when the gentlemen who are here are here. We have to have more than merely "bringing the matter before people". This will not get results. I am not in favour of allowing this item to pass until the minister does give the commitment to me.


Ernest George Hansell: There is an easy way to get the estimates through.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I should like the minister to state whether it is not the case, as I have been given to understand, that copies of these
Supply-National Revenue international service broadcasts are now available to the members of this house upon request.


Ernest George Hansell: That is an entirely different thing. The only way I have of knowing something about a broadcast is for somebody to tell me; that is the only way I have. I want to have the privilege of thumbing through the script of any broadcast that goes over our international service, and for which we are now voting appropriations of a considerable size. We are voting considerable sums of money, and I want to have that privilege, without somebody coming to me and-


Alfred Claude Ellis: Did you ever try writing to the C.B.C. to ask for a copy?


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, if I wrote to the C.B.C. for a copy they would willingly give it.


James Joseph McCann: They are all available and on file at Montreal.


Ernest George Hansell: Am I to write and ask for any copies-


Alfred Claude Ellis: It does not cost you anything for postage.


Ernest George Hansell: I thought my hon. friend was more intelligent than that. Of course, I could get copies. They have always been willing to give them to me whenever I have asked for them. The only way I have of knowing whether or not a thing is acceptable to me, at least, is for somebody to listen to it. Well, I do not listen to the international service at all, but I want to have the privilege of being able to read anything that goes over the air. I want to find out what is going on, and that is all I am asking.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I feel the hon. member's request is a reasonable one. I believe that for the sake of public relations it should be a very easy matter to have copies come to the parliamentary library. I do not believe there is anything of which the C.B.C. could not be proud. I believe that to avoid criticism of this sort copies might be made available to the parliamentary library and we would not hear anything more about it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nobody would ever look at them.


Ernest George Hansell: The Secretary of State says nobody would look at them, and perhaps that is so. Here , you have the simple fact that the minister does not want to say yes, and if anyone were to psychoanalyse that statement they would say there was something he wanted to hide.


James Joseph McCann: It is not a question of wanting to say yes. The money is not available

Supply
for it. It would require a lot of time and some staff. If the hon. member wants any particular script they are all on file in Montreal. All you have to do is make a request for it and you would have it in twenty-four hours.


Ernest George Hansell: That is not good enough.


James Joseph McCann: We won't read them for you.


Ernest George Hansell: It is not going to take a big staff to do this. There is one copy that is ready every time it is read over the air. All that we want is to have it translated into English and French and filed here.


James Joseph McCann: The next thing you will want is a record.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

Walter Edward Harris: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we shall take the Department of Transport, secretary of state, fisheries, mines and technical surveys and national revenue.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In that order?


Walter Edward Harris: In that order.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.47 p.m.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
General administration-
424.	Departmental administration, $625,101.
425.	Commodities services, including fees as detailed in the estimates, the expenditures for these not to exceed the amounts shown unless otherwise approved by treasury board, $657,666.
426.	Trade commissioner service, $2,720,244.
427.	Information branch, $169,323.
428.	Economics branch, $174,878.
429.	International trade relations branch, including a fee of $6,300 to the international customs tariffs bureau, $142,555.

[Stage Direction]
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-
International shortwave broadcasting service-
53.	Maintenance and operation including authority to credit to the appropriation revenue from the rental of facilities in Radio-Canada building to an amount of $160,000 and to re-expend it for the purposes of the international service, $2,199,150.
54.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, including supervision, $195,300.
Loans, investments and advances-
534. Loans to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation repayable with interest at a rate to be fixed by the governor in council on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine and to be applied in payment of expenditures to cover capital costs of television installations and to support the development of the service. Such loans, with interest, shall be a charge on the revenues of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation next after the charge imposed under the provisions of section 17 of the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936, $3,000,000.
International shortwave broadcasting service-
647. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, including supervision-further amount required, $70,394.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 11, 1954