1955-07-14

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	When will the second world war book of remembrance be completed?
2.	Where will it be placed?
3.	Will the government give consideration to the erection of a national cenotaph to honour the fallen of all wars in which Canada has participated?


Mr. Lapoinle:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member marked this question with a star, indicating that he wished to have a verbal answer. The first part of the question reads:
1.	When will the second world war book of remembrance be completed?
The answer is that the contracting artist expects that the preparation of the pages of the world war II book of remembrance will be completed in or about June, 1956. The binding of the pages however, to be suitable and satisfactory, will take approximately a further period of three months.
The second part of the question reads:
Where will it be placed?
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to direction by the cabinet, a committee was established to advise the Minister of Veterans Affairs with respect to the choice of a suitable repository for the world war II book of remembrance. This committee is composed of representatives of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of National Defence, Department of Public Works, the federal district commission and representatives of the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League and of the National Council of Veterans Associations in Canada, together with the contracting artist. When this committee reports to the minister, the matter will be submitted to the cabinet.
The third part of the question reads:
Will the government give consideration to the erection of a national cenotaph to honour the fallen of all wars in which Canada has participated?
The answer is that this matter is still under consideration by the cabinet.


COAL RESEARCH
Mr. Buchanan:: 1.	Has the dominion coal board undertaken, within the past twelve months, any studies on the
so-called "tar-char" process with a view of producing chemically rich tars out of Nova Scotia coal?
2.	If so, (a) what are the findings; (b) will they result in the use of greater quantities of coal?
3.	Will the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys state as to whether the dominion coal board has followed the coal research work being carried on by Dr. J. Paul Fugassi, head of the coal research laboratory at Carnegie Institute of Technology and comment as to the findings and their benefit to the coal mines of the Cape Breton area of Nova Scotia?


Mr. Prudham:: 1 and 2. The dominion coal board do not undertake any actual technical research on coal but do work in close liaison with the division of fuels of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys on such matters. The board understand that the division has been following closely the so-called "tar-char" process.
3. The dominion coal board are aware that the division of fuels have been following the coal research work being carried on by Dr. J. Paul Fugassi and have been keeping in touch with developments with respect thereto. The board have been advised by the division that they do not consider that this work has progressed far enough to form a concrete basis for study of any possible benefit to coal mines in Cape Breton.


POST OFFICE, LUCKNOW, ONT.  COAL TENDERS
Mr. Robinson (Bruce):: 1.	What persons or firms, giving their addresses, tendered on contract to supply coal to Lucknow post office for the years 1949-1950-1951-1952-19531954-1955?
2.	What price were the respective tenders from each person or firm?
3.	What person or firm was awarded the contract for each year?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1,	2 and 3. Public tenders were called for the supply of coal to the public building at Lucknow as follows:
1949-	One	tender	received	from	Rae	&
Porteous, Lucknow, Ont., at $21.50 a ton. Tender accepted.
1950-	One	tender	received	from	Rae	&
Porteous, Lucknow, Ont., at $25.00 a ton. Tender accepted.
1951-	One	tender	received	from	Rae	&
Porteous, Lucknow, Ont., at $26.50 a ton. Tender accepted.
1952-	Two tenders received: Dean Coal Co.,
Goderich, Ont., at	$23.00 a	ton.	Rae	&
Porteous, Lucknow, Ont., at $26.50 a ton. Lowest tender accepted.
6108	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
1953-	Two tenders received: Dean Coal Co., Goderich, Ont., at $24.40 a ton. Rae & Porteous, Lucknow, Ont., at $25.00 a ton. Local dealer's tender accepted.
1954-	Two tenders received: Dean Coal Co., Goderich, Ont., at $23.50 a ton. Webster and MacKinnon, Lucknow, Ont., at $25.00 a ton. Lowest tender accepted.
1955-	Three tenders received: Dean Coal Co., Goderich, Ont., at $22.90 a ton. S. A. Montgomery, Blyth, Ont., at $23.00 a ton. Webster and MacKinnon of Lucknow, Ont., at $23.00 a ton. (This tender arrived late and could not be considered). Lowest tender accepted.



INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: I should like to address to the Minister of Defence Production a question of which I have sent him notice. Would the minister comment on the shortage on the market of Canadian cement? In view of such shortage presumably caused by the operations of his department, would he persuade the government to consider making the more expensive American product duty free to Canadian builders?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, the information I obtained on short notice is that there is no general shortage of cement. It is, however, in short supply in some areas. The problem is one of distribution which an effort is being made to correct. The duty on American cement is low. I see no purpose in asking the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) to take any action in that regard under present circumstances.
[Later:!
On the orders of the day:


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: In view of the reply of the Minister of Defence Production, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice or whoever is representing him today. In the light of the shortage of Canadian cement, which is certainly very real in Saskatchewan, is the minister prepared to investigate the existence of any artificial control of the manufacture or distribution of this particular commodity?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether my hon. friend would let his question serve as notice so that I may bring it to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Justice, at the earliest possible moment.
[Mr. Bourget.l



STENOGRAPHIC STAFF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Can the minister say why it is that this year for the first time considerable pressure is being put on the sessional stenographic staff to say whether or not they are available for work with the civil service commission during the recess? In explanation, I should say these forms have always been given to the staff but this year the stenographers are being pressed to make their applications to the civil service commission.


Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of State):: thank the hon. member for having given me notice of the question, but I shall have to discuss the matter with the civil service commission and report later.



PRINTING BUREAU


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Roch Pinard: should like to answer a question asked me last week by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The question reads as follows:
Has the minister received representations asking that the employees of the government printing bureau be accorded collective bargaining rights through a union of their own choice? If so, is consideration being given to such representations?
In answer to the first part of the question, I wish to inform the house that I have received no such representations. I am also informed by the queen's printer that no representations of the same nature were made to him either. I might add that the employees of the printing bureau are civil servants, except for a limited number of maintenance personnel, and that they are recruited through the civil service commission in the usual manner. The national joint council of the public service of Canada, composed of senior administrative officers and of a number of representatives of civil service employees organizations, which was set up in 1944 by order in council P.C. 3676 of May 16 of that year, is the appropriate machinery used by the civil servants to negotiate their working conditions and to discuss their grievances with the federal government.



WATER POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government received an application from the corporation of the city of Ottawa to investigate the pollution situation in the Ottawa river? Is it the intention of the government to set up a commission to investigate the question of pollution of navigable waters? If so, would the Prime Minister give consideration as well to having any commission investigating the serious pollution situation in the Ottawa river also include interprovincial rivers in other parts of Canada?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I have received no application yet from the city of Ottawa although I have read newspaper reports, which are frequently ahead of the actual accomplishments that they seem to be reporting. The matter of water pollution is a matter of concern to all forward-looking Canadians. We are going to have a larger population in this country than we have at the present time. It is a serious matter because, of course, pure water is essential to the comfort of the population. Nothing specific has been done about it yet but we are all thinking of what will be the best way to assure even to future generations that the bountiful supply of water with which nature has endowed this country is going to be available in potable form for their use.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister say whether or not some amendment to the Criminal Code in order to punish wrongdoing of the kind might be within the consideration of the government?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: All means should be explored and considered seriously to achieve the desired objective. I would not like at this time to say that the federal government is going to take the initiative. It is normally, or has been in the past normally, a matter of local and private interest for each locality. We do not want to be looked upon as going beyond what is reasonably within our jurisdiction. I regard it as something that is of concern not only locally but nationally for the future of the country. I am sure it is something which will be discussed, or at least will be talked about, at the next federal-provincial meeting. I think it will be possible to create an atmosphere where no one will
Inquiries of the Ministry regard the other one's activities as overstepping what he should be concerned about.



ARRANGEMENT FOR DELIVERIES BEFORE CUT-OFF DATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: wonder if the Minister of Trade and Commerce could now answer the question I asked yesterday in connection with grain quotas?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was not present in the house yesterday. If my hon. friend will repeat his question, I will see what I can do.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The question was, how
many delivery points in western Canada have not yet been placed on an eight-bushel quota, and what arrangements have been made so that the farmers who deliver at those points will be able to reach an eight-bushel quota, as well as other farmers who have not yet reached it, before the end of the crop year at the end of this month?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It just so happens I am very well posted on this subject. I received a telephone message from Winnipeg this morning. At the present time there are 2,050 shipping stations in the west. As of July 15, the quota position was as follows: five bushels per specified acre, six stations; six bushels per specified acre, 146 stations; eight bushels per specified acre, 1,898 stations. This means that 152 stations still remain to be placed on the eight-bushel quota. All these stations will be placed on the eight-bushel quota by July 31. That is probably all the information you requested.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The matter about which I was concerned particularly was those farmers at points where there is an eight-bushel quota who have not been able to make their deliveries. Have any arrangements been made so they will be able to meet that eight-bushel quota, either by extending the time into August or otherwise?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No one else will be delivering in August, and I presume those who have not reached their eight-bushel quota can complete their deliveries and in fact I made a statement when my hon. friend was absent from the house, that I hoped all the wheat in the farmers' hands can be delivered before the next crop is moved.

Inquiries of the Ministry PENITENTIARIES



OUTBREAK AMONG CONVICTS AT PRINCE ALBERT, SASKATCHEWAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hugues Lapointe: Yesterday the hon. member for Prince Albert asked if I could report on the disturbance that broke out at the Prince Albert penitentiary. I undertook to try to have some information available today, and while I have not a completely detailed report on the matter I shall be pleased to pass on the information which has been made available to me.
The information is to the effect that a disturbance broke out in the Saskatchewan penitentiary at Prince Albert on Tuesday evening, July 12, as the inmates were being returned to their cells at the conclusion of the evening exercise period at about seven p.m. Groups totalling some 100 inmates broke away from their guards and forced their way into several of the shop buildings where considerable damage was done to the machinery and equipment. The stable and a storage building were destroyed by fire and considerable damage was done to other shop buildings by fire, including the buildings used for the vocational training of inmates. Damage was also done to supplies of foodstuffs. The rioting inmates were brought under control within an hour or so of the outbreak of the disturbance, and by nine o'clock all were locked in their cells. No inmate was injured but one guard sustained a fractured arm.
An estimate of the monetary loss sustained in this outbreak is not yet available. Inspection and appraisal of the damages is being carried out by the officers of the institution and will be available later. Arrangements have been made for one of the deputy commissioners to proceed by air to Prince Albert to investigate the circumstances of this outbreak and/ to prepare a report.
From information at present available, the cause of the outbreak is not known. No serious complaints had been received by the warden and no grievances of a serious nature had been put forward by the inmates or their committee. The institution was visited by the commissioner of penitentiaries in May of this year and at that time there was no evidence of unusual tension or serious complaints.
The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) also suggested that there might have been a condition of overcrowding in the penitentiary. I am informed that the present population of the penitentiary is 630,


and there is accommodation available in cells and dormitories for 660 inmates, as well as hospital and dissociation cells. There is therefore ample accommodation available for the present population.
While the population of the penitentiary has been increasing steadily over the past year there has been no indication that the situation had become a serious or dangerous one owing to overcrowding.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a supplementary question. During the last year has any complaint been made that there was a danger through the increase in the number of prisoners over the normal number? Second, in order to clarify the situation and to remove any question of responsibility from the warden or the staff, who are an efficient group, and in order to get at the story properly, would the minister give consideration to having a judicial investigation? There are available district court judges in Saskatchewan trained in the criminal law who would be available for that purpose.


Hugues Lapointe: I am not in a position to say whether there would have been any complaint such as my hon. friend has mentioned. However, I am informed by the authorities of the department that at no time have they considered the situation dangerous because of overcrowding.
With regard to the second part of my hon. friend's question, as I just pointed out, one of the deputy commissioners is being flown to Prince Albert to investigate the situation on the spot, and any future development I should think would be as a result of his report.
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, may I add just a word so that the house will know what the situation is. There have been representations from the officers responsible for the administration of the penitentiaries that there was a constant increase in the population of places of detention, and that it was high time to commence to prepare for more adequate housing. The decision in that respect was made some months ago, and the preparatory work is under way for the establishment of,
I am not sure whether it is two or three, additional institutions so that the unfortunates who are condemned to sojourn in the penitentiaries may be more adequately provided for, and so that there may be less occasion for the kind of irritation due to crowding that sometimes breaks out, such as happened in Saskatchewan.


John George Diefenbaker: May I add this. A couple of years ago I mentioned that there was a

prospective serious situation by reason of the large number in that penitentiary; and that is the reason I suggested that in order to get to the bottom of the thing, rather than have an interdepartmental investigation through a commissioner, a judicial investigation could take place without much expense. This would assure the clearest of evidence on the subject.


Mr. SI. Laurent:: A judicial investigation
might be quite useful; but I think the hon. gentleman will recognize that an investigation conducted under the personal attention of the present commissioner will be a very full and objective one. I think the hon. member will agree that the commissioner has been doing an excellent job in handling the penitentiaries.


Mr. Winch:: May I ask a supplementary question on the same basis? Is the same consideration being given to the situation in the New Westminster penitentiary and in Kingston?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The whole system of penitentiaries throughout the whole country is being examined and reported upon, because, as the hon. member knows, it is possible, when there is space available in one province and there is requirement for that space for prisoners condemned in another province, to move them about. That requires us to keep the whole system adequate for the requirements of the whole Canadian people generally.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I directed to the Minister of Public Works a question which his parliamentary assistant took as notice. Can the minister say when I might expect an answer?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I understand the question deals with the Hillsborough bridge, which is a link of the trans-Canada highway. I understand it will be designated finally as such if it has not in fact already been. When so designated the federal government can participate to the extent of 50 per cent of the cost of any structure that is built to replace the present Hillsborough bridge. The whole matter is being explored further with the Canadian National Railways at the present time. We hope to come to some further understanding regarding their interest.
Supply-National Defence SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence services-
236. To provide for the Canadian forces, the defence research board and other expenditures relating to defence, including contributions toward the military costs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; to authorize expenditures in the current year out of the amount hereby provided, not exceeding $175,000,000, under the provisions of section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, and to provide that, notwithstanding subsection (3) of that section, where equipment or supplies acquired by the Canadian forces after March 31, 1950, are transferred, the estimated present value thereof shall, if the governor in council so directs, be credited to this vote instead of being paid into the special account mentioned in the said subsection (3), and when so credited may be expended for the purposes of the Canadian forces; and notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act to authorize total commitments for the foregoing purposes of $4,269,726,540 regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $2,443,441,346 will come due for payment in future years), $1,729,285,194.


The Chairman:: We are dealing with resolution No. 236, Department of National Defence, Royal Canadian Air Force, search and rescue.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, as you will recall, I raised some matters in connection with search and rescue under the first item of the minister's estimates. At that time it was suggested that we might defer any discussion of the matter until we came to this particular heading. Perhaps I should indicate that my reason for raising the matter under this heading arises partly at least out of some discussion which took place at the last session on the subject of the coastguard service for Canada, and in particular for the west coast of British Columbia.
At that time the then minister of transport, Mr. Chevrier, suggested that in effect a satisfactory substitute for such a coastguard service was being provided by the search and rescue under the R.C.A.F. At that time I was willing to accept the suggestion temporarily that if a satisfactory substitute were being provided I would be prepared to go along with the idea that we should not create an entirely new organization with the overhead that would be entailed and the additional expenses to the taxpayer that would be involved. As a result, though, I did make a particular point during the time between last session and this session to observe, where it was possible for me to do so, the actual working out of the arrangement under search and rescue. I was able to observe that a number of boats were tied in with this plan,

Supply-National Defence namely, the boats under the operation of our Department of Fisheries. The lifeboat stations at Bamfield and Tofino operated under the Department of Transport and also boats operated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. However, I must say that all of these particular boats, as I have observed them, are certainly not very substantial craft. The patrol vessels of our Department of Fisheries may be quite adequate for the patrol duties of the department but, as far as my observation goes and according to information given to me, they are not designed to deal with the serious matter of rescue operations in bad weather on our open Pacific waters.
During a trip from Sidney to Anacortes through the San Juan islands, which, as members realize, are in the United States, I noticed a very sleek and substantial vessel lying in one of the harbours of those islands, which are in inside sheltered waters. It was a vessel that appeared to me to be much more adequate for sea rescue work than any of the vessels that I had seen operated under the various departments I have mentioned. This vessel was sitting there very much as a fire truck sits in a fire hall, apparently ready to go at a moment's notice, if called upon to participate in rescue work.
I am not raising this to criticize the value of the aerial patrol and the co-ordination work which may be undertaken under the R.C.A.F. I know also that they operate at least a couple of small crash boats on the eastern coast of Vancouver island which are tied in with the search and rescue operations. But, as far as I know, apart from the two lifeboat stations at Bamfield and Tofino, there is nothing on the west coast that is directly equivalent to the U.S. coastguard service.
I was pleased to be able to secure the information from the Minister of Justice, when the estimates of the R.C.M.P. were under consideration, that a larger vessel is* to be put into service for the west coast of Vancouver island detachment of the R.C.M.P. As far as I can judge from the information he gave us, it is a more adequate type of vessel to be on call for rescue work in the waters of the Pacific, which certainly are not always peaceful.
In the white paper, reference is made on page 10, under paragraph 35, to search and rescue, and I am going to quote some parts of that paragraph which I think are relevant particularly to what I have in mind. It says:
Although elements of each of the armed forces, the R.C.M.P. and other government departments may be called on to assist in search and rescue operations, the R.C.A.F. ... is responsible for

the co-ordination and supervision of search and rescue activities and for the provision of certain minimum facilities in Canada.
I am confining any remarks I make entirely to the west coast, because I do not know anything of what the situation may be on the Atlantic coast or, for that matter, in the great lakes. That can be brought forward by members from those areas, if they so desire. But one thing which interests me is the mention that elements from each of the armed forces are involved in this. In particular I am interested in knowing what form of participation in search and rescue under direction of the Royal Canadian Air Force is given by the Royal Canadian Navy.
I also notice in the white paper a table is given on page 7 showing the strength of the fleet as at December 31, 1954. I am not too familiar with just what types of vessels are described there. I notice, for example, that there are 10 destroyer escorts in commission and 14 under construction. I notice there are eight coastal minesweepers in commission and six under construction. I assume that some of those vessels are attached to the naval station at Esquimalt, which is suggested also on page 7 of the white paper, as being one of the two principal commands of the navy.
I know that periodically one does see vessels of the Royal Canadian Navy up the western coast of Vancouver island. Usually they are paying what is publicized as a courtesy visit to such ports as Port Alberni, but one of the questions that arise in my mind in this connection is this. If these vessels are going to be in operation on the west coast and are going to be engaged, as I assume, in various training duties, could they not be utilized to a greater extent, at least, than I have observed them as having been used, in the search and rescue operations? I wonder, for example, why it would not be possible to have one or two of the smaller naval vessels stationed at a substation, let us say at Quatsino sound in the northern part of Vancouver island, or possibly located in the Queen Charlottes, so that they would be more immediately on call if required for rescue operations than they appear to be now.
I hope the minister, as he suggested he would do when we were discussing this matter on the first item, will be prepared to give some statement based on the questions I have raised. As far as I am concerned, I am prepared to be convinced that the search and rescue operation is a satisfactory substitute for a coastguard, but from what I have been able to observe so far, I am not convinced that that is the case. I am not

concerned particularly about my personal satisfaction in this matter; but, if it could be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the people who are directly concerned with this problem on our coasts that a satisfactory substitute for a coastguard service can be provided at a smaller cost than would be involved in creating a Canadian equivalent of the U.S. coastguard, that is something which could be accepted. But I know I am not alone when I say that many of the people on the west coast of British Columbia are not convinced that that is the case. I hope the minister may be able to give some further clarification of how this service operates and, in particular, some details as to how these other elements of the armed forces co-operate with the air force under this heading.


Mr. Campney:: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member is well aware, the coastline of British Columbia is of very great length. What he appears to be suggesting would be very extensive. In the second place, any system of search and rescue involves primarily a matter of time. Search and rescue problems must be met quickly. There is a disability of a coastguard system that I think Is met by the search and rescue elements co-ordinated by the air force, and that is the question of time. If an accident occurs or if distress signals are received, there is always the question of time in arriving at the scene of the trouble. That is why the search and rescue division of the air force has been put in charge of such operations in this sense.
The mounted police and the Department of Transport have vessels on the coast. There are a great number of tugs on the coast, and they all have wireless. There are a substantial number of naval vessels on the coast also and they travel up and down the coast on exercises. So far as British Columbia is concerned all these elements are tied in to the search and rescue centre of the air force on Sea island. We have there a search and rescue squadron with paratroop doctors and nurses and persons especially trained for these duties.
Taken altogether, I think the operation is a successful one because when any trouble is reported, whether it is at sea or on land-* and this is the same procedure that is followed throughout Canada-the search and rescue squadron is the focal point where all these calls are dealt with. They on their part are familiar with movements of ships, naval movements and tug boat movements and are in a position to quickly get in touch with any useful unit such as ships or vessels near the scene of the accident. In addition,
Supply-National Defence if there is no vessel nearby, they can themselves fly there in the shortest possible time. This system has worked out well.
I notice that in 1954-and these figures are for all Canada-the Royal Canadian Air Force search and rescue units flew 2,720 hours. That shows that they were busily engaged. They dealt with 230 cases involving flying, 34 of which were from aircraft distress, 40 of which were marine distress calls, and 119 were mercy flights. There were 37 other miscellaneous cases.
I believe the system of search and rescue involving all these elements that I have mentioned, centring on the search and rescue unit of the Royal Canadian Air Force, provides an excellent service and provides it quickly and at a much less cost. In that way we get the co-operation of tugboats, and of naval vessels along the coast, and we utilize all these elements by means of radio to the best advantage at any given time.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I quite appreciate some of the things the minister has said, and there is one particular thing he mentioned which I agree is of the essence. That is the matter of time. The thing that concerns me is this. What guarantee is there that there is going to be a boat available within any reasonable distance if an emergency arises? For example, the minister mentioned that tugboats are tied in with this system. I was aware of that fact. But what guarantee is there that there is going to be a tugboat somewhere out on the northwest coast of Vancouver island at the time that a distressing situation arises? As far as I am concerned, that is the crux of the matter.
The vessels operated by the Department of Fisheries or by the R.C.M.P. up until the present time, or the motorized lifeboat type of boats which are used at the lifeboat stations at Bamfield and Tofino, are the only ones which are on call within a defined area. According to my observations and according to the comments that have been made to me by people who are much more familiar than I am with the details of seafaring, those boats are not really adequate to deal with situations that may arise.
That is one of the reasons I have raised this question as to whether or not, at relatively small expense, some elements of the navy's vessels could be stationed-I pick examples at random-at Quatsino sound, which is near the northern end of Vancouver island, or in the Queen Charlotte islands. Is there any assurance that adequate services of rescue vessels are going to be available when needed?

Supply-National Defence


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member, who knows the Pacific coast as well as I do, knows that there are a vast number of tugs and small vessels all along the coast all the time. Naval vessels are also doing exercises up and down the coast. If the search and rescue operations were left to a coastguard in the accepted sense of that term, they could not begin to have anything like the number of ships distributed as are now distributed up and down the British Columbia coast. All of these vessels, incidentally, can be reached from Sea island at any time. But if, in fact, an accident occurs and there are no vessels within quick reach of the scene of the accident, the search and rescue unit itself has Cansos, which can reach almost any part of the coast quickly.
I therefore think the situation is covered better by the present system, with the correlation of all the elements which can be used, than it would be covered if we had a substantial number, if you like, at great cost, of coastguard vessels spotted along the coast. I think the present system, in addition to being much cheaper, covers the area much better and is more effective.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: I note the minister said the air force was involved in 34 incidents of lost aircraft. Is there any arrangement for reimbursing the government for any cost of this service or is this total borne by the air force?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand that the disposition of aircraft in the search and rescue picture is in accordance with the practice of the international organization called ICAO. We have certain areas for which we are responsible. We are not paid by the international organization for utilizing our services in that regard. We stand the cost ourselves.


John Borden Hamilton: I might say to the minister that I think the air force deserves a great deal of credit for the work that is being carried out. I understand that prior to this type of organization, it was a rather loosely knit affair when we came to do a job of this kind. I have heard one criticism that I think should be passed along. In the far northern areas I think the force does, and maybe with some reason, stick to a very firm plan as far as search is concerned. It works on a grid system and follows a very firm pattern. I have heard the criticism that at times those in charge do not take into account the special knowledge possessed by the far north operators with respect to whether a flyer involved in a forced landing might have taken advantage of the cover provided by certain surroundings and things like that if he was in distress. I strongly


suggest that word be passed along that if there are special conditions of that kind the search master should pay special attention to them because I feel it might cut down a great deal on the time and expense involved in an operation of this kind.


William Alfred Robinson: Then search and rescue is carried. Defence research and development is carried. Then we come to mutual aid.


John Angus MacLean: I notice there is a reduction in this item which is chiefly due to reduced commitments as far as the supply of aircraft and other materials are concerned. Would the minister say a word in explanation? I presume the reduction is brought about by the fact that the requirements have been met to a great extent and therefore the commitments in the year ahead are not so great.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, I think the situation is that when mutual aid was instituted the other countries of NATO in Europe were not in a good position to provide with any degree of speed much of the equipment necessary to reorganize their forces. At that time our service had considerable surpluses of equipment from world war II. There were also certain types which we were replacing. Thus in the early stages of rearmament in Europe mutual aid was founded on the basis of giving the maximum help in respect of those things which we could most usefully give. As the defence production industry developed in Canada we extended mutual aid to include some of that production. To help keep our plants running and to aid in our own rearmament we made contributions from time to time of various elements being made in Canada, among them airplanes.
The mutual aid program has been going on now since 1950, and in the meantime the build-up of forces in Europe has grown. Their production industries for defence purposes have grown. As time goes on and our allies develop their own armed forces and the means of sustaining them I would assume that mutual aid would continue to shrink. There are certain elements of mutual aid that will of course continue. For example, the air training scheme, which is quite expensive, will go on until 1957. In the second place, Canada is now undertaking changes in emphasis in our own defence program, a large element of which consists of radar lines, such as the mid-Canada line, which is just as much an element in NATO defence as in the defence of Canada and the United States. Therefore as our commitments for continental defence grow, and because there are large numbers of spares we intend to provide for what we have already given away, I think the common-sense thing to do is not to increase mutual aid but rather

to reduce it gradually. What we are trying to do is tie ourselves into the NATO picture in the most useful way and at the same time to keep our defence commitments within the bounds of what we can hope to raise financially.


John Angus MacLean: It is a fact though that the reduction of $136 million in the total defence budget is accounted for to the extent of $125 million by the reduction in mutual aid.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes.


John Angus MacLean: I notice that the contribution to infrastructure and NATO budgets has increased from $19 million to $25 million. I have no criticism to make of the increase, but perhaps the minister might explain how the contributions to infrastructure are allocated and spent. I am thinking particularly of the standards which must be met in the construction of areodromes and buildings of that sort. I understand that the standards vary from country to country. Is it the case that there are over-all standards set by NATO and that the variation, if any, is accounted for merely by the standard of workmanship or is there a variation in standards from one country to another? Do the countries themselves have control over the standards with respect to buildings constructed in the particular country?
This question arises in my mind because of reports-I do not know whether or not they are justified but the minister can clear up the matter-that there is quite a variation in the standard of accommodation for our air force squadrons in Europe, depending on the country in which they happen to be. I do not want to make any odious comparisons, but I understand that most personnel would prefer the standard of accommodation provided in one country rather than that provided in another.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I might make two observations. The hon. member has referred to the different standards of aerodromes in Europe. That was the case before 1949, but I am informed that the NATO council officials have now fixed minimum standards for all aerodromes within the NATO area. If any nation using these aerodromes wishes supplementary facilities they have to provide them, but there is a standard now which I think is reasonably acceptable. With respect to the difference so far as housing for personnel is concerned, housing is the responsibility of the country supplying the forces. We make arrangements or have made arrangements in both France and Germany in that regard.
Then, the hon. member made a comment about the increase in the estimates for the
Supply-National Defence cost of the infrastructure and the NATO budget. The reason for that change is that up until this year part of those charges came from other government funds. This year, we are following the same practice as the United States and placing all the infrastructure expenses and the NATO contributions under the mutual aid program.


John Angus MacLean: I have two further brief questions. One is as to the provision of married quarters for dependents of Canadian personnel in Europe. Has that commitment been completely met now, as well as the provision of schools? The second part of my question is, what provision is made for the rapid evacuation of dependents of Canadian personnel from Europe if such a thing should suddenly become necessary?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand that the married quarters required by our forces in Germany, both the army and the air force, are completed and practically all occupied. Some of the married quarters in France are finished and occupied, while others are still in the process of completion. The same thing applies in each country with respect to schools; a certain number have been completed while others are still being completed.
I do not know that I would care to enter into a discussion as to the evacuation of dependents, other than to assure the hon. member that this subject is under discussion with our NATO allies because it is naturally a very real problem. I think we would prefer not to give any information about the methods and plans which are being evolved.


John Angus MacLean: Can the minister give a target date as to when it is hoped that complete accommodation will be provided for married dependents in France?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Midsummer next year has always been the target for our program and we think we will attain it.


William Alfred Robinson: The discussion on mutual aid has been completed and that completes the items under resolution 236, but I understand that the committee agreed to provide an opportunity for the discussion of publications. Shall I call that heading now?


Mr. Low:: As I said last night, Mr. Chairman, there is nothing that could possibly induce me to inflict myself at any great length on the members of the committee at this late stage except a matter of very great importance. I do not know whether all other hon. members of the committee feel that this is a matter of great importance, but in the light of what I have experienced and what was said last night by the hon. member for

Supply-National Defence Lethbridge, I feel it would be desirable for me to make a statement this morning.
At the outset may I say that the minister very kindly sent to my office a number of copies of the Current Affairs publication about which the hon. member for Lethbridge spoke last night. He sent me all of those beginning with January of this year up to the present time. I have had a chance to do some homework, and I thought that I should like to present a balanced statement, as fair a statement as I possibly could, because what was said by the hon. member for Lethbridge last night I am sure must have raised considerable doubt in the minds of some people. I do want to try to set them straight, and if possible give the members of the committee the benefit of whatever research I may have been able to conduct.
May I tell you first, Mr. Chairman, why it was that I became interested in these publications. I have four boys. One of them is a 20-year-old attending Queen's University school of medicine. He frequently comes home during his school year, and this young man is quite typical of the thousands of young men who are in the armed services, and I would think about on an average with them in his mentality and ability. One time during this past winter he came home, and in the course of our discussion, such as father and son do have, he told me about a discussion he had had the day before with a young officer from the staff training college in Kingston. Now, this was just about the substance of that talk. It turned on what goes on in college. The young officer told my son about the visiting lecturers, and how the lectures are conducted. Then he said to my lad, "When I get through listening to the lectures I am left with a definite impression that a communist victory in the present great world struggle is inevitable. 1 hear so much about how clever the communists are and how dumb and stupid the democracies are, and that seems to be played up." I said to the lad, "Well, what effect does that have on your mind, and what effect do you think it would have on many young people in the services throughout Canada or the world, for that matter?" The reply I got was this: It must have left them with a feeling of futility, a feeling of what is the use of fighting against communism if it is inevitable that communism is going to prevail.
My interest was aroused as a consequence of that discussion. When my attention was drawn to the publication Current Affairs- by the way, I have known of it for some years, but these particular ones about which the hon. member for Lethbridge complained


last night were put into my hands and I read some of them. I went through all of them rather carefully. As I read them I wondered just what effect they would have upon the mind of a 20-year-old in the armed services, who was away from home and being, educated, informed or indoctrinated by the kind of thing we find in these Current Affairs publications.
Let me explain just briefly to the committee what they are. These Current Affairs publications are little booklets that are issued bi-monthly by the information service of the Department of National Defence. They are supposed to be accompanied by discussion leaflets and, so far as I can gather, they are supposed to be placed in the hands of skilled leaders in discussion to be used as a foundation for discussion. But they are also placed in the hands of members of the services, old or young, and they are read quite widely. Some of them are written by prominent writers. For instance, I see one in this compilation, volumes 1 and 2 for 1951-52, written by Blair Fraser, a very prominent editorial writer and newspaperman. I see another one here written by Charles J. Woodsworth, and so on, all very prominent writers on all kinds of subjects.
Let me say right off, Mr. Chairman, that I have gone through these publications as carefully as I possibly could. Let me say that in the main the articles contained in these publications are objective and fairly factual, and I find nothing very objectionable in them. But aside from one I must say that, in this whole lot, beginning with October 1951 and ending with June 1952, I never found one single inspirational article-not one. There was one that bordered a bit on the inspirational, written by a Jesuit priest. But, aside from that, there was not the semblance of an approach to anything that could be classed as inspirational.
But there was in it-and I think this is what the hon. member for Lethbridge was complaining about last night, more than anything else-an article written by Charles Woodsworth called "Threat in the East". It made up the whole of the pamphlet for November 15, 1951. The hon. member for Lethbridge described these things, and I suppose that under normal circumstances he would have quoted them last night. I would have, if I had had them in hand at the time. Here is the way Mr. Woodsworth starts:
In Asia as throughout the world, a desperate struggle is going on for men's minds. It is a struggle between liberal forces, trying to bring freedom, enlightenment, and social justice to mankind, and forces suppressing individual liberty and employing the methods of the totalitarian police state.

He does not identify them at all. He starts right off, and leaves it to these young men to conjecture. He leaves it to them to decide for themselves which are the liberal forces which are trying to bring freedom, enlightenment and social justice to mankind, and those forces which are suppressing individual liberty and employing the methods of the totalitarian state. Then he goes on to say:
Who, or what, is the adversary of this freedom that is the aim of liberalism and social justice?
And he leaves it dangling there, so that anyone is left wondering whether it is the communist world or the capitalist world, or what it is. He does not attempt to answer; but he goes on to say this:
Basically the trouble lies in the wretched conditions under which millions of people exist today; conditions' of poverty, ill-health, ignorance, illiteracy; conditions bordering on starvation and devoid of all sense of security.
He does not answer the question at all. He leaves it to these boys to wonder; and many of them would be very likely to come to the conclusion that the liberal forces trying to bring freedom, enlightenment and social justice to mankind would be the communist forces. That is what any normal boy would assume, as a consequence of reading that. Then, a little later on, in the same pamphlet Mr. Woodsworth says at page 6:
Every member of the communist party in the various countries of the world, whether he understands it or not, is working in the interest of the Soviet government. The effect of this is that in practice Russia is always right and the end justifies the means.
I have quoted that paragraph, without taking it out of its context. It is right there. "What would any bright young man deduce from that, except that here is something that so many people of the world think is worth while, that each of them is actually ready to die for his convictions, and that there is not much use fighting against this sort of thing, because it is really doing things for people.
I quote from the same publication at page 11, where Mr. Woodsworth says:
In its origins Chinese communism depended on the desperate desire of millions of Chinese peasants for a fairer, more equal division of land, and some form of administration which would give it to them and guarantee that they could keep the fruits of their labour.
And he leaves it at that; he leaves it to the boy to conclude, "Well, communism has done it; communism is the answer; therefore communism is the thing we ought to be looking into because it will divide the land fairly and set up a government which would administer it." That is the kind of thing about which the hon. member for Lethbridge was complaining last night; that is
Supply-National Defence the kind of thing which indoctrinates these young minds and makes them feel, "What is the use of our putting up a fight against communism, when it does such wonderful things and inspires people to such wonderful ideals?"
That is the important point; and the hon. member for Lethbridge was on sound ground when he stepped on that sort of thing. And in what I am saying I am sorry to have to include my friend Blair Fraser. He was asked to write one of these articles, headed "The Threat from Communism", and it was published on October 15, 1951. Anyone can read it. I shall not delay the committee by reading it or quoting from it, but I recommend it to hon. members for purposes of reading. And when an hon. member has read it he might ask himself: What would a 20-year-old make of that? I would say that when a 20-year-old got through reading that he could come to only one conclusion, and that would be the utter futility of attempting to fight against this tremendous power that is sweeping the world and is bound to win.
That sort of thing it seems to me is poor stuff to put in the hands of young men in the army, young men who need to be inspired and whose faith needs to be built up, young men who need to be released from the grip of fear. I invite hon. members to read the article and make up their minds with regard to it. I am not for one moment trying to exaggerate.
Now let me come to more recent times. The hon. member for Lethbridge quoted from this group of publications from back in 1951 and 1952. As I said earlier, very kindly the minister sent me all this year's publications. He did not make any special selection-he just took the whole group and sent them to me. Well, I did some homework on them and, for the first time in my reading of these publications, I found something inspirational. I commend the minister, because it indicates what I have felt since I have read those published from January 1 to July 2 of this year. I believe I detected a change, and I commend the minister-because I am sure there is a change, and that it is a change for the better.
In only one article have I found something to complain about, and I shall reveal it in a moment. I cannot expect the minister constantly to be poring over these manuscripts, because men have been selected in his department to do that, to edit them carefully and to see that nothing gets out and into the hands of these young men that would destroy their faith.
6118	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
I would refer particularly to this one of April 15. I find in it an excellent article on "Vital Ground for Democracy", but the article is not signed. I do not know who wrote it. Since the new minister came to office I have discovered fewer publications signed with the names of prominent writers than one found before. This may be a change in policy and, if so, perhaps it is a change for the better. However, I was about to point out that in this article I found the first approach to a spiritual balance to be found anywhere in these publications. This augurs well, and my mind is set at rest to some considerable degree when I find this happening.
I would quote particularly from pages 22 and 23 of the article to show its truly inspirational nature. It develops something that the boy should have and should understand. It gives them a real reason for rising to defend their way of life. That is the kind of thing I like to see, and it is the kind of thing I believe the young men should have; but I am sorry to have to criticize another one. This one is the March, 1955 issue, and it is headed: "In the U.S.S.R.". For the life of me, Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand why we should have to go to great lengths and expense to publish a booklet of this kind called "In the U.S.S.R." and give it to our boys, especially when it tends to glorify what is going on in the U.S.S.R. I do not mind, in fact I think we have to be balanced in our judgment in these things-it will not do the boys any harm to know. I think they have to know both sides of the question. The thing that bothers me, Mr. Chairman, is that in this issue, "In the U.S.S.R." you find the following. I am reading from page 4, which is the very beginning of the article. Listen to this:
Let us picture the almost entirely agricultural Canada of 1900 trying to become a great industrial power overnight-a Canada seeking to multiply its Ungavas, Arvidas, Kitimats, International Nickels and Leducs in a hurry instead of filling the stores of Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver. To carry out such a program there must be a thorough levelling, centralization and regimentation of the whole country, its capital resources and its people, sealing the frontiers so that the inhabitants will not know and consequently cannot envy the material prosperity abroad, sealing the frontiers to prevent emigration and keep the workers at home, sealing the frontiers above all against competition.
They are just throwing it at the boys the first minute they get hold of the book I continue:
Assuming that the people are agricultural, a proportion must be transformed into city dwellers and labourers, and staffs of engineers and technicians must be created.
And so on. He goes on to say what must be done, and at the very best it can be only a rank apology for what the U.S.S.R. has


done. In not one single sentence does it say what terrible things they did in order to build up their present strength. Listen to this on page 6:
The five-year plans came in 1928 in the guise of a regular mobilization, first of hammers and sickles, then of turbines and tractors. This picture is no exaggeration if we remember the fight against the kulaks, great farmers who sought to defend their property and were brought to heel only by detachments of the party, the army and the police. Many of them died in the struggle. The rest were sent to people Siberia.
If I ever heard of a deliberate misrepresentation of fact, Mr. Chairman, this is it. It refers to the kulaks. Many thousands of them were ruthlessly destroyed because they would not give up what they owned at the moment. The article says: "In the struggle many of them died." Bless my soul, our boys have been handed that sort of tripe and we expect them to be prepared to fight, to defend our way of life, in the light of that kind of apology. I do not blame the minister for this one. I cannot expect him to be able to go through every manuscript and to see that it is properly written. We have to be fair about it. In fairness, I must say, Mr. Chairman, that this issue published on March 1, 1955, is the only one published this year to which I take any exception whatsoever, and I commend the minister for that. I do believe the minister needs more help. I certainly would suggest that he allow the members of the House of Commons to help him. It might be wise to put the members on the mailing list and let them get these pamphlets, and they will be glad to help the minister.
If I had obtained this issue early enough, I would have gone to the minister and brought to his attention what is in it, and perhaps we might have prevented its getting into the hands of young men with immature minds, many of them with untrained minds, who would be bowled over by this kind of propaganda. May I just leave that for the moment?
The question is, are we or are we not designing the information services, these that I am speaking about and others in the government, so that they become a real inspiration to our young men in the armed forces, or are they of a character which destroys the will to resist evil forces, that destroys faith and makes the boys victims of fear? My criticism of all of the pamphlets that I have seen is as much of what they do not contain as of what they do contain. It would be wise for us all to be much more vigilant.
I have gone through these pamphlets, and I should like to say a few things, if I may.
I do not want to take too much time, but I think it is vital to say a few things about

what they do not contain, and what I believe fighting forces of a country as great and as prosperous and with as great a future as Canada should have if they are going to have the will to stand up and defend it.
As I have said, I have four boys. I would want every single one of those boys to prepare himself to defend his country and I would do my very best to stand with them under all circumstances, but I would want them to have the faith and the will, the background, the knowledge and the information that would lead them to be worthy representatives, and to stand up for their country, its institutions and our way of life. There is little or nothing in these pamphlets that says anything about the awful things that have been done by the communist imperialists and in the name of communism. They should know that.
There is very little in any of these pamphlets, Mr. Chairman, that speaks of the superiority of the free way of life. I find, too, that there is only a tiny reference here and there to the communists taking over various free places and the methods by which it was done. There is little, if anything, that I find about the glorious traditions of the British Empire and the tremendous value of the gifts and contributions to the whole world made by Britain and her associated countries of the commonwealth. I have not been able to find in my search very much, if anything, about the need for recognizing the spiritual nature of the earth, the spiritual side of man, and that this side of man needs exercise just as much as does the physical side if he is to be balanced and full of faith in God and free from fear. I have not found very much, if anything, in them about that. I have not found anything in them except the one that I mentioned this morning, the one that was issued at the end of April this year celebrating Easter month, that man was created a free moral agent, and that he is entitled to remain free from religious and political compulsions that may be considered as unrighteous dominion being exercised by men through the power they have been able to accumulate in their hands, the wherewithal to exercise that unrighteous dominion. I have not been able to find that. I find in no single publication in this information service thus far any real effort to inspire faith and courage to meet what is ahead. I have always in my days, Mr. Chairman, found a great many things of an inspirational nature in the story of the Bible, the things that are said there that are real history to me. When I was going through these things I wondered whether I could find anything that approaches the account of how Gideon in ancient times saved Israel from the Midianite threat at
Supply-National Defence Mount Gilboa, the inspiring story of how God stood by men in those days when they were on the side of righteousness. I have not found anything of that kind, but I did find there is too much inclination to play down the Bible as an old maid's tale, to cast reflection on it and not give it the credence that it deserves.
I find, for instance, most people tell us we cannot use these things from the Bible because the Bible is no longer accepted as true. As a matter of fact, they point out that we should remember that one part of the strategy of militant materialism, that is Godless communism, both of the communist and fascist types, by the way, is to undermine and destroy faith in the Bible as the history of God's dealings with men in times past.
I visited Israel last year and had a good chance to look around. In the course of my looking around I ran across some things that aroused my admiration and keen interest. I discovered, for example, that archaeological expeditions had been in there for years, some as far back as 1914 or 1915. Of those archaeological expeditions from all over the world, perhaps the first of any note was that led by Sir Charles Marston. Using the Bible as their guide, those expeditions were able to discover the ruins and remnants of some of the ancient city states.
I have in mind particularly one that is now the site of great concentration camps where there are about 80,000 to 100,000 Arab refugees from Israel, the ancient city of Jericho. Sir Charles Marston and his group went into that area and started digging into the sand dunes that had blown in and covered the remnants of the ancient city. Using the Bible as their guide, they dug down and discovered the remnants of the ancient city. The first things of any account they found there were remnants of pottery. World experts on pottery, after studying them carefully, said that they belonged to the era of approximately the time of Joshua. Then they discovered, by very carefully clearing away the sand, that it was a walled city. They discovered a most astounding thing- that there was plenty of evidence all around that the walls had fallen down, exactly as the account in the Bible says they did.
Furthermore, digging in the dunes outside the city, they discovered the burial places of the kings of the city state. One in particular that they discovered was the burial place of the king of the city state at the time of Joshua. He had on his finger the signet ring that had been given him by the rulers of Egypt, which he would use to impress into the wax sealing any proclamation or document, exactly establishing the time of the

Supply-National Defence existence of this city and proving exactly what Sir Charles Marston said, that the Bible is true and that the stories that are told in the Bible have real foundation. I could tell you more on this, but I must not do so.
May I suggest that the minister and his department ask themselves what effort is made these days in the information services to make the men in the services acquainted with the rich store of inspiring events that are to be found in the history of Britain's past and that of the commonwealth, especially events that are connected with times of great danger and times of war. I draw your attention, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Minister, to the fact that in the railway committee room of this very house is a great picture of Canadians arriving at Vimy Ridge. One sees in it supernatural beings, drawing our attention to an event in the history of the first world war wherein our forces were given unsuspected aid which was undoubtedly from spiritual sources. Are our boys being made acquainted with that inspiring event? No, they are not. I find no evidence whatever that they are.
I wonder if they have been told about the angels of Mons and other events in the first world war that they should know about. I wonder in what pamphlet or other information service are they made aware of what happened on July 4, 1942, in the desert fighting in North Africa. I refer the hon. members of this committee to a little book written by Major Peter W. Rainier, a book called "Pipeline to Battle". That tells of a marvellous event that occurred on July 4, 1942, when 1,100 of the toughest of the Panzer troops of Germany gave themselves up to an almost obliterated force of British. Here is the man who was there and saw it. Here is the man who was involved in the building of the pipeline which was one of the instruments by which this surrender came about. You know as well as I do, Mr. Chairman, that to capture a handful of Panzer troops would have been a triumph, but to have 1,100 of them surrender was something amazing. I wonder if our boys are being given that story. I should just like to quote a very short conclusion that Major Rainier wrote in his book "Pipeline to Battle". He says:
In the hours that followed, these 1,100 men suffered unspeakably. That mistake turned the tide of battle! But the question that arises in our minds is:	Why was the pipeline full of salt
water? And why just at the very moment when the Germans broke through the British lines at the point where the pipeline ran along the surface?
Major Rainier was the builder of the line. He says it was a new one, never used before. On that fateful day of the break-through it was being tested for leaks. Rainier did not want to waste precious fresh water, hence

used salt water for the test. The Germans came along at that very time at that very place and shot holes through the pipe line, sank to their knees and quickly gulped the water. Then they found themselves in a terrible state physically and gave themselves up in despair. The writer concludes as follows:
If Alamein had occurred the day before, the line would have been empty. Two days later it would have been full of fresh water. As it happened the nazis got the salt water. On so small a turn of fate is history written. Was it luck? I suggest it is well beyond the bounds of coincidence. It was God watching over Britain and saving her again by a miracle!
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, how much of that kind of information is given to our boys to inspire them. These and similar stories would really inspire the men of our forces, give them spiritual exercise and build in them a sustaining faith. I know there are some hon. members who call it time, but I have a short conclusion I should like to put on record.


The Deputy Chairman:: The hon. member has five more minutes.


Solon Earl Low: To sum up, Mr. Chairman, I find in all these information services, which I have gone through most carefully, very little or at best only a word, about the impossibility of human scheming ever being able to answer the strategy of materialism of which both the leftist-if we may call them so- and the rightist varieties are well advanced. Our boys are not being informed, for instance, that communism and fascism are the well-springs of this Godless materialism or militant atheism. They are not being shown the truth about how militant atheism stems from the complacency of the Christian forces in the face of moral evil and material oppression.
This militant atheism, about which I think they should be informed, has already gained so much ground that in my judgment it has become impossible to preach the gospel freely in many lands-the gospel that is so well known and beloved throughout the world. Even in some of the western countries it seems necessary today to devise an entirely new language to reach the working millions, a new language in which to convey the historic Christian truths which generations gone by understood so well. My father and your father stood firmly for their Christian beliefs. Why are not the boys being told these things, with adequate evidence to show that it is true? If they are to serve their country and the cause of righteousness, they must know that what they stand for is right and good.
They must have a deep and abiding faith in it. They must not be fed that kind of

thing which will destroy their faith. They must come to understand that there is an answer to communism, which is Godless materialism. That answer can only be-and it should be placed before them as often as possible-an inspired world-wide strategy which comes through Divine guidance to those who are prepared to listen to God and to remove the moral and spiritual blocks to being able to hear the word of God. Through people of this calibre I think the Holy Spirit can work effectively across the whole world and get over the message. Our boys must learn that the answer to communism and fascism and above all to this rank materialism is a hate-free, fear-free, greed-free people who have developed a firmly-rooted faith in God, in themselves, in their cause and in their institutions; I refer to Canadian institutions.
The kind of information service that I have been able to see thus far is one in which everything but the kind of thing I have talked about is to be found. In times like these I say that we need more inspiration, more of the kind of thing that will help our boys to train effectively, to be willing to use their energies to defend this country, instead of feeding them the kind of thing that will cause doubts in their minds. Mr. Chairman, may I appeal to the minister to make every effort to see that the kind of information service that goes out to these young men is the kind that will contain inspirational material, the kind of material that will help them to gain real strength through their knowledge and conviction that they are fighting for the thing that is right.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be brief, but I do not propose to permit the discussion of publications to which reference has already been made to pass without some comment about a significant feature of those publications. There has been some improvement. Mention has already been made of the issue in regard to the U.S.S.R. That issue should never have gone out. It is a thoroughly inaccurate portrayal of Soviet Russia. It is a highly-coloured propaganda document which completely ignores the hardships, the slavery, the cruelty and the existence of at least 12 million people in slave camps. I am going to leave it there.
But I wish that anyone would read this issue-that is the issue of March 1, 1955- under the heading "In the U.S.S.R." and compare it with any reliable, objective description of Russia today. I can compare it with the Russia I saw before the war and I know that it is so wrong in the absence of any balancing factors that no one reading this would have the opportunity to know about 50433-387
Supply-National Defence Russia. Yet in relation to that, there is a pamphlet which suggests questions and answers that might be asked. If they are going to have questions and answers, let them have an objective picture. I shall not extend my remarks. I have said here so much about communism that I do not think perhaps I can add any more to what I have already said about the evil of that system or the desirability of our people's knowing what it really is.
Since this discussion arose I have looked at recent issues of Current Affairs. I think it would be unfortunate to permit one feature of these publications to pass unnoticed. These are supposed to be publications placed before young Canadians some distance away from Canada in order to give them an objective picture of Canada. But so far as these publications are concerned, Canada is a one-party state already. Just read through these publications. It is true that there are stories under various headings, about the U.S.S.R., about the post office, about food and the people, United Nations achievements, Central America, the quiz, vital ground for democracy and many other subjects of that kind. But so far as these are concerned, we have already passed to the stage of a one-party state as far as any impression could be gained by those reading them. That is so, Mr. Chairman, with one exception that I have found.
I have found that one exception in volume 8 of June 15, 1955, and that has on the front "Review of Events". This gives a review of events in different countries with an appropriate introduction by the Minister of National Defence. I do not want to be unkind, but each volume is used as a means of making an appropriate appeal to the troops by the Minister of Natioanl Defence. That is what is called "soft selling" in advertising terms. It creates the impression of the benign interest of the Minister of National Defence and there is, of course, no other influence displayed in the same way. We have various headings in the review of events and then we come to Canada and here the only people mentioned are ministers of the crown. It is a one-party state so far as any stranger to Canada reading this publication is concerned. We must assume that this is written with the idea that it will inform people because these are the bases for quizzes. In each one of these there is a review of the discussion material and then a form of questions that may be asked. Let me just read you one item where they really get away for once from the one-party state:
Nov. 8. By-eiections in Canada resulted in the retention of five seats by the Liberals and the loss of one which the C.C.F. gained.
6122	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence
Mr. Chairman, whoever wrote that paragraph had not heard of York West where the Conservative candidate substantially increased the majority of the previous member. Nor did they hear anything about Stormont where a large majority by the previous minister who was translated to another occupation was almost changed to a victory for the Conservative party. No, Mr. Chairman; there were six by-elections. Four of those where there had been a large Liberal majority were retained, one was lost to the C.C.F. and one held by the Conservative party was retained by the hon. member for York West who has been giving distinguished representation to the riding since he came into the House of Commons. But that was the only case where the one-party state myth was dinted and the C.C.F. did slip in there. I compliment them on that achievement. They did that because they gained that seat from the Liberals. It was the Liberals, of course, who were the only important subject of discussion in this memorandum.
Mr. Chairman, this is not without its importance. Here we have one of the numerous examples of money being spent by this government in the guise of information which is straight propaganda.


Mr. Fleming:: Liberal propaganda.


George Alexander Drew: And straight Liberal propaganda. It would be impossible to place before this committee all the cases where that has happened. But let this leave no uncertainty in the minds of hon. members of the House of Commons or of the public of the very real attempt that is being made by this government to work toward a one-party state through their propaganda methods and in ways of which we cannot be aware. We have had a recent debate that indicated the secret methods that are used in legislation without employing specific legislation itself. We see the attempt made to use public money to emphasize the importance of this government and to educate the young people of Canada and the newcomers to Canada with the idea of the omnipotence and the omniscience of this government which has been so long in power and which has in large measure swallowed its own propaganda. If it serves no other purpose it was useful to discuss these publications for the purpose of emphasizing that if the government is going to spend the taxpayers' money on publications of this kind then they should set up inter-party committees to supervise every one of these publications. That is the only way there can be any assurance of an objective approach to this problem.


But let us recognize also, and I do hope the public will recognize, that we are not merely fighting for the rights of parliament in our discussion here and in such debates as that which just concluded a few days ago, but we are fighting in this country now for the survival of democracy itself. I hope those who discuss these things will recognize the insidious propaganda that is being issued by different departments in the name of information but which is designed to impress upon the people the fact that it is only the Liberal party and its representatives in this house who speak for Canada in international affairs. Look through these publications and see whose names appear. It is only those who will convey the impression of the importance of the government. The fact that democracy as we know it depends upon the interplay of forces between the parties in this House of Commons is completely ignored in the documents that are put before our young people and the members of our forces as a basis for discussions of this kind. I hope this discussion will lead to a reappraisal of the matter by the government. After all, if there has been one encouraging thing in the whole session it has been the recognition that discussion can produce some results, and I would hope that the brief discussion of the publications to which I have referred might mark a change in this respect as well.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I do not wish to prolong the discussion. I have listened with great interest to the speeches on this particular phase of our activities, but I must say that so far as these publications are concerned we do make a serious attempt to make them objective and they are not put out with any idea of propaganda or promotion of any person or party. It is a difficult job to get the right subjects and treat them so the average citizen agrees that the publications are useful.
I want to make it clear that my only interest in these publications as minister is because it has been brought home to me so often that they serve the very useful purposes of adult education, and of keeping our people informed at home and abroad.


George Alexander Drew: I only want to add that I am entirely in favour of providing the members of our armed forces overseas with objective information, but I want to make it clear that what I have seen overseas as well as here does not indicate that it is objective information but on the contrary is heavily loaded information, and I leave for the minister's consideration the possibility of inter-party committees to supervise publications of this kind.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

General services-
238. War museum, $25,050.
Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting for four years to speak for three minutes on this particular item having to do with the national war museum. It is a subject which, coming at the tail end of the defence estimates, receives no attention and yet deserves some comment. The national war museum is perhaps the smallest government building in the Dominion of Canada. It is very well looked after by those who are in charge and the exhibits are carefully arranged, but hampered by space justice cannot be done to the exhibits available in the hands of those who are in charge of the museum. The exhibits are chiefly representative of world war I and very few exhibits having to do with world war II can be shown because of the limitation of space.
I doubt if there is much in that war museum to indicate other activities of Canadian servicemen in the South African war, the 1885 rebellion, the Fenian raids, the war of 1812 to 1814 and the resistance that was offered by Canadians in 1775 and 1776. I think it is a bit unfortunate that a museum of this nature has not received more attention on the part of the government. I understand it is visited by thousands of people each year. One of the attendants estimates that
100,000	people pass through the museum in the course of a year. It is advertised as one of the tourist attractions of the capital city.
I am going to be very brief, but I should like to draw attention to the comments made by the royal commission on arts, letters and sciences in 1951. At page 323 of the Massey report there is the following under the heading "A Canadian Historical Museum":
We are impressed by the fact that Canada lacks two institutions which are generally considered essential to a civilized people, a national library and a national historical museum. . . . On the necessity for an historical museum we can hardly speak too strongly.
Further on there is this observation:
We observed also that in the public archives is now preserved a valuable collection of historical exhibits other than manuscripts, that the national gallery has in its possession a great number of paintings illustrating Canada's part in the two world wars, and that the Canadian war museum has, with very meagre resources, collected and preserved an important collection of war exhibits. We are also informed that various departments and agencies of government have in their keeping considerable quantities of historical material; all this we consider should now be gathered together, appropriately classified, and suitably exhibited.
On page 324 the royal commission recommended:
That when a suitable building is provided for the historical museum it take over the collections of the present Canadian war museum . . .
50433-387i
Supply-National Defence
I should like to say that I agree with the suggestion of the commission that an historical museum is much better than the maintenance of a museum called a war museum, which title is not very attractive to a non-military people like ourselves. A war museum rather indicates certain things that are distasteful to the minds of people. We do not like to think about war. Gathered together in an historical museum, war exhibits would find their proper place. They are not superior in interest to other matters that have affected the development of a country and nation such as Canada. Nevertheless they should not be neglected, and I think they would find their proper place ini an historical museum.
I should like to suggest to the minister, burdened as he is with many other things of greater importance than a museum collection, that in conference with his colleagues he press for the establishment of an historical museum as recommended by the Massey commission and that he be relieved of the responsibility of the present war museum. As it stands at the moment, to be called a national war museum does not do full justice to the great history of the Canadian people, and I think a rather poor impression is created because of the small size of the building and the small number of exhibits on display. I draw this to the attention of the committee, and urge the minister to take appropriate steps to have some change made. It is a matter of extending it, perhaps over a series of years. But let us look forward to the future and around the time of the 100th anniversary of confederation perhaps we may have established in this country an historical museum which will give due credit to the exhibits that are attributed to our war experiences.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
241. Government's contribution to the permanent services pension account, $40,114,164.
Ralph Osborne Campney: Just before we complete the estimates, I should like to make one correction which may lead to a misunderstanding. In looking over Hansard I find that on June 30, when referring to married allowances for personnel marrying under 21, I said at page 5509 that if the young man who wants to get married gets his commanding officer's consent, he can do so. I then went on to say that when such consent is given the young man will receive the marriage allowance.
When I made that statement I had in mind the situation as it exists in Europe. Any Canadian serviceman in Europe, regardless of age, who wants to get married to a
8124	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce European girl must seek his commanding officer's consent. If he should choose to marry without that consent, he does not receive a marriage allowance for a period of one year, and has no entitlement to married quarters. Now, with regard to servicemen under 21 generally, if they marry the regulations stipulate that they cannot receive the marriage allowance until they reach the age of 21 unless the minister so authorizes. I left the impression, I think, that the commanding officer can give such permission. Under the regulations, the only person authorized to waive the age limit is the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
428. Departmental administration, $636,295.
William Alfred Robinson: We are about to consider resolution No. 428 of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Hon. members will find this vote at page 64 of the blue book, and the details at page 519. Shall the resolution carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the minister going to make a statement on the first item of his estimates?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, my staff has prepared a very comprehensive review of world events, and if the temperature were 10 degrees lower I would be inclined to read it. However, I do not think that is really necessary in these trying conditions.
I can report however that the Canadian economy is booming as never before. Our exports are at record levels; capital investment will undoubtedly reach the highest figure on record, and production is also at a very high level. Production is always dependent somewhat upon crop conditions; but the western crop promises to be of almost record proportions, in spite of the slightly lower acreage that was planted this year. I cannot help thinking of my arrival back from Australia and New Zealand, when I was met by newspaper reporters at the airport who insisted upon a television interview. One of the questions asked was as to whether I knew that the prairies were flooded, and that we would have no crop this year. I said, "No, I did not know that"-and I said, furthermore, that I did not believe it. I said, "We never kill western crops on the sixth day of May." They said, "Well, if it is flooded,


you cannot plant it." I said, "It is flooded, but it dries up again, and the wheat is planted and the crop matures." I had more letters about that interview-most of them critical-[DOT] than perhaps regarding any remark I ever made. But perhaps by this time I can say, "The old man was right on that occasion, anyway."
The pick-up in exports started last November. For the first five months of this year the exports are a little over 10 per cent higher than for the previous year. The record of the first five months represents a new record total, and the level of exports as compared with the previous year is rising month by month.
About half the improvement in our exports this year is due to the marked increase in our exports to the United Kingdom. It has been stated in this house many times that we have been losing our markets in England. That has never been true. After the war Great Britain was short of dollars, and is still short of dollars-but not as short as she was previously-therefore her imports from dollar countries had to be sharply curtailed. While for a time the dollar value of our exports slipped somewhat under the value of exports in pre-war years, our proportion of the market did not fall below our proportion in those years. It has always been somewhat higher than our proportion during the pre-war years.
During the first five months of this year the increase has amounted to 37 per cent, which is the sharpest increase we have had in exports to that market. And I am happy to say that our improved position is continuing now that there can be further relaxation of dollar controls. We believe the British market will continue to expand, and that our proportion of the market will continue to grow.
As a matter of fact, of the expansion in imports in the British market during the past five months, half of the increase represents imports from Canada. That is a very satisfactory position. We have also had a substantial improvement in our exports to other commonwealth countries.
I had the privilege of visiting Australia and New Zealand this spring, and while there I discussed credit restrictions with the authorities in both those countries. While there certain relaxations were obtained and are bearing fruit. Our exports to Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and other commonwealth countries are contributing to the substantial increase in exports we are experiencing at the present time.
The United States market slipped off during 1954, owing to the recession in that country. But, as hon. members know, the situation there has been corrected, and our exports

are back to slightly above the levels of 1953 -which was the banner year for exports to the United States.
Therefore I would say the over-all picture is good. There have been some disappointments in countries that we call other than British countries; I am thinking chiefly of South American countries. Their exchange situation has worsened, and there has been no improvement in our exports to "other countries". But with our substantial improvement in exports to British countries, and with an improvement over the record year of exports to the United States, we feel that the situation in that regard is in a very healthy condition indeed.
We have had some disappointments in exports of wheat. Just when a good movement seemed to be getting under way, it has been upset by dock strikes and railway strikes in England, or difficulties in other markets. Nevertheless our exports of wheat and wheat flour are slightly above those of last year, and our sales as of July 1 are substantially above our sales as of July 1 a year ago. So that there is some encouragement in the export situation for wheat and other grains.
Our trading relations with countries of the world are good. I believe our trade commissioner service is doing excellent work. Not only do they report substantial business opportunities, but reports to the department about their work from businessmen travelling abroad are such as to make me feel happy about that service. Our bureau of statistics is maintaining its place as one of the most reliable in the world, and I think our economic branch is doing excellent work in forecasting. I know that the forecasts put out by the Department of Trade and Commerce are highly regarded by those in business interested in the same work, and I believe it is a very efficient branch of the department. Crown companies, for which the department is responsible, seem to be prospering. Atomic energy is still in the expansion stage; it has not actually reached operating level. Eldorado is doing very well indeed. Generally speaking, the business affairs of the department are in a healthy condition.
On this occasion, we are applying for an appropriation of $19,285,000 against $18,789,000 last year, an increase of $496,000 or 2-6 per cent, largely represented by increased salaries to the staff and some increase in the trade commissioners' services. I shall be glad to give more details when we reach the various items where the increase occurs. I may say that more than one-third of the
Supply-Trade and Commerce appropriation is covered by revenue collected by the department. Earnings of grain elevators operated in western Canada by the department and earnings of various services performed for business by the department give a revenue of some $8 million per annum, so that the cost of the Department of Trade and Commerce to the taxpayer is not excessive. I believe the department is rendering full value for the appropriation that is being sought from parliament.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in a recent speech he made in Montreal to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association opened by saying this:
If I were in the House of Commons in Ottawa, I would be confronted with members of the opposition, very friendly people, of course, but just waiting for an opportunity of replying to my speech. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the rules in this parliament "will allow me the rare privilege of delivering a speech without hearing it torn apart a few minutes later.
I am sure it would be unforgivable to disappoint the minister's expectations in regard to what happens in this house. However, this debate on the first item of the minister's estimates does afford a very precious opportunity of reviewing trade policy, and it is with that thought in mind that I approach the opportunity this afternoon.
Trade is the lifeblood of the Canadian economy. Its importance grows not less but greater all the time. Over 25 per cent of Canadian production goes to the export market. With the possible exceptions of New Zealand and Hong Kong Canada has a greater interest in external trade per capita than any other country.
The minister has made a typical speech, has said the Canadian economy is booming and everything is at a high level. Sir, I think I am inherently an optimist, as much as the minister. Everybody likes to feel optimistic and cheerful; and indeed basically there are extremely sound factors for confidence in the future of Canada. However, sir, in reviewing the estimates of the department and in reviewing matters pertaining to trade policy in Canada, it is our duty today to take an attitude that is searching rather than superficial. I propose to examine a little more deeply some of the factors in the Canadian trade situation and outlook.
The first point that I should like to make, sir, is that growth, constant growth, is imperative in Canada. In the first place, we have a constantly rising population. Last year, Canada's population increased by about 400,000, or approximately 3 per cent. In other words, to hold our own in relation to population, we must be increasing our trade all the time.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
The other factor is this. World trade is growing. This appears in a digest of a recent publication by the United Nations. It is dated June 26:
The world economic picture looks increasingly bright. International trade in the last year marked up a 7 per cent increase over the 1953 record high. Countries long bothered by dollar shortages made some gains. Prices of raw materials stayed stable- with few exceptions-or improved.
Sir, it is against that background that I ask the house to examine the trade position of this country at the present time. Let us bear in mind, then, where we see evidences of growth of Canada's trade, that growth parallels world trade. Where Canada's trade has not been growing, then Canada's trend of trade to that extent has been running counter to the trend of world trade.
Today we are having the first opportunity to engage in a general debate on trade that we have had in some 13 or 14 months. The minister has concentrated his brief review this afternoon on the most recent months of the period. To see the matter in accurate perspective we must look back over the entire period. We must deal with the year 1954 complete and see how, when we are relating the figures for five months of 1955 to 1954, they measure up in the long-range view. What I have to say now in asking the house to consider certain facts is aimed at having a balanced perspective on the whole situation.
I point out these facts, sir: First, in 1954 our imports and exports declined substantially; second, in 1954 Canada dropped from third place to fourth place among the trading nations of the world, being supplanted in third place by Germany whose recovery has been truly remarkable and is a tribute to the prodigious effort, hard work and efficiency of the German people; third, our imports were the highest per capita in the world; fourth, our trade continued to be concentrated to a dangerous degree with one country, namely, the United States; fifth, while there has been some reversal since the turn of the year, nevertheless the problem remains of maintaining the United Kingdom market for our agricultural surpluses; and sixth, on any fair basis of comparison, the exports of raw materials from this country per capita are proportionately the highest in the world. At a time when unemployment has reached a post-war high the government has been complacent and content about this form of export, particularly to the United States, for manufacturing and processing, much of which is bought back by Canadians later in finished form after United States labour has been expended thereon.


This attitude is reflected in a sentence that fell from the lips of the minister in the speech at Montreal to which I referred earlier when he said:
Imports, too, are up proportionately, which is a healthy sign.
The minister has undoubtedly been concentrating much of his satisfaction on growing imports.
Now, sir, it is fair that one should examine the question of government responsibility in relation to trade. We know that in a free economy the growth of trade depends principally upon the initiative of individuals and their willingness to take risks, but we in this country are accustomed to having the government here claim credit for all that is good in trade and reject blame for occurrences that are unfavourable. I say, sir, that the government has a positive role to fulfil in relation to trade. Governments can greatly assist in promoting trade. There are those aids to which the minister referred this afternoon: firstly, promotion of sales through the trade commissioner service and, second, the gathering and supplying of information to traders.
But in a larger sense the most important field of government responsibility in this regard is in the matter of fiscal policy. This is a subject of high importance in relation to trade. Indeed it used to dominate political debate in this country. I mention three aspects of fiscal policy in relation to trade and government responsibility in that respect.
First of all, there is the obvious matter of taxes. Taxes increase the cost of production. To that extent they lay a burden upon producers, whether producing for export or for the domestic market. Governments, and this one in particular, can help both our exporters and our producers for the home market by trying to lower the cost of production, and they can assist very much in that respect by lowering taxes. In that regard also, while this government is calling upon producers where possible to lower their cost of production, we say that the government can set a very good example to producers in that respect by putting its own house in order.
This matter of keeping costs down is a very important one. Indeed the minister, when he returned from Geneva on December 30, said on arriving at Ottawa:
"Prices are coming down all over the world and our price structure will keep pace". Canadian industry would have to keep up with competitive world prices if it wanted to continue in the world trading picture.
I need say no more on that subject.
The second aspect of fiscal policy and government responsibility concerns keeping clear

the export channels for sale of our goods abroad. From time to time we hear discussion in this house about tariffs. Tariffs have greatly receded in significance in the world of today; as compared with other forms of restriction they do not command anything like the importance of other years. They have been supplanted by such restrictive factors as quotas, quantitative restrictions, arbitrary exchange valuations, inconvertibility of currencies, discriminations, customs procedures and other uncertainties. If one were to attempt to define the duty of government in relation to these modern and much more effective forms of restriction, one would say, particularly as applied to our trade relations with the nations that are signatories to GATT, that the duty of the government is to be alert to detect, swift to protest, persuasive and resourceful in seeking removal of these restrictions.
The third aspect of fiscal policy and government responsibility is to ensure fair opportunity to our domestic producers in the domestic market.
There is one general aspect of trade which looms large in the world in which we live.
Supply-Trade and Commerce It is the relationship of trade to peace. So far as Her Majesty's loyal opposition is concerned, we by no means underrate the contribution which world trade has to make to the establishment and maintenance of peaceful relations among nations. Undoubtedly, the more closely nations are knitted together by commercial ties, the more likely they are to seek to preserve their prosperity and stable relations in friendly association. There is one exception in this respect and that is the matter of state trading, which has dangers both political and economic that are only too apparent when attempts are made to cut off sources of supply.
Now may I comment upon some developments which are disclosed in several of the tables in the annual report of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Here may I ask, to save time, that these tables which are in the report might be printed in Hansard by consent? The one I am dealing with now is on page 16, giving the summary statistics of Canadian trade.


William Alfred Robinson: Does the committee agree to this request? Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The table is as follows:
Summary Statistics of Canadian Trade
	1952	Calendar Year 1953	1954	Percentage change. 1953 to 1954
		$'000,000		%
Value nf Trade*				
Exports 	
Imports 	
Balance of trade 	
4,356 	
4,030 	
+325	4,173 4,383 -210 1948=100	3,942 4,095* -153*	-5-5 -6-6Price Indexes:	
121-8	118-3	115-5*	-2-4
110-4	109-4	109-7t	+0-3Terms of trade 	110-3	108-1	105-3t	-2-6
From that table and the figures contained in it these inferences are to be drawn. First, in 1954 as compared with 1953, Canadian commodity exports declined in value by 5-5 per cent and our total imports declined in value by 6-6 per cent. Second, our 1954 exports were lower than those in 1953, 1952 or 1951 in value. Third, the 1954 decline was due principally to a drop in our exports of wheat and motor vehicles. Fourth, our imports in 1954, though lower than in 1953, were higher than in any previous year with the exception of 1953. Fifth, in 1955, for which we have the figures for the first five months, our exports are up 10 per cent and
our imports are up 10-6 per cent. I would point out, however, that these are by way of comparison with the first five months of 1954, not the better year 1953. Sixth, the balance of trade continues to be adverse to Canada. In 1952 we had a so-called export surplus of $325 million, but at the end of that year the position changed and it has been running against us since. In 1953 we had an excess of imports over exports of $210 million, and in 1954 in round figures an excess of $150 million of imports over exports. If we look at the figures for the first five months of 1955, we shall not be greatly encouraged.

Supply-Trade and Commerce In the first five months of 1954, the adverse balance of trade was $109 million. In 1955 it has grown to $128 million in the corresponding period.
Now I should like to make a comment or two on the subject of direction of trade. Here, sir, may I ask that the table on page 17 of
the annual report of the department might be put on the record to save time, rather than being read.


William Alfred Robinson: Is this request agreed to by the committee? Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The table is as follows:
Direction of Canadian Trade
1952	1953	1954	1952	1953	1954
Total exports to:
United	States	
2,349United	Kingdom	
751Other Commonwealth and	Ireland	..	288Other	Europe	
476Latin America	
273Others	
219
Total imports from:
United	States	
2,977United	Kingdom	
360Other Commonwealth and	Ireland	..	185Other	Europe	
151Latin	America	
284Others	
73
On the figures in that table covering the years 1952, 1953 and 1954, these following comments may be made. First, there is little change in the percentages of our trade with the United Kingdom and the commonwealth, but the same is not true of the United States.
Second, our exports to the United States have shown constant expansion in the percentage they form of the total. In 1952, in round figures, they were 54 per cent; in 1953 they had grown to 59 per cent; and in 1954 to 60 per cent.
Third, our imports from the United States formed an overwhelmingly large proportion of our total imports. In 1952 they formed 74 per cent of our total imports; in 1953, 73-5 per cent; and in 1954, 73 per cent.
Fourth, combining these figures for exports and imports, we have an opportunity of judging the alarming extent to which we are concentrating our external trade to one country, namely the United States. To use the expression of the Minister of National Revenue a few years ago, we are "putting our trading eggs in one basket" to this extent. In 1952, 63-4 per cent of our external trade was done with the United States; in 1953, 67 per cent; and in 1954, 67 per cent. In other words, out of every dollar of external trade that Canada is carrying on, two-thirds of it is done with one country.
Fifth, in our commodity trading relations with the United States we are continuing to show substantial trading deficits. In 1952 that trading deficit was $670 million; in 1953, $758 million; and in 1954, $601 million. The minister has drawn attention to the figures

$.000,000	Percentage of	Total2,463	2,363	53-9	590	59-9669	658	17-3	160	16-7248	205	6-6	60	5-2373	346	10-9	8*9	8-8199	199	6-3	4-8	4-8221	182	50	5-3	4-63,221	2,718*	73-9	73 5	72-4*453	359*	8-9	10-3	9-5*171	174*	4-6	3-9	4-6173	164*	3-8	4-0	4-4*290	258*	70	6-6	6-9*74	83*	1-8	1-7	2-2*
for 1955. They do not reflect any improvement in the position of our trading deficit with the United States. In 1954 in the first five months our trading deficit with the United States-that is to say our excess of imports over exports-was $273 million. But this year, 1955, our deficit has grown to $355 million.
Sixth, the big drop in 1954 in our imports from the United Kingdom has been continued into 1955. There has been no recovery in that respect in 1955, but a 35 per cent increase in the first five months of 1955 is shown in our exports to the United Kingdom as compared with the corresponding period in 1954.
Seventh, in these same five months we sold to the United Kingdom double what we bought from her. One is bound to ask oneself this question: How long can that continue? The sixth month is evidently even worse because reports already coming from the United Kingdom, and appearing in the press this week, indicate that the view taken there is that Britain's export trade with Canada is-to use the expression employed- "slipping ominously". These facts must concern us, Mr. Chairman.
I should like to review as briefly as I can questions of policy that arise in connection with our trade with the United Kingdom, the United States and some other countries. First of all, I shall deal with the matter of policy in relation to the United Kingdom.
I am not going to repeat at length what we in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition have so often said, namely, that our view of the

United Kingdom market is that it is the best, the most satisfactory, the most stable and dependable and is our traditional market especially for our surplus of agricultural products. Our exports to the United Kingdom fell successively in 1952, 1953 and 1954. This recovery in 1955 must be measured against that kind of background. The decline in 1954, we are told, "reflected chiefly lower grain requirements". It might be more accurate to say lower grain purchases. But the value of the United Kingdom market is very great for Canada and much yet remains to be done by this government to possess that market.
"Where Britain buys its foodstuffs" is the interesting heading of an article by the Canadian commercial secretary at London, Mr. Bruce Marshall, and appearing in the July 9 issue of the department's publication Foreign Trade. That summary statement will repay some study. The article takes seven foodstuffs for which Britain is dependent in whole or in part upon imports from abroad. Here are the statements. First, there is "flour: Imports totalled 360-8 thousand tons in 1954; nearly 90 per cent came from Canada". We will all agree that that is a very satisfactory report. Second, "wheat: Purchases reached 47 * 4 million bushels in the first quarter of 1955. Canada supplied 20 million bushels". According to my arithmetic, Canada's proportion was 42 per cent in that period and I think all of us would say that it ought to be higher. Third, "butter: Of total imports of 632-5 million pounds in 1954, New Zealand and Denmark together supplied about 90 per cent". Canada supplied not one pound of butter. Fourth, "cheese: About 250 million pounds purchased abroad in 1954; Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa competed for this trade". Note the arrangement of the names of the countries; Canada is the first of the four. It almost suggests to the avid reader that Canada led, but what are the facts?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Alphabetically.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Canada supplied to the
United Kingdom market in 1954, 4 million pounds of cheese, which was 1 - 6 per cent of the total British imports of cheese. Fifth, "eggs: Domestic production supplies about 87 per cent of the market. The remainder comes from Denmark". Canada is selling no eggs to Britain. Sixth, "bacon: Imports still purchased in bulk by government, mainly from Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden and Poland". You will see that Canada sold no bacon to Britain. Then seventh, "feeds: Some 564,030 long tons bought abroad in the first quarter of 1955; Canada supplied 52-4 thousand tons". That is with regard to feeds, 50433-388
Supply-Trade and Commerce sir. Note that Canada, with all her available feed grain, supplied just 9 per cent of the feeds imported by the United Kingdom in the first quarter of 1955.
Taking account of the fact that Canada sold no butter, it would be interesting to know whether, if the government were prepared to offer to the United Kingdom the same favourable terms for butter purchases as those that were recently offered to the government of Czechoslovakia, we might be able to sell some of this surplus butter we have in the United Kingdom market, if it were subsidized to the extent to which the butter sale to Czechoslovakia was subsidized. Then one would like to know why similar terms could not be offered to the United Kingdom on sales made there.
Let me say this, Mr. Chairman. The policies of the United Kingdom favour more trade. Britain is making steady approaches toward convertibility. She has extended the existing quotas, and other restrictions have been removed or reduced. Now is the time to move into that market and to seek to recover it for all these surpluses of agricultural products for which formerly we found a ready and steady market in the United Kingdom. We need to recover more of the United Kingdom market; and when I say "recover" I use that word advisedly, because these markets over the years have been largely lost. This government has always been, in our view, cool and indifferent toward the United Kingdom market. We propose to continue to press for the recognition of the importance of that market and of trading in it.
As to our trade with the United States, I have already pointed out the dangerous extent to which we have been placing our trading eggs in that one basket. By way of rectifying that danger we are of the opinion that efforts should be made to try to sell in other countries and, in so far as we can enable them to buy from us by purchasing from them, help them in that way to acquire a supply of dollars with which to purchase our exportable products. Undeniably the United States has the great advantage of geography and the American producer is ready at all times to give to Canadian consumers quality and service accompanied by aggressive salesmanship and with it not a little dumping as well. The size of our trade with the United States bears some contemplation. It is the largest trade carried on between any two countries in the world. It gives rise to a gigantic trade deficit for Canada. Indeed, it is so large that it could not be sustained were it not for the fact that United States capital has been coming into

Supply-Trade and Commerce this country for investment. Twelve per cent of our national produce is exported to the United States. Only 1 per cent of theirs is exported to Canada.
As best I can I now wish to size up what appear to be some of the dangers that should enter into our policy considerations in reference to United States trade as well as some of the factors that may give us reason for settled confidence. Of these dangers I mention three in particular which are continuing dangers. The first is the attitude of the United States congress and blocs there, particularly the agricultural bloc, which have made their influence felt more than once without regard to the obligations assumed by the United States under GATT. In 1952 it took the form of restrictions on dairy imports from Canada; in 1953, more restrictions on dairy imports; in 1954, quotas on imports of Canadian oats, barley and rye; and in 1955, steps to curtail imports of crude oil from Canada, and hardboard, and the issue there is still in the balance. What is threatened there now is a breach of GATT, and Canada, along with Sweden and Finland, has a direct interest. There were threats in the United States to impose a tariff against the importation of lead and zinc. In 1954 Canada shipped $80 million worth of lead and zinc into the United States market. This matter is one of first importance for Canadian trade. The imposition of a tariff on lead and zinc was only avoided when President Eisenhower decided instead to proceed to stockpile these metals until the end of 1956. The copper duty, which is a matter of very great concern to Canada, has been suspended for another three years ending June 30, 1958, only due to executive action. It looked for a time this year as though a United States tariff was to be directed against the importation of uncooked fish sticks from Canada, a trade that was worth $12 million to Canada last year.
The fact that blocs in congress, particularly the agricultural bloc, did not succeed in erecting further barriers against the importation of Canadian agricultural products is due largely to President Eisenhower. But the attitude that has been revealed in congress is one that has been taken there notwithstanding the provisions of GATT and also notwithstanding the friendly relations that exist between Canada and the United States.
The second danger facing us from that quarter is the sale of United States farm surpluses abroad. Under the agricultural trade development and assistance act passed by congress in 1954 surplus commodities valued at $700 million may be sold abroad over a period of 36 months and in addition

commodities valued at up to $300 million may be given away to friendly peoples abroad in the event of national disaster or famine. It is recognized by the United States administration that the magnitude of United States holdings of many commodities is capable of demoralizing world markets should a policy of reckless selling abroad be pursued.
These huge surpluses and the selling policy at Washington remain a constant threat to Canadian markets abroad, the prices for our agricultural surpluses in those markets, and consequently to the prices of agricultural products here at home. For example, subsidized United States exports of cheese to Belgium adversely affected shipments of Canadian cheddar cheese in 1954. Again, on May 31 the United States and Japan signed an agreement by which Japan will purchase $85 million worth of surplus United States agricultural products and will receive another $15 million worth of such products free, and they include wheat. Considering the way in which Canada is trying to build up its export market for wheat in Japan as well as for other agricultural products that are included in the scope of the agreement between the United States and Japan, we cannot underestimate the gravity for Canada of agreements of this kind based on the selling policy at Washington.
The third continuing danger relates to the United States form of customs administration. This has been for years something of a labyrinth, creating all manner of delays and uncertainties which have greatly impeded the efforts of Canadian exporters to find a way for their goods into the United States market.
I said I was going to say a word about the hopeful features of our trading relations with the United States. There are three that come to mind. The first is the recent enactment by congress of the trade agreement extension act of 1955. It continues for three years the president's authority to cut tariffs without the prior approval of congress in return for trade concessions from other nations, and it also permits the president to make a reduction of 5 per cent in each of the next three years on most items.
But, sir, while we have a sense of relief in the enactment of that measure by congress we have to recall at the same time that it was a compromise, because congress tacked on two additional riders to the bill. The first protects the textile and chemical industries by prohibiting cuts in duties on Japanese goods more than 50 per cent below 1954 levels, and the second gives the president new powers to impose quotas on imports that threaten domestic industries vital to national security.

The second feature is the legislation before congress designed to simplify the customs administration. The fact that there is still hope for this legislation gives us at least a breathing space.
The third, and not least of all, factor of hope in this situation is the attitude of President Eisenhower. He has taken a far-sighted view of the responsibilities of his country to give the world leadership not simply in relation to resistance to aggression and the maintenance of peace by force of arms but also the building of peaceful relations by extending trade relations.
But having regard to the uncertainties of the United States situation and the fact that the administration cannot control congress, Canadians must continue to be vigilant and wary in their dealings with the United States in matters of trade.
As to our trade with other countries, may I say a brief word with regard to the subject of trade with iron curtain countries in the view that the Progressive Conservative party takes with respect to policy in this matter. We are all conscious in recent days of the appearance of a softening attitude on the part of the Kremlin and other countries behind the iron curtain. I suppose all of us approach this with some degree of wariness and caution.
We will remember in the first place that there is still a long list of strategic materials, dating back to the hostilities in Korea, which the countries of the western world have bound themselves not to ship or permit to be shipped to countries behind the iron curtain or through channels by which they may reach countries behind the curtain. In July a year ago the number of commodities on the list of strategic materials was substantially reduced. No doubt this matter is the subject of continuing negotiations, and I hope the minister will make a report to the house as to how these negotiations are faring.
But in the matter of food we in Canada are conscious of our large surpluses for which we are anxious to find a market. We of Her Majesty's loyal opposition see no reason not to sell these surpluses to iron curtain countries just because they happen to be iron curtain countries. In our view it is a question of making a good business deal. In that respect our thinking, it seems to me, is in line with the thinking of the administration at Washington where Mr. Ezra Taft Benson, secretary of agriculture, in a press interview which he gave on December 15 had the following things to say on this subject. He was referring to the fact that the administration at Washington was then considering direct trade in some 50433-3884
Supply-Trade and Commerce farm commodities with iron curtain countries, and he had the following to say:
"My feeling is that we should be willing to trade with iron curtain countries so long as the trade is in our favour, whether it be butter or anything else", Benson told a press conference. He had told the conference "we are considering some sales to countries which may in turn sell to iron curtain countries".
Asked if direct sales to iron curtain countries or to countries which might sell to Russia and its satellites was contemplated, Benson replied "both". Benson made these comments in answer to a question about possible plans to sell butter to Russia.
In January a broker offered to buy surplus United States butter for export to Russia, but the commerce department turned thumbs down on the deal.
As to countries outside the Russian orbit reselling United States goods to iron curtain countries, Benson said it was difficult to police sales to other countries as far as the ultimate destination of the goods was concerned.
Now, sir, with regard to deals such as the two that have been mentioned in recent days, the wheat sale to Poland and the butter sale to Czechoslovakia, we have no objection to the sale of Canadian exportable agricultural surpluses to these countries just because they are iron curtain countries. It is a question in every case of whether it is a good deal for Canada. In both cases, one asks if we could not be equally successful in selling to our friends if we offered them the same favourable kind of terms. In the case of the wheat deal the terms were only 15 per cent cash and 85 per cent credit, while in the case of the deal for butter with Czechoslovakia there was a subsidy which would permit the price to be reduced by 21 cents per pound.


Mr. Lesage:: Would the hon. member allow me to ask him a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


Jean Lesage: How could we make it possible to sell butter outside of Canada at a higher price than the world market price?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think my hon. friend was not following me. What I said was, if we were going to go out and offer these agricultural surpluses to countries behind the iron curtain, I thought it would be only common sense and fairness to offer our friends terms like those, if this is the way we are going to liquidate these particular surpluses.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask my
hon. friend a question? Is he aware that our friends would not accept subsidized exports any more than we would accept them here. Is he aware that the United Kingdom recently passed legislation similar to that passed in this House of Commons prohibiting subsidized exports, and did so shortly after the legislation was passed here?
6132	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce


George Alexander Drew: That was not the explanation given by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister told us we might be an embarrassment to some of our friends if we gave equally favourable terms to our friends, such as we were giving to Czechoslovakia in the case of the butter deal.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As a matter of fact, it is the policy of Canada to protest every time a trading nation with which we do business subsidizes products into that market that is normally ours. We have been protesting to the United States over the years whenever they put subsidized exports into our markets. Certainly I cannot imagine Canada offering subsidized butter to the United Kingdom without New Zealand protesting. In fact, we offered a commodity to one of the Colombo plan countries and Australia protested. On the strength of that protest, we reduced the quantity.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I quite agree that there
would have been strong protests from New Zealand if Canada had attempted to ship butter into the United Kingdom on a subsidized basis. But the United Kingdom is not the only friend we have in the world. I think there are other countries, if the policy of the government is to be as it would appear from these deals. We are anxious to see the sale of these agricultural surpluses, but if the policy is to be that the government is going to seek sales on the one hand by offering subsidies or on the other hand by offering these very large credits, then I think we wish to see these terms made available to our friends as well.
I did not single out the United Kingdom.
I realize, of course, that there would be strong objections from New Zealand if Canada attempted to subsidize the sale of butter in the United Kingdom; of course, there would.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Tell me one country outside of the iron curtain to which we could ship subsidized exports?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I shall tell you some other things about trade.


Mr. Dickey:: Change the subject; it would be a good idea.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. member for Halifax can refrain from his cheap interjections, we will discuss this serious subject in a serious manner, and we will get along a little faster and have a constructive approach to the real problems. No one is saying that there are not real problems here, with which we are trying to deal seriously.
(Mr. Howe (Port Arthur).]

We have not heard from the government on another aspect of these negotiations for the sale of these Canadian agricultural surpluses to these iron curtain countries. Have there been any negotiations carried on with regard to importations into Canada of goods from those countries? The minister shakes his head. Perhaps he is aware that there have been reports in the press, one of which appeared in the local press just last week, in which amongst other things it is stated:
Among other things, Poland will ship to Canada industrial articles, chemicals, cement, glassware, porcelain, crystal and bentwood furniture. Canada will send Poland cellulose, raw hides and wool rags.
There is another aspect of this matter of credit with which I feel the house should concern itself seriously, so that we do not run off with foolish accusations on either side such as we have heard in this house in recent days. There was a suggestion that there were some members in this house who were not concerned with the sale of surplus agricultural products or where we could find markets. I have before me a press dispatch emanating from the United Nations, New York, June 30, in which, based upon a United Nations report on trade, the following appeared:
Japan and Europe, including Soviet-bloc countries, are cutting into Canadian and United States trade with Latin America by offering cheaper prices and easier credit terms, a U.N. report disclosed today. Soviet-bloc trading was sharply on the upgrade.
In his remarks this afternoon, the minister drew attention to the fact that we still seem to be losing ground in the South American market, which is one place where naturally we would hope to be expanding our markets. Here we are told that one of the reasons why we are not having success in that market is that Soviet-bloc countries are selling their goods by offering cheaper prices and, if you please, easier credit terms.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You were not told that; you just read it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is in the United Nations report.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I must advise him that his time has expired.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thought I gave way to the minister on several occasions.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh yes, certainly.


Mr. Coldwell:: If he is not going to be very much longer, I think the hon. gentleman should have a few minutes more time.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Thank you. I shall now proceed as quickly as I can to offer a few remarks on the nature of our commodity trade. Here may I ask, sir, that the two tables that appear on pages 18 and 19 of the annual report of the department be printed in Hansard by consent, thus saving time? They are those relating to our domestic exports by commodities and our imports by commodities.


William Alfred Robinson: Is the committee agreeable to this request?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The tables are as follows: Domestic Exports
	Calendar Year		
Commodity	1952	1953	1954
	$'000,000		
Newsprint 	592	619	636Wheat 	621	568	375Planks and boards 	296	283	325Wood pulp 	292	249	271Aluminum and products 	162	178	185Nickel and products 	151	163	182Grains (other than wheat) 	235	225	137Copper and products 	119	125	135Fish and fishery products 	113	111	130Wheat flour 	116	102	88Asbestos and products 	88	85	84Farm implements and machinery ..	105	74	77Imports	Jan.-November	1952	1953	1954$'000,000	Machinery (non-farm) 	330	365	351Petroleum, crude 	189	192	194Electrical apparatus n.o.p	125	181	186Automobile parts (except engines)	174	204	166Farm implements and machinery ..	183	201	136Petroleum products n.o.p. 	120	133	11990	98	109142	129	97Aircraft and parts (except engines)	86	103	91Rolling mill products (steel) 	133	115	90Engines and boilers 	127	108	84Cotton products 	74	85	70
A perusal of these two tables will show our exports are very heavily weighted to raw materials and our imports are very heavily weighted to finished and manufactured products. I am not arguing for any extreme position, because we in Canada are not likely ever to be a self-sufficient nation. Nevertheless, I am contending, as emphatically as I can, that much could be done to increase the extent of the processing of raw material resources in Canada. We have the best example in one of our leading commodities, and I am referring now to the pulp and paper industry which owes its growth and much of its thriving success in Canada to the extent
Supply-Trade and Commerce to which, by conscious government policy, stress has been laid upon the processing of these materials right here in this country.
On this matter of the export of raw materials, I recall what the member for Halifax said on April 22. In 1953, the value of our exports of raw materials was $1,328 million.
I take his figures for 1953, as evidently the ones for 1954 are not yet available and broken down. Taking the breakdown as between raw materials, partially manufactured or semi-processed and fully manufactured, I will give the percentages. These are Canada's exports for 1953: raw materials, 32-2 per cent; partially manufactured or semi-processed, 28-9 per cent; fully manufactured 38-9 per cent. I draw attention to the fact, sir, that my hon. friend put his breakdown on the basis of dollar value. If you put it on the basis of volume, of course the proportion of raw materials is ever so much greater; because these are bulk products, in the main.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Whoever mentions exports by bulk?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You measure volume and relative prices.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has made some comment on that. But I would remind him that this matter of bulk enters into his comparison from one year to another when the dollar value does not give him the basis of comparison he wants.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But my hon. friend is talking about iron ore as compared with aluminum, comparing volumes of different goods.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Those are factors that will enter into certain aspects of our trade, and the transportation services which go with it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Your reference was to bulk.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish to make it clear, in approaching these figures which the minister's parliamentary assistant used, that this is the basis upon which I have made my comment. I am not drawing any further inference from it now.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would try to forget it if I were you.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On the other hand, over 75 per cent of imports are manufactured.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Where do you get that figure?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I ask the government now, is it going to encourage the greater fabrication and manufacture of Canadian raw

Supply-Trade and Commerce materials in Canada? It so, what is the government doing about it? There are two questions I put to the minister, and I hope he will favour the house with satisfactory answers. I hope he will give full answers. So far as we of the Conservative party are concerned, we affirm our complete and unqualified confidence in the future of Canada and its ability to sustain a greater population toy processing and manufacturing to an ever-increasing extent the raw materials with which a generous Providence has endowed her. And in that growing process, which should be aided and encouraged by the government, we think research under government encouragement could play a very beneficent part. When my leader was premier of Ontario he contributed greatly to industrial research in Ontario under government auspices.
The minister has mentioned iron ore. Well, in his speech at Marmora two months ago, when the first shipment of iron ore went off to the Bethlehem steel works from Marmora, he said this new development, along with the Labrador development, would see Canada as "a net exporter of iron ore for the first time". That may be a very comforting thought to him. But let us not overlook the not so comforting thought that this represents more and more Canadian iron ore going outside of Canada to be processed and manufactured.
Looking at the plight in which the textile industry in Canada finds itself today, I ask the minister, is this textile industry, in the view of the government, an expendable industry? Second, looking at the difficulties of the electrical goods industry, I ask the minister if in the view of the government the electrical goods industry in Canada is expendable? Third, looking at the plight of the rubber footwear industry in Canada today I ask the minister if, in the view of the government, the rubber footwear industry is expendable?
Now may I offer a brief word of comment on GATT. The minister did not say anything about GATT today. As a matter of fact he has not made any particular comment about it since the announcement of the signing of the agreement last March. So far as we of Her Majesty's loyal opposition are concerned, let me re-emphasize that we have always supported GATT. Right from the time of the signing of the first agreement in 1947 we have supported it. We are not unmindful of the fact that 80 per cent of the trade of the entire world has been carried on under GATT since its inception, and that the binding of tariff items for three years at a time has been of great benefit to exporters in


their forward pricing. And we are not overlooking the extent to which the GATT policy has found its way into the Canadian tariff.
As to the 1955 agreement for renewal, we as a party have withheld comment, chiefly because we have been waiting to see what was going to happen in Washington. We await ratification by the United States congress of the agreement to establish the organization for trade co-operation, which was signed in March. But this review of trade policy could not properly be completed without making one or two comments about GATT.
The 1955 GATT is indeed disappointing. It is disappointing to Canada principally because of two factors. The first of these is that the new agreement definitely favours the United States. That country obtained a waiver in favour of its desired right to impose import restrictions on agricultural imports and to levy fees upon imported agricultural products. In the second place this agreement is disappointing because attempts to eliminate quantitative restrictions, imposed under conditions of balance of payments difficulties, failed. Both these matters are very serious for Canada.
At page 1810 of Hansard the minister commented on the whole new agreement in these words:
The result is not as good as it might have been, but it might have been much worse.
Sir, as one who has listened to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in this chamber over the last ten years I say that never in that time has the minister, in any comment he has made about anything with which he has been associated, damned it with such faint praise.
Let me sum up our approach to the matter of the 1955 GATT in these words. We must weigh the new GATT agreement in the light of the experience that follows under it. Particularly we must see what use the United States makes of its numerous escape clauses. If the hoped-for benefits under the agreement are destroyed by action on the part of the United States, Canada will certainly find it necessary to regain her freedom of action. The United States should be clearly warned of that fact now. On the other hand, we hope the new agreement may not, by that type of action on the part of the United States, be deprived of its potentialities for good. Vigilance is the duty we lay upon ourselves in this situation.
Sir, the last subject I wish to mention- and I shall do it only briefly-is that of wheat. We had a debate on this subject yesterday, and I do not propose to go again over what was said at that time. Wheat is basic to the whole Canadian economy, and it is different

from many of the other agricultural surpluses we have in that in connection with wheat there is a marketing monopoly on the part of the government.
The decline in our 1954 exports to the United Kingdom reflected lower grain sales there. The table at page 18 of the report of the department shows a very substantial decline in our wheat exports last year. They were down from $568 million in 1953 to $375 million in 1954. Our grain exports were down from $225 million in 1953 to $137 million in 1954. Our wheat flour exports were down from $102 million in 1953 to $88 million in 1954.
These declines are serious. The minister has not chosen to be greatly worried about them. We find that on March 3,	1955,
addressing the Canadian council of the international chambers of commerce, he is quoted as saying that the outlook for wheat and grain export sales was "considerably more favourable than it was a year ago". Well, if we look at the dominion bureau of statistics bulletin that came out this morning we see this sentence-
Overseas exports of wheat during the week ending June 29 . . . bringing cumulative exports in the current crop year to 188,377,000 bushels versus 182,664,000 a year earlier.
What does this mean? There has been some slight improvement thus far in 1955 in exports of wheat and wheat products. But Canada is continuing to fall behind in the running with the three other wheat exporting nations, the United States, Argentina and Australia. Look at the figures for the first nine months of the crop year. These are our exports of wheat in the first nine months of the 1954-55 crop year as compared with 1953-54, as taken from the dominion bureau of statistics figures. Perhaps to save time I can put these on the record?


William Alfred Robinson: Is this request agreed to by the committee?
Supply-Trade and Commerce 37 [DOT] 1 million bushels. Canada is no longer the first of the wheat exporting nations. The United States in this period passed Canada. This United States disposal drive, offering its surpluses for local currencies and barter, and even giving some away, poses very serious problems and difficulties for Canada.
By reason of time, sir, I come to these final remarks. I have tried to set out the problems and what ought to be, it seems to me, our objectives in trade policy in perspective. We Conservatives regard ourselves as realists. We live in a world of increasing competition. It is also a world of increasing need for the benefits of peace. We must meet the challenge that is offered to us in this increasingly competitive world by increasing our productivity, our efficiency, our service and our salesmanship, and that applies to the government as much as it does to individuals.
We can best do this, all of us, of course, by encouraging initiative and enterprise on the part of Canadian producers. On the part of the government, we look to it to be more vigilant, realistic and successful in the discharge of its duties in relation to trade which I have endeavoured to describe this afternoon as falling within the proper role of government responsibility.
We Conservatives have abundant, unwavering and deep-seated confidence in Canada and the future of Canadians. Using our native intelligence and vigour and resources, applying all the wisdom in research that we can command, with the utmost encouragement to research on the part of the government and using the opportunities that are open to us of increasing the extent to which we fabricate and process these abundant materials with which a beneficent Providence has endowed us, in our view there need be no limit to Canada's future development and growth. We, being realists, think we are entitled to regard ourselves as the true optimists in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The figures are as follows:
Wheat-Shipments First nine months of crop year
	(Millions of	bushels)	
1954-55	1953-54	IncreaseU.S.A	
204	146-4	57-6Canada ...	
189-4	187	2-4Argentina	
102-6	86-8	15-8Australia .	
701	43	37-1The fact	stands out,	sir, that	Canada'sincrease in	the first nine	months of	this crop
year as compared with the immediately previous crop year has been only 2 [DOT] 4 million bushels. The increase in the United States exports has been 57-6 million bushels; in the Argentine, 15-8 million bushels; in Australia,


Major James William Coldwell: I am not tempted this afternoon with the small attendance in the house, some having returned to their constituencies, to dwell at any length on the trade policies either of the government or of the movement for which I have the honour to speak in this house.
I also want to say this. I was very happy to give the hon. gentleman permission to continue beyond the 40 minutes. But I think in preparing a speech to be delivered in the house in future, having agreed to the new 30-minute rule in committee, we should try to contain our remarks within the 30 minutes. I also very strongly hold to the idea that if one has prepared a speech carefully one can
6136	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce say all that one desires to say, except in very exceptional circumstances, in the compass of 30 minutes. I hope in the next session of parliament we shall all endeavour to abide by the new 30-minute rule much better than we have observed the present 40-minute rule this afternoon.
I wish to say first of all that I appreciate the extensive analysis of Canadian trade we have heard from the hon. gentleman. Much of what he placed before the house this afternoon was worth while. Of course we are living in a very different atmosphere from that in which we lived a few years ago, during the war and in the immediate postwar period. At that time two of the great industrial competitors were out of the world market. There was no German production on the world market, nor was there any Japanese production, and the world was short of almost everything Canada could send abroad.
Some of the best cereal-producing areas of the world had been devastated, and we were called upon to export vast quantities, not only of cereals but of animal products to make up for those normally produced from cereals grown elsewhere in the world. So it was very interesting when the hon. member mentioned in his speech that the British were receiving certain goods from Poland. Well, I read a few days ago that Poland is one of the principal suppliers of bacon and hams to the United Kingdom. On the other hand, of course, Poland takes certain manufactured articles from the United Kingdom.
In this connection, we have to bear in mind that trade has become much more competitive than it was a few years ago. If we are to increase our exports of the products we desire to export, then we must be prepared to accept from customer countries more of the goods they wish to send to us in payment for the goods we wish to send abroad.
I hear a great deal about convertibility. Well, I would like to see convertibility among the currencies of the world, and particularly as between sterling and the dollar. But to my mind it is quite unrealistic to talk about convertibility unless you realize that convertibility must be based upon an exchange of goods. Unless you are prepared to exchange goods with the sterling areas, I cannot see how you are going to convert sterling into dollars or dollars into sterling. After all, in the final analysis trade is an exchange of goods and services.
It seems to me that when we talk about certain industries and ask the Minister of


Mr. Quelch:: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member for Eglinton that much needs to be done to rehabilitate the British market, and I also agree with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that a great deal of the responsibility for bringing about convertibility of currencies will have to rest with the dollar area. It is true that we have been repeatedly told for some years that progress is being made toward convertibility, but it is interesting to note that 45 of the 56 member nations of the international monetary fund are still imposing restrictions on monetary transactions under article 14 of that fund. Although the five-year limit on these restrictions expired in 1952, these nations are still unable to accept the obligations imposed upon them under article 8.
I would say that any attempt today to bring about convertibility would lead to excessive import restrictions in order to protect the balance of payments of those sterling nations, and if that were done the result, of course, would be that we would have greater surpluses piling up within the dollar area.
One of the major problems we have had to face in recent years has been this question of getting surplus goods to needy nations. A good deal was said about that matter yesterday. I have spoken on this question. But we were speaking to the Minister of Agriculture, and in my opinion he is not the minister who can deal with the problem. That problem can only be dealt with by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance, and of the two I would


say that probably the greater responsibility will have to rest with the Minister of Finance.
But we have this very unhappy situation. According to Mr. Hambidge, who spoke before the Senate on May 11 and who is the North American regional representative of the food and agriculture organization, 50 per cent of the people of the world are on the verge of starvation, hungry and dying young. But they know it is possible for them to have a far better standard of living. He points out that this knowledge is causing a great deal of international friction and is making it possible for people who are trying to stir up trouble to capitalize on that situation.
If it were not possible to supply goods to these people there would not be the same amount of discontent. But when these people know it is possible, and see in the western world steps being taken to reduce production while they are starving, naturally it creates a good deal of international friction. In the United States, of course, a certain price for wheat has been guaranteed contingent upon a reduction of acreage. That is not so in Canada.
On the other hand there is no doubt that the present situation is having a tendency to discourage production, or to discourage an increase in agricultural production. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture even went so far as to say that a support price should not be an incentive price. In other words they are afraid that if prices are too high the farmers will increase their production and cause surpluses. The Minister of Agriculture made a similar statement about increased production. He said farmers might get less for increased production than they got for the lesser production.
When that statement is made by the Minister of Agriculture and by farm organizations, naturally you are discouraging any increase in the production of agricultural goods and, as I say, when you have a situation where half the peoples of the world are hungry and dying young through lack of food, it is a highly undesirable situation.
Yesterday I quoted a statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am going to refer to that statement again, because I have an idea the Minister of Trade and Commerce might agree with it. It is a statement he made during the election campaign, when he spoke at Viking. It was published in the Edmonton Journal. He stated:
I've heard Social Crediters say we should reduce our stocks of wheat by accepting foreign currencies or even by giving them away.
This has an appeal when we see our wheat piling up whilst others starve, but in Ottawa we have an obligation to keep trade on solid ground. If we

started bartering or giving away, we would disturb international markets and in the long-run we would injure not only ourselves but also those we seek to help.
We should try to keep trade on a multilateral, economic basis and disregard emotional superficial solutions to our problems.
I do not know whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce would suggest that the acceptance of foreign currency or barter deals would be a superficial emotional policy. I find it hard to believe that the Secretary of State for External Affairs really believes that, because after all he is working in close association with the United Nations Organization, and one of the main proposals put forward to date by the food and agriculture organization has been the international commodity clearing house. Under that proposal the FAO advocated the sale of goods for foreign currencies. Hence, as I say, I find it hard to believe that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would feel that the acceptance of foreign currency would really be a superficial solution.
I want to say a few words on the international commodity clearing house, because the FAO council set up a body of six experts to make a detailed study of the whole problem of getting rid of surpluses. This is the recommendation they brought down.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask my
hon. friend a question?


Victor Quelch: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Have I succeeded yet in pointing out to him that whether it is a pound note or a dollar note, it does not constitute foreign currency? Also does he say that if we accepted payment in pounds and we spent pounds in Europe, we solved everything? Is that his view? By accepting foreign currency we interpret the meaning as being unexpendable currency.


Victor Quelch: I shall deal with that matter very shortly, because I do not agree with the minister at all and I think I can prove he is wrong. He gave us a story the other day-


Clarence Decatur Howe: You will have to speak a long time if you wish to change my mind. I am stating facts.


Victor Quelch: I am stating facts too. Somebody told you that story in England and he was just pulling your leg, or you were just pulling our leg.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can quote an official statement.


Victor Quelch: That was not an official statement, the one you gave us. You told us a story that some man told you in England. As
Supply-Trade and Commerce I say, that man was having a great laugh or pulling your leg, because it could not possibly be based on fact.


An hon. Member:: It was a good story, anyway.


Victor Quelch: It was not even a good story.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let us have your theory; then we will submit your theory to the Bank of England.


Victor Quelch: No, I do not think it is necessary. I shall be able to deal with that point quite fully when I come to it. It is interesting to note how the minister tries to divert me from the recommendations of the FAO, to which I wanted to refer. After all, that committee set up by the FAO made a detailed study of this whole situation. These are the recommendations they brought in. The minister should talk to them if he wants to convert them to his idea. The recommendations they made were as follows:
(1)	Subject to provisions outlined below, the purchase of stocks of commodities that are in surplus in the country in which those stocks appear.
(2)	The negotiation of sales in inconvertible currencies in order to assist in maintaining the flow of trade during periods of exchange disequilibrium; such payments being guaranteed by the buying countries against losses from exchange depreciation.
(3)	The negotiation of sales at special prices below the market to countries in need, under strictly defined conditions of use: for example, for relief purposes, special nutritional programs, or for development projects.
(4)	As a long run function, the holding of stocks acquired in periods of surplus as reserves to protect the interests of consumers in periods of shortage.
(5)	The negotiation of bilateral or multilateral trading agreements, or exchanges of commodities on a barter basis.
Then it goes on to explain how we could have sold under that provision and it states:
(1) The exporting country would sell surplus wheat to the international commodity clearing house at full market price and the purchases would be financed by the exporter contributing the value of the wheat to international commodity clearing house as additional capital. International commodity clearing house would then sell quantities of wheat to the importing country in addition to and not as a substitute for its usual purchases. ICCH would take in payment the currency of the importing country, even if it were, at the time, inconvertible.
As I say, that is the statement by a body of experts who have given this matter a detailed study. They evidently do not agree in any way with the suggestions made by the minister in this regard.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs suggested that we should be satisfied to resume normal channels of trade on sound policies. What are those sound policies? In

Supply-Trade and Commerce 1945 the government supported the Bretton Woods agreement. We spent a great deal of time in this house discussing it. The Bretton Woods agreement was based very largely upon the White plan, the plan of a man who has since been denounced by the F.B.I. as a communist.
It is very interesting to note that when the Bretton Woods agreement was first brought up its strongest supporters were the communists in this country, the labour progressive party. They denounced everybody in the country as a fascist who opposed the Bretton Woods agreement. But the interesting point to note is that none of the communist countries became members of the Bretton Woods agreement. They did everything they could to push the capitalistic nations into it; and having got the capitalistic nations into it they very wisely, I think, kept out of it themselves.
We opposed the Bretton Woods agreement on the ground that it did not follow the fundamental principle of international trade which is, we claim, the exchange of goods and services among nations on a basis of mutual advantage. If nations are going to exchange goods, then surely the only currency they need is the currency of the importer because it is that currency that will buy the importer's goods. At the time we were discussing the Bretton Woods agreement we were repeatedly told that the situation would be improved and the difficulties of the nations would be largely overcome if an international trade organization were formed. But unfortunately when that organization was formed the problem was still further aggravated by a policy of nondiscrimination, which denied a nation the right to place restrictions against imports from a country with which it had an unfavourable balance of trade, except through escape clauses.
I think we must agree that any agreement which has to depend almost entirely upon escape clauses in order to function is not a very strong agreement. The international trade organization agreement-that is the Geneva trade agreement today-has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance, and the same thing can be said of the Bretton Woods agreement. As a matter of fact, international trade would have collapsed many years ago, it would have collapsed during the war, if it had not been for the fact that the United States introduced lend-lease. Under lend-lease it will be remembered that the United States exported goods to Europe and accepted payment in kind. It ended in an understanding that they would accept payment in kind, that is, that

they would accept payment in goods. For the time being the dollar sign was largely abolished.
Later on the Marshall plan was introduced. Under the Marshall plan the United States made dollars available to Europe to buy United States goods, and Canada benefited very greatly under that proposal because many of the dollars that European nations obtained from the United States were spent in Canada. More recently a program has bpen adopted under the agricultural adjustment act by which the United States is making goods available to European nations and other nations of the world in exchange for their currency. Last year somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1,400 million worth of goods were disposed of under that program.
It is quite obvious that since 1945 we have not been operating under the Bretton Woods agreement or under the Geneva trade agreement. We have only been able to operate and maintain trade at a high level as the result of a number of programs put into operation by the United States, which were put into operation largely to make it possible for European and other nations to buy United States goods.
Last year the minister suggested on several occasions that the United States program would not get very far. He actually told members of the house that he did not know of any nation that would be willing to buy goods from us in exchange for their own currency, but in spite of that the United States has greatly expanded its program and today is selling many goods for the currency of the importing nation.
I was rather interested in a press dispatch from London found in the Ottawa Journal of Tuesday, June 28, headed "Selling Policies Put U.S. in Front of Wheat Exporters". The dispatch reads in part as follows:
The Financial Times says Canada has lost her leadership among wheat exporting nations because the United States has a "more progressive selling policy". The United States is "prepared to export wheat tor local foreign currencies-which Canada has not yet been prepared to do". Accordingly, the United States now ranks first as an exporter of wheat, says the newspaper, without elaborating its reference to Canada.
Yet the Minister of Trade and Commerce tried to make us believe last year that foreign nations would not be willing to buy our produce in return for their own currencies. This question was before the house the other day, and when the Minister of Trade and Commerce replied he made a few comments with regard to the acceptance of

foreign currencies. As found at page 3843 of Hansard of May 17, he said:
If we buy goods for sterling, we buy it under a program that has to be worked out with the chancellor, which limits the use of that sterling. Sterling is not freely interchangeable.
I should like to say there that of course agreements have to be reached. All these foreign currencies are under some form of exchange control, and therefore agreements will have to be made under any kind of agreement that is entered into. But what I would be interested in hearing from the minister would be what discussions have taken place to date between the Canadian government and the British government with a view to the acceptance of their currency. As found at page 3844 the minister stated:
When we buy goods in Britain we convert dollars into sterling to pay for those goods. If we had sterling in Britain which we had accepted for wheat which could be used for that purpose, we would be very glad to have that sterling.
I would point out that when we sell goods to Britain we sell for dollars. The minister says we change those dollars into sterling and then buy goods from Britain with that sterling. Why go through the double motion? Rather than sell goods to Britain for dollars, then change the dollars into sterling and spend the sterling in Britain, why not accept sterling in the first place instead of having a double transaction? The advantage to Britain would be very definite, because they would have the assurance that we were going to buy goods from them in return for the goods we had sold them; but when we demand payment in dollars they have no assurance whatsoever that those dollars will be used to buy goods in their country.
Then the minister made this statement, which perhaps I had better read. It is found at page 3846 of Hansard:
Perhaps I might be permitted to relate a small example concerning a friend of mine. This person was visiting in England and had a sort of windfall in the form of sterling. He tried to deposit that sterling in a Canadian bank, but the Canadian bank would not have it at all. Finally he gave it to his lawyer, and his lawyer instructed him that he could use it to pay his personal expenses, such as hotel bills and the like. But he was told that if he bought a necktie or a suit of clothes with it he would be subject to heavy penalty.
I do not know whether the minister's friend was pulling his leg or whether the minister is trying to pull our leg, but that is the most fantastic story I have ever heard. There is not one word of truth in it. I am not suggesting the minister is not telling the truth, but the story itself is not true. I have gone through the same experience myself and I know that a number of other people did the same thing when I told them what I had
Supply-Trade and Commerce done. In 1949 I had an estate left me in England. I went to the Royal Trust Company, told them that I did not know the lawyers handling it in England, and that I wanted the estate handed over to them. I told them I wanted the capital transferred to Canada as soon as possible. It could not be transferred then so it just remained there, and I had the money deposited with a Canadian institution.
The minister said that could not be done, but I deposited it with the Royal Trust Company in England and they held it for me. After waiting a year or so and still not being able to use it, I thought if I could spend some of the money in England maybe I could export the goods to Canada. At that time I needed a new herd bull, a Red Poll. Some of the best herds of Red Polls are in England, so I decided I would try to get an exceptionally good bull there. I wrote to Harry Hobson and asked him to go up to Paul Stuart's farm in Suffolk and pick out for me the best bull he could. I also mentioned what I was doing to the Minister of Agriculture, and he suggested that maybe Mr. Robinson could go up there and inspect the bull. However, Harry Hobson, who is a well known valuator, agreed to take the responsibility of inspecting the bull and deciding whether it was what I wanted.
I also wrote to the Royal Trust Company and asked them to get a permit for the export of the bull. There was no trouble at all. It was just a routine procedure. I paid around $1,200 for the bull and exported it to Canada. Yet the minister says you cannot even buy a necktie. It is fantastic. When I went back home I told two of my neighbours, whom I knew had estates left to them in England, what I had done. They are well known as two of the best stock breeders in that part of the country and they wanted to obtain some outstanding sheep and hogs. They did exactly the same thing. They got Harry Hobson to buy them and they exported the sheep and hogs to this country, using the sterling that had been left to them in England. Now, there would have been justification in that case for Britain refusing us the use of that sterling because it had not earned dollars. But when you ship goods to Britain and take sterling, that sterling has already earned dollars; therefore why would Britain refuse to allow us to use that sterling to purchase goods from Britain? Why would not Britain give us sterling instead of dollars if that sterling has earned dollars?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We will take all the free spendable sterling Britain wants to give us.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Victor Quelch: That is all we have ever suggested. We have suggested we should sell goods for inconvertible sterling, and then spend that sterling in Britain. There is every reason why Britain would prefer to do that instead of giving us dollars. If Britain on the other hand has to pay us in dollars, we will take them and give them to the United States. Last year we sold about $600 million worth to Britain, and Britain sold us about $400 million.
We could have entered into an agreement with Britain to spend the sterling in some other part of the sterling area. We would have to make an agreement on that, of course. We could not make any transaction without it, but there is no trouble as I pointed out. It is just a routine procedure to get that agreement. I suppose the Royal Trust Company telephoned the Bank of England and said, "We want to export so much livestock." They said, "Sure thing, go ahead." There was no difficulty, no trouble. I think, therefore, the minister has either had his leg pulled by somebody or he is magnifying the difficulties. I am satisfied that the acceptance of inconvertible sterling would be quite a help in balancing our trade with the sterling area.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I shall make an offer now. I will accept all the freely convertible sterling that Britain wants to give us.


Solon Earl Low: Believe me, that would be a help.


Victor Quelch: I am not suggesting it be convertible into dollars. If you are talking about convertible sterling that is another thing entirely. Convertible sterling means that it can be converted into dollars, so you may as well take dollars in the first place.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will put it this way. I will take any sterling that can be spent in England and carry with it the right to an import permit.


Victor Quelch: If the government will go ahead and make that proposition to England, giving all the assurances that we will not demand dollars from England in place of that sterling, I am satisfied he will be able to make a deal.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have made an offer.


Victor Quelch: There are thousands of deals made. I have outlined one and I know of another half dozen farms in the same district that have made deals. If I know of a half a dozen, there must be thousands of deals right across Canada.
Now, the United States is expanding its program for trade on that basis, and at least


it is getting surplus goods to people who need them. I think that is an achievement today. They may not be reducing their surplus by very much because they are producing just as fast as they sell, even under this plan. If they had started this program a few years ago they might not have built up their surpluses to the high levels they have reached at the present time. I believe that instead of deploring what the United States is doing, we should do the same thing.
I was very glad to hear what the minister said. As long as he makes that proposition to the British, without tying too many strings to it, I believe something could be worked out. However, he had better consult the Minister of Finance to see what he has to say about it, because there must have been some strong antagonism to it in the past. I am satisfied one of the main reasons we rejected the proposal of the FAO concerning the international commodity clearing house was because it was objected to by the international monetary fund.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You will notice the currencies referred to by the FAO are inconvertible currencies.


Victor Quelch: Yes, that is the kind of currency I am asking you to get from Britain, inconvertible sterling that could only be used to buy goods in Britain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is not inconvertible sterling.


Victor Quelch: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Inconvertible sterling cannot be used to buy anything.


Victor Quelch: Look at what they say here. They advocate the negotiation of sales in inconvertible currencies. Then they describe how it might work. The international commodity clearing house would take payment in the currency of the importing country, then they buy their goods and put the balance to the credit of the exporter. If you are going to take convertible currency you may just as well take dollars in the first place, because we know what Canada would do just as soon as she got convertible sterling. She would convert it to dollars and pay them to the United States. This has always been the pattern of trade in the past, and that is the policy Mr. Ilsley expounded in this house year after year. He said we have to be able to sell enough goods to Britain to get dollars from Britain to make up our deficit in the United States. I believe I have his actual statement here.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Less so now than ever before.


Victor Quelch: Well, less so now, perhaps, but that was very definitely the policy in Canada. On April 11, 1946, at page 764 of Hansard, Mr. Ilsley said:
We must be able to use the proceeds of our exports to the United Kingdom and the continent of Europe in paying our own debts in the United States.
At page 919 of Hansard for April 16, 1946, I asked:
Will Canada be prepared to accept goods from the United Kingdom in payment of loans? How will the United Kingdom maintain convertibility of the pound if Canada and the U.S.A. do not provide the United Kingdom with dollars by purchasing British goods to the extent of the British credit?
Then Mr. Ilsley said:
It is not necessary that there should be an adverse balance of payment between Canada and the United Kingdom in order to enable the United Kingdom to repay the loan.
Further down the page Mr. Ilsley said:
She can pay for Canadian goods by export to other countries as well as to Canada, under a multilateral trading system and convertible currencies.
That is fine, but as long as all the dollar countries insist upon maintaining a favourable balance of trade with Britain, how can Britain possibly get the dollars to pay for the goods or pay for her indebtedness in the dollar area. She needs all the dollars she gets to pay for a certain percentage of her imports. She is not able to pay for the balance she wants because we are not balancing our trade with her.
The minister says that is not the case to such a great extent today as it was then. Apparently the Canadian government is still favouring the idea of getting dollars instead of sterling so these dollars can be paid to the United States. But I would say that if convertibility of currency today is nearer than it has been in the past, it is very largely the result of the nations in the sterling area placing restrictions against imports from the dollar area. As I pointed out, 45 of the 56 member nations of the international monetary fund are doing that at the present time.
It must be obvious that to convert, the nation must have access to dollars or to the currency they convert to. It could only be achieved through a balance of trade or by foreign investment. I was interested in what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar had to say on this question of having to balance our trade with the sterling areas in order to have convertibility. It goes beyond that. The dollar area must buy enough goods from the sterling area to allow it to actually have a favourable balance of trade, since unless it has a favourable balance of trade it cannot maintain a balance of payments because of
Supply-Trade and Commerce the large amounts owed to the dollar areas. Therefore they will have to be able to get more dollars from the dollar areas than they have to pay for their imports if they are ever going to be able to maintain a balance of payments. In my opinion it is useless to talk about the convertibility of currencies unless we-when I say "we" I mean we in the dollar area-are prepared to invest enough in the sterling area to make up the unfavourable balance of payment. It seems to me that the problem of convertibility today is more the obligation or responsibility of the dollar area than the sterling area, because after all how can the sterling area afford to lift restrictions on imports until such time as the dollar area is prepared to balance its trade with the sterling area.
That is something I would like the minister to deal with. I would like him to explain just how the sterling area can hope to lift all their restrictions on imports from the dollar area unless we are prepared to balance our trade with them. Otherwise they are bound to use up their reserves and have an unfavourable balance of trade and an unfavourable balance of payments, unless we are prepared to make capital investments in those countries in the same way the United States is making capital investments in this country, thereby helping us to maintain the balance of payments with the United States.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I always enjoy this debate on trade, because the opposition proves conclusively to me that it is impossible for Canada to have trade. For a long time we traded only because of the Marshall plan, we were told; the United States was sending dollars abroad under the Marshall plan, and we were getting them back with our trade.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Would the minister permit a question. Does he feel that he is now closing the debate? Because I wish to make some comment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are in committee.
We are told there is always some reason why we cannot expect to have trade. We cannot trade with England because our trade is not in balance with England, and we should not trade with the United States because too much of our trade goes to that country. It is almost the only free market in the world, almost the only completely free market, and we think it is a valuable market for us. But opposition members always object to our volume of trade in that market. They say we should not trade with our next door neighbour, the United States.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We do not say that at all.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Nonsense.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You always object to our balance of trade with the United States, the proportion of our trade with that country.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is dangerous.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Then what should we do about it? You say it is dangerous; how can we avoid the danger? That is the silly argument we hear from hon. members opposite each year, that we should not trade with the United States because it is dangerous. However, we are able to maintain our trade on a stable basis and, except for a setback in 1954, the volume of our trade has increased steadily from year to year. And this year will see a new record established for the volume of our export trade.
Hon. members always like to make suggestions about wheat; that we should sell our wheat for almost anything. As a matter of fact we sell wheat for cash. That is the policy of the wheat board, and it is never departed from. Other countries have various ways of financing sales abroad. The United States has its export-import bank, and other countries have various government plans for subsidizing exports and issuing credit.
We have nothing of the kind. We do have the Export Credits Insurance Corporation, which is established as a financially sound agency, its purpose being to help Canadian trade. That insurance corporation does a big business. Last year it insured exports to the value of $36,304,840. That was in the year 1954. Last year we also insured exports to the value of $28,203,887 under section 21 of the act. Since article 21 was included in the act-in 1948-we have insured under this section exports to the extent of $48 million, where the risk has been carried by the federal government. The insurance carried by the federal government covers risks that are too big for the corporation to take on, without reinsurance. The insurance corporation has limited capital. As a matter of prudent operation it must diversify its risks, so that the financial troubles of any one country will not jeopardize the solvency of the insurance company.
On that $48 million the government has insured through the insurance corporation, not one cent has been lost. The total amount excluding insurance still in force has been repaid. In addition the insurance company has turned over to the government about half a million dollars in premium money. Under section 21 the insurance company keeps 25 per cent of the premiums to cover expense of operation, and the balance is

turned over to the government where the government is the co-insurer of the risk.
We had an inquiry through a broker-we call it a trade inquiry-as to whether we should insure a shipment of wheat to Poland. We examined the financial position of Poland and its record in post-war years in the matter of paying its debts. As a business matter, and with the advice of the insurance officials and the financial officials of the government, we replied that we would be agreeable to insuring a risk of about $20 million for low-grade wheat to Poland. As I say, the sale itself was a cash sale. The dealer had to find $20 million to pay the wheat board in order to buy the wheat. But the insurance company, in the ordinary course of business and with the approval of the government, undertook to insure 85 per cent of the sale. This insurance was a separate transaction from the financing.
Now we are told that we gave a great advantage to Poland in doing so. It was no greater advantage than we are prepared to give any country. But if anyone considers it is a great advantage to a person to buy an automobile for 15 per cent down and 85 per cent on credit, as against another person who can pay cash for the car-well, I question whether that statement is accurate. That is exactly the situation with Poland. In addition to the cost of the wheat, which was the same as the cost to anybody else, they had to pay financial charges to the banks, and they had to pay the premium to the insurance company for the insurance coverage.
I do not know why we have to have all this hullabaloo. Ordinarily we do not discuss current sales in this house, and I think we have jeopardized the position of the wheat board in making sales of the same nature. And I might tell you that after the low-grade crop of last year, the sale of $20 million worth of No. 5 wheat is a sale of some value to this country.
Now, I suggest that is all very well to talk politics about wheat transactions, but it does not help the government in the serious problem of the disposal of Canada's wheat crop. I hope we will hear no more about the Polish transaction. The transaction has been completed to the extent of 50,000 tons. I hope Poland will buy the other 200,000 tons; and if they do we are prepared to insure it. But after this airing of the situation in the House of Commons, and the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, I would not be at all surprised if Poland said, "We will take the 50,000 tons, but you can keep the rest of it." I say that seriously. I hope that critical comments will not be repeated; for the discussions we have on markets for our

wheat simply invite our competitors to move into those markets and see if they cannot take the business from us. I think these remarks are very unfortunate indeed.
Reference has been made to GATT. We were not happy about GATT. We had situations there to which we objected. We spoke strongly against the agricultural exemptions demanded by the United States government and we voted against them. Nevertheless we had to face the fact that the United States were in a position where they were doing what the exemptions legally permitted them to do, for the reason that their domestic laws made it impossible for them to do otherwise.
We sincerely hope these exemptions will not be used to our disadvantage. After the vote had been taken, after the exemptions had been granted, our representatives spoke and said that regardless of the exemptions, we would expect the United States to follow the normal pattern of trade and follow the principle of fair shares. Since then we have seen no deviation from those two principles. They have followed the normal pattern of trade, in spite of the fact that the tariff commission has recommended actions that would deviate from that pattern, nevertheless the principle of fair shares has been followed.
I am confident that they will continue to do so in the interests of peace in the world and good neighbourly relations with Canada.
We are troubled by their policy of selling for foreign currencies, with an undertaking that the currencies will be retained in the importing country. That is very difficult competition indeed to meet. As I said before, it has not been serious in our big markets, but it has been very serious indeed in our smaller markets. Much trade has been lost to the United States for that reason. We are told that a shocking situation has arisen this year, that the United States is exporting more wheat than Canada. Well, they did that in 1951 and 1952. It is not unusual for the United States to export more wheat than Canada, although normally we have been the larger exporting country of the two.
Will the hon. member for Acadia remind me of what he asked me to explain? What was it he wanted me to deal with?


Victor Quelch: How do you expect the sterling area can remove restrictions against the dollar area unless the dollar area is prepared to balance its trade with the sterling area?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is true; nevertheless dollars are earned in various ways. Dollars are earned through direct exchange of goods. They are also earned indirectly through shipping and through insurance. The tourist dollar is also valuable. The
Supply-Trade and Commerce dollar earnings of the colonies make a great contribution. For instance, the West Indies are great earners of dollars through sales of sugar and other commodities to the dollar area. The Far East is also a great earner of dollars through sales of rubber and other commodities, which sell for dollars. Then there are the oil possessions of England abroad. Oil is a dollar earner. The sales of oil as an international commodity are usually made in dollars.


Victor Quelch: The minister will agree that trade with the dollar area must be such that Britain will get enough dollars to pay for the goods she wants to buy from us.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; there is no other way.


Victor Quelch: That is not usually the case. At the recent meeting in Washington between Mr. Howe, Mr. Schneider and the British minister, Canada agreed that Britain should impose restrictions against Canadian goods in order to make it possible for them to build up their dollar reserves.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. If the restrictions are necessary they must be made, nevertheless my hon. friend will note that during the past two years Britain's reserves of gold and dollars have risen tremendously.


Victor Quelch: They have been going down.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They may be going down slightly at the moment, but when he suggests the theory that every country in the world must balance its trade with every other country he suggests an impossible situation.


Victor Quelch: No; I said the sterling area must actually have a favourable balance of trade with the dollar area because it owes a lot of money to the dollar area. If she is ever going to be able to pay that money she has to have a favourable balance of trade.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is true; she has to have a balance of trade to allow her to pay current operating expenses plus any debts she owes in those countries. I am happy to say that Britain has got into that position. Just recently there has been a slight drop in their gold and dollar position. They have made a remarkable recovery over the last two or three years.


Victor Quelch: Was that mainly owing to the strike?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I could not say. Of course the strike contributed to it, because it stopped exports. I daresay they lost orders
6146	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce through their inability to export. These things come and go. We all have setbacks, and Britain has, no doubt.


Victor Quelch: Will the minister tell me whether deals could be made by which Canada would accept sterling that would be spent in Britain? I would not call that free sterling. Free sterling could be exchanged for dollars. Would Canada be prepared to accept sterling from Britain that could be spent in England or in the sterling area? I am sure they would be glad to exchange them to the extent that we could use them. If we could use sterling where we ordinarily accept dollars we would then be exchanging dollar goods for sterling.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Use sterling to buy abroad?


Victor Quelch: No. Could we agree to accept sterling from Britain and agree that Canada could use that sterling to buy goods either in Britain or in some other part of the sterling area? If we could enter into such an agreement with Britain, then many of the goods we import from the United States today could be imported from the sterling area, because after all those goods are produced in the sterling area.


Clarence Decatur Howe: All I can point out to my hon. friend is that there is not the slightest difference between that transaction and a transaction carried out in dollars.


Victor Quelch: Yes, there is.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not the slightest. Whether the note is a dollar bill or a pound note, provided they will both buy goods in the country there is no difference between them. The only difference is that at times the United States has a very large favourable balance of trade with the rest of the world. Until such time as the United States consistently buys more in proportion to what she sells, it is going to be very difficult to have convertibility of currency, unless of course the United States will invest to make up the difference.


Victor Quelch: May I ask-


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is talking about the balance of trade between countries; but as long as countries in Europe are able to obtain from any source the dollars they need to carry on, what difference does it make if it is in balance with that country?


Victor Quelch: I am talking about the balance between the sterling area and the dollar area.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the only way you can balance dollars against sterling. What other way is there of doing it?


Victor Quelch: I was also thinking of the question of balancing trade between nations.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member says we must balance trade between Canada and the United Kingdom in order to have our currency convertible. That is not true. But I agree you must balance trade between the dollar area and the sterling area.


Victor Quelch: We are not far apart.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am happy to say that for the month of May our trade was almost in balance, and we are very glad indeed to see it come into balance; but we operate a free economy in this country. People can spend their money where they like. I do not know how you can tell people that they should buy in England when they wish to buy in the United States unless you put on currency restrictions, which I am sure every Canadian is anxious to avoid.


Victor Quelch: I think an educational campaign would help the situation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We try to do
that. We have committees here, dollar-sterling committees, and there are others. If my hon. friend will convert the people in his town that will be a contribution. In any event, we have a viable economy here. Statements have been made to the effect that we have a trading deficit with the United States and with the world. That is only a commodity deficit. It does not include gold. I presume we produce around $200 million worth of gold in this country. It does not cover capital transactions, and it does not cover certain indirect earnings which may or may not be balanced in our favour; nevertheless there has been no impairment of our dollar and gold reserves in the last several years in spite of the fact that in three of those years we have had commodity deficits in our balance of trade.
I do not know that there are any other points I need to cover at this time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks on certain aspects of the discussion which we have had already. First of all, it is pleasant to see the minister back in his old optimistic mood, to which we have become so accustomed and which we like so much.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He has never been out of it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There was a little cloud on the horizon last December. I hold in my

hand an editorial from the Winnipeg Free Press of December 29 which was a little troubled about the fact that the minister was not just a ray of sunshine at that time, because they felt that when the minister expressed anything but optimistic views it was almost alarming. Indeed, they say, "His restraint about next year may therefore be read almost like a cry of despair from anyone else."
It is perhaps a good thing for the minister that he had that mood, because now that he is back in an optimistic mood it may be all the more convincing. The Free Press took it upon itself to admonish him to be more optimistic. I am sure he took it in good part. They said in the same editorial of the 29th of December:
Certainly there is no reason to jump the other way and think that, when Mr. Howe for once is cautious, the prophets of recession and doom may for once be right.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to comment briefly on a few of the things that have been said. I was sorry the minister did not speak at greater length in his opening remarks, but he can supplement them as he goes along. We are accustomed to talk about ourselves as an exporting nation, and we know that is true. A figure was given some years ago which was in vogue for some time -I do not know whether the minister will wish to correct this now-to the effect that about three out of eight employed persons in Canada depended directly or indirectly on export trade.
I suppose we can divide our export periods roughly into four: the period when furs were the great export; then the period of wood products, which I suppose persisted during a great part of the nineteenth century right down to nearly the end of the century, when wheat pushed forward and became the great export. Now, I take it, we have base metals and a wide variety of things which have become a very important part of our exports.
We remember the post-war situation here, the boom based on pent-up world demand for consumer goods and also on large capital construction, which indeed still goes on. I suppose the only real anxiety we have in looking at that situation is to observe that as time has gone on our exports have continued to be, perhaps increasingly, from the extractive industries. We have already found that this raises a certain problem, because the extractive industries do not supply proportionately as much employment as the general manufacturing industries.
I want to read into the record two or three remarks I found interesting on that subject
Supply-Trade and Commerce from the London Economist of May 28, in which they raised this question about the extractive industries. It says this on page 745: Can this country continue to lean as heavily as it now does on extractive industries and go on finding employment for its rapidly increasing population?
I digress for a moment to recall that the hon. member for Eglinton earlier in the afternoon drew attention to the serious plight of several of the consumer goods industries. Of course that goes to the very root of the question of employment, because employment more and more depends on the tremendous improvement in the efficiency of machinery, and we And that the extractive industries employ comparatively few people. We spend hundreds of millions on the construction of a project like Kitimat and other great development plants, but once they are in operation a few men with a few levers can run the whole thing.


Mr. Blackmore:: Would the hon. member speak to us instead of just across the floor?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I continue to read from the Economist:
Reliance on the extractive industries means heavy dependence on foreign markets and suggests a second question: Must Canada remain dependent on exports for its prosperity, or can it gradually grow into a more self-contained economy?
That obviously raises the question of immigration, but we shall hear more about that on another occasion. I want to read something in the same sense from page 746.


John Horne Blackmore: Would the hon. member tell us what he is reading from?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am reading from the London Economist of May 28, at page 746:
An immediate and drastic drop in employment is characteristic of the production stage of a new project. It took hundreds of men to build the iron ore railway into Labrador, or the aluminium smelters at Kitimat; but their continuing operation is so highly mechanized that labour requirements are reduced to a minimum.
The orthodox answer to this dilemma is that the successful operation of new mines and smelters and oil wells spreads prosperity throughout the economy. To some extent this has been demonstrated by Canadian experience in the last eighteen months, when the expansion of the service industries has been the main balance to under-employment in other sectors. But there remains an uneasy feeling that this may not be a complete answer. People want to see some of this prosperity shared by the secondary manufacturing industries, which are better employers of labour than either the mines or the farms.
It is precisely at this point that the present weakness of the Canadian economy is most apparent. General manufacturing, though taking far less capital than the development of resources, has expanded substantially in the post-war years. In relation to capital invested it has provided far more employment. But it rose to some extent on the backlog of demand in the first years after the

Supply-Trade and Commerce
war, and it was obviously helped by the weakness of the competition from countries still recovering from wartime devastation.
I should like to ask the minister if he would comment on that point. Not long ago I talked with a Canadian businessman just back from Europe. Whilst he shared with all of us satisfaction in the present activity of our economy, he was troubled-and he was a man of wide experience-about our competitive position in exporting manufactured goods abroad, if we look ahead three or four years. His uneasiness was based on visits he had made particularly to Germany and Switzerland. He included the United Kingdom, but it was Germany .and Switzerland that impressed him most.
He was impressed, as other people have been, with two things, notably the skill and readiness to work hard of the industrial population. He spoke about one particular piece of machinery which had been produced in and received from Germany. The purchaser compared it with a similar piece of machinery received from this continent and the advantage, he said, was all on the German side both in price and efficiency.
We have had some discussions on unemployment, and we have heard some figures Which almost took our breath away as to the way in which machines are supplanting the human element. It raises in one's mind the question of the secondary industries, which seem to be the ones where we have less success. We have less success, I take it, because they are exposed to very keen competition from the United States, with its mass production, and also because, to have the export trade they need, they have to go abroad and compete with the highly efficient European countries which are now coming back with a rush into the world markets.
With regard to the home market, of course, we have the difficulty that we cannot have it all. Some of our manufacturers feel very keenly that the share they have is not adequate. Against that, we must remember that if we do not buy abroad we cannot sell abroad. The minister has been discussing this afternoon the question of trade and especially its financial side and the side of convertibility. From the practical point of view, as far as the United Kingdom is concerned now, whilst we have not full and formal convertibility we have a practical form which works fairly well.
This question, I think, taking the long view, is a real question. I notice one writer-I think it was the same writer in the Economist -raised the question of whether the Gordon commission would find this one of the chief objectives to engage its attention, and I think


it would be very sensible if it did. There are questions being raised. I noticed a writer in the Toronto Star whom I might quote quite briefly. It seemed to me that the questions he was raising were reasonable questions. I may say this is dated June 18. He says:
Even the booming trade statistics are not quite so rosy as they appear at first glance. Exports to the U.S.-
And let me repeat that this is the Toronto Star.
-gained only 71 per cent against the 13 per cent increase with all nations, most of which already show a deficit with Canada. Further, the advance in exports to the U.S. came mainly in such low-labour content items as wood and paper products and minerals.
The rejoicing in Canadian export circles-if any-* over passage of President Eisenhower's freer trade bill was barely audible this week. The watered-down version of what the president asked originally still provides for a 5 per cent tariff cut annually over the next three years. But the bill makes it easier for U.S. industries suffering from foreign competition to gain tariff relief.
I remember being struck with a conversation I had with a very well-known American public man some years ago. I will not mention his name. This would be about 1947. He was speaking about relations between the two countries. One thing I carried away with me was this. He said: "Of course you have to face the fact in Canada that when we get agricultural surpluses here, we will take steps to protect our agricultural community." That I think has been borne out by what has happened, and it seemed to raise questions which, of course, take us back to the whole broad world picture and to GATT.
The hon. member for Eglinton has stated our attitude with regard to GATT. I think no one can deny that GATT aims at the kind of world in which we and all other people can prosper best. But it also means that the partners-and particularly the big partners- in GATT must play the game. That is only saying what has been said many times before. I shall not take the time to reiterate it. I know that representations have been made, but these problems I think exist. The sooner we grapple with them and the further ahead we can look, the less serious they will be when they catch up with us.
One thing on which the minister might be able to throw some light is this. For instance, as I have watched in Toronto what is called the golden mile and as I have watched industries going up by the score-I suppose one might say now by the hundred-there is a question that has occurred to me. The question that enters my mind is whether these are the kind of industries which are going to have to depend on export. They are consumer goods industries. They will have to depend

on the home market or on export. I wonder whether there is enough statistical material yet to be able to assess the performance of these industries. I do not know to what extent they asked or received guidance from the minister's department before they set up.
As the minister says, it is a free country and a man can do as he likes, yet most people are ready to take advice. I ask the minister if he can say anything as to the evidence to date of the capacity of these many hundreds of industries that we now have to dispose of their products and as to whether there are certain lines in which the struggle is going to be keener; whether competition is holding back some of them, and whether some of them are not yet in anything like full production. In other words, if the minister could review that situation, however generally, I think it would be of interest.
There is just one other comment I want to make, and I referred to it before. It is perfectly clear how important our home market is, and that consideration brings us back to the question of immigration. I do not know whether it is fair to ask the minister to make a comment on the government's policy on immigration but as we all know, the tide of immigration this year is flowing very slack to date. If my memory serves me aright it is about half what it was about a year ago. In any event it is much reduced. That seems to me a matter of great importance, particularly as we look ahead for a year or two.
I think that covers what I wanted to say. If the minister could comment on the matters I have raised I should be grateful.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be very glad to give my views for what they are worth as to the Canadian exporter of manufactured goods being crowded out of his market. If anyone can prove that it would be impossible to manufacture here because somewhere in Europe there is a manufacturer who, because of low wages or cheaper raw material, can take our markets from us, I should like to see him do it. I say it does not happen.
I was referring to a table that was put on Hansard today by the hon. member for Eglinton. According to it, last year we exported newsprint, planks and boards, wood-pulp, aluminum and products. We are the biggest exporters of aluminum in the world. We exported nickel and products; and we are practically the only source of nickel in the world. We exported copper and products; fish and fishery products. Incidentally, that amounted to $130 million last year. We exported wheat flour. You would not think we
Supply-Trade and Commerce could export wheat flour to Europe but we do it, and we do it to something like 74 countries in the world. We export farm implements and machinery. You could say that is a highly manufactured secondary product and that it is impossible to export it, yet we did export it to the extent of $77 million last year.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister permit a comment there?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister is referring rather to those things in which we are particularly proficient such as newsprint, and in which we have obvious advantages. As to farm machinery, it seems to me that is preeminently an industry in which for decades or even generations we have been foremost.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the nature of world trade. We export the products of which we are efficient producers. There is no use attempting to export a product which is built here under handicaps. Trade is built on the fact that every nation exports the things it can best produce. That is the basis of our trade. In general, secondary industry is built to supply the Canadian market. Usually secondary industry either takes over from an import or it divides the market that is supplied by other Canadian firms.
We have never been great exporters of secondary products. We have delegations that come here-I do not say this is always so but usually it is-and point to European competition and the fact that they are competing against people whose wages are 25 per cent of ours, or perhaps 10 per cent of ours. But when you look up the trade statistics you almost invariably find that is not their real problem at all. The competition is very often from the United States, where the wages are slightly higher than they are in Canada. The electrical industry were in to see us the other day. They spoke feelingly and strongly about European competition. The figures showed that European competition was dropping, that 85 per cent of the imports came from the United States, and that about 60 per cent were imported by firms that were represented in the office. In other words, they bought components in the United States.
The market is more competitive owing to the fact that there has been a tremendous expansion of the electrical industry. I should guess that no other industry in Canada has expanded at the rate at which the electrical industry has expanded. They asserted that through European competition they are being put out of business. Yet if you take the volume of production in Canada and put

Supply-Trade and Commerce alongside it imports from Europe of electrical equipment, you will find that the latter are so minute as to be almost negligible.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister comment on one thing that has been publicized a bit?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: Louder.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister comment on one thing that has been publicized; that is, that in several large engineering contracts where labour enters largely into the result, Europe has been able to get the business here. Is there any truth in that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Sometimes that is possible and sometimes not. When the hon. member compares Canada with Germany he is comparing a nation with a population of 15 million with a nation having a population of 50 million, a nation whose people have always been highly trained mechanically, who have always been efficient producers and are more so now than ever for the further reason that they are operating with new machinery and are willing to work long hours at low wages. Nevertheless we meet German competition in various places and get on all right. We export synthetic rubber to Germany, though Germany used to be the source of synthetic rubber. Now they buy rubber from Canada. So do England, France, Italy, almost every country in Europe and a few countries in the Far East.
There are commodities in respect of which Canada can compete, and those are the commodities upon which we depend for our foreign trade. A man can come along and say we cannot ship eggs into England and therefore the condition is serious, or we cannot ship butter there. It is all a matter of price. We could ship eggs and butter to England if we would sell them for the same price at which they get both from New Zealand or from across the channel on the continent. If our farmers are willing to take 43 cents a pound for butter we can sell butter abroad. That is the price recovered on the sale to Czechoslovakia. Unfortunately, however, our farmers expect to get 58 cents for butter, and they expect to get about twice the price for eggs as the price for which they sell in world trade.
There is no use moaning about that situation. We are able to sell the things we can produce efficiently, particularly metals, lumber, newsprint, and a great variety of products, and they represent Canada's export trade. I should also have mentioned wheat, oats, barley, flax and rye.


Mr. Brooks:: Would the minister care to comment on the textile industry?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As to the textile industry, the condition is simple. It used to be a highly diversified industry. In other words it was made up in this country and in the United States and England of local mills that manufactured for a rather special trade. During the war the industry in the United States moved into the south. Very large units were built, and these units serve a market that can absorb very large quantities of a single item. The result is that costs are brought down through large production. The airplane has brought about speedy delivery. The result is that a dress manufacturer in Montreal, wanting a special piece of cloth that he cannot buy readily in Canada, is apt to order from the southern mills, have it shipped by airplane and receive it the next day. He finds it convenient to buy that way.
Another factor is that when new mills were constructed efficiency was also improved and the range of patterns was improved. Our industry had operated at capacity turning out war goods and supplying a market that absorbed anything the mills turned out. The result was that when slack times came they were not as far advanced toward modernization as were the mills south of the border.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is that our chief competition?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is in cottons. In woollens the competition comes from the United Kingdom. In spite of the high duties on woollen goods I think we have always bought more than 50 per cent of our woollen goods from the United Kingdom. It is a highly efficient producer of woollens, due to the fact it draws on a number of markets for its wool, and also wages there are very much lower than ours. However, I am glad to say that our textile industry is recovering. We have had ups and downs in various industries throughout the years, but our industry has always had sufficient resources to enable it to become competitive again.
That is gradually happening in the textile industry, and I believe it will happen in the electrical goods industry. That industry has to reorganize. If they are being flooded with cheaper goods from somewhere else they have to see if they cannot price their goods down to meet that competition, even though it means cutting out a few frills they like to see on their products.
The only way I know to obtain an efficient economy is, when these situations occur, to allow them to be corrected through natural means. If the government went in for a short-term solution, perhaps doubling the tariff, there would be no improvement in that particular industry. We would have a sick industry on our hands forever. By letting the law of supply and demand work we keep our

industries efficient, and I maintain that Canadian industry today is efficient.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I think the minister has given me my cue to raise a particular matter. It does not fall under general discussion but has to do with the importation of electrical goods from Europe. The minister said the importation of electrical goods from Europe was practically negligible, and I am wondering if I have not perhaps laid my finger on one of the reasons for that. This matter does not come under any particular part of the government, but a question I asked was answered by an order for return from the minister's department, and it certainly has to do with the Department of Trade and Commerce.
One or two importers have written me who are largely engaged in the importation of electrical goods from Europe. I would judge from the letters I have received that the goods are manufactured in Western Germany, or perhaps in Austria. The matter has to do with the checking of the quality of goods in Europe before they are allowed to come to this side. I should not say "allowed to come to this side" because the Canadian Standards Association does not have complete power to stop goods from being imported into this country. But I claim it might almost as well have that power, because the effect of its decisions is practically the same.
The writer of the last correspondence I have had on this subject wonders if something cannot be done to expedite such inspection. He claims quite bitterly, and he is entitled to because he makes his living in this particular trade, that the approval of electrical goods manufactured in foreign countries is very slow indeed. He says the work is entrusted to what he calls a private firm. I expect that is not a good definition of the Canadian Standards Association. This organization may be private but I believe it receives from the dominion government a grant of some $20,000 a year. The minister would know and can correct me.
Apparently the function of the association is to inspect goods after they have been ordered and before they are shipped. When this man orders a consignment of electrical goods from Austria or Western Germany the goods have to be submitted for inspection. I understand there is one inspection place in Britain, probably in London, and I happen to remember the name of the other one, Arnheim, because it is a famous name in our history as well as the history of Europe. Apparently there is a good deal of red tape and delay.
Supply-Trade and Commerce
I would have been loath to believe these assertions were it not for the letters that have been written to this particular dealer by people on the other side, who are always complaining that they cannot fill these orders because they have not yet received the O.K. from the inspection point at Arnheim. This man even suggests, although I am making no such assertion, that somebody here has the power to prevent the very competition the minister has been talking about and which to some extent might account for the fact that our imports of electrical goods are negligible. Here are people, I do not know who they are or what they are, who apparently have the power-I use that word advisedly because it is proven in these letters-to hold up these shipments for an indefinite period of time. I feel it is time we should get some information upon it.
Upon the receipt of these complaints I put certain questions upon the order paper and the minister's department directed an order for return. In order to assist the minister 1 shall give the reference. It was sessional paper No. 226 of Wednesday, June 15. 1 believe I asked the logical questions. What is this association? What are its functions? Are its activities under the direct supervision of a government department? Has it branches in Europe and so on? Does it inspect, in Europe, potential imports to Canada? If so, where are such inspections made, and are such inspection points or offices open the year around so that decisions may be made without delay? What are the classes of goods with which this association deals?
Now, here is a rather vital question. Is permission to export certain goods dependent upon the result of its inspection? The answer to that is no. It is said that the customs and excise here will certainly not exercise any authority about keeping these goods out. The point is that the exporter will not send them to Canada, or perhaps I should put it the other way and say the importer will not confirm the order unless it first has the stamp of approval of this particular association.
This was all new to me, and I fancy it is new to a great many people in the country. I asked what was the source of the funds necessary to carry on its operations? I have outlined some of the questions, but I am not going to weary the house by any full recital of the answers. As I say, they are already registered with the parliamentary papers branch so that he who runs may read.
I was interested in the answer to question No. 8, to the effect that the association does not have any mandatory powers in regard
6152	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce to granting permission to export or even import goods. According to the complaints from these business firms, time and time again they are based on delay. Time and time again my constituents tell me these goods have been held up for as long as two years. These letters say that it seems rather ridiculous to question goods which pass very freely to other countries, and mention is made of Australia and one or two other commonwealth countries with which no difficulty is experienced. However, they have considerable difficulty when it comes to passing the Canadian Standards Association.
As I say, my friend goes further and suggests that here is an opportunity where there may be some rather illegitimate work, where it might be of interest to certain people not to have these goods imported into Canada. This might be an avenue for some such thing. As I say, I make no such assertion. I think it is a matter upon which we might get some information and have it cleared up.
I have talked at greater length than I intended, but in order that we may have the whole picture, and since I cannot quote these letters, I may say a word about what they contain. One complainant says he knows that vacuum cleaners cannot be sold in Canada without this Canadian Standards Association approval. He says their apparatus has already been approved by many associations in other countries, and he has prepared the necessary steps for approval in Canada but without success. Another complainant, a different firm, say they have paid the fees demanded and now hope they will receive the approval for which they have been waiting for the last two years. Another comments that it is ridiculous that the sale of these implements continues in Europe and commonwealth countries, while we cannot get permission, except over a long period, to sell in Canada.
This last one rather alarmed me and caused me to feel that while the man's suspicions probably were completely wrong it would be better to have this thing cleaned up so these suspicions could not exist. In a letter dated Arnheim, January 21, 1955, this appears:
We feel that it is necessary that our-
I do not intend to use the name.
-has to go once more to Arnheim in order to look after the "red tape".
The words red tape are in quotation marks. That is important because I am not making any accusation against anyone but I think there is a situation that the public and this house ought to know something about. I did talk to some of the officials in the department of customs and excise. Quite frankly


they did not know about it. They knew about the association, and they knew vaguely what its functions were. But they did not know what was going on. They did give me this piece of information, that they certainly did not prevent goods from coming from Europe without the approval of this association. As I say, in my opinion it seems to work the same way.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Canadian Standards Association, Mr. Chairman, is an association of Canadian businessmen. Various firms can become members. The president of the association this year is the dean of engineering at McGill University. The national research council also has always worked closely with the Canadian Standards Association. It is the final authority on quality that is recognized by every Canadian manufacturer. In Ontario it is illegal to instal any electrical apparatus that has not been approved by the Canadian Standards Association. I believe that provincial laws in other provinces cover the same ground. It is not a federal service, although the federal government regards it as so valuable that it contributes $20,000 a year to its budget. It sponsors the various meetings of industries and fixes standards for industries.
After the war years Britain complained that there was too much delay in getting approval from the Canadian Standards Association for goods from that country, and asked that a branch of the association be established there. I called in the association and they readily agreed to establish a branch in England. I think it is in Manchester, if I am not mistaken; in one of the industrial towns of England. A very efficient branch of the association is maintained there and a final inspection is given in England of British goods.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: This return says London.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps it is London, but I thought it was in one of the midland cities. Then later we received a request to establish a branch of the association on the continent. As my hon. friend says, a branch was established in Holland at Arnheim. It is all very well to say there are delays in getting inspection, but the delay probably comes about if the quality is not up to Canadian standards. I think it is tremendously important to the Canadian people and to Canadian manufacturers that goods imported here are up to Canadian standards of manufacture. There are difficulties about imports, but often the import is of cheap material. I feel that the Canadian Standards Association stands between the Canadian people and the quality of the goods sold to

them over the counters in our shops. I think it is a most valuable service.
I must say it has always been maintained on a very high plane. The people who run the affairs of the association are not strictly commercial people. As I say, they went to McGill University and got their president this year. Last year I believe he was a retired steel manufacturer. But I can assure my hon. friend with pleasure that it is a first class organization. Its purpose is to give a satisfactory and a prompt service to those who are willing to pay for it, and I can say that its fees are moderate. It simply operates more or less on a cost basis. I am sure when my hon. friend looks into the matter further he will find no ground for undue criticism.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, may I speak on the same subject brought up by the hon. member for Saskatoon. As a matter of fact what I shall say, I believe, will point up the fact that there are certainly very wide differences of opinion among business people in Canada today on this particular topic. Of course it may be only a part of a much larger problem. If I were directing my remarks in any particular direction, I might say that I believe businessmen would be very happy if a specific part of the Department of Trade and Commerce were allotted liaison duties between businessmen and various other government departments. I refer specifically, of course, to the problems which arise when letters go from the Department of Trade and Commerce to the Department of National Revenue, or the reverse.
These are natural problems which are bound to arise. However, they also make businessmen prone to believe that at times they are not treated justly. As a matter of fact, while the minister was in Australia and New Zealand I had a problem in connection with the importation of vacuum bottles from Japan. I was amazed at the number of letters that passed back and forth before we were able to arrive at a fairly satisfactory solution to the problem.
This problem of the Canadian Standards Association is another one of a similar nature. As the last speaker said, it is difficult to find out just exactly what the situation is in connection with the association, or to ascertain its official status. I notice that in their general information they indicate that the Canadian Standards Association is a non-profit, non-government standards development organization. It was incorporated by dominion charter in 1919 and by supplementary letters patent granted in April of 1944.
The average person would assume that it had no connection whatsoever with any branch of government. Yet if one will look at 50433-389
Supply-Trade and Commerce page 35 of the Ottawa telephone directory he will find the Canadian Standards Association listed under the telephone number 2-8211 of the government of Canada. And if one goes to the official telephone directory issued by the government he finds the Canadian Standards Association listed at page 8. So I assume we must give this association some kind of semi-official status, and we must ask that some recognition of that fact be given by the various government departments.
The problem about which I should like to speak is diametrically opposed to the problem raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon. A large part of the electrical industry in Canada today is complaining that goods are being imported into this country which do not meet the standards set up by this association. As a matter of fact appeals have been made not only to the Minister of Trade and Commerce but also to the Minister of National Revenue.
I believe the answers received from both of them are legally quite correct. But the fact that some liaison is required to clear up problems of this kind is pointed up in this instance. I do not think one can say to the businessman, "This association is entirely outside the government. Even though we list it in the telephone directory and in our own government directory, it is outside." I do not think the government can say, "This association sets the standards from one end of this country to the other, but it is not our responsibility to see that those standards are observed."
There are nine or ten individual authorities from one end of the country to the other, including those in hydroelectric activities, which must assert the rights and protect the interests of Canadian manufacturers. But obviously it is too big a job, and cannot be done that way. If we are faced with the problem that as these standards cross from one provincial boundary to another they reach a point where they are not recognized at all, then I say it is time we put this matter on the agenda for the next dominion-provincial conference. Certainly we should be looking toward some solution of the problem.
I would read from bulletin 68 issued by the Canadian Lamp and Fixture Manufacturers Association, Incorporated. This bulletin is headed with the words "Buck-passing Deluxe" and states:
The present government set-up with respect to our request for a declaration on all MA forms-
I suppose that refers to customs entry-forms:
-provides them with the best opportunity of buckpassing seen anywhere. Our letters and telegrams
6154	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and to the Department of National Revenue, all result in having them remind us that they cannot do anything, because it is not their responsibility. The various government departments, instead of being co-ordinating units, each seem to have jurisdiction over only a part of a law, which allows them to say, it's not our baby.
I go along with the argument that the federal government should devise a plan whereby, upon the entry of electrical goods from a foreign country, certain standards must be maintained. The request is made that an affidavit or declaration be attached to prove that the article imported meets with the safety standards of the Canadian Standards Association. In bulletin 68 they go on to say:
But we will be told, you can't do that, you will be interfering with the rights of the provinces under the BNA Act. To which I would say, that this is a matter of public safety and is a federal responsibility, in the same manner that we have laws affecting the manufacture and sale of food, drugs and possibly other products. Defective wiring of electrical goods including lamps and lighting fixtures, can create a hazard that is dangerous to life and property. While the BNA Act may have been a good instrument when it was written at confederation eighty-eight years ago, it has since become one of the means of dividing the country into ten provinces instead of one Canada.
I am sure we will not all subscribe to the last sentence in the brief, but what the association is pointing out is that the safety of the people is involved. Importation of goods adversely affecting the health and safety of the people is not allowed. Why should we allow the importation of manufactured articles of this kind which do not meet the standards set by our own Canadian Standards Association?
This is another problem which is not tied up with tariffs or with GATT in any way. I am wondering what the government is going to do for our manufacturers in this connection.
I am not asking for tariff protection or an import quota, but I do point out that the government ask us to compete with goods entering Canada but which do not come up to the standards with which, by law, we must comply.
Let me illustrate the point. Here are two lamps, almost identical. One is marked "A" and the other is marked "B". Lamp "A" is manufactured with materials which are quite satisfactory in the United States. Lamp "B" is manufactured with materials which meet the standards set by the Canadian Standards Association. Right on lamp "B" is stamped the approval of the Canadian Standards Association. That is stamped right on the socket. What is the manufacturer in Canada up against? First of all, the socket in this lamp costs 6J cents more than the socket in the other lamp. That is, the socket of


the Canadian lamp as distinct from the lamp manufactured to United States standards costs that much more. The cord set on the Canadian lamp costs cents more than the United States lamp. The label itself costs 1 cent. In order to obtain this approval it costs the manufacturer $15 per annum. If he produces a new line of lamps of this type then it is necessary for him to open a new file with the standards association and pay them $130. That is a deposit, it is true, but the minimum that is required in any type of operation of this kind is at least $50.
I am reliably informed that in the lamp industry in Canada there have been approximately 2,500 lay-offs. This should be their busy time. The summertime, when they are getting prepared for the winter business, the gift business later in the year, should be their busy time. These articles are being brought in and placed on sale in the various department stores. The average individual is certainly not going to go around and examine these different articles to see whether these special stamps mean anything to him. As a result, there is a large volume of this type of equipment coming into the country and being sold through retail store outlets. We can say there is a plan to overcome it, but obviously no jurisdiction in Canada would have enough people to run around to individual stores to prevent the sale of unapproved merchandise. The logical answer would seem to be some type of protection at the border which would ensure that this type of article did not come across, unless it was indicated at the time that it met the standards set up by the Canadian Standards Association.
In dealing with this, I say we are dealing with a problem that confronts businessmen in connection with many of their operations. I repeat, the problems do not involve the question of getting out of the GATT agreement or raising the tariff. There are many problems that confront them every day in the week, problems that involve their coming to Ottawa to discuss methods of overcoming those obstructions to being able to market on fair and equal terms with the imported products from other countries.
That is why I said I should like to see here some specific place where they could come and say, "Now, here is a problem we have. I do not know whether it involves the Department of National Revenue or trade and commerce, but we would like to lay it down here to see if we cannot put the thing together without the cross-fire of letters from one department to the other".

The Minister of National Revenue and I have got along very well in many matters involving customs. I am thinking of items like having an article declared "of a class or kind manufactured in Canada". But it is sometimes several months before the impetus originally generated to get this type of declaration through the Department of National Revenue is brought to fulfilment. I have companies in my own constituency such as the Brydon Brass Manufacturing Company Limited, who are gradually becoming able to build products in Canada which, so far as we are concerned, were formerly manufactured only in the United States. Yet there has always been a considerable lapse of time before they were able to put themselves in the position to which they are entitled under the rules of the Department of National Revenue.
Further, there is the firm of Wilson and Cousins, which is also located in my constituency. We have had some correspondence on that company to get across to the department the fact that it is only a question of terminology as to whether an article is processed fully before it comes into the country or whether it is only semi-processed. That makes a good deal of difference in the ability to continue to manufacture and do a good job in connection with the lines they are manufacturing here. So once again I say, let us see whether we cannot, within the framework of the Department of Trade and Commerce, establish some place where these various problems such as "of a class or kind made in Canada", or problems such as C.S.A. approval can be funnelled through and some assistance obtained. I am thinking back to an editorial that appeared in the Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph, dated March 19, 1955. I quote part of the editorial:
Why not give serious thought to increasing production of the things to which our raw materials contribute? For the most part, we have the manufacturing facilities. Why not convert the raw materials at home, and export the finished product? The facilities are here, likewise the manpower and the electrical energy required. There is little justification in missing out on the gains to the country through this industrial effort.
Here is a method of assistance which will enable us to get into the secondary line of business and really promote Canadian trade. Therefore I am thankful to the hon. member for Saskatoon. His problem with the C.S.A. may be different. I only hope that any article which is imported into Canada will have to be manufactured to the standards we accept here for the safety of the people of this country.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the item
carry?
50433-389J
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Mr. Nowlan:: In view of the fact that the minister undoubtedly has been impressed with the impetus of wheat this afternoon, I want to remind him-probably he does not need to be reminded-that there are other areas in Canada which are interested in sterling as well as the wheat-producing areas of western Canada.
I happen to come from an area which at one time was dependent upon the sterling market almost entirely. Our whole product, the apple crop in the Annapolis valley, was sold in the British market. At one time we exported more apples to Great Britain than did all the rest of the British commonwealth put together. Owing to circumstances over which no particular government has had absolute control, the situation has changed so that for some time we sold none. Last year we did sell a relatively few boxes of apples.


Clarence Decatur Howe: All you had.


George Clyde Nowlan: No.


Clarence Decatur Howe: At a cost to the Canadian government.


George Clyde Nowlan: It was a substantial part of what we had last year. I will admit that owing to the devastation caused by "Hurricane Edna" which stripped the apple trees for us, our crop was not large. If it had not been for Edna's visitation we would have had many more apples to sell to Great Britain. That is not the situation this year. I am glad the minister reminds us of the fact that we did not have too many last year. I am reminding him of the fact that, according to current indications, we are going to have many more apples this year. In fact it will be the largest crop we have had since the reconversion following the war.
Every possible opportunity which may be open to us to enlarge our market in Great Britain will be not only welcomed but waited for most anxiously by the growers in the Annapolis valley. I have on my file letters from various purchasers in Great Britain last year praising us because of the condition of our product. The minister knows, and particularly the Minister of Agriculture knows, our export was entirely of the culinary variety, the barrel pack, though relatively low-grade, for cooking purposes. The dessert variety would compare favourably with any produced anywhere in the world. I have letters from various importers in Great Britain praising them and saying they would like to buy more this year if they were available.
I know there are difficulties in the way. I see reports sometimes of convertibility being
6156	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce around the corner. I know that when convertibility comes, if it ever comes, it will come one minute after midnight one day, and no one will know about it until it breaks, and naturally so. But last year an arrangement was worked out whereby $2,500,000 was made available for the purchase of Canadian apples, a certain proportion for Nova Scotia and a larger proportion for British Columbia. This year, with a larger crop, I hope some arrangement can be made to the same end.
My hon. friend from York West spoke of the difficulties in regard to exports. I read in the British newspapers that they are concerned with the difficulties they encounter in exporting their products to the Canadian market. We have difficulties in exporting our agricultural products there at least. There is almost a 100 per cent tariff which the British producer enjoys in selling his products in the local market. I understand the purchasing value of the shilling internally is almost the same as it was before, and it gives the producer there a tremendous advantage.
I can imagine there are pressure groups in that country who would welcome a continuation of the status quo. But surely there must be some ways and means whereby our two .governments, working together, can accommodate each other to increase the flow of goods back and forth between the two countries, and so produce the happy result that there can be more sterling available than there has been heretofore. It was and still is one of the great traditional markets of eastern Canada.
The minister should keep one eye on the West Indies market and the making available of more sterling for the purchase of Canadian goods there. That would go a long way toward helping the producers of the maritime provinces. I simply wanted to put this on record, because there has been a good deal of emphasis on wheat, and I suppose there will be more before the day is over. I wanted to put the claims of eastern Canada at least in proper perspective.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I may say that we are well aware that the apple growers usually sell their apples. They always have sold their apples since I have been in the government, and I am sure they will do so next year. In fact we have quite encouraging messages from England on the subject.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I simply want to support the remarks made by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings with respect to trade with Great Britain, but I want them to relate to British Columbia apples. I was very pleased to hear the minister's encouraging remarks.


Mr. Noseworihy:: Mr. Chairman, before this item is passed, I wonder if the minister would care to give us a little more information regarding the possibility of an all-Canadian pipe line than was given by the Prime Minister when I asked him a question on that subject a few days ago. He simply told us there were three propositions being considered, that the government liked proposition one, hoped that if they could not get that proposition they would get proposition two, and hoped they would not have to fall back on proposition three. That is very indefinite. This is not a matter of defence, that there should be so much secrecy about it.
While the minister is answering that question, will he tell us whether consideration has been given to the government subsidizing a private company in this respect, or whether the government has given any study to the possibility of a publicly-owned pipe line being built in conjunction with the provincial governments and hydro departments?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I am unable to throw any light on the pipe-line situation other than to say that every possibility is being studied, and studied intensively.
I hope a solution can be announced before long, but I cannot announce it today. My hon. friend has the advantage of me if he knows what propositions one, two and three are; I do not.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I do not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, we are even on that.


Mr. Trainor:: I should like to have the minister's comment on two points. The minister will unquestionably agree that the marketing of wheat is one of the most important problems in this country. He is also aware that the sale of wheat is in the hands of some half dozen international grain firms. There are two firms in particular, Dreyfuss-Bumge in France and Continental Grain in Belgium. There is at the present time no Canadian firm or any firm interested in the selling of Canadian wheat particularly. These international firms, of course, are no more interested in the selling of Canadian wheat than they are in the sale of French, Argentine or any other wheat. It was not always thus. We did have grain exporters in this country in days gone by. Would the minister care to say why we do not have them now?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I could answer this question now. We do have them now. James Richardson and Sons have handled several export transactions, and there are other firms. Northern Sales are

handling the Polish deal and have handled a number of export sales of Canadian wheat. Dreyfuss-Bunge and Continental are, of course, the great international traders who have been in business ever since I have known anything about wheat, which goes back a good many years. They are very able dealers, and well established in every country in the world.


Owen C. Trainor: They are not interested in selling Canadian wheat.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No exporter is interested in what wheat he sells. All he is interested in is making a sale. He sells what the customer wants to buy. The selling is done by other agencies; the wheat board has agencies around the world, and the Canadian government has trade commissioners around the world. The dealers are simply the people who take the wheat in store at Fort William, transport it to Montreal, load it on a ship, charter the tonnage and guarantee delivery to the customer. If they hear of a trade they try to work out a deal to sell whatever wheat they can to the customer.


Owen C. Trainor: Is it not a fact that these arrangements are usually made through the international grain firms like Dreyfuss-Bunge and Continental?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not necessarily. They probably handle half the world's trade in wheat, but I doubt if it is much more than half. There are United States firms that do the same thing.


Owen C. Trainor: There is one other point. In reading some statistics in the commercial letter of the Canadian Bank of Commerce of June, 1955, I notice that for the three months from January to March inclusive in 1955 Canada exported $177-9 million of agricultural and vegetable products. In the same period Canada imported $118-7 million of the same products. I should like to ask the minister why in his opinion it is necessary for Canada, an agricultural country, to import $118 million-odd of agricultural products in three months.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suppose the reason is that people like to have it. Our people are getting more and more into the habit of eating strawberries in February and fresh vegetables in every month of the year.
The hon. member was talking about the importation of agricultural products into Canada in the months of January, February and March. If he would talk to me about July, August and September that would be Canada's time. If we were importing heavily
Supply-Trade and Commerce in that period I would worry about it. He asks why it is necessary. It is not necessary. We could stop our people from eating oranges and grapefruit in the winter and say they cannot have vegetables unless they get them out of the deep freeze. But this being a free country, we let people do as they like.


Owen C. Trainor: Does the minister suggest that the products he referred to account for the sum total of $118 million?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, yes.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the item carry?


Mr. Bell:: No. Will you call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, my position with respect to the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce is about the same as last year. I objected then to the serious trade situation, and pointed out that there was danger because all our eggs had been concentrated in one basket in the United States and we had not been able to make much improvement so far as our trade with the United Kingdom was concerned. The hon. member for Eglinton and others have pointed this out today in very clear fashion, and the committee will be spared my remarks in this respect. However, I have one particular point in mind that refers to two or three branches of the department which I feel involves policy, and I wish to mention it briefly. It is not a new matter, it has been mentioned many times in the house and elsewhere.
I refer to the growing trend for Canada's imports and exports to move through United States ports rather than Canadian ports. This has been mentioned by many members in the past. I referred to it in the throne speech debate this year, but I think the matter has reached a serious stage and some consideration and attention must be given to it by the department. There is a growing trend for manufactured products shipped out of the country and goods shipped into our country to move through United States rather than Canadian ports and, to make the matter more serious, there is the fact that a good proportion of the goods going out of the country come from our protected industries.
I wish I could say this evening that the department has done something in this regard. I am afraid I cannot even report that they have done nothing. I think they have made

Supply-Trade and Commerce the situation worse, and there are three good examples which I wish to put before the department for its consideration. First of all, when one considers a matter such as this one naturally thinks of what the publications, reports and periodicals have to say about it. Are we really trying to promote the use of Canadian ports? I have always followed Foreign Trade, a periodical put out by the Department of Trade and Commerce, and I must say I was just about floored by a series of articles I found in it.
In the issues of November 27, December 11 and December 25, 1954, there is a series of interesting articles with respect to the trade situation under the heading, "How to Sell Through New York". I would point out that it does not say "How to sell in New York", but "How to Sell through New York". I ask hon. members what is going on in the department. We are supposed to be promoting Canadian ports, yet I pick up that article and I am confronted by that title.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Did you read the article?


Thomas Miller Bell: I have read the article and I admit that it explains the situation later. It points out that the export-import facilities of New York are available to Canadian exporters and importers, but after all we either have to get into the trade business or get out of it, and we have to stand on our own feet. Such a series of articles would create a tremendous amount of criticism everywhere, and you can just imagine the reaction to them. Our exporters and importers use the facilities at New York, and what happens? The first thing you know they are using the port of New York. That is the point I am making this evening.
Then there comes to my mind the fact, and I have checked it as best I can, that our sellers, promoters and advertisers abroad are not doing the best they can to promote the shipment of goods to and from Canada through Canadian ports. I refer specifically to the trade commissioner service. The people down home have taken up the matter with the department. They have made inquiries and have also checked with the commissioners when they have been in our part of the country. The answers to our inquiries all bear out the fact that our trade commissioners overseas have never received any instructions to promote shipping through Canadian ports in all their efforts to obtain business overseas.
I feel that our trade commissioners and others who are trying to promote Canadian trade should definitely be instructed along the same lines as United States trade commissioners. They should be told to go out and

almost insist that the business be done through these ports on which we are now spending so much money for purposes of development.
There is also the fact that contrasting figures with respect to the value and tonnage of shipments of goods through Canadian and United States ports are available only to a limited degree. I should like to refer to a question of the hon. member for Royal having to do with the point I am trying to make this evening, which was answered on March 21, 1955. The question is found at page 2215 of Hansard and is as follows:
1.	What was the amount (a) in tons; (b) in value of goods manufactured or produced in Canada exported through Canadian seaports and United States seaports, respectively, for each month from January 1, 1954 to February 1, 1955?
2.	What was the amount (a) in tons; (b) in value of goods imported for use in Canada through Canadian and United States seaports, respectively, for each month from January 1, 1954 to February 1, 1955?
The answer is the enlightening thing here. It reads:
1.	Records of Canadian exports through Canadian seaports and United States seaports are not maintained on a monthly basis but are compiled annually only. The compilation of this information for the calendar year 1954 will not be completed until about April 15, 1955. Tonnage figures are not available.
2.	(a) Amount in tons is not recorded.
Then the answer is given to question 2 (b). The point I am trying to make is that it should be possible, and I do not see why it is not, to have a complete record with respect to these figures. I may be wrong, but I understand that the United States make available all tonnage and value figures with respect to goods passing through their ports, and we are entitled to have the exact information. People down my way have asked the minister and his department at various times why these figures are not available, and of course the department has not been able to answer them. They think there is something that is being held back with respect to these figures.
It could be that the figures are not startling. The only evidence we have, though, Mr. Chairman, indicates that the figures are not good. The figures that are given in reply to part 2 (b) of the question of the hon. member for Royal shows that roughly one-third of the goods imported into Canada through Canadian and United States seaports go through United States ports. I am speaking very roughly, Mr. Chairman.
It is a rather sorry state of affairs when goods have to go through United States ports to come into Canada. I ask everyone here how much United States goods are now entering the United States through Canadian ports. I would bet that the amount was very small, if there are any. There are other

figures that have been mentioned. I admit I do not have proof here but we calculate, particularly in so far as these protected industries are concerned such as whisky and automobiles, that only one-seventh of the exports of those industries are going through Canadian ports. They are going through New York and the other United States seaports.
I do say it is a serious state of affairs, and we are entitled to all the figures. Those figures must be made available. I suggest that when they are made available we can assess the situation. If what I say is correct, then let us do something about it and really get into this business.
In closing I should like to review the situation. I have said we are worried. We are seriously worried in the maritimes and other areas where the seaports are the lifeblood of the community. We feel that every action should be taken to ensure that Canadian goods both leaving and entering Canada are sent through a Canadian port. We say that above all the products of the protected industries should go through these Canadian ports; we should almost insist upon that.
Then I used a periodical, which I do not believe


Clarence Decatur Howe: You misused the periodical. You know very well to what that article referred.


Thomas Miller Bell: I am pointing out that the headline on that article, "How to Sell through New York" to my mind is not in keeping with a concentrated effort to see that Canadian ports are used. I will admit that the minister has a point. I will admit that we have had articles on the port of Saint John and I presume on Halifax and Montreal in that same periodical. It is a good one, and I enjoy reading it. But I do say it seems peculiar that a Canadian periodical like this should be trying to sell New York generally.
I pointed that out, and I said that the salesmanship of the department, in instances like that, does not seem to be consistent. Then I mentioned that our advertisers abroad, those people who are trying to sell Canada and Canadians, to my knowledge do not have complete instructions to sell, and almost insist, that Canadian ports be used in the various transactions.
I realize that you cannot tell the buyers overseas that they have to use Canadian ports. But I do say that some long-range program of salesmanship should be given to these trade commissioners. I mentioned the fact that these figures with respect to tonnages
Supply-Trade and Commerce and values of goods moving through Canadian and United States ports should definitely be made available.
I feel that this is a very serious matter. It has been bandied about for two or three years. The Canadian Manufacturers Association and other people who are vitally interested in this matter, such as boards of trade throughout the country, have all brought in resolutions; the matter has been talked about and it has been presented to the department, but I honestly cannot say that I feel the department is making a serious effort in this regard.
We all realize that there must be an effort made for Canadian trade abroad. I am reminded that Mr. Coyne said recently that international trade is losing its importance. If that is true, then I suppose we should not be worried about that. This statement appeared in the Montreal Gazette on May 6, 1955. I do not believe that. I think that Canada's future is in the trading world.
In that same connection I refer to a statement that was made by a certain economist from Britain who was here this year at the University of Western Ontario. He said Canada is unknown as a world manufacturer. That is the opinion of one man who has been in close touch with this matter in Great Britain. He says we are unknown overseas. I have tried to develop the point that our goods are not being sold over there. I say that in our plans to sell Canadian goods we have to try to insist that our ports are used.
I shall leave it at that, Mr. Chairman. I simply say we have spent a great deal of money on our Canadian ports. They are fine ports. The men who man the ships and the men who work the cargoes in these ports are good. They deserve a good living in Canada. In my opinion our system and our whole plan does not seem to be consistent. Definite efforts must be made to see that when Canadian goods come into the country or when they are leaving the country, they pass through Canadian ports.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is, to my mind, definitely a speech without any substance. As a matter of fact, under Liberal trade policies the maritime ports have enjoyed the greatest movement of tonnage in their history during the last 12 months. The same magazine to which my hon. friend referred has published articles on shipping through Canadian ports, whereas the same information it gave about New York referred to that city as a trading centre.
The hon. member's reference to New York was, of course, part of the Tory campaign

Supply-Trade and Commerce against trade with the United States. That trade is no good; it is dangerous. The fact of the matter is that New York is the greatest distributing centre on the eastern seaboard. In Canada it is customary to sell goods through New York for distribution from there; that is the purpose of that article, as my friend very well knows unless he is boasting when he says he read the article and, in fact, he only read the headline. I think if we are going to have anything serious in this debate we ought to put a stop to that kind of nonsense being talked in this house.


Mr. Green:: This evening, I should like to place three or four questions before the minister with regard to the construction of a natural gas pipe line from Alberta to Ontario and Quebec. In order to give the background for my questions I shall have to review shortly some of the events that have taken place. As the minister knows, in 1953 he announced government policy with regard to the piping of natural gas.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is nothing in the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce having to do with the piping of natural gas, and I do not propose to answer any questions.


Howard Charles Green: Well, now, Mr. Chairman, the minister has already answered questions this afternoon having to do with natural gas.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That was this afternoon.


Howard Charles Green: This comes under the minister's department-


Clarence Decatur Howe: It does not.


Howard Charles Green: -because licences for the exportation of gas come under one branch of his department. I forget which branch it is. In any event it is a question of the exportation of gas, oil and power, which are under the jurisdiction of the minister in his capacity as Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The department considers those problems when they are placed before it, and not before.


Howard Charles Green: For that reason I am proposing to ask the minister these questions. If the minister does not wish to answer, or if he refuses to answer, that of course is his responsibility. But I am rather surprised that-


Clarence Decatur Howe: You can be surprised all you like. You can't surprise me. I have known you for 20 years.


Howard Charles Green: I am rather surprised that the minister should lose his temper when we are in the course of a discussion of his estimates


which is entirely in order. It shows only too clearly the dictatorial attitude this minister has adopted, and his contempt for parliamentary procedure. If this minister is going to treat parliament and the affairs of parliament in this contemptuous way, then I say to him it is time he went to the Senate.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. If I understood the hon. member correctly, he has stated that the minister was treating parliament with contempt. In my opinion that is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.


Howard Charles Green: Well, I always withdraw when I am asked to withdraw by the Chair. But I do say that the minister has stated, without hearing my question at all, that he refuses to answer it. Whether or not that is contempt of parliament I shall leave to the Chair to decide.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Perhaps the hon. member would allow me to rise at this time to indicate that there is some difficulty in connection with the matter he is attempting to raise. We are dealing with the first item of the Department of Trade and Commerce. The custom has grown up in recent years of allowing a fairly wide debate on the first item. May I point out to the hon. member that that is merely the custom and that according to our rule, which has not been changed, standing order 58(2) states that speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
If I apply the rule, then of course the hon. member is out of order in discussing a pipe line under this item. If I follow the custom, the hon. member is entitled to discuss in a general way the administration of the Department of Trade and Commerce. As I understand it, that is what has taken place earlier in the debate. I feel that perhaps the hon. member should think twice before he attempts to make a speech on a pipe line matter at this time. There are occasions in the house and in committee when such matters may be discussed most properly.
I feel that in accordance with our custom this is the appropriate time to discuss the administration of the Department of Trade and Commerce, but not to discuss a particular matter such as the pipe line which the hon. member has indicated he wishes to discuss.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, may I point out that on the administration item of a department we are entitled to discuss the various matters which come under that department. Under the rules that is in order; and furthermore-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. If the hon. member wishes to tell me that he is in order, under the rules, then I would appreciate it very much if he would refer to the rule to which he wishes to draw my attention. I have referred to standing order 58(2). If the hon. member has some rule or some standing order to which he can direct my attention and upon which he bases his assertion, I would be glad to hear it.


Howard Charles Green: The whole discussion this
afternoon has been on particular aspects of the Department of Trade and Commerce. That was true also of the discussion of the first item in the estimates of all departments which have been before us.
I would point out that I have here the annual report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the calendar year 1954, and that one branch of that department is known as the standards branch. I now quote from that portion of the report which bears the subheading "Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act", and which says:
This act prohibits the export from Canada, without a licence, of electrical energy or piped fluids, which include natural gas. Five additional licences, one relating to small quantities of surplus electricity (renewed after discontinuance of a year) and four relating to crude oil, were issued in 1954.
The volume of natural gas exported during the year was somewhat lower than in the previous year for the two exporting companies. All gas exports are in accordance with authorizations of the petroleum and natural gas conservation board of Alberta, and the federal government. A third licensee has still to obtain permission of United States authorities to import into that country.
Oil exports continued via the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company's pipe line.
I am proposing now to ask the minister three cr four questions concerning the policy of his department-which means the policy of the government-with regard to the export of gas. The minister himself, as Minister of Trade and Commerce, laid down government policy on March 13, 1953, and I would refer hon. members in that connection to page 2930 of Hansard for that year. In making his statement the minister quoted a letter he had written to Premier Manning of Alberta. The letter is dated January 2, 1953, and two paragraphs from it are as follows:
We had a conversation about this subject-
He is referring to the export of natural gas. -at Sarnia, when Premier Frost was present. At that time, I stated that gas from Alberta must be available to potential customers in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and in the intervening provinces, before further export of gas could be authorized. This attitude is consistent with the position that the government has taken with regard to the export of hydroelectric power for many years. You will appreciate that the supply of gas through a pipe line is analogous with the supply of electric power, in that both demand continuity of supply.
Supply-Trade and Commerce I am aware that, for the period when natural gas is first made available in Ontario and Quebec, and until the load can be built up, such a pipeline project is unlikely to be profitable, either for the producers of gas or for the owners of the pipe line. Nevertheless, there is evidence that a pipeline project for Ontario and Quebec can be worked out and that the project will be profitable over a period of years.
After quoting the letter the minister went on to say:
This letter is of course consistent with the government policy I have outlined.
Earlier in his speech, as reported at page 2929 of Hansard, the minister outlined policy as follows:
Therefore the policy of the government of Canada is to refuse permits for moving natural gas by pipe line across an international boundary until such time as we are convinced that there can be no economic use, present or future, for that natural gas within Canada.
Then I go back again to the part of his speech which followed the quoting of the letter to Mr. Manning:
While the government of Alberta has proposals before it which involve the movement of gas eastward and across the United States border to Minneapolis, or through the United States to southern Ontario, permits to that end will not be granted under the terms of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act. This government has reason to believe that it is economically feasible to build a gas pipe line from southern Alberta to Toronto and Montreal, serving the intervening Canadian cities, and government policy will require that Canadian gas be used in Canada accordingly.
That was in March of 1953. On April 2 of the following year the minister appeared before the standing committee of the house on railways, canals and telegraph lines. That was about a year after he had announced policy. He gave evidence during the discussion of a bill to incorporate a company known as Niagara Gas Transmission Limited. This is what he had to say then. I am quoting from page 79 of the proceedings of that committee:


Right Hon.   Mr. Howe@: Mr. Chairman, the policy of the government has been laid down, that no gas can be exported from Canada unless the present and foreseeable needs of Canada are first taken care of. Now there is a certain capacity of pipe line to be built from the west to Toronto, and in order to finance that line there will have to be quantities of gas dedicated to that particular line, as I understand it. Is that correct, Mr. Milner?
Mr. Milner was the vice-president of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited.


Mr. Milner:: Yes, sir.


Right Hon.   Mr. Howe@: 
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, there has been no change in government policy in that regard.
Then he was asked again by the Leader of the Opposition on April 5, and I quote his answer from page 2705 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing new that I could place before the house at this time. The gentlemen who are interested in the establishment of a pipe line in Canada to bring the gas from the west to the east are, I understand, still persisting in their efforts to work out arrangements for the private financing of that project. The government's policy with respect to gas is unchanged and remains such as was stated on March 13, 1953.
Newspaper reports persisted that there might be a change in government policy and that there were other schemes, and on April 26 I asked a question of the Minister of Public Works, who was on that date the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce. The question was asked because Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, which is the chosen instrument for building the line across Canada, was making an application to the board of transport commissioners either that day or the following day. The question and answer will be found at page 3163 of Hansard. I asked:
Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce. A press dispatch this morning indicates the probability that 

Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited will be buying the gas distribution and manufacturing system in the city of Montreal from the Quebec hydro. Could the minister tell the house whether government policy still remains as announced on March 13, 1953, and confirmed by the Prime Minister on March 18 of this year and again on April 5? As the minister knows, that announcement was to the effect that Canadian needs for natural gas must be met first before export is permitted. Would the minister also say whether there has been any change in the policy of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines in this regard?
I included that in my question because there were rumours that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited was trying to get out of its obligation to build an all-Canadian line. Here was the answer by Hon. Mr. Winters:
Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge the answer to both questions would be in the negative. There has been no change in government policy in regard to the exportation of fuel, and as I understand it there has been no change in the policy of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited.
I believe that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited went before the board of transport commissioners and got an order giving an extension of time, on the statement that they were going to build an all-Canadian line. As a matter of fact I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce and I are pretty close together on this whole question. There has been no quarrel-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am worried now.


Howard Charles Green: The first thing we know, Mr. Chairman, he will be withdrawing what he said about me a few moments ago. There has never been any dispute over the fact that there could be a branch line down to Minneapolis. But the main pipe line had to be laid in Canadian soil.
After this hearing before the board of transport commissioners in April, we began to read reports in the press that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited was no longer planning to build an all-Canadian route, but that it was negotiating with a very large United States company known as Tennessee Gas Transmission Company for a new set-up under which Alberta gas would go down into the cities of Minneapolis and Chicago and into Pennsylvania, and Ontario and Quebec would get United States gas rather than Canadian gas.
The Prime Minister was asked a question again six days ago, on July 8, by the hon. member for York South, who had received a wire from the mayors of Fort William and Port Arthur protesting any plan which would delay the construction of an all-Canadian line. He asked the Prime Minister to bring the house up to date on the present situation. Here was the reply:
There are three alternatives that are being very carefully investigated and about which, of course, the commitments of many different interests are

required. There is one that we prefer to the other two. There is a third that we do not like as well even as the second. The officials of the Canadian company are endeavouring to get the commitments that would provide for the implementing of No. 1. They are also ascertaining whether, in the event that is not possible, they could get the the commitments that would be necessary for the implementation of No. 2. That is the situation. I hope we shall not have to fall back on No. 3.
The Prime Minister was questioned again by the hon. member for Prince Albert on July 12, two days ago. The answers he gave then were very illuminating. In the meantime there had been press dispatches to the effect that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited might give a guarantee that within five years or within seven years they would build an all-Canadian line, or that they might not be able to give any undertaking unless there had been a market built up in southern Ontario and Quebec by means of United States gas. Here are the Prime Minister's answers to the questions two days ago. He dealt with a specific time limit within which the allCanadian line was to be built, and he said the financial houses would have to be satisfied, otherwise the line could not be financed. Then I asked him:
Has there been any change in the government policy announced in 1953 that the needs of the Canadian people for natural gas must be assured before there is any permission to export?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There has been no change in the general policy. Consideration is being given to the kind of situation that had to be met with respect to providing gas for Vancouver. There, there had to be a pipe line that will have a capacity greater than the quantity of gas Vancouver can consume at this time, and so there has been an arrangement to allow the surplus that would be carried in the pipe line to be exported.
Nobody is complaining about that, either in regard to the west coast pipe line or the pipe line to eastern Canada, provided that pipe line is laid on Canadian soil. The Prime Minister went on:
Similar considerations may apply to a pipe line that would bring gas eastward. It may be that at this time it would have to have a greater capacity than the Canadian market in eastern Canada would now absorb. The question that is being discussed and about which negotiations are proceeding is to find what could be done with that surplus over and above eastern requirements at this time without making commitments that would not leave the gas available when the eastern Canadian market will have further developed.
The hon. member for Prince Albert then asked him a further question, and the Prime Minister said:
I cannot fix any specific date.
That is, any date by which the all-Canadian line would be completed.
I am satisfied that they are proceeding just as expeditiously as they can to secure the commitments that would be required to make the proposal one that financial houses would look upon with 50433-390J
Supply-Trade and Commerce favour. As I said a moment ago, it may be difficult to get a commitment that such and such will be done on such a date.
These are the key words:
We may have to be satisfied with a commitment that all efforts will be made to develop the market and that, when it reaches a certain quota, the commitment will then become an absolute obligation.
I do not think that is a very definite commitment, if that is all that is going to be required of this chosen instrument, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. It seems perfectly clear that these three schemes which are before the government are, first, a main line, all-Canadian, with a branch line to Minneapolis; second, the larger pipe line, allCanadian, with the excess sold to the eastern United States at Niagara. I believe that would serve northern Ontario and it would reduce the price of gas along the line because of the larger volume of gas carried, because of what they call the bigger through-put. It would be similar to the plan now in effect on the west coast, which is a pipe line from the Peace river portion of British Columbia and Alberta through central British Columbia, serving practically the whole of British Columbia except Vancouver island and possibly Vancouver island as well, with the excess going down into the northwestern states. This second plan would mean that the Canadian gas would be in Canadian hands all the way to Niagara and, of course, that all the gas needed in Canada would be kept under control of Canada at all times with the excess going to the United States.
The third plan, it is perfectly obvious from the Prime Minister's statement, is to export gas to the central states in large quantities; in other words, make that the main pipe line from Alberta and, presumably, not only to Minneapolis but to Chicago, and then down to Pennsylvania and throughout the Tennessee Gas Transmission Company system; and, on the other hand, to import United States gas for Ontario and Quebec.
That means, of course, that northern Ontario and the lakehead would be excluded. They will be out of luck for gas, certainly for five years, perhaps for seven, and probably for all time. The Prime Minister is hinting that the government will take some kind of guarantee from Trans-Canada Pipe Lines that when the southern Ontario and Quebec market has been built up, then they will construct the pipe line through northern Ontario. I can only point out to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the members from northern Ontario and from the lakehead-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Never mind about looking after northern Ontario. What about looking after British Columbia for a change?
6164	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Howard Charles Green: I am here as a Canadian member.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You are here as a Canadian troublemaker.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask you to have the minister withdraw that statement.


William Alfred Robinson: If the hon. member is aggrieved by the statement and thinks it would cause disorder in the house, I should think the minister would be glad to withdraw the statement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will withdraw it, certainly.


John Horace Dickey: These are the thick-skinned people who believe in the thrust and parry of debate. They like the thrust, but they do not like the parry.


Howard Charles Green: I do not mind what the senior member for Halifax said. He can say what he likes about me. I do point out, Mr. Chairman, that this third alternative is not a very good one for northern Ontario or for the lakehead-


Clarence Decatur Howe: No government statement has ever been made that warrants anything the hon. member has said. This is the kind of mischievous speech that is specialized in by the hon. member for Calgary South.


Howard Charles Green: The minister thinks this is a mischievous speech. I shall leave it to the other members of the house and the Canadian public to judge for themselves.


An hon. Member:: They judged in 1949.


Howard Charles Green: You don't know anything about it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That makes two of you.


Howard Charles Green: The first question I should like to ask the minister is this, and I hope he has changed his mind about declining to answer any questions. Why is this field not opened now to any other Canadian companies which are interested in undertaking this project? Here we have a project which the minister himself has pictured as one of tremendous importance to Canada, one which will mean the spending in this country of hundreds of millions of dollars and the employment of thousands of men, the development of industries and so on. Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited apparently are hesitating about going on with the job. Why must they be continued as the sole instrument for building this pipe line? I refer to the proceedings which took place in the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have all read those proceedings. Is this another filibuster my hon. friend is putting on? It is a very poor show.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Answer the questions.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He does not stop long enough. How can I answer questions when he is on his feet?


Howard Charles Green: All the minister has to do is answer my questions.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Rhetorical questions.


Howard Charles Green: During the discussion in the committee last year I asked Mr. Schultz some questions. He was vice-president of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. I am quoting from page 45. The hon. member for Calgary South had asked that question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You and the hon. member for Calgary South are a great pair.


Howard Charles Green: The answer was as follows:


Mr. Schultz:: Well, our experts have never
claimed that we needed any help in doing this job. I would not contemplate that a project of such national importance should receive less treatment than the set-up which interprovincial or any other important project has received in the way of sales tax and duty remissions. But even without that I do not think that we have to have it, because I think that we can make it work; and it all goes back to what we have always said: That this project would have three rough years, and that as we got a market built up, the project would be entirely economic and go along by itself.
Again at page 66 I was questioning him and I asked this:


Howard Charles Green: Do you believe that your original plan for a pipe line, without branches to the United States, would be an economic proposition? Mr. Schultz: Yes


Howard Charles Green: You have not changed your mind about that?


Jacob Schulz: Not since I was here three years ago.
Then the brokers were asked the same question or the representatives of the financial houses. Mr. Baldwin of Nesbitt, Thomson and Company Limited appeared before the committee and I asked him some questions.
I refer to page 81:


Howard Charles Green: You have heard the discussion today. Could you tell the committee what you consider it is possible to do or not to do in connection with financing this project?


Mr.   Baldwin@: Obviously, we have followed this project from its early beginnings, feeling very definitely that one of the greatest responsibilities of the investment houses of Canada is to bend every effort to find the capital needed to develop our national resources. We have been very much intrigued with that. I will not attempt to say to you more than that my firm, the people we are associated with and I personally believe very strongly that the money can be raised on a favourable basis for this project.

Mr. Natelson representing the New York financial houses was also questioned, and he gave evidence much to the same effect. But now there seems to have been a reversal of policy by this company and I ask the minister why the field should not be open to other companies.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman,-


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister answer that question?


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Just before he answers the question, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that I have been surprised at the patience of the minister. This pipe line has been handled by the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and it belongs to the Minister of Transport. I am surprised at the minister's patience. It is far greater than mine.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend started by reading a statement of policy stated by myself. He asked the Prime Minister if there was any change in that policy. The Prime Minister said no. He asked the Minister of Public Works, as Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce: "Has there been any change in policy?" The Minister of Public Works said no. Now he asks me if there is any change in policy and I will say no.


Mrs. Shipley:: Mr. Chairman,-


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, is there any reason why-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Timiskaming.


Marie Ann Shipley: I have the floor. I would not want it to be thought for a moment that it was necessary for the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra to speak on behalf of those from the lakehead or northern Ontario with respect to this subject. It just so happens that, it being a particularly virile part of the country, all the members from that area belong to this side of the house.
We have assured ourselves that the government is conscious of all of the things mentioned by the hon. member. Furthermore, we are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the cabinet is also conscious of the great importance of an all-Canadian line if it can be constructed economically.
But I think there is something that is forgotten, not only by some of those who have spoken in this chamber but by people who live in the areas most affected. It is that this project is of tremendous magnitude. I do not suppose there is any other single project as great as this one, with the possible exception
Supply-Trade and Commerce of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways; and quite naturally it must take time. No snap judgments can be made. I just wanted to assure the hon. member and other members of the committee that all the members from my particular part of Canada are following the negotiations and keeping in very close touch with them at all times.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister tell the committee whether there have been any negotiations between the government of Canada and the government of the United States concerning any plan to export Alberta gas to the United States and import United States gas into Ontario and Quebec?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The only negotiations along that line that I know of were conducted by the hon. member for Calgary South, who went to Washington in company with the United States vice-consul at Calgary, represented himself as a man of importance in this transaction, and had conversations with the state department and with the federal power commission. If my hon. friend would like information about that matter, perhaps he can ask the hon. member for Calgary South.


Howard Charles Green: From the minister's answer I take it that there have been no negotiations whatever.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Take it any way
you like.


Howard Charles Green: I beg your pardon?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said, take it any way you like.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, that is a high mark in courtesy by the minister.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. I have some questions.


William Alfred Robinson: On item 428 or item 429?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. The first item is not carried.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall item 428 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have some questions to ask. I did not know whether another hon. member wished to speak. I indicated some questions to the minister this afternoon. Will he deal, first of all, with the situation with regard to hardboard and the efforts in the United States to restrict imports thereof from Canada?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Clarence Decatur Howe: The position is that the bill introduced in their House of Representatives is, I believe, still in committee. Our representations have been made, and we are hopeful that there will be no change in the tariff on hardboard. But I cannot say more without attempting to forecast what congress will do in the future.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister bring us up to date on the matter of the measure before congress to simplify the United States customs administration?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot say as to that. I believe it has been reported out of committee. Whether it will be dealt with at this session I cannot say. I believe it has been dealt with in the Senate, but not in the house. I cannot be positive. Anyway, it is in the legislative mill.


Mr. Caslleden:: I have a general question on the picture for 1955 with regard to wheat exports. Comparing the figures for 1952, 1953 and 1954, I notice there has been a drop of about 40 per cent in the dollar value of Canadian exports of wheat. Flour exports are down about 22 per cent and barley about 40 per cent. What is the general picture for 1955?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Are we on the
wheat item? We finished the first item, did we not?


George Hugh Castleden: This is on the administration item.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think we have carried administration.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. My questions were on the first item. We are still on the first item.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why not wait until we get to the wheat item?


George Hugh Castleden: I would be willing to let it go until then. I have a few questions with regard to bacon and beef. I see they are not included in the first 20 items of Canada's exports. I should like to know whether the minister can give a statement as to what the picture is with regard to being able to win back our bacon market in the United Kingdom, or our market for beef.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The position as to bacon is that we sell our surplus to the United States at very much better prices than we can get in the United Kingdom. If my hon. friend knows of any exporters on the prairies who would like to take the United Kingdom price we could easily arrange to export their bacon to the United Kingdom.


George Hugh Castleden: Is the same true of beef?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The same is true with regard to beef.


John Borden Hamilton: I have one question for the minister. I am not exactly sure whether it comes within his department, but he can tell me if it does not. It has to do with engineering, and I know he is very interested in that.
A great deal of the engineering work on a large part of our chemical and petrochemical industries is being done in the United States. I think the minister has received correspondence about this problem. Has he given any thought at all to any plan which would enable us to keep our engineers in Canada doing this work? I understand that over the last four years about $20 million has been spent on engineering work in the United States in this line alone. I know it is something you cannot protect by tariffs, but is any thought being given as to how we might keep these people in Canada on this type of job?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As far as I know every engineer in Canada with a reputation has all the work he can handle, and most of our engineering firms are short of qualified men. I suppose the government is probably the largest employer of engineers in Canada. Engineers are picked up as they graduate from university and are given opportunities here that I think are quite equal to the opportunities they can obtain elsewhere. For occasional highly specialized work it is natural to go outside the country, because we have not the required type of experience in Canada, but I think where the type of experience is available in Canada the tendency of Canadian firms is to use Canadian engineers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trade commissioner service
[Stage Direction]
430.	Administration and operation, $2,855,438.
Thomas Miller Bell: Can the minister tell us what instructions, if any, are given to the trade commissioners and others overseas with respect to the use or selling of the use of Canadian ports for the handling of exports and imports of goods?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Goods moving to or from commonwealth countries must pass through Canadian ports in order to get the preference. That is a must. The arrangements in Canada are that unless there is a specific instruction by the shipper the goods are to be moved through Canadian ports. If the railroad does not have definite instructions otherwise it is instructed to use Canadian ports. Our trade commissioners, as part

of their course of instruction, are told to stress the importance of Canadian ports and, as a matter of fact, the bulk of our goods does move through Canadian ports. It is quite a change since the early thirties, when not much attention was paid to that sort of thing.


Thomas Miller Bell: With respect to the remark the minister has made, I think I should say I am not particularly finding fault with the fact that there has been some change since the thirties. I am simply saying that there is tremendous room for improvement in this respect, and I still think greater effort should be made by the department in this regard.


Mr. Nicholson:: I should like to express my appreciation to the minister for the work this branch is doing in making available information regarding the port of Churchill. A year ago the governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba produced a very interesting booklet telling about the possibilities of this new northern port. While our trade commissioners could not be expected to show any preference between Saint John, Halifax, or Montreal in advocating the use of Canadian ports, they have undertaken to display this valuable booklet in their overseas offices, and prospective shippers have access to copies of it. They are able to take advantage of the fact that shipping through Churchill to the prairie market does offer very real attractions. I should like to express my appreciation to the minister's department for the courtesy extended by the trade commissioners in Europe in making this booklet available to people who are exporting to this part of the world.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to ask the minister a question based on one or two sentences found on page 22 of the department's report for 1954, having to do with the Canadian trade commissioner service. Near the bottom of the page there is the following:
This branch must expand if it is to give continuing leadership in the extension of Canadian foreign trade and to render proper service as the eyes, ears, and sometimes the arms of Canadian business.
Later I read:
Constant attempts are being made to evaluate the trade possibilities of areas in which we are insufficiently represented; changes in world trade patterns may indicate the desirability and necessity of opening new offices . . .
Can the minister describe and illustrate to us the division of work and inquiry as between private enterprise, which is going to do the business eventually, and the department? In reading the details of the employment of the officers in the service, as set out on page 21, it would appear that they all seem to be employed in various specific
Supply-Trade and Commerce duties, and I should like to know more as to the method by which the leadership I referred to and the evaluation of trade possibilities in new areas is worked out in conjunction with private enterprise.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The trade commissioners are the people on the spot who act as the eyes and ears of Canadian business. A Canadian businessman going to a foreign country usually goes to the trade commissioner's office. There he is given the information he needs and the contacts he wishes to make are arranged. If he needs an interpreter that is arranged. Then when a trade commissioner returns to Canada he takes a tour across the country and visits the businessmen in every city to discuss trade possibilities in the area which he represents. I must say that it is rather unusual for a businessman to go abroad on a business trip without writing me on his return to Canada to extend special thanks to the trade commissioners who have made his business arrangements easy to develop.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think the minister has covered my question fully in respect of places where we now have trade commissioners. It seemed to me this implied that the department was reaching out beyond and exploring new areas. It was that particularly I wanted to ask him about.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, the evaluation work is headquarters work based on reports from the field. Returning businessmen come in and say what they need in the field. In other words, if they believe an area is not properly served they report that to headquarters. Last year we opened two new posts, one in Salisbury and the other in Copenhagen. This coming year we are asking that funds be provided to open four new offices. A good many factors have to be taken into account before the actual decision is arrived at, but we have certain points in mind that we believe warrant trade offices. It is quite probable that the locations presently in mind will be those finally chosen, although we are not too sure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish to repeat at this point something I said on this item in a previous session. It is by way of paying tribute to the quality of the men engaged in the trade commissioner service. The Department of Trade and Commerce, I believe, is one of the most fortunate of all departments in the senior officials it has in the department. The trade commissioner service is one of the government services that is manned by the best Canadians we have anywhere in our public service.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
I made mention of this on a previous occasion, based on contacts I had had with a number of trade commissioners in travels abroad up to that time. It happened that last summer several members of this house had occasion to travel through Africa after the commonwealth parliamentary conference at Nairobi in Kenya. Some of us met the Canadian trade commissioners at Capetown, Johannesburg and Cairo. There again one's impression of the quality of these men and the service they render was confirmed. I just wish to pay that tribute because these men are a long way from home. Sometimes they are in association with the Canadian diplomatic representatives and sometimes they are completely on their own. But from my observations I think-and I have now had the pleasure of seeing quite a number of them-they are very worthy representatives of Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should like to thank my hon. friend for that tribute. It is confirmed by my own impression gathered from travels about various parts of the world. Our men are very carefully selected graduates of universities. They are given a special course of training and then sent on tour before they are sent to the field. We believe they should have a thorough knowledge of Canadian business requirements before they go abroad. They are put under an experienced trade commissioner, and graduate from there into posts of their own.
I think it is a splendid service. I believe we are particularly fortunate in the younger men, and the older men as well, we have in the field. That is confirmed almost every week by letters from Canadians who have travelled abroad on business.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is one point of detail about which I should like to ask a question. As is natural, in most cases one finds the staff is either the same as it was before or higher. I notice that in Paris the staff is down three and also the expenses are down considerably. I wonder if that is just a rub of the green or whether there is some change in the business situation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We found there were so many restrictions on both exports to France and imports from France that prudence would indicate we did not require as large a staff there as we had had previously and therefore men were transferred to other posts. However, we have a very experienced trade commissioner in Paris, and he has a staff that we believe is adequate for the present.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Trade commissioner service-
431.	Acquisition or improvement of buildings, land, equipment, and furnishings, $100,000.
Donald Methuen Fleming: The particulars of this item of $100,000 on page 524 indicate that there is one item of $85,000 for the acquisition or improvement of buildings and land and another item of $15,000 for the acquisition of equipment, furniture and furnishings for residences abroad. Would the minister indicate just where the posts are at which those expenditures are to be made?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. We have found it necessary to buy a house for our trade commissioner at Kingston, Jamaica. There was absolutely no accommodation available, and the money we asked for will be sufficient to provide accommodation for one or two other posts where it is impossible to rent suitable accommodation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the breakdown of the amounts?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Madrid, Kingston, Leopoldville, Tokyo and Karachi.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Could we have the amounts in each place?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The amounts here are Madrid, $35,000; Kingston, Jamaica, $30,000; Leopoldville, $40,000; Tokyo, $40,000; Karachi, $35,000.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You are over the $100,000 now.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, but we do not expect to finish this program in one year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
432.	Information branch. $211,209.
Donald Methuen Fleming: This is the item for the information branch. In the detail on page 525, the fifth item from the end, there is an item for advertising in Canada and abroad which is to be increased from $28,000 last year to $78,000 this year. What is that for, and what accounts for this large increase?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are starting in again to advertise cheese in the United Kingdom. We have been slowly building a quality market for cheese there, and we believe that it is sufficiently developed now to warrant a real advertising campaign. We are also advertising flour and timber in the United Kingdom.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Do I understand the $78,000 is all to be expended in the United Kingdom?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Advertising in the United Kingdom, under the direction of the commercial counsellor, London, England, $15,000 as against $6,500 last year; advertising in directories, annuals and Canadian export

papers, etc., $4,500 as against $7,500 last year. The Canadian advertising is reduced. Advertising in special editions and supplementaries is also reduced from $6,000 to $4,000. Production and mechanical charges, $4,000, the same as last year; special promotional campaigns, $50,000. As I said this $50,000 is all for the United Kingdom. It is to be devoted to advertising in the United Kingdom of Canadian cheese, Canadian timber and Canadian flour.


George Hugh Castleden: Would that have anything to do with the resale of our recent import of
2,250,000	pounds of cheese from New Zealand?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a different quality cheese. That type of cheese is not available in Canada, and is not competitive with Canadian cheese. It was a small import of a special quality cheese.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like to ask the minister a question in connection with this item, as it refers to Colombo plan disbursements. As a member of parliament I find it difficult to get information regarding problems being encountered. What is being done? I understand Canada is doing something. Mr. C a veil has done a good job. But it is difficult to find out whether the Department of External Affairs, the Department of Agriculture or the minister's department is taking the responsibility for public information in these fields.
Would the minister indicate whether his department does take the responsibility for giving the Canadian people information regarding the job being done by those who are working on the plan. Would he also give information regarding the personnel who come to Canada for work in connection with our Colombo plan disbursements.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Responsibility for the administration of Colombo plan funds is that of the Department of Trade and Commerce. We will be reaching item 448, and could have the discussion at that time.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: My complaint is that that branch does not seem to have any information service. I suggest that at some point in the minister's department there should be an appropriation for information. During the war the minister had a very efficient information service to inform the Canadian people as to what was being done in the field of munitions and supply. If he is spending $26 million abroad, it appears to me more money should be spent in the field of information. I do not think it is possible under this item for $211,209 to do the sort of thing that ought to be done; and the
Supply-Trade and Commerce $26 million does not make provision for the dispersal of public information.
What money is being spent in the field? The minister should give consideration to having a fund set up either in his department or in the Department of External Affairs to deal with the problem of pubic information.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The information branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce co-operates with the information branch of the Department of External Affairs in handling matters of that kind. The Department of External Affairs has the responsibility for deciding the amount to be spent on various projects, and the administration is carried out by the Department of Trade and Commerce. Information is put out sometimes by one department and sometimes by the other. But we do not boast too much about our Colombo plan efforts.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That is an important point. My whole criticism is that when I ask the Department of External Affairs for information in connection with a problem being undertaken, and how we are spending the $26 million, they just pass the buck to the Department of Trade and Commerce. The Department of Trade and Commerce, in turn, is short-staffed. They have sent me some information, but they do not pretend to have the staff available to do a worth-while job in the field of public information. If we are going to spend $26 million we should spend enough to tell whether it is a worth-while project or not, and what is being done.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Department of Trade and Commerce is not primarily a propaganda department. However, I will give consideration to strengthening our public information service, with the thought that we might give more information concerning work connected with the Colombo plan.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
433.	Economics branch. $234,265.
Mr. Pallet!: I note that the expenditure this year is $59,387 greater than it was last year. Some economists have been added to the staff. Would the minister state what extra service is being rendered for the extra money he asks to have voted.
Clarence Decatur Howe: The history of this branch is that back in 1947, I believe it was, the Department of Trade and Commerce took over the work of the department of munitions and supply, and of the department of reconstruction. At that time we took over the economics branch of those departments. Certain engineering work was to be cleared up. It is a small branch but it has been a very useful one, particularly on projects such
8170	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce as pipe lines or projects requiring a combination of engineering and economics to make a proper study.
Mr. Pallet!: Is any work done as a result of private submissions to the branch? If a company were interested in a large private project, could information be obtained from the department through this branch as to the economic merits or otherwise of such project?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Any information available in the branch could be made available in connection with a private project. We are not consulting engineers, but the purpose of the department is to be of service to Canadian business and any service the department can render is rendered gladly to Canadian businessmen.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Do I understand the minister to say that the economics branch, and the 20 economists shown in the list, originally was a legacy from the department of munitions and supply?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, and also taken over from the department of reconstruction.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have one further question. I observe in the telephone directory that the economics branch is divided into economic forecasting and general analysis, under which ten names are listed, and also under the heading of industry analysis. What is the relationship between the economists shown in this department and those in the dominion bureau of statistics? Are there economists there, too.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are no
economists in the bureau of statistics; they are statisticians. Their work is that of collecting information and making it available to anyone desiring it. The purpose of the staff in the Department of Trade and Commerce is to make an analysis of that information, and to issue forecasts based upon information gathered by the bureau of statistics and through economic surveys. We think we have the strongest economic staff in the Dominion of Canada; I think so, anyway.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would not argue with the minister on that. But are there no economists as such in the bureau of statistics? Would the bureau of statistics admit there are no economists there?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The bureau has people with economics training but they are employed as statisticians. The bureau of statistics is not encouraged to do forecasting,


or to do other than present facts as disclosed to them by figures they collect.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Exhibitions-
435.	Exhibitions generally, $313,590.
Donald Methuen Fleming: In the details at page 528, after listing a number of individual trade fairs, there is an omnibus item for participation in other exhibitions, and there is an increase from $78,000 to $98,500. Could we have an explanation of the increase?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the answer is that having given up the international trade fair, the purpose is to do more and better work at exhibitions abroad. We think it is more productive so far as Canadian business is concerned. This item covers the exhibition at Berlin; we were in that last year. The amount is the same, $17,500. Hanover, $15,000, the same as last year; the French trade fair, $17,000, the same as last year; the Kansas City fair, $3,500, the same as last year; Japanese trade fair at Tokyo, $6,500, up from $5,000; United Kingdom exhibit, $22,000. That is a new item. Agricultural products show in the United Kingdom; we dropped that in favour of the United Kingdom exhibit. Then there is an "unforeseen" item which is the same as last year, $17,000. That is to enable the government to accept other invitations to participate in fairs if it is thought worth while.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does that make up the total of $98,500?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is one comment I should like to make on the subject of exhibits generally. I think all hon. members recognize that these trade fairs abroad do give an opportunity for the department to make Canada's products known. It is important that they be Canada's products. There is one fair abroad at which a number of fur garments were being exhibited in the Canadian space which, I am told on good authority, included a number of American garments.
I had occasion to say something about this.
I believe since that occasion some Canadian garments have been sent over there. These are all fur garments.
I raise this point now because I think it is so important that when Canada is taking advantage of the opportunity of sending exhibits to those trade fairs abroad we make very sure that these are strictly Canadian products that are being exhibited. I think

steps have since been taken to make sure that the garments exhibited were strictly Canadian products, but originally some of those exhibitors, who were asked to contribute fur garments to the exhibit, sent along some American imports and some French styles as well, apparently on the theory that European styles would have more appeal to Europeans at European trade fairs. I do not think that is the principal purpose. Rather the principal purpose of these exhibits, as I understand it, is to make Canada's wares known abroad.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, that is quite correct. However, I doubt whether there was an exhibit of American furs. I refer particularly to the fair at Brussels, where Canada has had the most spectacular exhibit both of furs and of textiles. As far as I know all the furs and textiles in that exhibit were Canadian. The catalogue was beautifully gotten up. I think it was partly paid for by the trade and partly by the department. The exhibit was moved on to other European cities later on. I am told that the results were rather spectacular as far as the sales of Canadian furs are concerned.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am in a position to tell the minister that in the original exhibit some garments of American manufacture and also French styles were included in the exhibit. Part of the exhibit at least was contributed by the trade; but when the matter was raised-I happen to know the occasion; it was about two months ago-steps were taken to put Canadian-made garments in their place. I raise it now because I am quite sure the minister was not aware of it. I am sure there is no wish in the department to see garments other than of strictly Canadian manufacture included in the Canadian exhibits in these trade fairs abroad.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The purpose of the exhibit of course is to help the Canadian fur trade. We arranged the facilities and the trade furnished the garments and the models, the exhibits generally. We shared in the cost of the catalogue and the exhibit space. It is possible, of course, that some of the Canadian exhibitors brought in foreign furs. That would be without the knowledge of the department. I must say that it looked very beautiful. I am not enough of a connoisseur to know which was Canadian and which was not.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Trade and Commerce
436.	Canadian participation in the Brussels universal and international exhibition 1958-preparatory expenses, $50,000.
Donald Methuen Fleming: At the bottom of page 528 there is an item as follows:
Brussels universal and international exhibition 1953-preparatory expenses.
Participation in Brussels universal and international exhibition, $50,000.
Is it necessary to set up $50,000 preparatory expenses three years in advance of this exhibition?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Brussels fair is a great world fair. We think there is no time to spare in getting the Canadian building up and the Canadian exhibit organized. I believe our appropriation for the fair is something over $2 million. We are actively at work in preparation for it today. The Brussels world's fair is going to be the biggest thing that has been held in Europe since the war. We think it important that Canada be well placed in the exhibit.
437.	Canadian international trade fair-to provide for the net operating deficit during the current fiscal year of the special operating account in the consolidated revenue fund; advances to be made to the account as required, but not to exceed in the aggregate, $275,000.


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak very strongly on behalf of continuing the international trade fair. I have some figures here which I would be glad to give to the minister, but I am sure he has the same figures. I have here a list of 48 foreign firms which exhibited at the trade fair between 1948 and 1953, which either have established or are in the process of establishing branch plants in Canada to manufacture their products in this country. There is no doubt about it that the great majority, if not all, of these firms learned of the potential Canadian market by first of all exhibiting their goods at this trade fair. There the potential buyers sampled these goods and decided whether they liked them and placed orders. If it had not been for that the firms certainly would never have thought of setting up branch plants here in Canada.
The establishment of 48 individual branch factories to produce goods in this country, which otherwise in all likelihood never would have been established here, is a very good advertisement for this trade fair. That in itself far more that justifies its continuance.
If 48 firms could be established through the fact that these firms were able to exhibit during six years, the indication is that more and more firms would be inclined to do the same thing if this fair were continued and additional foreign firms were able to come
6172	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce here to exhibit their wares, to find out what the market was in Canada for their goods. I should like to hear what the minister has to say about the possibility of this international trade fair being continued, and whether he has definitely decided to discontinue it. If so, will he give us the reasons for so doing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I gave a complete statement on the subject on Wednesday, June 8, at page 4530 of Hansard. Briefly, we felt that the trade fair has served its purpose. It was instituted immediately after the war to offer an opportunity for firms in other countries such as England, France and Belgium to establish their goods in the Canadian market, and also to examine the business opportunities in Canada.
I think the fair was a success from the start, though there was one year when there seemed to be some slipping away. I believe last year was also a successful year. I attended it. I think it was very well conducted; but it was quite obvious that some of the customers who had made the fair successful at first were no longer with us. The British exhibit was much smaller. There were a greater number of prestige exhibits from such countries as Czechoslovakia and other European countries that were never big traders in this market. There was also a falling off in the exhibits by Canadian firms.
I may say that some effort was exerted 'to get the larger Canadian firms to exhibit. I felt many of them were doing it reluctantly. It is the view of my officers, in which I concur, that it is better to wind up the fair when it is a success than carry it on for a year or two and wind it up as a failure. That is the decision that has been taken, and that decision cannot be changed. There is an item of $100,000 to clean up the accounts of the fair, and that will be the last appearance of any item for the international trade fair.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman,
I think there have been statements made about placing the facilities which have been accumulated by the government in connection with the fair at the disposal of either the municipality of metropolitan Toronto or the provincial government. I wonder if the minister might confirm that some such arrangement as that might be made, if either of those two authorities wished to carry on this fair.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, I made that offer in the house. If either authority wishes to carry it on we shall be glad to turn the appurtenances over to them.


John Borden Hamilton: Would the minister answer just one more question. Did he 

receive any representations by any groups of people at all to have the fair discontinued?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, there were no formal representations. I talked with a number of individuals, and my officers did the same. A thorough survey was made of Canadian business before we reached the decision. The decision was arrived at as a result of conferences with a great number of individuals. We have had no official representations from any organized body.


John Borden Hamilton: In connection with the minister's undertaking about the physical facilities, is there a chance that the services of some of the people who have been formerly employed full time on this project may be made available to the other authorities who might carry this on, or will they be discontinued completely by the dominion government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, the senior officers who operated the trade fair are officers of the government in the exhibitions branch. Their services will be used in trade fairs elsewhere, perhaps some at the world's fair at Brussels and others at various exhibitions throughout the world.


John Borden Hamilton: Would their technical assistance still be available to either the province or the municipality that is prepared to carry on?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would not like to make any decision on a question of that sort. If a specific case were put up we would try to be helpful. I would not like to promise at this time any particular help.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Chairman, would the minister tell us this? Are the items in the estimates for 1955-56 in respect of the trade fair just completed, which ran from the end of May to the 10th of June; or are they in respect of a trade fair which might have been contemplated at the time of the preparation of the estimates, to be held in 1956?


Clarence Decatur Howe: These items cover everything that takes place in the current fiscal year, from the 1st of April this year to 31st of March next year. As the fair was held in that period, the cost of the fair is probably included.


William McLean Hamilton: The
point I have in mind is that perhaps the minister might want to give some consideration to some reduction in certain of these amounts. I am not attempting to argue here that I am at all pleased to see the end of the Canadian international trade fair, because I am not. If the government, as the minister

has indicated, has made that decision, then I think they should approach this particular situation from the viewpoint of sound business people.
When we look at this statement which we have in front of us, we find that in the period 1954-55, when presumably the trade fair was looked upon as being on a continuing basis and the staff would be kept at a constant level, they provided $138,000 in the form of salaries. In the current year, when presumably the trade fair is beginning to drop off to nothing and the staff is being steadily reduced, the estimates show $134,000. When we come down to the other expenditures in connection with the trade fair we find such things as travelling expenses, which were $26,800 in 1954-55, almost the same at $23,200. We find $55,000 in both years for publications. We find $177,000 last year and $182,000 this year for promotional activities, and so on right down the list.
I suggest it must be obvious that the trade fair of this year now being over, and there being no anticipated trade fair for next year, one would expect some sizeable reductions in these expenditures. I should be grateful if the minister would indicate to the house what it is proposed to do about this, because it is hardly right that he should come here and ask for sizeable sums of money which he has no intention of using.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend is quite correct. These estimates were prepared early in the year and included the usual expenditures for the international trade fair. The decision to drop the fair was taken on the 8th of June. The money will not all be used this year, but until we get the fair liquidated it is difficult to know just how much we shall require. Of course there will be some considerable revenue from the fair, which will go directly to the receiver general, but there will probably be quite a large unexpended balance of this amount owing to the fact that the fair is not being held next year.


William McLean Hamilton: have another question, Mr. Chairman. Have we not $100,000 in the supplementary estimates in connection with the Canadian international trade fair?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, I understand that there is no item. I mentioned $100,000 as being the amount that is likely to be spent in cleaning up this account, which probably is the item we would have put in had we known the fair was going to close.


William McLean Hamilton: In
the interest of a sound approach to government business, has the minister considered reducing his requests in the estimates for
Supply-Trade and Commerce the Canadian international trade fair? I do not know how the minister feels about it, but it gives me pause to be asked to approve estimates when I know, and have the word of the minister as well, that it is not intended to use the money.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think it would be hardly worth while. The money is expended only under treasury board authorization, even though it is in the estimates. It can be used only for a specific purpose, for the Canadian international trade fair. No one knows just how much will be required to liquidate the fair.


William McLean Hamilton: You
just said $100,000.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That was my guess. I do not know whether that is right or not; it is out of the air. Since this is the last time the item will appear I think it might as well go through as is.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the item carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the subject of revenue was mentioned. At the bottom of page 529 the estimated revenue during the fiscal year is shown as $535,000. I presume the minister is now in a position to give us the exact amount of revenue yielded by the fair, or a close approximation of it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The accounts are not quite complete, but it will be in the vicinity of $520,000.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No more than that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The fair is running at a deficit.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Apparently you are not
going to equal the estimated minimum revenue.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Space was down a bit this year. That is one of the factors that decided us to close the fair.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion bureau of statistics-
441. Administration, $238,103.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I should just like to say a word or two about the dominion bureau of statistics. These estimates are about the only place we have to pay the kind of tribute to which some of these excellent services are justly entitled.
I do not suppose there is any government service that ranks more highly both in Canada and beyond Canada in this field than does the dominion bureau of statistics. It has been headed by eminent men who have set a standard, and on the staffs have been highly

Supply-Trade and Commerce competent men and women who have contributed greatly to the maintenance of the standard that has been set. The bureau is growing. Its work becomes more diversified all the time, but the quality of excellence continues. I felt I should like to say that word on this item.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Could I just say a word also, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the tribute that has been paid. I think that in Herbert Marshall we have one of the great statisticians of the world. He has been president of nearly every statistical association in the world, and recently he was made president of the inter-American statistical institute that met in Rio de Janeiro this year. He has a tremendous reputation, as had his predecessors. I think I can say that the statistical branch of this government is recognized around the world as one of the top organizations of its kind. We receive many requests for the loan of senior officers to set up statistical organizations in other countries. I am extremely proud of our organization.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. member for Eglinton. I think in another year the minister or his parliamentary assistant might arrange for an official visit to the bureau by members of parliament. Some of his colleagues, such as the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of National Defence from time to time arrange for us tours that are most interesting. I cannot think of any more interesting half day than one spent over at the bureau. I have been there myself, but I hesitate to take the time of the staff to show one person around when it would be possible to conduct a larger group.
I think it is a great pity that, when such an expensive building was being constructed, provision was not made to have it air conditioned. I know the Minister of Public Works must take the final responsibility for that, but when this sort of service is being given twelve months of the year I think some exnlanation should be given as to why a modern building such as the bureau was not air conditioned. I wonder whether the minister can explain why that mistake was made.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As far as I know, Mr. Chairman, the members of the House of Commons are the only servants of the people in Ottawa who are entitled to air conditioning. It is a rule of the government that there is no air conditioning in Ottawa. It was therefore not thought wise to put air conditioning in the bureau.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I can quite understand that rule at the time of confederation but surely, in 1950, that is a rule that should not be observed any longer. I think it is a frightful waste of public funds to have civil servants expected to do an efficient day's work in the city of Ottawa in the sort of climate we have had here for the last two weeks. I do not think it would be very expensive to air condition some of these buildings. I suggest that the minister discuss with his colleagues the changing of this Victorian idea that air conditioning is unnecessary.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I might say that I am a Victorian. I subscribe to the idea that we can get along without air conditioning in the city of Ottawa, which is in the northerly direction. We usually have our share of cooler weather.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are many people in this country working without air conditioning.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: If the private firms in Ottawa, such as Loblaws and the department stores, are finding that it pays good dividends to air condition their buildings, surely the government of Canada would find that it is much cheaper and better all round to make it possible for their large number of civil servants to be able to do a decent day's work under respectable working conditions. I am sure many of the departments have been obliged to allow their staffs to go home at four o'clock in the afternoon, or an hour earlier than usual, because it was impossible to do efficient work. The cost of air conditioning nowadays is a very small item compared with the total cost of a building such as the bureau.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to say just a word in support of what the hon. member for Eglinton said about the constant courtesy and-what is perhaps just as important

the promptness and efficiency that one meets in connection with inquiries addressed to the dominion bureau of statistics. Although this might be slightly irrelevant, in addition I should like to point out that the head of the bureau is a graduate of Queen's University.
I also want to point out to the minister that he gave me an inaccurate piece of information earlier in the evening when I asked him if there were no economists in the dominion bureau of statistics. I want to tell him that I note that nine or ten have crept in. If he looks at page 534 he will find that they are there. I hope their work will be no worse because of the fact that they are economists.


Mr. Monieilh:: I wonder whether the minister can tell us why the increase in the amount for the services of the corps of commissionaires. For the last two years it has been about $2,000. This year it is up to $10,187.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The explanation is that in earlier years it was the policy for the R.C.M.P. to pay for protection in all public buildings. More recently the policy provides that where protection is provided exclusively for one department, the cost of the protection is borne by that department. There is an increase this year in the cost to the Department of Trade and Commerce. There will be a corresponding reduction in the cost to the R.C.M.P.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
443. Census, 953,002.
Mr. Regier:: Can the minister tell us how soon we might have the complete census reports of the year 1951? I understand that Canada is to have a partial census taken again next year. I find the census reports to be of great value. I am just wondering how long it will be until we can have the last reports of the 1951 census?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As my hon. friend knows if he is a student of statistics, there are many volumes of statistics and they are put out in the order of importance. I would have thought they had all been completed by now. I am rather surprised to hear that they have not been completed, but I shall make inquiries. I would say that if they have not been completed they shortly will be.


Mr. Palleii:: I should like to ask the minister the extent to which the quinquennial census of 1956 will go. In other words, will it be as complete as the 1951 census? If not, what will be left out of it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It will be a greatly simplified census, mainly a count of the population. The important purpose of the quinquennial census is to count the population but certain important data about agriculture is also collected. Those are the two items that will be covered by the census.
Mr. Pallet!: Is it necessary to duplicate the expense? What is the function of the dominion bureau of statistics? Could you not get the same information from the bureau?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not possible to take a census of that kind by sample or by interpolation. It has been done in the past, but we had a demand from a number of provinces for an accurate five-year census
Supply-Trade and Commerce and we are taking it. The basic reason is that Canada's population growth has been making records. It is expected that between 1951 and 1956 the population will have increased by 2 million or more. Annual estimates can only be made with adequate accuracy for the provinces and Canada as a whole. A considerable movement of people within provinces has accompanied this rapid increase in population. For example, the area of metropolitan districts has expanded enormously. Such movements create heavy demands on municipalities and provincial governments for services such as roads, schools, waterworks, fire protection, etc. Some provincial governments provide assistance to municipalities on a per capita basis. The only way of obtaining an accurate measurement of these shifts is through a census.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Chairman, it is now after ten o'clock.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have one question on this item-


George Hugh Castleden: It is after ten o'clock.


Jay Waldo Monteith: -if the minister would care to answer it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly, I
would be glad to.


George Hugh Castleden: Ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: It has been formally drawn to the attention of the Chair that it is ten o'clock. The proceedings from now on are entirely in the hands of the committee itself.


George Hugh Castleden: I understand the committee can only continue by unanimous consent. Standing order No. 7.


Mr. Harris:: Mr. Chairman, we discussed this last night and I said then and I repeat now that I think it is the almost unanimous desire of all members of the house that we take some extra time to consider estimates when there is apparently the prospect that they might be considered and disposed of. After last evening I spoke to the hon. member for Yorkton, who admittedly makes a point when he says we worked overtime last night and propose working overtime on Saturday; but it does seem to me that if he will give consideration to the matter he will see that it will not be possible to wind up the session within a few days-I do not want to put a time limit on it-unless we take a little more time in the evenings and extra time on Saturday.
I notice that my colleague has progressed through what appears to be a good deal more than half of the items in his estimates since

Supply-Trade and Commerce 2.30 this afternoon, and I think the house has probably assisted him considerably in that. It seems to me that with a little more time we can perhaps complete these items tonight. While I know the hon. member for Yorkton may not be the only one who does not want to sit past ten o'clock, I would ask him to consider whether he could not let us continue tonight.


George Hugh Castleden: I appreciate the minister's remarks, but I would point out to him that we have still to deal with the census, the Canada Grain Act and other items which may take us considerably past eleven o'clock.


Walter Edward Harris: I do not think I would ask the house to sit past eleven o'clock.


George Hugh Castleden: If you keep on going you never know when you are going to stop. I suggest that we had better abide by the rules of the house if hon. members are going to have to start at eleven o'clock in the morning, sit until ten o'clock at night and sit on Saturday as well. I have no intention of yielding on the point. There is not unanimous consent, and I call the attention of the chairman to the fact that it is ten o'clock. I refer him to standing order No. 7 which provides for the cessation of the consideration of business at that time to continue on the following day.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think what is happening here is of real importance. Either we have rules or we do not. What is happening here is that we are getting into a situation where a majority is bearing down on a minority. That is what is happening. Let us be quite honest about it. I understand the rules may not be abandoned without unanimous consent. If we want to abandon them and put the matter in the hands of a large majority, that is one thing. That is what is happening now. That is what happened last night, and that is what the Minister of Finance is trying to do tonight. I concede there is a large majority, many of whom may not have been here for much of the time during the day, and the minister is trying to get that majority to break the rule. That is what I think we are facing.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: It being ten o'clock, shall I report the resolutions?


Walter Edward Harris: Before you do that, Mr. Chairman, may I point out that nothing I have done would indicate that I was going to ask the majority to bear down on the minority. On more occasions than one during this session I have seen to it that the minority got privileges in the House of Commons, and I am surprised that the hon. member for Greenwood would think otherwise, particularly the hon. member for Greenwood.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not want to start a debate. I am not saying what I would do if the minister asked me whether I would agree. I am just trying to point out what I think is happening with respect to what I understand is a very definite rule of the house. Last night it was pretty badly bent and it is going to be bent tonight because what is happening, I submit, is that a majority, a very large majority, I admit, is really destroying that rule.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Never mind that.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Could we have the program for tomorrow?


Walter Edward Harris: After the resolutions have been reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported, read the second time and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall continue with trade and commerce and then take defence production and national health and welfare.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:
department of national defence Defence services-
236.	To provide for the Canadian forces, the defence research board and other expenditures relating to defence, including contributions toward the military costs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; to authorize expenditures in the current year out of the amount hereby provided not exceeding $175,000,000, under the provisions of section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, and to provide that, notwithstanding subsection (3) of that section, where equipment or supplies acquired by the Canadian forces after March 31, 1950, are transferred, the estimated present value thereof shall, if the governor in council so directs, be credited to this vote instead of being paid into the special account mentioned in the said subsection (3), and when so credited may be expended for the purposes of the Canadian forces; and notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act to authorize total commitments for the foregoing purposes of $4,269,726,540 regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $2,443,441,346 will come due for payment in future years), $1,729,285,194.
General services-
237.	Grants to military associations, institutes and others, as detailed in the estimates, $248,975.
233. War museum, $25,050.
Pensions and other benefits-
239.	Civil pensions, as detailed in the estimates, $2,977.

240.	To authorize in respect of members of the Royal Canadian Air Force on leave without pay and serving as instructors with civilian training organizations operating under the British commonwealth air training plan who were killed, payment to their dependents of amounts equal to the amounts such dependents would have received under the Pension Act, as amended, had such service as instructors been military service in the armed forces of Canada, less the value of any benefits received by such dependents under insurance contracts which were effected on the lives of such members of the Royal Canadian Air Force by or at the expense of the civilian organizations, $4,140.
241.	Government's contribution to the permanent services pension account, $40,114,164.

[Stage Direction]
General administration-
428.	Departmental administration, $636,295.
429.	Commodities services, including fees as detailed in the estimates, the expenditure for these not to exceed the amounts shown unless otherwise approved by treasury board, $672,391.
Trade commissioner service-
^ 430. Administration and operation. $2,855,438.
431.	Acquisition or improvement of buildings, land, equipment and furnishings, $100,000.
432.	Information branch, $211,209.
Supply
433.	Economics branch, $234,265.
434.	International trade relations branch, including a fee of $6,300 to the international customs tariffs bureau, $136,635.
Exhibitions-
435.	Exhibitions generally, $313,590.
436.	Canadian participation in the Brussels universal and international exhibition 1958-preparatory expenses, $50,000.
437.	Canadian international trade fair-to provide for the net operating deficit during the current fiscal year of the special operating account in the consolidated revenue fund: advances to be made to the account as required, but not to exceed in the aggregate, $275,000.
Standards branch-
438.	Administration, including the standards laboratory and administration of the Precious Metals Marking Act, $197,164.
439.	Electricity and gas inspection services, $740,063.
440.	Weights and measures inspection services, $794,841.
Dominion bureau of statistics-
441.	Administration, $238,103.
442.	Statistics, including membership fee of $3,150 to the inter-American statistical institute, $5,275,113.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, July 15, 1955