1958-07-19

Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the annual report of the Canadian wheat board for the crop year ended July 31, 1957, which was tabled on May 12, 1958, together with the report of the board of grain commissioners for 1957 which was tabled on the same date, be referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to inform the house about the results of the discussions held in Washington by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and more particularly whether he can confirm the report in the press that the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that one of the objectives of Canadian policy was to persuade those nations concerned, in this case the United States and the United Kingdom, that there should be no movement from Jordan against Iraq.
Right Hon* J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): There is really nothing I can tell the house at this time that would be of any assistance. Yesterday, as everyone knows, the Secretary of State for External Affairs discussed the situation at great length with both the British foreign secretary, Mr. Lloyd, and the Secretary of State of the United States, Mr. Dulles. In consequence, following those discussions, he is meeting this morning -I think the meeting is under way now- with Mr. Hammarskjold. What passed yesterday will be brought to Mr. Hammarskjold's attention, to the end that every effort will be made to bring about the amelioration of the very grave situation that prevails at the moment.
57071-3-153
So far as the United Nations is concerned, as you know the present position is that all three resolutions failed of adoption, that is those submitted by the United States, the U.S.S.R. and Sweden. At the conclusion of the sitting the delegate for the United States moved that an emergency session of the United Nations general assembly be called. However, that has not yet been decided upon finally, and the United Nations security council will meet again on Monday.
I think I might add that the endeavour of the Secretary of State for External Affairs on behalf of Canada is to assure that while the matter is still in a state of flux, no step be taken whatsoever which would extend any possible action by any nation beyond the boundaries of Jordan or Lebanon. I think that is as far as I would like to go at this time. I can tell the house that every effort is being made by the Canadian government to make its contribution to the end that the serious situation may be, if not solved, at least greatly diminished in its danger and peril.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have a supplementary question. I know the government is in close touch with the government of the United Kingdom on this matter. Would it not be desirable to have a full exchange of views, if that has not already been done, with other members of the commonwealth with regard to this crisis?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: In so far as other members of the commonwealth are concerned, there are available to the Department of External Affairs and to the government the views of several of the nations making up the commonwealth. Their views are known to this government, and they are also known to the other members of the commonwealth.


SHIPPING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is he in a position this morning to report on the strike of the Black Ball ferries linking the mainland of British Columbia and the island of Vancouver?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Michael Siarr (Minister of Labour):: I had hoped to have a report this morning to give to the house. However, I regret that I am not in a position to do so except to say that very active consideration is being given to this matter. I hope to have something to say about it on Monday and to make a report to the house.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. Is any consideration being given to additional air facilities from the mainland to the island, as I suggested yesterday?


Michael Starr: I have checked into that situation and find that at the moment the facilities are adequate in that respect.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
inquiry as to payments under tax-sharing

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gaie):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether there has been any revision in the payments made to the provinces under the tax-sharing arrangement as a result of the new population estimates that were published the other day. If so, would the minister be willing to give the amount of the instalment paid to each province in July in the same manner as it was given for the first three months of the current fiscal year?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: If my hon. friend had indicated that he was going to ask this question I could have brought the figures with me. I will bring them to the house the first of the week.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That will be very satisfactory.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I now have the figures for which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked in regard to the scale of fiscal payments to the provinces. May I say that the payments to the provinces under the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act have been recalculated for July on the basis of the budget estimates for 1958-59 and the new population estimates issued by the dominion bureau of statistics.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, as these are rather extended figures it might meet the wishes of hon. members if they were placed on Hansard without my reading them now. I have indicated in three columns first of all the final estimate for 1957-58, the preliminary estimate for 1958-59, which was used, and now the revised estimate for 1958-59.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That would be quite satisfactory as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to ask the minister whether these figures include payments under the Atlantic provinces grants, or are they the tax-sharing figures only?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, these embrace the payments under the Atlantic provinces adjustment grant and are the total payments being made under the provisions of the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that this table be incorporated in the minister's answer in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For figures above referred to, see appendix "A" to Hansard for Monday, July 21, 1958, page 2513.]


DEFENCE PRODUCTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Defence Production when he expects that copies in French will be available of the report of Canadian Arsenals Limited which was tabled on June 27, and that of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation which was tabled the same day?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, we expect to have the French report about the middle of the week.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked me if my department had made an investigation into the administration of the Bedford naval magazine in Nova Scotia. No such investigation has been made, nor do I know of any reason why an investigation should be made. Perhaps the hon. member might like to suggest what he wants investigated.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I was not suggesting that I wanted any investigation. I was just expressing curiosity and asking the question for information.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister say whether he has yet received the final report as a result of the conference held in Ottawa this week on winter unemployment? If so, can he tell the house the recommendations in the report, and what the government contemplates in that regard?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have not received all the reports. I have received three reports in preliminary form but not in final form. One of the committees has not submitted any report as yet.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I
ask the Minister of Labour if he could tell the house whether or not a record of the proceedings of the recent conference of management, labour and the provincial governments will be made available to this house? I understand there was a verbatim account taken of the discussions and that there is some question as to whether or not the record of proceedings will be made available to the public. Could the minister inform the house whether we will be able to have the record of the full discussions which took place at the conference, particularly with respect to unemployment?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I say that the conference was participated in not only by the federal and provincial governments and by labour, but there were other groups involved. However, I will take the hon. member's question into consideration and investigate the possibility of complying with his request.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I had hoped you could deal with this matter now.



LETTER TO LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION FROM TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Could he tell me whether the generally well-informed officers of his department are not aware of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is my colleague, Hon. Lester B Pearson, and not Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, as this letter emanating from his department, and which I will send over to him, would indicate?
57071-3-153J
Supply-Trade and Commerce PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS



CENTRE BLOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture and several other hon. members to ask whoever is the Acting Minister of Public Works if, in the absence of the minister himself, he would see if something could be done to improve the mechanical efficiency of one of the elevators in this building.

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



DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
391. Departmental administration, $739,086.
The Chairman:: Vote 391, page 73 of the blue book, details at page 512. Shall the item carry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There was a question I asked the minister yesterday to which he has not replied. Perhaps he would care to answer it now. It was in connection with the proposal reported to have been made in December at the NATO council meeting and again at the defence ministers' meeting in April in regard to a NATO food pact, and the reference by the United States ambassador when he was before the congressional committee in Washington to the effect that the Canadian government had made no detailed proposals of any kind and that they were waiting to hear from the Canadian government before they could express their views.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A proposal for establishing a food bank has been made on several occasions during the last 12 years. When hon. gentlemen opposite were in power they had this matter under consideration. If there is general agreement among the NATO nations that a food bank should be established, Canada is quite prepared to play her part in that type of development.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That does not quite deal with my question. Would the minister comment on the statement of the United States government that the Canadian government has made no detailed proposal in NATO, and that without receiving further details regarding the Canadian proposal it is impossible to tell how it might fit into NATO planning. I mention this because so much was made of it in the house last autumn after the council meeting in Paris, and also because the Minister of National Defence made a public statement about it after he got back in April.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Gordon Minto Churchill: If the Leader of the Opposition is referring to something in the nature of a formal presentation to the NATO organization, which I presume he has in mind, my understanding has been that it was discussed informally at that meeting in Paris. Responsibility rests also with other nations in the NATO group, not solely with Canada. The proposal was put forward; if it is not acceptable to other NATO countries it is a little difficult to proceed in the matter. My own understanding is that the matter is still under review, and that ways and means are being considered for the establishment of a food bank which in times of crisis and emergency would certainly be of great assistance to countries that may be in danger.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In view of the fact that Canada has more to gain from this proposal than perhaps any other NATO country, will the government take the initiative in putting this proposal formally before the NATO council as was suggested by the United States ambassador when he was in Washington in the testimony before the committee which I have just mentioned? It is one thing to have informal conversations, as the hon. gentleman knows; it is quite something else to put a formal proposal before the NATO council for inclusion on the agenda of the council for consideration and possible action.


Hazen Robert Argue: We in this group are exceedingly interested in the whole question of a food bank for NATO countries, or for that matter in an international world food pool as has been suggested in this house from time to time. I think the whole question of a food bank in Europe is one that should be given full support in this house. I remember Lieutenant General Guy Simonds making the statement that if we had a food bank of wheat in Europe instead of the CF-105 the expenditure in his opinion, would have been more worth while.
I am wondering if there has been any discussion among the NATO countries as to whether some of the money Canada now spends on armaments might be transferred to an account for the establishment of such an emergency reserve of food, in the belief that by doing so we would be making a contribution to defence even more adequate than the contribution we are now making.
Certainly we support wholeheartedly the idea of a food reserve for NATO countries. We go one step further and say there should be an international food pool so that people in deficit food producing areas may be saved from the pangs of starvation by getting surpluses from the surplus producing countries where those surpluses, incidentally, cause a great strain on food prices.


George Randolph Pearkes: Perhaps I could throw a little light on the subject, as I attended the defence ministers' conference in Paris in April, where I made on behalf of the government of Canada the offer and proposal that a food pool should be established in Europe in order that there might be held certain stocks of flour, wheat and other commodities which could be used in the event of an outbreak of hostilities. At that meeting the whole matter was referred to the permanent council. Various questions have been asked since regarding the cost and the method of storing and packaging this material. The whole subject is now being investigated by the permanent group of the NATO.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the minister could say when the discussions may reach a point where a decision is likely to be made. I am sure that with such important discussions in progress the minister has some general idea as to when the discussions may terminate, a conclusion be arrived at, and the conclusion either accepted or rejected.


George Randolph Pearkes: 1 could not possibly forecast as to when other people will arrive at a decision in this matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Chairman, the
Minister of National Defence has given us rather different information than that which we secured from the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I suggest it might be well for the government, then, to take the matter up with the United States government because of the wrong impression which must have been given-inadvertently, of course-by the United States ambassador to Canada in the hearings before the foreign relations committee of the United States Senate. I quote from those hearings, as I quoted from them yesterday. The ambassador said:
.-the Canadian government has made no detailed proposal in NATO or to the United States government that such a bank be established-
He went on to say that the government of the United States-
-will of course be glad to consider any detailed proposals which may be made in NATO by our Canadian friends.
The Minister of National Defence said that such a detailed proposal has been made, and perhaps it would be desirable to clear this matter up with the United States government and get that government to consider it, because of this indication of its willingness to do so.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, possibly I could say a word in this connection. I brought this matter before the NATO council in the month of December as a proposition

that deserved the attention of the nations joined together on behalf of freedom. In so far as an international food bank is concerned, or a food pool, it is obvious that the achievement of such an organization is impossible. It has been considered over and over again at FAO meetings. One who has made a very detailed study of the subject and has made the strongest representations to the FAO is Mr. Hannam, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I received from him the detailed study he had made of the subject, and presented it in a general way to the NATO council in Paris in December.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Was this a formal proposal made to the NATO council by the Prime Minister?


John George Diefenbaker: I am coming to that. In the light of subsequent events, I think the stand I took at that time was a reasonable and necessary one to take. I pointed out the fact that the U.S.S.R., while pretending at all times to have no aggressive purposes, was building up a very large submarine fleet. Submarine fleets are not built up for defence. The U.S.S.R. has some 570 submarines whose purpose-this is more than inference on the basis of previous experience with nations which went in for submarine activity-would be in large measure to paralyse food reserves and by bringing about a state of famine achieve indirectly or psychologically what it might not be able to attain militarily.
The suggestion was made knowing that there was no possibility of attaining an international organization and having regard to the fact that FAO, with the tension of the international situation in the last several years and being composed of others in addition to the freedom-loving nations, could not hope to attain any success in this direction. It was brought up on that occasion not in a formal way but as one of those things that deserved consideration and discussion. Nothing was presented in a formal way at that meeting of the 15 heads of the various NATO countries. The discussions were informal, the purpose being an exchange of ideas and ultimately, in consequence of the discussions, the making of fuller representations.
The Minister of National Defence did so, as he has already stated, and it is not for me to enter into any discussion of statements made by ambassadors of friendly countries. But I can say that the matter is under consideration, and I think the events of the last two weeks underline the necessity of action in this regard.
When I brought the matter to the attention of the NATO meeting I pointed out that the establishment of such a food bank was possible, was in my opinion necessary and was
Supply-Trade and Commerce one of those things that might be done under article 2 which for so long received so little attention by the NATO organization. It would achieve two purposes. First, it would remove the overhanging surpluses that today have a detrimental effect on agriculture in general. Second, it would bring about a degree of security in defence in that it would make food supplies available to the countries in Europe which, if left to themselves, would have difficulty in increasing their output of agricultural products to the degree necessary to provide reasonable and proper sustenance in those countries.
Now that most realize that NATO preserved the peace in the last several years and that its defences have been such as to make the countries represented in NATO reasonably secure against the danger of aggression, in my opinion a further step is necessary. Certainly what is happening now gives added emphasis to the need that we do something to assure that if conditions change and defence measures become necessary for survival, a food bank will be available. If war breaks out one can only hope that the merchant fleets will be able to operate. Beyond that one cannot go. Because of that I think what is happening today in the Middle East and the gravity of the world situation will give added emphasis to the need of action in this connection.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I believe the Prime Minister has made an important statement, and we hope that every effort he makes toward the establishment of a food bank among the NATO countries in Europe will meet with success. In addition to having made certain general comments at the meeting of the NATO heads of state as well as the more detailed discussion by the defence minister, I think the Canadian government should consider making a concrete offer to the NATO countries, since without question we are one of the countries that would be called upon to supply a very large part of the food going into any such food bank. Interested as we are in moving surpluses from this country and putting purchasing power into the economy, as well as providing this kind of reserve in case of an emergency whether brought about by conflict of arms or by very bad crops such as France had some time ago, we think this is a good idea.
I suggest to the Prime Minister that it would be an imaginative step on his part, the kind of step that might result in concrete action, if Canada would say to the NATO countries something like this. We have 100 million bushels of wheat that we will put into a NATO food pool now. We are prepared to supply it, and if necessary we are prepared to pay the cost of it now. In

Supply-Trade and Commerce addition, I think Canada should put a price tag on the wheat at a level that would give our wheat producers a reasonable return.
In my opinion that is a very sensible idea. It is time something was done through food pools and other actions to increase the price of wheat or the whole wheat economy of western Canada will suffer further deterioration. Therefore I suggest that the Prime Minister should offer the NATO countries 100 million bushels of wheat at a price of $2 a bushel.
Now, there may be snickers from the occupants of the benches behind the Prime Minister, but I do not believe the $200 million involved is an expenditure we should immediately reject because of its size as being something entirely impossible. There is another way this amount may be provided, and that is to say to the NATO countries: If you feel that such a food pool is important perhaps part of our defence expenditures now made for the purchase of other items could be used for the purchase of such a quantity of grain.
When we are discussing a regional food bank for emergency purposes. I would suggest to the Prime Minister that there are even stronger reasons for providing a food bank for the Colombo plan countries. That is an area where starvation is always close at hand. That is an area where people require the surplus food we have in this country. I feel that Canada should go even farther than she has gone in providing such assistance to Colombo plan countries.
I do not believe the economic strain on the Canadian nation would be on a level that might suggest itself at first sight to people who are not conversant with the grain industry. The Prime Minister knows that many millions of bushels of wheat have been held in storage in this country for four, five or perhaps even six years. The government is now paying very substantial sums towards the cost of storage of this grain, and in these estimates there is over $40 million for that purpose. The worst thing you can do with wheat is to keep it on hand for five or six years. The storage or carrying charges eat up most of the value of the wheat and you have lost it in an economic sense, though you still have the wheat on hand. It would have been much more economic for this country if the former administration had provided by way of gifts, paid for out of the national treasury, substantial quantities of wheat. The cost to the Canadian economy would not have been any greater.
I would suggest to the Prime Minister that in addition to these general discussions, Canada should make some concrete offer, and

we should endeavour to have established in the Colombo plan countries a food pool where it will be needed in the years ahead to combat famine.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I agree with the hon. member for Assiniboia. The house will have heard with great interest and satisfaction, I think, the statement that has been made by the Prime Minister on this matter. He quite rightly divided this subject, the establishment of a food bank, between its international and its NATO aspects. The subject of an international food bank has been before the United Nations food and agriculture organization for many years. The purpose behind this proposal, which has not been carried into effect, has been both economic and humanitarian. In that sense that kind of food bank would serve the purpose which my hon. friend has just mentioned in connection with the Colombo plan countries.
The Colombo plan itself, as my hon. friend knows, was not established as a mechanism for consumer goods assistance but rather for capital and technical assistance. The NATO food bank has both economic and defence aspects. It has economic aspects in that it would strengthen the economies of the North American members of NATO if surplus wheat could be disposed of in part in this way. It would even strengthen the economic position of the European members of NATO by sterilizing, in a financial and economic sense, some of these surpluses so they would not be overhanging the market.
Perhaps more important so far as NATO is concerned is the defence aspect. When I say that I am thinking of defence in its 1958 aspect and not in its 1914 aspect, because in the light of the kind of war to which we would be subjected if war were ever allowed to break out, food would be not only a necessity for defence but a necessity for survival in Europe. We would be deceiving ourselves if we ever thought that, in terms of an atomic war, the Atlantic shipping lanes would be kept open. The only chance the European countries would have of getting food for survival would be the food that would be on the spot at the time.
While this proposal may have been a desirable thing five or ten years ago, it is far more necessary now. It is for that reason we should hope that this proposal, which in some form or other has been made by the Canadian representative to NATO, by the Prime Minister last December and apparently in more detail by the Minister of National Defence in April, will be followed up. This would seem to be the time to do it. I am certain it will get a more constructive and favourable reaction from some of the European members

of NATO now than it received in the earlier days of NATO, when the necessity may not have seemed so great.
I would hope, therefore, that this proposal which has been made will be followed up vigorously. I also hope that perhaps the minister concerned would be able to make a report to this house on the consideration that has been given to it by the permanent council, because the Minister of National Defence said it had been before the permanent council. He went into some detail as to how it could be worked out. There are problems of storage, problems of turnover and other technical problems. If the permanent council has been discussing this subject it will be interesting for the house to have a report on that matter.
Finally, it surely is important, because we cannot do this without the co-operation of the United States and that applies to so many things these days, to remove any impression in Washington which seems to exist in the minds of some members of the executive, and which must have been created in the minds of members of congress by this testimony of May 13, that the Canadian government has not made such a proposal and is not anxious to see the proposal carried into effect.


John George Diefenbaker: I find greater support in this house than I did last December at the NATO meeting for the suggestion which I made then for the first time. It was the first occasion that this had been brought to the attention of the NATO organization. As the Leader of the Opposition says, the proposal has two elements in it, that of need and also that of defence. Placing them in reverse order, I am sure the government will be very gratified with the views expressed by the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. member for Assiniboia in reference to this matter.
I do not want to make any reference to the evidence given or the testimony furnished to the committee by the ambassador. I might add that recently there was a press report to the effect that the commander of the Atlantic NATO forces felt this plan had merit, and that on the basis of the hypotheses that have been advanced now by the Leader of the Opposition, if war came it would be very difficult to keep open the lanes of commerce, there was a greatly increased and intensified need for action in this direction.
In so far as the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia are concerned in connection with extending this beyond the NATO countries and giving to it a Colombo plan connotation, may I say this. While all of us agree that food is of primary interest, a transcendent necessity if those who oppose communism in
19, 1958
Supply-Trade and Commerce the east are to be able to maintain their stand, I have not at any time since I became Prime Minister had any evidence that the nations within the commonwealth in Asia have that same desire he has expressed to have available to them wheat and other food products in bulk and in large measure. They have made their requests. As a matter of fact, while this government has increased the amount of food available under the Colombo plan it has always found that the viewpoint of the brother nations in Asia is generally that the assistance should be, as was said by the Leader of the Opposition, in technologicial or machine assistance and not food assistance and the like.
Food was accepted in Ceylon. Food was needed because of famine conditions there last fall and in the early winter. With that exception the attitude of the Asiatic nations of the commonwealth has certainly been far removed from that of the hon. member for Assiniboia, who appeared to think that these nations are reaching out and demanding additional food assistance beyond the comparatively small amounts needed to meet immediate and emergency conditions.
However, I want to thank both hon. members for their contributions to this matter. My friend the hon. member for Assiniboia spoke of an imaginative plan. He certainly produced one which was in no way limited by financial considerations. On occasion, Mr. Speaker, I have heard criticism to the effect that we should be extremely careful that we do not overexpend. While I do not take second place to anyone in my desire to achieve some degree of economic assistance to those countries, I realize the limitations imposed not only by financial needs and requirements but also by the wishes of the countries in question.
I sometimes think that if we had given greater attention to economic assistance we might, in the light of events that have taken place since 1943 or 1944, have been able to preserve a higher degree of resistance among certain nations, and in particular China, of which it has been said by Mr. Hoffman that if in 1944 the nations of the free world-then the allied nations-had contributed $400 million by way of economic assistance the events of history might have been otherwise than they have been. However, all of us have far better capacity to judge in the light of events after they have taken place than to say with certainty what is going to take place in the future.
At this particular time when everywhere in the world-and I am speaking of the present moment-there is a tremendously intensified psychological propaganda campaign

Supply-Trade and Commerce on the part of the Soviet and other communist nations, all of us in the free world will have to make a new reassessment of matters such as this. But again I say that it is on occasions such as this that the House of Commons when it gives its undivided attention to a matter for the benefit of the nation, touches its highest point and achieves its greatest opportunity for the people. I thank both hon. gentlemen for their contributions, the Leader of the Opposition for what he has said in the light of his wide and extensive experience in the field of foreign affairs and my friend the hon. member for Assiniboia for his continued interest in this subject.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the comments of the Prime Minister. As to the cost of the 100 million bushels of wheat that I suggested, I do not think we can say offhand or can say immediately that a $200-million expenditure is one that we would reject outright because of any drain it might make on the national treasury. If the proposal for a food pool in Europe means anything in concrete terms, as I am sure it does, I am certain that it will have to be paid for. I am sure that when Canada made such a suggestion the government must have had in mind-I would expect this to be so-bearing part of the financial burden of such a food pool. If that is the case, any suggestion that it might have been in the neighbourhood of $200 million I think is not at all out of the way.
I was rather disturbed, though, at the minister's remarks on my suggestion of a food pool for Colombo plan nations. We realize that a food pool for Europe is a good deal different from a food pool for Colombo plan countries. A food pool for Europe is not something that is likely to be needed immediately, at least we certainly hope not. Certainly the people in that area do not need the addition of bread grains to their diet. But in the Colombo plan countries I think the situation is entirely different. When the Prime Minister says those countries have never suggested that they should have additional food instead of technological and machine assistance, I think he is right; in fact I know he is right. Even though millions of people in Colombo plan countries are next door to starvation almost every day of their lives, their governments take the attitude that if there is ever to be an improvement in their standard of living they must industrialize; and they will industrialize, if necessary, on the basis of an even lower food intake for their people. It is a question of improving their standard of living for the future no matter what the sacrifice to the present generation.

That is not what I had in mind when I suggested a food pool for Colombo plan countries. I did not have in mind saying to them: We are going to give you $35 million, but we hope that instead of taking it all in technological and machine assistance, you will take $10 million of it in wheat. That is not what I had in mind at all. What I had in mind was something over and beyond what we are now doing; a food pool, a reserve of food which would be available to those countries in time of need.
Another reason those countries are reluctant to take these gifts of food at a given time, which gifts they sometimes feel are more on the basis of getting rid of a surplus by the country making the donation than with a view to meeting their long-term needs, is that it is no solution to the problem of feeding their people who are hungry today if they are going to be allowed to starve tomorrow. In such a way one is just postponing the end. They are interested in establishing some kind of plan whereby they can get regular supplies of food so there might be a general improvement in their diet on a longterm basis.
When I put forward the suggestion of a food pool for Colombo plan countries I am thinking of something in addition to technological and machine assistance. I am thinking in terms of long-range planning which would add to the calorie intake of the people of these areas; and if that kind of proposition were to be put to the governments of the Colombo plan countries I am firmly convinced that they would accept it without reservation or objection.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I want to say just a brief word before the item carries with respect to a subject introduced yesterday by the hon. member for Ottawa West and referred to later by the hon. member for Laurier. I have in mind the matter of the Canadian National Steamships and trade with the West Indies.
I think we on this side of the house were all gratified by what the minister said with respect to the government's intention to provide a ship for interisland trade in the West Indies. That idea, of course, originated when we were in office, and we are naturally flattered that the government should carry it out. The minister, in referring to Canadian National West Indies ships said, I think quite correctly, that at the present time the traffic was being adequately carried by other ships. While we believe that to be true we do know that although the population of Canada increased by 3 per cent last year our export trade increased by only 1 per cent. Our trade is therefore falling behind our rate of development, and we have high hopes that the Federation of the West Indies will

result in a vastly expanded trade, not next year but over the years, between that federation and Canada.
This shipping service of the Canadian National Steamships was, of course, originally undertaken pursuant to the Canada West Indies trade agreement of 1926. The service has been in operation since 1927; and if the government find it quite impossible, as they seem to have decided it is, to get these ships operating under the aegis of the Canadian National Railways-I gather the Minister of Transport has given up hope of doing that-I hope that before the government sell these ships outright so they would have no further connection with Canada, consideration might be given to the possibility of transferring the ships themselves under some mutual aid or lend-lease or some analogy with the Colombo plan to the West Indies. At the same time the West Indies might be given a measure of technical assistance so the service might be operated as it has been operated for 30 years between Canada and the West Indies.
My hon. friend from Gloucester reminded the minister last night about the situation in Saint John, New Brunswick, where there is a threat that the sugar refinery may be closed down and its operations moved to central Canada. I do not know whether it is a valid reason, but one of the reasons given in a public speech by the head of this enterprise for this prospective was that the freight cost to Saint John from the West Indies is almost as high as it is from the West Indies to Montreal, and that sugar shipped from Saint John to central Canada had, of course, to pay in addition the rail freight or an extra ocean freight.
It may be that these ships could continue to be operated on a somewhat different basis, and it may be that the government would even consider it worthwhile to give some financial assistance to their operation. It might be that by operating to Saint John and Halifax and then from either of those ports to St. John's Newfoundland and then direct from St. John's to the West Indies, cargoes could be provided on a triangular basis which would make it possible to cut the freight costs somewhat.
It has, of course, been a grievance for a long time in Newfoundland that the bulk of our fish had to be shipped to Halifax and then transshipped, and as a result the freight on Newfoundland fish is considerably higher than it is on exactly the same fish shipped from Nova Scotia. It happens that from a geographical point of view St. John's is nearer to the West Indies than Halifax, but I would not suggest for one moment that the rate from Newfoundland should be lower than the
57071-3-154
Supply-Trade and Commerce rate from Nova Scotia. It is, however, the desire of everyone in Newfoundland to find some way in which these rates can be equated; and if it were possible, by operating this service from the West Indies on a lend-lease or mutual aid arrangement so that the ultimate title to the ships would remain with Canada although they were completely operated by the West Indies people under their own conditions and by their own arrangements, it might be possible to retain this industry in New Brunswick and to equalize the freight rates on our fisheries products as between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to the West Indies. It is always possible, of course, to pick up in Halifax or Saint John cargoes of package freight of one kind or another shipped from central Canada to Newfoundland.
I think the Minister of Transport would agree with me that at almost all times there is hanging over the Canadian National a surplus of freight which has to get across Cabot strait; and to have this additional service available to carry freight between Saint John or Halifax and St. John's would ensure cargoes in all three directions. Of course I am not an expert and this is a project which would require a good deal of study. I do not expect the minister to make any comment about it, at this time unless he wishes to do so, but I feel that although the Minister of Transport had the prime responsibility for its operation, since this service was originally instituted for the promotion of trade with the West Indies, and since we are very anxious in the Atlantic provinces to expand that trade as rapidly as possible, that the government should take one more look at this alternative suggestion before we get rid of those ships in such a manner that they will be altogether lost to that service and to Canada.


Mr. Benidickson:: Has the minister found out where this $960 is provided for with respect to the crown pipe line company, what vote it is under?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was an expense account, to pay travelling expenses.


William Moore Benidickson: But what item; is it trade and commerce administration?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is under the general item with regard to expenses, and we will refer to it when the officials are here.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: I have one or two detailed questions to ask concerning the expenditures on departmental administration. I am telling the minister this in case he wishes to bring his officials before him. The first has to do with the personnel of the department.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps I could interrupt the hon. member so the officials could come down to the floor of the house.


George James McIlraith: Yes, that was my suggestion. Now that the minister has his officials before him, I think most hon. members in the house will appreciate the fact that it is the new deputy minister of the department who is now on the floor assisting the minister with his estimates, and I think generally speaking those who have followed the trade relations of this country over the years will be very pleased with that appointment and particularly pleased with the fact that the new deputy minister is one who had a long record in the trade commissioner service of the country before his promotion.


Mr. Harkness:: He also has the advantage f coming from Calgary.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then he has to bow twice.


George James McIlraith: If we say much more we may embarrass the official, but I should think all hon. members would wish me to acknowledge his presence here this morning and say how very much the department is to be congratulated on his appointment. I hope the minister will see fit to give us a little information about the new associate deputy minister to be appointed, and whether or not that appointment involves any change in the organization of the department or any reorganization in the duties of the deputy minister.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On behalf of the deputy minister, who has not the privilege of speaking in this house, I think I should thank the hon. member for his kind remarks. The process of reorganization is going on, and the deputy minister is now engaged in drafting suggestions with regard to changes in the administrative set-up of the department which, he tells me, have been under consideration for a number of years, though it has been a little difficult to make the changes until now. In due course the house will be informed of the administrative alterations within the department. It is a growing department, and the importance of trade as a major factor as far as Canada is concerned is becoming increasingly realized. With a developing department some realignment of the divisions within the department is necessary. That is the type of reorganization which is being considered.


George James McIlraith: On the question of the numbers of personnel in the department, as I read the figures there was an increase in 1957 and I take it that a further increase is being projected for 1958. Can the minister
[Mr. Mcllraith.l
tell us in a general way what the proposed increase in personnel will amount to, and the reasons for the increase?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Are you asking with regard to the department as a whole?


George James McIlraith: The department as a whole; the department proper, at this stage. It starts on page 413 of the estimates, and it seems that there is an increase throughout the department as a whole starting with the item concerning departmental administration.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Departmental administration-this is a very modest increase of only six people. The trade commissioner service shows, again, a modest increase of 15. The largest increase occurs in the bureau of statistics, where the increase is 24. There is a slight increase in the inspection service, which comes under the standards branch, and another seven on the board of grain commissioners. There has not been a very large increase in the numbers of employees considered as a whole.


George James McIlraith: In his annual report to parliament at page 89 the minister, in his figures, shows 1,367 employees for the department proper in 1957 excluding the board of grain commissioners, the Canadian government elevators and the dominion bureau of statistics, or 4,087 including those latter three. That represented an increase over 1956. There was a further increase in 195758. Is the minister in a position to give me the totals projected for this fiscal year?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We will assemble those totals. The actual figure for 1957-58 as shown in the report was 4,087 and the employees for 1958-59, as shown in the summary, number 4,159. That is inclusive of the dominion bureau of statistics and the board of grain commissioners.


George James McIlraith: I take it, as I read the estimates and the figures just given by the minister, that there does not seem to be any evidence of wasteful extravagance about which we heard so much in past years, and I should like to ask the minister directly if he has found any waste and extravagance in the administration of the department.


Gordon Minto Churchill: During the last year to my knowledge there has been no waste and extravagance. If there was any in years gone by my hon. friend perhaps has more knowledge of that than I have.


George James McIlraith: That was not my question, Mr. Chairman. When the minister comes before the house this year with slightly increased estimates and a slightly increased number of personnel in the department, it

seems to me that we are entitled to a reply to this question. There were many charges made when the former government was in office that there had been waste and extravagance in the department. I do not think this was true, and I believe the estimates the minister is now submitting to the house for its approval indicate that there has been none. However, I should like him to say directly whether or not he has found any evidence of waste and extravagance and, if so, just what waste and extravagance he did find.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I am reporting for the last 12 months. I said that during the last 12 months I had not discovered any evidence of waste and extravagance. My hon. friend is talking about years prior to that. I have not looked back to discover whether or not there was waste and extravagance in the preceding years.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I take it then that we can assume, that, as the minister is spending more money and has a somewhat larger staff, that he does not consider that any waste and extravagance took place last year and that therefore there was not any waste and extravagance before?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not know if that would hold up under logic or not.


George James McIlraith: I think it will, Mr. Chairman. I regard this as an extremely important department in the government service. I have a high opinion of its personnel and the general organization of the department. I do not believe that any charge to the effect that there was waste and extravagance in its administration should be allowed to hang over it if the minister has not found any evidence to support that charge. That is as far as I seek to go. That was my purpose in asking the question.
I have another question I want to ask. On page 513 in the details of the departmental item there appears at about the middle of the page a reference to trade promotion at home and abroad. The vote for this year is $30,000. Last year it was $105,000. I wonder if the minister would explain to the house what that item covers, and explain the difference in the amount of the expenditure?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, the difference between $30,000 and $105,000, which is $75,000, represents the sum which was put in the estimates for 1957-58 to cover the cost of the Canadian trade mission to the United Kingdom. That entire amount was not used up. The mission cost in the neighbourhood of $63,000.


George James McIlraith: That, then, is the cost of the trade mission to the United Kingdom last fall; is that correct?
57071-3-154J
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


George James McIlraith: What was the total expenditure for that trade mission to England?


Gordon Minto Churchill: As I have just stated, $63,000.


George James McIlraith: And what is the proposed expenditure for this fiscal year?


Gordon Minto Churchill: On trade promotion?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: 


George James McIlraith: What is the particular promotion projected for the present fiscal year?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That covers any trade missions which might be going abroad or official entertainment of visiting trade missions to this country.


George James McIlraith: As there is a substantial reduction it means there are no substantial missions projected for this fiscal year; is that correct?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are not thinking in terms of any missions during the coming year of the size of the one which visited the United Kingdom, although there may be smaller missions going abroad. As a matter of fact the expenditure of $105,000 shown there was enlarged by virtue of a supplementary estimate which came up later in the course of last year.


George James McIlraith: What I am getting at is this. Is there a projected reduction in these trade promotion missions abroad, leaving out the particular one to the United Kingdom last year? Is there a reduction in number? Is it the same? Is there an increase in number? Just what is the situation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: In actual expenditure the $30,000 represents an increase of $7,000 over the actual expenditure in 1956-57. This has been a useful objective of the Department of Trade and Commerce. It was for that reason that we thought it wise to include the figure of $30,000 in order that we would have some freedom of manoeuvre with regard to sending missions abroad.


George James McIlraith: I think the item is a very important one, and I regard it as a very proper expenditure. I take it that there is no increase proposed in the number of trade missions going abroad?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There will be certain missions going abroad, but at the moment we have nothing in mind of the size of the one that went to the United Kingdom which was, of course, unusual in its magnitude and representation.
2436	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, would this item then cover a trade mission that might go to China? Is that one of the projected missions the minister has in mind?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think I said the other day that I had no definite plan to go to China myself or to send a trade mission there. There may be other parts of the world to which it would be better to send trade missions. But if something were done in regard to China by way of a trade mission it would come under that particular item.


Mr. Caron:: Does the minister not think that in these days of recession the figures are a little too low? He should have missions going all over the world to try to promote trade. We in Canada produce much more than we can consume, and we are in need of external trade. The $30,000 does not appear to be enough to permit us to promote trade all over the world. I do not think we can trade only with the United Kingdom, but rather we should seek to promote trade with all the countries of the world.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am in complete agreement with my hon. friend. I have been discussing with the officials of the department a program of more active promotion abroad. Of course this item deals just with official delegations that might travel from Canada, but the trade commissioner service which is operating in so many countries of the world carries on from day to day an intensive campaign to promote Canada's trade. On the other hand, from experience in the past, from the experience I had last fall with the members of the wheat board and then with the trade mission to the United Kingdom, I see the immense value of making personal contacts of that nature, and I hope we will be able to arrange for several active trade missions to go to various parts of the world.


Alexis Pierre Caron: This is the year when we need it most. Winter will be coming along again, and if we do not do anything to try to sell our surpluses not only of wheat but of all commodities I think we will have a bad winter. We should do something right away, and if it is not in the main estimates or supplementary estimates where will it be?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Supplementary estimates are presented normally during the course of the fiscal year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps this would be the right moment for me to ask the minister if he could give a specific answer to my question about the effort to get back into the fish market in Brazil.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was very much interested in the hon. member's remarks with regard to that matter yesterday. As he pointed out,


Brazil has been our most important market for salt fish in the past. Through our trade commissioner in Brazil negotiations have been and are being carried on in an endeavour to re-establish Canada in that market. Following the hon. member's remarks, I intend to pursue the matter further. In fact it was raised in the course of the conversations we had with the representative groups who came to Ottawa some time ago to discuss all the problems of the Atlantic fisheries.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is an item on page 513 entitled "Publication of reports and materials" of $3,000 as opposed to $2,300 last year. Does this appropriation cover the publication of the "Economic Outlook for 1958"?


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is to cover the publication of the annual report of the department.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And no other reports?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Just the annual report, of which 1,000 copies were produced in English and in French.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the French copy available?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is in the hands of the queen's printer but has not yet come from the printing presses.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
minister what the policy of the department is with regard to purchases by the government of Canada through other departments of government and from other countries? I presume the Department of Trade and Commerce is interested in the proper balancing of imports and exports, and to that extent it would seem to me that theoretically the department would have a responsibility in overseeing purchases by government departments from other countries. Is the minister in a position to give me a statement of policy? I have a matter that I believe is of some importance which I wish to deal with, but I want to make sure that I am not unfairly attaching it to the minister at this stage.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This department, of course, is not a large purchasing department. If I understood the hon. member correctly he was asking whether or not the Department of Trade and Commerce had some liaison with other departments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I make myself clear? I was not referring to purchases by this department. The Department of Defence Production, in answer to a question I asked some time ago, made a return showing large purchases of automobiles from Germany. It seems to me, and I know it does to many thousands of other people, that it is most unusual for a department of government to buy automobiles made in Germany at a time

when there is so much unemployment in the automobile industry in Canada. Does the minister regard it as within his functions to co-ordinate activities of that kind and suggest to government departments that they ought to see whether or not the same article could not be purchased just as economically in Canada; and even if not as economically in Canada, having in mind the economic situation and our unemployment problem, whether it should not be purchased in Canada in any event? In other words, does the minister regard it as within his functions to deal with that kind of problem?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is certainly not a primary responsibility of the Department of Trade and Commerce, but I can assure my hon. friend of my intense interest in the problem he has raised. From time to time I have mentioned to my colleagues that it is advisable to buy in Canada when that can be done. At the same time, the Department of Trade and Commerce keeps in mind the fact that our exports are dependent upon the purchasing power of importing countries. Trade is a two-way street. But my own feeling in the matter, of course, is that Canadian industry, if on a competitive basis with other industry, should receive first consideration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the minister for indicating his interest in the problem. At a later date I propose to deal with this particular matter, but I suggest to him and to the government that at a time when there are thousands of men out of work in the automobile industry it would be very difficult for any government department to justify the purchase of automobiles for official use in Canada from manufacturing establishments in any other country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
392.	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, $862,368.
George James McIlraith: Would the minister explain exactly what this item covers, with particular reference to the second item listed in the details on page 513, "director, industrial development branch"? What are the duties of that branch? I would also refer to the discussion in the committee in the last two days on the general question of small business assistance.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The industrial development branch is described on pages 55 and 56 of the annual report. I might mention at this point that the hon. member for Cartier indicated the other evening that nothing had been said with regard to firms that had established themselves in this country. On
Supply-Trade and Commerce page 56 he and other members will be interested to note that a large number of firms, totalling 136, established manufacturing plants in Canada. The names of the more important ones are listed on that page. That is the type of activity, among other things, engaged in by the industrial development branch. That branch naturally comes into contact with business establishments throughout this country, both small and large. Is the hon. member now asking for a discussion of small businesses generally?


George James McIlraith: No, I was not. I note what is said about this branch in the annual report of the department. I have the impression that actually the branch does really more work than is outlined there, and has rendered some very useful service to business in the country, particularly to the smaller type businesses which do not have their own resources for dealing as they might wish with foreign corporations. The aspect of the branch's activities dealing with inquiries from foreign countries is quite good and quite accurately outlined in the report. However, I believe the branch has further activities which it performs very well in providing information to the smaller businesses in this country.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This branch is active, as the hon. member says, and you will note that the report states that the number of Canadian businessmen seeking advice concerning present or proposed manufacturing operations has averaged over 600 yearly. Foreign business visitors during the same period have averaged 450 a year. The branch does publish a small pamphlet dealing with small businesses.


George James McIlraith: Yes, the "Small Business Manual". It is very good. Actually what 1 was seeking to obtain from the minister is this. For many years now this branch has done a great deal of useful work on behalf of small businesses in Canada. There is some reference, and I think you find it on page 57 of the report, to the "Small Business Manual", which is published. There are certain other activities that are carried on which I wanted to bring out for the benefit of the committee, because there seemed to be an impression in the house that there had been no administrative services rendered to small businesses through the department, whereas in fact there has been a very good service rendered over the years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
393.	Trade commissioner service-administration and operation. $3,469,927.
George James McIlraith: I wonder if the minister would tell us, since we had no opportunity of discussing the estimates in detail last year,.

Supply-Trade and Commerce what increases or decreases took place in the trade commissioner service last year, where those changes took place, and then the same information for this fiscal year. What changes have been made or are projected?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does the hon. member mean changes in personnel?


George James McIlraith: No; the number of countries in which we have trade commissioner service, the number of personnel in both the last fiscal year and this year, and any projected changes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The annual report, of course, on pages 106, 107, 108, 109 and 110, and so on, indicates the various trade services abroad and gives hon. members a picture of the general activities of the Department of Trade and Commerce in countries around the world. The following offices were opened during the year 1957-58:	Accra, December 22, 1957;
Colombo, April 8, 1957; Los Angeles, October 8, 1957; Vienna, April 20, 1957.


George James McIlraith: What was the last one?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Vienna. No offices were closed during the year.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if the minister could tell us which trade commissioner's office covers the U.S.S.R.?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We have had no trade commissioner in Moscow. We have been working through the Department of External Affairs, through the officials attached to the embassy there. However, we are considering very seriously the appointment of a trade commissioner to that post because of the importance of trade relations with Russia. This matter is under consideration and in due course, when a decision has been reached, an announcement will be made.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I notice that the trade commissioner's office in Sweden covers Finland as well as Sweden, and has for a good many years. I was just wondering whether, as a provisional measure, the government might not simply extend the territory of the trade commissioner in Sweden to cover the U.S.S.R. Pending a decision on making a permanent appointment to Moscow, if that is decided, he could make periodic visits to the U.S.S.R.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This appears to be a useful suggestion which will be looked into immediately.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister
whether he feels that the arrangements for co-operation and co-ordination between the trade commissioner service and the external affairs service abroad are now satisfactory?


Gordon Minto Churchill: My own observations during visits to various countries abroad have been that the present arrangements are excellent. There is a very close liaison between the two departments and a very co-operative spirit shown. I am informed that this also prevails elsewhere than the countries which I visited. Generally the arrangements have been satisfactory.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am very glad to hear that, because it is of great importance that they should work together. The trade commissioner service is really just as much a branch of the foreign service as is the external affairs service and it is essential that they co-ordinate their activities. It is also useful to have, when it is feasible and desirable, an interchange between the two services. As the minister knows, over the years it has been possible to take officers from the trade commissioner service and transfer them to the external affairs service. Indeed, we have several former trade commissioners as the heads of diplomatic missions, who are doing as good work in those posts as they did as trade commissioners.


George James McIlraith: Has the minister readily available the number of countries in which we have trade commissioners, and the number of posts?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Trade commissioners on
duty abroad number 47; on duty in Canada, 16; assistant trade commissioners on duty abroad, 28; assistant trade commissioners in training, 7. Then the number of posts; trade commissioners and assistant trade commissioners attached to diplomatic missions in 40 posts; trade commissioners and assistant trade commissioners at independent trade commissioner posts abroad, 18. This makes a total of 58 posts.


George James McIlraith: How many countries?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think it is 45 countries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
394.	Acquisition or improvement of buildings, land, equipment and furnishings, $146,000.
George James McIlraith: Perhaps this would be a good opportunity for me to ask a question which is of some interest to me but which is not immediately related to the item. I hope Mr. Chairman, that you will not notice that fact for the moment. It is simply this. Can the minister tell us when he expects to get into the new Trade and Commerce building?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The earlier the better. October I is now the date which has been set.


George James McIlraith: I am sure the minister will look forward with great pleasure to that event.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I surely will.


George James McIlraith: I had some small participation in laying the cornerstone of the building, and I know we were very much pleased with the idea of getting a good substantial permanent building for the department.


Mr. Brooks:: As his landlord, I will welcome the minister in the building.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
396. Economics Branch, $274,021.
George James McIlraith: I have some questions that I want to ask on this item with respect to matters about which I am not quite clear. It will be noted that the item appears here to be substantially the same, but in the annual report of the department there is a reference to an energy studies branch which appears to be a separate branch taken out of the economics branch. In other words, work on energy studies had been done in the economics branch in the past and now a new branch has been set up. It was created during the last year. However, in the estimates of the economics branch there does not seem to be any reduction that would naturally be expected to flow from that change. I wonder whether the minister could just clarify for us exactly what has been done as to the economics branch and this new energy studies branch, or what change is involved in making the energy studies branch a separate branch instead of part of the economics branch as it was previously.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Fraser of the economics branch was detached with eight assistants to set up t^is energy studies branch. It is a small branch within the department, but it seemed advisable, in view of the importance now being attached to energy studies, to have this smaller branch set up separate from the economics branch.


George James McIlraith: In the estimates as they stand there is just the item "economics branch". Where is the estimate for the energy studies branch?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The energy studies branch has not been separated in so far as the estimates are concerned. It is still included under the expenditure for the economics branch.


George James McIlraith: Is there any substantial change in the work of the energy studies branch from that which was done when it was in the other branch? They did very good work years ago.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think the same type of work is being carried on, but it is now concentrated in a small group which is working together.
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the energy studies branch making any examination into the possibility of the setting up of a national energy board and how it would be done?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think we are waiting for the report of the royal commission before dealing with that particular topic.


William Moore Benidickson: I notice that this branch is in charge of export permits for natural gas. Does it similarly advise the minister with respect to export permits for electricity and other types of energy? I note that the hon. member for Laurier is not here at the moment. He asked last night some questions with respect to the export permit for electricity. I did not know whether or not this was the appropriate item under which to deal with the matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The standards branch issues the export licences. Perhaps I might give the answer to the questions asked by the hon. member for Laurier. He was inquiring as to any increase in the export of electrical power. The answer is that there has been an increase as between the year 1956-57 and the year 1957-58 of 6,500 kilowatts supplied by the Fraser Companies of Edmundston, New Brunswick by way of an interchange with its American subsidiary at Madawaska, Maine. Then there has been an increase of 19,970 kilowatts supplied by the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission on interchange with the Maine Public Service Commission. The power exported from the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission's grid is generated at Musquash, Tobique Narrow, Beech-wood, Milltown, Grand Lake, Chatham and Saint John. With regard to the same power commission, there has been an increase requested of 700 kilowatts. The reason I gave the commission's grid is that the question was asked as to whether there had been an increase in the export of power from Beech-wood, but Beechwood is combined with the entire grid.


William Moore Benidickson: What was the increase over the year from the grid?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The increase was 19,970
kilowatts and recently an additional increase of 700 kilowatts. Then finally there has been an increase in the export of electrical power by the British Columbia Power Commission, Victoria, British Columbia of 10,000 kilowatts, on interchange with the Bonneville power administration.
I think the hon. member asked another question as to Massena. Massena export is licensed to Cedar Rapids Transmission Company at a rate of 75,000 kilowatts. The original licence was authorized in 1912. No application has been received to date from

Supply-Trade and Commerce the Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission for any power generated on the St. Lawrence seaway.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the export from New Brunswick on interchange, as are the others, or is this a net export?


Gordon Minto Churchill: On interchange with the
Maine Public Service Commission.


George James McIlraith: I wonder whether the minister could clear up the matter a little more for the record. The minister said the export increase was on an interchange basis. Does he mean that a corresponding amount of electricity was imported and that there is a corresponding import item?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The terms of the agreement are that it is interchangeable. It does not necessarily follow that there was a corresponding exchange. However, the agreement provides for that.


George James McIlraith: I want to be a little clearer than that. Perhaps I am not understanding the minister as clearly as I should. Does this mean that there is a net increase in our export of electricity by the amount indicated by the minister?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, a net increase.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does this mean that,
through Beechwood, we are now subsidizing exports to the United States?


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is disposal of surplus power, and is interruptible.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Van Horne:: I should like to take this opportunity to tell the minister how pleased I am to see that these positive steps have been and are being taken to bring about an increase in trade. Certainly trade missions are steps in the right direction and the results obtained should do much to encourage further missions of this nature, not only to England but to other parts of the world. Trade has taken on a very significant aspect in the world since the Soviet union has launched its economic offensive against the west three years ago. Russia has been determined to capture and hold world markets by whatever means necessary and this is, in short, a formidable offensive against the west. Its success thus far, as sure as I am standing here, is one of the main underlying causes of the present recession-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but we are at present discussing item No. 396 which deals with the economics branch and I believe the hon. member is straying a little way from that item.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I was coming to that, Mr. Chairman, and my words were by way of introductory remarks. I shall refrain from saying anything further at this time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Could I ask the minister whether this is the appropriation which would cover the publication of the economic study for 1958?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, that is right.


George James McIlraith: I would like to be clear on just one point. Is the minister now willing to table the report prepared on the Canadian economic outlook for the year 1958?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, that was not in my mind.


George James McIlraith: Then I would like to draw to the attention of the minister what was said on this subject by the Prime Minister when he was making a very strong attack upon the opposition as recorded on page 3527 of Hansard for January 20, 1958.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That was during the last parliament?


George James McIlraith: Yes. The minister will see that the Prime Minister, among other things, was making accusations against the former administration. It will be recalled that the house rose on April 12, 1957, and the Prime Minister accused the opposition of not having tabled this document-presumably before April 12-and of not having published it before June 10, 1957. This is the kind of language he used in his accusation:
-for political purposes, having concealed this document-
And:
-have the effrontery to pretend-
And so on. I just want to draw to the attention of the minister the strength and violence of the language used by the Prime Minister in his criticism of the former government for not having published a document prepared in March 1957 prior to June 10. The minister will appreciate that we have now reached July 19 but have still not had this year's document tabled, and I would like to ask him if he does not consider the government should be consistent in this matter?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not think the hon. member should look for consistency as between one government and another.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: I think my question is quite fair. The Prime Minister outlined the policy with respect to the publishing of these documents and he did so in a rather forceful manner. I would think that since we are dealing with the same government the minister should follow the same policy in order to be consistent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have some remarks to make, Mr. Chairman, but if the minister wishes to comment on the comment of the hon. member for Ottawa West I would be very glad to wait.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would be very glad if the hon. gentleman would continue.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On the same point, Mr. Chairman, the minister has made an observation which is rather difficult to understand. He inferred that the hon. member for Ottawa West was speaking of consistency between this government and the preceding government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Liberal government.


Peter Francis Martin: Yes, and the Liberal government. That clearly shows that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, quite understandably on a Saturday afternoon, has not followed the observations of the hon. member for Ottawa West because that hon. gentleman was not referring to any act which might be considered consistent or inconsistent as between two governments of different political complexions. What he was referring to was the statement made by the man who is now the head of the present government and who was also the head of the government in the month of January last, and the question is as to the inconsistency between the observations of members of two governments of which the same right hon. gentleman was and is the head. That is the question before the Minister of Trade and Commerce and no furrowing of the eyebrows of the minister should suggest that it is a difficult one to follow, because it is not. The fact is, as the hon. member for Ottawa West pointed out, that rising in his place in the month of January last, the present Prime Minister in the course of a speech he was making in answer to a question put by the present Leader of the Opposition accused the previous administration of withholding a report which he later identified as one marked "Private and Confidential". This report, he implied, had it been revealed to the Canadian public would have been responsible for the previous administration receiving at the hands of the people a much more severe form of censure than was, the Prime Minister said, administered to it in the
Supply-Trade and Commerce month of June 1957. The previous government, it was said, had failed to reveal to the Canadian people important facts which they were entitled to have, facts which revealed the state of the economy and developing situation.
We all remember that day in the house when the Prime Minister rose and attacked the Leader of the Opposition and those of us on this side of the house for having withheld this document. He spoke about it for almost an hour. Then he went all over the country stating that the previous administration had withheld from the people of Canada and from parliament a document whose contents they were entitled to know. The Minister of Trade and Commerce well remembers that.
The question now is: why is this present parliament not given the opportunity of knowing the contents of the same report for the present year? If it was right for the present Prime Minister to criticize the previous administration for withholding that document, is it not right for those of us on this side of the house to ask the Prime Minister to treat that document in 1958 in exactly the same way as, in the month of January, he thought the Canadian people and the Canadian parliament should have been treated with regard to it in 1957?
That is the point, and either the Prime Minister was entirely wrong in what he said in January with regard to the economic survey of 1957, or the position now taken by the government is inconsistent with the position the Prime Minister took in regard to that document in January last. Why should the economic survey prepared in the minister's department and paid for out of his estimates not be given to this house now? Can the minister explain that?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thought that yesterday the Leader of the Opposition and I had buried this report, but apparently not. The Prime Minister will read Hansard with interest with regard to the comments which have been made, and I will convey to him personally some of the emphasis, vigour and emotional fervour that has been put into those comments by hon. gentlemen opposite.
In order to be consistent, I think that in view of the fact that the 1957 report was not made available to the opposition of that time, the 1958 report should, similarly, not be produced at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If hon. gentlemen opposite are asking for consistency, the practice followed by the Liberal administration was not to make this report public, and since the opposition is now asking for consistency we take exactly the same stand. In fact, this
2442	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce question has been answered in the house on several occasions by the Prime Minister as well as by myself. This document, and other documents of a similar nature, are confidential departmental paper for the use of officials and ministers in departments. The practice of the former Liberal administration-


William Moore Benidickson: Was correct, then.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -was not to make this public, and we are simply following along those lines.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I must not let pass the suggestion of the minister that he and I had agreed last evening that this matter should be buried. He buried it, and I was not able to disinter it at that time. But we have another opportunity, because this is the item in the estimates which covers the publication of reports of this kind. As my hon. friend from Essex East has said, we remember so well that scene on January 20 when the Prime Minister, his voice shaking with party indignation and quivering with contrived emotion, attacked us because we did not produce this report in the spring of 1957. Therefore the remarks the minister has just made are extremely interesting because he has repudiated the attack made by his leader, the Prime Minister. He has accepted our position and agreed that this kind of report should not be made public. He does not intend to make it public in 1958, as we did not make it public in 1957.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, there is no repudiation whatsoever of the speech of the Prime Minister. I think he was right. I listened with interest to his remarks last January, and the quivering was all on the other side of the house. I am not at this stage saying that the report will not see the light of day, but I do say it will not be published at this particular moment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the minister now says that the Prime Minister was correct when he attacked us last January for not making this report public in the spring of 1957, and if he accepts the Prime Minister's position, then he is wrong in refusing to make this report public at this time. He must be consistent in this matter or repudiate the statement made by his Prime Minister, and I wish he would let us know which line he really intends to follow.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will clarify the hon. gentleman's mind with regard to the matter. I will continue to support the Prime Minister.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, Mr. Chairman, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, far from being buried this question is now being projected forward in


proper perspective. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a perfectly legitimate question in the face of the statements made and the position taken by the Prime Minister in January of this year with regard to the economic survey for 1957. The Minister of Trade and Commerce for whom this report was prepared must tell the house by implication or by words whether the position now taken by the government is the correct position to take or whether the position taken by the Prime Minister in January is the correct position for the government to adopt in this matter. The minister must remember that this economic survey reached him first. It reached him as Minister of Trade and Commerce before it reached any of his colleagues. Presumably he saw this report before the Prime Minister or any other member of the present administration. Did he, when he saw it, or later, bear in mind the words of the present Prime Minister, who is reported at page 3528 of Hansard for 1957-58, volume 4, as having said:
Why did hon. members opposite, in the idealistic vein of the Leader of the Opposition, not reveal these facts?
He was referring to facts which had been gleaned from the report.
Why did they not act on them, even if they did not think fit to reveal them?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am glad hon. members on the government side are applauding that statement.
Why did hon. gentlemen, opposite in the idealistic voice of the Leader of the Opposition not reveal these facts-


An hon. Member:: And act on them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Renfrew South said: "Hear, hear". He is one of those who along with so many others heard the present Prime Minister in the election of this very year tell the people that one of the reasons why our party should not be returned was because it had concealed facts to which they were entitled as Canadian citizens.
And now hon. gentlemen reaffirm this. The hon. member for Renfrew South nods his head. Apparently he agrees with me. If that is the case why does he not rise in his place now and ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to do exactly what the Prime Minister asked us to do, reveal these facts?


Mr. Baskin:: You did not do it.


William Moore Benidickson: They are trained seals now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the Minister of Trade and Commerce fails to lay on the table the economic survey of 1958 that is

a clear vindication of the position taken by the previous administration. It shows the extent to which the right hon. gentleman and hon. gentlemen opposite are prepared to go during the course of an election in urging on the people the acceptance of certain positions which within three months of that election they reverse. .


Mr, Benidickson:: Shame.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the situation. The Prime Minister was speaking in the city of Saint John, New Brunswick when he said there that as far as the government of which he is the head is concerned it would take the Canadian people into its confidence on every measure in which it felt it was prudent at the time so to do and that this kind of information was the kind of information about which the previous administration should have advised the Canadian people.


William Moore Benidickson: Somersaulting.


Mr. Montgomery:: Tell the truth.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says, "Tell the truth". Let the truth come out now with respect to this same document. Let us know if there is going to be a continued state of unemployment. Let us know what are the prognostications of the government's advisers for the future. Hon. gentlemen opposite who made a great point on the eve of the last general election in the attack made on my leader will find that in the judgment of the Canadian people the attack was not justified. They will discover that in the minds of the Canadian people the attack was not a fair and valid one in the face of the reluctant and anaemic reply to which this committee has been treated by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Gage Workman Montgomery: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gage Workman Montgomery: Mr. Chairman-


Mr.. Benidickson:: You said that.


Gage Workman Montgomery: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to say one word at this time. I was one of those who took part in the last election and I happen to be one of those who was elected.


Mr. Gour:: That is too bad.


Gage Workman Montgomery: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend who just sat down is misconstruing the argument used by at least some of us in the last election. I should like to make it clear that what we condemn was not that the report was not revealed, but the report was made to the cabinet and the cabinet should have acted upon it-at least, I am speaking for myself-
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Mr. Habel:: You had better.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I cannot say what may have been said in other places by other hon. members. But I do not want to be accused by the hon. member for Essex East of being one of those who in the last election condemned the previous government for failing to reveal the report because in my opinion- and it always has been my opinion-it was a report to the cabinet.


William Moore Benidickson: You called it a hidden report.


Gage Workman Montgomery: What we condemn is the fact that the previous administration did not act on the facts and information contained in that report and they did not use the right judgment when they did act on the information. I think the hon. member is trying to twist that argument. I do not know if he intended to do that or not. He may have some justification for saying what he did on the basis of comments that were reported to have been made in some places but not by me in my territory.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I do not think we need pay very much attention to the singularly unimpressive argument which has just been made because the Prime Minister himself answered that argument in the statement he made in this house, excerpts from which have already been read. He also answered it by going around the country calling this a hidden report-


An hon. Member:: It was.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If he gave it that name he was criticizing the government of that time because it did not produce it publicly; otherwise, why call it a hidden report? There is no point to the argument raised by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton and his argument has been met by the Prime Minister in the words that he used.
The report for 1958 has now been printed. Presumably it deals with the economic situation that obtains at the present time. Presumably it also deals with highly important matters such as employment and unemployment trends, the cost of living, gross national product estimates and questions of that nature. We are asking the Minister of Trade and Commerce to make this report public because of its importance and interest to this house and to the country. We have the right to do that because the Prime Minister himself attacked us so bitterly in accusing us of not making a similar report public a year ago. At that time he said-certainly by inference if not in words-that he would take a different course if he were in power. Well, he is now in power. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said that he is prepared to follow the

Supply-Trade and Commerce course advocated by the Prime Minister, that he does not disagree with the stand taken by the Prime Minister. All right, let him follow that course and either make the report public or else publicly repudiate the argument of the Prime Minister at this time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, in replying to a question on this subject some time ago I believe the Prime Minister said that the report for 1958 would be made available in 1959.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I think we must express some amazement at hearing the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton so neatly repudiate the Prime Minister. I want to recall to the committee that the Prime Minister's accusation against the former administration was that for political purposes it concealed the document. I want to bring out the dates. The date of the document is March 1957. They are prepared in March of each year. The date of the election, as the supporters of the government are so wont to remind us, was June 10, 1957. The former government went out of office on June 21,
1957.	The attack of the Prime Minister was that the Liberal administration prior to June 21, 1957, had not published that document in the same year as that of its publication.


William Moore Benidickson: Hidden, hidden.


George James McIlraith: If that is so, how can the Minister of Trade and Commerce claim to be consistent and do other than repudiate his Prime Minister if he now takes the position that on July 19, 1958, he is unwilling to table the corresponding report prepared in March of 1958? Surely his position is that he must either table the document in accordance with the policy announced by his Prime Minister or repudiate and change that policy. Of course, a change in the policy involves the repudiation of the stand taken by the Prime Minister.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, I read
Hansard for the date in question, January 20,
1958,	last evening and again today. I suggest that what was said on that occasion is open to no other reasonable interpretation than that it was in substance a charge that the previous government having full knowledge of certain facts failed to act upon them. The use of the words "hidden" or "concealed" was simply the use of these words as adjectives and the charge contained no suggestion that the report should have been made public.


Mr. Robichaud:: You had better read it again.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am just about to do that.


Mr. Deschatelets:: You are in a jam and
you know it.


Gerald William Baldwin: On page 3527 of Hansard for January 20, 1958, there is the following:
What action did the government take with regard to any of these matters? Parliament was sitting. But they did nothing during the session to bring about changes in legislation to meet the situation of which they had been warned.
That was the pith and substance of the entire speech made at that time. To carry on, on page 3528-


George James McIlraith: Just before the hon. member leaves that page-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am just about finished.


George James McIlraith: -would the hon. member permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: The hon. member for Peace River has the floor. Will he permit a question by the hon. member for Ottawa West?


Gerald William Baldwin: I am just about finished and after that I will permit a question. On page 3528 carrying on from where the hon. member for Essex East left off, there is the following:
Why did they not act on them, even if they did not think fit to reveal them?
And again:
Why did they not act when the house was sitting in January, February, March and April?
This, Mr. Chairman, is the essence of the charges that were the subject of that speech.


George James McIlraith: Will the hon. member now permit my question? He quoted from page 3527 and I would ask him to tell me what meaning he gives to these words of the Prime Minister who was referring to the opposition: "And now, for political purposes, having concealed this document." The hon. member will remember that the Prime Minister was doing a great deal of waving of the document in his hand at the time. Would he explain to us what the Prime Minister meant by those words?


Gerald William Baldwin: A number of accusations had been made against the previous government but the major one was the failure to act on this information. The other was subsidiary. I imagine that is probably the explanation.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall the resolution carry?


Peter Francis Martin: No. We cannot let the impression stand which has been created by the hon. member who has just spoken and, if I may say so, spoken very well. He has proved to be an excellent advocate. I understand that he is a lawyer

and I am sure he has had considerable training in the advocacy of bad causes. The case for which he has now taken a brief is obviously in that category. But in the very words my hon. friend has quoted therein lies the judgment we are making against the administration-"which the government of the day did not see fit to reveal." Those words, in addition to the words quoted by the hon. member for Ottawa West a few moments ago, clearly indicate that the Prime Minister was seeking to impart to the Canadian people that the previous administration had failed to reveal certain facts notwithstanding, as he himself said, that they were in a report marked "secret" and "confidential" and which he characterized as a hidden report. If that is not enough, if the words which my hon. friend himself has quoted are not sufficient, let me remind him again of the words referred to by the hon. member of Ottawa West.
We were on the slide, really on the slide, when they left power on June 21, and now, for political purposes, having concealed this document, they have the effrontery to pretend to the Canadian people-
And so on. "Having concealed this document"-those words, applying the ordinary rules of interpretation, clearly mean, as the hon. gentleman who has just spoken knows, but one thing, that is, that the previous administration had deliberately withheld from the Canadian people certain information. That is the charge. That was the charge made by the Prime Minister on January 20 last and we are saying now that no method of advocacy by anyone sitting opposite can change the implication of the literal meaning of those words. We are now charging that those who laid this indictment against the former administration stand condemned by their own very words, and we are asking them now to live up to the indictment they made against us-


William Moore Benidickson: They were not sincere.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and to establish clearly to the Canadian people that in the making of that charge they were sincere. If the government today, through the Minister of Trade and Commerce, refuses to accede to the request made on this side, then the judgment of the house can only be one thing, that the Prime Minister and his colleagues were not sincere when they made this charge on January 20 last.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I think it is essential at this point to put the record straight.


An hon. Member:: You cannot.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On June 18, 1958 a motion appeared on the order paper for the production of a copy of "The Canadian Economic
Supply-Trade and Commerce Outlook for 1958" as prepared by the Department of Trade and Commerce. The motion was proposed by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. The Prime Minister replied, as found at page 1391 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, the government finds it necessary to oppose this motion on the ground that "The Canadian Economic Outlook for 1958" is a confidential document.
He went on to say later:
-we will produce it immediately after this year ends. It is a current report, publication of which would be detrimental until January, 1959.
In the course of the discussion on that occasion the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, in accordance with the rule which permits same, asked that his motion be set down as a notice of motion for debate. In routine proceedings and orders of the day for Saturday, July 19 you will find listed on page 16 under "Notices of Motion" No. 46 which is in these words:
June 18-Mr. Pickersgill-That an order of the house to issue for a copy of "The Canadian Economic Outlook for 1958" as prepared by the Department of Trade and Commerce.
Obviously the house is seized of a notice of motion providing for a debate on this subject. I submit, sir, that we are out of order now-


William Moore Benidickson: Closure.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -in discussing the production of "The Canadian Economic Outlook for 1958", to which in any case a sufficient answer was given by the Prime Minister on June 18 of this year.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, of course we are not out of order in discussing this report in connection with the appropriation for the economic branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce on these estimates. It is obvious that we can discuss this on the estimates irrespective of what may be on the order paper in some other capacity. There is no doubt about that. The minister's remarks have been extremely interesting. The action taken by the Prime Minister last year has accomplished its purpose. Let us forget about it. The minister has said that the Prime Minister has already replied to this point in connection with the economic report for 1958 by saying that it should not be produced until January, 1959. If this is the right stand to take with regard to the economic report for 1958, I ask the minister if he will not agree that the right stand for any government to have taken with regard to the economic report for 1957 would have been to produce it in January, 1958. If that is true, what justification of any kind is there for the attack of the Prime Minister on the previous

Supply-Trade and Commerce government because, as the Prime Minister said, they concealed it in the spring of 1957?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I find it difficult to relate these statements and this suggestion for a decision on my part as to what was said a year ago to the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the present year.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps we can help the minister a little bit. If he means that he cannot relate the things that were said by the Prime Minister before the election to those said on June 18 after the election, then there will be many people in this country who will have sufficient regard for our system to regret that he takes that stand.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I cannot relate it to the estimates of this year.


George James McIlraith: We will relate it directly to the estimates of this year. What is before us now is a vote to provide, among other things, for the publishing of an economic report for the benefit of the government by this department. Last session, on January 20, the Prime Minister took a stand on the issue in very sharp terms, and in very picturesque speech. There are some other adjectives I could use-


Gordon Minto Churchill: One of the best speeches ever made in the house.


George James McIlraith: The Minister of Trade and Commerce describes it as the best speech the Prime Minister ever made in the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: Hon. members opposite applaud that. It was a very theatrical speech. The Prime Minister had a document in his hand which he waved about a great deal during the course of his speech, and that document was the report about which we are now speaking, the report for the year 1957.
As a matter of fact it may be rather interesting to hon. members opposite, who may not know, that when the Prime Minister spoke about the document, at that time, it had a substantial part of the blue cover still on it. The cover was torn off before it was brought into the house. At what point it was torn off, I do not know. However, I noted at the time the part of the blue cover, which he seemed to know nothing about, was there while he was waving the document with such a theatrical wave.


Mr. Cardiff:: Did the hon. gentleman say it was torn off by him?


George James McIlraith: No, I was very careful not to say that. I could not prove that. I leave it to the hon. member for Huron to draw his own conclusions. The Prime Minister is now coming in, so for his benefit I shall repeat


what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said. He said the Prime Minister had made the best speech he has ever made in the house. I was referring to this document, and I said he waved it about a good deal. I have described the piece of blue cover that was on it while he was waving it. He took the position, and was severely critical-


John George Diefenbaker: What are these straw men?


George James McIlraith: He says now, what are these straw men? I do not regard this as a straw man.
He accused the opposition, for political purposes, of having concealed this document, of having failed to publish it before June 21, 1957. The Minister of Trade and Commerce says this year's report cannot be tabled; that it is not proper to table it now. He is now changing the policy as announced by his Prime Minister in refusing to table it now. I respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is of very real interest if the Prime Minister can take that stand, and then follow it up by making references across this country to what he called the hidden report. Then having received the acclaim of the voters of this country, and their support in a very large measure which I must admit, having taken that position, his Minister of Trade and Commerce now takes a directly opposite position about the publishing of this year's report. It is a matter of some significance that the voters of this country should be treated in that way by the government. It is not a straw man, as the Prime Minister would lead us to believe. I would ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce, therefore, if he does not agree that this is a change in policy on the part of the government a repudiation of the policy as announced by his Prime Minister on January 20, 1958.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I reiterate. I am not repudiating the stand taken by the Prime Minister. In fact, I set the record straight by reading out what the Prime Minister said on June 18 of this year. I subscribed to that stand with regard to the economic report for 1958.


George James McIlraith: Would the minister, then, just explain to us how he reconciles the difference between the stand taken on June 18, and the stand taken on January 20?


Mr. Bigg:: The circumstances are not the same.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I could deal with the interjection.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I say the circumstances are not the same.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No election.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: No, that is not the point.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order; the hon. member for Ottawa West has the floor.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member for Athabasca says that the circumstances are not the same, and that is quite right. The whole point is that the circumstances are not the same. The Prime Minister was speaking on January 20 before an election on March 31. The election was held, and then on June 18 he was in office and the election was over so he was repudiating the position taken on January 20.


Mr. Herridge:: Recently I have been wondering why the Prime Minister arrives in the house so often at the appropriate time. I have just discovered the reason. I had to send to the reading room for today's issue of the Journal because there were none in circulation, and I have just read an article by Richard Jackson entitled "Hill Talk". It says:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker has had his centre block office wired for sound.
House of Commons sound.
He's done what every parliamentarian has dreamed of doing since electronics were invented . . . arranged things so that he may work in his office and still keep up-to-the-last word track of what is going on in the commons.
I can scarcely credit that being done with consent of the house, Mr. Chairman, but I should like the Prime Minister to inform the house if this report is correct.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: The question asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West might be very interesting, but it is not relevant to the item under discussion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Surely the hon. member has raised a very important question of privilege. He has quoted a newspaper article to the effect that, in some way, without the knowledge of the house or without consultation with or consent of the house or any of its officers, somebody has done something to wire the house to the Prime Minister's office so that the Prime Minister can follow what is going on here by an electronic method. This is the first I have heard about it, but it is a very important question of privilege which should be decided.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I must bring to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition that the member for Kootenay West did not raise this matter as a question of privilege. I believe also that this question should be taken up when the Speaker is in the chair.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I shall turn it into a question of privilege, and ask the Prime Minister if this report is correct.
Supply-Trade and Commerce


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, it is a rather serious matter if the equipment recording the proceedings in this house have been tapped without the consent of the house. I am in some doubt as to whether the chairman can deal with it, but it is a very serious matter.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I must remind hon. members that at the moment the only item that can be discussed is vote 396, which deals with matters about which hon. members know.


Alexis Pierre Caron: A question of privilege can be raised at any time in the committee.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Yes, a question of privilege can be raised in the committee. But the hon. member for Kootenay West did not bring it forward as a question of privilege.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, when I found out I had not brought it forward in the proper manner I changed it to a question of privilege and I think that stands.


George James McIlraith: If it is a question of privilege, it is a rather serious thing and I would hope that the Prime Minister would see fit to deal with it because-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman-


George James McIlraith: I have the floor.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: The rights of parliament!


Alexis Pierre Caron: Hitler.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member who is speaking-


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: We have not got dictatorship yet.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You have no question of privilege.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I will ask hon.
members kindly to permit the hon. member who has the floor to carry on with his remarks. It is quite difficult to understand what the hon. member has to say with people all yelling at once. At the present time the hon. member for Ottawa West has the floor.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, if I could have the floor-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for Ottawa West has the floor.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Will the hon. member for Ottawa West relinquish the floor to the Prime Minister?


George James McIlraith: As soon as I have finished my remarks I will do so.


John George Diefenbaker: That indicates how serious the matter is.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I was going to say that if this report is true, it is a serious matter affecting this house and the proceedings of this house.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You have said that three times now. Don't be so repetitious.


George James McIlraith: It means that it is possible, once the wire is taken outside in that way, to have it wired or sent by long distance phone anywhere in the world, and to have anyone brought in for the purpose of listening. Where does the thing stop? Are our caucus rooms wired? Are our private telephones tapped or where does the matter stop?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I must once again remind hon. members-


John George Diefenbaker: Possibly I could speak to this matter now, Mr. Chairman. I realize that hon. gentlemen opposite have very little to talk about.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: That is why you are always out of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: You do your best thinking when you are in the seated position, I would say to the hon. gentleman.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: You are very kind.


John George Diefenbaker: Much has been made of this matter. The hon. gentleman who raised it did so very properly, may I say immediately, knowing the country whence he came and his regard for parliamentary institutions there. This is the course followed in the United Kingdom in order to permit the prime minister to have available to him, so that there will not be any loss of time through missing a portion of debate, what is happening in the house. This installation was made with the authority of the department in order to make available to myself in the last few days, in view of the serious nature of what is taking place, an opportunity that would otherwise be denied me because I cannot be in the house all the time. There is available, in my office-and there is no concealment whatever-whenever the debate is on a private loudspeaker which enables me to follow the debate to the end that I can be back at any moment that I am required. That is the practice that is followed in the United Kingdom-I do not know whether or not it has been followed by successive prime ministers but it is the practice there-in order to enable the prime minister to discharge two of his responsibilities, namely to carry out his responsibility to be in the house when required and at the same time to maintain the very serious duties that fall on him. In spite of all the agitated-I

almost said synthetic-exaggeration on the part of those opposite, there is nothing whatsoever in the nature of disregard of parliament. It is a desire fully to regard parliament.
Some prime ministers have stayed in the house at all times and others have not done so. As I remember Mr. King, he used to leave the house quite regularly because of the impossibility of being here on all occasions. Realizing that I did not want to miss what was going on but wanted to have a realization of the debates, to the end that the contribution being made is always available to me, I have that device available in my office. In order that there may be no misunderstanding, I may say that it was installed just a couple of days ago in order to permit and enable me to carry on the two responsibilities, one the very heavy one at this time of being required to meet an international situation that those who have had the responsibility know of and at the same time not to disregard my duty to the House of Commons.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Now that we are on this point, Mr. Chairman, may I say that it is quite obvious that something has happened- whatever the reasons may be for it-that is unprecedented in parliamentary history, something that has never happened before and something which I think is extremely important. Whatever the reasons may be for it, the result is that the proceedings of this house, as they are taking place, can now be heard outside of this house. That is a new development in our parliamentary traditions and in our parliamentary history; and I suggest that what has happened in the United Kingdom or in any other place has no particular bearing on the matter. I know, of course, that the Prime Minister has great responsibilities and that he cannot be in this house all the time. I know that this is a particularly difficult time for him. But I also know that his predecessor, Mr. St. Laurent, had great responsibilities. He was the head of a government in times of crisis and at that time there was no suggestion that in order to make the work a little bit easier and so that he could cover both the house and his office this should be done. I am also perfectly certain that if Mr. St. Laurent had wished it to be done, he would have taken this matter up in the House of Commons and informed the House of Commons of what was happening and perhaps have secured permission of the House of Commons so members would not be put in a position where they would read about such a change in the columns of a local newspaper. I suggest also, Mr. Chairman, that that is the way we should have been treated in this matter.

I remember very well indeed-and the Prime Minister must remember it also-that in one of the committees of this house a few years ago-it happened to be the committee on external affairs-in order to facilitate our work and in order to make it a little bit easier for the reporters and for the record of the committee to be circulated quickly, for one experimental meeting of the committee we introduced some electronic device into that room which would record what was said for reproduction and circulation. I remember that the leader of the Conservative party at that time rose in his place in this house and attacked the government of the day very vigorously indeed because of this breach of parliamentary privilege. As a result of the stand that he took at that time we ceased to use this electronic device.
If the Prime Minister feels that the time has come that he needs this kind of assistance in order to keep in touch with the house- and I am not expressing myself on that matter one way or the other at the present time-I think it would have been consistent with the privileges of this house for the Prime Minister who brought the matter up to have consulted the house and obtained permission of the house for himself and perhaps for some others who might also benefit by this kind of device.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
397. International Trade Relations Branch, including a fee of $6,000 to the International Customs Tariffs Bureau, $204,248.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: World trade relations have taken on a very significant aspect since the Soviet union launched its economic offensive against the west some three years ago. Russian determination to capture and hold world markets, by whatever means necessary, is nothing short of a formidable offensive against the west and its success thus far, as surely as I stand here, is one of the main underlying causes for the recession through which we are passing and from which we will have difficulty in emerging unless we do more than we are doing now.
While in Paris last fall I took the time to visit, for instance, two of the largest buyers of pulpwood in France to see if they could not resume the purchases of pulpwood from Canada which they had been making for many, many years. In each case I interviewed the president of the company and in each case I was accompanied by Mr. Robert Campbell Smith, our commercial attache in Paris. In each case the pattern was the same -these companies had in the past bought their pulpwood from Canada but had lately shifted their source of supply to Russia. Why? In each case the reason was because they got
Supply-Trade and Commerce a better deal from Russia. Both presidents mentioned that the quality of the Russian wood was good, the contracts with Russia were carried out to the letter and no complaints arose about the quality or quantity involved, even though the French company did not send scalers to Russia to inspect the wood before shipment. Moreover, shipping dates were met on time, on the dates agreed upon, but in spite of all these things both company presidents expressed the desire to buy from Canada. For one thing Canadian pulpwood is less expensive but the haul being longer costs a little more; I understand our shippers get something like $39 a cord for pulpwood on the dock in Canada, while the cost in Russia runs around $48 a cord on the dock. Shipping costs tend to equalize the landed costs but Russian pulpwood landed in France costs a little more than Canadian pulpwood.
Hon. members might ask why these companies insist on buying from Russia if it is cheaper for them to buy Canadian pulpwood? The answer is simple; they get a better deal from that country than they can get from Canada. Russia will accept their currency while we sit back and insist on dollars. Russia does business how and where it can be done and as long as we do not realize that these countries simply cannot buy from us in the currency we insist upon, as long as we stick to our policies of "Take it on our terms or leave it", let me assure the house it is being left.
Furthermore, Russia has more aggressive and more expert selling agents and the impression they give to buying countries is this; "We want the business and we will do what we have to do to get it." In particular with reference to Canadian aluminum they say flatly, "We will undersell Canada regardless of how low Canadian prices are or may become." In other words, they are better horse traders, bargainers, they are better dealers and they get the business while we are losing our markets.
From Paris I went to London and with the help of our high commissioner, Mr. George Drew, I saw and talked to several of the main buyers of lumber from Canada, men like Sir Edward Monkhouse, who know our industries and who know Canada almost as well as we know it and have been buying our lumber for generations, men who are attached to Canada and have feelings of regard for the Canadian people. The story here is the same, Russia is supplying their lumber. Russia has captured our long-established lumber market and the Soviet union will do anything it has to do to get and keep the business.
They will, for instance, take pounds sterling in payment and will accept the buyer's note

Supply-Trade and Commerce for several months, in some cases without interest. As I say they will tell you point-blank, "We have come here to get the lumber market and we will do whatever we have to do to get it." This is what the lumber buyers in England tell us-with the Soviet union it is just as simple as that.
What is the reaction of the English lumber buyer? It is simply that he is forced to buy from Russia rather than from Canada, despite his feeling for a commonwealth nation. Our trade policies place him in the position where he cannot turn down the advantages of dealing with the Soviet union as opposed to Canada. Therefore, in an area such as my own, where our people depend on the sale of lumber and pulpwood for a living, things are rough. One of the provincial ministers of labour said the other day that the conditions in my riding were worse than any other riding in this country and that is, I have no doubt, correct. Already we see in visible and touching form the results of the loss of our markets to Russia and to a certain extent to Sweden and Finland. I am speaking of pulpwood and lumber which, after all, is what we have to sell in order to survive.
Of course Russia's trade offensive is not the only reason for the unprecedented extent of unemployment and suffering in my riding, but it is one of the main causes. Tight money in particular and our monetary policies in general, in addition to our trade policies, have all played an active part-


An hon. Member:: And your administration.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -in bringing about this situation.
In visiting my riding recently I found a family where the children had to leave for school without breakfast in the morning and another family which had six potatoes left without a cent with which to buy anything else. These conditions are general in several villages and naturally these people are very concerned. Some of them almost caused an insurrection at St. Quentin the other day because they had nothing to eat and nothing to do. Some of these people blame the government and some of their criticism is not warranted-like that of the man in my riding who said the other day, "Fishing is poor, the weather is bad, times are hard and you Conservatives are in."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But much of the criticism is warranted but it behooves this government to sit up and take notice. In many fields the government has shown bold initiative and has done what could be done to create employment; for instance, in the field of public works this government has done more for my riding

in seven months than all other governments put together have done since confederation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This is the only government in the history of Canada which has listened to us and has recognized and acted upon our problems, but this government in some other fields, unfortunately, has not implemented its policies fast enough to permit effective results and has not taken the even drastic means necessary to create conditions conducive to full employment, thus removing suffering and hardship which weigh heavily upon our people.
I have dealt on many other occasions with other factors involved but, speaking now only in regard to trade, I would like to suggest, request and may even demand a more aggressive and effective trade policy with respect to foreign trade. Let us face it, we are living in times when the Soviet trade offensive is not only taking away our markets, and is eminently successful in doing so, but their planned trade offensive will intensify as time goes on.
We must take steps to compete and compete successfully and to do this, in my mind, there are three fundamental requirements with respect to changes in the attitude on the part of federal governments, and this applies to all governments. In the first instance we must sell. I have always felt and I still feel that what Canada most needs is a battalion of live-wire agents, of good bargainers-horse traders if you want to call them that-going from country to country and buyer to buyer, selling Canada and Canada's products. Such agents should have specific instructions on how and what to promote and sell. Many countries simply do not know what we have to sell. We missed the boat at the world fair.
Secondly, we must take measures which will permit us to sell, which will require a complete re-evaluation of our monetary policies, among other things, to enable us to accept soft currencies or any currency of value. It is nothing short of national snobbishness to refuse to accept the pound sterling. In other words, we must adopt the means to sell. President Eisenhower underlined our problem in this house the other day when he went out of his way to emphasize the battle between the west and the Soviet union for world trade, and which might well be the most important problem facing the west today. I believe it is, and I also believe we are not doing enough in Canada to play our part in that struggle.
Whether Russia wins by beating us with arms or starves us out by cornering and capturing our markets, the consequences will be the same. We must adopt the attitude that we will succeed, and be prepared to

take all honest means at our command. Thus, barter and all that this term involves; currency, in whatever usable form it comes; credit, in whatever acceptable form it is offered, must become part of our trade policies. Time is running against us. We have lost the momentum. We are dragging our feet.
Coming to the third point, may I say that however great the need for agents is, and important as the need for changes in our monetary system is, let us not forget that the product speaks for itself. One of the complaints I heard often in England is that Russian lumber is better cut than Canadian lumber. We here depend on portable mills where it is next to impossible to maintain exact dimensions, while in Russia the mills are fixed, and fastened down and equipped in a way which allows for practically no variations in dimensions. In England, people build their houses with rough lumber, and unless the widths are rigidly maintained it is hard to put floor covering, for example, over the lumber.
The need for a better Canadian product- and this applies to all manufactured goods- is of primary importance if we are to recapture our markets and create new ones. This is one reason why I very much appreciate the steps being taken by the government to set up an organization to help small industry. Of course, this proposed organization, at least as I understand it now, does not go far enough. I hope the scope will be enlarged to include capital assistance, product perfection and selling techniques. We have a selling job to do. We have not been doing it in the past. Let us buckle down and begin doing it now.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Would the minister tell the house what steps are being taken to improve trade relations within the different countries of the western hemisphere?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, this branch is engaged in that activity at all times. Through our trade commissioners, and through talks between officials of this department and representatives of foreign governments we keep constantly in touch with the situation with respect to trade relations between Canada and other countries of the western hemisphere.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The member for Resti-gouche-Madawaska has just brought up a question which is very important in northern New Brunswick. I asked the minister two questions on this same matter last evening. Can he tell us, now that he has his officials with him, what the Department of Trade and Commerce is doing to bring back to normal our exports of pulpwood to the European
Supply-Trade and Commerce market? The hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska has cited figures and said he is aware from his personal contacts with dealers in France and Britain that our prices are no higher than the prices paid for Russian pulp. In fact, they are even lower.


Gordon Minto Churchill: One thing that must be borne in mind is that the demand for pulp-wood all over the world is down at the present moment. The government, in so far as it has trade commissioners stationed abroad, keeps in touch with the process of trade, but the government is not involved actively and directly in selling pulpwood or any other article with the exception of wheat where we have a crown corporation to deal with its disposal. Private industry has representatives abroad who push these sales of pulpwood as is done with regard to other products.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I really believe this is a question which should be dealt with. The minister says the government does not try to sell, that it is not a salesman to sell goods manufactured in Canada. We should have an organization of salesmen around the world able to sell the products which we manufacture here. We manufacture much more than we can consume, and unless these goods are sold on the markets of the world we are due to have a recession which will last not only for a year or two but for a long time. I believe the Department of Trade and Commerce should organize salesmen around the world to sell these products.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are not engaged in state trading. We have our trade commissioner service in these 45 countries round the world whose business it is-and they are very active in this-to call upon businessmen in the countries in which they are located, to communicate with Canadian businessmen who visit those countries or to write to them. Information is constantly furnished to these officials who in turn pass it on to the government and to Canadian businessmen here. A great deal has been published in that magnificent booklet of ours called "Foreign Trade". So every possible step is taken by the officials of this department to keep Canadian business informed of opportunities abroad. But we have not yet reached the stage where we employ salesmen under government auspices to sell goods produced in Canada by private industry.
Canadian businessmen are themselves very active. As I mentioned on Thursday, 4,000 visits to the various countries of the world abroad have been paid by Canadian businessmen, and that is the way in which our Canadian trade is advanced. It is by the means I mentioned that business is kept informed of what is going on.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Alexis Pierre Caron: I have listened to what the minister has had to say, but I listened earlier to what was said by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska. He said a while ago that while he was in France and in England he learned that we were losing the pulp-wood trade to Russia. On account of what? If we have commissioners over there looking after trade, and if they have not reported, as they should have reported, that for some reason or another we are losing this trade, there is something wrong somewhere and this should be corrected by the Department of Trade and Commerce.
We are facing the same situation with regard to newsprint. We are losing our world trade to Norway, Sweden and Finland. How is it that we are losing our trade with the United States with respect to a product which otherwise has to be imported from so far away? We want to know what is wrong, in order that we may be able to change this situation, and that is why we are asking the minister to make the changes necessary for us to be able to sell our products.


Gordon Minto Churchill: As I have said, in some respects trade has fallen off. Nevertheless, Canada is the greatest supplier of lumber and pulpwood, and our agents abroad are very active in promoting those sales by getting the information that is required. It is a matter of economics. If the Russians offer products below the price of Canadian products they sometimes get the business. I spoke about this the other day when we were dealing with aluminum.
Here is an example of a sale of lumber and lumber products amounting to $889,000 which came about through the activities of one of our trade commissioners in the United States. He made an extensive survey of lumber outlets in Michigan and Ohio during 1956 which, extended in 1957, formed the basis of many inquiries which resulted in a substantial volume of new business. Canadian lumber lists and special offerings were made available to local firms while, conversely, the names and interests of local firms were circulated to the industry in Canada. Items of new business to the amount I have mentioned-$889,000-were reported in 1957 as being due to this phase of the trade commissioner's activity.
I have here a list covering at least a dozen pages indicating various items of all types where the activity of trade commissioners resulted in business for Canadian firms. Here is another item coming from Mexico City. The commercial counsellor there, our trade commissioner, brought a Mexico City firm in touch with a Canadian company as a result of which seven orders for newsprint to the value of $65,000 were placed. Here is another

from New Orleans. The names of various British Columbia and Ontario suppliers were furnished to firms in South Carolina, Oklahoma, California, Texas, Alabama and Florida by the trade commissioner as a result of which sales of lumber and other products were made to the extent of $813,000. And so it goes all the way through this book covering anything from diesel locomotives to codfish, aluminum, brewer's malt and durum wheat and so on. It is a very active branch of the government.


Joseph-Omer Gour: Mr. Chairman, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Instead of sending 50 people on a trade mission to Great Britain, all expenses paid, would it not be just as reasonable to spend some money in sending representatives from various manufacturing and industrial concerns as well as representatives of the minister's department to various countries of the world to stimulate Canadian trade abroad? What is the point of sending 50 men to Great Britain to say, "Please, manufacturers of the United Kingdom, sell us some goods". Most of these things are already produced in this country. I think it would be advisable to spend $100,000 or more in sending someone from the minister's department together with representatives of those industries whose goods are in a surplus position in Canada to make some sales abroad and elsewhere. I do not think it is useful to send 50 men on a mission at the same time so they can have a nice pleasure trip. It is not necessary for them to have such a happy time and they could have accomplished more than merely saying to the British manufacturers, "Please, for God's sake, sell us some goods. We are not able to manufacture our own goods or buy and sell them". I believe the suggestion I have advanced is far more reasonable.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, a while ago the minister said we have an organization which seeks to sell Canadian goods in foreign markets. Despite this fact we have lost a great deal of our trade in pulpwood as the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska proved with the figures he had on the subject. He was on the spot and he asked a question.
In addition to the loss of pulpwood sales we have lost some sales of aluminum to Russia. I believe something is wrong somewhere. If it is not with our economy then it must be with our system of distribution. There should be an organization in the department to study what is wrong with us so we can recuperate the trade we lost. That is what I am asking the minister at this

time. Is there any organization in the Department of Trade and Commerce to try to ascertain what is wrong with our system so we can recuperate our losses?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I will repeat what I have said. The trade commissioner's branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce is one of the most efficient branches of the government. Hon. members on all sides of the house have paid tribute to the work that is being done by these men of ours abroad. They are all carefully selected and trained. After serving abroad for a period they return to Canada and make contacts with Canadian industry and then take up their posts abroad. Every week letters come to me or to the department from businessmen who have been abroad and in contact with our trade commissioners and they report that they have received excellent cooperation and benefited greatly by the advice and counsel given by the trade commissioners.
Had it not been for the work of these men abroad Canada's export trade would not be higher at this time than it was a year ago and, as I pointed out yesterday, it has been rising.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I admit that we have a very good staff in the department and I wish to join with those hon. members who have spoken in praise of the work that has been done by this personnel. However, aside from that, we are losing some trade. We should not be losing trade because we certainly cannot furnish France or England with the pulp they need through lack of orders. There must be a reason for this. If a special study were made concerning pulp-wood, newsprint and aluminum it might be possible to discover this reason. We are losing trade at the present time and we should be in a position to know why we are losing it so we can correct the difficulty. If we do not study the matter we will not know where we stand. Canada continues to suffer from over-production which creates a condition of recession and everybody wants to get rid of that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, the hon member's suggestion will be given very careful study by the officials of the department and myself. I gave an example the other day of the difficulties we face and the commodity I chose for the purpose of illustration was aluminum. We are the world's great supplier of aluminum and yet Russian competition has interfered with our sales of aluminum abroad. The hon. member said we should do something about it. We have done all that we could do about it but if the Russians are prepared, as they have stated, to quote a price that is under our price regardless of
Supply-Trade and Commerce at what level we set it, then we are really in difficulty.
We have communicated with the United Kingdom asking them to continue to purchase Canadian aluminum and resist the sale of aluminum from Russia. That is the type of action we take. The various branches of this department are constantly in touch with trends of business all across the world. Reports come in all the time with regard to what is happening in respect of one commodity or another. The businessmen of this country secure that information from our department. We maintain close touch with world economic conditions.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Item 398 agreed to.
399. Canadian participation in the Brussels universal and international exhibition 1958, $709,628.
Mr. Bourgel:: Mr. Chairman, the minister will probably recall that I asked him some questions a few weeks ago about the situation with respect to the Brussels universal and international exhibition. I do not know whether or not he has had occasion to personally visit the exhibition but he will recall there were some articles published in the newspapers in criticism of it, and there was also some criticism made by one member of his own party who was there some weeks ago. Under the circumstances and due to the fact that this exhibition is costing the country $3 million I believe we are entitled to expect some comment from the minister concerning the exhibition. I should also like to have him give us a little more information about the circumstances surrounding the resignation of Mrs. Bienvenue. We have little information at the present time to use as the basis of a discussion of this subject. We have received only the information the minister gave us and have had tabled the letter of resignation and the minister's reply. I would appreciate very much if the minister would be kind enough to give us more information so we will have a clearer picture of the situation at the Brussels universal and international exhibition.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, the plans for the Canadian exhibit at the Brussels universal and international exhibition were made by the former Liberal administration several years ago and the money was allocated very largely during the lifetime of that administration.
When we came into the picture at the end of June, 1957, the plans were very far advanced and most of the money had then been voted for this purpose. We were presented with a fait accompli in the type of
2454	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce building which had been designed, the exhibits that were going to be shown in the building, the beautification of the grounds surrounding the building and the selection of the site on which the building would rest. Virtually all the appointments with regard to the management of the exhibition had been made, including the appointment of Madame Bienvenue as chaperone. That was done by order in council in that period of interregnum between June 10 and June 21.
Some people have been very critical of the Canadian exhibit at Brussels and a much larger number have been very complimentary of it. For a long time I kept a record from week to week of the letters coming in and the comments made. For quite a while they were about 50-50, 50 per cent condemning the Canadian exhibit and 50 per cent praising it. Latterly I have received no letters finding fault with the Canadian exhibit but an increasing number of comments praising it. Some of these comments are now coming from visitors to the exhibition living overseas in Belgium, Holland, France and elsewhere in Europe. They are very much impressed with the Canadian exhibit. Thousands of them have been through our pavilion and the number is steadily increasing.
It is important to recall what was the purpose of the world exhibition. The original invitation which came from the authorities at Brussels to the Canadian government was expressed in the following words:
We want it to be possible for any one nation to be able to explain to all other nations how it lives, what are its religious and philosophic conceptions, its economic and social achievements. If to govern means an attempt to give a people happiness then let the nations tell each other just how they visualize that happiness and how they would assure the required material and moral conditions.
It will be seen from that that this is not a trade fair or an industrial exhibition, and people have become confused in their minds with regard to that. It is intended to depict the Canadian way of life and I think that is being done by our exhibit in Brussels. There is an industrial section. Art is shown and various other aspects of life in Canada are depicted.
One must also remember that although the amount of money, $3 million, seems sufficiently large for such an enterprise it is dwarfed by the amount of money spent by the United States, Russia and some other countries who have very large exhibits adjacent to the Canadian pavilion. But, as I have stated on another occasion, Canada in spending $3 million on this exhibit has played a part comparable to that of other nations of similar size. We have not seen fit to enlarge


the amount of money available for the Canadian exhibit. We took it for granted that the former administration had given very careful consideration to the planning and that within the financial limit set satisfactory results could be achieved. I think that satisfactory results have been achieved.
There were complaints earlier about the food in the restaurant. You hear complaints about the food in the restaurant upstairs here and I have been around these parts now for over eight years. The cost of the meals in the Canadian restaurant at Brussels was under question and the cost was subsequently lowered. Canadian restaurant people were given an opportunity to tender on providing meals over there but did not take up the offer. A Belgian restaurant keeper undertook to provide meals. He had the impression that visitors to the exhibition from Canada and North America generally would like to have food that is common to Europe. Some of our Canadian visitors apparently did not want that. They wanted, I suppose, ham and egs, hamburgs, hot dogs and things of that nature.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope codfish.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Others who are interested in seeing how other people live have not objected to the type of meals served in the restaurant. Complaints about the restaurant, although they were fairly numerous in the early stages, have declined. I have not heard any complaint about the restaurant recently. In any case, a visitor to the Brussels exhibition is not compelled to eat in the Canadian restaurant. Every other exhibit there has its restaurant and there are other public eating places in Brussels. I think we do not need to magnify too much complaints of individuals with regard to this or that. You cannot satisfy people with regard to art, architecture, food and a long list of other things where opinions differ depending upon people's tastes, background, training and so on.
A staff of 48 students has been over there since early in April acting as guides, 24 young women and 24 young men selected carefully from the universities of this country by university authorities on the basis of their academic standing and on the basis of their knowledge of languages. These carefully selected students were given the privilege of spending six months in Europe, earning a salary during that period, getting free lodging and free board and accumulating leave so that they would be able to do a little travelling in Europe. They are the most fortunate university students in Canada. There are hundreds of university students who would gladly have made the trip and acted as guides at the Brussels exhibition. It is the type of

opportunity that comes about once in a lifetime and by and large I think our students have been excellent representatives of Canada and have done a first-class piece of work over there.
A little trouble arose over the retirement of the chaperone but it was at her own request and I accepted her resignation. I took it for granted that if a person went to the trouble of carefully writing out a resignation and presenting it to me I had no alternative but to accept, and I accepted it as I would under any other circumstances. Resignations are not lightly written and I simply assumed that the matter had been very carefully considered. There was a little disturbance among some of the students at the time who thought that the chaperone's resignation should not have been accepted and there was some disturbance over whether or not her place would be taken by someone else. Her place was, of course, immediately taken over by another lady who has served as chaperone in the interval.
As of this week Madame Boisvert of Quebec city has been appointed to be chaperone at the Canadian exhibit at Brussels and will be leaving in a very few days to take up her new position. While she is en route and for a while after she arrives Miss Armstrong will continue to act in the capacity of chaperone.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Is that the wife of the sergeant of the R.C.M.P.?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No. Miss Armstrong is from our London office.
Miss Armstrong will stay there until Madame Boisvert becomes thoroughly familiar with the situation and with her duties.
This constitutes a report, Mr. Chairman, on the exhibition at Brussels. From what I can gather from reports from newspapers published on the continent, from letters written by newspapermen who have been over there and businessmen who have visited the place, it appears that the Canadian exhibit is a credit to Canada; that it is depicting Canadian life in acceptable fashion; that it compares very favourably with the exhibits of other nations. I think we can be proud of the Canadian exhibit. I think we can give a word of praise to those who conceived, planned it and put it into operation; a word of praise to the students and others who are assisting in giving a good Canadian welcome to the visitors to the Brussels world fair.


Maurice Bourget: I should like, first of all, to thank the minister for the information he has just given to us. However, coming back to the case of Madame Bienvenue, I could
Supply-Trade and Commerce read from her letter to the minister in which she said:
I am having imposed on me obligations which go far beyond the terms of my contract.
May I ask the minister if he tried to ascertain whether or not what she alleges is true? Have new obligations been imposed upon Mrs. Bienvenue beyond the terms of her contract or agreement with the department?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Not to my knowledge. I had a report given to me with regard to this, and there was a thorough understanding concerning the terms of employment, salary and things of that nature. In the course of operation some misunderstanding must have arisen as to what should be done, and that is understandable in the operation of a world's fair. Madame Bienvenue considered she was being asked to do things that she had not expected to do, and was not being reimbursed to the extent she thought she should be. She indicated that she required an additional salary of $200 a month, and she said, and I quote her exact words:
Failing this, I resign my appointment 30 days from this date.


Maurice Bourget: I understand that, according to the agreement, Madame Bienvenue was supposed to be the social counsellor and chaperone of the women students. According to information I have received, as well as newspaper reports, she was also called upon to act as concierge, housekeeper and sometimes charwoman. Surely if she was called upon to do more she was right in asking for more pay.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not believe for one minute that she was called upon to do the other duties to which my hon. friend has referred.


Maurice Bourget: I do not know if you would call it a hotel where the students lived in Brussels, but I understand this was a four-storey house. There was no caretaker and there was no nurse. According to the information I have received, some of the students were sick and she had to take care of them. If she acted as nurse, charwoman and housekeeper, how could the minister blame her for asking for more money?
As a matter of fact, the letter she sent to the minister was not a letter of resignation. She mentioned to the minister she would resign if the conditions were not changed and if her salary was not increased because she was doing more work. I think she was quite right in asking for more pay. It is only logical to ask for more pay if her duties and obligations had been increased.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have the greatest respect for Madame Bienvenue, Mr. Chairman. I think she performed her duties in admirable

Supply-Trade and Commerce fashion. I took her resignation at face value. I saw no reason why I should not accept it because we had no funds voted for this particular purpose. Had she indicated in her letter she wished to confer with regard to duties or confer with me regarding salary matters, that would have been different. But it was a letter of resignation, and I assumed that it had been carefully considered before it was written and signed.


Maurice Bourget: Before the minister accepted the resignation of Madame Bienvenue did he try to ascertain from sources other than the reports he received from officials in Brussels what the exact situation was? I think we have a right to assume that something is not going too well out there because even the members of parliament have made complaints, not members of the opposition but members of the government. I believe the minister would have been justified in asking for a complete investigation in the situation. After all, when the Canadian people are spending $3 million they are entitled to get some benefit from it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The complaints my hon. friend mentions made by members of parliament to my knowledge were complaints with regard to the nature of the exhibit, the size of the building, the type of food that was being served in the restaurant. I did not hear from any member of parliament about the duties of the chaperone. I heard commendatory remarks concerning Madame Bienvenue. Prior to her departure, I was assured she was the type of person who would fill this job admirably, and I believe she did. I did not feel justified in making any extra expenditures to conduct an investigation under the circumstances. If people are not happy in the work that they are doing, it is their privilege to offer their resignation. In this case, that was done and I accepted it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I quite understand the minister's difficulty about assessing public opinion on the character and value of our exhibit in Brussels. It is quite impossible, of course, to participate in an exhibition of this kind and satisfy everybody. I, myself, am in no position to judge about the success of Canadian participation in this exhibit. Reports I have had would lead me to believe the effort was creditable, in view of the amount of money available, and that the exhibits are a reasonably attractive reflection of life in this country.
I should like to ask the minister one or two questions. Has there been any change in the plans for participation in the exhibit? I am thinking of the appearance, for instance, of the National Ballet or the Theatre du


Nouveau Monde. Has it been found necessary to cut down on some aspects of our participation and, if so, why was that required? The minister has touched upon the question of morale amongst the staff, and stated in the house that morale amongst the students was very high. Some of us have had letters from students which indicated that morale, in respect of some of them, was not too high.
However, there is something else that has been stated and I think this is a matter of some seriousness, namely that reports have been sent back by R.C.M.P. officers who are there on the conduct of the members of the staff. I should like to know from the minister whether, in fact, that has happened; whether the R.C.M.P. have taken it upon themselves to report to the government on the members of the Canadian staff at the exhibition.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have no knowledge of any report by the R.C.M.P. with regard to the people engaged in activities at the Canadian pavilion. In any case, that matter does not come under my jurisdiction. The Minister of Justice would have to deal with that particular matter. On the earlier question of the Leader of the Opposition may I say this. I do not think there has been any reduction whatsoever in any of the programs planned for the Canadian exhibition at the Brussels fair.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister has just said that any reports that might be made by the R.C.M.P. would not be made to him and therefore he would perhaps not be aware of them. But the Canadian participation in the exhibition is, of course, under his jurisdiction. This matter has already been taken up in the house. On June 26 a question was addressed to the Minister of Justice on this point. He said that he would make inquiries to ascertain whether or not reports have been received. We have received information that such reports have been made. I think it would be well to clear this matter up. We had hoped that the Minister of Justice might have informed the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether, in fact, there is any basis to this kind of talk. We asked a question in the house. He said that he would make inquiries about it on June 26 but we have not heard anything since then.


Gordon Minto Churchill: As far as the Department of Trade and Commerce is concerned I can say that we have asked for no reports from the R.C.M.P.; we have received no reports from the R.C.M.P.; and we know of no reports sent back from the R.C.M.P. except, I am informed, that they complained about the food that they were receiving.


Mr. Cardin:: I think this question of the difficulty that is now taking place at the Brussels fair is most regrettable. I think it is most regrettable from the point of view of the students who had looked forward to this experience with a good deal of anticipation. I think it is unfortunate for them that there should have been this misunderstanding, as I would call it, as to the relationship between the members of the personnel at the Brussels fair. I know Mrs. Bienvenue and I also know that she is a person who would take on these responsibilities with a great deal of compunction and certainly would not take these duties lightly. I think she may not have entered in her letters all the reasons that may have provoked her resignation. I feel that there is a great deal more left unsaid than is said in the letter. Under these circumstances it would seem to me that the minister might well have utilized, for instance, our representatives in Belgium who were on the spot to make a very thorough inquiry as to the reasons why Mrs. Bienvenue tendered her resignation. I think there is a great deal more being left unsaid than is being said. I rather feel that it would not be asking too much of the department to ask it to make a thorough investigation as to exactly what is going on in the Brussels fair among our Canadian personnel. I wonder whether the minister would not perhaps tell us exactly who has been chosen to replace Mrs. Bienvenue. I understood him to say that it was a Mrs. Boisvert who was to replace Mrs. Bienvenue. But as the hon. member knows, there are a great number of families bearing the name of Boisvert. I wonder whether he could be more specific.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In reply to the earlier part of the hon. member's remarks may I say that I know of no dissatisfaction now prevailing among the staff at the Canadian pavilion at Brussels. As I said earlier, there was some dissatisfaction at the time of the resignation of Mrs. Bienvenue. As to her successor, in order to identify her a little bit more carefully may I say that she is Mrs. Claire Paquette Boisvert of Quebec city.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: One of the things that impressed me greatly was the choice of the building, having regard to where the building was located. It was a very unfortunate choice that was made in taking that particular building. It was a building without very many services. One of the things that stands out is the fact that the R.C.M.P. and the staff were made to inhabit the same building. According to the information received from the R.C.M.P. this is against their regulations which demand that they be housed separately from the staff. Mrs. Bienvenue took the
57071-3-155
Supply-Trade and Commerce trouble to call me into her office when I visited that building. Of course, she was very specific in her complaints. There is no question about it that the former government got this thing off to a bad start. I presume this government is doing everything it can to straighten the matter out. In the light of the more favourable opinions that are now being received, I also presume that this government has done quite a bit to ameliorate conditions at the fair. From speaking with people visiting our exhibition, talking with the guides and, what I personally could find out from simply going through it, looking around and asking questions, the fair is not a success. Canada is not doing a proper job as far as our participation in that fair is concerned. It is unfortunate that I am obliged to say that but, as far as I am concerned, that is what I have found.


Lionel Chevrier: May I pursue the matter thai was originated by my friend the hon. member for Levis. A moment ago the minister said, if I understood him rightly, that he had received no reports from the R.C.M.P. While I am not challenging the accuracy of that statement I refer him to sessional paper No. 203, dated Wednesday, July 9, 1958 which is a report on the whole matter. Paragraph 4 of it reads as follows:
4. I have learned that three reports concerning the personnel of the Canadian residence (the Royal Canadian Mounted Police excepted) have been sent to Ottawa without my knowledge. The first is said to incorporate a grave rumour which libels the reputations of the 24 young women. The second, based on a minor incident, suggests that our young people use alcohol excessively. The third concerns me.
In the light of that statement, which seems to be in contradiction to what the minister has said, I wonder whether he will not comment on the situation anew?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I understand that these are charges made by Mrs. Bienvenue herself. You are reading from her letter?


Lionel Chevrier: I was reading from the sessional paper which I take it is a letter from Mrs. Bienvenue to the minister.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Just in case a stranger might not know what a sessional paper is, let it be clear that this sessional paper is the original letter from Mrs. Bienvenue and addressed to me. It is not a government publication. These are the statements that were made. But I have already given my answer with regard to communications from the R.C.M.P.


Lionel Chevrier: Has the minister ever asked the Minister of Justice if there were reports such as those that are mentioned in that paragraph 4 of the letter?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, I have not made that inquiry of him.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does not the minister think he should do that? This is a fairly serious charge made by the signer of this letter to the effect that reports of this kind have been sent back by the R.C.M.P. to Ottawa. If that charge has no foundation in fact, that should be made clear; and presumably the only way in which it can be made clear, if the minister or his department has not received such a report, is to ask the Minister of Justice whether there is any foundation to it. That is why we brought this matter up nearly a month ago. At that time the Minister of Justice said he would look into it. That is why we should like to have a report at this time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will draw to the attention of the Minister of Justice the interest of the hon. gentleman in this matter.


Maurice Bourget: Does the minister mean he has not received any reports, not one of the reports mentioned in the letter from Madame Bienvenue to himself, no report at all? I do not mean reports sent by the R.C.M.P. only because in her letter Madame Bienvenue mentions that those reports were not sent by the R.C.M.P. We may take this inference from the fact that she says, "The Royal Canadian Mounted Police excepted". I am just asking the minister if he has received the three reports on this subject mentioned three or four lines down in the fourth paragraph of the letter?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Chairman, I have not received the reports such as are indicated in the letter of Madame Bienvenue.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The minister received a letter signed Mrs. Bienvenue. When he read the letter, or should have read it, in the fourth paragraph he would have seen she says she has learned that three reports concerning the personnel of the Canadian residence-the Royal Canadian Mounted Police excepted- were sent to Ottawa without her knowledge.
I am asking the minister why he does not refer to these alleged reports? He just accepts the resignation-oh, with a few kind words, "I wish to thank you very much for your contribution"-without making an inquiry to see if there is any truth in the letter. I think it is very strange to receive a letter of that kind and not to inquire at all as to such a report, whether it was received in his department by someone, but just to accept the resignation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It did not occur to me, Mr. Chairman, that paragraph 4 had any relationship to the actual resignation incorporated

in the balance of the letter under the heading "Conclusions".


Alexis Pierre Caron: 
Lionel Chevrier: May I suggest, as there seems to be a good deal of interest in this item, that the minister could inquire of his colleague the Minister of Justice as to whether there were any reports such as alleged in paragraph 4 of the letter and of the sessional paper and the item might perhaps stand until the minister reports to the house. I am sure if he does that he will see that there will not be too serious objection to the item going through.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the item passes or is allowed to stand, Mr. Chairman, I should like to express the feeling of shock which I am sure must have been shared by other hon. members that the minister, having received this letter, accepted this resignation. The minister has, since he became minister, accepted more resignations than all the other members of the government put together, and yet he makes the statement that when he received this resignation he merely accepted it without investigating the circumstances which led up to it. Considering the importance of the positions held by many of the officials who have resigned since the minister took up his present office, it does seem to me the most extraordinary confession for the minister to make.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. gentleman is not always accurate in his statements and on this occasion he is inaccurate. I said that I read the resignation and decided it had been made in good faith. I accepted it, but at no time did I say I had made no investigation, as the hon. member has now stated. In that respect his remarks are totally inaccurate and his gratuitous references to other

resignations deserve to be received with the contempt which one feels for that type of political remark.


An hon. Member:: Cheap.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The resignation of Mr. Mclvor from the Canadian wheat board was contemplated for many years, and was based upon personal reasons. The resignation of Mr. Bennett from the atomic energy commission had been placed before my predecessor at least one year before I assumed office and was very kindly postponed by Mr. Bennett at my request. So let us have no more of these snide remarks about resignations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the hon. members assume that my observations should be treated with contempt I wish to say I have listened very carefully to the remarks of the minister. I certainly got the impression, as I believe did all members on this side of the house, that the minister had made no investigation of the case of Mrs. Bienvenue. If he made such an investigation would he tell us the results of it, which surely parliament is entitled to know.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I accept no responsibility for the impressions formed in the mind of my hon. friend.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister has said he made an investigation and that is a very pertinent statement in regard to the letter of Madame Bienvenue. As stated in this letter, and it must have been an important factor in the decision to resign, three reports were made, I rather assumed by the R.C.M.P. to the Minister of Justice from the reference to the R.C.M.P. in that paragraph. But perhaps that is wrong and perhaps the reports were made by someone else to the minister or to someone in his department. Now if the minister has made any investigation we would like to know whether as the result of such an investigation there was any foundation whatever for these serious charges that reports were made which reflected upon the character of Canadian personnel. If the minister is not in a position to give us the results of the investigation at this moment would he let this item stand until he is able to secure these results which he should be able to do quite shortly?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think, Mr. Chairman, we are magnifying this item out of all reasonable proportion in asking for it to stand dependent upon a report from the Minister of Justice who was previously asked a question with regard to these reports. I have no
57071-3-155J
Supply-Trade and Commerce knowledge of reports which Madame Bienvenue claims are libellous or damaging to someone's reputation. This has not come to my attention in any way whatsoever and I have already stated the circumstances under which I have accepted the resignation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, there is a very simple way out of this difficulty. The minister can ask an official of his department or someone else to phone the Minister of Justice to find out if he has any such reports. He could do that in a few minutes; he could discover whether any such reports have been received. He say he has no knowledge of them and he could not possibly have knowledge of all reports received in his department, but he could clear up the mystery very quickly and easily.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Nielsen):: As I
understand the rules of the committee, the committee can with unanimous consent have an item stand. Does the committee give that unanimous consent at this time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think the item should pass. I think this is just a ridiculous request based on an alleged report said by Madame Bienvenue to be libellous. She does not say she saw the report; she simply says she heard of some report, but she does not tell us who was the author or to whom it was sent.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Chairman, it says she has learned of the reports.


Gordon Minto Churchill: From whom?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Presumably in her capacity as the woman responsible for looking after the staff in Brussels. She has learned the reports were made and as a result of this and other things she felt it necessary to submit her resignation. So it is not a trifling matter; if these reports are involved all the minister has to do is to see if they were received by either the Minister of Justice or his department or by the minister's own department. We asked this question of the Minister of Justice nearly a month ago and we have heard nothing further. We now ask the minister to find out whether any such reports were received by his department. He has just said he made an investigation of the matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There were certainly no reports such as are referred to here, received by my department. The Minister of Justice may be asked to reply to the question which has already been placed on the order paper, and surely that will satisfy the committee. There is no curtailment of information; no loss of time. These questions can be repeated

Supply-Trade and Commerce -hon. members opposite are very good at that-and I am sure the Minister of Justice will be quite able to give a reply on Monday.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister has now said that there were no such reports received by his department. I accept that statement. He did not make it earlier. I do not want to hold up the minister's estimates. At the proper time we will ask the Minister of Justice. In the meantime we accept the statement the minister has just made that no such reports as those referred to paragraph 4 of this letter were received by his department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the item carries, I should like to say this: the minister made a charge that I had misrepresented a statement he had made and in support of his contention that I had misrepresented him he went on to say that he had made an investigation. He has told us absolutely nothing about the kind of investigation he made or the results of his investigation, and I think that as representatives of the taxpayers we are entitled to that information before this item passes.


Maurice Bourget: Before the item carries, I should like to ask the minister if he would be good enough to table the letters sent to him by the students, copies of which have, I think, also been sent to the Prime Minister.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is a notice of motion on the order paper for a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Prime Minister or the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the students who are acting as guides at the Canadian pavilion of the Brussels universal and international exhibition, 1958. That will come up in due course on Monday. The notice of motion refers to both the Prime Minister and myself. I have not had an opportunity of speaking to the Prime Minister about it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister refuse to tell us what kind of investigation he carried out and what the results of his investigation were?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I see no purpose in attempting to satisfy the irrepressible curiosity of the hon. gentleman.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The charges made are public. They are public charges, and the documents have been tabled in this house. The minister says he has made an investigation. Can he not tell this committee what were the results of his investigation, what were his findings? Are the charges true or false?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is the hon. member asking whether or not I investigated these charges made by Madame Bienvenue in paragraph

4 of her letter? I have already stated I have no knowledge of this whatsoever. If it were sent by the R.C.M.P., or to the Minister of Justice that is an entirely different proposition. In any case, her resignation is not founded on that statement in her letter but on considerations which do not even mention these alleged libelous charges.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask one more question. Could the minister say what he investigated in the investigation he carried out?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, any reasonable person would understand what type of investigation would be carried out on receipt of a letter of resignation. I naturally asked my officials to let me know the state of affairs at Brussels.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And what did your officials report?
Churchill: My officials reported that Madame Bienvenue, in accordance with her letter was offering her resignation, that she was being asked to perform duties which were beyond her and was requesting more money, and they thought that this additional money was not available as it was not available within the estimate and no course was left other than to accept her resignation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not going to press this matter any further. I merely want to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that is was not so long ago since the minister and his friends were sitting over here and complaining about the denial of information to parliament by occupants of the treasury benches, and I cannot recall in all the time I have observed this parliament anything to compare with the refusal of the minister to answer perfectly simple questions that we have witnessed this afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
401.	Electricity and gas inspection services. $976,301.
Lionel Chevrier: On item 401, Mr. Chairman, the minister was good enough to answer the questions that I asked him earlier about the export of power, and in his reply he indicated that the New Brunswick electric power commission holds a licence for the export of power of 20,730 kilowatt hours, and that the power exported through the grid is developed in part at Beechwood. The question I desire to ask the minister is this: is the power under development there not for transmission to the province itself, and was not that the intention when parliament approved this project? So I ask the minister why, in view of that understanding, was the licence granted for the

export of a portion of the power developed at Beechwood.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The licence was granted because we were informed that they had a surplus of power, and the licence was granted on the basis that the power may be interrupted if required.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister say how much power is generated at Beechwood?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We gave the figures, I think, for the grid as a whole. I do not know how much is generated at Beechwood itself.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, the answer given would not cover the question I have just asked. Let me put it in another way: can the minister state whether this is off-peak power, and what proportion of the power developed at Beechwood is covered by the export licence?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I judge that this is off-peak power. Whether it comes directly from Beechwood or is drawn from the grid as a whole would be very difficult to determine.


Lionel Chevrier: I know that perhaps some of these questions are technical, but could the minister say, nevertheless, what are the bases upon which a licence is granted by his department for the export of power?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think always on the basis that it is in excess of local requirements, and always on an interruptible basis.


Lionel Chevrier: Can this power be recaptured? Is there a provision in the licence to this effect? What I mean is this: power is a natural resource and I am sure there must be conditions and terms upon which the licence is issued. Does the licence state that this power can be returned at any time and interrupted even though it may affect the development of communities in another country?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, I believe so, because it is surplus power on our side and it is interruptible, and the communities receiving this on the other side do so on the understanding that they cannot count on it as a permanent thing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, is there not a difference-and I speak subject to correction-between interruptible power and surplus power in the sense of power that is surplus to the immediate demands and which is provided on a more or less permanent basis? If this is interruptible power it could be interrupted at any time and if at the present moment there is no particular need for it in the province of New Brunswick there would not be much dispute about it on this side of the house. On the other hand, if it is power which is assumed to be in
Supply-Trade and Commerce excess of any immediately foreseeable requirement in New Brunswick and >s being exported to the state of Maine on a regular basis we would be very worried on this side of the house because in the last parliament, as the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources will probably recall, we were asked to support a loan of $30 million from the federal treasury to provide additional power for the province of New Brunswick and that measure received the support of both sides of the house. I do not think it would have received the support of both sides or indeed the support of a great many hon. members of the house if there had been any thought that in doing so we were making a loan to provide power for export to the United States.
That is a question, of course, that has been a great political question in Canada all through the twentieth century. On one occasion, as the minister may perhaps recall, it occasioned differences of opinion in the ranks of the Liberal party which perhaps we have not yet heard the end of and the question of the maintenance of our power resources in Canada is something of which parliaments have always been very jealous. We would want the most categorical kind of assurance from the minister that this is genuinely interruptible power and that there is no question whatever that it can be instantly retrieved if it is required.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I think I can say it is genuinely interruptible power. It is making use of surplus power which is available at the present time but in the future it may well be that this surplus power will become essential for use within the province of New Brunswick itself.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could get a more comprehensive answer to the question I asked earlier about the basis upon which these licences are granted. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate referred to the debate that had taken place in this house many years ago on this question. I remember that debate quite well. I believe that there was general agreement between all parties about the desire to keep this power in our own country and on no occasion to export it other than in extraordinary circumstances and except when it was off-peak power and, as has already been stated, clearly and genuinely interruptible power.
The question I asked and upon which I should like some further enlightenment if the minister would be kind enough to give it to me is this. What are the terms or conditions in the grant of the licence authorizing the export of this power whether it be at Beechwood or at any other point on the border between Canada and the United States?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Gordon Minto Churchill: Before the export permit is granted the standards branch of our department gives me information to show that this is surplus power beyond domestic needs and that information in turn has to be disclosed to the government before the order in council is issued. There has been no deviation in policy from what has prevailed in the past. We are simply granting these export permits in circumstances where surplus power is available and it is on an interruptible basis.


Lionel Chevrier: I know that the licences are granted in exceptional cases. I appreciate that they are not the general rule. What is required in order to recapture the power? Does notice have to be given to the industry or the power commission in the other state?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I feel sure that is part of the agreement that is made. In the first instance it is surplus and in the second instance it is interruptible because it has to be utilized in Canada and therefore is not available to the importing state.


Lionel Chevrier: Does the minister have a copy of the licence? Could I obtain a copy?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I shall gladly furnish the hon. member with one but we do not have a copy here at the moment.


Lionel Chevrier: If I secure a copy I think that will be sufficient. Could the minister or one of his officials state whether the licence says that the power is for a certain period, for instance for two hours or a terminable period within a day?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, I doubt very much if it sets out that detail.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Could the minister also
tell the committee if in such a permit there is a clause which determines the cost of power? In other words, is the power sold to the United States consumer at the same price that is paid for Canadian consumption by the residents of New Brunswick?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is not stated in the export licence which we issue.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What we are trying to establish, and perhaps we can sum it up in these words, is this: the power in question which is exported from this country is genuinely interruptible as the minister has said, that it can be recaptured for Canadian consumption and that the purchaser of the power in the United States knows that fact.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That, I think, is a very good summary of our position.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

402.	Weights and measures inspection services, $1,063,212.
Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister say whether there has been an increase in the personnel of this branch of his department?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there has been an increase of 13.


Lionel Chevrier: Could he give the reason?


Gordon Minto Churchill: This branch carries out the inspection of weights and measures and of weighing and measuring machines used in trade throughout Canada, scales of any capacity, and measures the accuracy of gasoline pumps and trucks and other weighing or measuring equipment that is imported and weighing and measuring machines manufactured in Canada prior to being released for sale. With the increase of population in this country and the expansion of business operations, we have found it necessary to increase the inspection staff.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion Bureau of Statistics-
403.	Administration, $218,443.
Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to make an issue of anything and it may have been that way since the beginning of the world but when we were in another committee the other day I discovered that in terms of area the cities of Hull and Ottawa are linked together. The situation in the two cities is vastly different. Ottawa is the capital city where most persons are government employees. Hull is a manufacturing city where the employment is completely different. With respect to Quebec, Hull is similar to Three Rivers and Sherbrooke. It is generally called the metropolis of western Quebec. I would ask the minister to request the dominion bureau of statistics in future to designate Ottawa and Hull as separate areas.
The two cities are too different to classify them together. You can find that on page 6 and page 24 of the report of the government bureau. When I wanted figures for Hull the other day the only thing they could give me was Hull-Ottawa. This is not satisfactory with respect to our population because there is not the same type of employment. Would it be possible for the minister to ask them to separate Ottawa and Hull as Sherbrooke and Three Rivers are separate areas in the province of Quebec?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will be glad to look into the problem raised by the hon. member and see if his suggestion can be carried out.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister whether there has been any change in the title of the bureau?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is known as the dominion bureau of statistics.


Lionel Chevrier: I know but has there been any change in the title?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Not to my knowledge.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, in view of the very great interest in the compilation of unemployment statistics and, indeed, in view of the importance of these statistics at the present time, would the minister give the committee a fairly detailed report as to how this is done so that we may be in a position perhaps to appreciate more accurately than we have in the past the exact meaning and significance of the bureau of statistic's figures on unemployment compared with the figures collected by the Department of Labour.


Gordon Minto Churchill: An official from the bureau is coming down.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The reason I ask, and it should be obvious, is that there are two sets of figures as we all know and over the years there has been confusion inside and outside the house as to the relationship between the two and what they stand for, the registrations for unemployment assistance of the Department of Labour and the bureau of statistics sort of random sample compilation. Perhaps this would be a good opportunity to clear up any confusion that may exist as to the relation between the two.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Leader of the Opposition has raised a question of very considerable importance because over the years some people have been a bit confused by the two sets of figures produced dealing with employment or unemployment. The head of the dominion bureau of statistics has studied this problem with painstaking care and has prepared a report which I think he has now attempted to bring to the attention of one government or another on three different occasions. I believe that before my hon. friends altered their position this report was on the verge of being considered. It was brought to my attention last winter and because of other circumstances we did not have the opportunity then to give it the attention that it deserved. I have been considering asking Mr. Duffett, the head of the bureau, to bring the report forward again. I think that this report, based on his experience and that of his assistants might, if it meets with approval, solve this rather difficult problem. If my hon. friend will leave the matter there, I hope before very long to be able to report to him that we are making some progress along that line.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I appreciate what the minister has said and also the desirability, if it can be done, of consolidating the methods
Supply-Trade and Commerce and procedures and results of the efforts to clarify the situation with regard to unemployment and, indeed, employment statistics. If anything can be done in that regard, if a consolidation of that kind can be made, I am sure it will be very helpful. But in the meantime, as this is not likely to be accomplished for some time and two sets of reports will be coming out within the next few weeks, can the minister give the committee some indication of the basis of establishment that the bureau of statistics uses? It would surely be of value at this time if he could do that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: About 600 enumerators canvass 30,000 households every month and base their calculations upon their findings as they interview these households.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then the basis is about 30,000 households in Canada. They are used as samples and on the basis of the information received from these 30,000 sample households across the country the figures that we get from the bureau of statistics on unemployment and employment are established?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I might add that it is based on the most modern scientific methods of making calculations from sampling.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister has now
occupied his present post for a year and during that year there has been a good deal of discussion of the question of employment and unemployment in various contexts. I assume he has satisfied himself that this is the best way to calculate employment and unemployment and that this is the most accurate reflection possible of the degree of employment and unemployment that we have in the country at this time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This method of calculating employment has been in use for the last 13 years. It is the method available at the moment. I am not prepared to say that it is the best or that it might not be subject to improvement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may pursue the matter for a moment, the minister will recall that when he and his friends were on this side of the house they disparaged these figures at all times and always used as unemployment figures the figures compiled by the unemployment insurance commission of the number of persons registered as looking for jobs. I take it from what the minister has said now that, since he moved across the house, he has changed his view and he now regards these figures as the proper figures to be used to reflect employment and unemployment.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Gordon Minto Churchill: And the members opposite may in their turn adopt the other set of figures and, of course, the hon. member for Essex East has his own compilation which he gives to the house from time to time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might say that I have always been very scrupulous in using the figures given by the bureau of statistics in any public statements I have ever made, but I was anxious to find out whether the minister, who, with his friends, including his leader, was very critical of these figures when he sat over here, disparaged them at all times and suggested that they were more or less political figures, now has a different view of them.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister explain the difference between the manner in which these figures are prepared or compiled and the manner in which the figures are prepared or compiled by the Department of Labour through the unemployment insurance commission?


Gordon Minto Churchill: They measure two different things. I think I answered a question along this line in the last parliament.
The second figure is based on our people who are registering for unemployment insurance. It is quite a different type of calculation.


Lionel Chevrier: Nonetheless, the bureau of statistics comes out with both sets of figures, does it not?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It appears in a joint release from the dominion bureau of statistics.


Lionel Chevrier: When are the figures released for each month? Is there a check date either at the beginning, the middle or end of the month on which this release is made?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Approximately in the third week of the month.


Lionel Chevrier: Following that up, why is it that in the course of the last several months, in a period of five or six months within the last twelve months, the figures were not available to members of parliament? I know that on several occasions questions were asked on orders of the day as to the reason for the delay. I am referring not only to the figures that are published by the minister's department but also to those that are compiled by unemployment insurance. I wondered why the delay did take place because I know that sometimes my release did not arrive in the third week of the month.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I know of no delay in the publication of these statistics by the dominion bureau of statistics. My hon. friend is referring also to those which come out from the

Department of Labour, and for which I have not any responsibility.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I know the minister has no responsibility for them, but he said earlier that the bureau of statistics publishes both sets of figures in a joint statement. My complaint was that there had been delays in recent months.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Just to make it clear, when I said there had been no delay in the publication of this document by the dominion bureau of statistics I should have indicated quite clearly that was the joint release dealing with the two sets of figures.


Lionel Chevrier: This is the third week of the month of July, and we have not yet received the figures for this month.


Gordon Minto Churchill: According to my book, the third week starts on the 21st, which is next week.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely the minister means the fourth week; three weeks have elapsed by the 21st. If you divide seven into 21, you get three.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The 1st of July was on a Tuesday, so I presume it will be out on Monday or Tuesday.


Lionel Chevrier: Does the minister know whether it will be out? Can an officer of the department say whether it will be out on Monday or Tuesday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is no fixed day or date and variations occur because of holidays and unforeseen events. But by and large, this report comes out sometime during the third week of each month.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
404.	Statistics, including contributions as detailed in the estimates, the expenditure for these not to exceed the amounts shown unless otherwise approved by treasury board, $6,953,099.
Mr. McGee:: I wonder if I might ask the minister to comment on a statement attributed to Mr. Gilbert Jackson in the Globe and Mail during last winter. I do not have the date, but I shall read a part of the statement:
I represented the 101,000 persons, in the first of these three categories-
That is the category he denotes as frictionally unemployed.
-as an almost irreducible minimum, even in the busiest season of the most prosperous year.
I want to know if, in fact, 100,000 is the figure of the irreducible minimum in that category as confirmed by the dominion bureau of statistics.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This question is a bit difficult because the 100,000-could that be related to a percentage of the total figure being considered-in relation to 500,000 would be quite different from relating it to a million or more.


Frank Charles McGee: The statement is that the figure of 100,000 represents an irreducible minimum even in the busiest season of the most prosperous year. There will be this number of persons between jobs or what is termed "frictionally unemployed".


Gordon Minto Churchill: There will be a number of people unemployed at certain times, people changing jobs or for other reasons. Whether or not you could categorically set that number of 100,000, is not information that we have available at this moment. I shall refer my hon. friend's question to the dominion bureau of statistics because it happens to be a very important inquiry into statistical surveys.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Board of grain commissioners-
406. Administration, $174,016.
Hazen Robert Argue: Under the item for the board of grain commissioners I want to raise with the minister the question of an increase in the handling charges on grain being granted this year. The chairman of the board of grain commissioners, Mr. Roy Milner, has stated publicly that he expects a drive by the elevator companies to have the handling charges on grain increased. He says that one of the contributing factors is the likelihood of a light crop in certain areas. I rise to express the strongest possible objection to any increase in handling charges on grain being allowed this year.
I believe this is the most appropriate place to raise this question because, not only is the matter of handling charges within the jurisdiction of the board of grain commissioners, but following a judgment of the board of grain commissioners the government has the power to alter that decision. As a matter of fact, I think it goes even farther. I think the government has to approve the decision before it becomes effective. I base my objection to any increase in handling charges mainly on the ground that the prices to producers of wheat, oats, barley and other grains are already too low. It would be a very bad thing, therefore, for wheat producers if there were to be any further reduction in the prices at this time. I am not convinced that, from the standpoint of the elevator companies, they need an increase in rates or that they are justified in asking for an increase in handling charges. In travelling about western Canada one sees at the present time a whole rash of brand new elevators being constructed. When the country was opened up, elevators used to 57071-3-156
Supply-Trade and Commerce hold 25,000 bushels or 35,000 bushels of grain. Now the capacity has been doubled or tripled in comparison with that of the small elevators. These elevators, of course, are the property of the elevator companies but they are paid for either by the producers out of the proceeds that the producers would otherwise receive or directly from the national treasury through an item that is to be discussed a little later. This very rapid increase in elevator facilities, a very expensive expansion, is in my judgment an indication that the elevator companies are already making a sufficient profit at the current handling rate.


Mr. Chown:: It helps unemployment.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am all for helping unemployment. If you would pay some deficiency payments to the farmers, you would go even further in helping unemployment. I am going to deal with that matter a little later on. I hope the government will oppose an increase on tariffs on grain as it opposed the increase in freight rates in recent months. I hope the government will use the power it has to veto any increase that might be recommended; I hope the present chairman of the Canadian wheat board, Mr. W. C. McNamara, will follow the excellent precedent set for him by the former chairman of the wheat board Mr. George Mclvor who himself intervened, when an application was before the board of grain commissioners, to recommend against such an application being granted. I think the wheat board was wise, being the sole marketing agency for wheat and other grains, in the interests of producers to appear before the board of grain commissioners and to recommend against any increase in handling charges. I ask the minister what information he can give the committee on this point. From his appearance when I was making my remarks, I took it that he is opposed to an increase in handling charges. I am not endeavouring to misinterpret him at all. He has not said anything yet. We have to be careful these days.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am in agreement with you for once.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am glad to hear the minister say that. If he can now expand that a little and give us, and in particular the grain producers, the assurance that there will be no increase in handling charges, I am sure they will all thank him for his statement.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not going to go that far at this time until I receive a communication from the board of grain commissioners setting out all the facts in the case. But I am in agreement with the hon. member as to using every possible measure at our disposal within reason to keep costs down in

Supply-Trade and Commerce so far as our grain carrying charges are concerned and at the same time to increase the return to our producers.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thank the minister for that statement. Knowing his usual frankness, I am quite sure that is ample assurance that there will be no increase in handling charges or that, if there is, the increase will not be taken from the pockets of the very hard-pressed grain producers.
I now come to the question of box car distribution which is a matter concurrently, I believe, in a legal way under the jurisdiction of the Canadian wheat board. The Canadian wheat board, by means of shipping orders and by its contact with the railways, now allocates box cars amongst the elevator companies at the various railway points. The board of grain commissioners also has some jurisdiction in this field since the car order book provision is in the Canada Grain Act.
We have all been interested in the sittings of the Bracken royal commission on box car distribution and allocation. There was a report some weeks ago-which we were all sorry to read-that Mr. Bracken was not in the best of health and that he might be obliged to suspend for some time some of his activities in connection with this royal commisson. I am wonderng whether the minister can tell us at what stage the royal commission is now and when a report is likely to be received.
Before he does that, I want to say that the producers of western Canada have taken a tremendous interest in this royal commission. Whenever the royal commission has held public hearings at various places across western Canada there have been dozens of submissions and at most places where hearings were held hundreds of people appeared at those hearings. When the commission appeared at the city of Weyburn in my own constituency over 900 people came to the hearings. A few of them, of course, represented private elevator companies but by far the great majority of people at those hearings were producers themselves.
The producers are completely fed up with the system that now and for a number of years has forced them to deliver grain to any elevator that had space, whether or not they wished to patronize that elevator as a first choice. Another reason why so many people appeared before the royal commission, in my opinion, is the fact that grain producers are very much disturbed about the grain situation and are taking a more active interest in government policy in this regard than they have taken in many years. I think it is almost fantastic that, in a small city

like Weyburn, at one of these public hearings you would have many hundreds of grain producers appearing to suggest to the royal commission a fair system of box car allocation. I wonder whether the minister can say when the report is likely to be received and whether any action is likely to be taken on such report during the present session.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The inquiry being made into box cars and being conducted by Mr. Bracken has gone along very well indeed. I should like to reassure my hon. friend that Mr. Bracken is in good and vigorous health and has been pursuing his duties with that intense interest and attention that he always shows on matters of this kind on which he is particularly competent because he has conducted so many inquiries and investigations over the course of a long and active political career. It was at his suggestion that public hearings were held in the three prairie provinces so that farmers would have an opportunity of expressing their opinions concerning box car distribution. As has been pointed out, those meetings have been well attended and I think have proved to be very satisfactory. In other words, it meant that we were not doing something without the knowledge of the farmers as a whole and they have appreciated that fact very much. The inquiry is reaching a conclusion and Mr. Bracken informed me some days ago that he hoped to be able to report to me before the end of July.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thank the minister for his statement. I am pleased to learn that Mr. Bracken is in good health and that his report will be made available to the minister by the end of July. I wonder whether the minister has any knowledge at this moment as to Mr. Bracken's recommendations even in a general way. I am wondering if he could tell the house whether or not action by parliament will be required during the current session on the assumption that his report is received by the end of this month.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have no knowledge of what the report will contain. If action by parliament is required we will endeavour of course to take action immediately.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Item 406 agreed to.
407. Inspection and weighing of grain, and related services, $4,303,362.
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, there has been a good deal of interest in the matter of measuring and weighing grain. As the minister well knows, grain is now weighed on a bushel basis, the weight for wheat being 60 pounds to the bushel, and there is a growing belief that the unit should be changed to

a hundredweight. I am wondering if any action is contemplated in this regard at an early date. I may be conservative in this respect-


Some hon. Members:: Hurrah.


Hazen Robert Argue: -as I have not yet been sold on the advantage of such a change but I quite frankly admit I may be wrong because many people in the grain trade seem to think there would be many advantages in adopting the hundredweight as the unit. I am sure that producers generally would be very interested to know what is the government thinking in this regard and particularly what the board of grain commissioners are likely to recommend.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have had no word from the board of grain commissioners along this particular line, but in view of the fact that the report was referred to the committee on agriculture today in accordance with the request of my hon. friend, as well as the report of the Canadian wheat board, perhaps these subjects could more propei'ly be dealt with when the representatives of the wheat board and the board of grain commissioners appear before that committee. I presume that will be arranged in about two weeks' time, which I hope will accommodate my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
410.	International economic and technical co-operation branch, including the administration o£ the Colombo plan and of certain United Nations co-operation plans, $399,017.
Hazen Robert Argue: I am interested in the special item in connection with the payment of carrying costs of temporary wheat reserves which in 1957-58 were listed as having been $33 million while this year the q*st is listed as likely to be $40,080,000.
I would like an explanation from the minister as for the reason for the increase which undoubtedly means there will be a greater surplus on July 31 than there was in the previous July in the hands of the elevator companies themselves.
While on this particular item, since it is an item from the treasury, could the minister add anything to his statement of Tuesday evening last having to do with deficiency payments when he said he hoped there would be an answer before many days. I will not read all the remarks of the minister unless he insists but he did say he hoped the answer would be given before many more days had passed.
I wonder if the minister could now say whether the government has now made a decision on deficiency payments or, if such a decision has not yet been made, when the producers can look for a decision.
57071-3-156J
Supply-Trade and Commerce
I am sure the minister will accept my word when I say I am not sponsoring or promoting a mass delegation to Ottawa but I cannot help reading the newspapers and I have seen reports that farm organizations have scheduled August 1 as the last day until which they will wait for a reply from the government before taking action with respect to their mass delegation. As I say, I cannot be held responsible for such statements but I would like to know from the minister whether an announcement will soon be made, because the producers are very anxious to know the government policy.
I am hoping the answer will be favourable in spite of the many arguments raised even by the minister himself against deficiency payments, one of which was that it is difficult in Canada to provide deficiency payments since we are an exporting country and since most of the countries or all of the countries-I am not sure which way he put it-making deficiency payments are importers of wheat.
The minister knows that the United States is one of the major exporters of wheat and in some recent years when it has been the world's leading exporter of wheat it has paid from its national treasury a very substantial subsidy to grain producers. The figure as to the United States price for wheat contained in the Saskatchewan wheat pool brochure, which was printed in June of this year and which the minister has received, shows the United States set price to producers at $2.10 per bushel. It lists the various prices for wheat paid by many other countries, including the United Kingdom at $1.83, Austria at $2.50, Australia at $1.53, Belgium $2.50 and so on.
Canadian wheat producers received the lowest price paid to any wheat producers in a major wheat-producing country while, as the minister well knows, they operate in a very high-cost economy. Month by month their position steadily worsens and I am hoping the minister will announce a favourable decision by the government to make deficiency payments in line with the requests of farm organizations.
Some money is being paid from the national treasury into the wheat board account which in turn results in the price for wheat being maintained at a figure higher than would otherwise be the case. I know the producers are very grateful for the $4 million contained in the estimates, but I am sure if the government decided upon a deficiency payment it would have no trouble at all in selling it to other parts of Canada. I am quite certain that if the government announced such a deficiency payment on western grain there would not be a single

Supply-Trade and Commerce member on the government side who would voice any objection whatsoever. I am sure of that, although I am not too sure that the official opposition might not have one or two mavericks on this point because we know they had some in the past. I am positive, however, that the official position of the Liberal party would be in support and that that position would be supported by nearly all its members.
We in this group very strongly believe that agricultural producers, as all others, should be able to earn a living in keeping with the general Canadian standard, and I would ask the minister when he expects the government will arrive at this long-awaited decision. I can tell from the correspondence I am receiving and from people I have visited in recent weeks that there is great expectation in this regard in the three prairie provinces.
They are anxiously awaiting a government decision and I hope the minister can inform the house that a decision will be reached very shortly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We had an exchange of opinion the other day on the subject of deficiency payments and I stated then that I hoped to be able to make an announcement in the course of a few days. At that time I inaccurately assumed the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce would be completed on Friday. I have lost, perhaps, a day and a half which might have been spent in grappling with this problem which loomed so large in the minds of a great many people.
I hope the threat of a mass movement on Ottawa scheduled for August 1 is nothing more than newspaper speculation, and I hope the responsible people in the prairie provinces in this period of grave international tension will not contemplate any such descent on Ottawa and the government. As I said the other night, we are dealing with this problem

it has a priority rating

and I suggested in the course of my remarks that a comprehensive farm program aimed at raising the income of western agriculturists might be of greater value than a large deficiency payment. However, I can assure the hon. member that it will not be many days before some announcement is made in accordance with the desire of so many people.
Now with regard to the item in the estimates dealing with wheat reserves, and the suggested $40 million put aside for that purpose, that, of course, is an estimate which might not be reached. It represents an increase over last year, and the increase results from an 11 million bushel storage

beyond the previous year because of new storage capacities and a shift in the proportion of oats and barley to wheat. It is also caused partly by increased carrying charges. The storage rate was raised to 1/30 of a cent per day, an increase of 12 per cent over the previous figure, and in the calculations which have been made it seemed wise to estimate for $40 million rather than $33 million. Of course, the carrying charges are paid on the excess quantity of wheat that the board has in storage beyond the 178 million bushels set out in the statute.


Erik Nielsen: The
item under discussion is item 410-a special item, "international economic and technical co-operation branch, including the administration of the Colombo Plan and of certain United Nations co-operation plans."
The item that has been under discussion- wrongly, I feel-by both the hon. member for Assiniboia and the Minister of Trade and Commerce is listed on page 74 of the estimates as a statutory item. This item is there as information, being an item passed under the provisions of chapter 2 of the statutes of 1956, and in my opinion it should not be discussed but, rather, item 410 as I read it at the beginning of my remarks should have been the item under discussion.


Mr. Speakman:: Mr. Chairman, with your permission and the permission of the committee I should like to correct an impression left by the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Erik Nielsen: I
have already ruled on this matter, and the item that should be under discussion now is item No. 410.
Mr. Mcllraj^h: On item 410 I wish to ask one or two brief questions. First, is the minister able to give me information as to the details of the proposed expenditure for this Colombo plan, or is that more properly discussed under the estimates of the Department of External Affairs?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That comes under external affairs.


George James McIlraith: Then I wish to direct one or two questions on details of vote 410. If the minister will look at page 533 where the details of the estimates are set out, he will find a new item this year under the heading "professional and special services" amounting to $108,000. Then, a little further down, there is a new item under the heading "Acquisition and maintenance of furniture for residences abroad" amounting to $4,000. Would the minister give us a brief explanation of what those items are?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The amount of $108,000 under "professional and special services" is to provide for technical advice, supervisory and administrative services provided for by Defence Construction Limited in connection with the Colombo plan operations as authorized by treasury board minute No. 51837 of July 5, 1957. This expense was previously borne by Defence Construction Limited as part of its budgeting costs but it has been transferred to this particular section.


George James McIlraith: Would it be fair to assume that it does not represent a new activity?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, it is for inspection and administrative services under the Colombo plan supervisory service which formerly appeared under that other heading, Defence Construction Limited. The second part of the question had to do with the acquisition and maintenance of furniture for residences abroad. This is in anticipation of the possibility of sending three field officers abroad in connection with Colombo plan administration, and the difficulty that always faces people living abroad is the problem of residences and the acquisition of furniture, its maintenance and so on, and this vote has been provided for that purpose.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General administration-
622.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $20,000.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question with respect to an answer he recently gave to the hon. member for Assiniboia to ascertain exactly what he meant. When referring to deficiency payments the minister said an announcement would be made in a few days in accordance with the desires of so many people. That statement can be taken two ways. Does he mean an announcement will be made according to the desires of many people or does he mean that according to the desire of so many people for deficiency payments? I was not quite clear on that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend is completely out of order, of course, because he is dealing with an item which the chairman declared should have not been discussed. I believe that the hon. member's ingenious brain working on that problem over the weekend will find a satisfactory solution.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Trade and Commerce Dominion bureau of statistics-
625. Statistics-further amount required, $559,965.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, may I make a correction here. When we were speaking about the publication of statistics dealing with unemployment and so on we spoke about these reports coming out in the third week of every month. I believe I repeated that statement two or three times. I have now been informed by message that we should have said the reports appear in the fourth week of each month.


George James McIlraith: This item refers to the expenses in connection with the 1958 survey of farm income and expenditure. I wonder if the minister would explain a little more fully about this supplementary estimate of $55 9-odd thousand? How frequently is the survey of farm income taken?


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is a new expenditure based on the demand for more accurate information concerning farm operating expenses and farm family income in order that the bureau may use that as a basis for improving the index numbers of prices paid to farmers and the estimates of net income of farm operators and their families. This is one field in which it was felt that the statistics were not as accurately assembled or assembled in the quantity desired in order to provide information concerning agricultural problems. Consequently this survey is now being undertaken by the bureau. I believe it will meet a very great need because we are always encountering the problem of cost and income in so far as agriculture is concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Board of grain commissioners-
(Canada Grain Act) -
620. Inspection and weighing of grain and related services-further amount required, $45,000.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I have a question on this item and my remarks are also applicable to item No. 627. I understand that we are in no way restricted in our discussion in the committees by the fact that these estimates relating to the wheat board and the board of grain commissioners have been passed. I wonder if the minister would merely confirm that?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, I will be pleased to confirm that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Trade and Commerce
Special-
627. To reimburse the Canadian wheat board for the loss incurred by it on its operations under the Canadian Wheat Board Act in respect of oats for the crop year that commenced on the 1st day of August, 1956, and ended on the 31st day of July, 1957, $2,145,000.
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, this item is a special one to reimburse the Canadian wheat board for the loss incurred by it on its operations under the act in respect of oats for the crop year which commenced August 1, 1956 and ended on July 31, 1957. I wonder if the minister could tell the committee what the loss was per bushel on oats handled in that crop year? I also wonder if he could tell us whether the current selling prices for oats and barley would indicate that another deficit might occur during this crop year. If there is a deficit, of course, then there will have to be a further supplementary estimate next year. Most estimates are for an expenditure that is likely to occur. There is no item in the estimates for a loss in the oats or barley pools this year but as the minister knows the selling prices are near the set prices, particularly for feed grains. I am sure that producers would like to have some comment from the minister as to whether there are likely to be payments out of these pools another year or whether parliament is likely to be called on to compensate for a deficit?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be discouraging indeed to the producers if I said that we were anticipating a deficit next year. I take a much more optimistic approach than that which I commend to my hon. friend. We are not anticipating any deficit at all next year for either wheat, oats or barley.
As I reported from time to time during the course of the last crop year the oats pool was in some difficulty. Barley was, too, for a while but recovered and, of course, we have done well with wheat. This item covers the deficit which was incurred in the oats pool and is another instance of governmental action in supporting prices. I believe that further consideration of this and the standing of various pools and the prospects for the future might be discussed when the members of the wheat board are here in two week's time.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say how much it is per bushel?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
James Stanley Speakman: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I should like to correct the impression left by the hon. member for Assiniboia. During the four days the representatives of the farmers' unions were in Ottawa it was my privilege and pleasure to have lengthy discussions with many responsible members of that delegation. At no time in any way did they indicate that a march upon Ottawa was to occur and those to whom I spoke were, I believe, some of the more cool headed members of that delegation.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the minister who is leading the house at the moment about the business for Monday and Tuesday of next week. It was indicated by the government leader on Thursday evening. Is it unchanged from that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is unchanged, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did notice in Hansard what I think is a misprint which occurs in the last line on page 2358. It is indicated there that it is the intention to take the budget resolution and I presume the word "resolution" should be plural?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, there is more than one yet, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And is it intended to go on with as many as possible of them on Tuesday?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, I hope we can clean them all up in a hurry.


Mr. Speaker:: Before announcing the
adjournment of the house until 2.30 on Monday may I remind hon. members again that the address by the Prime Minister of Ghana will be at 11.00 a.m. on Monday in this chamber.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on July 14.

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Argue: 1.	What urban centres in each province with 3,000 points of call or less are receiving letter carrier delivery service of their mail?
2.	How many points of call are there in each case?
Answer by: Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster
General):
1 and 2. Post Office	Points of call
Grand Falls, Nfid	 902
Amherst, N.S	 2,640
Kentville, N.S	 1,758
New Waterford, N.S	 2,879
Yarmouth, N.S	 2,275
Bathurst, N.B	 2,548
Campbellton, N.B	 2,004
Edmundston, N.B	 2,664
Arvida, P.Q	 2,500
Asbestos, P.Q	 2,738
Lachute, P.Q	 2,678
LaTuque, P.Q	 2,500
Noranda, P.Q	 2,457
Riviere du Loup, P.Q	 1,963
St. Therese de Blainville, P.Q. 2,848
Val d'Or, P.Q	 2,346
Agincourt, Ont	 2,800
Cobourg, Ont	 2,338
Collingwood, Ont	 2,384
Fort Erie, Ont	 2,750
Fort Frances, Ont	 2,004
Kenora, Ont	 2,275
Leamington, Ont	 2,597
Midland, Ont	 2,289
Newmarket, Ont	 2,403
Port Hope, Ont	 2,369
Renfrew, Ont	 2,300
Rexdale, Ont	 2,985
Simcoe, Ont	 2,369
Smiths Falls, Ont	 2,787
Flin Flon, Man	 2,541
Transcona, Man	 2,523
North Battleford, Sask	 2,332
Yorkton, Sask	 2,624
Dawson Creek, B.C	 2,600
Prince Rupert, B.C	 2,659
White Rock, B.C	 2,650
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
General administration-
391.	Departmental administration, $739,086.
392.	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, $862,368.
Question
Trade commissioner service-
393.	Administration and operation, $3,469,927.
394.	Acquisition or improvement of buildings, land, equipment and furnishings, $146,000.
395.	Trade information, $293,415.
396.	Economics Branch, $274,021.
397.	International trade relations branch, including a fee of $6,000 to the international customs tariffs bureau, $204,248.
Exhibitions-
398.	Exhibitions generally, $641,333.
399.	Canadian participation in the Brussels universal and international exhibition 1958, $709,628.
Standards branch-
400.	Administration, including the standards laboratory and administration of the Precious Metals Marking Act, $296,230.
401.	Electricity and gas inspection services, $976,301.
402.	Weights and measures inspection services, $1,063,212.
Dominion Bureau of Statistics-
403.	Administration, $218,443.
404.	Statistics, including contributions as detailed in the estimates, the expenditure for these not to exceed the amounts shown unless otherwise approved by treasury board. $6,953,099.
405.	Census, including a contribution as detailed in the estimates, the expenditure for which not to exceed the amount shown unless otherwise approved by treasury board, $573,436.
Board of Grain Commissioners-
(Canada Grain Act)-
406.	Administration, $174,016.
407.	Inspection and weighing of grain, and related services, $4,303,362.
Canadian government elevators-
408.	Operation and maintenance, including authority to purchase screenings, $1,532,047.
409.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $150,976.
Special-
410.	International economic and technical co-operation branch, including the administration of the Colombo plan and of certain United Nations co-operation plans, $399,017.
411.	To provide, notwithstanding anything in the Financial Administration Act or any other act or law, for payment during the current and subsequent fiscal years, to Amy E. Simpson, a former locally-engaged employee, of a pension at an annual rate of SA£252, notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of January, 1958, which is, $700.
412.	To provide, notwithstanding anything in the Financial Administration Act or any other act or law, for payment during the current and subsequent fiscal years, to Claire Roquier, a former locally-engaged employee, of a pension at an annual rate of $300, $300.
413.	To provide, notwithstanding anything in the Financial Administration Act or any other act or law, for payment during the current and subsequent fiscal years, to Thomas Davis, a former locally-engaged employee, of a pension at an annual rate of Jamaican £258, notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of January, 1958, which is, $718.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
511. To provide, subject to regulations of the treasury board, for working capital advances in the current and subsequent fiscal years to posts and employees on posting abroad, and to authorize the creation of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund to which shall be charged such advances and to which shall be credited expenditure made by and advances recovered from the said posts and employees, the excess of the amounts charged over the amounts credited to the account at any time not to exceed $300,000 of which $200,000 was provided under vote 657 of the Appropriation Act. No. 2, 1952, and a further amount of $50,000 provided under vote 588 of the Appropriation Act No. 2, 1956, $50,000.
General administration-
622.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $20,000.
Trade commissioner service-
623.	Acquisition or improvement of buildings, land,
equipment and	furnishings-further	amount
required, $15,000.
Exhibitions-[DOT]
624. Exhibitions	generally-further	amount
required, $80,000.
Dominion bureau of statistics-
625.	Statistics-Further amount required, $559,965.
Board of grain commissioners-
(Canada Grain Act) -
626.	Inspection and weighing of grain and related services-further amount required, $45,000.
Special-
627.	To reimburse the Canadian wheat board for the loss incurred by it on its operations under the Canadian Wheat Board Act in respect of oats for the crop year that commenced on the 1st day of August, 1956, and ended on the 31st day of July, 1957, $2,145,000.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, July 21, 1958